Is the economy still gaining

photo: ap photo

As you read this, there are five days or less until Election Day in the United States. Although Election Day is officially November 5, Americans have been using the early voting system for weeks and tens of millions of them have already cast their ballots. In the coming days, the "well-informed" in the domestic media will shower you with wisdom such as "You know, well, Trump gets it smooth" or "The deep state will introduce Kamala into the White House through the back door", although little is really known. . This election year is like a whirlwind rollercoaster where the candidates, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, are down and up and nauseated puts you on shaky ground for making hard predictions.

Years of intensive monitoring of American politics are not overly helpful, and neither are public opinion polls that failed miserably in 2016, and only slightly less in 2020 and 2022. Attempts to listen to the spirit of America by following the media in the US or talking to Americans are only deceptive, because the amount bajasa, as one would say in pure Serbian, or the inability to objectively perceive the facts, which are increasingly pronounced. The only thing left is the feeling, that is, the subconscious formula into which we insert all the known and unknown about the past and current elections. And the feeling knows how to deceive.

Somewhat paradoxically, the chances of experts and non-experts to guess the result when predicting are similar. The only thing is that these experts are a bit more cautious and not so brave as to express firm positions because they know that their chances of success are almost 50-50 and that it would not be too much of a surprise if any of the candidates collected 300 or so electors. The feeling I mentioned a few lines above says that Trump is winning, but also that the current vice president has at least a 47 percent chance of winning.

SWEET WHITE HOME OHIO

Was it always difficult to predict the outcome? And it is and it is not. In the last half century, there have been election duels, such as Reagan vs. Mondale (1984), Clinton Vs. Dole (1996) or Obama vs. McCain (2008), when predicting the winner was not difficult. On the other hand, it was not easy to predict the winner in most competitions, especially in 2000. However, I will dare to say that in the last 10 years, penetrating into the future is an even more difficult job, because the decades-long axioms of American elections are slowly disappearing.

Not so long ago in the country of America there were axioms that Ohio votes exclusively for the winners of the presidential elections and that Americans do not agree on many things, but that in foreign policy there is a consensus on priorities, and that Florida, Colorado, Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico so called wavering states, while the working class and young people vote for Democrats. And finally, that the good state of the economy in an election year does not guarantee the victory of the party that holds the keys to the White House. Today these rules no longer apply.

Although Ohio has consistently voted for the winners of US presidential elections since 1964, that streak was broken in 2020. Then the citizens of the "Great State of Ohio" gave their trust to the Republican candidate who lost the election, admit it or not, to Joseph Biden. Also, in addition to Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico can no longer be classified in the camp of vacillating or undecided states, because their loyalty to red or blue is cemented.

Also, the thesis that foreign policy issues do not win elections has been shaken a little this year because, according to the Pew Research Center's traditional poll on election priorities, foreign policy is among the most pressing challenges. The above topic is particularly interesting because it is not equally prioritized among Republicans and Democrats. It is significant in the electoral calculation with 70 percent of reds and only 56 percent of blues. Also, the drastic differences regarding the course that America should take towards Israel, Iran or the issue of human rights, and somewhat less drastic regarding Russia, China or the prioritization of NATO, are a reflection of some new times in the US electorate. The apparent absence of a clear external threat has, among other things, eroded the long-held American foreign policy consensus.

WORKERS AND YOUNGER MEN FOR TRUMP

The internal political axioms of the US elections did not go unscathed either. Blue-collar workers, especially those in swing states, are increasingly leaning toward Trump. The survey data is somewhat surprising: the billionaire Trump has a significant margin of advantage in Pennsylvania among manual workers, union members, service sector workers and those with precarious jobs. In fact, if Newsweek and CNN are to be believed, the 45th US president is projected to score better among the working class than any Republican candidate in the past 40 years, with particularly notable scores among African-Americans and Hispanics.

No less surprising is the research of the "New York Times" and "Siena" ("New York Times"/"Siena"), according to which a significant majority of men under the age of thirty will vote for Trump. And no, it is not about isolated research or about upholstery favorable to Trump, and it is not a coincidence either. For months now, the Trump-Vance campaign, through the activism of Charlie Kirk and his "Turning Point" initiative, Donald Trump's lucid appearances on podcasts with Logan Paul and Joey Rogan, and proposals for economic policies that tear the ears of the younger generation, has been trying to break through in a traditional democratic stronghold. And they seem to be doing quite well.

How important is this grouping? Data show that in the 21st century, no Democratic candidate who won less than 60 percent of the 18- to 29-year-old vote won a presidential election. Of course, we should keep in mind that we live in an era of twilight axioms and surprises that are lined up in a continuous series. However, if Donald Trump wins this year's election, it will be a result of his success and Kamala Harris' failure to win over the working class-young male coalition.

Although the final test will come with the announcement of the final election results on November 5, the axiom that a good economy wins elections has been in a harsh collision with reality in recent years. The claim that is still being made today is that good economic indicators - growth of the gross domestic product, low inflation rate and high employment - guarantee the party that has a president in an election year a victory in the elections. However, despite the fact that the economy has been a key priority in the electoral decision of Americans for decades, from 2016 to today, good economic indicators and the electoral victory of the party that controls the White House are in collision.

Namely, according to a CNN survey from September 2016, Americans' view of their own country's economy was the best in the last nine years. Inflation and unemployment rates were relatively low, and gross domestic product growth was 1.63 percent, but with solid continuous progress since 2010. However, the Democrats lost the White House and failed to regain the House of Representatives and the Senate. Two years later, Republicans were in power at all levels, and America recorded, comparatively throughout the 21st century, excellent performances: GDP growth was 2.83 percent, inflation was 2.44 percent, and unemployment was the lowest in the previous 50 years – 3.8 percent. And yet, the Republicans lost the House of Representatives, and 42 seats in it.

WHEN THE ECONOMY HELPS, AND WHEN EXACTLY NOT

The corona virus pandemic made 2020 an extraordinary year. Thus, the solid economic performance from 2017 to 2020 sank in the covid-recession and the increase in unemployment during the election year. Despite everything, according to a September 2020 Gallup survey, 54 percent of Americans had a positive view of Trump's management of the economy. That is why it is not surprising that even today Trump tirelessly asserts that the US economy was in never better condition before the pandemic. And yet, in the 2020 election, Republicans lost everything from the White House to the House of Representatives to the Senate. Two years later, the US economy was still riding a post-Covid wave and posting solid results. GDP growth was 2.5 percent, unemployment was kept at a record low level of 3.6 percent, but the Democrats lost the House of Representatives and thus the ability to freely shape American politics.

Economic indicators in the first three quarters of 2024, viewed through the prism of the American economy in the 21st century and the inflationary crisis from which America emerged, are quite solid. In addition to basic economic indicators, such as GDP, inflation and unemployment, and slightly more advanced indicators, such as the Gini index, GDP per capita, the state of the capital market and the like, speak in favor of a favorable economic situation.

However, US citizens do not have much confidence in the economic policy of the current administration, nor in the economic plan presented by Vice President Harris. Namely, according to numerous polls conducted during September and October, Trump has between 10 percent and 14 percent advantage over Harris when it comes to voters' trust in the management of the American economy.

Why is that? There are a dozen reasons, but two burning ones stand out: economic indicators that do not show the level of (dis)satisfaction of the average voter in the US and identity issues and priorities that often overshadow the economy.

GAZA, MIGRANTS AND OTHER IDENTITY ISSUES

Macroeconomic variables provide a clear picture of the state of a country's economy, but they do not necessarily explain how the state of the economy affects the average voter. For example, the fact that the US gross domestic product per capita is around $85000 (9th in the world, ahead of only small and micro states and territories), does not mean much to manual workers with insecure jobs. If we know that there are many such workers in Pennsylvania or Michigan, then it significantly changes the outlook of the American economy. Also, the data on the low unemployment rate and economic growth are not the only ones that are important if you take into account the drastic increase in prices in stores. In the end, perception is an important piece of the puzzle, because by sending military and economic aid, small business owners can create the impression that the White House cares more about what happens in Ukraine, Gaza or Lebanon than in Nevada or Arizona.

Although the economy is still an important factor in deciding voters, it is not the only one. According to a survey conducted by Pew this year, more than 60 percent of voters said that health care, crime, immigration, foreign policy and the appointment of Supreme Court justices are important factors in their vote. The list is not closed with the mentioned questions, because there is a large number of voters who will vote for Kamala Harris because of the abortion issue, as well as those who will vote for Trump because of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Identity issues—whether they're framed by culture wars in education, the problem of illegal immigration, racial inequality, or abortion and gun rights—often trump faith in which candidate would do better on the economy.

All that has been written does not mean that the economy is unimportant for the electoral decision of the voters. Moreover, it is still the most important factor for the largest number of voters. The idea was to show how the good state of key macroeconomic criteria - due to changes in American society and a variety of other issues - does not guarantee electoral success. If Kamala Harris wins, this claim will be, at least temporarily, refuted. In that case, I will be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. Who hasn't taken his children to the American election fair, he doesn't know what suffering is!

The author is an associate of the Center for US Studies at the Faculty of Political Sciences

This text was created as a result of the project "Center for US Studies FPN - The First 20 Years" implemented by the Center for US Studies FPN UB, and financed by the Department for Media, Culture and Education of the US Embassy in the Republic of Serbia.

Neither the Media, Culture and Education Department of the US Embassy in Belgrade, nor the US Government stand behind the content of this project or assume responsibility for it.