As the election roller coaster barrels on, the Harris campaign has lost some steam. Popular enthusiasm once drove the campaign to new heights and helped raise over $1 billion. Now Harris is struggling to win over undecided votes and is losing support among sectors that have previously strongly backed Democrats — such as Black and Latino men. After riding high on “vibes” after she replaced Biden and generated a huge wave of enthusiasm, Harris has failed to put forward a compelling vision for a country that is contending with inflation, natural disasters, and an increasingly unstable international situation that includes foreign conflicts that many Americans don’t want to be involved in.

In this context, Trump has repositioned himself to potentially win the election. Every poll shows an incredibly tight race in which either candidate can emerge as the winner. It will all come down to a handful of swing states. In this context, we must have as precise an analysis as possible of the situation and think towards what might happen after the election and what our response to the situation needs to be.

A Squandered Honeymoon for Harris
Kamala Harris burst into the race after Biden’s crisis forced him off the ticket. A change in the presidential nominee this late in the process is a huge anomaly that has rendered her entire campaign somewhat experimental. She had an outstanding honeymoon that peaked right after the presidential debate. Harris’s main campaign committee, Harris for President, raised $221.8 million in September. She has another $187.5 million in cash on hand. These figures don’t include money raised by other pro-Harris PACs. Harris’s strong debate performance kept up the campaign’s momentum; she even secured an endorsement from Taylor Swift and other prominent figures, including several high-profile Republicans like Dick Cheney.

A few weeks later, enthusiasm has faded as the shortcomings of Harris and the Democrats have come to the fore. The Democrats are coming to the election discredited, facing an electorate that is weary with declining living conditions, the advance of the Far Right, and the stripping of democratic rights. Weighing on the shoulders of Harris is the legacy of Biden, who, despite the U.S. economy’s recovery after the pandemic, is identified as the president of high inflation — a 25 percent increase in the cost of goods is still hitting the pockets of the working class. Biden also presided over the chaotic exit from Afghanistan and the genocide in Gaza, neither of which helps his case.

In the early days of Harris’s presidential campaign, many were excited that she could distance herself from Biden and thus generate expectations of real change. But in interviews, Harris has struggled to differentiate herself from Biden — she told the View hosts, for example, that she couldn’t think of anything she’d have done differently. And, though she insists that her administration wouldn’t just be another four years of Biden, the dead weight of the Biden presidency is dragging her chances down.

Another challenge to the Democrats is opposition to the genocide in Palestine, which many are blaming on the Biden administration. As the genocide continues and Israel has expanded its aggression to Lebanon, it is clear that the Democrats — including Harris — are willing to stand behind this slaughter and continue arming Israel, even if they say they want a ceasefire. This has generated much anger among Arab Americans and the youth. These voters might very well sit out the election or cast a protest vote against Harris.

This is a specific danger in Michigan — a key swing state — as well as in other states where the Democrats are relying on a large turnout. In addition, the Democrats have become the party that most strongly backs continued funding for the war in Ukraine, an issue that is divisive among the U.S. public.

In reality, Harris has distanced herself from Biden from the right, not the left. Her electoral campaign, unlike Biden’s, does not emphasize presenting the vice president as a friend to unions and the environment. She has embraced the Trumpist program on immigration and has avoided any “woke” gestures (such as explicit support for trans rights) that Trump could use against her. Harris’s strength lies in her substantial support from Big Capital, and she has promised to codify abortion rights if she wins — which is one reason that more women support her than men.

Trump’s Authoritarianism and Expanding Base
Trump, on the other hand, enjoys the disproportionate support of men. There are some psychological explanations for this (such as Trump’s macho persona) and sociopolitical ones (a reactionary backlash to the Me Too movement). But the New York Times podcast the Daily posed a different analysis in a recent episode. Interviewing young men voting for Trump — a historical break from the way young voters in general have traditionally voted — the interviewers discover a through line: these young men are concerned about their ability to be a breadwinner for their families. These economic concerns are driving their support for Trump. Indeed, the widely felt idea that Trump is better on the economy than Harris is winning a good portion of voters over to Trump. This perception, while seemingly untrue from a traditional economic perspective, is understandable given the experience that the masses have had with the Biden administration: an experience marked by rising inflation and flat wages. Neither candidate has a plan for alleviating these problems, but, as a member of the sitting administration, Harris faces more scrutiny and criticism. Trump can woo voters by pointing to the relatively more prosperous years under his leadership.

Another important issue is the Biden administration’s shift to the right on immigration. This is, in part, a result of the Democratic Party’s normalizing and embracing of anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy. The party has adapted to the Trumpist notion that immigration must be severely limited. The much-touted “toughest border bill in history,” which Harris is constantly voicing her support for, is an example of this shift. In the context of inflation, immigrants are an effective scapegoat for problems like rising housing costs. Now that both parties are trying to appear tough on immigration, it only makes sense that voters who are increasingly wary of immigration are drifting to the candidate who has, essentially, staked his whole career on demonizing immigrants.

In the battle for the working class in this election, the Trump/Vance ticket has worked especially hard, as Vance has presented himself — in the debate and elsewhere — as a child of the working class. According to this framing, he understands their concerns better than other politicians who are out of touch. Trump has joined in, appealing to the working class with his recent stunt “working” at McDonald’s and his “no tax on tips” proposal aimed at precarious workers. This strategy has been key to the Trump campaign: trying to win over working-class voters, both union and nonunion.

In addition, Trump’s hollow anti-war rhetoric has been picked up and used as a strong selling point to voters who are fed up with the United States’ foreign engagements, most notably in Ukraine. He is returning to a profile that won the day for him in 2016 — that he’s the guy who can solve all these issues, he’s the “great deal maker,” he’s an outsider, the establishment is against him, and that his “America First” policies will resolve all problems. In this branding exercise, Trump and his allies have stayed on message, blaming all they can on immigrants and the Biden administration. Even the recent devastation of Hurricane Helene in western North Carolina was turned into a chance to trash-talk immigrants. Trump said at an event in North Carolina that “you didn’t get the proper support from this administration — they spent their money on illegal migrants.”

Voters’ shift to the right on immigration has gone hand in hand with an expansion of Trump’s base. We can see this in states like New York, where Trump is trailing by only half of what he lost to Biden in 2020. After four years of Biden, Trumpism is no longer a dirty word. Many undecideds who are somewhat “nonpartisan” are breaking for Trump. Sectors of the Black and Latinx communities — specifically men — are joining in Trump’s coalition. In this sense, Trump has a stronger and more expanded base than he did in 2020. This has occurred, in part, because Biden and the Democrats have nothing to offer the working class, were unable to resolve polarization, moved to the right themselves, and even fostered the Far Right within the Republican Party. Thus, the general move to the right is a result not only of Trump’s appeal but also of the Democrats’ failures and shifts. This right-wing shift is incredibly worrying and demands a response from the working class and oppressed who will be hit hardest by Trump’s reactionary and racist policies.

Indeed, Trump has been radicalizing his rhetoric around both immigrants and the Left — talking about using the U.S. military against “the enemy within.” Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, recently said that “the former president is in the far-right area, he’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators — he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.” Now, whether Trump meets the more precise political-economic definition of a fascist is a complex question that is too big to discuss here. What we can say, though, is that Kelly is correct that Trump is far-right and wants to take more authoritarian measures. But let’s not forget that the people who sent the cops to break up encampments and brutalize students were usually Democrats. The Democrats, too, are moving toward an increased authoritarianism (though not as blatantly and quickly as Trump is). This is because the state needs authoritarianism to keep the boiling contradictions of the current moment under control. As the movement for Palestine has demonstrated, the stick has begun to get more use than the carrot, and Democrats are working together with university authorities to harshly repress the student movement.

Neither Harris nor Trump: The Vicissitudes of the Election and the Fight for a United Front
It is impossible to predict the election’s outcome, since many factors are at play and the international and domestic situation are intertwined amid global turmoil. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows that 75 percent of voters believe that if Trump wins the election, Harris and the Democrats will concede, and that if Harris wins the election, Trump will contest. “Nearly twice as many Harris supporters (61 percent) as Trump supporters (32 percent) say, if their candidate loses next month, it is very important for them to acknowledge the opposing candidate as the legitimate president,” according to Pew.

Even though one of the Democrats’ strategies is to scare voters with the specter of January 6, the general feeling is that this election could lead to political violence. According to the Pew Research Center survey, 60 percent of voters say the threat of violence against political leaders and their families is a major problem.

Trump’s “Stop the Steal” protests, which culminated in the assault on the Capitol, opened a historic institutional and political crisis for the bipartisan regime. Biden, however, was able to build up a united front against the threat to American “democracy.” Analysts fear that this year may be different.

As Rebecca Balhaus and Mariah Timms from the Wall Street Journal argue,

Next month will likely play out differently if Trump loses again. The former president and his allies have spent the last four years laying the groundwork for a more organized, better funded and far broader effort to contest the outcome — a Stop the Steal 2.0 — if the vote doesn’t go his way.

A secretive network of GOP donors and conservative billionaires have fueled the effort, giving more than $140 million to nearly 50 loosely connected groups that work on what they call election integrity, according to a Wall Street Journal review of Federal Election Commission filings, tax filings and other records. Among the donors are organizations linked to Wisconsin billionaires Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein and Hobby Lobby founder David Green.

All this is to say: if Kamala Harris wins the election, the election will likely be challenged in court, along with street demonstrations whose character we cannot predict. On Election Day, MAGA supporters might try to intimidate minority voters and prevent them from voting. If Trump wins, the Democratic Party will likely concede. If this is the case, the party of the donkeys will suffer a profound defeat that it will blame on its progressive wing, the movement for Palestine, or Jill Stein. But the blame for any defeat will rest on the Democrats’ shoulders alone: the party is the graveyard of progressive social demands, and broad sectors of the working class, the middle classes, and the oppressed now understand this.

We are in an unstable interregnum, but we should not sit by passively, reading polls and worrying. Rather, we need to start building our forces now to organize against whoever wins the election. Both candidates promise more funding of genocide, more attacks on immigrants, more bending of the knee to capital. Trump additionally promises greater repression — just look at his chilling “enemy within” comments and his threats to use the military against “radical leftists” — and more attacks on the specially oppressed and labor. We cannot be caught unprepared for these attacks. For example, the need to fight to protect immigrants remains urgent no matter who takes power in January, and we need to be ready to resist these attacks with all our might.

It is a difficult moment in the national situation. The hypocrisy and true interests of the Democratic Party have been laid bare for all to see, and the Trumpist Far Right marches on. We must resist the Democrats while also fighting, with all our strength, the rise of Trump and the Far Right. To do this, we need a united front made up of our unions and social movement organizations that organize independently of the Democratic Party. We need to bring together the movement for Palestine and the new labor movement and other important social movements to fight both Trump and Harris with one fist, no matter who wins. Forming this united front will not necessarily be easy, and we will likely have to use self-organization from the bottom up to impose a united front on the leaders of unions and social movement organizations. This united front should be organized from the grassroots with assemblies, open to participants of whatever tendency, so that the different political wings and organizations inside the united front, along with independents, can share their perspectives and argue for the way forward.

We cannot give the Democratic Party our support, and we must not dismiss the real threats that Trump poses. Whoever wins, we will need to fight to protect our rights and win our demands. Hopefully from this united front, a new political party can emerge. A party of workers and the oppressed that fights for socialism. The need to build a political alternative to the current parties is paramount, but so is the fight in the here and now. So we must join these two goals together and build the united front with our politics open and our slogans clear. The vanguard and the socialist Left must embrace a revolutionary program and join together to lay the foundation for a new political party of the working class — one that raises high the banner of socialism.