“As if there hadn’t been enough drama in America, Donald Trump has survived another assassination attempt,” says Freddy Gray in The Spectator. The attempted killing of the former president at his golf course “was not nearly as threatening or deadly as the shooting nine weeks ago in Butler, Pennsylvania”, but it could still prove to be a “major moment” in the presidential campaign. It will remind voters of his “narrow escape” in Pennsylvania and of the fact that there are people who still want him dead, which might boost support among his backers and the undecided.
Trump won sympathy for his “conciliatory” tone after the shooting in July, says Rozina Sabur in The Telegraph. But this time he has said that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden’s rhetoric are to blame for creating an atmosphere of hatred and distrust. This is ironic coming from Trump, who is known for his ad hominem attacks on his opponents, but it’s also a “strategic error”. His claim may resonate with his ardent supporters, but it risks alienating the moderate swing voters who Trump must reach if he is to prevail in November.
What are the chances of a post-election war?
Let’s just be thankful he escaped unharmed, says Simon Tisdall in The Guardian. If Trump had been killed or suffered serious injury, that would not only be a personal tragedy for him and his family but would also throw the November presidential election into “utter confusion” and probably lead to “violent disorder”. The fringes of American society are now “sick with gun violence, schism and hate” and there are “real, justified fears” for the safety of Trump and J.D. Vance, as well as for Harris, Biden and Tim Walz.
MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
The “obvious but chilling possibility” that a candidate in the US presidential election could be seriously harmed or even killed isn’t the only concerning aspect of this election, says Daniel Finkelstein in The Times.
A few past elections, most notably in 1960 and 2000, have ended up with the losing candidate coming close enough to consider contesting the result. In the 2000 election, Al Gore eventually accepted the decision of the Supreme Court to stop the recount and honourably conceded. Richard Nixon did the same in 1960. But can anyone imagine that happening after this election? A result as close as that of 2000 is possible, but it’s hard to see either Trump or the Democrats gracefully accepting a loss.
How ugly could it get? The signs are not good, says The Economist. Even without Trump on the ballot paper, US elections are “drawn out and complex”, and “tend to invite legal challenges”. They “demand patience and trust”. Yet those qualities are in ever shorter supply in today’s America, a situation not helped by Trump’s claim that the last election was stolen from him.
Polls suggest the result will be tight, and Trump and his party are “gearing up to wage the post-election war a second time”. Worryingly, about 20% of American adults say they are open to the possibility of using violence for political ends. America will still see a peaceful transfer of power in 2025. But that is “a minimal definition of democratic success”. Voters need to believe that the process is fair and can be trusted, and accept the result.
This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.
Related stories
-
Inheritance tax pension reforms will delay payments to grieving families and the taxmanThe government is pressing ahead with plans to charge inheritance tax on pensions but there are warnings that it will be harder for executors to administer an estate and pay HMRC
-
More than a million pensioners set to be hit by tax on savings accountsA combination of higher interest rates and frozen tax thresholds is dragging more people into paying tax on their cash savings
-
Are venture-capital trusts worth investing in?Venture-capital trusts are a tax-efficient way to invest in early-stage companies. But are they worth the risk?
-
'It’s time to close the British steel industry'Opinion The price tag on British steel is just too high. It's time for Labour to make a grown-up decision and close down the industry, says Matthew Lynn
-
Last orders: can UK pubs be saved?Pubs in Britain are closing at the rate of one a day, continuing and accelerating a long-term downward trend. Why? And can anything be done to save them?
-
David Ellison: America's new media mogulDavid Ellison is building a mighty new force in old and new media. Critics worry that he will prove to be a Trumpian patsy. Is that fair?
-
How Next defied the odds and positioned itself as a British high-street stapleNext rose from a near-death experience and now thrives as a high-street staple. What's driving its success – and should you invest in the retailer?
-
Why investors should avoid market monomaniaOpinion Today’s overwhelming focus on US markets leaves investors guessing about opportunities and risks elsewhere
-
Can Rachel Reeves save the City?Opinion Chancellor Rachel Reeves is mulling a tax cut, which would be welcome – but it’s nowhere near enough, says Matthew Lynn
-
Global investors have overlooked the top innovators in emerging marketsOpinion Carlos Hardenberg, portfolio manager, Mobius Investment Trust, highlights three emerging market stocks where he’d put his money
