Washington terrible place to actually observe elections: Dhruva Jaishankar

Executive Director of the Observer Research Foundation America, Dhruva Jaishankar said that Washington DC is a terrible place to observe the elections because it is a reliably Democratic constituency in the US.

Jaishankar pointed out that the election this time is complicated as there are several factors in play, like the shift of younger men towards Republican candidate former US President Donald Trump.

"Washington DC is a terrible place to actually observe the elections because actually Washington DC itself, I think is the most reliably democratic constituency in the US. And so it's a bit of a bubble. But just from the reports that are coming around from across the US, from Nevada to Florida, where polls have opened in most of the US by now, I think the thing to watch out for is really turnout and who comes to turnout and what the orientation is. This is very hard to predict because there are a number of factors at play. Traditionally, higher turnout has favored Democrats and it's something they have tried to do more to promote the vote. But at this time around, there's some indication that some traditional democratic voters, including younger people, including men, including some minorities, may not vote reliably democratic anymore. And this is all further complicated by the fact that there's been a surge in early voting and mail-in voting, largely as a result of the pandemic from four years ago. So all of this has made it much more difficult to predict the outcome, but I think one thing to look for generally is the level of enthusiasm for both major presidential candidates," he said.

 

Find special coverage on US Presidential Elections here

 

Talking about the swing states, Jaishankar said that if either of the candidates can get four or more of those states, it would be a game changer. 

Swing states are notorious as the results are often of a narrow margin and are a game changer.

"So this will really be determined by what they believe, most pollsters believe will be seven key swing states. And essentially whoever wins more than whichever candidate can win four of those, for the most part will probably be the winner. If you go by the last two elections in 2020 and 2016, it really was less than one lakh votes, 1,00,000 votes that had they shifted in certain key states could have swung the outcome in a different direction. So that is how close it is. It will really come down to a handful of states which could all be very close. Some of them have very slow ways of counting the votes because they have certain legal requirements for when they can start counting the votes. And so it is possible that we may not get a result for some time, but really I think it would be the emphasis is about focusing on those seven states and whether Harris in particular can defend traditionally democratic states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and perhaps pick up one more. That is what she's going to hope to do. If Trump can even get one of those three states, it will really be very much in his favor," he said.

Election this time is viewed as divisive, as several older male voters, who traditionally voted for Republicans have now shifted to Democrats, and several young male voters, who voted for Democrats have turned to Republicans.

"I think every election has become over the past 20 years or so has become more and more divisive. You have what are traditionally very clear democratic constituencies. They tend to be younger, more female, more ethnic minorities and more college-educated voters. And these tend to be more in urban areas. By contrast, reliably Republican voters tend to be older, tend to be more male, tend to be not college-educated and tend to be white primarily. And these have been pretty consistently reliable voters for Democrats and Republicans with a number of constituencies that have been key swing voters and these often tend to be in the suburbs. For example, white women in suburbs tend to be quite critical key swing voters that both parties try to appeal to. So now there's some sense that again, this coalition has been shaken up a little bit. Some older voters are turned off by Trump, some younger voters find him more appealing and the gender factor also plays a role. So I think that it has been a very polarizing election, but we have some signs, and again, we'll only know in a day or two, how much these coalitions have shifted or changed," he said.

None of the candidates have mentioned India in their campaign. Jaishankar said that it is a good thing, as US voters don't pay much heed unless it affects their day-to-day life or unless there are US military interventions involved.

"Generally a foreign policy comes up in a US election when there's a problem. Most voters don't care or know very much about foreign policy, not something they follow on a day-to-day basis, unless it has a direct impact for them. And so I think it's not surprising, and perhaps it's even a good thing for India that it's not become an election issue this time or in recent elections. The issues that do come up are generally US military interventions abroad and their merits and military aid abroad, trade issues and how it impacts them and immigration. So there are those substantive areas that do play a role. And then in terms of like key adversaries or places where the US is involved, so the Middle East, Israel-Gaza conflict, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and possibly China and the contingencies in the Indo-Pacific surrounding China. So these have become, have been discussed by both candidates. They have made some mostly vague, broad declarations about their approach to these things. Generally, both have been supportive of Israel, although there's some nuance on to what degree. There are big differences on Ukraine and European security. And basically Democrats would like to continue with sort of allies for supporting. European allies in what they in this conflict in Ukraine. Whereas Trump has basically said that it should be up to Europe to take care of its own security," he said.

Jaishankar said that as of China, there has not been many details either. There is growing competition between both the countries which may have an indirect effect on India.

"On China, I think there hasn't been as much detail. There's a growing sense of competition with China and the US. So amidst all of this, I don't think India is directly impacted, but the indirect effects for India could be quite significant. And this could extend to trade and immigration issues where the two parties have very different platforms. It could extend to democracy and human rights, where the two parties have very different platforms and different priorities. It could extend to the prospects of ending the conflict in in Ukraine with Russia. And again, that would have implications for India. So again, the direct implications, no, but the indirect implications could be quite different depending on the outcome," Jaishankar said.

Jaishankar said that both the candidates have vaguely talked about better relations with India.

"Either of them will come in with a primarily domestic agenda. They will have to deal with these very immediate conflicts and crises in Ukraine and in Gaza and how to go about them. And to be honest, I think India and many other parts of the world will be a bit of an afterthought for them. That being said, I think both have spoken again in very broad and vague terms about wanting a better relationship with India, although a lot will depend on their exact priorities. And that in turn will be informed by people around them. And I think in this more competitive global context, they will both want to some degree a cooperative relationship with India. The question is whether they can deliver on it and in what areas they want to focus on. I would say if Trump is elected, I think two immediate concerns would be on trade and immigration policy and how that will affect India," he said.

He said that Trump's win would probably mean tougher negotiations with regards to visas. Harris's agenda would be more of a continuum of US President Joe Biden's administration.

"He has a broader domestic agenda. It's not India specific, but I think there'll be some very difficult negotiations over tariffs and visas and undocumented migrants if Trump is elected. With Harris, I think it's a bit more of an open book, some broad continuity on trade and technology with the Biden administration. But the question is how much she prioritizes as a progressive agenda over strategic considerations in her approach to India and the world at large," he said.

Talking about the Indian-American voters in the swing states, Jaishankar said that they are quite less in number in the swing states, and Indian-Americans have mostly casted vote to Democrats.

"So there are two ways in which they can play a role. One is just in terms of their as voters. In Georgia, they're about a little under one lakh Indian American voters. In Pennsylvania, a little bit more than that. Michigan, a little less. North Carolina, they're a fair number. But Pennsylvania and Georgia, I think, would be two of the larger ones, not very much in Nevada and Wisconsin. So they are sizable, but they're not enough to, and their numbers are not enough to make a decisive effect in the turnout. Indian Americans tend to be reliably democratic. About two-thirds tend to vote Democrat in a given presidential election. There's some sense in some recent polling to suggest that some of them are now increasingly looking at the Republican Party and former President Trump, as an appealing candidate. And one can speculate on the reasons for that. Some of it has to do with economic issues or immigration issues as well. Some of it has to do, maybe Trump has spoken a lot about his relationship with India and they find that very appealing. And in a way that the Harris administration has been much more cautious about doing. So again, ironically, despite the fact that she is of Indian heritage, that you do start to see anecdotally at least some Indian Americans gravitating towards the Republican Party. What we'll see, what we'll know in the next few days is to what extent that has been the case. But overwhelmingly, I think the expectation is that something like 60 per cent of Indian Americans will vote Democrat in this election overall," he said.

Jaishankar said that Harris has not taken advantage of her Indian roots. She has been very cautious of that.

"Kamala Harris speaks a lot about her mother, in particular, who raised her, and her grandfather, who was an Indian civil servant and the sort of cultural aspects of that. But at the same time, she hasn't been very forthcoming about policy towards India. She's been very cautious. She did not visit India as Vice President. And so I think that sends us sort of mixed messages and their reasons for that. How has that resonated? Again, amongst, this is anecdotal and based on very little survey data that we have, younger Indian Americans are very organized for her. She has some major donors who are Indian Americans. And again, I think perhaps the majority of Indian Americans will end up voting for her. That being said, there's enough who care about a different set of issues who are supporting Donald Trump. And that gets to the other issue where other area where Indian Americans can play a role is as political donors. And there are a handful of major donors to both Harris and Trump who are Indian American," he said.

Jaishankar said that there are several issues that have resulted in complications of the India-US bilateral relations.

"I mean, I think there are some issues. You know, there've been difficulties on a number of issues, including Bangladesh, including investigations that are underway that have certainly complicated in the last few months of this administration despite an otherwise very positive trajectory in India-US relations have certainly complicated the bilateral relationship. Again, I don't sense that these will be big priorities for a new administration to fix. They have other problems to deal with, but I do think it would be in there worthwhile soon once they come to settle in to see where they can advance the relationship in different ways. And again, there's a lot that's on the positive side of the ledger, but also address some of the differences and see that those don't build up, they'll go out of control because they can certainly complicate the relationship in some very unpredictable ways," he said.