The race to the White House 2024: A new chapter in US politics

Originally published in the Esade Center for Corporate Governance Newsletter. 

After a summer full of surprises, American voters must now choose between the first Black and Asian woman to run for president (Kamala Harris) and a businessman seeking to reclaim the White House (Donald Trump). Following a series of unfortunate appearances by Joe Biden, and under intense pressure from his party, on July 21, 2024, he decided to withdraw from the race and handed his position to his VP, Harris, who at that point had approval ratings below 40%, according to Gallup. Despite her extensive career, beginning as a prosecutor in California, Harris struggled to secure support when she initially ran and only reached the vice presidency due to Biden's personal decision. Now, the two candidates are vastly different: one verging on the eccentric, the other largely untested in leadership. 

However, the support base for each candidate reveals some distinctions. Harris enjoys more solid backing from her party peers—94% compared to the 91% of Republicans supporting Trump’s candidacy. Nevertheless, Donald Trump has garnered more support from the general American public and Independents (BBC). 

None of the campaign events broke the tie in polls between candidates

Since then, both candidates have played their cards: Harris benefitted from a positive outcome in the face-to-face televised debate on October 23 and the high-profile endorsement from American singer Taylor Swift, aiming to mobilize the youth vote, while Trump has endured two assassination attempts. Still, none of these events has broken the tie in the national polls, with Harris at 48% of the vote and Trump at 47% (BBC). 

Factors influencing victory

What, then, could tilt the balance and deliver a clear winner? One crucial factor to consider is the constant fluctuation in anticipated results in the so-called "swing states." In some instances, Biden won these states by fewer than 14,000 votes in the previous election. 

In the US, the Electoral College—not the popular vote—determines the winner, favoring less populated states, which currently lean Republican. In 2016, this is how Trump claimed the White House despite not winning the majority vote. 

These seven states have distinct characteristics, often facing specific challenges such as illegal immigration, relatively high unemployment, or unique issues tied to their economic structure. According to recent data from the American organization Real Clear Politics (RCP), Donald Trump has gained a slight lead over Harris in four of these seven states. 

Additionally, each candidate's fundraising capabilities are crucial in determining the campaign's intensity during these final weeks. 

For reference, the total amount raised in the previous campaigns between Trump and Hillary Clinton was $1.8 billion. According to the latest data, Harris's campaign committee has been active, reaching $997 million, compared to Trump’s $388 million (Forbes). The bulk of donations to these campaigns come from private sources and must adhere to set electoral regulations. The final type of campaign funding comes from Political Action Committees (PACs); here, Democrats lack an equivalent to the Republican "Save America" PAC, which is notably influential. Meanwhile, the two main national committees that raise funds to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives and the Senate have collected $548.5 million, compared to the Republicans' $489 million (Forbes).* 

Uncertain result, assured impact

Ultimately, the still-uncertain outcome of this election could have a profound impact on Europe, reshaping geopolitics within this new multipolar order and affecting global prosperity. 

If Trump wins, isolationism and non-engagement by the superpower in international matters are likely to return. The Republican president would focus on domestic issues, becoming highly unpredictable in defending American interests against China’s global rise and the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. 

In either case, economic and trade policies are unlikely to shift

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, would presumably continue Biden's policies, collaborating with NATO allies on international security with an "Atlanticist" approach—albeit demanding more financial commitment from alliance members—while cautiously pursuing pragmatic realism. Whether she would eventually develop a "Harris agenda" as her international experience grows remains to be seen. 

In any scenario, US economic and trade policies are unlikely to change; whoever assumes the presidency will prioritize the nation’s economic security over global economic interests. Tariffs will likely remain a tool to protect American interests, potentially further undermining the multilateral trade system and economic globalization. The future of the European Union and the new agenda of the von der Leyen Commission will also be affected, accelerating debates on energy independence and strengthening European capabilities in security and defense. Less than two months remain to shed light on these questions. 

*Information updated as of October 16.