There was a time when the assessment of the presidential election in the United States of America used to be very daunting for those not physically present in North America. There was a complete dependence on the coverage by television networks and the more exhaustive reportage by newspapers and magazines such as Time and Newsweek. The sights and smell of a democracy — indispensable for any rounded understanding of politics — were not available for those viewing the US from outside its borders.

Following the revolution in communications, the total dependence on what is now called the ‘legacy media’ has been diluted. While the minuscule that depend on the morning newspaper may still base their assessments on journalists reporting from the Beltway, more serious observers are likely to combine these with a selection from the thousands of YouTube channels that have enlivened the media scene. For those in India who may have realised the severe shortcomings of CNN during the 2016 presidential contest when the predicted landslide victory for Hillary Clinton failed to materialise, it is now possible to taste the offerings of the unabashedly pro-Donald Trump Fox News.

Nor is this the only worthwhile alternative available to the avid consumer of news. There have been reports of a late swing of a slice of black male voters towards Trump which has forced the Kamala Harris campaign to present a curious special package for that group. However, those perusing the YouTube channels would have discovered as early as three months ago that Trump had a significant following among black males. This has now been quantified as being in the range of 30%, significant enough to tilt the balance in a tight race. While the Harris campaign continues to attract the big majority of black and hispanic voters, particularly women, the Trump campaign has made significant headway among these communities. In 2008 and in 2012, Barack Obama secured the overwhelming majority of black and hispanic votes, both of men and women. The Democratic Party can no longer claim such a monopoly over non-white voters. The importance given by Trump to the problems posed by illegal immigration from the southern borders — the term, ‘Venezuelan gangs’, has become a preferred shorthand — has resonated among black males.

Another issue where the legacy media has been slow to read the tea leaves is the opinion polls. The conventional wisdom after the Harris coup just prior to the Democratic National Convention was that the clear advantage Trump had over the forgetful president, Joe Biden, had been neutralised by his vice-president by mid-September. This largely seemed true as far as the national support was concerned. However, the 3%-4% advantage that Harris seemed to enjoy over Trump — and which was gleefully covered in the liberal newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post — wasn’t reflected in the disaggregated state-centric polls that attached the foremost priority to the country’s electoral votes system. Programmes such as the DeVory Darkins show and the Rasmussen Reports that focussed on polling data seemed to suggest that in the competition for electoral votes, which boiled down to the contest in seven or, at best, ten states, both candidates were neck and neck, with Trump perhaps enjoying a whisker of an advantage. It is Trump’s competitiveness in the race to secure 270 or more electoral votes that appears to have translated into a distinct advantage in the aftermath of Harris’s disastrous Fox News interview.

Yet, all the poll readings seem to confirm that whereas Trump enjoys an advantage in the seven crucial swing states, Harris is very much in the race. In 2020, the Democrats secured a big advantage by mobilising the postal votes and the early votes. This time, the Trump campaign has become wiser and has devoted a significant amount of resources to the mechanics of getting the vote out, and not merely on November 5 when the Republican support base comes out to vote. The punditry seems to feel that getting their supporters to the polling station will make the crucial difference in an extremely tight race.

It is also interesting to note the different techniques being used by the candidates in wooing the voters in the swing states. Having shied away from media interviews in the aftermath of the debate with Trump — where she certainly nullified the clear advantage Trump had in his encounter with Biden — Harris has now tried to make it up. The outcome has been mixed and she has been pilloried for having a confused agenda of governance and, more important, for trying to hide her radical impulses. Trump, on the other hand, seems to combine rallies of the faithful with appearances at McDonald’s and baseball games — both very carefully chosen to highlight the symbols of the so-called American way. With barely a fortnight left for the election to conclude, it will be interesting to observe the different symbols the candidates use to project themselves. At present, there are two very distinct and different Americas that the two contenders for the White House seem to personify. This sharp cultural polarisation does not augur well for the social cohesiveness of a Great Power.

The expectation of a presidential election that will come down to the wire and may ultimately be decided by the verdict in Michigan or one of the other six states that are said to hold the key is tantalising. It was not all that long ago that the ‘chads’ of malfunctioning voting machines in Florida held the balance between President George W. Bush and John Kerry. But as Karl Rove, a great Republican strategist in his day, reminded viewers during a brief interaction on Fox News last Sunday, the expectations of a nail-biting finish are sometimes overstated. He pointed to the 1980 election between President Jimmy Carter, the incumbent, and Ronald Reagan. The pollsters had suggested there would be 10 marginal states that would shape the outcome. Moreover, the national polls taken in the latter half of October suggested a tantalisingly close race: Gallup (October 17-20) Carter 41% to Reagan 40%; Newsweek-Gallup (October 29-30) Carter 43% to Reagan 44%; and CBS-New York Times (October 30-November 1) Carter 43% to Reagan 44%.

The actual results were Reagan 50.75% and Carter 41.01%. As for electoral votes, Reagan notched up 489 to Carter’s 49. Was it the final week that made the decisive difference? Or did the liberal bias of the pollsters lead to a systematic underestimation of Reagan?