It's the Economy (And Border), Stupid
2024 Election Analysis - Hypothesis #1 - A failure based on fundamentals
As we come to understand why the election happened the way it did, one must ask: is it simply a matter of political fundamentals and that existential concerns about America are panicky responses to bad news? Let’s dive in!
Just so readers can follow along, here are the exit polls. It appears to be the same poll that all these news agencies are using, so pick your preferred presentation and follow along.
The argument, in general terms
First, let’s reconstruct the argument. As compiled from various speeches, anecdotes, exit polls, and articles: “it was the economy which sank the Harris campaign.” The economy first and foremost meaning inflation followed by some combination of: poor long term “quality” job prospects, high housing and healthcare prices, etc. Inflation, it must be emphasized, was the common denominator. The other issues mentioned were typically reflective of the results of the author’s Rorschach test, also known as exit poll analysis. And this was the key issue for independents, Latinos, and men which were all groups that trended away from the party. This was particularly brutal in the swing states, where these voters delivered a clean sweep to Trump. Because Democrats didn’t take inflation seriously, didn’t articulate a unified solution fast enough, or that simply the inflation had occurred at all; they were toast. Additionally some authors raise that they couldn’t sell their own economic accomplishments nor effectively communicate what tariffs were and why they are so harmful. So Biden’s job numbers, faster than inflation wage growth 2023-2024, and domestic investment programs all got ignored under the flood of rising grocery receipts, consumer dissatisfaction, and the miserable job market.
The proponents of this argument typically point to the national swing map, a map that graphically represents the partisan change in various areas of the country. The logic is “what other phenomenon could’ve provoked a nationwide, more or less uniform swing towards trump other than inflation? Something that occurred in all states, more or less equally?” They also point to international data. This is the first year on record that all incumbent parties of peer democratic nations lost seats in their most recent elections. While Democrats performed close to the top of the list, they still lost.
Lastly, where are the jobs now? They are in Texas, Florida, Phoenix metro, Atlanta metro, and elsewhere in Republican controlled Sun Belt states. Where are the most new houses being built? The above mentioned states. In the aggregate, the blue states still possess higher quality of life and are more highly developed. But if I am a young person, under whose government will I be more likely to find a job and a home? The results are already manifesting, the people are voting with their feet. This is also politically disastrous for Democrats in the electoral college. As states like California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York lose electoral votes; Florida, Georgia, and Texas are growing.
It’s the Economy, Stupid but with more context
So where does that phrase come from? It comes from James Carville, campaign manager of Bill Clinton’s ‘92 campaign, who famously wrote up three guidelines to the campaign which were treated as sacrosanct by the campaign.
Change vs. More of the Same (MOTS)
It’s the economy, stupid
Don’t forget about healthcare
These principles won 2 of the 3 Democratic presidential victories between 1964 and 2008. The previous three elections before 1992 were blowout losses. So I do think what he says is worth hearing out. What’s interesting is the flexibility of these three maxims. Recently, I viewed some old Bill Clinton ‘96 campaign commercials which featured his “tough on border” policies. What stood out was how the campaign inverted Change vs. MOTS. They made the fear of change front and center, “don’t change course now, that would jeopardize these great results!” Harris didn’t portray that argument enough. Some say she couldn’t in this media environment or with such a short campaign but that’s for another article. Returning to the economy, Trump was able to claim the change message, and with it a clear path to victory. Exit polling shows this starkly. Trump was the change candidate and MOTS was the albatross that sank Harris. Much will be made of her decision to decline to differentiate herself from Biden in that The View interview in early October. From then on, the race went from prevent the maniac criminal from coming back to MOTS or change.
Of course, inflation and the economy trumped all other issues in exit polling as I have already established. There remains an open question as to whether any incumbent administration could’ve spun the inflation that occurred during their own term to their advantage. To quote the great political theorist Pappy O’Daniel, “how are you gonna run reform when you’re the damn incumbent?!” By failing to center an anti-inflation agenda and instead being stuck trying to steer the conversation to industrial policy, R&D investments, and infrastructure; the Harris campaign was stuck.
Healthcare played a shockingly silent role in the 2024 election even though it is both a) an actual source of the real life inflation phenomenon that we are discussing not just some hobby horse and b) a popular issue for Democrats that is intimately tied to the cost of living, middle class living standards, and something that peels off moderate conservative votes. After the bloodbath of 2018, I’m personally skeptical that the newly minted GOP Congress will try to repeal the ACA again. However, it will be a target of the courts and you can always rely on the GOP attempting the dumbest and simultaneously most evil thing they can imagine. Another way to look at “Don’t forget about healthcare” is to interpret it as “don’t forget about the other popular issue associated with you.” Being a one-track candidate has its limits. Trump could hit prices and immigration. Harris couldn’t reach a second issue to her benefit, it seemed.
Existential Economic Angst - One Generation to Another
Deindustrialization is typically considered to have begun around 1968. The 1970s are filled with black days, the closure of huge industrial plants. This pattern only accelerated over the 1980’s and 1990’s before hitting rock bottom after the 2008 recession. This wasn’t limited to factories. Concomitant to this has been a generalized decline in “quality” non-manufacturing jobs. Jobs that provide benefits, good pay that sustains a middle class living, and could be relied on for a whole career.
Sometimes, I prefer to start earlier at the poor recovery from the 2001 Dot Com recession and resulting poor economic performance of the 21st century so far but pick your poison.
Let me tell you a story that I think explains a lot of economic discontent you see in all demographics. My uncle, a chemical engineer, was born in the mid-20th century and was an above average, motivated high school student. He went to the flagship university of his state, which didn’t feature a seriously competitive entry nor did it cost him 5-figures of high interest loans. He got a job out of school, which wasn’t an hourly contract to hire, which gave health benefits, and came with a retirement plan. He bought a house. He held that job for his whole career. That whole world is gone, from beginning to end. As a chemist, I can tell you first hand that pretty much all of these things are gone. Elite level colleges are far more difficult to enter and far more expensive. Even going to a lower tier cardinal direction, state name university cost me nearly 25,000 in student debt. I had to prepare virtually my entire life to go to college but even in specifics I had to prepare more than my uncle. Going to specialized testing study groups and even taking the ACT multiple times to improve my score, deliberately joining organizations just to expand my resume. And I was hardly the most vigorous in these pursuits. While my entire class ended up with a job, most of them had to receive additional education in order to get a more competitive chance at a job. And all of us were initially “contract to hire”, meaning our job could be up at any time and you were lucky to have as much as 18 months guaranteed into the future. You entered a far more scarce and expensive housing market, both prices have risen faster than inflation and inventory is down. Health insurance? I’m fortunate enough to have something subsidized off the ACA the new GOP majority has in its sights. A plan that costs me $50 a pop to see a doctor, no dental, and so far has out of pocket costs greater than $1000 I’ve had to pay. I’m lucky to have such a great wife and the needed family support to own a home before 30, to have been able to slough off my student debt, and to live a middle class life, all my life so far. Is this what we have become? Has the middle class become hereditary?
I don’t think its all exclusively bad news. There are bright spots out there. But the general mood is a mood of grim survival, of diminished optimism, where everyone feels that someone is out to swindle you of your money.
Oh yeah, immigration too.
In the same exit polls, immigration was listed as a common but the most common issue voters. In fact, looking at exit polling, immigration was listed as the 4th most important issue, tied more or less with abortion each time. Given this result, I am reconsidering if the immigration issue was that high salient in this election. While this was certainly a powerful issue for Republicans and people who are motivated on this issue split 90-9 for Trump, I question whether that 11% isn’t just a measure of the pro-immigration activist class and partisan republican turnout. Could a more vocally anti-immigrant Democrat douse this issue the same way Trump’s heavy shift into “leave it to the states, we must always protect the 3 exceptions (rape, incest, life of the mother), and vigorously supporting IVF” seemed to tamp down the abortion issue in the minds of voters.
The videos of enormous crowds of people bumrushing border patrol agents, long lines of people streaming through deliberately cut holes in the border fence or across the Rio Grande, and of the thousands upon thousands of migrants who lingered homeless on the streets of America’s cities. This simply cannot be tolerated by any political party, regardless of how one feels about immigration. While I remain committed to the belief that immigrants are a net benefit to the nation, we must face the reality that these images are political poison. As I have said before, if I were JB and had to respond to the fiscal squeeze the state is currently in and wanted to be viable in 2028, I’d cut the Medicaid for Undocumented Arrivals program that currently is biting a $600 million chunk out of the state budget that could go to schools, to transit, to public health, to any other priority quite frankly. And while on the topic, most Illinoisans - even Democrats - are against this program. I’d take the threat of “billions in welfare for illegal aliens” being carpet bombed onto screens every day from labor day to election day seriously. Even the authors of the program were dishonest about what it does and did not accurately project its costs.
Conclusion
Nailing down a new economic program that can tackle the cost of living is what everyone says. Everyone in the world is for good jobs and better government. But what does this mean? What does it look like? What is needed is turning these buzzwords and policy outcomes into policy programs and messaging that actually breaks through. And then building consensus, hammering that program in 100 and 1 forms down the eyes and ears of every single American.
Harris had her “Opportunity Economy” and it went nowhere. What did it stand for, other than being “good” for you? Did she seriously mention the home building program after September? What about the CTC? I have a mind to go after potential campaign mistakes in my article about Hypothesis 4: Was it Democrats not turning out? And treat that as a general campaign grab bag. Also I want to dig into Illinois specific results outside this hypothesis framing and to get into the flop that was the Liz Cheney saga.
If I was a contender for 2028, I’d be working on making my state the leading job producer and the cheapest to live in.
I’ll see you in the next one.