Intense Competition in the U.S. Presidential Election: Harris and Trump Engage in Fierce Rivalry

Recently, the presidential candidate debate in the United States has attracted widespread attention. This is the first direct confrontation between the two main candidates, and it might also be the only debate before the election. The market generally believes that the performance of one candidate was impressive, exceeding external expectations, while the other candidate received a lukewarm response.

After the debate, the betting market responded quickly. Within just two hours, the betting contract price for one candidate's election rose from $53 to $57, while the contract price for the other candidate's election dropped from $52 to $47, further widening the gap between the two. This change reflects that more people are optimistic about the former's victory, confirming that their debate performance exceeded market expectations.

In this debate, the outstanding candidates demonstrated their strength on multiple issues. First, they directly addressed the concerns of female voters regarding abortion, showing strong empathy and compassion. Second, in the discussion on racial issues, they shared personal experiences that displayed a deep understanding and support for minority groups. Third, they emphasized future development plans, making a conscious effort to distinguish themselves from their predecessor, conveying a sense of hope for injecting fresh energy and promoting change. In contrast, another candidate's performance in the debate was relatively lacking, focusing mainly on issues such as illegal immigration, tariff policies, and the supply of fossil fuels. Although these issues are important, the discourse lacked innovation and may struggle to attract the favor of moderate voters.

Subsequently, the outstanding candidate seized the momentum and invited their opponent to another televised debate on social media, garnering significant attention and attempting to win more votes by staging another battle.

Campaign Office Attacked

Recently, a candidate's campaign office was shot at. The police reported that there were clearly four bullet holes in the glass doors and windows of the campaign office located in Arizona. The shooting occurred at night, and there were no people in the office at the time, resulting in no casualties. After a preliminary investigation, the police determined that this was a potential property crime.

There are two different interpretations of this incident in the market: one viewpoint suggests that it may be a retaliatory action initiated by rival supporters; the other perspective argues that it could be a self-directed act, intended to divert public attention and confuse the narrative.

Significant Gap in Campaign Funding

The latest federal filing documents show a significant disparity in the daily expenditures of the two candidates and their campaign teams. One side's average daily expenditure reached $7.5 million in August, while the other side's average daily expenditure was $2.6 million, a difference of $4.9 million.

The gap is equally apparent in fundraising for the campaign. According to data from the Federal Election Commission, one campaign team raised a total of $361 million in August, bringing their total to $404 million. In contrast, the other side raised only $130 million during the same period, plus $25 million in donations from related political action committees, totaling $295 million by the end of August.

More funds add momentum to the campaign of the funding advantage party. This funding will help expand the campaign team nationwide, hire more political talents, set up offices across the country to engage directly with voters and promote governance ideas; at the same time, it will increase the scale of advertising, including multi-channel promotions such as television, newspapers, radio, and social media; finally, it can also be used to conduct more opinion polls and research, support more rallies and door-to-door visits, enhancing voters' goodwill and impressions.

Candidate Background and Controversies

Both candidates have unique backgrounds and experiences, and they also face varying degrees of controversy.

One party possesses multiple advantages, including a minority background, immigrant family origins, female identity, graduation from a prestigious university, being a professional lawyer, and holding important political positions. However, some decisions and actions during their public service have also sparked controversy, including the handling of certain cases, promoted bills, and personal relationships.

The other party is known for its business background and political experience, but also faces many controversies, including its policy proposals, style of speech, and personal behavior.

Comparison of Policy Proposals

The two candidates have significant differences in multiple policy areas. One side tends to subsidize residents through fiscal expansion, which may lead to an increase in bond issuance in the short term, adversely affecting bond assets, but at the same time, it will support the dollar. Additionally, its tax increase policy may put pressure on the stock market. The other side's policies are relatively favorable to the stock market, cyclical commodities, and digital currencies, but may have an intervention effect on the dollar.

Currently, the number of electoral votes between the two candidates in the established camps is not far apart. To win, both sides need to garner more support in key battleground states. In the next two months, the election situation may reverse. Due to the "Electoral College system" used in the U.S. elections, the candidate who receives the most popular votes may not necessarily be elected. According to the current polling support rates in each state, the situation in battleground states is more intense than ever.