��������Ƶ

The presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris has overwhelmed everything that has happened in the race to the White House over the past week.

The debate in Philadelphia, “the cradle of liberty,” had been highly anticipated. The Democratic candidate appeared before Americans in this capacity for the first time since President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and backed her as his replacement. As is well known, Biden withdrew after the disaster of the first and only debate of his campaign.

The vast majority of Trump supporters hoped he would finish what he started during that first debate, while everyone else could be split into Democrats hoping for a new dynamic that would erase the nightmare of the first debate and undecided voters who claim to be undecided because they “don’t know enough” about Harris.

I believe that claiming to be undecided is a pretense in most cases and many analysts are not deceived by this claim in the slightest.

It is true that very broad segments of the American public are not ideologically committed. However, it is also true that the chasm between Trump and Harris is so massive that hesitation is rendered untenable. Even if this or that voter does not have a full picture of the candidates’ backgrounds and programs, the vast differences between them in terms of their principles, priorities and policy ideas should compel any sensible voter to cast their vote against one of the candidates … if in not favor of the other.

In Western democracies, this phenomenon is known as tactical voting: voters cast their ballot preemptively, against the candidate they dislike or reject even if they do not fully support the positions of the rival. In other words, it is voting against rather than voting for.

This time, Muslims constitute a sensitive — and perhaps influential — bloc that analysts are monitoring closely

Eyad Abu Shakra

Most Western European countries are parliamentary democracies where executive power is held by the government and the prime minister, rather than the president. Here, tactical voting is a familiar phenomenon. Even in France, which has a presidential system similar to the US, the president must receive more than half of the vote. That has been the case for all presidential elections since the Fifth Republic was founded by Charles de Gaulle in the 1950s. Since 1965, all French presidential elections have been decided after a second round between the two candidates who received the most votes in the first round. As for the parliamentary elections of Western democracies with no single districts, tactical voting is seen in proportional representation or second rounds.

This year’s American election pits two candidates with unmistakably different positions against one another; their divergences are clear and definitive, even stark. Accordingly, I make two claims:

First, Trump’s base is robust and cohesive enough to brush off any blunder. Among his die-hard supporters, he is infallible.

Second, the Democratic base is more diverse and skeptical and it is less committed to the candidate, making it more vulnerable to internal and external shifts, whether in terms of demands or policy.

Accordingly, even though the polls favor Harris over Trump following the Philadelphia debate, the gap either falls within the margin of statistical error or does not accurately account for the Electoral College. Moreover, many demographic groups, such as women, pro-choice advocates, Black people, Muslims, Jews and Catholics, may have conflicting priorities within the same political camp that unites them … such as is the case between Catholics and pro-choice advocates.

This time, Muslims constitute a sensitive — and perhaps influential — bloc that analysts are monitoring closely, especially against the backdrop of the Israeli war on Gaza. Muslim voters’ significance is undoubtedly bolstered by their electoral concentration in swing or pivotal states. Michigan, for instance, has been home to a large Muslim and Arab presence since the state’s industrial boom. Similarly, the Muslim vote is significant in cities across Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Virginia (including the suburbs of Washington).

In several of these states, the battle could be decided by very small margins, a few thousand votes. In the past few days, an Islamic organization, the Muslim American Public Affairs Council, “proudly announced” its endorsement of the leftist Green Party candidate Jill Stein. If this position was not shocking enough, recent polls suggest that more Muslim voters will be voting for Stein than the Democratic candidate. Of course, there is no need to remind you that Stein has no chance of winning. Thus, supporting her would be a futile protest vote that undermines the influence of Muslims on the two major parties.

On top of that, this naive and harmful negativity contrasts starkly with the smart moves of the Israeli lobbies, which have shrewdly seized every opportunity to make significant inroads, not only within the Republican and Democratic parties in the US, but also every major political party in the Western world.

Thus, while Muslims and Arabs are doing a great job of marginalizing themselves and preoccupying themselves with childish statements, their opponents are quietly working to consolidate their presence and expand their investments in every political movement, whether right-wing or left-wing, that can be of use … if not today, then tomorrow.

We have been following American politics closely for more than a century and a half and we have not learned. We have known Israel for three-quarters of a century and again we have not learned.

We have understood the nature of the American-Israeli relationship since 1967 and yet we have not developed a strategy for dealing with it, even to defend ourselves.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. X: @eyad1949

This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.