Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Trump vs. Harris: A high-stakes election and its risks to democracy
When Republicans met in Milwaukee for their quadrennial convention in July, Donald Trump was cruising to victory in November. He was ahead in the polls. He had stood next to his opponent, Joe Biden, who imploded in a presidential debate. He had barely escaped an assassin’s bullet. And he was overseeing a raucous convention with all the markings of a victory celebration.
Trump, in short, was winning.
And then he was losing.
Within a month of the GOP convention, everything had changed. Days after it concluded, President Biden announced he would not run for president in November and endorsed his running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris. Within 48 hours, Harris had cleared the field of any possible challengers and received the endorsement of the entire party. Within a week, she secured the backing of a majority of the delegates and raised $300 million for her campaign. And within a month, she had erased Biden’s polling deficit and topped Trump in national polls and most battleground states.
Much can still happen in the race. The country remains deeply divided and polarized, and the elections will likely be decided by a few thousand votes in a few battleground states. Trump may finally accept he has to face Harris rather than Biden and prosecute his case against her more effectively than he has in the past two weeks. Harris remains undefined to most voters and may stumble along the way — in a debate, an interview, or some other way.
“A week,” Harold Wilson said, “is a long time in politics.” In the age of social media, an hour can change everything.
But while much can change, here is what we do know: This election poses unique risks to democracy in America and has profound implications for the global political landscape.
Potential risks during the election
In America, the first Monday in September — Labor Day — signals the start of the final leg of the presidential campaign. Between then and Election Day, the process is quite predictable. Early voting, in person or by mail, will start in a few weeks in some states and reach a crescendo in the week leading up to Nov. 5.
Every election has its share of surprises in the last weeks before voting ends, whether external (for example, a major escalation in an ongoing conflict or an economic calamity) or internal (a scandal or stumble that changes people’s perception of the race). Social media, AI, and foreign interference can also influence how voters see the candidates — more so in the case of Harris, who remains relatively new on the political scene, certainly compared to Trump. Race and gender may also play an unpredictable role.
All that said, the divisions in the country, and the relatively siloed nature of political discourse, render it relatively safe to predict that this will be a close election — likely decided by a tiny fraction of the 140 million or so people who are expected to come out to vote. The process itself is therefore unlikely to pose much risk.
Instead, the more significant risk arises from the Republican strategy to delegitimize the election process. Trump and his allies are preparing to aggressively challenge the election results, asserting that any loss, particularly following a close race, would be the result of a rigged system. This narrative, similar to the one Trump pushed after his 2020 defeat, is being amplified by many party faithful, including elected officials, as the election nears. It could lead to efforts to disrupt voting and counting processes, increasing the potential for post-election violence. The readiness of federal, state, and local governments to address these challenges remains uncertain.
A key difference from the 2020 election is that the incumbent administration has the power to enforce legal measures to maintain order. The federal government’s preparedness to exercise this power is one of the critical uncertainties of this election.
Risks of a Harris victory
A narrow Harris victory poses immediate risks, primarily stemming from Trump's refusal to concede defeat gracefully. Trump’s denial of the 2020 election results has fueled his 2024 campaign and the broader “Make America Great Again” movement. The potential for widespread, organized efforts to discredit the election, accompanied by possible violence, is very real. The turmoil following a Trump loss in 2024 is liable to eclipse the events of Jan. 6, 2021, in scale and intensity.
Implications for the Ukraine-Russia conflict
The ongoing war in Ukraine will continue to be a critical international issue regardless of the election outcome. While Trump may seek to negotiate an end to the conflict, his limited leverage over Kyiv and Moscow means the war’s trajectory is unlikely to change significantly.
The primary difference lies in how the conflict is managed. Under a Harris administration, continued US military support for Ukraine would be crucial for maintaining pressure on Russia. Conversely, a Trump administration’s disinterest could lead to reduced sanctions against Russia, affecting the geopolitical balance — and ultimately contributing to Ukraine’s defeat.
The legislative election will be equally important to the conflict’s future. A Democratic majority in Congress would facilitate the shipment of further weapons packages to Kyiv, while a new Republican majority would likely create additional barriers to new aid.
Impact on NATO and global alliances
Trump’s worldview, which prioritizes win-lose scenarios over cooperative alliances, threatens the integrity of NATO. Even some Trump sympathizers in Congress, such as Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, have sponsored bills to reverse any attempts by a president to “suspend, terminate or withdraw” from NATO. But these are unlikely to have much effect. Trump’s disregard for mutual defense agreements could undermine the alliance’s strategic coherence, leaving European allies uncertain about US support in times of crisis. This erosion of trust could diminish NATO’s effectiveness.
Domestic tensions and policy implications
Domestically, a Trump return to power would likely exacerbate tensions on many fronts. His administration would be expected to adopt a more forceful approach to dealing with protests and civil unrest, potentially leading to rampant violence.
Trump has also promised to deport 15 million undocumented immigrants, which, if implemented, would cause widespread angst and have a major impact on the economy. Key issues such as women’s rights, racial justice, and the legitimacy of the democratic process could spark significant societal conflicts.
Conclusion and call to action
A second Trump presidency would diverge sharply from his first, characterized by a cadre of loyalists prioritizing Trump’s interests over national concerns. His campaign, driven by themes of revenge and retribution, foreshadows an administration bent on settling scores with political adversaries.
Conversely, a narrow Harris victory could trigger unprecedented challenges to electoral integrity and stability.
In these extraordinary times, the risks for businesses and individuals operating in the US are significantly heightened. Navigating this landscape requires having critical insights and strategies to ensure safety and operational continuity amid potential upheaval.
___________
This op-ed was written by Ivo Daalder, former US ambassador to NATO, and a strategic adviser, political risk, on the Healix Risk and Advisory Board. For more from Daalder, check out his recent interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World. They discuss views from the Baltics on Russian aggression.