It is an exhilarating experience to be in one of the most pivotal states in the U.S.—Michigan, one of the seven key swing states that, alongside Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina, will shape the outcome of the presidential election, the future of America, and, by extension, the world. Swing states are crucial because Democratic (blue) states control 180 electoral votes, while Republican (red) states outside the swing states hold 186. Both parties are likely to retain their blue and red strongholds in the upcoming election, which is just two days away (November 5, 2024). As a result, the fate of both Democrats and Republicans hinges on these swing states, which hold the key to their success or failure.
The most impactful part of this experience has been the healthy and objective discussions among canvassers and with voters at their doorsteps. Canvassing door-to-door, particularly for me, was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to truly understand the sentiments of everyday people, not the elites in their luxurious homes. These doorstep interactions with various segments and races revealed distinct preferences.
Among Michigan’s population of 10,077,331, which is 73.9% white, I observed two notable trends. White men overwhelmingly support Mr. Trump, with only a few exceptions. On the other hand, white women are more divided, with many supporting Kamala Harris due to her stance on women’s reproductive rights, particularly the right to choose regarding abortion. Meanwhile, the Black population, making up 13.7% of the state’s population, is almost entirely in favor of Harris.
White Trump supporters, at their core, are driven by racial concerns, opposing immigration and harboring a deep desire to rid the country of what they see as the scourge of immigration.
Asian communities, particularly those from South Asia, are also split. Many are hesitant to openly express their political preferences, but when they do, they tend to favor Harris. However, younger South Asians, especially second-generation immigrants, show some support for Trump, citing concerns about the economy and job layoffs. One young Bangladeshi-American I spoke to mentioned he supports Trump because, during the previous Democratic administration, most of the men in his family were unemployed.
Interestingly, when asked about the main issue or problem in the upcoming elections, many respondents replied that “everything is a problem.” They expressed a general dissatisfaction, feeling that nothing is right and that everything needs to be realigned with democratic values, emphasizing civility, forgiveness, and compassion for each other irrespective of creed, color or race.
A significant number of respondents voiced their dislike for both Trump and Harris, noting that candidates often promise paradise before the election, but once in power, they forget those promises and focus on enjoying the perks of power and wealth, which they believe was the primary motivation behind running for office.
These conversations reminded me of similar sentiments often expressed by people in my own country, where there’s a shared frustration with political leaders who fail to deliver on their promises once they assume power.
During the group discussion, another hotly debated point was the use of divisive election rhetoric. Many noted that, despite knowing their slogans and rhetoric against races, immigrants, and opponents are irrational, illogical, and contrary to the norms of decency, political leaders continue to use them. They are aware that such rhetoric creates deep divisions and hatred among different racial groups, yet they inject this hateful “virus” purposefully to stir emotions, create frenzy, and push people toward extremist attitudes. The belief is that this tactic will solidify support among less-educated and racially biased voters, whose strong sentiments against their opponents will translate into votes.
According to most individuals in the discussion, this is a narrow and parochial approach, which they view as highly detrimental to the security, safety, and well-being of the American people. Interestingly, this growing sense of insecurity has even permeated Working America, the agency conducting door-to-door surveys on behalf of the Democrats. The agency has had to hire private security to protect its operations and personnel, highlighting the increased risks in the current political climate.
When it comes to election predictions, numerous surveys and polls have been conducted by various agencies and institutions, resulting in different and sometimes conflicting outcomes, making the prediction process even more complex. Having served in government roles in Pakistan, assisting ministers and even the President, I have insight into the mechanisms behind such surveys.
I quickly realized that during elections, poll-conducting agencies are often driven by profit. Political parties hire these agencies, either directly or through third parties, and, in exchange for payment, results that favor the hiring party are often injected into the media to create the perception of their widespread popularity.
For instance, according to “FiveThirtyEight”, Harris leads with 48.0% compared to Trump’s 46.8%, a margin of 1.2 percentage points. Similarly, “RealClearPolitics” shows Harris ahead by 4 points in a CBS News poll and by 5 points in an NBC News poll.
According to the New York Post analysis, recent polls show Trump leading Harris. In Pennsylvania, Trump is predicted to be ahead by 48% to 47%; in Michigan, he leads 48% to 47%. In Arizona, Trump holds a 48% to 46% lead, and in Georgia, he leads 48% to 46%. However, Marist College finds Harris ahead by 3 points in Michigan, 2 points in Pennsylvania, and 2 points in Wisconsin. Additionally, the Australian Report states that national polls show Trump slightly ahead of Harris, with a poll average of 48.4% to 48.3%.
These diverse polling results reflect how polls can vary, possibly influenced by the interests of those funding the surveys, raising concerns about their objectivity and accuracy.
In Pakistan, we are familiar with how, seemingly overnight, the tide begins to turn in favor of a particular political party once the establishment has decided to install it in power as their preferred choice. Similarly, in the U.S., it appears that the election winds are now blowing in favor of Kamala Harris—not necessarily because people have deep faith in her or feel particularly passionate about her candidacy, but rather to prevent Donald Trump from returning to power. Trump, who former Democratic President Bill Clinton aptly described as “more unhinged” than he was during the 2016 elections, is seen by many as a greater risk, and this sentiment seems to be driving support for Harris.
