Tag: Donald Trump

  • US DECIDES! 24hours to D-Day, Harris, Trump hit overdrive in last weekend campaigns

    US DECIDES! 24hours to D-Day, Harris, Trump hit overdrive in last weekend campaigns

    Kamala Harris and Donald Trump dueled across the swing states Saturday on the final weekend of the tensest US election of modern times, with the Democrat urging voters to “turn the page” on the Republican’s scorched-earth brand of politics.

    Seventy-five million people have already cast early ballots as the hours tick down to the Election Day climax Tuesday.

    The country — and the world — could then face a nail-biting wait to know whether Harris becomes the first US woman president or Trump secures a spectacular return to power after his unprecedented and at times violent campaign to overturn his 2020 reelection loss to Joe Biden.

    The rivals literally crossed paths Saturday, with Harris’s official vice presidential Air Force Two and Trump’s personal jet sharing the airport tarmac in Charlotte, North Carolina.

    Both held rallies in North Carolina, while Harris also spoke to supporters in Georgia, another of the seven swing states seen as the keys to victory in an otherwise dead-even nationwide contest. Trump added in a stop in Virginia.

    The rounds of high-stakes speeches before thousands of people at each stop continue Sunday when Harris holds multiple events in the swing state of Michigan and Trump rallies with supporters in Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

    Most polls show Trump, 78, and Harris, 60, within the margin of error from each other across the swing states.

    However, there was a surprise boost for Harris when one of the most respected pollsters in the country dropped a new survey in the Des Moines Register that shows the Democrat three points ahead of Trump in Iowa — a state he won easily both in his victorious 2016 presidential campaign and again in his narrow 2020 defeat.

    Reflecting Harris’s drive to hit every possible target before Tuesday, her plane unexpectedly took a detour to New York for an appearance on the legendary Saturday Night Live television comedy show.

    For Harris, a key electorate is women voters angered over the ruling by justices appointed by then-president Trump to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, ending a decades-long constitutional right to abortion.

    “Donald Trump’s not done. He will ban abortion nationwide,” Harris said in Atlanta, Georgia.

  • I shouldn’t have left White House after I lost in 2020 – Trump

    I shouldn’t have left White House after I lost in 2020 – Trump

    Former U.S. president Donald Trump said he regretted leaving the White House after he lost the 2020 presidential election, which he never conceded.

    TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) reports Trump, the Republican candidate for Tuesday’s US presidential election, said this at a campaign rally in Lititz, Pennsylvania.

    “We had the safest border in the history of our country the day that I left. I shouldn’t have left. I mean, honestly, because we did so well,” Trump said.

    He added that there were now “hundreds of lawyers” at every voting booth for the upcoming presidential election. Trump spoke about the achievements of his presidency.

    “We had the best economy ever. We had that wall. We had everything,” he added.

    Trump lost the 2020 presidential election to his Democratic challenger Joe Biden. To this day, he refuses to admit defeat.

    The former president filed dozens of lawsuits after Biden won in 2020, which failed in court.

    On January 6, 2021, his insistence that he won and that his “victory” was stolen from him led to the storming of the Capitol in Washington, the seat of the U.S. Congress, by his supporters.

    Trump ultimately stayed away from Biden’s swearing-in ceremony later that month, breaking with tradition. He left the White House a few hours before the inauguration.

    Trump is running against Democrat Kamala Harris in the Nov. 5 presidential election. He has been casting doubt on the integrity of the upcoming vote.

  • SEE 7 States that ‘ll decide US presidency this year

    SEE 7 States that ‘ll decide US presidency this year

    US Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump are hurtling toward their November 5 election showdown, one of the closest contests in modern American history.

    And in the handful of critical states framing the 2024 race, there is little daylight between the rivals with barely a week before Election Day.

    Under the US Constitution, America’s founding fathers established that each of the 50 states would hold its own vote for president.

    Under the complex Electoral College system, each state has a certain number of “electors,” based on population. Most states have a winner-take-all system that awards all electors to whoever wins the popular vote.

    With candidates needing 270 of the 538 electoral votes to win, elections tend to be decided in the hotly contested “swing states” with a history of alternating between Republican and Democratic candidates.

    This year, there are seven such battlegrounds, and everyone is a toss-up within the margin of error. Here is a look:

    Pennsylvania (19 Electoral College votes)
    Pennsylvania was once reliably Democratic, but these days, they don’t come much tighter than the Keystone State.

    Republican Trump won the most populous battleground, with 13 million residents, by 0.7 percentage points in 2016. Joe Biden claimed it by 1.2 percentage points in 2020.

    Known for its “Rust Belt” cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has been blighted for decades by the steady decline of its industrial manufacturing base.

    Trump and Harris have campaigned repeatedly in the eastern state, where the pair held their one and only presidential debate. Trump, who survived an assassination attempt at a July rally in Pennsylvania, is courting the rural white population and warning that migrants are overwhelming small towns.

    Harris is touting recent infrastructure wins, and in Pittsburgh, she outlined plans to invest $100 billion in manufacturing, a key issue for state residents.

    Georgia (16)
    This southeastern state was an election flashpoint at the end of Trump’s first term, and the controversy simmers.

    2016 campaign.

    As with Midwestern neighbor Michigan, it was a different story when Trump’s opponent was Biden, who turned a 23,000-vote deficit into a winning margin of 21,000 for Democrats.

    Trump considers it winnable, and his party held its summer national convention there.

    While Trump led early against Biden, Harris has made the state race a nailbiter.

    Nevada (6)
    The Silver State, with a population of 3.1 million, hasn’t voted Republican since 2004. Conservatives, buoyed by Trump’s headway with Hispanic voters, are convinced they can flip the script.

    Trump held a significant lead here against Biden.

    But within weeks of becoming the Democratic nominee, Harris — promoting her economic plans to help small businesses and combat inflation — has erased that advantage in the western state, whose largest city Las Vegas is dominated by the hospitality industry.

    AFP

  • U.S. presidential election gathers steam as millions vote early

    U.S. presidential election gathers steam as millions vote early

    The 2024 presidential election of the United States of America (USA) will be the 60th quadrennial presidential election, set to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2024.

    The U.S. Election is an indirect election, in which voters cast ballots for a slate of members of the Electoral College. Voters in each state and the District of Columbia choose electors to the Electoral College, who will then elect a president and vice president for a term of four years.

    Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris appeared on the “Saturday Night Live” TV comedy show on Saturday, adding a surprise jolt to the U.S presidential election just three days before her with showdown with Republican Donald Trump.

    “Keep Calm-ala and carry on-ala,” Harris said in unison with the actor who plays her on the show, Maya Rudolph.

    It was Harris’ first time on the show, which has had other presidential candidates over its decades-long run.

    Trump appeared during his first presidential bid in 2015, where he poked fun at his tendency to exaggerate and steer clear of policy specifics. He also appeared in 2004, long before he entered politics.

    A Trump aide said he didn’t know if he had been invited to appear this year.

    Earlier on Saturday, Harris and Trump’s planes shared the tarmac in Charlotte, North Carolina, as the two candidates held duelling events in the southern state, one of a handful that will determine the outcome of Tuesday’s election.

    It was the fourth day in a row that the candidates campaigned in the same state.

    Only seven states are seen as truly competitive, but poll released on Saturday showed Harris holding a surprise lead in Iowa, a state Trump won easily in the last two elections.

    Trump and Harris stuck to familiar themes at their appearances.

    Trump said he would deport millions of immigrants if elected and warned that if Harris wins, “Every town in America would be turned into a squalid, dangerous refugee camp.”

    Campaigning in Atlanta, Harris said Trump would abuse his power if he returned to the White House.

    “This is someone who is increasingly unstable, obsessed with revenge, consumed with grievance, and the man is out for unchecked power,” she said.

    More than 75 million Americans have already cast ballots, according to the Election Lab at the University of Florida, in a sign of voter enthusiasm.

    In North Carolina, the western counties that were devastated by Hurricane Helene appeared to be voting at roughly the same rate as the rest of the state, according to Catawba College political science professor Michael Bitzer.

    At a later rally in Salem, Virginia, Trump said he ran for office to rescue the economy from “obliteration” even though it would have been easier to relax at one of his oceanfront resorts.

    “I didn’t need to be here today,” he said. “I could have been standing on that beach, my beautiful white skin getting nice and being smacked, being smacked in the face by a wave loaded up with salt water.”

    Trump was joined on stage by women from a local college swim team who have objected to competing against transgender athletes.

    Some of Trump’s TV ads have sought to capitalise on transgender controversies.

    Meanwhile, Kamala Harris has surpassed Donald Trump in a new poll in Iowa, according to the Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll released on Saturday.Women voters are likely responsible for the turnaround in a state that Trump easily won in 2016 and 2020.

    The poll of 808 likely voters, who were surveyed Oct. 28-31, has Harris leading Trump 47%-44% in Iowa, which has been trending deeply Republican in recent years.

    It is within the 3.4 percentage point margin of error, but it marked a turnaround from a September Iowa Poll that had Trump with a 4-point lead, the newspaper reported.

    “The poll shows that women — particularly those who are older or who are politically independent — are driving the late shift toward Harris,” the Register said.

    Trump senior adviser Jason Miller said the Iowa poll was “idiotic” and an outlier that has no credibility.

    Meanwhile, according to the most recent polls for the U.S. 2024 election by Atlas National Poll, Trump is projected to secure victories in all swing states of North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

  • For Mr. Trump, maybe good night at last – By Chidi Amuta

    For Mr. Trump, maybe good night at last – By Chidi Amuta

    In a matter of days, America’s democracy might self -correct and present a rough and bulky casualty. Mr. Donald  Trump’s presidency is unlikely to be revalidated for a second term. As the various polls indicate once again, the American electorate seems poised to deal the disruptive Mr. Trump a merited ‘F’ grade. Forget about dead heat. The only heat in America’s political kitchen can only smoke out Mr. Trump and bid him final good night.

    Trump’s imminent calamity is unlike 2016 when Mr. Trump defied the projections of most pollsters to clinch an electoral college based victory over Hilary Clinton. Then, he was untested and something of a fresh vacation from the humdrum predictability and boring correctness of political Washington. For most of the rural populace and the unschooled artisans and calloused work hands in rusty industrial cities, he represented something of a hope for the renascence of classic America as it once was. Now is different. He is a tried and tested political toxin.

    In many ways, Mr. Trump’s imminent humbling is more than a personal travail. Democracy itself is on trial. So are the many issues that define its credibility and global preference. Even Alexis De Tocqueville, the French writer and definitive authority on American democracy (Democracy in America) did not foresee the aberration that periodically, democracy will present a defective outcome. The people will go out to elect a leader who ends up as the opposite of their best intentions. Ironically, only democracy can correct its own mistakes at the next election. In many ways then, this US election is a classic test of democracy’s self -correcting capacity. The imminent election of Kamala Harris as the next US President is a fitting self -correction of a democratic error by democracy itself by the very people of the United States.

    In  the four years of his first tenure, Mr. Trump literally subverted the most powerful political office on earth. He did and stood for the fine virtues of everything democratic. American history and the electoral process produced in Trump a president who was a highbred of leadership negativity. Trump was a cross between a Third World Banana republic autocrat and a 19th century European fascist dictator. Thank God his fascist credentials have once again resurfaced in this campaign. While Trump held sway, the world held its breadth out of the fear that a highly unstable deviant genius in the White House could press the wrong button on the nuclear code with dire consequences for mankind. Every moment of the Trump presidency was minimally nightmarish and sometimes apocalyptic.

    In his ill-digested bid to ‘make America great again’, Mr. Trump spent a whole four years regaling his countrymen and women and indeed the whole world with glimpses of his troubled mind and arguably demented vision. It was a tragedy foretold and a disaster perennially in the making.

    For four years under the first Trump presidency, the world was  treated to a quaint mixture of adolescent bluster and crude reality television. Where his support base and the rest of America expected purposeful conservative leadership, Mr. Trump offered an overdose of unthinking posturing and showmanship. In a country where fact and statistics constitute the bedrock of governance and public policy, Mr. Trump offered an unrelenting cascade of lies, half truths and false figures to back up claims fueled more by a bloated ego than realities on the ground.

    To Trump’s curious credit is the emergence of the novel concepts of ‘alternate truth’ and ‘fake news’. Under Trump, fiction came to compete with fact as the currency of public affairs. The credibility of the media as an institution of free democratic society came under systematic and unrelenting assault. Not even the American political establishment was spared the scalding marks of the Trumpian blitzkrieg. Evden as he heads to lose this election, Trump willgo down with the carcass of the Republican party. The party of Ronald Reagan had shrunk to the party of the Trump family. Over 70% of speakers at the convention were either members of Mr. Trump’s family or his direct cronies and quizlings.

    Yet it is in terms of serial policy failures and administrative incoherence and mayhem that Mr. Trump is most likely to be remembered.  In four years, he failed to fill more than 60% of jobs in the US government system. He hired and fired key White House appointees with the regularity of underpants. Renowned professionals, decorated generals and other persons of high repute who came to serve under his administration either left in frustrated anger or were unceremoniously humiliated out by the temperamental fits of an egotistic president. Most formerTrum appointees have recently returned to haunt him all throuogh this current campaign as someone to be barred from re-entry into the White House.

    In his current campaign, Trump ended up as a moreundisguised advocate of anarchy and hate than the first time around. His campaign promises ended up more as advertisement pay off lines than well thought out policy propositions. He woud carry out the largest immigrant deportation in US hisptry. To him, every illegal immigrant is a criminal. Immigrants were eating up pets and committing too many crimes in US border cities.

    Mr. Trump’s disruptive value internationally was endless. For a nation whose history is rooted in a network of alliances and alignments across the globe, Trump ended up converting more US allies into potential adversaries in four years than American has known in 75 years after World War II. His personalization of foreign policy was bound to escalate global tension.

    In his first term, Mr. Trump failed to realize that as US president, he was the inheritor of the historic burden of sustaining global order and security after the Second World War.By rolling back the bulwark of US security guarantees to its allies in Europe especially, Trump was literally permitting nuclear capable and wealthy nations like South Korea, Germany, Japan and perhaps Saudi Arabia to develop the appetite to acquire and use nuclear weapons. He has over these years made no secret of his admiration for all manner of tin can autocrats and dictators to the discomfiture of time honoured American values. He openly admires and worships Vladimir Putin, Xi Jiping, Kim Jung Un, Viktor Orban and Mohammed Bin Salman.

    It is true that US foreign policy has often had a destabilizing effect on parts of the world. It has felled bloody dictators only to allow the rise of dangerous armed factions in Iraq, Libya and parts of Syria. It has destabilized whole regions (the Middle East) and upset traditional balances of power in Latin America (Venezuela, Cuba) while problematizing territorial disputes like in Yemen and over the South China Sea. Mr. Trump’s temperamental diplomacy in his first term merely exacerbated these trends and made the world a more dangerous place.

    On the domestic front, Trump may have had a few disjointed welcoming sound bites during his first term. He then spoke about bringing back American jobs from Mexico and China. He probably forgot that US manufacturers shipped their operations abroad in search of cheaper labour and lower production costs following the aggressive unionization of US labour in the Ronald Reagan days. He could be excused for appealing to the popular sentiments of America’s rural folk, farmers, rust belt technicians and non -college majority for political advantage. But Biden and Kamala Harris have since brought about a cooling off of the economy, bring down inflation to a historic 2% with millions of new jobs created in the last four years.

    Trump’s habitual appeal to base instincts of racism and white supremacy weaponized American society against itself. He inherited a relatively united country and a healthy economy from Barack Obama but ended up creating a divided nation in which skin colour and systemic racism ignited a series of clashes and civil protests. In a belated attempt to appear like an advocate of law and order, Mr. Trump employed the strong arm tactics of autocratic dictators to quell the very riots and protests that his divisiveness had ignited.

    In the last four years, America’s investigative and judicial machinery have revealed Mr. Trump’s moral deficits especially in his relationship with women. Nearly every high profile defendant in cases involving sexual offences and financial crookedness in America in the last four years either involved a Trump associate or made mention of Trump’s links with the accused. Mr. Trump’s all too frequent flirtations with all manner of criminal schemes ended up sending more than half a dozen of his associates to jail for offences ranging from perjury, forgery, money laundering to multiple campaign fund infractions. Mr. Trump’s closeness to these convicts was sometimes so close that only the weight of his of his previous high office kept him out of jail.

    Mr. Trump’s singular qualification for seeking to return to the White House is to wage retributive crusades against his political enemies. He wants to fire the judges that presided over his myriad criminal and civil infractions. He wants to release all the criminals jailed for the January 6 riots at the US Capitol. In addition, he wants to complete his unfinished dinners with  Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Victor Orban. For him, the job of US president is not bigger than that of a successful real estate merchant.

    This, after all, is the nation of Sam Walton, founder of the Wal-Mart behemoth whose choice work location was behind the shop cash till and whose favourite transportation was a pickup truck. It is the nation of Bill Gates, one of the world’s richest single individuals who still drives himself to work and resisted for a long time that Microsoft should buy him a business jet to ferry him to and from meetings around the world. Not to talk of the great Warren Buffet who has lived in the same modest apartment almost all his life. Let us not talk of younger really wealthy Americans like Mark Zuckerberg with his over $60 billion net worth, who is so enamoured of his jeans and t-shirts that he hardly varies their colours!

    In a nation that has long been greeted as the bastion of global capitalism, the minimum expectation is that anyone who hoists a business credential would at least pass the minimal tests of compliance and relative transparency. Not for Trump. He refused to disclose his tax returns and the brief details that the media sneaked out indicated that the man had not paid personal income tax for close to two decades while the maids and janitors in his gleaming high rise hotels sweated to pay personal income tax from their starvation wages.

    Mr. Trump brought into the White House his personal creed of ‘transactional everything’. Not for him the nuanced refinement of political rhetoric. Not for him the candour and modesty of high office and immense power. Not for him the depth of knowledge on policy issues that should guide the business of governance let alone the higher requirements of diplomatic candour needed in managing the world’s most powerful office. NATO should pay its bills irrespective of the strategic import of the trans Atlantic alliance. Mexico should pay for a border wall with the US to keep its citizens from migrating to America.

    In spite of  his own humongous fortunes, I doubt that Mr. Trump understands  the higher need to protect capitalism from its own excesses. Instead, he proceeds to champion policies of protectionism, steep tariff barriers , isolationism and shutting out of immigrants and competitive trade arrangements with other countries. Some of the agreements that he cancelled in his first term had enabled American business to embrace global competitiveness. He would erect trade and tariff barriers against China, South Korea, Japan, Mexico and even Canada only to replace them with unworkable lopsided transient arrangements. For the United States, this meant a recourse to the early 19th century populism of Andrew Jackson who appealed to ‘the common man’ or the protectionist isolationism of the 1930s associated with men like Smoot-Hawley and Charles Lindbergh.

    Of course Trumpism as a decadent and illiterate iteration of illiberal democracy and mob populist conservatism has had its followership not just in the United States but elsewhere by other names. Its primary appeal is the urge to constrict national spaces and resources to a native square. For Trump and his kind, the nation state becomes more or less a tribe of narrow-minded demagogues, a playground for opportunistic troublemakers and part time political rascals intent on hacking down long standing institutions of state. The rhetoric is a drive for ‘change’ from politics as usual to transactional politics, a shorthand for political anarchism. It is an autocratic populism that demolishes but hardly has a plan to reconstruct. Trumpism is not a theology of construction but rather one of destruction, division and antagonism both within the United States and among the nations of the world. It has no message for inclusion but rather for exclusion and barricades, border walls and mass deportation..

    In the case of Trump and the United States, however, the pursuit of policies and rhetoric that promotes isolationism and shrinkage run counter to the bedrock of the founding vision of America, a robust civilization founded by immigrants with a global world historic mission and vision. Trump represents a lethal erosion of the creedal essence of the United States as a bastion of freedom and gathering point of global democracy. America was founded as a nation of immigrants, a place of great diversity and immense opportunity for those ready to work. Its strength and purpose derive from these fundamental values, which have catapulted it in these many years from an experimental creedal nation into a global civilization. It was designed as diverse, expansive and inclusive force for global good, not the bastion of smallness and divisive meanness that Trump’s narrow vision has reduced it to.

    In America’s presidential system, the title of  “Commander in Chief” has more than a ceremonial purely military meaning. It places on the shoulder of the president the burden of defending and protecting the nation from every threat: military, climatic, epidemiological and even doctrinal. Unfortunately for Trump, he has spent the last four years out of the White House retooling his essnetail divisiveness and nastiness. He has more insuts for his opponents, more threats for immigrants and more frightful words for Americans who are opposed to his extremist perspectives. He now calls them “:enemies within” against who he has threatened to deploy America’s armed forces.

    There is therefore a larger sense in which the imminent US Presidential election is a referendum on the return of Trumpism. The imminent rejection of Mr. Trump at the polls would be a loud rejection not only of his decadent brand of conservatism but also of his embarrassing incompetence and divisiveness. It is the fitting punishment for a commander in chief who could not protect himself, his family and the White House from Covid 19, or indeed protect America from its own better forgotten divisions and hidden ugliness.

    From the myriad negatives of the Trump Presidency the road map for the first term of the imminent Harris presidency may have been sketched. Even if Kamala Harris needs to tighten her stance on some issues, just the fact of her not being as nasty and toxic as Mr. Trump is victory enough for a new day in America.

  • Trump vs Harris: How rhetorical framing could decide the 2024 election – By Toju Ogbe

    Trump vs Harris: How rhetorical framing could decide the 2024 election – By Toju Ogbe

    By Toju Ogbe

    As Americans head to the polls to elect their next president, the world is reminded of the far-reaching implications of this election outcome. From the Russo-Ukraine war to conflicts in the Middle East and the geopolitics of Africa and Asia, the election outcome will shape events far beyond the shores of the US. 

    With most polls suggesting razor-thin margins between Trump and Harris, this election is turning out to be one of the most closely contested elections in American history. Undecided or hesitant voters have become critical in breaking the tie between closely matched support bases on both sides come 5th November 2024. The race to the White House is driven by an intense war of words, where rhetorical framing is the key weapon being deployed by both sides to shape opinions and influence voting decisions. Here are my thoughts on how Trump and Harris employ rhetorical framing to tip the scale in this neck-to-neck race for the White House.  

    Issue salience and selection

    Both candidates assign prominence to issues they believe resonate with their audiences. Kamala Harris emphasises the significance of economic support for the middle class and working families, framing her vision for reform as an “opportunity economy” that serves ordinary Americans. She also focuses on themes of unity and inclusivity, pledging “to be a president for all Americans,” and stating that regardless of differences, Americans “all have the same dreams and aspirations.” Additionally, Harris’ campaign rhetoric always essentialises her commitment to protecting reproductive rights, and the need to “chart a course for the future and not go backward to the past.”

    On the other hand, Trump prioritises illegal immigration, crime, and economic decline, rhetorically framing the situation as one of severe crises. He often employs emotive rhetoric to project fear of “criminal immigrants” stressing that “millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums” are taking jobs meant for Americans. By framing immigration and crime as national crises, Trump aims to rile up his base and discontented voters against the political establishment.  

    Identity and personal framing

    Both Trump and Harris rely heavily on identity framing to connect with voters.  Kamala Harris often frames herself as an advocate for middle-class and working families. Referencing her childhood during her live debate with Trump, she said, “I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America.” 

    Throughout her campaign, Harris consistently amplifies her experience as a prosecutor and her capacity to unify America in contrast to Trump’s leadership. She said: “Americans see in each other a neighbour…they don’t want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other.”

    On the other hand, Donald Trump positions himself as a strong leader fighting against the political establishment to protect American borders and restore its greatness on the global stage. During his debate against Harris, he touted his strong relationship with world leaders to underscore his influence on the global stage. Trump boasted, “He (Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban) said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president… China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him.” Trump often refers to his political opponents as ‘weak.’ By framing himself as a strong leader, Trump seeks to amplify the contrast between his image and the characterisation of weak leadership he ascribed to Harris on fundamental issues like immigration, crime, and the economy.

    Oppositional framing 

    Trump and Harris regularly employ oppositional framing to diminish the credibility of the opponent. Harris frames Trump as a failed, divisive, and self-serving leader unfit to lead America. For example, she stressed that ”Trump will not talk about people’s needs, dreams, and desires” and that America deserves a leader who “puts them first” positioning herself as such a leader. She also consistently frames Trump as dangerous to American democracy, referencing the January 6th Capitol riots as Trump’s attempt to upend the will of the American people. Furthermore, she refers to Trump as a liar, warning their debate audience from the start of the debate to expect “a bunch of lies” from Trump, in a pre-emptive tactic to undermine his credibility. In the last few weeks leading to the election, Harris’ campaign has ramped up rhetoric that frames Trump both as a fascist and mentally unstable.  

    Trump’s framing of Harris is equally pejorative, often using rhetoric that positions her as weak and incompetent on the economy, crime, immigration, and foreign policy. He also characterises Harris as unintelligent, mentally unfit, a radical leftist, and a Marxist, who would confiscate guns, stop fracking, and allow “transgender operations on illegal aliens.” By framing Harris this way, Trump reinforces the portrayal of Harris as a radical leftist who has lost touch with American values.  

    Rhetorical appeals 

    Both Trump and Harris often employ a range of emotional, logical, and credibility-based appeals. Harris uses vivid imagery to emphasise concerns about women impacted by restrictions on reproductive rights. She rhetorically painted an image of “pregnant women…bleeding out in a car in the parking lot” to connect with the emotions and struggles of American women and underscore her commitment to their plights. She also uses fear rhetoric to describe a potential Trump presidency for the second time. 

    Trump, on the other hand, employs fear and a sense of urgency to drive emotional appeal. He frequently uses hyperbole and repetition to amplify issues and frame them as major crises. For example,  he often claims that “millions of criminals, and terrorists are pouring into America and destroying the country.” By invoking fear and a sense of urgency, he seeks to play on people’s anxieties about national security.   

    In terms of logical appeal, Harris’ rhetoric regularly seeks to drive persuasion by presenting logical arguments. She cited Goldman Sachs’ endorsement of her economic plan to suggest that her policies are supported by independent expert evaluation. She also employed logical appeal to discredit Trump’s economic plan, arguing that reputable entities like Goldman Sachs’,  Wharton School, and 16 Nobel Laureates all declared that Trump’s plan would worsen the US economy. 

    Trump, in contrast, appeals to logic whenever he declares that he “created one of the greatest economies in the history of America” and that he would do it even better again if given a second chance. 

    Applying credibility-based appeal, Harris often emphasises her credentials as a prosecutor to demonstrate her capacity to fight crime and maintain the rule of law. Similarly, Trump appeals to credibility by consistently highlighting his achievements as a strong leader on the global stage, touting his ability to negotiate and stop what he alleged to be a rip-off from China, Europe, and NATO.  

    Conclusion

    Overall, this US election looks set to be decided by swing or undecided voters, the majority of whom will not conduct granular scrutiny of each candidate’s policies. Instead, they will respond to key soundbites and rhetorical framing that collectively shape their view of both candidates and consequently, their voting decision. While some argue that campaign rhetoric has limited influence on core voter bases, the rhetorical framing of arguments and counter-arguments that resonate with swing voters will ultimately tilt the scales towards Democrats or Republicans. 

     

    Dr Toju Ogbe is a Strategic Communications consultant and an academic whose research focuses on rhetorical leadership.

  • Why I turned down $3m offer to perform at Trump’s rally – 50 Cent spills

    Why I turned down $3m offer to perform at Trump’s rally – 50 Cent spills

    US rapper Curtis Jackson, known as 50 Cent has disclosed that he recently turned down a $3 million offer to perform at a campaign rally for former President Donald Trump.

    Trump, the Republican candidate, is currently running against Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in the US presidential election slated for November 5.

    50 Cent, in an interview on The Breakfast Club, said he was invited to perform at Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden in New York but chose to decline because of his aversion to politics.

    He said, “I got a call, they wanted me for Sunday, and they offered me three million dollars for this past Sunday.

    “I did not even go far back, I didn’t even talk to them about that kind of stuff. I’m afraid of politics. I do not like politics.

    “It is because when you do get involved in it, no matter how you feel, someone passionately disagrees with you.”

  • Hitler or Trump, every State gets the type of leader it deserves – By Dennis Onakinor

    Hitler or Trump, every State gets the type of leader it deserves – By Dennis Onakinor

    Globally, the story of Adolf Hitler is well known. His autobiography, “Mein Kampf” (My Struggle), is a 700-page verbose tome of unsubstantiated claims on the superiority of the German “Aryan” race, and why the German state must establish a global hegemony through unrivaled militarism rooted in fervent nationalism. Therefore, it maintains that there should be no automatic citizenship for anyone born in the country as all must seek qualification for same through the attainment of a clean bill of health. Hence, anyone with mental or physical health challenges is not fit to be a German citizen, since he/she would impurify the “German blood.” 

    Hitler further averred that people of the “lower races,” such as the Jews, Eastern Europeans, Asians, Blacks, etc., were never to be allowed to diminish the superiority of the “German blood” through miscegenation. According to him, “Nature’s restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law … Every animal mates only with a member of the same species.” Thus came his idea of a racially pure “Folkish Sate of the German Nation” to be led by his “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or “Nazi Party,” under a leadership structure based on “absolute responsibility and absolute authority” – a euphemism for one-man dictatorship and tyranny.

    To say the least, the ideas Hitler enunciated in the Mein Kampf were bizarre, and they should have been rejected absolutely by the German populace. But as often happens in politics, a large segment of the German population, especially the youths, welcomed the ideas even as they verged on the rantings of a deranged character. To cut a long story short, in 1933, Hitler became the absolute ruler of Germany, and he proceeded to implement his maniacal racist ideas. In the process, he plunged humanity into the 2nd World War, which claimed an estimated 100 million lives, with the Jews bearing the brunt of his bloodthirstiness as more than six million of them perished in the “Holocaust”. Also, about 100,000 mentally and physically handicapped Germans were brutally eliminated in his “Euthanasia” or “Mercy Killing” programme.

    Historians maintain that Nazism was not an accidental historical occurrence, but a conscious effort on the part of Hitler and his collaborators to reshape the world according to their warped minds. They further maintain that the German populace could have forestalled Hitler’s rise to power within the 14-year period of 1919 and 1933, when he formed the Nazi Party and rose to the position of German Chancellor. But the populace failed to do so because only a negligible few individuals and groups were genuinely desirous of stopping him. Hence, the people got what they deserved: a 12-year Nazi totalitarian rule that ended in the devastation of their country, and the double-suicide of Hitler and his long-time lover, Eva Braun, on April 30, 1945.

    The axiomatic expression that “People get the type of government they deserve” is a truism. Some people may question it on several grounds, such as: the seizure of power by predatory military opportunists; the tenacious hold on power by sit-tight dictators and tyrants; the imposition of puppet rulers by external forces; and the direct military invasion of a country by a foreign power. Vivid as instances of the above-highlighted scenarios may be, there is the overriding argument that the leadership or government that emerges under any of those circumstances is usually a product of the collaborationist role of a few or more elements within the citizenry, who are neither aliens nor ghosts.

    The following examples serve to buttress the argument that without the active collaboration of some elements within the citizenry, foreign interventions are doomed to fail, irrespective of their duration: America’s 1960 – 1975 occupation of Vietnam; the Soviet’s 1979 – 1989 occupation of Afghanistan; America’s 2001 – 2021 occupation of Afghanistan and the 2003 – 2011 occupation of Iraq. Similarly, a legion of examples abounds (especially from the Third World) in terms of military opportunists, insurgent groups, sit-tight dictators and tyrants, who usurp power with the active collaboration of a few or more members of the citizenry.  

    In light of the foregoing, the upcoming presidential election in the US can only produce the type of leader that the country deserves, even if it is Donald Trump, the ex-president who is seeking a return to the White House that he ignominiously exited at the expiration of his tenure in January 2021, having instigated a violent mob to attack Congress on January 6, in his bid to forestall the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory. To say the least, Trump’s candidacy is befuddling. He has engaged in innumerable acts of criminality that would have effectively sealed the fate of any scrupulous Politician. He has survived several career-ending scandals ranging from rape to fraud and electoral malpractice. An unscrupulous politician, he is hero-worshipped by his political base that was aptly described as “deplorable elements” by his opponent in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton. Now, he rides a populist wave of white-supremacist racism and xenophobia, and he is locked in a very close contest with his challenger, incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris. 

    Several high-profile associates and political appointees of the ex-president, including Vice President Mike Pence, have refused to back his re-election bid. According to Pence, who narrowly escaped death during the “January 6” riot, “Anyone who puts themselves over the constitution should never be president of the United States, and anyone who asks someone else to put them over the constitution should never be president again.” In the same vein, John Kelly who served as his White House Chief of Staff has said that he fits “into the general definition of fascist.” That sentiment was echoed by Mike Milley who served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under his administration and that of Biden: “Trump is a fascist to the core.” Reportedly, his running mate, JD Vance, had denounced him during the 2016 presidential election as “America’s Hitler.” So, for the American electorate to wish away this disqualifying authoritarian characteristic is tantamount to sowing the seeds of tyranny in the manner of Hitler’s Nazi Germany.      

    Presently, Trump is facing a myriad of criminal and civil cases at both State and Federal levels. On May 30, 2024, the New York State Supreme Court convicted him of the criminal offense of concealing a hush money payment to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels. Meanwhile, the presiding judge has conveniently postponed his sentencing till November 26, 2024, in a bid to allay insinuations of election interference. The same court had earlier found him and his three oldest children (Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric) guilty of fraudulent financial accounting aimed at inflating the value of their properties in the Trump Organization. They were penalized with a hefty fine of 464 million Dollars, although they have appealed the ruling. In Georgia, he and 18 others have been dragged to court by the State’s prosecutors for conspiring to overturn President Biden’s 2020 electoral victory as a leaked phone call revealed that he had attempted pressurizing a top election official to alter the State’s election results in his favour. In his characteristic manner, he maintains that all these State prosecutions are politically motivated witch-hunt.  

    A Federal prosecutor, Jack Smith, has also filed charges against Trump in Washington DC and Florida courts. In the DC case, Smith alleges that his attempt to forestall the certification of Biden’s victory resulted in the “January 6” riot. But in a ruling on the appeal filed by Trump, the US Supreme Court held that the defendant has immunity for official acts, while also maintaining that he lacked immunity for acts considered unofficial. The case has been returned to the DC court for reconsideration. In the Florida case, Smith alleges that he mishandled classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence upon leaving office, and that he conspired to obstruct justice. The case was initially dismissed by an openly biased trial judge, but an appeal filed by Smith is pending determination. 

    It is widely expected that Trump will terminate the above-stated Federal cases if he wins the November 5 election as he has signalled his intention to sack the Federal prosecutor, Jack Smith, upon assumption of office as the president: “Oh, it’s so easy … I would fire him within two seconds.” His comment has served to further accentuate the message of his opponent, Kamala Harris, that he is a “fascist” seeking “unchecked power.” According to her, “Donald Trump is increasingly unhinged and unstable, and in a second term, those who once tried to stop him from pursuing his worst impulses would no longer be there to rein him in.”

    “Show me your friends, and I will tell you who you are,” is a popular adage. As at the time of writing this piece, 11 of Trump’s close political and business associates had either been convicted of a criminal offence or are awaiting trial. Micheal Cohen, his former personal attorney, was sentenced to three years in prison for a series of crimes, including the secret hush money payment to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, for which Trump was criminally convicted in May 2024. Cohen, who was paroled for agreeing to cooperate with the prosecution, has labelled Trump “a racist,” “a conman,” and “a cheat.” 

    Birds of a feather flock together. Hence, among others, the following associates and appointees of Trump, who were legally indicted or convicted, were granted presidential pardon by him: Micheal Flynn, a National Security Adviser who failed to disclose his extensive contacts with Russian officials during the transition from President Obama’s administration; Paul Manafort, a campaign manager who pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice in the investigations into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election; Steve Bannon, a White House Chief Strategist who was pardoned for a fundraising scam involving Trump’s border wall, but eventually ended up in prison in July 2024 for refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House of Representatives’ Select Committee on the “January 6” riot. On his part, Trump has avoided jail time largely due to his ability to deploy indefinite delay tactics in his criminal trials.    

    Kamala Harris, who is of Black and Indian heritage, is obviously not a political saint. But her stint in the role of vice-president, and her unruffled, ponderous, and calculating demeanour are pointers to her ability to serve and excel in the role of the President of the United States of America. She has shown that she is temperamentally fit for that role, which requires, among others, the qualities of wisdom, discipline, humility, honesty, empathy, courage, and restraint – all of which are visibly lacking in Donald Trump. Although, when all is said and done on November 5, 2024, the winner of the election would be the leader America deserves in the next four years, irrespective of what the rest of the world may think.

     

    Dennis Onakinor writes from Lagos – Nigeria, and can be reached via e-mail at dennisonakinor@yahoo.com 

  • Trump demands cognitive test for Kamala Harris

    Trump demands cognitive test for Kamala Harris

    Trump demands cognitive test for Kamala Harris in fiery X outburstFormer U.S President Donald Trump has demanded that Vice President Kamala Harris undergo a test for cognitive stamina and agility, igniting a fierce debate over her mental acuity and the integrity of the media.

    Taking to social media, Trump expressed his concerns, asserting, “Her actions have led many to believe that there could be something very wrong with her.”

    The provocative statement comes on the heels of a contentious media appearance by Harris, during which Trump alleged that CBS and 60 minutes attempted to shield her by “illegally and unscrupulously” replacing a controversial answer with a response unrelated to the original question.

    Trump’s tirade, laden with his trademark hyperbole, accused Harris of being “slow and lethargic” in her responses, claiming that even the simplest inquiries leave her fumbling for answers.

    “We just went through almost four years of that; we shouldn’t have to do it again!” he exclaimed, evoking memories of his own tumultuous presidency.

    The former president’s comments have set off a political firestorm, with supporters rallying around his call for transparency, while opponents vehemently defend Harris’s competence and ability to serve in her role.

    Political analysts speculate that Trump’s incendiary remarks may be part of a broader strategy to galvanise his base ahead of the 2024 presidential election, while also serving to divert attention from his own legal challenges.

    As the political landscape grows increasingly polarized, the fallout from Trump’s statement is sure to resonate in the weeks to come, prompting discussions around cognitive testing, media accountability, and the implications of political rhetoric in the current climate.

    The White House has yet to respond officially to Trump’s accusations, but Harris’s supporters remain steadfast, insisting that her capability as vice president is beyond question.

    The debate has intensified, with both sides preparing for an escalating war of words as the nation approaches a pivotal election year.

    In a climate charged with tension and division, Trump’s latest remarks underscore the deepening rift within American politics, leaving many to wonder how far this battle for the narrative will go.

     

  • Issues surrounding debate between Trump, Harris, and how democracies die – By Magnus Onyibe

    Issues surrounding debate between Trump, Harris, and how democracies die – By Magnus Onyibe

    The barrage of court trials and two assassination attempts that have characterized the 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign were expected to undermine his bid for the presidency. Yet, like a cat with nine lives, Trump has not only prevailed in several court cases but also survived two assassination attempts—one during a campaign event in Pensylvania and another at his golf club in Palm Beach, Florida.

    Despite these challenges, Trump has managed to overcome many of the obstacles designed to derail his quest to return to the White House in 2025. It is worth noting that Trump’s struggle is not unique; the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has also allegedly sought to use the judicial system to remove the independent candidate Robert F. Kennnedy jnr.  from the ballot. Historically, no U.S. president has been convicted and sentenced to jail, but Trump was faced with  34 criminal charges and is awaiting sentencing. If not for his determined fight and the Supreme Court’s less aggressive stance, his political adversaries and the judicial system might have succeeded in keeping him off the November 5 ballot.

    Before Trump’s legal troubles, the most severe challenge faced by U.S. presidents was impeachment, which typically resulted in the loss of a second term opportunity. Similar to the challenge Trump had to deal with, the independent presidential candidate Mr.Kennedy Jr.who is a former DNC member also faced political persecution from his former party which is a justification for his  supporters believing that the DNC’s efforts to remove him from the ballot reveal deep divisions within the party.

    On August 24, when he chose to withdraw his candidacy and endorse Trump, he expressed his frustrations about the DNC’s attempts to disqualify him from the race. Despite his legal challenges, Kennedy Jr. managed to navigate the complex political landscape before endorsing Trump. Unlike Kennedy Jr., Trump has faced legal convictions and two assassination attempts in just two months, likely exacerbated by the intense criticism from his opponents who view him as a threat to democracy. Only Gerald Ford 38th U. S president experienced two assasination attempts with a woman as the assailant.

    I will discuss the attempts on Trump’s life in more detail later in this discourse.

    Despite the numerous legal challenges and attempts to disqualify him, Donald Trump remains resilient and is still the frontrunner in the race for the 2024 presidential election, just under 50 days away. The conviction he faces involves alleged tax evasion and financial manipulation in New York, where many of his businesses are based. Trump dismisses these charges as a political witch hunt orchestrated by his rivals, a claim the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has firmly denied.

    This situation provides a troubling lesson for developing countries: the use of legal obstacles against political opponents, once thought to be a hallmark of third-world politics, is now becoming a feature in advanced democracies as well. The pattern of legal attacks against Trump, who is being pursued under the Biden administration, mirrors tactics seen in developing nations, where political persecution is more common.

    For instance, in Nigeria, similar tactics are evident: the current governor of Kano state is accused of politically motivated prosecution of his predecessor, even though he too has been accussed of also hounding his predecessor too and in Kaduna state, a former governor is facing revenge charges from his successor. Similarly, in Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro reportedly declared himself the winner of an election without proper vote counting or transparency last month August . Subsequently following a brutal crackdown on dissenters, his opponent in the contest Edmundo Gonzalex has fled the country for the safety of his life.

    These parallels suggest that Trump’s prosecution could be seen as political persecution akin to what is found in some developing countries, rather than purely legal or judicial actions. The challenges against Trump emerged after Congress, controlled by the DNC and encouraged by the executive branch, failed to impeach him over the January 6, 2020, Capitol invasion by his supporters even though the house of representatives did, but the senate voted against Trump’s impeachment by the lower chamber.

    In their book “How Democracies Die,” Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt discuss the erosion of liberal democracies globally, positioning Trump’s presidency as a potential threat to democratic norms.

    It is striking that, six years after the publication of the book “How Democracies Die,” which portrayed President Trump as a threat to democracy, the current situation in the U.S. political landscape suggests Trump may actually be the victim of judicial weaponization. This alleged misuse of the Department of Justice (DOJ) by the Biden administration could be targeting not only Trump but also independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Trump for the 2024 presidential race.

    The notion of DOJ weaponization has become significant enough to prompt a strong denial from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who insists that the DOJ is not engaged in improper practices against political opponents.

    As a scholar in politics and international affairs, I find it alarming how rapidly democracy seems to be eroding in a country-the U.S. which is often considered the pinnacle of democratic governance—a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Surprisingly, this potential decline in democracy does not align with the prediction by Levitsky and Ziblatt, who suggested that Trump would be the one undermining democracy. Instead, if Trump’s and Kennedy Jr.’s claims are accurate, Trump might be the victim of such tactics, not the perpetrator.

    The authors of “How Democracies Die” noted that American politicians increasingly view rivals as enemies, intimidate the press, and threaten election results, undermining democratic institutions like the courts and intelligence services. They expressed concern that states once praised for their democratic innovation are becoming authoritarian by altering electoral rules and suppressing voting rights to retain power.

    They also highlighted the unprecedented election of a president with no prior public office experience, presumed minimal commitment to constitutional rights, and alleged  authoritarian tendencies. The book concluded with a troubling question: Are we witnessing the decline of the world’s oldest and most successful democracy?

    Given that these concerns were first raised in 2018, during Trump’s presidency, and now seem even more pronounced under a bureaucracy-led administration, I worry about the implications for newer democracies like Nigeria’s. That is because if democracy in the U.S. is under serious threat, what hope is there for emerging democracies struggling to establish themselves?

    In my view, the current state of democracy in the U.S., which appears to be under severe threat, suggests that Levitsky and Ziblatt should revisit their book from six years ago to address the present political turmoil and allegations of judicial abuse by Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    While the events of January 6, 2020, with the Capitol invasion leading to a protester’s death and injuries to law enforcement, were troubling, the recent spate of assassination attempts on Trump within two months are alarming. These attempts are likely fueled by the continued demonization of Trump as evil and wicked by his opponents. Despite accusations against Trump for inciting the Capitol riot, no charges have been filed against those inciting violence against him, which has led to unprecedented threats against his life.

    Trump’s strong support base, despite intense verbal and physical attacks, remains substantial, as shown by the 2019 election and current polls even as his rival, Kamala Harris, continues to portray Trump as a threat to democracy, further escalating tensions. Pope Francis’s recent comments labeling both presidential candidates as evil and urging Catholics to vote for the lesser evil may also contribute to the toxic environment surrounding the violence defining  the forthcoming U.S election.

    As we await the outcome of investigations by relevant security agencies into the latest assassination attempt on former president Trump, it’s clear that the heightened rhetoric and extreme language in this election season are contributing to the dangerous climate. Given Nigeria’s constitution is modeled after the U.S. system, the lessons from these developments are crucial for understanding and improving our own democratic practices.

    Among the many unusual events in the current U.S. political season, it’s striking that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, ex-Congressman Adam Kinzinger, former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, and former Trump spokesperson Anthony Scaramucci endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris over their party’s candidate at the RNC convention in Philadelphia. This endorsement was even featured prominently in a campaign video by the RNC.

    Television adverts in themself are so incendiary that it is a surprise that there has not been open confrontations between supporters of both parties in the manner that violence erupts in African countries where democracy is underdeveloped like Kenya, Malawi , Uganda and Nigeria amongst others.

    In contrast, the endorsement of Trump by independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose support worried the DNC, received minimal media attention.

    It is also notable that during the September 10 ABC News debate, Kamala Harris accused Trump of influencing the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling that had legalized abortion for decades. Harris, who supports abortion rights, argued that the new ruling undermines women’s rights. If Trump did influence the decision, it would be seen as a significant achievement for him and a blow to the DNC and the Biden-Harris administration. While the RNC might argue that Trump appointed three of the justices responsible for the reversal, this raises concerns about political influence in the judiciary.

    Harris also accused Trump of obstructing a bipartisan bill on gun control and immigration and border control bill  in Congress. This claim suggests that Trump still holds substantial political power, capable of undermining the current administration’s efforts. However, it is curious that the Biden-Harris administration succeeded in passing the bipartisan Infrastructure Act but failed to pass the border and anti-illegal migration bill.

    After Trump defeated Biden in the June 27 presidential debate, he is now reported to have lost the September 11 debate to Harris, according to a CNN flash poll. This result is seen by some as a form of revenge for Harris after Trump’s earlier victory over Biden. However, polls taken shortly after debates may not reflect the final outcome accurately. Despite Harris’s strong performance in style and demeanor during the debate, Trump remains favored by some voters on key issues like the economy and immigration, which are crucial for the 2024 presidential race. While Harris reveived the endorsement of the songstar Taylor Swift, Trump has the backing of the richest man in the world, Elon Musk.

    That suggests that while Harris’s campaign is populist and female solidarity Trump’s is driven by economic and kitchen table issues.

    Interestingly, President Biden’s bid for a second term was derailed by a disastrous debate outcome that led his party to replace him with Vice President Harris as the DNC candidate. Biden’s failure to manage the economy, which has been plagued by inflation and a high cost of living, was his main shortcoming. He was not facing impeachment, a common reason for modern U.S. presidents failing to seek re-election. For instance, Richard Nixon did not seek a second term due to the Watergate scandal, while Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden all faced challenges either from party renomination issues or defeat by the opposition.

    In many ways, Jimmy Carter’s  and DNC’s loss in 1980 was due to several factors and hack back to Joe Biden’s current woes.

    Here are a few examples:

    1. **Economic Troubles**: High inflation (14.8%), unemployment (7.5%), and an energy crisis created a difficult economic environment. Similar economic issues are affecting Biden today.

    2. **Iran Hostage Crisis**: The 444-day hostage crisis made Carter appear weak, paralleling how the ongoing Israeli-Gaza conflict has affected Biden’s image.

    3. **Foreign Policy Issues**: Carter faced criticism for his handling of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and other foreign policy matters. Similarly, Biden is criticized for the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    4. **Internal Party Conflicts**: Carter’s primary challenge from Senator Ted Kennedy weakened him, similar to how Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent run is impacting Biden.

    5. **Challenger’s Strong Campaign**: Ronald Reagan’s effective campaign capitalized on Carter’s weaknesses. Trump is often compared to Reagan for his outsider status and campaign style.

    6. **Shift to Conservatism**: The 1980 election marked a shift towards conservatism, a trend that echoes today as Trump positions himself against the liberal agenda of Harris.

    This shift highlights a continuing struggle in American politics between conservative and liberal ideologies.

    It is remarkable how the political landscape in the U.S. in 2024 mirrors that of 1980, 44 years ago. The parallels between Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Donald Trump today, as well as between Jimmy Carter then and Joe Biden now, are striking. Unlike Carter, Biden anticipated a similar outcome and chose to step aside, allowing Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the DNC ticket. This strategic move has given the DNC new momentum, making the current race a close contest.

    If the RNC had similarly replaced Trump’s vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, with someone like Nikki Haley or Sarah Palin, the dynamics of the race might have shifted significantly. Being of lndian origin ,Haley might have countered Harris’s appeal to minority voters, and Palin could have strengthened gender equality arguments, which currently favor the RNC.

    Pope Francis’s recent comments on the U.S. presidential race, urging Catholic voters to choose the “lesser of two evils,” might not dramatically change the decisions of the 52 million U.S. Catholics, but it could clarify choices for some voters who would consider Trump lesser evil , but has heightened political tensions since word evil is considered too toxic to used in the context of elections.

    Clearly, Pope Francis criticized both candidates on moral grounds: Trump for his stance on immigration and Harris for her support of abortion rights. His intervention stands out because he typically avoids commenting on party politics.

    Just like Trump’s controversial comments about Haitian immigrants and the resulting threats against them such as the claim that there has been bomb threats in schools in Haitian communities in Ohio, calling Trump a threat to democracy whose re-election would result in end of democracy  may have also contributed to the recent spikes in assassination attempts against the 45th president of the U.S.

    His unconventional approach, including his strict immigration policies targeting illegal immigrants, as is the case in europe where illegal immigrants are also under attack ,challenges American traditional practices and may contribute to the animosity he faces.

    The truth is that despite the fact that the U.S was built bi immigrants , no president courts open borders and wants illegal immigrants to over run the country because of the consequences which Trump and his supporters are trying to prevent, but his opponents demonize him as if he is evil. Yet they lament that he scuttled a bi-partisan bill to solve border/immigration issues.

    What that suggests is that the incumbent administration may be bereft of ideas of how to stem the tide of illegal immigrants or just wanted to play to the gallery to gain the votes of liberals.

    Also, the  criticism Trump receives from American technocrats about his alleged departure from traditional political norms are akin to the backlash faced by past leaders who were deemed to have deviated from established practices. Like Ronald Reagan and Trump, who both entered politics from outside traditional bureaucratic paths. Reagan who was a two (2) term governor of California before becoming president was a movie star. Trump’s outsider status -real estate mogul and reality television show host has shaped both his support and opposition.

    Despite currently facing prosecution,some would say persecution,Trump remains a prominent contender and powerful frontrunner for the presidency in the upcoming November 5th election. The belief that his repeated escapes from assassination attempts might signify a higher destiny suggests he could be poised to return as the 47th president of the U.S.

    May God save Donald Trump

    Magnus Onyibe,an entrepreneur,public policy analyst ,author,democracy advocate,development strategist,alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,Tufts University, Massachusetts,USA and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

    To continue with this conversation and more ,please visit www.magnum.ng