The US presidential election is now just a month away. October traditionally brings surprises, but as things stand now, the race is a nail bitter. Vice President Kamala Harris has maintained a small lead over former President Donald Trump in nationwide polls since mid-August, but the race for 270 Electoral College votes remains extremely close. Campaigns are focusing their efforts on seven battleground states where a few thousand votes here or there could determine the winner.

Compared to most previous elections, the race has remained remarkably stable. In the Biden-Trump race, Trump held a lead all year that began to expand in the summer, leading to talk of a possible landslide win. Biden’s withdrawal threw the race in turmoil for a few weeks, but Kamala Harris quickly emerged as the nominee and rode a wave of enthusiasm to take the lead. Since then, Harris has had a successful convention and strong debate performance, but the polls have barely changed.

What does the stability of the race mean? Presidential elections in the US have historically been about two things: the incumbent party’s performance and a vision for the future. These two factors boil down to competency and hope. Candidates who control the narrative around these two keywords win, often by large margins. In 2020, Joe Biden controlled the narrative on competency because Trump received low marks for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden’s control of the hope narrative was weaker, but he offered more hope than Trump and won the election comfortably.

In the 1980 and 2008 elections, the winner had strong control over both narratives. In 1980, inflation was 12.5 percent, the federal funds rate was 18 percent, and Iranian revolutionaries were holding 52 hostages in the US Embassy in Tehran. Republican nominee Ronald Reagan pounded at President Jimmy Carter’s competency while running on a platform of bold economic reform. Carter portrayed Reagan as dangerous, but in the end, the competency and hope narrative propelled Reagan to a landslide victory.

In 2008, the US economy faced its worst crisis since the Great Depression in the 1930s. People were tired from years of military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and President George W. Bush, at the end of his second term, was unpopular. Barack Obama easily gained control of the competency and hope narratives, which helped him coast to an easy victory and expand Democratic majorities in Congress.

In 2024, neither candidate has gained control over the two narratives. Post-pandemic inflation, high interest rates and a housing shortage have voters questioning Joe Biden’s competency. The chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and turmoil in the Middle East also weigh on the president. Biden ran behind Trump because he offered more of the same, which does not appeal to most voters.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, has also had difficulty gaining control of the narrative. His caustic, divisive personality combined with memories of his chaotic time in the White House do not inspire feelings of competence or hope. His one strong point, however, is positive views of his ability to handle the economy. That, more than anything, is what has helped him remain competitive.

The weaknesses of Biden and Trump explain why Kamala Harris has pulled ahead and the challenges she still faces. As Biden’s vice president, she is associated with an unpopular administration, but she has managed to overcome this by projecting competence in her speeches and debate performance. She has tried to gain control of the hope narrative by offering specific policies to help the middle class with a focus on families.

A look back at the 2020, 2008, and 1980 elections shows that, of the two, competence affects the results more than hope. When things go bad, voters are quick to blame the incumbent party and punish it by choosing the challenger. Things now may not be as bad as those elections, but voters clearly blame Biden for high prices despite recent declines in inflation and low unemployment. A crisis of affordability, more than anything, is weighing Harris down.

This leaves Kamala Harris in a bind. She cannot run from the record of an administration that she is a member of. At the same time, defending the record risks alienating the many voters who are worried about affordability. To get out of this bind, Harris has wisely decided to focus on the future to expand her control of the hope narrative. It may not be enough, but it is her hope of closing the deal.

Robert J. Fouser

Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Providence, Rhode Island. He can be reached at robertjfouser@gmail.com. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. -- Ed.