With a few days to the November 5, 2024  U.S. presidential election, the tempo of the campaign  has reached fever pitch, with the two candidates, Vice-President Kamala Harris ( Democrat )  and former president, Donald Trump  (Republican) in a dead run to the finish line. The final national New York Times/Siena  poll, published on 25 October 2024, had the two candidates deadlocked at 48% to 48%  for the popular vote.  Aggregate of national polls also project the election as neck-to-neck , with the two candidates tied at 48%, making it a cliff-hanger.

Both candidates have carried the electoral battle to the battleground states which oscillate in their voting pattern  between the two parties, states whose votes can swing the election either way.  About 10 states are considered swing states ,  with seven of them – Michigan  15, Wisconsin 10, Pennsylvania 19, Georgia 16, North Carolina 16, Nevada 6, and Arizona 11, with a total of 91 electoral college votes – being of focal attention  in this race.  In 2008, former President Barrack  Obama won in eight of the states, Trump  took Michigan, Wisconsin  and Pennsylvania  in 2016 to clinch the presidency while in the 2020  election, Biden not only took back the three states  but also wrestled Arizona and Georgia  from Trump,  on his way to The White House.  

Two major issues have dominated the 2024 presidential election campaign , the economy and immigration with issues of abortion, Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT)  and foreign policy taking second place.  The economy , under the Biden/Harris administration had experienced high inflation rate  and consequent higher cost of living felt by all. Trump highlights the improved economy under his administration before the advent of COVID-19, the global pandemic  that ravaged the world economy. Trump plans to use tariff on imports to raise revenue and as well protect local industries. Harris is for taxing the rich to generate revenue but laissez  faire on  unbridled imports, in spite of its  consequent drag on the U.S. economy, a manifestation of Democrats  Father Christmas disposition to making America a liberal market for imports.

On immigration,  while Trump  is not opposed to legal migration, he pledges  to stop the tidal wave of illegal immigrants from south America on its southern border and  to deport illegal immigrants. According to him,  illegal immigrants are polluting American way of life and taking the jobs of Americans.  Some dub this a racist agenda but it resonates well with Trump constituency.  Democrats are liberal on immigration and not committed  to forceful  removal of illegal immigrants, a stand that earns Democrats 65 % of Latino votes in southern U.S. States .

The issues of abortion  and LGBT  are not just election  issues but are matters which have deeply polarized America  to the extent that die hard conservatives have fire-bombed abortion clinics and launched murderous attacks on gay and lesbian  gatherings. Trump is opposed to LGBT and  an indiscriminate,  free for all abortion. Democrats, and particularly Kamala Harris, celebrate  LGBTs with Harris  insisting they  should be allowed to flaunt their sexual preferences !! She is a disciple of  Barrack Obama,  the evangelist for Gays and Lesbians,  who had threatened African countries which  enacted anti-Gay laws with sanctions !!! The audacity of it all.  The Democratic candidate’s vocal stand on LGBT has its cost in votes.

Foreign  policy may be a muted election issue but it had in recent times crept into  American public consciousness  with Israel’s genocidal war against Hamas in Gaza for the Palestinian group’s October 7, 2023 incursion into Israel which left about 1200 Israelis dead and over 200 abducted and being held hostage. However, Israeli military killing over 40,000 Palestinians in its one year battle with Hamas,  has prompted unprecedented outrage  and demonstrations across  America, especially on university campuses,  against Israel and the Biden/Harris administration for its refusal to pressure Israel to agree to a ceasefire.  Vice President Harris risks loss of votes in this regard , particularly  in  the  crucial  swing state of Michigan with an estimated 200,000  Arab-American population.  On Europe, while Trump regards the Russia-Ukraine war as avoidable and pledged to bring it to resolution if elected, the Biden/Harris government  is inclined to perpetuating the war, recently pledging additional $20 billion military package to embattled President Volodymyr  Zelensky of Ukraine.  This runs counter to emergent American mood against avoidable war and its cost to American tax payers. The anti-war voters will be a loss to  Harris. These seemingly little losses of votes for Kamala can become significant  in tight election contests where razor-thin victory vote margins can win bountiful electoral votes. For instance, in the 2008 presidential election between senator John McCain ( Republican ) and senator Barrack Obama ( Democrat ) McCain  narrowly won Arizona state  with just 3, 903 votes out 2,887,725 votes cast  in that election !

TRUMP AND UPSURGE IN VOTER TURNOUT: Trump’s  foray into  presidential election contest in 2016 as an unconventional outsider, as against the deodorized correctness of professional politicians,  literally took the political Establishment by storm,  and electrifying  the electorate. In the 2016 presidential election between Trump and former U.S. Secretary of State , Hillary Clinton, voter turnout was 136,787,187 ( 59.2%)  as against  129,139,997 ( 58.0%)  in 2012 , an increase  of  7.6 million voters.  By the 2020  election that pitted President Trump against  former Vice President Joe Biden,  the stakes got higher and so was the surge in  voter turnout, with 158,429,631 voters ( 66.8%) casting their ballot , an increase of a record   21.6 million voters over the 2016 turnout !  The turnout promises to be higher again in 2024.

THE BIG BUCKS FACTOR: Top billionaires, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Elon Musk have waded into the presidential contest. Gates and Buffett were one time  the richest men in the world  while Musk is the current richest man in the world.  Bill Gates donated $50 million to a  pro- Harris non profit organisation while Buffett who had endorsed Presidents Barrack Obama and Joe Biden has decided this time  around not to endorse any candidate, which, by inference, meant non support for Kamala Harris. On his part, Musk has not  only donated $75  million in support of a  Political Action Committee (PAC)  engaged in getting out the vote for Trump, particularly in the swing states, he has been actively engaged in political election campaigns with the Republican candidate.

HARRIS LOSES MAJOR MEDIA ENDORSEMENTS: Contrary to what has become a contentious media practice of endorsing presidential candidates, owners of major newspapers have stopped planned endorsements of Harris in this election cycle.  These newspapers include The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, America’s largest newspaper chain, The Chicago Tribune  and Minnesota  Star Tribune.  Gannett, owners of USA Today, in announcing the stepping down of Harris  endorsement stated  : “ our public service is to provide readers  with facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions”. For decades, American media had brazenly violated  media code of ethics  which demands fairness,  accuracy and non partisanship in media content.

PROGNOSIS: Kamala Harris brought sunshine charm, infectious laughter and irrepressible energy into the 2024 American presidential election campaigns, that almost rattled Trump., and  which gave her an  initial momentum. However, this momentum  has since waned.  That  former President Obama had to complain that Black American men are not enthusiastic enough about Harris’s presidential bid  is indicative that she may not get the  huge Black American block vote of 87%  given to  Democratic presidential candidate Biden in the 2020 election. Her ardent advocacy for gays and lesbians will be another significant vote loss. During the campaign, Harris could not defend the administration’s performance record on the economy, but would rather launch into what she would do, if elected.  So, her biggest albatross is a national economy that is in the doldrums and which remains a big concern for the electorate who will be inclined to vote for a change in government for a new economic direction.  The omens are, therefore, dicey for Kamala Harris.

As for Trump, he faces a formidable battle in the gang up of  America’s Political Establishment  - Democrats and Republicans – against his re-election. Former Republican Vice President, Dick Cheney, and his daughter, former Congress woman, Liz Cheney, lead the anti-Trump posse. Trump’s abrasive, and perceived crude manner will alienate votes. Ultimately, though, the parlous state of an inflation-wracked economy under the Biden/Harris administration and a sustained, aggressive grassroots get-out-the-vote mobilization have the prospect of tilting the presidential election outcome in Trump’s favour. This makes Trump the man to beat.

Dr. Bisi Olawunmi, a Senior Lecturer, Department of Mass Communication, Adeleke University, Ede, is former Washington Correspondent of the News Agency of Nigeria ( NAN) and Fellow, Nigerian Guild of Editors ( FNGE ) Email : This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Phone : 0803364 7571.             

Dear former First Lady,

You asked the question that millions outside the US have been asking for weeks if not months: Why can’t America see former President Donald Trump for who he is – a congenital liar, a narcissist, a fascist, and a demagogue?

At a campaign rally in Michigan on October 26, you criticised those holding Democratic candidate Kamala Harris to a higher standard than they have held Donald Trump despite his four chaotic years as president and his even more crooked lifestyle, long before that.

“I’ve got to ask myself,” you said, “why on Earth is the race even close?” There are a few possible answers.

Crucify immigrants

Trump and his campaign have been telling Americans precisely what they want to hear: that their problems have been caused mainly by immigrants stealing their jobs.

And that under Joe Biden’s presidency, during which his deputy, Harris, has been the “border tzar,” illegal immigration has worsened to the point where a floating sea of rotten immigrants from Puerto Rico now threatens to submerge their country. They must take their country back.

He has been telling them that their country, once the beacon of exceptionalism, has been captured by the Deep State pursuing the vindictive and narrow agenda of a few. Trump has been telling Americans that fundamental values, such as freedom of expression and public trust, are under threat. Big media, he says, has been hijacked and can no longer be trusted as arbiters of the public good.

Socialism redux and victimhood

That’s not all. Trump is telling Americans that they’re currently in danger of something worse than the nanny state. Socialism and Marxism are in resurgence, and a country known for hard work, individualism, and limited state intervention is at the risk of being overrun by modern-day cousins of the Red Army.

In case they don’t believe him, Trump is telling Americans to look at his own life, his travails, as a living example of deep-state victimhood. He has been framed, lied against, prosecuted, persecuted and shot at for nothing other than mortal fear that he might indeed be the God-send to make America great again.

And if they don’t believe him, they can look at their own lives. In his classic Trumpian way, he has reminded them that they were better off under him, with less inflation and more money in their pockets for groceries. He even said on Tuesday that the stock market was rallying on the expectation of his victory.

It’s a woke country

Trump is telling Americans – at least the conservatives –that a wave of wokeism and post-modernism on sexual orientation and preferences has seized America driving it down a depraved slope where gender pronouns will mean nothing anymore. This is the kind of thing that many evangelicals can’t say publicly but are pleased to hear amplified by Trump and his campaign.

Trump has also been discussing America’s place in the world. He has been saying the world was far more peaceful before Biden, that the war between Russia and Ukraine and the war in the Middle East, which has become a meatgrinder, were enabled by weak US leadership, epitomised by the disorderly and humiliating US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

You might argue, dear former First Lady, that Americans should know better and that the facts, for voters who care, contradict Trump on almost every count.

Killing facts

For example, there’s hardly any evidence for the anti-immigrant rhetoric of job stealing. According to a Brookings Senior Fellow, Vanda Felbab-Brown, “The impact of immigrant labour on the wages of native-born workers is low…undocumented workers often work the unpleasant, back-breaking jobs that native-born workers are not willing to do.”

Though Biden said three years ago that Harris was the most qualified to lead the administration’s efforts to manage the border with Mexico, she was never “border tzar,” as Trump has successfully branded her. It was another Trump lie. But all is fair in politics as in war.

Is the Deep State after Trump, making his life a misery for leading the Salvation Army? This claim of a deep-state offensive is at least four years old. It started with claims in 2020 that the “deep state” was slowing-walking vaccine treatment for COVID-19 so that he could lose re-election.

Scapegoating as art

Then, when he lost, he blamed the deep state for rigging him out and has doubled down on his anti-deep state rhetoric since, blaming everyone from civil servants in Washington to the FBI and the State Department for all his self-inflicted legal problems.

Dear First Lady, the race is tight because voters won’t have facts for dinner. The facts show that inflation, worsened by post-COVID-19 supply chain problems, is cooling, but voters feel poorer than before. They are clinging to the false nostalgia that Trump would bring back the old times, despite the forecast by 16 Nobel prize winners in Economics that the US economy will be worse off in a Trump second term.

Also, an inconvenient point, dear former First Lady, is that Kamala Harris is part-paying a backlash from Barack Obama’s era that your husband didn’t do enough for people of colour, especially blacks. This is a race of margins, and despite his charm and eloquence, your husband and former president has struggled to convince black male voters that Harris will serve them well.

Just as misery loves company, nothing makes greater company for voters than a scapegoat. Trump has scapegoated immigrants, the deep state, China, UK’s Labour Party, and virtually everyone in sight. And the biggest scapegoat of them all is Biden.

Unfortunately for him even the best presidents fall out of favour with voters by the end of their first term. Their achievements are often dwarfed by their flaws and demagogues whose mess they came to clean up begin to look like saints. Like Trump. That’s why the race is tight.

Double-edge sword

The false start by the Democratic Party after the catastrophic presidential debate didn’t help matters. Whatever advantage it may have conferred on Trump initially, the party lost time healing the wounds created by Biden’s preemptory removal.

Tight races are not new in US elections, but this one feels peculiarly tight because even though facts and decency suggest that it should have been a mismatch, America is being seduced by its worst self.  

It’s a measure of the state of US politics today that even after the results have been announced and the winner declared, except if that winner is Trump, the former First Lady may find herself asking, why has US politics gone so low?

When you finally read The Guardian editorial that drew the ire of presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga, you cannot help but wonder at his overreaction. For a Presidency that forged its path to power through journalistic propaganda, these people are too jumpy when they encounter media reports they consider unflattering. Even before being sworn into power, Onanuga had started gaming regulatory agencies against the media house that refused to drool before their almighty presence.

An egregious instance was the NBC imposition of a N5m fine on Channels at their prompting. If the court had not put paid to that nonsense, that is the singular errand the NBC would have been running for this administration by now.  The other day, their government also threatened to sue Daily Trust. Now, Onanuga is going after The Guardian? And that is not even counting his social media meltdowns. For an ex-journalist, this man sure has both the determination and zeal for single-handedly policing the media―old and new—on behalf of his principal. One can only wish him good luck on this crusade.

After reading through The Guardian article at least twice because I genuinely wanted to understand why a reputable media house would go to the extent of “openly inciting unrest against President Bola Tinubu’s administration and advocates regime change,” I found nothing of the sort either explicitly stated or implied. Onanuga had to have been responding to some other issue other than that piece. Whatever it is that bothers him, it has made him the proverbial old man who gets uneasy each time dry bones are mentioned in a proverb.

First, they must understand that nobody needs to read The Guardian or any other newspaper to be incited against a government that has systematically despoiled them, tanked the quality of their livelihood, and has no comfort to offer other than the same jading platitudes with which they fed us through “nine years of Buhari.” If the government—through any of its officials—think that the revolution against their poorly-contrived policies will be activated by reading newspaper editorials, they have another think coming. 

Between the time I first drafted this article and when I sent it off to the editor, fuel price increased by N27 to N30. That looks like a negligible amount, but the multiplier effect that increase will have on goods and services will further dwindle the purchasing power of an already denuded people. Given the speed with which people’s lives are changed by the vicissitudes of T-Pain’s economy, I can assure Onanuga that newspaper editorials/features, no matter how provocative, can only react to a reality that has already been reshaped. They are not the ones who will incite the revolution; the best that printed journalism can do in the age of new media technology is to analyse the revolution after it must have happened, exploring the angles that online and 24-hour on-call analysts on social media might have missed.

As that Guardian report duly noted, people’s nostalgic longings for a return of the military government are not unfounded. I agree. The factors shaping Nigerians’ angst are based on material conditions of hardship they experience, something which Onanuga and his paymasters—safely ensconced in the villa from where they keep throwing out one harsh reform after the other—can never quite understand.

Twenty-five years is near enough for people to look back and wish for the return of the former oppressors. Yet, 25 years is also distant enough for the memories of the pain that comprised the military years to have receded and replaced by misguided desires. It does not help that the rickety government that Onanuga serves hardly has any coherent results to show for all their pretentions at reforms. They embarked on costly restructuring without proper cost-counting, and that is how we found ourselves stuck with reforms that even the government that initiated them cannot properly defend. All they offer by way of projection into the future are vague promises.

There are many days when Nigeria under Tinubu feels like living under Sani Abacha with social media. We can start by recounting the records of the violation of human rights that have so far been perpetrated by the so-called fighters for the return of democracy. From key officials in the Tinubu administration, to the police who run the errands of egotistic big men in power, and the array of wannabe dictators who have the Police IG on speed dial, this is a government that serially forgets that it is supposed to be democratic. Then add the rapid impoverishment millions of Nigerians have experienced in a short while and the sense of despondency pervading everywhere, and you will see why people cannot but make an association between their lives under the Tinubu administration and the military. The days of Abacha and the days of Tinubu have so much in common that it feels as if history has been static.

Every reasonable person can agree that a return to the military is not the solution. First, because they are anachronic, and second, because anyone who thinks that a military that has been severely depleted by fighting terrorism, banditry, and other categories of restiveness throughout the country is the one that will launch an economic agenda that will redeem Nigeria’s history is self-deluded. The Nigerian military cannot even manage its own budget effectively!

No matter how illusionary the desires for a military return might be, there is a context dictating them. Those who lived under the military and want their return do not see an enlightening difference between this present darkness and the one they experienced under the military. They take Nigeria’s foray into democratic rule as a farce that should be ended. For another generation that never quite witnessed military rule and relies on passed down accounts, the longing for the military is precipitated on the longings for an efficacious power; the power that can compel history into motion, not the effete one that calls itself democracy.

One cannot blame them for such delusions. Structures of political power in Nigeria are so perverted that the only thing they breed is ill consequences. At this point, we are basically a one-party state; hardly anyone can afford principled opposition. Basic political science teaches us that the three arms of government are supposed to serve as checks and balances for each other, but there is no such integrity anymore. Leaders can do basically whatever they want, and they have not hesitated to take advantage of the lack of a viable system of accountability. It is a democracy, but it is also not one in spirit and truth.

The spirit of democracy has been routinely violated, and people know from experience that hardly any other means exist for them to get rid of this power and principalities that assumes a lordly reign over their lives other than through a violent upheaval. That is why the desire for a military intervention is not about to go away. People like Onanuga might chalk down the desires for insurrection to the antagonisms of tribal politics, but the truth is that their own government and its inefficacies have done more to promote the military in the imagination of Nigerians than the coups in our neighboring countries.

To provide the balanced perspective that he thinks The Guardian missed, Onanuga’s rejoinder added the “positive developments” that have occurred under his principal’s watch. If he is certain of the veracity of his figures, I encourage him to go to the marketplaces and tell those buying food at astronomically high prices about the “notable decline” of the revenue-to-debt service ratio this year, the rise of foreign reserves, a higher GDP growth, and even increased exports. In his own interest, he should also go with his hearse in tow.

Many Nigerians, whether rich or poor, like to play the big man. They like to portray themselves as what they are not in order to create false impression about themselves. The essence of their actions is to make the other party cringe in fear and kowtow to them. They derive satisfaction from so doing, especially with a crowd of onlookers around.

   As the ‘big man’ shouts and curses, the lesser mortal, in most cases, looks askance, wondering how he would get out of trouble. ‘What kind of trouble is this?’ He mutters inaudibly. His case is not helped by those who rather than side with the truth, will be asking him to beg and set himself free. ‘Beg for what?’ He thinks. All the same, he bides his time, hoping that things will sort themselves out.

  This is a common scenario which plays out on the streets virtually on a daily basis. The oppressor may be a nobody but he would have put the fear of God into the oppressed who has turned jelly. As Fela, whose title of the song: “Who are you?” we have borrowed for this piece, noted in another song many years ago, “my people fear too much. We fear to fight for freedom; we fear to fight for liberty…”

    As a result of fear, we suffer in silence in the face of oppression. Last Sunday, somewhere in Abuja this kind of ‘power show’, another one from Fela’s stable, was on display in Abuja when a member of the House of Representatives, Alex Mascot Ikwechegh, decided to dance naked. It was an unnecessary show of shame for which today he has become remorseful. All he needed to do in that situation was to calm down, but the people of his village, as they say, seemed to be after him.

  He lost all sense of reason as he descended on the e-hailing cab driver, Stephen Abuwatseya, who came to deliver an item to him in his home at the highbrow Maitama district. He believes that his stay in Maitama, the billionaires’ playground confers special status on him as a member of the National Assembly. The Bolt driver, to him, was a common taxi driver, who could be abused and tongue-lashed like a slave. 

So, Mascot felt such a man deserves no respect. If only it was really a mascot that treated Abuwatseya that way, people would have seen it as an object that was misbehaving, but this was a human being and a representative of the people, for that matter, treating a person that he should ordinarily have protected shabbily. He was disdainful of Abuwatseya, as he asked the cabman time and time again: “do you know who I am?”

Many public officials suffer from this big man disease. They have a penchant for flaunting their influence and affluence at any given opportunity. They throw it in the face of others and before you ask: ‘Mr who are you?’, the words: ‘do you know who I am?’ would have tumbled out of their mouths. They utter the words with an air of importance, as they cast their look wide look. In all seriousness, they do not need to go to such extent, as bigmanism needs no heralding.

It announces itself without fuss, just as a tiger does not need to show its tigritude. As it was the case in the past, Ikwechegh would have gotten away with his verbal and physical assaults of the poor cab driver, but for the advancement in technology, which enabled his victim to record everything on phone. Despite being aware of the recording, he was not deterred. He continued to boast and declared that he could make Abuwatseya disappear without trace and no Jupiter on earth would do anything to him.

He spoke as if he had the Inspector-General of Police in his pockets. It was all braggadocio. The lawmaker turned lawbreaker now knows better that nobody is above the law. He has publicly apologised and initiated amicable resolution of the dispute. Ikwechegh learnt his lesson the bitter way – pride goes before a fall. He fell because he did not know when to stop, not even  when the driver was cautioning him during the incident: “you have been insulting me and I have been quiet… Are you slapping me? Did you just slap me three times?”

Now, he faces the whole country over this matter. The police have taken it up; so also are his colleagues who have begun investigating him. It is enough that he has admitted his guilt and shown remorse. If an offender admits his crime, the elders say, he does not stay long on his knees begging. He should be allowed to go and sin no more, after going out there to apologise to Abuwatseya as well as duly compensate him for the public assault. The compensation will be besides paying the driver for his services.

  Perhaps, this way, our big men, especially lawmakers, will realise that they cannot just assault commoners and go scot-free. A senator did it to an expectant mother a few years ago, now a representative has followed suit. There may be many other unreported cases that we have yet to know about. It is high time everything was done to stop these people from being law unto themselves.

As Americans head to the polls to elect their next president, the world is reminded of the far-reaching implications of this election outcome. From the Russo-Ukraine war to conflicts in the Middle East and the geopolitics of Africa and Asia, the election outcome will shape events far beyond the shores of the US.

With most polls suggesting razor-thin margins between Trump and Harris, this election is turning out to be one of the most closely contested elections in American history. Undecided or hesitant voters have become critical in breaking the tie between closely matched support bases on both sides come 5th November 2024. The race to the White House is driven by an intense war of words, where rhetorical framing is the key weapon being deployed by both sides to shape opinions and influence voting decisions. Here are my thoughts on how Trump and Harris are employing rhetorical framing to tip the scale in this neck-to-neck race.

Issue salience and selection
Both candidates assigned prominence to issues that they believe will resonate with their audiences. Kamala Harris emphasised the significance of economic support for the middle class and working families, framing her vision for reform as an “opportunity economy” that serves ordinary Americans. She also focused on themes of unity and inclusivity, pledging “to be a president for all Americans,” and stating that regardless of differences, Americans “all have the same dreams and aspirations.” Additionally, Harris’ campaign rhetoric always essentialises her commitment to protecting reproductive rights, and the need to “chart a course for the future and not go backward to the past.”
On the other hand, Trump prioritised illegal immigration, crime, and economic decline rhetorically framing the situation as one of severe crisis. He often employed emotive rhetoric to project fear of “criminal immigrants” stressing that “millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums” were taking jobs meant for Americans. By framing immigration and crime as national crises, Trump aims to rile up his base and discontented voters against the political establishment.

Identity and Personal Framing
Both Trump and Harris rely heavily on identity framing to connect with voters. Kamala Harris often frames herself as an advocate for middle-class and working families. Referencing her childhood during her live debate with Trump, she said, “I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America.”
Throughout her campaign, she has consistently amplified her experience as a prosecutor and her capacity to unify America in contrast to Trump’s leadership. She said: “Americans see in each other a neighbour…they don’t want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other.”

On the other hand, Donald Trump positions himself as a strong leader fighting against the political establishment to protect American borders and restore its greatness on the global stage. During his debate against Harris, he touted his strong relationship with world leaders to underscore his influence on the global stage. Trump boasted, “He (Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban) said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president… China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him.” Trump often refer to his political opponents as ‘weak.’ By framing himself as a strong leader, Trump seeks to amplify the contrast between his image and the characterisation of weak leadership he ascribed to Harris on fundamental issues like immigration, crime, and the economy.

Oppositional Framing
Trump and Harris regularly employ oppositional framing to diminish the credibility of the opponent. Harris frames framed Trump as a failed, divisive, and self-serving leader unfit to lead America. She stressed that ”Trump will not talk about people’s needs, dreams, and desires” and that America deserves a leader who “puts them first” positioning herself as such a leader. Harris also consistently framed Trump as dangerous to American democracy, referencing the January 6th Capitol riots as Trump’s attempt to upend the will of the American people. Furthermore, she repeatedly referred to Trump as a liar, warning their debate audience from the start of the debate to expect “a bunch of lies” from Trump, in a pre-emptive tactic to undermine his credibility. In the last few weeks leading to the election, Harris’ campaign has ramped up rhetoric that frames Trump as mentally unstable.

Trump’s framing of Harris is equally pejorative, often using rhetoric that frames her as weak and incompetent on the economy, crime, immigration, and foreign policy. He has also characterised Harris as unintelligent, mentally unfit, a radical leftist, and a Marxist, who would confiscate guns, stop fracking, and allow “transgender operations on illegal aliens.” By framing Harris this way, Trump reinforces the portrayal of Harris as a radical leftist who has lost touch with American values.

Rhetorical Appeals
Both Trump and Harris often employ a range of emotional, logical, and credibility-based appeals. Harris uses vivid imagery to emphasise concerns about women impacted by restrictions on reproductive rights. She rhetorically painted an image of “pregnant women…bleeding out in a car in the parking lot” to connect with the emotions and struggles of American women and underscore her commitment to their plights. She also uses fear rhetoric to describe a potential Trump presidency for the second time.
Trump, on the other hand, employs fear and a sense of urgency to drive emotional appeal. He frequently uses hyperbole and repetition to amplify issues and frame them as major crises. For example, he regularly claims that “millions of criminals, and terrorists are pouring into America and destroying the country.” By invoking fear and a sense of urgency, he seeks to play on people’s anxieties about national security.
In terms of logical appeal, Harris’ rhetoric regularly seeks to drive persuasion by presenting logical arguments. She cited Goldman Sachs’ endorsement of her economic plan to suggest that her policies are supported by independent expert evaluation. She also employed logical appeal to discredit Trump’s economic plan, arguing that reputable entities like Goldman Sachs’, Wharton School, and 16 Nobel Laureates all declared that Trump’s plan would worsen the US economy.

Trump, in contrast, appeals to logic whenever he declares that he “created one of the greatest economies in the history of America” and that he would do it even better again if given a second chance.
Applying credibility-based appeal, Harris repeatedly emphasised her credentials as a prosecutor to demonstrate her capacity to fight crime and maintain the rule of law. Similarly, Trump appealed to credibility by consistently highlighting his achievements as a strong leader on the global stage, touting his ability to negotiate and stop what he alleged to be a rip-off from China, Europe, and NATO.

Conclusion
Overall, this US election looks set to be decided by swing or undecided voters, the majority of whom will not conduct granular scrutiny of each candidate’s policies. Instead, they will respond to key soundbites and rhetorical framing that collectively shape their view of the candidates and consequently, their voting decision. While some argue that campaign rhetoric has limited influence on core voter bases, the rhetorical framing of arguments and counter-arguments that resonate with swing voters will ultimately tilt the scales towards Democrats or Republicans.

Ogbe is a Strategic Communications consultant and an academic whose research focuses on rhetorical leadership.

A Kuje Magistrate Court in the Federal Capital Territory has adjourned to Friday, November 8, to begin hearing on the charges brought against a member of the House of Representatives, representing Aba North and South Federal Constituency of Abia State, Alexander Ikwechegh, after granting him bail in the sum of N500, 000.

Ikwechegh, who was arraigned on Wednesday, before His Worship, Abubakar Umar Sai’id, for allegedly assaulting a Bolt driver, Stephen Abuwatseya, at his residence in Abuja, pleaded not guilty to the charges brought against him.

 The Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, arraigned Ikwechegh on three counts bordering on abuse of office, assault and threat to life.

 After taking his plea, the lawmaker’s counsel proceeded to make an oral application for bail, which was granted by the court.

 The magistrate said, “The court will grant the defendant a bail set at N500,000, with two sureties in like sum. The sureties must reside within the court’s jurisdiction and provide utility bills as proof of residence.”

 The court proceeded to adjourn the hearing in the matter till November 8.

 A video of Ikwechegh allegedly assaulting the Bolt driver had gone viral on social media on Monday.

In the video, Ikwechegh can be seen repeatedly slapping the driver. Aside from the slaps, the lawmaker can be heard threatening the driver and assuring him of how he can make him disappear without a trace.

 Meanwhile, a civil society organisation, Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre, in a statement, on Wednesday, condemned Ikwechegh’s action and described it as “a glaring example of abuse of power” most common with politicians.

 The statement signed by RULAAC’s Executive Director, Okechukwu Nwanguma, said the lawmaker’s action was a shame not only on him but also on every member of the House of Representatives.

 He stated, “The recent incident involving a federal lawmaker, Alex Ikwecheghi’s brutal treatment of Uber driver, Mr Stephen Abuwatseya, is a glaring example of the abuse of power that permeates Nigeria’s political landscape. Ikwechegh’s actions, including verbal and physical assault, as well as intimidation of the victim, reveal a profound lack of humility and respect for the rights of others that should be expected from someone in a public office.

 “This incident not only shames Ikwechegh but also reflects poorly on the House of Representatives, the police, and the broader political system. The indiscriminate use of power to silence and control vulnerable citizens showcases a troubling trend among officials who seem to operate above the law. The complacency of the police in this matter raises serious concerns about their integrity and commitment to justice, as they appear more willing to serve influential individuals than to uphold the rule of law.

 “While the House of Representatives’ decision to investigate this behaviour is a positive step, it remains to be seen whether meaningful accountability will follow. Historical precedents suggest a risk of sweeping the issue under the rug once public outrage subsides, which would do little to repair public trust in governance.”

 Nwanguma noted that the societal implications of the incident were dire as it “transcends the individual and speaks to a culture of impunity that must be addressed,” imploring that justice must not only be served for Abuwatseya but also the many unnamed victims of similar abuses.

“This case must serve as a catalyst for change, leading to reforms that prioritise respect for human rights and the rule of law in Nigeria”, he stated.

[Punch]

Many Yoruba people voted for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar or the Labour Party candidate, Mr Peter Obi, during the 2023 general election. This despite knowing that the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Bola Tinubu, is their kinsman. It is on record that Tinubu lost Lagos State to Obi and Osun State to Atiku. It is also on record that people from other ethnic groups voted for Tinubu. In fact, a few of his supporters outside the Southwest were almost violent in their endorsement of the man who is now our president. Former Niger Delta militant leader, Mujahid Asari-Dokubo is one of such people. 

However, in a viral video last week, Asari-Dokubo claimed to have deployed his resources to campaign for Tinubu but feels ‘betrayed’ by the recent rechristening of the Ministry of Niger Delta. Rather than blame his (former) friend for that decision, it is the Yoruba people that should be held accountable. “I apologise to our fathers because they were not wrong in forming an alliance with the North, and as young men, we will now start that same alliance. From today, I will work and form an alliance with the North,” Asari-Dokubo said. “We will take this message across that only the Northerners can work with the Ijaw people. We can’t work with Yoruba people; they are a betrayer (sic) to us. We risked our lives by voting and doing everything, and this is what we get?”

Asari-Dokubo is not alone in pointing accusing fingers at Yoruba people on account of real or perceived transgressions by Tinubu. It is the latest game in town, although some are more subtle about it. There is a piece being circulated widely on WhatsApp titled ‘Is Tinubu settling scores?’ written by a Dr Ugoji Egbujo. “Tinubu has become an unabashed chauvinist. It’s a hard watch. It doesn’t bode well for national unity. Tinubu’s critical appointments have become the most lopsided in the history of this country,” the author wrote while reeling out the list of positions, especially in the security and economic sectors, now occupied by Yoruba people—despite Tinubu’s history in Afenifere, the socio-political group that used to be “the conscience of the Yoruba nation and Nigeria.”

While accusing the president, “an Afenifere apostle and NADECO evangelist” of “installing an ethnic hegemony” in the country, the author is at least fair minded enough not to place all the blame on Yoruba people. As Egbujo correctly surmised, most Yoruba people “are embarrassed by Tinubu’s antediluvian antics.” He went on to eulogise Yoruba people as not only most welcoming, empathetic, culturally and religiously tolerant but also “the loudest and sincerest champions of equity and meritocracy. So, this ethnic hegemony that Tinubu is weaving is patently not Yoruba. They didn’t send Tinubu on this errand.” The author then added: “President Tinubu knows that in a fractious multi-ethnic third world country, the concentration of the levers of the criminal justice system, economy and security in the hands of one ethnic group will feed the system with disenchantment and paranoia and corrode cohesion…”

There is a Yoruba adage that says if you want a deaf person to understand your message, relay it to his child. I counted the number of prominent people who forwarded the article to me last Saturday. They were 13. While they must be aware I am not working for this president, they were invariably telling me, “This is what your kinsman is doing.” I ignored them. Until the same post was forwarded to me by a respected scholar from the North on Sunday. I had my reason for responding to him: “The reality is that the president is appointing his loyalists (mostly from Lagos), including those whose grandfathers had their placenta buried in other Southwest states where nobody knows them. But I have also written about this issue.” The response was instant: “Your article escaped my attention. It has to be recirculated.”

Now, this eminent northern scholar supported Tinubu before and during the election. But he would not take responsibility for the choice he made at the polls. He is holding me accountable because I am Yoruba. For the record, let me cite three of the interventions I have made on this issue. Barely three weeks after his inauguration, on 20th June 2023 to be specific, I wrote ‘Tinubu and the Buhari Error’ where I rehashed a similar counsel his predecessor failed to heed. “Of the several columns I wrote on the lack of sensitivity in critical appointments by President Muhammadu Buhari, one stands out. I used a Yoruba word, ‘Amunibuni’, to situate my intervention,” I recalled in the piece, following the first set of appointments by Tinubu which I considered lopsided. I then excerpted from the March 2021 column: “That making strategic concessions is beyond Buhari administration is an embarrassment, even for many northerners. That is because they are also aware that the appointments being cornered by a tiny clique is not to promote any ‘Northern agenda’ (whatever that may mean) but rather in pursuit of the personal interest by those who nominate these individuals. This explains why they go for their in-laws, kinsmen, friends, and the like. Yet nepotism in critical appointments engenders collective insults in the manner of ‘Amunibuni’”.    

I offered a disquisition on what the Yoruba term means and the message it embeds within the context of Nigeria’s political arrangement before I concluded with an admonition for Tinubu: “Even when he did nothing to improve the material condition of the average Fulani man, the damage President Buhari did to people of that ethnic stock in eight years was enormous. And as a Yoruba man, I wouldn’t want President Tinubu to do that to me…That is why presidential handlers need to be circumspect lest they attract insults to Yoruba people who have always advocated for a peaceful and secure Nigeria that works for all citizens and where there is equity and justice in the distribution of opportunities…In making critical appointments, I hope the president will be mindful of the ‘Amunibuni’ syndrome. His appointments must be inclusive and reflect all our diversities. I shall be watching!”

In another column last October (2023) titled, ‘Where is Abdulrasheed Maina?’ I wrote: “In case the president is not aware (a Villa disease, especially under his predecessor), most Yoruba people I know are becoming increasingly embarrassed by a number of his appointments. I have received many of those WhatsApp messages that list critical offices in the economic/financial sector and the ethnic affiliation of appointees. There is already a whispering campaign in Abuja of a budding ‘Republic of Oduduwa’, based on these appointments. I hope someone will bring the issue to the attention of the president.”

That was one year ago. Yet, in another piece I wrote in the early weeks of the administration, ‘Shall We Tell the President?’, I recalled welcoming a friend from Lagos to my office with a joke, ‘Eyinlokan’ (meaning it’s your turn). “Uncle Segun, you are in the old; the slogan now is ‘awalawanbe’”, (meaning, ‘we are now fully in charge’ or to put it in pidgin, ‘we full ground remain’). “My concern is that under the current dispensation ‘Awalawanbe’ can connote either service for the public good or hubris,” I wrote before sending another warning on this same vexatious issue. And in a recent column, ‘Tinubu: No Place to Hide’, I wrote about how the president and his handlers continue to display a behaviour the Yoruba would describe as “tani o mu mi” (impunity that carries a certain sense of hubris).

It is evident that nobody in the Villa paid attention to these interventions. But how does it make sense to allocate three junior ministers out of five to the Southeast while you allocate nine ministers to the Southwest, eight of them with senior portfolios? Let’s not even go to critical appointments in the security sector and revenue-generating agencies that have been ‘cornered’ by people from one ethnic group. Meanwhile, what the president ignores is that when a leader creates a poisonous atmosphere and suspicions around emotional issues like appointments, it is difficult to build a national consensus for crucial policies as we are already seeing with the pushback from the North over the Tax Reforms Bill.

Ordinarily, with hunger and starvation biting hard in the country, there are far more pressing issues that should engage our attention. For instance, on 8th July 2024, the federal government announced a 150-day duty-free import window for food items which include maize (the ‘agbado’ we were told was enough to satiate our hunger during the presidential campaign), husked brown rice, wheat, and cowpeas. Four months after, this has turned out to be another of those audio promises for which this administration is fast becoming notorious. Figures from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) on food inflation are not only scary, but some locally grown items like beans have also experienced close to 300% inflation within one year!

However, while hunger has become the real staple for Nigerians, regardless of which language they speak, one should also not pretend that equity in appointments and distribution of opportunities is not important or that a leader can succeed without taking such into account. Beyond giving emotional satisfaction and sense of belonging, equity is good for social capital, national cohesion and development. While some may have ignored the fact that the economy has been handed over to the Lagos crowd on the pretext they have the expertise, the evidence of the last 18 months undercuts that concession. Maybe Nigerians would not have minded if these Lagosians (many of whom throw themselves around in Abuja with incredible arrogance) were performing. Unfortunately, most don’t even appear to know what they are doing. And the president himself seems detached from reality.

Meanwhile, for those sending me ‘coded messages’ because I am a Yoruba man, I also have a question for them: When former President Olusegun Obasanjo was being acclaimed as an “apostle of meritocracy and a detribalized Nigerian” for most of his critical appointments which went to people outside the Southwest, did they extend the credit to me as a Yoruba man? Why should anybody now guilt-trip me because Tinubu is appointing his Lagos loyalists in a manner that is embarrassingly sectional? The interesting thing is that the Abdullahi Gandujes, the Godswill Akpabios, the Benjamin Kalus and others (who are ‘eating’) will most likely defend this same president despite their ethnic affinity. But that is the cross Yoruba people will have to carry for as long as Tinubu is president. That is the way we roll in Nigeria.

There is a paragraph in my 2021 admonition to Buhari which I rehashed for Tinubu last October. It is still most relevant: “…Yoruba loses its flavour when you translate into English, but ‘Amunibuni’ is better explained in the complete idiom: ‘Amunibuni ewure ibiye. Ibiye f’oju otun, ewure re fo t’osi’. Crudely interpreted, it means if a goat is blind on the left eye and its owner is blind on the right eye, any discussion about the goat would always bring into focus the condition of the owner. As one scholar expanded on the idiom, the real message is in the ambiguity that could come from describing the goat as ‘ẹran olójú kan’ which could be interpreted either as a ‘one-eyed goat’ or ‘the goat of a one-eyed person’. Both definitions are correct, but the latter brings the owner into the conversation. Today, any discussion about killings by ‘herdsmen’ brings attention to the inequity in the distribution of opportunities in Abuja by President Buhari. The result is that when you encounter cows on the highway, you look at the poor herder just trying to eke out a living and you blame him for all the problems of Nigeria!”   

I wish there was someone who can whisper to President Tinubu that this reporter keeps raising this issue because he wants him to succeed—in the manner of the proverbial child of the deaf. No matter the attraction, surrounding himself only with Lagos loyalists at the expense of fairness to other Nigerians will not help his cause. I have said my own!

The Shopping Cart Theory

In an article published in 2017, Krystal D’Costa, an American anthropologist who works in digital media, posed the question, ‘Why Don’t People Return Their Shopping Carts?’ This question has continued to provoke attention as people ruminate on why, either at the airport or in shopping malls, returning trolleys to their original places, is not always an easy thing to do. One response to the question has been dubbed ‘The Shopping Cart Theory’. It is as inspiring as it is profound. Said to have been first posted online in 2020 (with no proper attribution), the message was amplified on Monday by @elonmusk on his X platform with a crisp post of his own: ‘Trust those who return the shopping cart’.

And here goes the message: “The shopping cart is the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is capable of self-governing. To return the shopping cart is an easy, convenient task and one we all recognize as the correct, appropriate thing to do. To return the shopping cart is objectively right. There are no situations other than dire emergencies in which a person is not able to return their cart. Simultaneously, it is not illegal to abandon your shopping cart. Therefore, the shopping cart presents itself as the apex example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it. No one will punish you for not returning the shopping cart, no one will fine you, or kill you for not returning the shopping cart. You gain nothing by returning the shopping cart. You must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your own heart. You must return the shopping cart because it is the right thing to do. Because it is correct. The Shopping Cart Theory, therefore, is a great litmus test on whether a person is a good or bad member of society.”

There was a carnival-like celebration Wednesday as members of the political class, business leaders and ordinary folks from Akwa Ibom State turned out in large numbers in Victoria Island, Lagos, for the groundbreaking ceremony of Ibom Towers – a 19-storey residential complex developed by the Akwa Ibom State government. The complex comprises 32 residential apartments of various sizes and business offices. Amenities include swimming pool; gym; games room; car park and six elevators. It’s designed to offer a luxury lifestyle for the upper middle class, but for the government, it is an investment opportunity that should diversify its sources of income and expand its portfolio. Akwa Ibom currently earns a yearly IGR of about N43 billion with the expectation to to drive it up significantly from the proceeds of this investment when the project is completed in 2026. It is the single largest investment undertaken by another state government in Lagos since its creation in 1967. On completion, Ibom Towers will be one of the most modern apartment buildings in the commercial city. Said Gov. Umo Eno: ‘’Just as the purpose-driven visionaries who built the Nigeria House in New York City, we are gathered here to break the grounds for the construction of what promises to be an iconic building that signposts our determination to play in the bullish real estate market of one of the most vibrant cities in Africa’’.

The property is located on Bishop Abayode Cole Street and sits on over 2,000 sq. meters of land acquired by Akwa Ibom State government in the early 1990s. The apartments would be sold using pre-sale flexible payment plan, and the realized income ‘’would be channeled into other development projects’’, according to Enobong Uwah, Secretary to the State Government. Ibom Towers lies in close proximity to other landmark buildings like the KPMG Head Office building; the Civic Center; Mobil House; Dream Plaza and a short drive from Radisson Blu Hotel. ‘’The government is pursuing a programme of redemption, remediation and repositioning of landed property for better economic use and spread of prosperity. We are currently working on recovery and development of other landed properties of the state in choice locations in Uyo, Abuja and Lagos’’, said Mr. Imoabasi Jacob, chief executive of Akwa Ibom Investment Corporation (AKICORP), the government agency that drives its investments.

Other Akwa Ibom leaders like Obong Victor Attah (governor between 1999 and 2007); Secretary to the State Government, Enobong Uwah; Speaker of Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly, Udeme Otong and the Chairman of the state’s Traditional Rulers Council, Dr. Solomon Daniel Etuk who spoke at the event stressed the importance of the project. Mr. Tony Ndah, a well-known quantity surveyor from Akwa Ibom State, who runs a big practice in Ikoyi, said an investment in Lagos property market is a sure guarantee for stable income over a long period of time. The Chief Executive of Akwa Ibom Investment Corporation, Mr. Imoabasi Jacob said the investment is part of a long-term strategy to prepare the state for a life without crude oil. Gov. Babajide Sanwo-Olu of Lagos State who was the special guest of honour commended Gov. Umo Eno for the investment and confirmed that Lagos offers very high rate of return for property investments. He spoke of his admiration for Akwa Ibom people for their industry, honesty and integrity and assured that his administration will do all it can to ensure the success of the project.

Back in Akwa Ibom, there has been a lively debate among the people on the desirability of the investment, with some arguing that the government should have built another hotel in the state, preferably in Eket, to position Akwa Ibom as a key tourism destination. But the Umo Eno administration seems too focused on real estate development to be persuaded by such an argument. The government is currently developing six different housing estates in the state, in addition to plans to convert a dilapidated government facility in Abuja to a hotel.

Among the dignitaries at the event were Mr. Udom Emmanuel, former governor of Akwa Ibom; Chief Don Etiebet, former Petroleum Minister; Obong Umana Umana, former Niger Delta Affairs Minister; Mrs Akon Eyakenyi, deputy governor; Senator Aloysius Etok; Senator Ita Enang; Aniekan Umanah, former House of Representative member; Senator Emmanuel Ibok Essien and Senator Efiong Bob. The two serving senators, Ekong Sampson and Aniekan Bassey were also present. From the construction industry came Engr. Bassey Ekanem, Chief Executive of Base Engineering and Mr. Tony Ndah, chief executive of Cost Link Associates.