74 years old is probably an age for an ordinary person to enjoy his old age. But for Trump, he has only one goal in life: to return to the White House. But this time, the road to the pinnacle of power seems to be more bumpy than ever before. The US election, this political arena that takes place every four years, is now filled with smoke, and Trump is at the center of the storm.
Recently, Trump's campaign has been full of ups and downs, like a roller coaster. He first showed amazing "resilience" in an attack, which won him a lot of sympathy and his support rate soared. Then, his rival Biden suddenly announced his withdrawal from the election, which seemed to clear the biggest obstacle for him.
However, fate is unpredictable. Biden's withdrawal is not the end, but the beginning of another more unpredictable competition. Harris, who succeeded Biden, became Trump's new opponent and also became a lingering shadow in his heart.
Just as Trump was confidently preparing for his final victory, a report from the Pentagon was like a bombshell that exploded on his campaign trail. The report showed that since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the total amount of US aid to Ukraine has exceeded US$55.7 billion, and the bulk of this huge amount of money eventually fell into the hands of arms contractors in 35 states in the United States, with a total amount of up to US$41.7 billion.
This report may seem ordinary, but it actually contains mysteries. It reveals the naked profit-making chain behind US foreign aid: war has become a tool for the US military-industrial complex and the "deep government" to make money, and Ukraine is just a pawn in this "cake feast".
Trump has always been opposed to aiding Ukraine, believing that it is a waste of American taxpayers' money and is involving the United States in a war that has nothing to do with it. However, his position has touched the "cake" of too many people. Those military-industrial giants who benefit from arms deals and those members of the "deep government" who have great influence in the political arena will not easily let Trump shake the foundation of their interests.
Faced with powerful opposition forces, Trump had to do everything he could to defend his political "cake". He used every opportunity to win over voters, especially those at the bottom of society whom he regarded as the "silent majority". He promised to solve their housing, medical, employment and other problems, trying to use these "visible and tangible" promises of benefits to exchange for their votes.
However, Trump's efforts did not win him the expected results. His opponent Harris is a female politician with great political skills. She is well versed in the rules of the game in American society and knows how to use her own advantages to win the support of voters. She is not only a woman, but also a minority, which makes her naturally attractive to female voters and minority voters.
More importantly, Harris accurately grasped the weaknesses of Trump's policies during the campaign, and used this as a breakthrough point to launch a fierce "cake offensive" against Trump. She promised that once elected, she would give priority to solving the housing and food problems that the people are most concerned about, and proposed a series of specific policy measures. These promises are undoubtedly very tempting to those people who live at the bottom of society and struggle to make ends meet.
In this way, Harris successfully portrayed herself as a politician who "cares about people's livelihood and cares about the people". In sharp contrast, Trump was labeled as "cold-blooded and self-interested". Poll data also reflects this change. Harris's approval rating has been rising, while Trump's approval rating has been declining.
Faced with such a severe situation, Trump could only sigh that "times are tough". His running mate, Vance, was originally a "secret weapon" that was highly expected to help Trump win over those grassroots voters who were dissatisfied with the status quo. However, Vance offended the female voter group by making inappropriate remarks in a public speech, which made Trump's support rate even worse.
In his speech, Vance pointed out that the low birth rate in the United States is a serious problem. He called on American women to pay attention to this problem and take responsibility for having children. This statement undoubtedly hit a "mine" in today's era of awakening women's consciousness. Many female voters believe that Vance's remarks are offensive and discriminatory to women, and are an attempt to shift all the responsibility for having children to women.
Vance's gaffe became a "watershed" in Trump's campaign. Before this, although Trump also faced many challenges, he at least had a glimmer of hope. However, after the Vance incident, Trump's approval rating fell and there is no sign of recovery.
To make matters worse, while Trump was struggling with his election, discordant voices began to emerge within the Republican Party. Comrades who once fought side by side with him have now chosen to "jump ship". Former US Vice President Dick Cheney, a heavyweight in the Republican Party, publicly stated that he would not support Trump in this election, but would vote for his opponent Harris.
Cheney's "rebellion" was not an impulse, but a well-thought-out political calculation. As one of the most powerful vice presidents in American history, Cheney has a significant influence in the Republican Party. His choice to defect at this critical moment will undoubtedly deal a heavy blow to Trump.
Analysts pointed out that Cheney's decision was not only due to her dissatisfaction with Trump's personal ability and governing style, but also for the future of the Republican Party. In Cheney's view, Trump has become a "hot potato" for the Republican Party. His existence will only continue to consume the political resources of the Republican Party and is not conducive to the long-term development of the Republican Party.
More importantly, Cheney is well aware that the conflict between the Republican establishment and Trump has reached an irreconcilable point. In the last US election, it was the collective defection of the Republican establishment that led to Trump's defeat to Biden. After the Democratic Party came to power, it did not fulfill its original promise to the Republican establishment, but instead suppressed and excluded them.
This "killing the donkey after it has done its job" approach has completely angered the Republican establishment. They realized that cooperating with the Democrats is a dead end, and if they want to protect their political interests, they must find another way out. The emergence of Harris provides them with a new option.
Although Harris is a Democrat, her political stance is relatively moderate, and there is no irreconcilable conflict between her and the Republican establishment. Moreover, Harris' pragmatic style and political skills during the campaign have also won the recognition of many Republican establishment figures.
Therefore, for the Republican establishment, instead of continuing to support Trump, who has lost the support of the people and is seemingly at odds with them, it is better to choose Harris, who is more likely to win the election and is more friendly to them.
Faced with the situation of internal and external difficulties, Trump did not give up and was still making a final struggle. He knew that he had lost the support of most voters and had to find a new breakthrough if he wanted to win the election.
His last hope lies with the upper class wealthy people in the United States.
Trump is well aware that the welfare policies proposed by Harris, while able to win the support of lower- and middle-class voters, touch upon the interests of the wealthy. Harris promised to raise taxes on the rich and strengthen supervision of the rich, which are undoubtedly unacceptable to the rich who are accustomed to enjoying various preferential policies.
Therefore, Trump decided to use the dissatisfaction of the wealthy class with Harris' policies to win the last support for himself. He has repeatedly stated in public that Harris' policies are "socialist" policies that will destroy the US economy, and only he can lead the United States to prosperity.
In order to cater to the interests of the wealthy class, Trump also promised that if he is re-elected, he will further cut taxes, relax regulations and create a more relaxed operating environment for businesses.
Trump's statement did have a certain effect. Some wealthy people began to worry about Harris' policies. They were worried that Harris would increase their tax burden and affect their business after taking office.
However, can Trump win the election with the support of the wealthy class alone? The answer is probably not optimistic.
First, the wealthy class does not account for a high proportion of the U.S. population, and their votes are limited, so they cannot decide the outcome of the general election.
Second, even among the wealthy, not everyone supports Trump. Some wealthy people believe that Trump’s policies are too radical and may harm the national interests of the United States.
More importantly, the final outcome of the US election depends not only on the candidates' policy proposals, but also on the voters' mood and social atmosphere.
The 2024 US election has turned into a struggle among different interest groups for the "cake". Trump, Harris, the Republican establishment, the military-industrial complex, the "deep government", the wealthy class, the grassroots people... Each group plays its own role in this struggle and fights for its own interests.
Can Trump keep his political "cake" and return to the White House? Can Harris seize the opportunity to become the first female president in American history? Can the Republican establishment find a new position in the chaos? Where will American society go?
All of this will be revealed in November 2024.
But one thing is certain: no matter what the final outcome is, this battle for the "cake" will have a profound impact on American society. It not only exposes the deep contradictions and problems within American society, but also indicates that the future of American politics is full of variables and challenges.