Our US students give their opinion and analysis on the important issues ahead of the 2024 US Presidential Election.

“Who will actually make America great again?”

The American Dream, once a symbol of hope for many, now feels like an unattainable promise. This 2024 election, Gen Z and Millennials will make up nearly half of the voting population with around 41 million voters aged 18-27. Young voters’ top concerns are the economy, income inequality, and the rising cost of living, fueled by student debt, high food prices, gas, and housing costs. Other fears and concerns revolve around the climate crisis and how its impact will determine where the youth will live in the future. Other key concerns include issues surrounding gun control, abortion, immigration, social injustice, and foreign relations, specifically the U.S. involvement in the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The Democratic Party gave hope to young democrats when Biden stepped down and Harris took the lead. Many hope to finally see the first female president of the United States this November, hoping Harris will bring a fresh approach to leadership yet cautious whether she will bring about real change.

But many feel disillusioned by the political system, frustrated by the two main options and wary of political discourse that doesn’t translate into real action. With a strong desire to see real change, young voters are likely to choose the candidate who “fits the vibe” and seems committed to making a difference, rather than one tied to political rhetoric or party loyalty.

The vote will ultimately go to whoever resonates with the heart and mind of the people and can inspire meaningful change.

Anika Robinson is an MSc Political Science (Conflict Studies and Comparative Politics) student in the LSE Department of Government and voted in New York. She graduated from IE University in Spain in 2023 and specialised in global affairs and diplomacy as well as peace, security, and conflict resolution. Before attending LSE, she worked in project management at the United Nations Office of Counter Terrorism.

“The true threat to democracy may be the growing loss of faith in it”

On June 27th, 2024, watching the presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, I (and many) joined the growing group of Americans who distrust the U.S. political system. Biden’s visible decline raised serious concerns about his ability to lead, especially since he had positioned himself as a transition candidate in 2020. The perception that this was hidden from the public deepened voter skepticism. On the other side, Trump, with 34 criminal convictions, ongoing investigations, and continued election denial, offered no credible alternative. For millions of voters, this didn’t feel like democracy.

Rather than having a debate that focused on the real issues that matter to Americans or providing hope for a way forward, what we witnessed was a stark and depressing display of inadequacy. Trump spewed unchecked lies, while Biden struggled to counter him or prove his competency. Both candidates, clearly unfit to lead, left voters with a disheartening choice. Even as Kamala Harris offers a younger, brighter alternative, the road that led us to this moment only validates the deepening distrust in politics and politicians in the U.S.

Trump’s continued baseless lies of a stolen 2020 election, despite widespread evidence to the contrary, and his divisive rhetoric about “the enemy within” and immigrants have continued to contribute to election skepticism and fear. Political violence continues to rise to levels not seen since the 1970s. As Election Day nears, the true threat to democracy may be the growing loss of faith in it—a system now driven more by fear and division than by hope and representation.

Leo Jaques is a General Course student at LSE majoring in International Relations. His studies focus mainly on nationalism, social media misinformation, young men, and how the intersection could pose a threat to democracy globally. He votes in Washington D.C.

“The antidote to melancholy is an organized Left”

I was a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2020 who, like many young people, could muster no enthusiasm for a Biden presidency. The relief of Trump’s loss was a paltry salve for the deep disaffection engendered by the Democrats’ milquetoast victory—a disaffection I shared with many on the Left. By 2024, that disaffection has calcified into an unbearable hopelessness wrought by a Democratic administration which has funded and armed a year of genocide perpetuated by our client, Israel. Regardless of the outcome of this election, this hopelessness is clearly here to stay. A Trump win will spark flares of fear and anger. A Harris win will instead trigger an encroachment of this political melancholy.

How many young people do you know who will really celebrate a Harris victory? How many pro-Palestine student protestors will feel hopeful about another Democratic administration? After we watched this one brutalize and arrest our friends? When Harris continues to brow-beat and dismiss the students who challenge her vacuous candidacy?

Political melancholy is a necessary outcome of the total disorganization of the American Left. In the face of either outcome next month, the Left must have the humility to recognize that we have failed to offer an organized response—let alone a serious challenge—to Harris. Instead of slipping into disaffection, we must recognize our feeble position and organize a mass movement capable of making demands of the next administration. As disenchanted as I was in 2020, I didn’t slip into apathy because I was lucky to have a political home in my organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). If Biden engendered no hope, DSA’s collective fight did. Young voters must mobilize our fear and frustration into an organized effort of the kind led by DSA or by unions across the country. We must fight together instead of siloing away in our hopelessness.

Natasha Roy is a student in the MSc Political Theory in the LSE Department of Government, and holds BAs in Literature and Politics from New York University. Since 2019, she has been a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist organization in the United States.

“The best chance for peace and security is for the U.S. to be responsibly engaged in global affairs”

In Foreign Affairs, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently argued that “the current period is not a Cold War redux. It is more dangerous.” The next president will face escalating international conflict, and their most important decision is how they respond.

In the article, Secretary Rice describes how unlike the Soviet Union––which was a major military power but relatively economically weak––China’s threat is multifaceted. Alongside its military modernization (China has the largest navy and a growing nuclear arsenal), its economy is dominant in technologies critical to global commerce. Moreover, China’s territorial ambition extends to Taiwan and deep into the South China Sea.

The next president cannot hyperfocus their attention on the Indo-Pacific at the expense of other regions. Ukraine, despite its initial success, is on the back foot. In the Middle East, the war that broke out after Hamas’ terrorist attack on Israel has passed the one-year mark, recently extending into Lebanon. The strikes traded between Iran and Israel threaten to pull America in.

A successful president can balance domestic and international concerns. My hope is that the winner of this election resists the temptation to isolate; the best chance for peace and security is for the U.S. to be responsibly engaged in global affairs. This means rebuilding America’s shrinking military, strengthening alliances, and promoting trade. It also means working to rectify the polarization that handicaps the U.S. government and poisons discourse, while emboldening autocrats eager to belittle democracy. Are they up to the challenge ahead?

Christopher Healey is a student in the MSc Political Science (Conflict Studies and Comparative Politics) program. Before LSE, he worked at think tanks in Washington, D.C. Christopher is primarily interested in transatlantic affairs and issues of governance and security in the former Eastern Bloc. He is an alum of Kenyon College, where he studied politics and religion.

“In another life, voting for a woman of color would have felt like a victory”

I would like to be excited about Kamala Harris and her campaign, as there are many things to be excited for. If elected, Harris will be the first woman, the first woman of color, and the first Asian American president of the United States. Beyond representation, Harris’ campaign platform stands to offer tangible, deliberate solutions for some of the nation’s most pressing issues: gun violence, threats to reproductive healthcare, rising costs of living, climate change, and infrastructure failures.

In a vacuum, Harris’ platform is the type of policy vision I’d purchase a “Harris-Walz 2024” t-shirt for. But this election is not happening in a vacuum; this election is happening in a time of humanitarian crisis. As much as I would like to phone bank and door knock for a candidate who shares many of my policy aspirations, I cannot ignore the destruction and devastation that has been brought upon the people of Palestine – directly supported by the Biden-Harris administration.

I believe a Harris administration will better serve Americans than a Trump administration. A second Trump administration will not only harm millions of people but will threaten the state of American democracy and international affairs as we know it. Because of this, I voted for Harris in the upcoming presidential election. In another life, voting for a woman of color would have felt like a victory. Instead, all I could think of as I slid my ballot into the drop box was the obliteration of an entire population.

Delaney Hartmann is an MSc candidate in the Public Policy and Administration program at the LSE Department of Government. Her fields of study include human rights, political inequality and marginalization, gender based violence, and social policy. She is an international student from Colorado, USA.

“Overseas voters could be pivotal in a tight contest”

Among the many factors influencing the choice of voting is the ability for one to vote without a high cost, meaning voters can exercise their right to vote without spending too much time, money or effort in doing so. While domestic voters have faced many obstructions to vote, such as strict voter ID laws, and misinformation about voting procedures, overseas citizens have experienced much of the same, if not even bigger, ones. As a result, in the 2022 midterm elections, only 3.4% of eligible US citizens abroad voted, and in 2020, only around 20% cast ballots.

77.65% of overseas voters are registered as left leaning, with only 2.5% registering as Republicans. What this indicates is that Democrats, more so than Republicans, have a great incentive in tapping this group of between 2.9-4.5 million voting-age US citizens residing abroad, and easing the obstacles to vote from abroad. In 2020, Democrats Abroad (the official overseas arm of Democratic Party) indicated they managed to increase overseas votes by 73.5% over 2016, and a similar proportional increase in these elections could certainly give the Democrats an edge in some key states.

For context, in the 2020 election, Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia’s elections were decided by 20,000 votes or less, and North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Nevada’s by less than 100,000. Current polls indicate that the victory margins in these states for this coming election will be as close if not closer, and overseas voters from battleground states, maybe now more than ever, may help decide who wins the 2024 Presidential election. While it may be too late to launch a campaign to attract new voters, it is essential that pollsters recognise votes from abroad as pivotal, as well as that political parties lower the barriers US citizens abroad face to vote in future elections.

Lucas Pollock Muguruza is an MSc Political Science (Political Science & Political Economy) student in the LSE Department of Government, and votes in Wisconsin. His research interests include inequality, corruption and international development. Aside from his studies, he is Vice President of the Andalus Committee at the LSESU.

Note: this article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Department of Government, nor of the London School of Economics.

Image credit: main image contains elements of ‘One Year of Resistance’ by Pamela Drew and ‘Ruins of Jabalia’ by Felton Davis.