By John Ross
[The following article analysing the US presidential election was written specifically for an audience in China. However it deals with overall trends in the US presidential election itself and its consequences for the global situation.]
US-China relations after the victory of Biden
Biden’s victory in the US presidential election took some in China by surprise. But in fact Biden won by a comfortable majority both in the popular ballot, defeating Trump by well over 5 million votes, and in the electoral college – where it is likely Biden will secure around 300 votes to approximately 220 for Trump.
The outcome of the presidential election therefore clarified and settled many issues in analysis of the political dynamics within the US. As it is also important in China to have an accurate analysis of the developments after the presidential election, this article therefore analyses the forces which produced the election of Biden and their consequent trends after the election.
The non-democratic US political system
To accurately analyse the trends leading to the outcome of the US presidential election, as well as those after it, it is crucial to understand that it is a myth that Trump ever represented the majority of the US electorate. In 2016 Hillary Clinton defeated Trump in the popular ballot by 2.9 million votes – indeed, the Democrats have received more votes than the Republicans in seven out of the eight presidential elections since 1992. But in the US political system, the fact that the president is elected by an electoral college, not by who wins most votes among the population, is undemocratic. It is deliberately weighted in favour of small rural states, which tend to vote Republican, and against large states with big cities – which tend to vote Democrat. This means that Trump could win the presidency in 2016 even though he received less votes than Clinton.
Furthermore, this is not the only anti-democratic feature of the US political system. The Senate is not elected in proportion to population but also over-represents small rural Republican states. Another anti-democratic feature, which may become extremely important in the next period, is the Supreme Court. This now has a 6-3 majority of appointments made by Republicans. Again, an anti-democratic feature of the US political system is that the Supreme Court is allowed to overturn decisions made by both the elected president and the elected Congress. In short, behind a façade of democracy, in fact a whole series of anti-democratic features protect the interests of the political establishment from popular votes in the US.
Any view that Trump had a popular majority was a myth both in 2016 and 2020. The only question in 2020 was whether the greater number of votes going to Biden would be sufficiently large to overcome the anti-democratic features of the US electoral system already noted. In 2016, the lack of popular enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton, in particular among the Black population, meant that her lead in the popular vote was not sufficient to overcome the undemocratic character of the US political system. In contrast Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and Biden in 2020, were able to overcome this anti-democratic bias in favour of the Republicans. But Trump never, at any point, had majority support. He was not a popular but an unpopular president.
The relation of income and votes
Turning to which social factors produced the popular majority for Biden in 2020 (and also the weaker one for Clinton in 2016) the first myth which sometimes appears in parts of the media is that Trump represented the ‘working class’ or Americans who were ‘left behind’ economically. The data shows that this is simply entirely untrue – Trump was the candidate supported by affluent and better-off Americans.
The opinion polls show that in 2016 Clinton had an 8% lead among US households with an annual income of less than $50,000 (50%-42%) and this further increased to a lead of 12% for Biden in 2020 (55%-43%). In contrast, among households with an income of $100,000 to $199,000 Trump had a 15% lead.
Taking the trends overall, Biden had a large lead among families with an income of less than $50,000 a year (55%-44%), and those with incomes of $50,000-$99,000 (57%-42%), while Trump had a massive lead among those with incomes of over $100,000 (54%-42%).
This evidence is therefore crystal clear that the claim that Trump represented the ‘left behind’ and the ‘working class’ is a pure piece of Trump propaganda and no section of the media should be repeating it. Trump was the candidate of the better-off and rich.
The crucial role of Black population in the election
Analysis of trends among the US electorate in terms of their class and income inevitably overlaps with issues of race and ethnicity, because non-Hispanic Whites now make up only 61% of the population – 18% are Hispanic, 13% African American, and 5% Asian. Furthermore, the Hispanic and African American population are much lower paid than non-Hispanic whites. African Americans and Hispanics, in addition to being lower paid, are subject to racist discrimination – as are Asian Americans. Therefore, in line with the overall trends on incomes already analysed, while a large majority of white voters supported Trump (58%-41%) they were outvoted by the massive majorities for Biden among African Americans (87%-12%) and among Hispanics (65%-32%). Asian Americans also voted for Biden and against Trump by 61% to 34%.
Xenophobic and racist discrimination among the US population
The facts given above also mean that failure to accurately analyse that Trump never had majority support relates to another issue. The Chinese government has always rightly followed a very strong policy against racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination. Mao Zedong specifically wrote famous articles supporting the Black struggle against racism in the US – ‘Statement Supporting the Afro-Americans in Their Just Struggle Against Racial Discrimination by US Imperialism’ and ‘Statement by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, in Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression’. Leaders of the Black struggle in the US were honoured guests in China – W.E.B. DuBois being invited to stand on the podium alongside China’s leadership at China’s national day celebrations.
It is therefore strange to read in some minority sections of the Chinese media confused attacks on ‘political correctness’ – by which in the US is particularly meant strong opposition to racism and other forms of discrimination. This issue is now becoming even more directly relevant to China with the rise of anti-China xenophobia and anti-China racism in the US – this anti-China sentiment is directly whipped up by attempts by Trump to label COVID-19 as the ‘China virus’, leading to an increasing number of physical and verbal attacks in the US on those of Chinese descent or who are citizens of China.
This anti-China xenophobia and racism in the US, as well as attacks on China itself, is in turn leading to new movements opposing such anti-Chinese trends. The US mass media has always been open to Chinese, or those of Chinese descent, who wish to attack their Motherland and socialism. But for the first time in the modern period, the rise of the new cold war, and of anti-China xenophobia and racism within the US, has led to the formation of organisations of Chinese Americans, and of the Chinese diaspora more generally, to oppose these trends.
It is those supporting ‘political correctness’ who most directly oppose and condemn such anti-Chinese xenophobia, while it is typically opponents of ‘political correctness’ who most engage in xenophobic, racist and cold war attacks on China.
The role of racism in the US
These issues directly relate to how class and racism overlap in the US and how Trump’s support for racism led directly to his defeat – in particular his overwhelming defeat among lower paid Americans.
Racism was built into the foundations of the United States from its earliest moment. The creation of the US was part of the numerically greatest genocide in world history – that carried out against the Native population of North and South America. This genocide was carried out in Latin America by the Spanish and Portuguese and in North America primarily by British and North European settlers. Estimates are that up to 55 million Native people were killed during the conquest of North and South America. So great was the loss of life that research has found that it was on such a scale that it was even probably sufficient to alter the planet’s climate – because, after the rapid population decline, large swaths of vegetation and farmland were abandoned. The trees and flora that repopulated that unmanaged farmland started absorbing more carbon dioxide, removing so much greenhouse gas from the atmosphere that the planet’s average temperature dropped by about 0.25 degrees.
The greatest number of deaths of this indigenous population was due to disease, but this itself was used as a weapon. For example, British forces in North America authorised the use of biological warfare. Other methods of the most direct violence conceivable against the Native American population were used. To take merely some of the most notorious cases, in 1755, Massachusetts governor William Shirley was offering a bounty of £40 for a male Indian scalp, and £20 for scalps of females or of children under 12 years old. In 1756, Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor Robert Morris, in his Declaration of War against the Delaware Native Americans, offered ‘130 Pieces of Eight, for the Scalp of Every Male Indian Enemy, above the Age of Twelve Years,’ and ‘50 Pieces of Eight for the Scalp of Every Indian Woman, produced as evidence of their being killed.’
In parallel with genocide against Native Americans slavery was of course introduced into the US from 1619 onwards. In all, to both North and South America, 15 million slaves were transported from Africa. Even after slavery was abolished in the US by the Civil War for a century, the ‘Jim Crow’ system of racial segregation was maintained in the US. Today anti-African American racism is still endemic in the US.
In short, racism was built into the very foundations of the US and overlapped with and was shaped by its class structure from the beginning.
But if Native Americans and African Americans were the largest numerical target of racism, the US state was always willing to use the same methods against China and the Chinese when it was found useful. The US passed numerous anti-China laws of which the Chinese Exclusion Act, which entirely prohibited Chinese immigration to the US, was merely the most notorious. At other times many thousands of Chinese labourers were used in the US – typically in the most hard and dangerous occupations such as building railways, tunnels, bridges etc.
On 7 November this year, at a conference on the future of US-China relations after the US presidential election, Sean Haoqin Kang, an American of Chinese descent, outlined very accurately the role of anti-China rhetoric and actions – and why movements against these are now emerging among those of Chinese heritage in the US. Given the importance of this issue it is worth quoting at length.
‘We the Qiao Collective are a group of Chinese diaspora in the West… many of us are actually Chinese Americans. This topic speaks to the core of our identities… Although Chinese and Chinese Americans are indeed citizens and residents of different countries, our destinies are ultimately linked…
‘A Biden presidency indeed promises to return to “normal”: that “normal” of pretty-sounding words, full of aspirations of a “vibrant democracy” towards a “law-based international order” with respect for “human rights.” A Biden presidency has already promised to restore “America’s place on the world stage.” I beg the audience’s indulgence as I come from a more particular angle in this discussion, to share a little bit as a Chinese American about how we’ve fared under this “normal”, under all these years of such lofty words, and what these words mean to us as Chinese Americans…
‘As Chinese Americans, we live in a country that promises “liberty and justice for all.” But it is becoming more and more clear that that trust is misplaced, and has been grossly betrayed throughout the years. One needs only to look at the history of our time here, from the very early days, to see that this is the case.
‘In the 19th Century, particularly on the West Coast, it was us Chinese Americans who built the railroads, who tilled the land for fertile farmlands, and built the cities. And how were we rewarded for that? With exclusion, with the denial of basic rights, such as the right to testify at court, and even with ethnic cleansing. The audience surely knows the man Qian Xuesen, whose contributions to American science cannot be overstated, who co-founded the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. And how was he rewarded? With imprisonment at the height of McCarthyism, that age of paranoia driven by the “Loss of China”. And of course, in today’s Tech Boom that the Americans enjoy, the Chinese Americans have also played a not insignificant role, yet we are thanked by increasing charges of espionage and witch hunts which only grow more severe day by day.
‘No, Chinese Americans are not the ones to receive justice in this country. When Vincent Chin was murdered in Michigan [in 1982], his two murderers got probation, because apparently that’s the worth of a Chinese life in this country. In the 2008 global financial crisis, a crisis recognised to have been caused by the irresponsible practices of American banks, the only bank to be criminally prosecuted in the United States was Abacus Bank, a Chinese American-owned family bank based in Chinatown. And just like in the 19th Century, we are now blamed for the China flu, for the China disease or kung flu, with current hate crime numbers spiking: from March to June, 2,120 hate incidents were reported against Asian Americans in connection with COVID.
‘Just as constantly as us Chinese Americans are used, abused, and betrayed by the United States, so it is constant that Sinophobia and anti-China policies prevail with bipartisan support. It was under Clinton, a Democrat, that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was bombed. It was under Bush, a Republican, that the United States began to host certain governments-in-exile and their affiliated organisations, hoping to foment separatism within China. And it was under Obama, a Democrat, that despite Chinese cooperation in stabilising the global economy after the financial crisis, the United States chose to militarise the Western Pacific under its “Pivot to Asia.” And of course, it was under Obama that the United States hacked Huawei and increased its interference in Hong Kong, with both issues obviously coming to a head under Republican Trump. And of course, all administrations criticise China on environmental issues, even though it was the United States that exported waste and trash to China.
‘This all shows the actual relationship the United States desires with China: a purely exploitive one in which the United States may extract Chinese labor, wealth, and resources at will. This definition extends to the early days of the relationship. The illicit opium trade in 19th century China created a new class of fabulously wealthy Americans, whose beneficiaries included Harvard University, the Delano family, of Franklin Delano Roosevelt fame, and the Forbes family, of whom former Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry is a descendant. Today, the United States merely seek the same goal. The United States was satisfied when China was making cheap toys for export to the United States. This is simply the pillaging nature of the country known as the United States, which, after all, is built on stolen continent, built with stolen labour, of which Chinese people had played a role.
‘Yet it is not enough that the United States seeks to exploit the Chinese people. When the Chinese people stand up, the United States gets angry and deploys egregious violence. In the war against American aggression in Korea, after suffering defeat at the hands of a new People’s Republic, the United States resorted to biological and chemical warfare against the Chinese and Korean people, with some authorities even considering nuclear attacks. This same nuclear threat hung over other conflicts in Asia, including Vietnam and Straits Crises. It is telling that the United States is so cavalier about nuclear use when the target is Asians or Pacific Islanders…
‘All this, all this suffering, all this hardship, and for what? Fresh air and freedom as somebody once put it? Real wages have stagnated in this country [for the average American] for 40, 50 years, and we Chinese Americans are largely such average Americans. In fact, Asian Americans are one of the groups hardest hit by unemployment due to the COVID crisis.
‘Make no mistake, this is a new McCarthyism, a new age of injustice, a new Cold War. It was coming regardless of who wins this election. Because these are not problems that began with Trump, and these are not problems that will end with Biden, no matter how many beautiful words he and others like him use. Because for us as Chinese Americans, these are problems that began when the colonists first arrived on this continent, proceeding to massacre and dispossess an entire continent of people, destroying entire ecologies and environments, and building up their country with slave labor in gross betrayal of their own professed values. For us as Chinese Americans, these are problems that began when the imperialists destroyed our ancestral homeland in the 19th century.
‘We don’t see the character of the United States changing anytime soon, since history teaches us that we have always been its enemies, either to be crushed and killed or to be used and exploited. The only time Chinese people are “accepted” by the United States is when they act as its mouthpieces, praising its supposed freedom and superior political system, validating criticisms and attacks against China. The audience is surely familiar with these types of Chinese diaspora. But please know that these people, loud as they might be perched on the platform given to them, do not represent the working Chinese American: those who labour long and hard hours at low-paying jobs, live in poor housing and downtrodden environments, and constantly face state violence.’
Coronavirus and the Black population of the US
These long-term structural features of the class and social structure of the US, and its interrelation with ethnicity, interacted directly with the reason why Biden won the presidential election and Trump lost. It is, rightly, frequently noted that the horrific response of Trump to the coronavirus lost him the election. But this was mediated via its specific interaction with the Black population.
Coronavirus certainly filled the US with social gunpowder – there have been more than 230,000 deaths from COVID-19, and more than 20 million Americans have lost their jobs. But this disproportionately struck the US Black population – death rates from coronavirus were far higher among the Black population than the white, and proportionately job losses were much higher among African Americans than among Whites. This is why it was a racist murder by the US police, in itself a frequent occurrence, which created a gigantic US social explosion led by the Black community. The enormous demonstrations and actions that took place in the US following the racist police murder of George Floyd were the largest in the entire history of the US history, with as many as 25 million people participating in them. All polls showed huge majorities opposing Trump on this and his racist reaction – 74% of Americans said they supported the protests carried out across the country following the killing of George Floyd.
This social process, led by the Black community, carried over into the presidential election. As the New York Times noted regarding Pennsylvania, the state that carried Biden over the victory line against Trump: ‘Joseph R. Biden Jr. was declared the winner in Pennsylvania, flipping the state blue [i.e. to the Democrats] as counties east of the Appalachian Mountains shifted left. The battleground state’s 20 electoral votes were enough to decisively tip the election in Mr. Biden’s favor and propel him to victory.
‘Mr. Biden’s largest vote margins were in dense population centers, including Philadelphia and its suburbs, and Allegheny County, which is home to Pittsburgh…
‘In Philadelphia County, Mr. Biden drew strong support in predominantly Black precincts. Turning out enough Black voters – Democrats’ core supporters… had been seen as critical for Mr. Biden, especially after Hillary Clinton’s lackluster showing with Black voters in 2016.’
More generally, it was huge votes by the Black population not only in Pennsylvania’s cities but also unexpected victories for Biden in traditionally Republican states such as Georgia that delivered a knockout blow against Trump. This trend was well summarised by Associated Press, which is definitive in calling US election results, in its overall analysis of the presidential election result under the self-explanatory headline: ‘Biden’s win reveals power of Black voters’. Again, because the process is so important, it is worth quoting at length:
‘When Eric Sheffield first saw Joe Biden take the lead in the vote count in Georgia, the 52-year-old Black man immediately thought… “This is proof that our vote does matter.”…
‘There’s little dispute that Black voters were a driving national force pushing the former vice president to the winner’s column. By overwhelmingly backing Biden and showing up in strong numbers, Black voters not only helped deliver familiar battleground states to the Democrat, but they also created a new one in the longtime GOP bastion of Georgia — potentially remaking presidential politics for years to come…
‘Black voters made up 11% of the national electorate, and 9 in 10 of them supported Biden, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of more than 110,000 voters nationwide…
‘But when compared to Clinton, Biden drew more voters in critical areas with large Black populations. In Wayne County, Michigan, which includes Detroit, and in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Biden added to his vote totals and his margins compared to Clinton, while Trump’s votes failed to match the Democratic gains. The increase in the Democratic vote in Milwaukee, about 28,000 votes, was more than the 20,000-vote lead Biden had in the state…
‘In Philadelphia, Biden… received at least 93% of the vote in the city’s wards where more than 75% of the population is Black, according to an Associated Press analysis.
‘But perhaps the most striking evidence for the influence of Black voters was in Georgia, where Biden’s slim edge could make him the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the Republican stronghold in nearly three decades…
‘So far, the Democrat has added 588,600 voters in Georgia compared to Clinton’s tally in 2016, while Trump saw an increase of only 366,900. Almost half of Biden’s gains came from the four largest counties – Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett and Cobb – all in the Atlanta metro area with large Black populations.
‘Biden acknowledged Black voters’ role during his victory speech Saturday night, noting the “African American community stood up again for me.”
‘In 2008 and 2012, Black voters showed up in record numbers for Barack Obama, the nation’s first Black president – setting a new high bar. But Black voter turnout dropped significantly in key cities in 2016…
‘For many Black women, Biden’s choice of Harris, who will be the first Black woman and the first South Asian woman to hold the vice presidency, made their votes an extension of the legacy of civil rights workers…
Associated Press noted:
‘Behind that sentiment was massive voter mobilization.
‘Black Voters Matter Fund targeted more than 15 states, sending a fleet of buses on road trips across the nation. In Georgia alone, they reached more than 500,000 voters and sent nearly 2 million text messages…
‘Black voter registrations increased by 40% in both Fulton and Gwinnett counties, according to the Georgia secretary of state. The increase in the growing counties outpaced the 6% increase in the Black population over the same time period.
‘Turnout may also have been boosted by new rules making it easier to vote during the pandemic. After many Black voters experienced long lines during primary elections in Georgia and Wisconsin, many were motivated to take advantage of mail-in and early voting options, helping Biden’s campaign bank those votes early.’
In summary, it was because Black population did not vote for Clinton in 2016 that she lost and in 2020 the fact the Black population voted for Biden that he won. Coronavirus, in short, determined the outcome of the election but it was refracted through the overlapping class and racist structure of the US.
The dynamic of the Biden presidency
An accurate factual analysis of the trends in the US also allow the dynamics of US politics under a Biden presidency to be foreseen.
China will, of course, rightly seek to utilise every positive opening created by the election of Biden as president – and as analysed below some of these openings are real. It would certainly give great pleasure to be able to say that the activity of organisations such as ‘No Cold War’ would no longer be necessary as the US cold war will come to an end. But, unfortunately, that would be inaccurate. Regrettably, forces in the US committed to a cold war strongly exist in the Democratic Party as well as the Republicans. A Biden administration differs from Trump primarily in the tactics for pursuing aggression against China – a difference on how to pursue an aggressive policy against China, not on whether to attack China. Given the dynamic leading to the US presidential election It is easy to see the strategy of the Biden administration.
Trump lost the election because of his disastrous response to COVID-19 and the massive social explosion led by the US Black community that this produced – which overwhelmed his white racist campaign. These factors, consequently, meant that the US presidential election was overwhelmingly focussed on domestic issues with Trump’s claim that US problems were due to China being made peripheral.
But Biden did not create or lead the huge social explosion that followed the murder of George Floyd – he was simply swept along with it. Indeed, some of his early remarks during these protests, such as that police should shoot protestors in the legs instead of the chest invited ridicule. While, to win the election, Biden concentrated on domestic issues, he did nothing to disassociate himself from Trump’s anti-China attacks. Biden was earlier fully involved in developing the anti-China ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy of Obama/Clinton.
In some parts of the world it is totally clear in advance that there will be no significant change in US policy at all. In Latin America the aggressive policy towards Venezuela, Cuba, progressive Bolivia and other countries will continue – Biden has already made that clear as he has made no differentiation from Trump in policy to Latin America.
Given his record, and the advisers around him, Biden towards China will continue a fundamentally aggressive policy – but with different tactics to Trump. Naturally, it would be greatly preferable if this analysis was wrong, and that a Biden administration would turn to mutually beneficial ‘win-win’ relations with China. But in serious matters there is no benefit to having illusions. In such matters there is no virtue in optimism, or in pessimism. It is necessary to be strictly realistic.
On some individual issues there will be changes by the Biden administration. Biden has announced his administration will re-join the Paris Climate Change Accords. And this may open up the way for cooperation on climate change with China of the type that existed under Obama. Obviously, China and most of the world would welcome this.
In dealing with COVID-19, Biden has announced the US will re-join the World Health Organisation. A welcome step. It is to be hoped that this leads to cooperation between the US and China in fighting the pandemic.
Naturally all such individual steps forward are welcome, but it is also necessary to see the general framework of US policy. The Obama administration concluded that in straight forward peaceful competition between the US and China it was not all certain that the US would win – in the light of China’s much greater economic dynamism than the US. Obama therefore attempted to create a broad ‘anti-China coalition’ – encapsulated in the ‘pivot’ to the Pacific, the creation of the anti-China Trans-Pacific Partnership, pursuit of attempts to create tension in the South China Sea etc. In order to attempt to create such a broad anti-China alliance Obama was prepared to make concessions to important US allies such as Germany to try to tempt them to enter such an alliance.
Trump, and the forces he represented, believed however that the US could not afford this policy of concessions to allies to form a broad anti-China coalition. Instead it was necessary for other countries to transfer resources to the US, so that the US would be strengthened and could itself directly pursue an aggressive policy against China. This was the core of ‘America first’. Therefore, the clash between Trump and Biden was not at all fake, it involved major differences and forces. But it was on how to pursue an aggressive policy towards China, not on whether to.
Biden will almost certainly switch back to the ‘broad anti-China alliance’ strategy of Obama – as Biden, as Vice-President, was a key part of the administration which launched this policy. Therefore, an aggressive US policy towards China will continue – but with different tactics.
It is possible there will be other changes in a Biden administration’s tactics in an aggressive policy towards China. Many anti-China US analysts consider Trump made tactical errors in his attack on China. That the tariffs were a mistake as they were paid by the US population and attacked China on terrain where it was strong, and the US could not compete – good quality medium technology manufacturing. Instead, it was argued, the US attack should be concentrated on its strong point – high technology and finance. The US should concentrate on weakening China’s most high technology companies as with Huawei and Tiktok. Biden is therefore urged to concentrate not on tariffs but a ‘technology blockade’ of China and potentially on use of the US financial system against China.
But all these are changes in tactics, not a change in a fundamentally aggressive policy against China which, for the reasons already outlined, will continue under Biden. Naturally any opening for better relations with the US is welcome and should be pursued, and there may also be possibilities as well as dangers in Biden’s different international tactics. But there should be no illusions that a Biden administration will not continue an overall aggressive policy towards China.
The prospects of a Biden presidency
Finally, it is necessary to be clear what are the prospects for a Biden presidency. Biden has no economic policy capable of dealing with the very serious problems confronting the US. As already noted, he followed, and did not lead, the movement of the US Black population – and he will seek to demobilise it. Given this situation a Biden presidency will be weak and faces serious problems due to the anti-democratic features of the US political system. This is certain due to de facto Republican control of the Supreme Court and will become acute if, as is very possible, the Republicans retain control of the Senate after the forthcoming Senate contests in January. Under these circumstances, despite its defeat in the Presidential election in 2020, a revival of Trumpism is very likely. In short, whether under Biden and Trump, while tactics may change, and there may be steps forward on some individual issues, the overall aggressive anti-China content of US policy will continue.
Relations between China and the US are the world’s most important bilateral national relations. It is therefore necessary to base analyses of these on a strictly objective analysis of facts, including of dynamics within the US, and not on myths or propaganda. Believing myths, rather than analysis of facts, led some in the China media to the wrong conclusion that Trump would win the presidential election. To have an accurate examination of the dynamics that will follow under a Biden administration it is therefore necessary to maintain a strictly objective analysis of the factual trends within the US.
20 November 2020
The above article was previously published on Learning From China.