Indecision time

ON SEPTEMBER 26th two candidates will debate against each other on live television during what will probably be the most-watched political broadcast in American history. One of them is a former First Lady, senator and secretary of state. The other has never been elected to any office before and was, until last year, the host of “Celebrity Apprentice”. Yet this is not the most remarkable thing about America’s presidential election. What is truly extraordinary is that the polling currently suggests that these two candidates are, if not quite tied, then far closer than most people expected them to be at this stage of the race.

After the Democratic National Convention at the end of July, betting markets gave Donald Trump just a 20% chance of becoming the 45th president. His attacks on the parents of a soldier who was killed in Iraq seemed to have crossed a line. In the intervening weeks, his tone has not been moderated so much as become familiar. When he praises Vladimir Putin (“If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him”), or suggests that Hillary Clinton’s security detail be disarmed, many voters now just shrug. Mrs Clinton, meanwhile, had to absent herself briefly from the campaign trail after a bout of pneumonia. The bombs in New York and New Jersey probably helped the candidate calling for fortified borders and profiling of Muslims.

Although the national polls have been edging closer for a while, what is even more striking is how polls of voters in individual states have tightened, sending forecasters scurrying to recalibrate their predictions (see article). Mrs Clinton is still the favourite, and Mr Trump has yet to score much above 40% in a national poll. But this is not because of any real enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate, who admits she is not much of a campaigner and has faced a barrage of questions about her trustworthiness. A higher proportion of voters are turned off by both of the main candidates in November than in any election since 1992, when Ross Perot mounted a strong third-party run, winning 19% of the vote.

This time it is not a populist third party that is threatening to siphon off tens of millions of votes from the Republican and Democratic candidates, but powerful feelings of reluctance and repulsion. Many Americans would like to start over with two new candidates, which is not an option. After the most unpleasant election campaign for half a century, nearly 20% say they remain undecided or plan not to vote for the Democrat or the Republican. What these voters do in six weeks’ time will determine the outcome of the election.

For those—including many lifelong Republicans—who are alarmed by Mr Trump’s recent advances in the polls, the first debate looks like a good opportunity for Mrs Clinton to win the waverers over. That may be wishful thinking. Throughout the campaign the two candidates have been judged by different standards. As a seasoned politico, Mrs Clinton is expected to deliver a polished performance. Mr Trump can exceed expectations just by not insulting lots of people or losing his temper. Interviewing him is like trying to catch fish in a fast-moving river with your bare hands. Debating against him will not be any easier.

Besides, at a time when Americans are sick of politicians, Mrs Clinton is a near-perfect avatar for all the things they do not like about politics (see article). Even though he has been running for president for over a year, has taken in $166m in political donations and has a pollster in charge of his campaign, Mr Trump still manages to avoid being thought of as a politician. There is just a chance, however, that the debate next week and the ones that follow it will at long last turn attention to something that has been largely ignored in all the fuss over the candidates’ personalities: their actual policies.

Chalk and cheese

Perhaps out of weary cynicism, many of the undecided look at Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton and think there is nothing to choose between them. This is not the case. In fact it is hard to think of two major-party candidates who have ever been as far apart on what they say they intend to do when installed in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than this pair. For once it is not an exaggeration to say that this election is not just about who should be president, but about what sort of country America should be. And with all due respect to Gary Johnson, an affable libertarian, and Jill Stein, an environmentalist, there are only two candidates who can win. Americans who vote for a third party, or who abstain because they think politics is something that happens elsewhere, far removed from their daily lives, may be in for a surprise.