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 }}
A look back at the Top Risks of 2024
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: As 2024 comes to a close, we always look back on our Top Risks. How we did at the beginning of the year. I back in January, referred to this as the "Voldemort of years," at least geopolitically. The year that must not be named because of three major conflicts that we expected were going to only get worse over the course of the year. The Russia-Ukraine war, the war in the Middle East, and the war between the United States and itself. Those absolutely played out.
First, the risk on Russia-Ukraine, where we said that Ukraine would effectively be partitioned. Not a popular thing to say back in January, and not something that we were hoping for. Just something that we believed was going to happen, even irrespective of how the US elections turned out. The fact that Ukrainians were going to be much more overstretched in the ability to fight. The fact that the Russians would be able to maintain the war machine, and the fact that the Europeans and the Americans were increasingly tiring of a war with lots of attention in other places.
All of that meant that Ukrainians would increasingly be desperate. And we really saw that in particular with this spectacular Ukrainian attack into Kursk taking Russian territory, but needing 40,000 of their troops to accomplish it away from their front lines. As the year comes to a close, Ukraine is losing territory faster than at any point since the beginning of the war. And they increasingly recognize not only that they need to start negotiations, but they're going to have to end up trading some land for peace and for security guarantees from the West. So indeed Ukraine today, de facto partitioned.
Number two, the war in the Middle East, which we believed was going to expand significantly. At the beginning of the year, we were talking about Gaza. Now of course, we're talking about the 'Axis of Resistance,' a year when in Yemen the Houthis were popping off rockets and missiles against civilian tanker traffic going through the Red Sea and also against the United States and other military assets in the region, and the Americans and others hitting them back. We saw the war open to include Hezbollah and Lebanon. We saw the war also threaten to bring Israel and Iran together directly as they exchanged fire against each other and as the Israelis were able to decimate Iran's proxies.
Some good news on this front. First of all, the fact that ultimately the United States, Israel, and most importantly, Iran, showed restraint and risk aversion in what would've been a much more devastating fight. And what would've led oil prices to go well over a hundred if that war broken out. That did not occur. And also the fact that the Israelis have been able to show military dominance, which meant that there is no more effective 'Axis of Resistance' at the end of this year. In fact, the big surprise that not only did the war expand, but Assad is gone. Not because of Obama who said that over 10 years ago, but rather because they were unable to respond to HTS supported by Turkey, a rebellion against Assad, and the Russians, and the Iranians. Assad's support base were inadequate to keep him in power. He now sits in Moscow.
And now finally, the US versus itself. A year of only more significant division and polarization inside my own country, the United States. And we've seen that play out. First of all with a Biden that was running for the presidency and had no capacity to serve for another four years, refused to step down, was finally essentially forced out, forced to step down by everyone around him, including former President Obama, former speaker Pelosi, and all of the rest. On the Trump side, two, not one, attempted assassinations, one by this much. And if that had occurred, we'd be in a hell of a lot more difficult position now as a country. The election did go off without a hitch, and was accepted as free and fair, thankfully. And now the United States looks forward to a new president. But the divisions inside the US, the weakening of America's political institutions only growing over the course of 2024.
So those were our top three risks. You can look at all 10, and see how we did go back and check it out on the link that we have here. And also take a look in early January. Watch out for our Top Risks of 2025. It will be something you do not want to miss.
- Eurasia Group’s Top Global Risks 2024 ›
- Why 2024 is the Voldemort of years ›
- 2024's top global risks: The trifecta of wars threatening global peace ›
- A world of conflict: The top risks of 2024 ›
- Ian Bremmer explains the 10 Top Risks of 2025 - GZERO Media ›
- Unpacking the biggest global threats of 2025 - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: The Top Geopolitical Risks of 2025, a live conversation with Ian Bremmer and global experts - GZERO Media ›
- Top Risks 2025: America's role in the crumbling global order - GZERO Media ›
Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump dances during a rally at Mullett Arena in Tempe, Arizona, U.S. October 24, 2024.
Election Countdown: 15 key counties that could determine the outcome
With four days to go before Election Day, both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris were in Nevada and Arizona on Thursday to shore up support in the critical western swing states. At dueling rallies, the candidates made bids to win over Latino voters and focused on border security.
In Nevada, home to a large number of service workers and an economy that has struggled to rebound from COVID, Trump and Harris touted their plans for exempting tips from taxes.
In Arizona, both candidates are banking on ballot initiatives to boost turnout. Republicans are rallying around a ballot initiative making illegal border crossings a state crime, while Democrats are hoping a measure enshrining the right to an abortion in the state’s constitution will spur pro-choice voters to the polls.
Arizona is likely to come down to just one county: Maricopa.
There has been no shortage of attention paid to the seven swing states that are likely to decide this hyper-close election. But within those states, there are counties that are key indicators of how each state will end up.
“The counties to watch in the election are a mixture of bellwethers that tend to go the way of their states, big counties that have an outsized impact on state results, and counties that will provide key information on how the candidates are performing among particular demographic groups,” explains Eurasia Group’s Noah Daponte-Smith.
So, without further ado, here are the counties to watch as the results roll in on Tuesday night.
In Arizona, whoever wins Maricopa, which encompasses Phoenix and its surrounding areas, is likely to win the state’s 11 Electoral College votes. The whole election could hinge on this county because of how long it is expected to take to tally all of its votes.
Maricopa has a population of over 4.5 million residents, more than the populations of nearly half of the states in the US, and Republican-pushed voting laws are going to slow down the count. Because of this, election officials are warning that it could take up to 13 days to count all the ballots, which, if the election is close, could mean the winner isn’t known for nearly two weeks.
Pennsylvania has four bellwether counties that will serve as signals for whether the state – which has a 90% chance of determining the election – is going red or blue. Harris needs to excel in democratic stronghold Philadelphia, at least outpacing Biden’s 2020 performance, if she is going to win the Keystone State. Erie, Pittsburg, and Scranton are also key indicators of how the winds are blowing.
Pennsylvania is unlikely to be decided for a day or two because of rules that forbid counting absentee ballots before Election Day.
In Georgia, all eyes will be on Atlanta’s Fulton and DeKalb counties, as well as its surrounding suburbs of Gwinnett, Henry, and Cobb. The key thing to look for is Harris’ margins with Black voters, which not only are likely to determine whether she wins the state but will also shed light on how she is tracking with Black voters nationwide.
Wisconsin is anyone’s game and may depend on whether the margins in Milwaukee and its surrounding suburbs of Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington are closer to 2016, when Trump won, or 2020, when Biden took back the state.
North Carolina is expected to be the first swing state to be decided. As early results roll in, look at the Charlotte suburbs of Union and Cabarrus, which will show how Harris is faring among suburban voters.
Republicans have held the state in every election since Obama in 2008, when he won in large part because of high Black voter turnout. Harris needs to drive similar volumes of Democratic turnout, which is likely to come from the suburbs outside of cities like Charlotte, to offset Trump’s dominance in rural parts of the state.
Political endorsements: Do they help or hurt trust in journalism?
Smart or spineless? Should newspapers endorse candidates, or does it undermine their objectivity?
When Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos announced last week that his paper would no longer publish political endorsements — as they have done for decades — the backlash was swift. 200,000 people canceled their subscriptions, according to NPR. Retired Post Executive Editor Marty Baron unleashed a furious volley on X. “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” he raged. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
For Baron, missing editorial vertebrae is a virtual news pandemic. The Los Angeles Times also canceled endorsements. Gannett, which owns 200 papers including USA Today, banned presidential endorsements earlier in the year.
Was the Post’s move, as Baron suggested, a lame, last-minute attempt to appease Donald Trump (should he win) and curry political favor?
The timing sure looks bad. If Bezos wanted to change the Post’s policy, he should have done it much earlier. Yanking endorsements days before a close election is like giving yourself a political wedgie, an awkward, painful experience that seems totally inappropriate. It undermines the integrity of the decision and gives it the sour sniff of desperation, a weak obeisance to Trump’s anti-media threats. Showing fear of the powerful is a malignant condition for any news organization.
But while the timing looks weak, the merits of the argument are strong. Bezos is right to point to aGallup poll from October showing that trust in the media is at an all-time low, with only 31% saying they are confident the media reports the news fairly and accurately.
“For the third consecutive year, more US adults have no trust at all in the media (36%) than trust it a great deal or fair amount,” wrote Gallup. “Another 33% of Americans express ‘not very much’ confidence.” As a comparison, in the 1970s, trust in the media was closer to 70%. Even in the early 2000s, trust was still about 55%.
Bezos sees endorsements as one reason for this collapse. To him, endorsements are a dangerous vestige of a bygone era that undermines the trust in objective journalism. “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias,” he wrote. “A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”
Gannett took a slightly more nuanced position than Bezos, banning national endorsements for president but letting its local papers endorse at the local level. “We believe America’s future is decided locally – one race at a time,” Gannett announced in a statement to CNN.
This may be a distinction without a difference, but nuance matters. Papers have long published editorials on various subjects, and readers look to those positions for some guidance. They should and will continue. Editorials are marked as such and function as separate sections for readers to discern. An election endorsement is different. It taints all reporters’ work with a political hue.
Outlets that openly skew to one political side — right or left — should be happy to continue to endorse and present their reasons. Why not? They are open about their partisanship and political bent, and they make money selling their papers to people who like that view.
But for any media organization fighting to maintain an objective, nonpartisan reputation, political endorsements alienate readers from one or another side, driving them to partisan outlets that may have no journalistic standards at all. Readers can make up their own minds on who to vote for without a paper picking sides.
At GZERO, we have never endorsed a political candidate. Our policy is to maintain objective, nonpartisan journalism and analysis, without becoming toothless bores whose neutrality masks an unwillingness to call out facts or press back against the tide of disinformation and bullshit. But who you vote for is up to you. Our job is to present the facts, the stories, and the policies clearly, put them in perspective, and make sure you have the tools to make an informed decision.
Speaking of election tools, we have a full toolbox for you here to get all the insights you need for the wild events surrounding this election, from our Bloc by Bloc series on America’s changing voting patterns and key factors that may sway the election, to a deep dive into the seven swing states that will determine the next president.
Also, please tune in to Ian Bremmer and Van Jones tomorrow on our new Substack channel (subscribe today) at 2:15 p.m. ET for a great chat about the drivers of the election so far.
We will also have election night coverage on our website and on Substack, where you can participate in the virtual watch party. And join us for our live X space at 11 a.m. ET on Nov. 6, even if there is no confirmed winner.
So while we don’t endorse endorsements, however you choose to vote, please join in the conversation. We keep it civil and fact-based, and we don’t think it is a crime to enjoy talking politics.
US election: America is at war with itself
In a powerful and candid address, Ian Bremmer delivered a sobering reflection on the state of democracy in the United States during his annual "State of the World" speech at the 2024 GZERO Summit Japan in Tokyo.
"My country, the United States, is today at war with itself," said Bremmer.
With the November 5th election on the horizon, Bremmer highlighted the fractures within the US political system, emphasizing the growing chasm between political parties, voters, and the institutions meant to uphold democracy. He further painted a grim picture of the post-election period, saying, "We are about to have an election whose outcome will be perceived as illegitimate by nearly half of the country."
He noted that tens of millions of Americans are disillusioned and convinced that their political system is broken. The stakes are high, and the larger issue is the growing perception among voters that their democracy is being "stolen" or "subverted." The result is a deeply polarized nation, where even after a president is eventually declared, a significant portion of the population will reject the legitimacy of the outcome, leading to political and social instability.
Click to watch Ian Bremmer’s analysis and his full 2024 "State of the World" speech.
- How Iran is messing with the US election ›
- The US election: Freedom on the ballot ›
- Bloc by Bloc: How the youth and senior votes will influence the US election ›
- US election campaigns head into the homestretch ›
- Ian Bremmer's State of the World 2024 ›
- US election: How secure is your vote? | Ian Explains - GZERO Media ›
- Top threats to US election security - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Bremmer on the 2024 US election ahead - GZERO Media ›
Supporters attend a rally for Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden, in New York, U.S., on Oct. 27, 2024.
Trump rallies in NYC, Harris hits Philly in star-powered final push
With the US election just eight days away, it’s crunch time for the presidential campaigns. Republican candidate Donald Trump headlined a rally Sunday night at Madison Square Garden in New York, a state that last backed a Republican in 1984. While the former president knows he's unlikely to win the Empire State outright, his event could boost local GOP candidates. Trump was accompanied by familiar allies like Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Rudy Giuliani.
The speeches all communicated a similar message: Trump’s support is underestimated, his followers are oppressed, and the system is rigged. “No fair system would elevate someone like Kamala Harris to a presidential nomination,” said Carlson.
But racial insults and a distasteful comment about Puerto Rico at the event from pro-Trump comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, host of the “Kill Tony” podcast, have led to a backlash, even from fellow Republicans.
Still, there was no shortage of support on the streets outside the arena, with lines stretching across multiple avenues and some supporters even camping overnight to get a good seat. “I’m here because of the high interest rates and securing the border,” Tom Miller, of Pennsylvania, told GZERO's Riley Callanan. “New York is going down the tube. There are lines down the block in Times Square of migrants that get to live in hotels for free,” complained Jay Murphy, 56, while Carol Harper, 43, of Fire Island, cautioned that “There’s already voter fraud happening in Pennsylvania.”
Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris was in The Keystone State, visiting a barbershop and a Puerto Rican restaurant in Philadelphia. Harris focused on mobilizing Black voters at Philadelphia’s Church of Christian Compassion, warning that if voters pick Trump, they’ll get a president “full of grievance … retribution and revenge.” On the same theme, Harris will be in Washington, DC, on Tuesday to deliver what her campaign calls her “closing argument,” speaking from the Ellipse, the grassy space adjacent to the National Mall where then-president Trump exhorted his supporters to march on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The stars are shining bright – but will they matter? Trump’s Sunday night event was set to feature Elon Musk, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, Hulk Hogan, and RFK Jr. As for Harris, after a week featuring appearances by both former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama, as well as singer Beyoncé, the vice president plans to visit North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on Wednesday with musical performances featuring Mumford & Sons. Trump will also make a stop in Wisconsin before heading to speak on Friday at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, the site of this year’s Republican National Convention.
Contributed reporting from Riley Callanan.
Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and her Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump, are seen in a combination of file photographs taken on the campaign trail in October.
Eagle Claw and the death of the October surprise
Is there an October surprise that might make or break a president?
The October surprise dates back to President Jimmy Carter, who turned 100 this month and, surprising many, managed to cast his vote for Kamala Harris.
During his 1980 campaign against Ronald Reagan, Carter believed a daring rescue of the 52 hostages that Iranian revolutionaries held after storming the American Embassy on Nov. 4, 1979, would turn things around.
So Carter launched Operation Eagle Claw. On April 24, 1980, eight helicopters and a C-130 plane secretly landed in the desert outside of Tehran to start the rescue operation. It was a colossal failure. Several choppers malfunctioned in a sandstorm and one crashed, killing eight US servicemen. Their bodies were later recovered by the Iranians and used in a sickening public display in Tehran.
Years later, I traveled to Atlanta, Georgia, to interview Carter, and he told me that, in his unequivocal view, had that helicopter not crashed, the hostages would have been rescued, and he would have won the election.
Still, even after Eagle Claw failed, the Reagan campaign feared an “October surprise,” where, at the very last moment, Carter would announce a dramatic arms-for-hostages deal with Iran. It never happened, and the hostages were released under Reagan, but since then, campaigns have braced for a late-breaking event that might change the course of an election.
There have been other examples of October surprises since then. In October 1992, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was indicted, derailing George H.W. Bush’s reelection bid. And, of course, in October 2016, FBI Director James Comey dropped the news that he was opening up an investigation into Hillary Clinton, helping Trump win that election.
Will there be an October surprise this year?
The answer is likely no, and that’s one of the biggest mysteries of this campaign: Why not?
First off, the most consequential surprises this year came much earlier than October — Biden was pushed out in favor of Harris, while Trump was convicted of 34 felonies and survived two assassination attempts. Few things can top those.
What about this week’s revelation that Trump’s former Chief of Staff John Kelly, a retired Marine general, alleges that Trump wanted to have generals like Hitler’s and that he’s an “authoritarian” who “admires people who are dictators”? The Trump campaign has denied this, but for all the press it’s getting, it’s hardly a surprise. Kelly and other former disgruntled Trump folks have long said all kinds of nasty things about the GOP nominee, and none of it has made a bit of difference to the campaign.
Trump remains slightly ahead in most national polls. Harris has run a solid, billion-dollar campaign, and while she can be vague and tends to serve up word-salad answers without any policy protein — as she did last night on CNN — Trump has had a far more ragged, rant-filled road, with significantly worse blunders, lies, and outbursts. And yet, it is still a coin toss, with the odds slightly favoring him.
That’s frustrating to Democrats, who think Trump has made a litany of disqualifying errors and statements, but none of them have stuck. Why not?
One reason may be that Trump’s main issues — when he stays on message — are the economy, immigration, and security, and those are proving to be more salient than the ones the Democrats focus on, such as democracy, abortion, and their record. They carry the weight of incumbency, and in 2024, that’s a drag.
A second, deeper reason is that Trump has become, essentially, surprise proof. He has so normalized personal character flaws and institutional distrust that it makes an October surprise impossible.
That merits a moment of reflection. The inherent assumption supporting an “October surprise” is that there are widely accepted conventions of behavior and social norms. When those are undermined or contradicted by a “surprise,” it will destroy a campaign. In past campaigns, that has been the exposure of lies, infidelities, corruption, a spelling error (the bar was so low for Dan Quayle), or a financial scandal. But we have had all of those in this run and … bupkis. Nothing moves. Harris might be more susceptible to a surprise because she is less well-known, but even her supporters don’t care about allegations of plagiarism or her policy flip-flops on fracking.
In 2024, the October surprise just doesn’t exist anymore. Polarization has so ossified the USA that partisans are shockproof. That may be a good thing as it means avoiding a cheap, manufactured scandal changing an election outcome, but it is also a sign that a healthy democracy is losing some of its early warning signals. Pain and surprise are signals to your body that something is wrong or threatening. It looks like today, the body politic feels no pain and, so, no surprise.
No matter what new story emerges in the final 12 days, don’t think for a moment it will make any difference. The biggest surprise will be on Nov. 5.
Bloc by Bloc: America’s Changing Voting Patterns
This GZERO 2024 election series looks at America’s changing voting patterns, bloc by bloc.
- Harris and Trump scramble to reach Latinos
- The Arab-American vote in the shadow of Oct. 7
- The gaping gender divide in the 2024 election
- Can Dems win back the working class?
- How the youth and senior votes will influence the US election (pre-Biden withdrawal)
- Biden and Trump fight over a changing “Latino Vote” (pre-Biden withdrawal)
- Trump gambles to woo Black voters
Ian Bremmer on the US election & crisis of democracy
With the US presidential election less than two weeks away, Ian Bremmer weighed in on who could come out on top in his "State of the World" speech at the 2024 GZERO Summit in Tokyo. Bremmer says the US faces a crisis of democracy, but who does he think will win the upcoming election? Watch to hear his prediction.
Click to watch Ian Bremmer’s analysis and his full 2024 "State of the World" speech.
- Ian Bremmer's State of the World 2024 ›
- State of the World: On the verge of fragmentation? ›
- State of the World with Ian Bremmer: December 2023 ›
- Ian Bremmer's 2024 State of the World speech: Watch ›
- US election: How secure is your vote? | Ian Explains - GZERO Media ›
- US election security and the threats of foreign interference: CISA Director Jen Easterly discusses - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Bremmer & Van Jones on instability & the US election - GZERO Media ›
- US election disinformation: How myths like non-citizen voting erode public trust - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: The State of the World in 2024 with Ian Bremmer - GZERO Media ›
- US Election 2024: Map the Vote! - GZERO Media ›
- Europe's reaction to US election win: gloom and despair - GZERO Media ›