Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Trump vs. Harris: A high-stakes election and its risks to democracy
When Republicans met in Milwaukee for their quadrennial convention in July, Donald Trump was cruising to victory in November. He was ahead in the polls. He had stood next to his opponent, Joe Biden, who imploded in a presidential debate. He had barely escaped an assassin’s bullet. And he was overseeing a raucous convention with all the markings of a victory celebration.
Trump, in short, was winning.
And then he was losing.
Within a month of the GOP convention, everything had changed. Days after it concluded, President Biden announced he would not run for president in November and endorsed his running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris. Within 48 hours, Harris had cleared the field of any possible challengers and received the endorsement of the entire party. Within a week, she secured the backing of a majority of the delegates and raised $300 million for her campaign. And within a month, she had erased Biden’s polling deficit and topped Trump in national polls and most battleground states.
Much can still happen in the race. The country remains deeply divided and polarized, and the elections will likely be decided by a few thousand votes in a few battleground states. Trump may finally accept he has to face Harris rather than Biden and prosecute his case against her more effectively than he has in the past two weeks. Harris remains undefined to most voters and may stumble along the way — in a debate, an interview, or some other way.
“A week,” Harold Wilson said, “is a long time in politics.” In the age of social media, an hour can change everything.
But while much can change, here is what we do know: This election poses unique risks to democracy in America and has profound implications for the global political landscape.
Potential risks during the election
In America, the first Monday in September — Labor Day — signals the start of the final leg of the presidential campaign. Between then and Election Day, the process is quite predictable. Early voting, in person or by mail, will start in a few weeks in some states and reach a crescendo in the week leading up to Nov. 5.
Every election has its share of surprises in the last weeks before voting ends, whether external (for example, a major escalation in an ongoing conflict or an economic calamity) or internal (a scandal or stumble that changes people’s perception of the race). Social media, AI, and foreign interference can also influence how voters see the candidates — more so in the case of Harris, who remains relatively new on the political scene, certainly compared to Trump. Race and gender may also play an unpredictable role.
All that said, the divisions in the country, and the relatively siloed nature of political discourse, render it relatively safe to predict that this will be a close election — likely decided by a tiny fraction of the 140 million or so people who are expected to come out to vote. The process itself is therefore unlikely to pose much risk.
Instead, the more significant risk arises from the Republican strategy to delegitimize the election process. Trump and his allies are preparing to aggressively challenge the election results, asserting that any loss, particularly following a close race, would be the result of a rigged system. This narrative, similar to the one Trump pushed after his 2020 defeat, is being amplified by many party faithful, including elected officials, as the election nears. It could lead to efforts to disrupt voting and counting processes, increasing the potential for post-election violence. The readiness of federal, state, and local governments to address these challenges remains uncertain.
A key difference from the 2020 election is that the incumbent administration has the power to enforce legal measures to maintain order. The federal government’s preparedness to exercise this power is one of the critical uncertainties of this election.
Risks of a Harris victory
A narrow Harris victory poses immediate risks, primarily stemming from Trump's refusal to concede defeat gracefully. Trump’s denial of the 2020 election results has fueled his 2024 campaign and the broader “Make America Great Again” movement. The potential for widespread, organized efforts to discredit the election, accompanied by possible violence, is very real. The turmoil following a Trump loss in 2024 is liable to eclipse the events of Jan. 6, 2021, in scale and intensity.
Implications for the Ukraine-Russia conflict
The ongoing war in Ukraine will continue to be a critical international issue regardless of the election outcome. While Trump may seek to negotiate an end to the conflict, his limited leverage over Kyiv and Moscow means the war’s trajectory is unlikely to change significantly.
The primary difference lies in how the conflict is managed. Under a Harris administration, continued US military support for Ukraine would be crucial for maintaining pressure on Russia. Conversely, a Trump administration’s disinterest could lead to reduced sanctions against Russia, affecting the geopolitical balance — and ultimately contributing to Ukraine’s defeat.
The legislative election will be equally important to the conflict’s future. A Democratic majority in Congress would facilitate the shipment of further weapons packages to Kyiv, while a new Republican majority would likely create additional barriers to new aid.
Impact on NATO and global alliances
Trump’s worldview, which prioritizes win-lose scenarios over cooperative alliances, threatens the integrity of NATO. Even some Trump sympathizers in Congress, such as Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, have sponsored bills to reverse any attempts by a president to “suspend, terminate or withdraw” from NATO. But these are unlikely to have much effect. Trump’s disregard for mutual defense agreements could undermine the alliance’s strategic coherence, leaving European allies uncertain about US support in times of crisis. This erosion of trust could diminish NATO’s effectiveness.
Domestic tensions and policy implications
Domestically, a Trump return to power would likely exacerbate tensions on many fronts. His administration would be expected to adopt a more forceful approach to dealing with protests and civil unrest, potentially leading to rampant violence.
Trump has also promised to deport 15 million undocumented immigrants, which, if implemented, would cause widespread angst and have a major impact on the economy. Key issues such as women’s rights, racial justice, and the legitimacy of the democratic process could spark significant societal conflicts.
Conclusion and call to action
A second Trump presidency would diverge sharply from his first, characterized by a cadre of loyalists prioritizing Trump’s interests over national concerns. His campaign, driven by themes of revenge and retribution, foreshadows an administration bent on settling scores with political adversaries.
Conversely, a narrow Harris victory could trigger unprecedented challenges to electoral integrity and stability.
In these extraordinary times, the risks for businesses and individuals operating in the US are significantly heightened. Navigating this landscape requires having critical insights and strategies to ensure safety and operational continuity amid potential upheaval.
___________
This op-ed was written by Ivo Daalder, former US ambassador to NATO, and a strategic adviser, political risk, on the Healix Risk and Advisory Board. For more from Daalder, check out his recent interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World. They discuss views from the Baltics on Russian aggression.
As Russia gains ground in Ukraine, Baltic states worry the war will spread west
In recent weeks, Russia has captured territory in the east and southeast of Ukraine at its fastest pace since the early days of the invasion. A six-month delay in the US sending critical military aid to Kyiv allowed Russia a window of opportunity to make significant advances. Now, military experts fear the war could spread westward to the Baltic states, bringing the specter of war to NATO’s backyard.
On GZERO World, president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder joins Ian Bremmer from Tallinn, Estonia, for an update on the mood right now in the Baltic region. Government officials in Estonia say they are worried because it’s clear that Russia, by extension, Vladimir Putin, has realized that their survival depends on a permanent mobilization of the country for war, which the Russian economy is now dependent on for growth. Should Ukraine fall or take serious losses, the war could move past the border and into the Baltics, which are members of NATO. As a former Soviet country, Estonia keenly understands what it’s like to be dominated by Moscow and what it would mean for other NATO allies if Ukraine fell.
“Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, countries on the front line are saying, the United States and Germany need to wake up,” Daalder explains, “This war that you don’t want to fight, it’s right here, right now being fought in Ukraine.”
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
Is the US aid to Ukraine too little, too late?
Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder says the last six months of Ukraine's war with Russia may have been a critical juncture. He underscores Ukraine's urgent need for additional capabilities, especially manpower and ammunition, which the US has been slow to supply.
"[The Russians] just have more people, they have more guns, and they, importantly, it looks like they have more and better morale, which makes them willing to do things that otherwise people aren't willing to do."
Daalder calls for a serious discussion about the West's role in aiding Ukraine and the potential consequences of inaction. To put it simply, Daalder says there's much more that the US could be doing. "We have military power, we have capabilities; we could send in larger quantities. We have troops."
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
Is Russia winning the war in Ukraine?
What would Ukraine’s defeat look like? Over two years into this bloody conflict, Russia has never been as close to victory as it is today. “When the history of this war is written,” former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder tells Ian Bremmer, “I think we’ll look back on the last six months as really… the turning point." Daalder joins Bremmer on the latest episode of GZERO World from Tallinn, Estonia, just a couple hundred miles from the Russian border.
"We need to start having a conversation about how serious this is, and are we going to accept this?" In a sobering and wide-ranging interview, Daalder outlines Russia's advantage on the battlefield today. “They just have more people, they have more guns, and importantly, it looks like they have more and better morale, which makes them willing to do things that otherwise people aren't willing to do."
How much is this battlefield mismatch due to a delay in US support? A big part of it, says Daalder. “Congress refusing to act on the requests that the president first made back in July…and nothing happening until mid-April” was a major blow to Ukraine’s defenses, Daalder says. “And now it just takes time to get stuff to the front and get it across the border and to the units in the quantities to make it happen.”
Is it too late for the West to help Ukraine ward off total defeat? And what would lasting peace, as remote as it might seem now, look like?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- Two years of war in Ukraine: Power players at the Munich Security Conference weigh in ›
- Ukraine waits for help as Russia advances ›
- Russia-Ukraine war: How we got here ›
- Russia-Ukraine: Two Years of War ›
- Why Ukraine invaded Russia - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine's capture of POWs undermines Russia's narrative - GZERO Media ›
- Why Canadians are tired of Justin Trudeau - GZERO Media ›
Is Ukraine running out of time? Former US ambassador Ivo Daalder sizes up the Russia-Ukraine war
Listen: Could the last six months be the most pivotal months of the entire Russia/Ukraine war? Over two years into the conflict, Russia is closer to victory in Ukraine than ever before, according to former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder. He joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World Podcast from Tallinn, Estonia, mere miles from the Russian border.
How much is this battlefield mismatch due to a delay in US support? A big part of it, says Daalder. “Congress refusing to act on the requests that the president first made back in July…and nothing happening until mid-April” was a major blow to Ukraine’s defenses, Daalder says. “And now it just takes time to get stuff to the Front and get it across the border and to the units in the quantities to make it happen.”
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
- Ian Explains: What the war in Ukraine looks like inside Russia ›
- Ukraine waits for help as Russia advances ›
- Will China end Russia’s war? ›
- Ukraine will define the future of NATO ›
- Will Ukrainian airstrikes inside Russia shift the war? - GZERO Media ›
- At NATO Summit, Polish FM Radek Sikorski weighs in on Ukraine war - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Explains: Will Ukraine ever negotiate with Russia? - GZERO Media ›
- Czech president Petr Pavel: Ukraine war fatigue weakening NATO unity against Russia - GZERO Media ›
Would Trump give Ukraine to Putin?
Speaking to Ian Bremmer from Tallinn, Estonia, for the latest episode of GZERO World, former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder outlines the potential impact of a Trump win on the Ukraine conflict. Daalder underscores Europe's concern about Trump's promise to end the war swiftly, noting that "Trump has said that he is going to end the war in 24 hours" by telling Putin he can keep his gains. This approach would effectively allow Putin to win the war and would have disastrous consequences, not just for Ukraine but for all of Europe. “It's been now pretty clear for the last few months,” Daalder tells Ian, that the Europeans “feel themselves squeezed between Putin and Trump. Trump as a country that is no longer willing and able reliably to help Europe and in its own defense in the way it has done for 75 years.” European leaders, Daalder says, are increasingly questioning how much they can rely on the support of the United States to defend democracy in the West. “That's the question Europe faces,” Daalder says. “It isn't going away with this election.”
Look for the full interview with Ivo Daalder on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, airing on US public television soon (check local listings.)
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- Senate announces plan for Ukraine-Border deal – Trump calls it “meaningless” ›
- Top question for G7: How to Trump-proof Ukraine aid ›
- US-Ukraine policy under Trump would be similar to Biden's ›
- Who would Putin vote for? ›
- Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0 ›
- Why Trump-Putin calls are cause for concern - GZERO Media ›
The increasing risk of direct confrontation between Russia and NATO
Former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to discuss Russia, NATO, and the countries caught in between. According to Daalder, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has brought the possibility of an armed conflict between two nuclear-armed powers higher than it has been since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Relations have devolved to the point that Russia sees NATO as an enemy and vice versa. So, is a new Cold War heating up?
It's a difficult situation for countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa, which have strong diplomatic and financial ties to both sides, and whose economies are suffering the effects of high fuel prices and rising global inflation. There is also the issue of Turkey––a NATO member that's used its veto power to block Sweden's membership in the alliance. With both sides digging in for the long haul, between Russia and NATO, how much room for diplomacy is there in the messy middle?
Note: this interview appeared in an episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on April 24, 2023, "Russia vs. NATO: Heightened risk of war"
Russia's narrative win on war in Ukraine - outside the West
As tensions between Russia and NATO continue to escalate, Ian Bremmer and former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder discuss on GZERO World the perspective of non-Western countries, who are walking a complicated geopolitical tightrope between the two sides.
Nations like India, Brazil and South Africa have a strong diplomatic and economic ties to both Russia and the West. They're being put in a difficult position of condemning the war in Ukraine without supporting Western-led sanctions, which are creating high fuel prices and rising inflation for their own citizens.
The West needs to make clear that the negative effects of the war are a consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, not of the sanctions themselves, Daalder argues. Changing the narrative to emphasize Russia's responsibility for the conflict is crucial if the West wants to maintain support for the long haul, which Daalder says could continue for decades.