STATISTA: It's the Economy, Stupid
by Felix Richter,
Nov 7, 2024
„It’s the economy, stupid!“
This phrase, famously coined by political strategist James Carville during Bill Clinton’s successful presidential campaign in 1992, still holds a lot of truth more than 30 years later. In fact, it sums up pretty well what may have cost Kamala Harris the election. According to exit polls, frustration with the state of the economy, even more so than immigration, was the main driver behind Donald Trump’s sweeping return to power.
According to NEP exit polls published by NBC News, 32 percent of the interviewed voters across 10 key states picked the economy as the one issue that mattered most to them in deciding who to vote for. Of these people, 80 percent voted for Donald Trump, giving him an even higher lead on the issue than Harris achieved among voters focused on abortion, of which 74 percent voted for the Democratic candidate.
During her brief campaign, Harris apparently failed to distance herself from the economic record of the Biden administration, which had left many people feeling worse off than they did four years ago. And while one could argue that Biden steered the economy through the inflation crisis with as little damage as possible given that it was driven in part by factors outside of his control, e.g. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or global supply chain disruptions, that’s not how many people felt and the Harris campaign failed to address those largely negative feelings.
46 percent of voters said their family was worse off now compared to four years ago, which is an even higher share than in 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis. 81 percent of these people voted for Trump, suggesting that Harris was perceived as the “more of the same” candidate while Trump promised change. Despite the economy doing reasonably well on paper – steady GDP growth, unemployment low, stock prices high – Americans are very downbeat after three years of high inflation. 68 percent of voters described the state of the economy as not so good or poor, while only 31 percent said it was good or excellent.
You will find more infographics at Statista
Sorry, but the "stupidity" is on the part of those who think the president can magic away their economic stresses. We keep hearing about grocery prices. And groceries are higher, but relatively speaking that is nickel and dime stuff.
ReplyDeleteI would say that we personally are worse off economically than four years ago. But the reason isn't the price of eggs, or even gas (which has gone up and down). The main reason is homeowners insurance, car insurance, long term care insurance, and Medicare supplemental. The long term care policies took a nearly 40% hike last year. Car insurance has nearly doubled over a ten year period, even though no claims during that time. Everyone gripes about Nebraska's property taxes. But homeowners insurance is nearly double our property tax. No claims on that either, and we carry a high deductible. In fact the insurance company required us to replace our 30 year old roof in order to continue our coverage. No help on that from them, because roofs depreciate over time. These things amount to hundreds of dollars difference. Don't talk to me about eggs and milk and hamburger. But I'm under no illusion that Donald Trump ( or anyone else in the oval office) could kiss it and make it better. I'm sorry Kamala didn't make us "feel better" about the economy, but we're supposed to be functional adults enough to have a rudimentary understanding of causes and effects.
The main thing driving the car and homeowners insurance premiums is living in hail and tornado alley in a period of climate stress. And we can bet Trump is not going to do anything about that, and it would be a long game anyway.
DeleteDefinitely for people who are renters, high rents are a cause of economic distress. It doesn't help that landlords in places like Omaha can rent their properties out for short term events like the college world series, and the annual Berkshire Hathaway fan fest, and make more money than having permanent tenants.
A footnote about long term care insurance, a thing that drove the premiums up was the pandemic. More elderly and compromised people needed care because of permanent damage to their health from long Covid. We can't afford to mishandle or ignore another potential pandemic. Do we suppose that Donald Trump will appoint the best people to the Centers for Disease Control? I'm sure RFK Jr would be glad to handle that.
DeleteYes! Insurance, cars, property taxes, and housing. Food is pricey, but not so much if you have some imagination and know how to cook from scratch. And I'd be willing to bet that the people freaking out about gas own big trucks, RVs, and a boat. They're also living in a big McMansion. I count 6-10 mortgage foreclosure noticed on these every week.
DeleteIn many ways, I think Trump, bloated, loud, and outlandishly cosmetized, is the perfect individual to represent the last gasp of the American conspicuous consumer. In the next four years, people are going to realize that their prestige purchasing is not sustainable on the wages our economic overlords want to pay them.
Honestly, I can’t figure why the economy is doing as well as it is. As well as it has been. Manufacturing has been eviscerated. Venture capital now has the knowhow to cannibalize anything, even non-profits. It has to have something to do with borrowing or possibly energy generated from rotting. After all, look at a dead tree lying on the ground covered in thriving fungi. Maybe Anne, with her economic expertise can shed light on this. I think, if BRICS succeeds, we’re in for a rough haul. Also, it’s a trillion per year to just service the debt. I think the crash will happen no matter who is running the country. May as well be the repubs and the orange magic man at the controls when it happens. Shadenfreude is my guilty pleasure.
DeleteAccording to the political analyses I've been reading, Trump's and Republicans' success in this election is due in large part to attracting demographic groups - young men; Hispanic men; Black men - in significantly larger shares than he had in previous elections. I'd assume this dovetails with the dictum, "It's the economy, stupid!", i.e. economic anxiety drove them to the candidate who, to whatever extent it is deserved, had the reputation of having a flourishing economy under his previous watch.
ReplyDeleteAs the Democratic party continues to gravitate to suburban and upscale college-educated voters, the party's traditional economic-reform messaging probably won't resonate as much. These folks are the 91% in the graphic above for whom the economy is doing excellent or good.
It's worth noting, too, that Trump the demagogue has commandeered Democrats' traditional economic populism. He's all about (or all talk about) tariffs against China and protecting blue-collar jobs in the upper Midwest. And his animus toward illegal immigrants is part of this economic-populism appeal.
I'd argue that Kamala's "aura" sort of projects the educated-Democrat demographic of today's Democratic party. She speaks and looks as whom (who?) she truly is: a well-educated and prosperous member of the elite class. By contrast, Joe Biden (another well-to-do attorney) speaks with blunt and rough language (in a PG-rated sort of way: "Malarkey!"), and has always tried to take care of unions and their members.
Trump has an elite education and he's obviously a billionaire (or at least that is what the public perceives), and he's the son of a wealthy man, but his "aura" resonates with blue-collar men, somewhat the way Biden's does. There is nothing about his manner or his speech which says "patrician". He comes across more like the plumber who won the Powerball and goes to Vegas to blow it all.
NAFTA was passed under Clinton’s watch. I don’t know if that’s still in the race memory but the attitudes and culture of Democratic leadership seem to reflect and project what they did. They really don’t care about what happened to the working class. Friend of mine remembers how he lost his job following NAFTA. The working class has no friends in the two parties. But Trump makes them think they do and that’s all it takes.
DeleteI think you're right. But I'll confess that the "elite' thing is really getting on my nerves. Basically someone who comes across as "elite" is just projecting that they had some education and upbringing. My grandmother who only finished the 10th grade used impeccable grammar, never talked coarsely, and dressed like she had her act together. Which she did.
DeleteThe populists are succeeding in their ambitions not to appear patrician. It's not a good look.
I think "men" is the operative word in Jim's comment.
DeleteI always thought The Man Show and Red Green were a pretty hilarious and only slightly exaggerated version of what a lot of men get out of their sports bars, strip clubs, fraternal organizations, lockerrooms, and firearms practice ranges: a place to argue, pull pranks, tell loud vulgar jokes, complain about their wives, make sweeping ethnic generalities, and brag about their tools. Trump appeals to that. Backlash against the "sensitive man." Make America Safe to Tell Dirty Jokes in Again.
I listened to a little of the radio analysis yesterday to and from doc's office. Can't listen for too long because I cannot yet stand to hear The sound of Trump's voice. But the class and gender gaps kept coming up. Trump won by attractinging "low-participation" out to the rallies and into the voting booths.
It's not the economy. It's NASCAR.
"It's not the economy. It's NASCAR."
DeleteUnfortunately you're probably right. Some men wonder why they can't get dates. There's a time and place for everything, and if they never shut off the knuckle-dragging vibe, women can't be blamed for thinking they're rude, crude and uncouth.
"Backlash against the "sensitive man." "
Delete... who is epitomized by President Obama. A week or two before the election, when Obama publicly chided Black men for not supporting Harris and questioned whether they were really committed to seeing women succeed, my "guy" thought was, "That's not going to go over well".
There is deep hatred for Obama in GuyLand. When Raber was at the shop during the first Trump regime, guys would say that Obama "ruined" the country and thank God for Trump.
DeleteRaber would try to probe the reason for the Obama hate, but he would just get rage and "do your f*!&ing research, dude!"
He would further enrage them by telling them, "My wife's got a cancer doc thanks to Obamacare." They predicted that I would be subjected to a death panel any day and that my blood samples were going for "experiments."
Then the word "wife" would remind them that their ex-wives and former girlfriends were "sitting around on their fat asses while Family Court makes me slave at this crappy job to make the child support payments."
That's who put Trump over the top.
Is the reason it doesn't go over well because they're really not committed to seeing women succeed? Because they see it as a zero sum game in which women's success takes away from their own. The challenge is to convince them that life is better when everyone has the chance to succeed.
DeleteNear as I can tell, TrumpGuy wants women to deal with the kids, bring in money, keep her trap shut, and do what they're told.
DeleteI lived through President Clinton moving the Democratic Party to the right and neoliberal economics. Therefore, I didn't want to set myself up for disappointment when Obama took over in 2008. He sounded great. A charming black president like I saw in the science fiction movies. Change is coming. Great. But at the start of his first campaign, he opened himself up to big money donors. At that point, I lowered my expectations but still voted for him. And I might have switched to McCain except that he picked that Alaskan crazy person for VP. Then I voted for Obama. He was inaugurated. First thing, he put Wall Street insiders in charge. Not too surprised. Then there was a coordinated action that closed down Occupy Wall Street nationwide in one weekend. One thing after another made me more and more cynical but never really surprised me. Yeah, I told me so. So many things during his administration demonstrated there was no hope or change at all. Well, Obamacare WAS something. Why is it always just something? Finally, he transfers power to the Orange Big Mouth, leaving the nation in a hole. He goes on a luxury vacation with Billionaire Branson. Before he left office, he did that fake sip of Flint water in Michigan. Not cool. Believe me, I can't hate the guy. He's too charming. But the fact that the Democratic Party keeps putting up these candidates that exhibit no real compassion for the shmoops who they sacrificed to the burning belly of neoliberalism, albeit with nice lip service, made me give up on them. I have just changed my registration from D to G. I voted for a Jewish woman for president and a Palestinian-American woman for PA senator. I can't say misogyny and racism didn't play some role in this last election. But just because a candidate is black or a woman doesn't mean they are progressive or even care about the lower economic end of society. The more educated voted for Harris. Education doesn't make people more compassionate, especially in our educational system which has de-emphasized the liberal arts. For me, "it's the genocide, stupid". But apparently, not really for many in this country. There's all types of people voting in all different directions for understandable and for horrific reasons. Yes, some guys voted like assholes but they've been treated like assholes for a long time. Economic stress doesn't help you become a better, more tolerant person. I think some Trump voters have less excuse than others. The biggest jerks are the well-off middle class that went for him. They're the least screwed. And education these days doesn't get you a job, either. It gets you a hunting license for a job. One that you will most probably hate.
DeleteI hear you. But after Ronald Reagan pulled the pivot point to the far right, the pendulum couldn't swing left past what used to be the center. Democrats figured they couldn't get elected unless they talked tough about welfare recipients. We all want a third party that would smash the status quo. But so far, all these parties do is lose.
DeleteI seem to run into firewalls when I look for how many voted versus how many abstained. All the percentages relate to those who voted. What was the percentage who voted versus total eligible voters in the last three elections? Did Harris get more votes than Biden did or Hillary in the last two elections? Did Trump get more or less votes than Trump in the last two elections? How many voters dropped out? How many dropped in? Maybe Jack with his Statista can answer these questions unless I missed it?
DeleteUltimately, I think a lot of these issues will be not be decided, addressed and resolved by voting. I am ultimately not a pessimist because I DO believe in God. But I no longer believe in the inevitability of progress, technical or otherwise. I think we're on course for a rendezvous with the Maelstrom, literally and figuratively. My optimism is that the human race will survive. How many, I have no idea? Climate Change is physically real. Its impact could be limited by the USA and other major countries adopting technical solutions, discarding automobiles (electric and internal combustion) and changing our diet. Or the other path is to stay on the path we are. Worldwide economic collapse would then reduce carbon emissions and population to the point that the atmosphere stabilizes. That's a big ouch, but it might work. I guess I want to get guidance or figure out how to behave like a Catholic Christian during an upheaval. What should I do, Lord? If there are too many people in the lifeboat, should I go over the side?
Delete"Is the reason it doesn't go over well because they're really not committed to seeing women succeed? Because they see it as a zero sum game in which women's success takes away from their own. The challenge is to convince them that life is better when everyone has the chance to succeed."
DeleteI certainly don't claim to speak for all men, and most certainly not those who are part of the MAGA movement. But my impression is that men aren't *committed* to seeing women succeed. They may harbor animosity toward women; they may think women are just fine; or they may be indifferent. But they're not motivated to go out and make a stand and take risks on behalf of women achieving equal pay, busting through glass ceilings, and so on.
I admit that, in considering whether or not to vote for Harris, that she would have been the first woman president didn't enter into my thinking. I didn't decide to vote for her because she is a woman; and I didn't decide to vote against her because she is a woman. I just considered her candidacy on other bases.
But I can also easily believe that so-called "downwardly mobile" men may feel resentment toward women who are successful and fulfilled. They feel similarly about successful, fulfilled men, but I think the resentment is sharpened when it is a woman. Just my impression.
"But my impression is that men aren't *committed* to seeing women succeed .... they're not motivated to go out and make a stand and take risks on behalf of women achieving equal pay, busting through glass ceilings, and so on."
DeleteDoes that impression change if "women" is replaced by "wives or daughters"?
Does that impression change if they have a respected co-worker who deserves to get ahead in her career?
Just thinking of my last dean. He was an evangelical Trump voter, but we got along very well, similar views on admin, teaching philosophy, etc. He was committed to my success and elevating others women in the department without regard to gender. Great guy.
"Does that impression change if "women" is replaced by "wives or daughters"?
DeleteDoes that impression change if they have a respected co-worker who deserves to get ahead in her career?"
Yes. But at that point it's not politics and policy; it's personal and "micro" level. I have women employees (not many; I work in what apparently is a guy-dominated industry) and I do try to support their career advancement and promotion. But as I say, that's not really the same as voting for a politician.
Down- ballot surprises. It is no surprise that Trump carried my state, the "blue dot" notwithstanding. Because it's a brand thing, that "R" label carries the day. The last time a Democratic presidential candidate carried NE was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
ReplyDeleteDown ballot is a bit different. They don't always toe the party line. They passed medical marijuana by something like 75%. They passed paid sick leave by a sizable margin. They ended the tuition assistance to private schools experiment (I think that decision wss financial, there was $10 million earmarked for that). Incumbent Congressman Don Bacon and Democratic candidate Tony Vargas were battling it out in a close contest. Last I heard Bacon was going to win. Which I see as a good thing, because he is a rational Republican and we need all those we can get with the Rs controlling both houses.
Stanley, the realities of economics are always changing. In general, free trade and globalization are good for the world - millions were lifted out of extreme poverty after the opening of markets and expansion of free trade and capital flows. . But of course, there are also losers in every evolution of the economy. In the last 100 years America has changed from an agricultural economy primarily, to manufacturing, and now to information and services. Where does a country’’s competetive advantage lie at any given time during the evolution of the economy? It’s complex. And often ambiguous.
ReplyDeleteNAFTA is one example. This article has a good explanation of the impact of NAFTA on the US,, Mexico and Canada in various ways. What it comes down to is - it’s complicated. And Ambiguous because other factors came into play that impacted the outcomes. Some jobs were lost in the US and some were created.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp
Thanks, Anne. That's a good article.
DeleteIf it's any comfort, other countries are having their own problems. Such as the collapse of Germany's governing coalition this week, which is causing some instability. Doesn't sound like their system is any better than ours. Neither is the UK's, with Brexit and the frequency with which they have to form new governments.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add one more thought on this. A vote for Trump was a vote for change. Bad change, for sure, but change nonetheless. Harris did not represent change at all. If anything, SHE was the conservative, loudly promising more Biden, more of the same. The Democratic Party has successfully resisted change in their party. Obama promised hope and change and delivered total status quo. He won because he sounded like change. Bernie and Warren represented change but were neutralized. Is there possibly an inchoate desire for change in the electorate that wasn’t being met by the Democrats? Trump will definitely change this country albeit in frightening and unpredictable ways. We are certainly about to enter unknown territory. It will change the world, as well. No country or world for old men like me, for sure. Passengers please note. The fasten seat belts sign is on.
ReplyDeleteI try to carefully read what people write here, but sometimes, in my haste to run my big mouth, I overlook things.
ReplyDeleteWhat Stanley said above is pretty much the million-dollar question for me: "I guess I want to get guidance or figure out how to behave like a Catholic Christian during an upheaval."
Trump is ushering in an upheaval, and most of us, for the remainder of our lives, anyway, will have to live in a world in which people no longer hold leaders to a high standard, in which leaders do not feel accountable to the public through mainstream informational channels, in which loyalty to the leader is more important than ability, and in which human worth is to be measured by how much money and status they have. We will also have a leader who has proved that he is not capable of taking the lead in global affairs, whether it's a pandemic, climate change, or income inequality.
So I guess, per Stanley's observation, we all have to figure out what God wants us to do so we can stay out if Hell, if you believe in the traditional Christian Hereafter, or to just be able to live with yourself as retirement and infirmity give you plenty of time to weigh up what you have done or left undone.
I'll give myself the week to feel crappy about the election. Then I gotta figure out how to move on. What can I do to manifest God's love to others? I doubt it'll keep me out of Hell if the local priest is right about everything, but I might at least be able to have fewer regrets at the end.
I read a quote from a comedian yesterday, "America decided to get back with her dirtbag ex". We've all known couples who went back into bad relationships that broke up for good reasons the first time. They didn't learn their lesson last time, or they were nostalgic for the good times that never were, or don't want to admit they had a certain attraction to the bad qualities, which were legion, whatever.
ReplyDeleteI relate to what Jean said about the need to move on and manifest God's love to others. At my age I can't wish away four years, I don't know how much sand is left in my hour glass, but it's a whole lot less than it used to be. " Teach me to number my days aright that I may gain wisdom of heart. ". I need to be conscious of the needs of others, but also do the things that make me happy and build my spirit.
I don't listen to much live news anyway (I prefer to read it), but one resolution I have made for my mental health is to avoid every opportunity to hear Trump's voice, the sound of which is to me like nails on chalkboard.
DeleteYes, news is a problem: Radio and TV you have to hear him, newspaper you have to see him, and Raber gets real worked up either way.
DeleteI’m thinking of limiting my screen time to a few hours in one day of the week. That and discontinuing my satellite TV service might help. I can’t change anything based on minute-to-minute news, anyway. I want to keep up with things, of course, but the constant intrusion into my consciousness must stop. Our present situation is an opportunity and a motivation to do that.
DeleteI strongly approve of resolutions to limit exposure to the never-ending media political cacophony. I truly think it's one of the keys to my mental health and balance.
ReplyDeleteI also was struck by Stanley's excellent question. These are just some initial thoughts:
1. Our ultimate loyalty must be to the kingdom of heaven, not to earthly kingdoms. I really wish Christian nationalists would ponder that more than apparently they do.
2. That said: we're not supposed to abandon our home here on earth; we're supposed to help God's kingdom make inroads here
3. Democratic politics is one way, but it's far from the only way, to help God's kingdom make inroads here.
4. Elections only happen every two years, presidential elections every four years. Once elections end, our responsibility as citizens of God's kingdom doesn't get put on hold until the next election. We need to focus on non-political ways of living as Jesus wants us to live: loving our neighbor, forgiving those who have wronged us and asking forgiveness of those we've wronged, serving those in need, giving our cloak as well as our tunic, and so on. All of which adds up to: proclaiming the Good News, both with our deeds and our words.
5. Politics is not supposed to be the medium of our fulfillment as human beings. I fear that, for more and more Americans, they are looking to politics for this purpose.
6. Jesus calls us to live lives of unity and peace with one another. But politics sows division and conflict. I'm thinking that one of the ways we Christians live counter-culturally is to live counter-politically. It's okay to disaffiliate from political identity and say, "I'm not on either team."
7. I think it's okay to raise our voices against both sides. Here is something I've been thinking about in recent years: even though I am conservative by nature, the Democratic Party, in recent years, has been drifting closer and closer to me. Arguably, it's base now is college-educated suburbanites, which is me to a tee. Except for abortion. I'm counter-suburban-cultural by being pro-life. So I try to raise my voice against abortion (I hope without being a complete *sshole about it, because I also believe in unity and peace, but it's hard to judge these things about ourselves). As for the Trump-era GOP, there is more than one thing for me to raise my voice against, such as their scapegoating of immigrants. And even pre-Trump, there was the contempt for climate change and the pro-war tendencies. I think part of being a citizen of God's Kingdom is speaking out against all these things, even when it hurts our political affiliation.
These are just initial thoughts.
I don't feel the need to love up to, forgive, understand, or find common ground with MAGA voters. I don't have time for their conspiracies, lies, guns, and threats. Commendable of Christians not to demonize them, but MAGA nuts are not high on my list of folks to embrace.
DeleteThere will be a lot of people hurt by Trump policies if he's focused enough to push then thru: Forcing homeless people into vagrant camps, rounding up migrants for deportation and jacking up suspicions about them, beggaring the budget with stupid things like the Wall, jacking up prices with tariffs, endangering health with deregulation and letting RFK Jr go "wild" on the CDC and FDA, letting Elon Musk decide what spending is a waste, and strengthening the position of capital over labor with tax cuts for the rich.
The people hurt by MAGA policies need the most help now, and that's who I hope to support in whatever ways I can. I'll leave it to you to try to persuade them how happy they'll be in Heaven when they die of preventable diseases, can't afford health care, or get shot when they're deported back to places like Haiti.
Thanks for those thoughts, Jim. I agree with you that "...one of the ways we Christians live counter-culturally is to live counter-politically. It's okay to disaffiliate from political identity..."
DeleteAs far as life issues, I don't know if anyone pays attention to Nebraska's ballot initiatives, except for Nebraskans. But there were two dealing with abortion this time, one basically maintaining the status quo with a twelve week limit, with carve-outs for standard medical practice for medical emergencies, and life and health of the mother. The other initiative was much broader one endorsed by Planned Parenthood. The more moderate one passed easily. The medical community seemed comfortable with that. My sister has two sons who are doctors, and a daughter who is a PA. I asked her if her medical kids had any misgivings about how things turned out. She said they didn't. In fact one of their supervisors had sent out a memo outlining what the standard of care for emergencies was, and they were comfortable with it. The supporters of the broader initiative were pushing a narrative that we would end up like Texas or South Dakota.
I do think that state governments matter more in times when the federal gov is unmoored or incompetent.
DeleteThat's great that you had a couple of options. In Michigan, it was revert to the original law from the 1930s that banned everything and put everybody in prison or the constitutional amendment Prop that banned nothing (provided you can persuade a doc to abort after viability). I think, given the state's Roe-era guardrails, people here would have gone for a more moderate proposal. So Dobbs had the effect of expanding abortion rights here and in other states that passed similar amendments. Ironic ...
DeleteKatherine, I think I read that the Planned Parenthood-supported Nebraska initiative failed decisively, true?
DeleteThis election may have marked a turning point politically, in which abortion starts to become less important for driving voters to the polls. Once a state has set its abortion policy, it's probably not going to revisit it for quite some time.
Jim, yes, Initiative 434, which was the more moderate one, passed with 55.3% of the vote. Initiative 439, the one Planned Parenthood supported, got 48.7% of the vote. Theoretically people could have voted in favor of both of them, or against both of them. There was even a group urging people to vote against both of them, because they didn't think 434 was pro-life enough. But that didn't get much support. I don't think we wanted to be either South Dakota or New York state.
Delete