Hello from London,

This is an unusual edition of our daily newsletter. We’re sending it in the aftermath of a gunman’s attempt to kill Donald Trump as he spoke from a stage at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday. Mr Trump said he was injured on his ear by a bullet; he was removed to safety. One of his supporters in the crowd was killed and two others were badly hurt by the volley of bullets. The attacker, a young white man who was positioned on the roof of a nearby barn, was shot dead.

What flows from this? Rightly, the attack has been condemned by President Joe Biden and, as far as I can tell, from all political quarters. As angry and polarised as American politics has become, nobody should ever cheer politically motivated violence, whether the victim is Mr Trump; or Nancy Pelosi’s husband (who was attacked with a hammer by a crazed man in his home two years ago); or the police and others who were assaulted by a mob that stormed Capitol Hill in January 2021. Read our first assessment of the attempted assassination of Mr Trump.

After the attack Mr Trump said that “it is more important than ever that we stand united”. He will continue with his campaign for the presidency and, in the short term, will attend the Republicans’ party convention in Milwaukee that is poised to begin on Monday. My judgment is that he will probably emerge from this politically stronger. The Republican behaved like an instinctive politician. In the moments after he was shot he made sure to stand, raise his fist and chant to the crowd as blood spattered his cheek. I believe he was shouting “fight”. It is this image, of a bloodied and energised candidate, that I imagine will fire up his supporters, party activists and donors even more.

The motivation of the attacker may matter little. As The Economist wrote in the aftermath of the shooting of Ronald Reagan in 1981, those who have killed (or tried to kill) American presidents “rarely have a distinct political motive. The woman who shot at President Ford in San Francisco in 1975 intended ‘a protest against the system’. President Garfield was fatally shot in 1881 by a man who thought he should have had a consular appointment.” The man who attacked Reagan supposedly hoped it would impress an actress. Undoubtedly there will be conspiracy theories and plenty of misinformation to come.

It would be easy for Europeans and others watching from afar to shake their heads and bemoan extremism and the easy availability of guns in America. In Britain’s recent election campaign, after all, the most notable violent act was the throwing of a milkshake on Nigel Farage, a populist with ties to Mr Trump.

In fact, the severe threat of political violence is a reality everywhere. It was only in May that a gunman shot and wounded the prime minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, as he campaigned for re-election. (Read about that attack.) In Brazil, in 2018, Jair Bolsonaro was stabbed in the abdomen at a campaign rally. He went on to become president. In Britain politicians have become far more cautious about their security in the past eight years. In that time two MPs, Jo Cox and David Amess, have been stabbed to death. As Harriet Harman recently wrote in an essay for us, this is reducing the space for political activity and dividing the public from their representatives: “When candidates can’t go to pre-announced events, democracy is pushed into retreat and everyone loses out.”

What will the effect of the attempt on Mr Trump’s life be on America’s election? Judging by our poll tracker, the Republican was already narrowly in the lead in the national, popular vote. Focus on the swing states, and Mr Trump’s advantage looks bigger. Our more sophisticated US election forecast model, meanwhile, had previously suggested that Mr Trump is substantially ahead of the Democratic candidate—with a three-in-four chance of victory. My hunch is that Mr Trump’s popularity will now rise even higher.

The assassination attempt will probably have other consequences, though these are hard to predict. It may distract from Mr Biden’s immediate troubles, after weeks of pressure from fellow Democrats who want him to stand aside as the party’s nominee. Mr Biden may find it easier, now, to ignore his critics. On the other hand, this may be the sort of shocking event that helps to concentrate minds in the White House and encourages a frank conversation with the president about his weakness as a candidate—especially if Mr Trump is now all the more energised.

Ideally, the ugliness of the attempt on Mr Trump’s life could produce something hopeful. If only it would encourage politicians from all sides—including the Republican himself—to moderate their language, to talk less about the evils of their political rivals and to foster the return of civility to politics. The chances of that, of course, are sadly close to zero.

I’d like to hear your thoughts: what consequences, political or otherwise, do you expect to follow from the attempt to kill Donald Trump? You can reach me at economisttoday@economist.com.