As prominent figures like Elon Musk, who is on the path to becoming the world’s first trillionaire, advocate for former President Donald Trump, and musical icons like Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Eminem, and Bruce Springsteen lend their support to Vice President Kamala Harris, the upcoming November 5 presidential election is being tightly contested, with the race said to be in a dead heat as both candidates are tied in opinion polls conducted by CNN.

So, by and large, who becomes the next occupant of the White House, from January 20, 2025, is being defined by those in the commanding heights of hardcore business and show business as detailed above.

That is why the American presidential race remains a source of fascination, a maze, and even an enigma to those of us looking in from the outside due to its constant drama featuring unique political twists and turns arising from gaffes and other idiosyncracies the contestants or their allies. For example, as the anniversary of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel approached, threats were made against synagogues in New York City. Earlier this year, there were bomb threats aimed at schools in Springfield, Ohio, following warnings from Trump about Haitian immigrants allegedly harming pets in the area. Just as a misspeak about other sensitive issues by leaders from both sides of the campaigns be it Trump’s or Harris’s supporters results in the rise and fall of the needle in their popularity barometer.

Notably, there have been two assassination attempts on the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. The first occurred in Butler, Pennsylvania, where he was shot at and narrowly escaped, with a bullet grazing his earlobe. The second was thwarted when a Secret Service agent intercepted an individual hiding in the bushes near Trump’s Palm Beach golf course during a game.
Also in a manner astonishing to most observers, mid-way through the race, the incumbent president Joe Biden withdrew from pursuing his mandatory second-term opportunity and yielded the ticket to Vice President Harris who did not contest for the ticket through party primaries as is customary.

That is not all the intrigues.
While the Democratic National Committee (DNC) linked the school bomb threats in schools in the state of Ohio to Trump’s statements about Haitian immigrants, they have failed to admit how their portrayal of Trump as a threat to democracy might have contributed to the assassination attempts on his life. This reveals the double standards often present in politics, both in established democracies like the U.S. and in developing ones in the African continent like Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, and Egypt where pre and post-election violence often define civic exercise. In comparison, the unwholesome political situation unfolding around the world appears even more dire in Venezuela and Haiti, countries near the U.S. that are acclaimed as the global beacon of democracy; but where democratic values and institutions seem to have been greatly eroded in the course of the campaigns for the 2024 presidential elections.

In Haiti for instance, a weakened presidency has given way to militia-led governance characterized by brutality. Meanwhile, in Venezuela, the sitting president claimed victory in a contested election without disclosing the results. When contrasted with the political challenges in the U.S., these examples illustrate the broader decline in democratic standards, even in a country as influential as the U.S.which prides itself as the bastion of democracy.

It’s worth considering that the current threats to democracy might not be solely linked to the DNC’s narrative that Trump’s refusal to accept the 2020 election results, which led to the Capitol Hill incident during the certification process, poses a danger. Instead, the real danger to democracy could be seen in the ruling party’s actions aimed at excluding Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. (who left the DNC to run as an independent) from the ballot in the 2024 election—a strategy some describe as a “kitchen sink” approach.

It’s notable that, despite numerous legal challenges and even surviving an assassination attempt, Mr. Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) are neck-and-neck with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, as reflected in the latest CNN polls, which tend to be biased in favor of the DNC and Harris. This situation contrasts with the stance of the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, both of which, for the first time in a long time, have chosen not to endorse any candidate, citing a desire to maintain independence and allow readers to make their own choices. In the case of Washington, it is a decision that has had a backlash as critics attribute the none endorsement of either of the candidates to the owner, Jeff Bezos inclination not to take a gamble that would have negative consequences on him and his business empire including the e-commerce giant Amazon.
Amazingly, such prependal politics that was thought in the past to be only in the precinct of third-world politics are manifesting in the U.S. thought to be the world’s bastion of democracy.

Notably, this is the first time since 1986 that the Washington Post has refrained from endorsing a candidate, the last instance being when it withheld support for then-presidential candidate Jimmy Carter. The publication's explanation that its decision was aimed at preserving readers’ autonomy in choosing their candidate, has not vitiated the angst from its critics.

It’s striking that while President Biden and Vice President Harris emphasize the narrative that Trump is a threat to democracy—a rhetoric some believe is fueling violence and attempts on Trump’s life—Trump is simultaneously being blamed for his anti-abortion stance. He is alleged to have influenced the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a landmark ruling that had made abortion legal nationwide, and Trump has made the case that the abortion decision should be determined by individual states, not a national policy.

Somehow, the issue of reproductive rights has gained traction for Harris’s campaign, as many American women believe that the government should not decide the right to have an abortion. However, if it is okay for the government to prosecute those who assist others in attempting suicide—typically under Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, requiring prosecution approval by the Director of Public Prosecutions—why shouldn’t the government have an interest in cases involving pregnant individuals ending the lives of unborn children through abortion?

Moreover, it’s intriguing that while the government heavily regulates euthanasia, with involuntary euthanasia being illegal across all 50 U.S. states, the protection of unborn life seems less prioritized. Therefore, it seems inconsistent to me, as it doesn’t appear logically sound. Nonetheless, this point of making abortion at a point in time illegal is one that the DNC candidate has emphasized by making it a selling point and leveraging it as a political advantage, given its popularity among Democrats and women across the political divide generally.

However, the matter of reproductive rights is complex and complicated by the presence of a large Catholic population in the U.S., whose doctrine opposes abortion, alongside a significant evangelical base.
Remarkably, both groups generally are not supportive of the LGBTQ policies that Kamala Harris and the DNC promote. Thus, it is not surprising that Vice President Harris, the second female candidate after Senator Hillary Clinton to run for president with a major party, faces significant challenges in her bid to return to the White House as the country’s number one citizen.

In addition to the aforementioned headwinds against Harris’s presidential bid, what baffles me the most is that despite the intense pressure Mr. Trump has faced from the ruling party—including being impeached by the House of Representatives (though not convicted by the Senate) and the numerous legal battles he has been slammed with since announcing his candidacy last year—he remains the candidate to beat.

In discussions with friends around the world, who are engaged in various fields, the general expectation was that former President Trump would be imprisoned and thus ineligible for the ballot, let alone be a viable contender in an election now just days away. Yet, defying the odds, Trump, known for his resilience, has emerged as a front-runner, even though media outlets and pollsters favoring Vice President Harris often present the race as being on Knive’s edge or even suggest that Harris leads in the opinion polls. It feels reminiscent of 2016 when, as Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton became increasingly likely, the DNC rallied high-profile figures like former President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama to campaign on Clinton’s behalf. Despite their efforts, Senator Clinton ultimately lost the election to Trump.

Currently, once again, influential figures like the Obamas, and Clintons, and popular artists such as Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Bruce Springsteen, and Eminem amongst others are actively campaigning for Kamala Harris. In contrast, Trump’s growing support comes without the backing of former presidents of the republican stock such as former president George Bush Jnr and ex-vice presidents Dick Cheney and Mike Pence, or major music stars who have not open displayed support openly for Trump, yet has remained the candidate to beat.
However, his popularity is bolstered by tech billionaire Elon Musk, who has stirred attention by offering through his Super Pac $1 million to registered voters in seven swing states willing to sign a letter protesting government restrictions on free speech.

It is worthy to underscore the fact that Trump’s campaign focuses on both domestic and international issues. He emphasizes “kitchen table” concerns like the rising cost of living, asserting that Americans had better economic conditions during his first term (2016-2020) than they are currently under the watch of President Biden and Vice President Harris.
On foreign policy, Trump highlights that, under his administration, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin did not engage in warfare with Ukraine—a conflict that began during the Obama administration with the 2014 annexation of Crimea and resumed under Joe Biden’s presidency, pitching NATO against Russia with a potential to degenerate to a global conflict as ally nations to Russia like North Korea are taking side with Russia as evidenced by North Korean countries being trained in Russia. Furthermore, commentators suggest that President Putin tends to act when he perceives the U.S. leadership as weak.

A similar narrative surrounds the absence of conflict between Israel and Hamas during Trump’s presidency. The peace in the Middle East during Trump’s tenure is credited to his role in the Abraham Accords agreement that had helped foster peace in the Middle East and was underpinned by the origin of the three main religions in the region - Judaism, Islam, and Christianity traced to Abraham. These agreements eased tensions between Arabs and Jews, even leading to unprecedented cooperation between Israeli and Arab airlines. However, about a year ago, on October 7, under the watch of Biden and Harris, Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel, leading to a large-scale Israeli counteroffensive in Gaza, resulting in over 40,000 Palestinian casualties and widespread destruction of infrastructure in Gaza.
Consequently, the U.S. and the rest of the world have been struggling to prevent further degeneration of the raging conflict in the Middle East region.

Despite these advantages for the 45th president, Donald J. Trump’s potential comeback as the 47th president, Democratic strategist James Carville remains confident and in a recent New York Times piece, he expressed belief that Kamala Harris would emerge victorious in the November 5 election.

Similarly, CNN has been showing bias towards the DNC and Kamala Harris, particularly through programs like Fareed Zakaria’s GPS. In an episode on October 20, Zakaria appealed to Black voters to support Harris by emphasizing the high educational attainment of Nigerian Americans, an attempt to attract African American support, especially the men which Harris has struggled to secure. Recent polls show Harris has 10% less support among Black men than Joe Biden had at the same point in his campaign four years ago.

This has prompted frustration from former President Barack and ex-First Lady Michelle Obama, who question why Black voters are not rallying behind Kamala Harris but instead gravitate towards Trump. Fareed Zakaria in his program highlighted the fact that Nigerians in the diaspora are known for their high levels of education, both in the U.S. and Europe, with many holding prominent roles, such as Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo in the U.S. and Kemi Badenoch in the UK who is vying for the leadership of the Tory.

The truth is that historically, many Nigerians intentionally traveled abroad to seek education rather than migrating for economic reasons—a shift seen today with the “Japa” phenomenon, where many leave Nigeria seeking better opportunities amid economic hardship at home
This is the reason Nigerians in the diaspora are highly educated.

Now, it is worth noting that no country wants to admit individuals who are immigrants without useful skills who might become a societal burden, which is why Trump has campaigned against admitting unskilled immigrants. However, he supports immigration for skilled workers, consistent with America’s identity as a nation built by immigrants. Mr. Trump himself traces his roots to Scotland, President Biden to Ireland, and Vice President Kamala Harris could reference her Jamaican heritage. Yet, based on records she has often emphasized her Indian heritage over her Jamaican background, which some Black voters see as distancing herself from a Black identity and contributing to their disconnect with her campaign.

So, it remains uncertain whether the combined efforts of influential figures like the Obamas, Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, and other Black celebrities campaigning for Kamala Harris will sway what strong support for Trump among Black voters. Regarding the growing anti-immigration sentiment worldwide, as observed in countries like the UK, France, and Germany, it’s important to recall Nigeria’s expulsion of Ghanaians in the mid-1980s under General Muhammadu Buhari. During that time, both unskilled and skilled Ghanaian workers, such as teachers and doctors, were sent back to Ghana, leading to the emergence of the term “Ghana-Must-Go” bag.

More recently, South Africa has shown xenophobic tendencies by expelling other Africans, including Nigerians, accusing them of taking jobs from them and committing crimes. Ghanaians have also restricted Nigerian businesses in their clime, and the UAE, especially Dubai, has expelled many Africans, including Nigerians, for similar reasons. This aligns with and justifies Trump’s stance on preventing illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. and highlighting the reality that the issue of blocking illegal immigration has become a global phenomenon.

In light of the above, efforts to attract African and Nigerian-American voters to support the DNC and Kamala Harris by criticizing Trump’s anti-illegal immigration stance, as Fareed Zakaria attempted on his show, might not significantly benefit Harris. Although current polls conducted by CNN indicate that she and Trump are tied at 47%, despite the monumental obstacles placed on the path to the White House for Trump. After all, is said and done, some potential voters do not display their political leaning publicly as they often want to be seen as politically correct and keep their political inclinations to themselves. It is such voters that may swing the election in favor of Trump.

Kamala Harris’s difficulty in securing Black votes is not without cause. Conversations with Black American men reveal lingering resentment over her time as California’s Attorney General, where she was seen as disproportionately harsh toward Black people. Many believe this harshness may stem from unresolved personal issues with her Jamaican father, who left her Indian mother to raise her and her sister alone.

As a result, some Black Americans remember her as being unsympathetic before her rise in national politics as a senator and now as the DNC’s presidential candidate. Additionally, many Black men are drawn to Trump’s blunt and direct manner, feeling that he would be a more authentic leader than Harris, whom they view as shifting her stance based on political convenience.

Without a doubt, the U.S. presidential election holds global significance due to the country’s status as the world’s most powerful nation and largest economy. But it is also to its outcome degenerate into violence as was the case on January 6, 2020.
I find former President Donald Trump, the RNC’s 2024 candidate, appealing due to his straightforwardness—something not often seen in politicians. Like many Americans, I am less familiar with Vice President Kamala Harris, making it difficult to endorse her. This lack of familiarity is also why many Black men view voting for her as a leap into uncertainty.

As a scholar in the international relations space, I have closely followed global politics and the U.S. elections. My observations suggest that Trump is not a conventional politician, having only entered the political arena about a decade ago. During his presidency from 2016 to 2020, he approached governance as an outsider, challenging the traditional “business as usual” mindset that has characterized U.S. politics since its founding in 1776. This divergence from the norm has led to pushback from traditionalists who see him as a threat to democracy due to his unconventional style.

A similar resistance faced the 40th U.S. President, Ronald Reagan, though he had prior political experience as a two-term Governor of California before becoming president in 1981 and serving until 1989. Likewise, many U.S. allies, particularly NATO members, appear to favor a Harris victory, preferring the more traditional diplomatic approach seen during Joe Biden’s administration than Trump that would make them take more responsibility for the protection of Europe against aggressors such as Russia, etc.

It may be recalled that during Trump’s presidency from 2016 to 2020, he pushed NATO members to fulfill their financial commitments, easing a burden that had largely been carried by the U.S. The former NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, acknowledged that the alliance’s funding improved due to Trump’s pressure. Understandably, some NATO members and global leaders might feel uneasy about the possibility of Trump returning to the White House in January 2025.

Expectedly, the world is paying close attention to the election, as whoever becomes the U.S. president will hold considerable global influence, almost serving as a de facto leader of the world. That is why the issue of misinformation and disinformation threatening the integrity of the exercise become so concerning that U.S. authorities recently announced a $10,000 reward for tips on individuals spreading false information that could impact the November 5 presidential election.
Having obtained our presidential system of government franchise from the U.S., there are a couple of lessons that as a country we can learn from the 2024 presidential election campaign in the U.S.
The world’s richest man openly campaigned for and massively funded Trump’s campaign as other billionaires equally did Harris’s campaign without fear.
That is because between the two candidates, whoever triumphs at the polls, none of those who funded the candidates will face reprisal actions or be victimized. After all, they are protected by strong laws and institutions against strong men.
In Nigeria, can Aliko Dangote, Mike Adenuga, or Allen Onyema fund the campaign of a presidential candidate openly and his business continue to thrive if his candidate loses?
Dear readers your guess is as good as mine, but l look forward to that day.

Circling back to the ongoing keenly contested and highly consequential U.S. election, ultimately, as the mail-in voting has commenced, it will be up to American voters to choose their next president on November 5, despite the challenges posed by misinformation. It is hoped that the efforts that have been made to guarantee the sanctity of the electioneering system will help ensure a fair and secure voting process.

Be that as it may, it is rather dismaying that the impending 2024 presidential election does not inspire much confidence as it is currently looking like a typical electioneering process hitherto endemic to Africa because the ballot drop boxes in some states are already stuffed with votes due to early voting are being set on fire by nefarious ambassadors, reminiscent of how ballot snatching, burning and stuffing during elections in Africa define an otherwise civic exercise.

During the last presidential election circle in the U.S.,(2020), massive violence trailed the allegation of fraud by former President Donald Trump who was then the incumbent president against the declared winner, Joe Biden.
Before then, in 2016, Senator Hillary Clinton had protested her loss to Mr.Trump by alleging election fraud.
But her protest did not trigger the sort of violence that ensued in January 2020 that set off a firestorm of sort in the Capitol Hill, the seat of power for the legislators/ Congress in the US leading to the death of a protester, injuring of policemen, and resulting in the death of a few after the incident and extensive damage to the Capitol Hill infrastructure. The presidential contest between George Bush Jnr and former vice president Al Gore in 2000 was also contested in court at the Supreme Court level owing to alleged fraud in ballot counting in Florida where Jeb Bush, brother to George Bush Jnr was governor. So, elections in the U.S. have become progressively fractious and violent in a manner that mimics the situation in nascent democracies in Africa.
As the conventional wisdom goes, the morning foretells the night, so it is ominous, and people are apprehensive if the November 5 polls might end up in a fiasco as was the case in 2020 or have a happy ending with the 45th president returning to the White House as the 47th president.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

The attention of Rivers State Government has been drawn to a spurious news item circulating on social media on "Gov. Siminalayi Fubara shutting down NNPCL and all oil companies in Rivers State".

The report was not only false, but a concocted propaganda from the imagination of the author and enemies of the State. The story was also circulated by an inconsequential and unverified medium.

Governor Siminalayi Fubara is committed to the rule of law and does not rely on unconventional and crude approaches to respond to matters of governance.

We therefore enjoin Rivers people and well-meaning Nigerians to discountenance the spurious and fake report as Governor Fubara at no time contemplated and/or directed such needless order of shutting down the economy for any reason.

Signed

Warisenibo Joe Johnson
Hon. Commissioner for Information and Communications

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.