Another election has come and gone, and the results have surprised many—especially on the political left. While Trump polled ahead of Harris in most swing states and outperformed her in the prediction markets in the end, the indicators were neck-and-neck. A late poll in Iowa showing a significant Harris advantage convinced many that she was bound to win.
The Harris campaign spent a significant amount of its time on two issues—abortion (as evidenced by this ad campaign) and Trump as a “threat to democracy.”
These issues certainly rated as important, especially with particular demographics of voters, but overall, insofar as Democrats viewed Trump as weak on these issues, those perceived weaknesses were not enough to keep the Electoral College close.
Why? The explanation, I believe, is based on a familiar cliche in American politics (coined by Bill Clinton’s campaign advisor James Carville): “It’s the economy, stupid!”
Election polling consistently found the economy to be the top issue among voters (see these polls from Gallup and Pew, for example). Election Day exit polls found the same. “Economy” was the top issue for voters nationwide according to exit polls by AP VoteCast, along with immigration (a signature Trump issue and one inherently linked to economic issues in the minds of many voters).
The AP’s Josh Boak and Linley Sanders, reporting for VoteCast, found that “[a]bout two-thirds of voters said they were very concerned about the cost of food and groceries. About half had concerns of health care, housing costs and gasoline prices.”
Fortune magazine highlights that two-thirds of voters also said the economy was either not good or poor.
This negative view of the economy seems to have overridden bad feelings toward Trump. Harris likely did not do enough to convince voters that her economic plan would have been much different from President Biden’s plan, with which ordinary people are frustrated. This is probably because Harris, on several occasions, made it clear that she approved of the Biden administration’s activities without much qualification.
Trump, recognizing this frustration, had a heavy focus on economic issues. Points 3–6 on his official campaign website are all about fixing the economy, and the first two issues listed are related to immigration, which is largely an economic issue for his supporters. His campaign slogan became “Trump will fix it!” Fix what, if not the primary thing voters are bothered about with respect to the Biden administration?
Some have argued that the economy can’t be the primary driver because, by many indications, the economy is good. For example, inflation is slowing, so why would people be concerned about inflation?
Except, inflation slowing does not mean the everyman is immediately better off. First of all, a slower rate of inflation does not mean prices have come down. It just means they are rising more slowly. Inflation compounds, and what really bothers those consumers is higher prices.
Second, inflation erodes the value of savings. People save to plan for future projects or to keep a buffer for security. Pre-Covid savings were eroded by inflation which happened under the Biden administration (even if the policies responsible for the inflation began prior to him). Inflation slowing down does not cause eroded savings to return.
Regardless of how we make sense of it with our data or models, people are unhappy with the economy relative to pre-Covid times, and it seems clear that this unhappiness was a key factor on many voters’ minds as they went to the polls.
Trump’s coalition was largely based on low-income, low-education, working-class Americans upset with the economy. On those margins, his 2024 coalition was closer to Obama’s and Bill Clinton’s than Harris’s coalition was. Harris’s coalition ended up being the wealthy and educated.
Is there a lesson here? I believe so. While many will point to interesting trends in voting (such as Trump having historically strong Latino support or flipping terminally blue counties), I think the most important lesson from this election is the boring one: in the end, what matters most in politics is still the economy.
Cultural war issues generate a lot of noise in our political system, but my take-away from this is that all those things are secondary. No amount of noise will distract people from expensive groceries.
Article by: Peter Jacobsen
Peter Jacobsen teaches economics and holds the position of Gwartney Professor of Economics. He received his graduate education George Mason University. His research interest is at the intersection of political economy, development economics, and population economics.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
No comments:
Post a Comment