There are a set of observations that must be raised initially when anticipating the results of the US presidential elections, which are:
A. From a purely pragmatic perspective, the living situation is the decisive variable in determining American voter orientations, at a rate of no less than 70-80%. Foreign affairs do not exceed 5% weight in voter decisions.
B. The weight of the Jewish vote: Since 1916, Jews have voted for the Democratic candidate 24 times out of 26 presidential elections. Of these, 11 won, meaning their orientation matched the majority 45.8% of the time. However, they were unable to ensure the victory of 13 presidential candidates despite supporting them. It’s enough to note that candidate Al Gore failed against George Bush despite 79% of Jews voting for him. Interestingly, the rate of Republican support for Israel is 75%, while among Democrats it does not exceed 35%. This creates confusion for some that Democratic support is lower, yet most Jews are with this party. This reinforces the priority of domestic over foreign issues in American voter considerations, whether Jewish or non-Jewish, evidenced by Jews supporting the party less supportive of Israel compared to Republicans (Note: Both are strongly pro-Israel, but comparing the parties in terms of degree of negativity shows Republicans are closer to Israel, which is more evident at the current moment).
C. The problem of the Electoral College role: The Electoral College, as is known, comprises 538 votes, equal to the number of Congress members and distributed according to each state’s seats. These members meet after the popular vote to elect the President and Vice President. The problem lies here: five presidents won according to the popular vote, but the Electoral College chose the loser who became president. The last two examples of these five cases are Al Gore, who won 48.4% of votes versus Bush (47.9%), but the Electoral College chose Bush (in 2000), and Trump was the second case in 2016, where Hillary Clinton beat him with 48.2% versus 46.1%, but the Electoral College reversed the result in Trump’s favor.
This means that out of 46 presidents, five won through the Electoral College, not the popular majority. Any prediction must consider that there’s approximately an 11% chance that popular support won’t match the Electoral College position.
D. The weight of election campaigns and televised debates between candidates does not exceed 3% influence according to many academic studies.
Models of future studies for presidential elections:
There are two prominent models in this field:
- Alan Abramowitz’s model, which he applied to the 2016 elections (which Trump won in the Electoral College as mentioned).
- Allan Lichtman and Vladimir Keilis-Borok’s model, which is the most prominent and comprehensive. I see it as more adherent to scientific methodology. This model is based on 13 indicators (which I’ve previously mentioned in a prior article) and has achieved near-absolute success in its predictions since its inception in the early 1980s.
Conclusion:
If we exclude the 11% (black swan) from predicting the result, applying both prediction models indicates that Kamala Harris will be the 47th President of the United States. She achieves between 7-8 indicators from Lichtman’s model (out of 13), and general circumstances support her through:
A. Most Americans of immigrant origin will vote for her.
B. The percentage of Black support for her is no less than 85%.
C. Some opinion polls indicate that 70-75% of women will vote for her.
D. A high percentage of youth are less inclined towards Trump’s propositions.
E. The mismatch between “Israeli eagerness” for Trump and the orientations of Jewish Democrats.
F. Despite the confusion of the American Muslim public, this audience sees Harris as less bad compared to the worst.
G. Global apprehension about Trump (especially China, climate groups, and concerns about NATO, particularly among most European countries), with Russia perhaps being the most inclined towards Trump.
But the warning remains that the Electoral College might flip all this in Trump’s favor… a possibility that reaches 11% as we mentioned. Therefore, there will be an important new question: Will Trump accept defeat if it occurs? Will he incite his followers towards violence and begin to question the results as he did when defeated by Biden? That requires a moment of upcoming reflection.
