Explosive Finish to the US Elections

With a week remaining until Election Day, tension in the US race has reached an extraordinary peak. Both camps are relentlessly attacking each other, and few are confident in predicting a clear winner. Interviews with top bloggers, the electoral lottery, the sitting president’s vote, and legal actions against the mentioned lottery – these are just a few of the elements of the fierce battle waging across the United States as 5 November approaches.

A sensational scandal surrounds Elon Musk’s attempt to distribute a daily prize of one million dollars to registered voters in a so-called "electoral lottery". President Joe Biden has already criticised the initiative as "inappropriate." Musk, a key supporter of Trump’s campaign, is using his exceptional influence to shape the election.

On 28 October, the District Attorney of Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent America PAC, Elon Musk’s political action committee, from distributing $1 million to registered voters in swing states before the 5 November election. According to the complaint, the lottery encourages Pennsylvania residents to share their personal information with America PAC, which backs Donald Trump. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s largest city and traditionally Democratic, has seen its top prosecutor, Lawrence Krasner, argue that this prize distribution violates the state’s consumer protection laws. Consequently, he has sought to halt this lottery. 

The Philadelphia prosecutor is not alone in scrutinising this practice. The US Department of Justice has sent a formal warning to Musk’s America PAC, indicating that the cash distribution programme could breach federal law, which prohibits payments to voters for casting ballots or registering to vote. However, with the public already aware of the programme, it may be a case of “too little, too late”.

Voters know that Musk launched the initiative, and even a winner has been announced: the first prize went to a voter in Michigan. Thus, even if the lottery is halted, those willing to participate may be frustrated with the authorities and develop sympathies towards Musk and Trump. 

With the race in its final stretch, the competition is turning peculiar. Although Harris’s campaign funds grew more rapidly than Trump’s, the gap between them, according to polling data, continues to narrow.

Photo: Donald Trump betting on maximum voter turnout. Source: Getty Images

Who Raised More? 

Kamala Harris is extending her lead over Donald Trump in terms of campaign fund totals. As of 28 October, Harris's lead stood at 40.6%. While Trump’s campaign fund reached $1.061 billion, Harris’s total was $1.492 billion (according to data from opensecrets.org).

A month earlier, on 22 September, the gap was notably smaller – 34.5%, with Harris holding $0.755 billion in her fund against Trump’s $0.574 billion. This financial edge for Harris emerged soon after the Democratic National Committee officially nominated her as their candidate. At that time, Harris had $0.498 billion in her fund, while Trump had $0.473 billion, nearly the same. However, from mid-August, Harris’s advantage in campaign funds began to grow swiftly. 

Despite this growing disparity in campaign funds, voters polls show only a narrow margin between the two candidates, suggesting that Harris’s financial advantage has not had a decisive impact. By late October, the significance of this advantage has likely diminished, as both teams have already finished the major expenditures on advertising, campaign materials, and candidate tours across key states and districts.

It seems Trump has made exceptionally effective use of every dollar in his campaign fund in recent weeks. According to the ABC "538" project, which aggregates poll results, as of 28 October, 48.0% of voters supported Kamala Harris, while 46.7% favoured Donald Trump. This marks a significant reduction in the margin over the last month; in late September, Harris had 48.3% against Trump’s 45.6% support. 

The situation now appears to be within the margin of error. Given the structure of the US electoral system, the president is elected by an Electoral College – 538 epresentatives. Number of electors for every state are determined by state population sizes. So a candidate must secure 270 electors to win. In US history, there have been five instances where the candidate with the majority of the popular vote did not become president, due to another candidate winning a greater number of electoral votes. Notably, in the 2016 election, Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton despite her having 48% of the popular vote against Trump’s 45.9%. Despite Clinton’s three-million-vote lead, she received 232 electoral votes to Trump’s 306.

Photo: Kamala Harris withstanding the pressure and aiming to maintain her lead in votes. Source: Getty Images

Could the same happen this time? Possibly. Might it not? That is also possible. It is likely that the “swing states” – those states that frequently change political allegiance – will have the biggest impact. These are seven states with a total of 93 electoral votes (electors): Pennsylvania (19), Georgia (16), North Carolina (16), Michigan (15), Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10), and Nevada (6).

Swing States 

Harris and Trump are both focusing on these swing states. President Joe Biden cast an early ballot in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, accompanied by Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, who is running for Senate to replace retiring Democratic Senator Tom Carper. Biden used the opportunity to comment on Musk’s lottery and Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric, thus actively supporting Harris’s campaign. However, the 81-year-old president’s campaign schedule in October has been active but not especially intense.

On 28 October, Trump’s tour reached Georgia, which, along with North Carolina, is second among swing states with 16 electoral votes each. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, campaigned in Michigan, the fourth-largest swing state, with 15 electoral votes. 

Both candidates are competing on the platform of economic interests. Trump, in 2020, initiated a broad campaign of economic stimulus through government spending and cash assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The inflation consequences of this well-timed programme was left for Biden’s administration to manage, with voters now frustrated by the inflationary aftermath of the 2020–2021 money printing. These issues are being hotly debated, and the exchanges are more severe than ever.

Next loud case: on 25 October, Trump appeared for three hours on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, where he strongly criticised Biden’s subsidies for US-based chip manufacturers. Trump argued that he would return chip manufacturing to the US by imposing high import tariffs, a proposal that has attracted criticism due to the inflationary effects of such tariffs. 

Meanwhile, Harris planned her Michigan tour, aiming to visit Hemlock Semiconductor LLC, a plant that received an initial investment of $325 million in October, a result of the very same Chips Act signed by the Biden administration.

Harris has the backing of former President Barack Obama, singer Beyoncé, and Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny. Rapper publicly supported her after Trump made disparaging remarks about Puerto Rico on 27 October.

Trump, on the other hand, is supported, for example, by the eccentric billionaire and owner of X (formerly Twitter), Elon Musk, as well as former wrestler and showman Hulk Hogan. 

It’s a spectacular and intense showdown, with the majority of the debate centred on America’s domestic challenges. However, Russia's war against Ukraine, tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and the crisis in the Middle East are also on the agenda.  The outcome could be utterly surprising.