At long last, it seems, the 2016 presidential election cycle is coming to its natural end. Rivers of words, forests of newsprint, and much Internet bandwidth has been expended in following the twists and turns in the epic confrontation between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump -- Trump himself has created a cottage industry around his incessant tweets. Many a pundit in every country has expounded (some at great length) about the fissures which have opened up in American society, bemoaning what they see as an exponential increase in vitriolic hyper partisanship. Whomever wins, an argument goes, will inherit a poisoned chalice of political gridlock as divided government between the executive and legislative branches will continue.
Yet, on election eve, it is still possible to feel a surprising level of serenity about the electoral outcome. Not because one has downed a surfeit of Scotch or painkillers, but because, when taken in its proper strategic context, the election has validated, rather than compromised, the American political system. Though messy, convoluted, and confusing (not to mention very, very long - especially compared to parliamentary democracies) this is the way elections in the US are supposed to work.
The first caucus took place in Iowa on Feb 1st, followed closely by the New Hampshire primary on February 9th, yet the kickoff to the campaign season was last year, with all the announced and would-be and wannabe candidates crisscrossing the country, making thinly-veiled ‘exploratory visits’ to the early voting states, field testing speeches, messaging, attack lines, sound bites and one liners. And then, of course, was the need for them to fundraise, fundraise, and, in their spare time, fundraise. Though this last aspect is lamentable for its excessive importance in the running of truly national campaigns, the race for money to fuel outsized ambitions is another component of a process that tests a candidate’s toughness.
Toughness is almost as important as temperament for a job that is frequently spoken of a being too much for any one person to handle. It’s one thing to wake up every morning, stare at the mirror and think, “Why not me?” but it’s another entirely to spend eighteen months (or more) of one’s life, in all kinds of inclement weather, eating often execrable food, kissing babies, shaking hands till fingers bleed, sleeping in too many dusty, or dank anonymous hotel rooms to count, making speeches to sparse crowds while getting hoarser with each word, and asking people to fork over any form of cash (and lots of it). Add to that having to suffer through the slings and arrows of outrageous rumours, jibes from sarcastic, jaded reporters and the occasional security threat from crazies causes one to wonder how any intelligent human being could subject themselves to such indignities.
Elections in America are not only about the poetry, the beautifully written and delivered speeches, the soaring, inspirational conjuring of “shining cities on a hill,” or the summoning of lofty ideals expressed through sheer charismatic presence. They are also very much about the prose, the grind of policy that is necessary but few people actually care about, the personal attacks, the vicious, searing debate and yes, even the venal mudslinging. By the end of the primary process we are meant to have two champions representing different parties, each a bit bloodied, each a bit humbled, but of whom we have their measure. If the party standard bearers are strong enough to survive an arduous run, then they just might be able to do the job.
There is certainly nothing effete about Clinton or Trump.
Robotic in public though she may be, more at ease with the minutiae of policy than galvanizing people through “Yes We Can!” catchphrases, Clinton seems at times to have been around public life as long as the Washington monument. Over the years she has repeatedly impressed with her detailed command of the issues, relentless ambition, and sheer determination to outlast all of her opponents. Be it Whitewater, Ken Starr, Monica Lewinsky, Benghazi, or emailgate, the former First Lady is living testament to the doctrine that hard work will get one through anything. She puts her head down, pushes back her shoulders and powers right through issues that would have others rending their garments. Sheer determination, focus, stoicism, and relentless iron discipline are her salient traits. Eyes on the prize, should be her motto. Her Secret Service codename should be ‘Ice Queen.’
For his part, win or lose, Trump has written (or shouted) himself into the history books. Derided at first for being comical, self-contradictory and a shallow reality TV star (what part of that description is NOT stating the obvious?), he overwhelmed his primary challengers with brassy willpower, Niagara Falls-like verbosity and a shield of bluster so in-your-face that his well-educated, more civil opponents found themselves outwitted and transformed into nothing more than mere props for a reality show about Trump's Excellent Adventure. Without Republican establishment support, a conventional campaign structure, and anything approaching a plausible ground game, he captured the nomination, ended the Bush presidential dynasty, and came within a hair’s breadth of unseating Clinton from her life’s ambition. He is a veritable force of nature who spoke many truths, laid bare sacred cows, exposed political correctness and highlighted media bias. Had he been more disciplined and on-message, balancing his more outrageous comments with a plausible degree of gravitas, Trump might just be measuring the drapes on the Oval Office to fit his gold-plated desk.
Never apologize, never surrender, should be his motto. “Steamroller” his codename.
Both candidates also have had their dark sides exposed for all the world to behold. Hers is over-secrecy and a tendency to shade the truth in lawyerly language. Excessive caution has led her to not communicate much in the mistaken belief that if she keeps herself and her secrets close, no one can hurt her. This has instead rebounded on her in multiple instances where her propensity for obfuscation caused opponents, press and the merely curious to wonder at why she was being so evasive. This is compounded by her remarkable tin ear when it comes to being proactive in lancing the boil of slow-burning crises before they take on lives of their own.
Trump's foibles are those of a man who is essentially insecure, desperate for self-validation - but more so - desperate for attention to the point where stream of consciousness riffs substitute for policy pronouncements. He has been too generous with his mouth, spewing forth such a torrent of rancor, invective and outright misrepresentations that a trail of division and discord has been left that will outlast his business empire.
Yet again, essential truths are revealed in such a public baring of foibles and hubris. Everything - or at least the worse stuff - is on the table. The electorate is under no illusions about either candidate. If a definition of democracy is knowing well the saints or devils one votes for, then better that the truth be self-evident before a winner takes office. Very few political systems are quite so transparent. Spectacles may result, but it is often the price of intentional, or inadvertent, disclosure.
Who will win?
In the final analysis, the election will turn on a most intangible trait, one that does not get a lot of coverage from the foreign press: Americans are, at their essence, a remarkably optimistic people. It is this quality that is interwoven in the tapestry of their history, the threads of which can be seen when: a small collection of renegade colonies dared to declare independence from the British Empire; allowed George Washington to persevere during the dark days at Valley Forge; Lincoln to hold the Union together, and the people of New York to strengthen their resolve after 9/11. It is the same force that propelled an inexperienced young senator with a funny name and dark coloured skin to the presidency in 2008.
Their systems of government and electoral contests, while appearing occasionally baffling to outsiders, strip away artifice and pretentiousness. The Republic will survive a President Clinton or a President Trump. But what, in the end, will clinch the deal, is the American polity’s tendency in close elections or contests where neither candidate is much loved, to default to their innate persistence of hope.
That means, Americans will likely wake up on November 9th, to Hillary Rodham Clinton as their President. She is at least using the language of hope as opposed to Trump, who promises a duel of the fates if he either wins or loses. Americans will hope that her experience translates into managerial competence.
Postscript:
Predicting election results is a fool's game, and this one in particular, is a bit harder than most. Despite all the things he has said, and the amount of negative coverage he has been pummeled with, Donald Trump has never consistently dropped below 40% of those stating they are likely to vote. That gives him about 164 - 190 electoral votes, insufficient to attain the 270 electoral votes necessary to win. This constitutes the Republican base, states they have traditionally (since 1980) carried. He needs to attain approximately 43% - 45% of those who vote (remember, Gary Johnson is polling c. 5-6% and Jill Stein at 3% nationally) as well as carry a combination of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin. Polls show he is behind in Pennsylvania and Michigan, neck and neck with Clinton in Ohio, North Carolina and Florida, so victory is possible for him.
Clinton's path is easier, She has most of the biggest states in her column, including California, New York and Illinois, which when combined with other traditional Democratic states puts her starting electoral vote count at about 204. She therefore needs to win three of the battlegrounds outlined in the previous paragraph to come very close to the magic 270 and four to clinch it.
The final X factor is not weather, or even turnout, though those are important too. That is, will this be like 1976, which was a cliffhanger (Carter 297 electoral votes vs Ford 240) or, will people, locked inside their voting booths make an impetuous decision to go with Clinton, and deliver her an electoral landslide of 380 to 400 plus electoral votes? A week ago this seemed possible. After the FBI emailgate fiasco, those odds have lengthened.
Likely Result: Clinton 290 - 350 electoral votes, 46 - 49% of the popular vote
Trump 185 - 245 electoral votes, 42% - 45% of the popular vote