[Future of America Series] ① The 2024 US Presidential Election and American Politics: Prospects and Trends

I. The 2024 US Presidential Election: Why It Matters and How It's Different?

The US presidential election, scheduled for November 5th, is poised to be a significant election that will extend beyond the domestic politics of the United States to impact international relations. Beyond the narrow framing of a rematch between two aging politicians in an era of extreme polarization, what are the broader implications? If Biden secures re-election, will it signify a critical election? How will voters ultimately weigh the candidate's legal risks against the judicialization of American politics? Will the lessons of the 2016 election concerning the impact of third-party votes hold true in 2024, as they did in 2020? What specific challenges do immigration issues and economic realities pose in relation to the president's leadership in action and communication? Can the multi-dimensional confrontations among the incumbent and former presidents, congressional parties, and voters regarding the international context of simultaneous wars in Ukraine and Israel-Hamas be resolved through this election? Will the severely weakened checks and balances of the US Congress be restored after this presidential election? Will the usual rhetoric of confronting China persist in this election, where the incumbent president is seeking re-election, or will President Biden, with his slogan of competition without conflict, advocate for coexistence with China during his campaign? Will North Korea's pattern of large-scale provocations during US presidential elections be repeated this time, and if so, what repercussions will it have on the US election? The presidential election in the United States, a nation of elections, often leads to new choices and directions for America, based on the realities of its domestic politics and the conditions of international relations. This article aims to summarize the significance of the 2024 US presidential election by focusing on its unique aspects and to introduce related research topics in American politics.

II. Unique Aspects of the 2024 US Election and Research on American Politics

1. Rematch Between Incumbent and Former President: Historical Analogy?

The current election, where Trump, who won the 2016 election, lost in 2020 and is now running again four years later in 2024, has only one precedent in American history. In the 1884 election, Grover Cleveland, after serving as mayor of Buffalo, became governor of New York within three years and then the first Democratic presidential candidate to win since the Civil War. President Cleveland, who pushed for the eradication of corruption and granted no political favors to any group, lost the presidency to Republican Benjamin Harrison in the 1888 election due to losing the Electoral College vote, despite winning the popular vote. However, he ran again in the 1892 election, defeated the incumbent President Harrison, and ultimately succeeded in becoming the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. In a system based on individual counts, Biden is currently the 46th President of the United States, but there are only 45 individuals who have served as US presidents, including Biden.

Discovering regularity or periodicity in political history is a core concern of the research field known as American Political Development (APD). The argument is that if periodic political phenomena are found in history, future predictions are possible to some extent. In the current context, where a scenario of Trump winning and becoming president again is not far-fetched, what insights can Cleveland's second term, 132 years ago, offer for a potential second Trump administration? Indeed, President Cleveland advocated for the gold standard by repealing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act passed in 1890 and resolved the Pullman Strike by deploying federal troops. He pressured Britain over a border dispute with Venezuela and was a proponent of strong presidential powers independent of Congress. He shares several similarities with Trump, who not only disregards alliances but also vows to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act passed during the Biden administration, thus championing unilateral presidential power. However, President Cleveland failed to resolve the economic crisis (Panic of 1893) that occurred in the first year of his second term, leading to the loss of power to the Republican Party in the 1896 election. His presidency is also seen as having significantly weakened the Democratic Party's position, as the Republican-led "System of 1896" persisted until Roosevelt's election in 1932.

2. Competition Between Unpopular Candidates: Preference, Voting, and Third Parties?

According to opinion polls, approximately 20 percent of voters dislike both Trump and Biden in this year's US presidential election. This figure is similar to the proportion of voters who expressed dislike for both Hillary Clinton and Trump in the 2016 election, which ultimately led to Trump's victory as he garnered more support from this group of voters who opposed both candidates. Elections characterized by "who is less disliked?" rather than "who is better?" are a hallmark of political polarization in the United States, symbolized by negative partisanship. The traditional method of evaluating politicians based on their policy achievements is no longer applicable. Instead, voting criteria are now determined by the intensity of emotional animosity towards the opposing party or president. While Obama's election in 2008 maximized the resentment of low-income white voters, Trump's rise in 2016 disrupted the existing political order by neutralizing the "politically correct" sentiment.

Research in American politics highlights the serious implications of political polarization, particularly its weakening effect on political accountability. According to Small and Eisinger (2020), the consumer confidence index and presidential approval ratings, which were highly correlated, have moved in different directions erratically since the Obama administration. This means that even if people feel the economy is poor, presidential approval ratings do not change significantly, or conversely, even if the economy is booming, presidential approval ratings do not rise accordingly. The fact that this trend began with Obama's election also signifies a shift in the traditional American political landscape where the economy and race were relatively separate. Economic performance is now perceived through racial biases. Furthermore, when voters have strong negative feelings towards both candidates, their preferences are less likely to change significantly, regardless of economic conditions or political developments. Most voters have already made up their minds about Biden and Trump, whom they know very well. Consequently, the election competition becomes a battle over who will turn out to vote or stay home. Naturally, strategies that foster negative partisanship are becoming effective in increasing voter turnout through fear and disgust. Additionally, the issue of third-party votes, which played a decisive role in the outcome of the 2016 swing states, is likely to serve as a catalyst for raising voter awareness in 2024.

3. Shifts in US Presidential Swing States: Current Status and Future of Swing State Research?

The swing states in this year's US presidential election include the three Midwestern states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, which were alternately won by Trump and Biden in 2016 and 2020; Arizona and Georgia, traditionally Republican states that voted for Biden in the last election; and Nevada, which could shift from a traditional Democratic state to Republican due to the potential for Latino support for Trump. Additionally, North Carolina, which narrowly favored Trump in the last election but supported Obama in 2008, and Virginia, where the cohesion of the Northern Virginia region near Washington D.C. is crucial, can be considered. For example, even if Trump regains Arizona and Georgia and newly captures Nevada, if President Biden holds the three Midwestern swing states, the electoral outcome could be 270 for Biden and 268 for Trump, allowing Biden to secure re-election. Furthermore, even if Trump wins Michigan (15 electoral votes) through an effective divisive strategy, if President Biden recaptures North Carolina (16 electoral votes) as he did in Obama's 2008 election, the electoral vote margin would increase from 2 to 3. Of course, if Trump wins even one of the three Midwestern states and holds North Carolina as he did last time, Trump would win.

While the swing states' voter sentiment and outcomes are the most critical variables in US presidential elections, research on swing states within American political science is surprisingly limited. Demographic changes, including population migration, and economic conditions centered on industrial bases are clearly major factors contributing to a state becoming a swing state. More fundamentally, the reasons and processes behind the establishment or loss of a party's regional base are decisive. Hood and McKee (2010) analyzed why North Carolina, which had not voted Democratic since Carter's support in 1976, gave its vote to the Democratic candidate in the 2008 election. Their research, focusing primarily on in-migration within the US, suggests that the influx of progressive voters from the Northeast, bringing their party affiliations with them to the warmer and safer Southern state of North Carolina, led to an increase in Democratic support. The argument that Texas could become a symbolic purple state in the near future is based on the observation of a large influx of high-tech industry workers from California, currently a strong Democratic state (blue state), into Texas. Research on the emergence and shifts of swing states requires interdisciplinary analysis encompassing regional, demographic, economic, industrial, political, and cultural factors. It is a field closely linked to the future of American political research.

4. Candidates' Legal Risks: Crisis of Democracy or Judicialization of Politics?

For Trump, who holds numerous "firsts," the situation of being the "first indicted former president" has undeniably altered his political fate. Following the disappointing results of the 2022 midterm elections, voices within the Republican Party began to call for alternative candidates in late 2022. This was the period when Florida Governor DeSantis emerged as a potential successor to Trumpism. However, everything changed in March 2023 when a Manhattan district attorney indicted former President Trump on charges of falsifying business records. Subsequently, the Republican Party offered its full support to Trump, who faced a total of 91 charges across four indictments. While a more detailed analysis is needed to understand the reasons, it appears that for the Republican primary voters, who now see the party as Trump's, the legal challenges Trump faces have become an additional incentive to support him. Despite Trump's peculiar logic of "persecution against you, along with me," both his fundraising and approval ratings surged after the indictments, reflecting the reality of American politics.

The US Supreme Court, which played a decisive role in the 2000 US presidential election, is once again actively involved in this election, reigniting academic interest in judicial politics (Sunstein and Epstein 2001). On March 4th, the day before Super Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued an unusual online order ruling that the disqualification clause under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, related to insurrection, does not apply to Trump. Furthermore, despite the special counsel's strong request to hear the case from the trial court, and even after an appellate court clearly ruled against presidential immunity, the Supreme Court changed its stance. By deciding to hear the case directly, the Supreme Court has effectively sided with Trump. This is because if the Supreme Court begins hearings in late April and issues a final ruling denying presidential immunity in May or June, it will add three months to the pre-trial preparation period for the January 6th trial, meaning the trial outcome, at the earliest, will be known in late October or even after the election. Regardless of the debate over the legitimacy of Trump's indictment or trial, there is a growing need for research into American politics, which is increasingly characterized by the judicialization of politics (Sunstein, Schkade, Ellman, and Sawicki 2006).

5. Primary Elections and Foreign Policy: A New Dimension in the Correlation Between Diplomacy and Elections?

The "Listen to Michigan" movement has caused a stir in the primary election process of incumbent President Biden, which had previously garnered little attention and proceeded in a largely formal manner. Following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023, Arab Americans have become increasingly resentful of President Biden's unilateral support for Israel. As the war has progressed and reports of excessive Israeli military actions and casualties have emerged, progressive young Americans have joined forces with Arab Americans. Their demands are for Biden to publicly call for a ceasefire and halt aid to Israel. The "Listen to Michigan" movement's strategy to pressure Biden is notably reflected in the ongoing primary elections. They are urging voters to cast ballots for "uncommitted" rather than Biden in the Michigan Democratic primary to demonstrate their potential influence in the general election. As a result, the number of "uncommitted" votes, which was previously around 20,000, exceeded 100,000 in the Michigan primary. Since Biden's victory in the primary was a foregone conclusion, the media's sole focus will be on the "uncommitted" movement, indicating that Biden's burden remains significant.

Research on the relationship between elections and foreign policy in American politics generally indicates a relatively low correlation between the two, as noted by Aldrich et al. (1989). Foreign policy is considered significant in elections only when it is highly important and there are clear differences between candidates. The differing stances of Eisenhower and Stevenson on the Korean War during the 1952 US presidential election serve as an exception. Compared to existing research that has primarily explored the impact of foreign policy issues on election outcomes, the "uncommitted" movement by a swing state civic group in the current Democratic primary is unique in its attempt to alter US foreign policy by leveraging the candidate selection process. This presents another interesting link and research topic for the study of the correlation between foreign policy and domestic politics.

III. Conclusion: Will the 2024 US Presidential Election Be a Critical Election?

Assuming that not all elections are equally important, American political history reveals the existence of elections referred to as "critical elections." The 1800 election (Jefferson) marked the first peaceful transfer of power in the US and established a state-centered political system, rejecting federal centralization. The 1828 election (Jackson) transformed the presidential election process, previously dominated by elites, into one based on popular vote. The period following the 1860 election (Lincoln) saw the Civil War, escalating conflicts over American political, economic, and racial issues to their peak. The 1896 election (McKinley) established the gold standard financial system and a discourse of industrial-centered national development. The 1932 election (Roosevelt) ushered in the New Deal era, fundamentally redefining the roles of government and the presidency. The period after the 1980 election (Reagan) saw a return to the small-government ideology prevalent before the New Deal era. While research exists on whether the 2012 Obama re-election or the 2016 Trump victory can be classified as critical elections or periods of reconstruction (Azari 2020; Skowronek 2023), consensus among American political scientists on this matter remains elusive.

Two key conditions for an election to be recognized as critical are clear differences between the candidates and a landslide victory-defeat outcome. Firstly, significant differences exist between Biden and Trump. Will alliances be maintained, or will America act alone? Regarding immigration, will Congress enact legislation to strengthen borders and encourage legal immigration, or will the president unilaterally close borders and expel immigrants through executive orders? In confronting China, will the focus be on technological competition with considerations for coexistence, or will the aim be to win a trade war through tariffs and assert unilateral American dominance? Should the Inflation Reduction Act be upheld or repealed? Should the federal bureaucracy remain as is, or will approximately 50,000 positions be filled with presidential loyalists through executive orders? These are questions to consider. Nevertheless, unless this election is decided by a significant margin in the Electoral College, the 50-50 split in American politics is likely to continue.

There are also considerable similarities between Trump and Biden. "America First" has become a fundamental policy for the future of the United States, a point on which both Trump and Biden agree. Their approaches to foreign policy aimed at benefiting workers and the middle class are also not significantly different. Furthermore, both Trump and Biden will likely have their achievements and influence defined by the post-Trump and post-Biden eras. In other words, within the Republican Party, a full debate on Trumpism is expected to become possible only after Trump exits the political stage, either this year or in 2028. This is why attention is focused on whether Nikki Haley, who withdrew after Super Tuesday, could return to the Republican presidential nomination race in 2028 and steer the "Trump Party" back to being the "Reagan Party."

Within the Democratic Party, the absence of a centrist candidate capable of succeeding Biden poses a challenge. Although the Democratic Party as a congressional party is largely composed of progressive members, the reality of American politics, where a centrist candidate is still necessary for victory, weighs heavily on the Democratic Party's near future. While Vice President Kamala Harris, a moderate, should be the frontrunner, her low approval ratings offer little hope for recovery. Therefore, centrist governors are expected to gain prominence. The presence of a Democratic presidential candidate who follows the centrist lineage of Clinton, Obama, and Biden is undoubtedly crucial to preventing a Republican sweep. In conclusion, this election will determine which era, post-Trump or post-Biden, will unfold first. ■

References

Aldrich, John H. John Sullivan, and Eugene Borgida. 1989. “Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates Waltz Before a Blind Audience?” American Political Science Review 83, 1: 123-141.

Azari, Julia R. 2020. “The Scrambled Cycle: Realignment, Political Time, and the Trump Presidency,” in Zachary Callen and Philip Rocco ed. 2020. American Political Development and the Trump Presidency. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hood, M. V., & McKee, S. C. 2010. “What Made Carolina Blue? In-Migration and the 2008 North Carolina Presidential Vote.” American Politics Research 38, 2: 266-302.

Skowronek, Stephen. 2023. Presidential Leadership in Political Time: Reprise and Reappraisal, 3rd Edition, Revised and expanded. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Small, Raphael and Robert M. Eisinger. 2020. “Whither Presidential Approval?” Presidential Studies Quarterly 50, 4: 845-863.

Sunstein, Cass R. and Richard A. Epstein. 2001. The Vote: Bush, Gore, and the Supreme Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sunstein, Cass R. David Schkade, Lisa M. Ellman, and Andres Sawicki. 2006. Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

■ Seo Jeong-geon_Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Kyung Hee University.

■ Editor: Park Han-soo_Research Fellow, EAI

    Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 204) | hspark@eai.or.kr