The 2024 presidential election presents American voters with an unprecedented dilemma that defies conventional political wisdom. With just days before the election, a significant portion of the electorate remains undecided between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. This persistent indecision stems not from lack of information, but rather from deep concerns about both candidates' fitness for office and their potential impact on American democracy.

The Scale of Voter Indecision

Between 5% and 10% of voters remain undecided, a number substantial enough to determine the outcome in what promises to be a close election. This level of uncertainty so close to Election Day is unusual and reflects the complex dynamics at play in this race.

The Nature of Voter Hesitation

Economic Uncertainty

Many undecided voters focus primarily on economic issues, remembering the Trump years favorably in terms of financial stability while harboring deep personal misgivings about his character. Harris faces scrutiny for what some perceive as vague economic proposals, with voters seeking more concrete details about her "opportunity economy" and other initiatives.

Democratic Legitimacy Concerns

Both candidates face questions about their democratic credentials:

Trump's post-2020 election behavior and role in the January 6 events continue to trouble voters who might otherwise support his economic policies. His refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election and the subsequent events at the Capitol have raised serious concerns about his commitment to democratic norms and institutions.

Harris's ascension to the Democratic nomination without participating in primaries has raised concerns about party establishment control. Some voters worry that her nomination process lacked the democratic legitimacy typically conferred through a competitive primary process.

Harris's Policy Specifics vs. Gaps

Vice President Harris has provided some concrete policy proposals, but significant gaps remain in her platform:

Clear Positions:

• Minimum Wage: Harris supports increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.
• Housing: She has proposed building 3 million new affordable housing units over four years and providing up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers.
• Child Tax Credit: Harris plans to restore and make permanent the expanded Child Tax Credit, offering up to $3,600 per child annually.
• Corporate Taxes: She proposes raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from the current 21%.

Vague or Unaddressed Areas:

• Immigration: Harris has not provided a comprehensive immigration reform plan.
• Debt Reduction: While she has proposed some revenue-generating measures, a detailed plan for addressing the national debt is lacking.
• Foreign Policy: Specific strategies for dealing with international challenges remain unclear.
• Healthcare: While supporting the Affordable Care Act, details on potential expansions or reforms are limited.

Analysis of Trump's Tariff Proposals

Trump's emphasis on tariffs as a cornerstone of his economic policy has drawn criticism from economists across the political spectrum:

• Inflation Concerns: The Peterson Institute for International Economics projects that Trump's tariff plans could lead to significant inflation, potentially raising consumer prices by 20% to 28% by 2028.
• Economic Growth Impact: The same analysis suggests that real GDP growth could decrease by 0.8% to 7% by the end of a potential second Trump term in 2028.
• Consumer Costs: Economists estimate that Trump's proposed 60% tariff on Chinese imports and up to 20% on other goods could cost the average American household $2,600 annually after taxes.
• Job Market Effects: While tariffs might initially boost some sectors, the Tax Foundation projects a potential loss of 684,000 jobs due to broader economic impacts.

Economists argue that tariffs are taxes on imported goods that are ultimately paid by consumers, not foreign countries. They warn that widespread tariffs could disrupt supply chains, increase costs for businesses, and potentially spark retaliatory measures from trading partners.

Approaches to the National Debt

Both candidates' economic plans would contribute to increasing the national debt, though to varying degrees:

Harris's Approach:

• The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Harris's proposals could add $3.5 trillion to the national debt by 2035.
• Her plan includes tax increases on corporations and high-income individuals to partially offset new spending.
• Harris proposes expanding social programs and infrastructure investments while maintaining some Trump-era tax cuts for those earning under $400,000.

Trump's Approach:

• The same analysis projects Trump's plans could increase the debt by $7.5 trillion by 2035.
• His proposals include extending and expanding tax cuts, which would significantly reduce government revenue.
• Trump suggests that economic growth and tariff revenue would offset these costs, but most economists are skeptical of this claim.

Neither candidate has presented a comprehensive plan to address the long-term growth of the national debt, which currently stands at over $35 trillion. This lack of focus on fiscal sustainability concerns many economists and policy analysts.

Two Days to Decide

As the election approaches, both campaigns face the challenge of convincing skeptical voters. The high number of undecided voters this late in the process suggests that neither candidate has successfully addressed fundamental concerns about their candidacy.

This election has transformed the traditional concept of the undecided voter. Rather than reflecting a lack of engagement, current voter indecision often indicates deeper civic consciousness and concern about America's democratic future. The outcome may ultimately depend on which candidate can better address these substantive concerns in the final days of the campaign.

The choice facing American voters is complex, with both candidates presenting significant risks and uncertainties. As Election Day nears, the electorate must weigh the economic proposals, democratic credentials, and potential long-term impacts of each candidate on the nation's future.