How ugly could the US election get?

Former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles in Rancho Palos Verdes, California

(Image credit: ROBYN BECK / Contributor)

published 23 September 2024

“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.

Subscribe to MoneyWeek

Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE

Get 6 issues free

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/mw70aro6gl1676370748.jpg

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

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.

Matthew graduated from the University of Durham in 2004; he then gained an MSc, followed by a PhD at the London School of Economics.

He has previously written for a wide range of publications, including the Guardian and the Economist, and also helped to run a newsletter on terrorism. He has spent time at Lehman Brothers, Citigroup and the consultancy Lombard Street Research.

Matthew is the author of Superinvestors: Lessons from the greatest investors in history, published by Harriman House, which has been translated into several languages. His second book, Investing Explained: The Accessible Guide to Building an Investment Portfolio, is published by Kogan Page.

As senior writer, he writes the shares and politics & economics pages, as well as weekly Blowing It and Great Frauds in History columns He also writes a fortnightly reviews page and trading tips, as well as regular cover stories and multi-page investment focus features.

Follow Matthew on Twitter: @DrMatthewPartri