Bill Clinton’s political advisor James Carville famously said that when it comes to elections "it’s the economy, stupid". We can expect to see wall-to-wall analysis over the coming weeks and months of the factors underlying Donald Trump’s historic victory. One point that is already clear though, as votes are frantically counted and states continue to declare, is that Trump’s campaign messages on the economy have resonated strongly with US voters at this election.
Analysis from my American colleagues leading Ipsos’ polling throughout the campaign has suggested that the fundamentals of this US election favoured Trump as the challenger rather than Harris as the successor. The economy was a key issue for US voters at this election, with 90% of registered voters considering it a very important factor in their decision. And being ahead on the top issue matters. Analysis of historic patterns at US elections shows that the candidate leading on the number one issue for voters tends to win. Throughout the campaign Trump has led Harris on both the economy and inflation, and this will doubtless have been a key factor in his success. Approval of the Biden government was also low, which again favoured Trump as the challenger.
Trump’s end-of-campaign pitch to voters choosing between him and Harris called on them to consider whether they felt better off now than they did four years ago under the first Trump administration. That appeal came at a time when many US economic signs were positive. The country’s economy has been growing and is 11.5% larger now than it was at the end of 2019, and the US stock market is at or near an all-time high.
Read more
Democrats can blame their own hubris and arrogance for Trump success
Republicans have won the Senate but what does it mean for America?
However, many Americans haven’t been aware of or felt the effects of positive economic and inflation trends. It’s a fact, for example, that inflation has declined over the past year and is near historic averages. But this hasn’t necessarily cut through to American voters. Just 31% of Americans surveyed by Ipsos during the campaign thought it was true that inflation had fallen, which suggests that US voters have not been feeling the impact directly on their wallets.
This election saw Trump and Harris battle over the framing of the economy as an issue. Trump put the issue of high prices and inflation at the centre of his campaign, arguing that America is experiencing ‘the worst inflation we’ve ever had’. In contrast, Harris sought to appeal to middle-class Americans with her proposal to build an "opportunity economy" giving every American the chance to succeed. This is a fight that Trump has clearly won. The dominant narrative about the economy in the American public’s mind has been one of the need to tackle costs and inflation. Polling during the campaign pointed to this, with Trump leading Harris by seven points on the issue of getting costs and inflation under control, while the two candidates were tied when it came to building an "opportunity" economy.
This was a highly unusual election, with the sitting President withdrawing from the race just four months before election day, and Trump being no ordinary candidate. For commentators and pollsters, it has been a challenging election to predict, with mixed signals from different indicators. Both national polling and battleground state polling averages pointed to a very tight race, suggesting a "coin-flip" election that could easily go either way. While the fundamentals of the election favoured Trump, Harris out-fundraised Trump and also looked to be performing well when it came to certain campaign metrics. In races such as this, the result often comes down to which side is better able to mobilise its supporters in the closing weeks. More analysis of how America voted over the coming weeks and months will allow us to look at the extent to which turnout among key groups, such as young men and Latino voters, made a difference to the final result.
This side of the Atlantic, how will the public have been feeling when they woke up to the news of Trump declaring victory? A Trump comeback is a reality that many of the British public will not want to believe. Harris enjoyed a net positive favourability rating among the British public, with 43% holding a favourable view of her. In contrast, views of Trump are highly negative, with 64% holding an unfavourable opinion of him and just 19% a favourable opinion. Trump winning the election is also not the result that many in Britain had begun to expect. As election day approached, slightly more of the public believed that Harris would win the election than believed Trump would do so, by 35% to 30%. That marked a shift from July, when more expected a Trump victory.
A second Trump presidency will doubtless have huge consequences globally, and its potential impacts are a worry for many in Britain. Two-thirds of the British public say they are concerned about the potential for a Trump presidency to increase international conflict and destabilise the global economy. There is also greater concern about the impact of a Trump presidency on UK-US relations than there would have been had Harris been the victor. When it comes to the "special relationship" 59% of the British public polled by Ipsos a week ahead of the election expected that a Trump victory would have a negative impact on UK-US relations. In contrast, just 13% thought that a Harris victory would have a negative impact.
Trump has triumphed at a time when there is a widespread public view in America that the system is broken and unresponsive to the needs of ordinary citizens. That perception fuels the desire for a strong leader who can overhaul the status quo. An overwhelming majority of American voters polled by Ipsos during the campaign expected that, if elected, Trump would shake things up. The rest of the world will now be watching nervously to see just how Trump shakes things up in his second term as President and what the consequences will be.
Emily Gray is Managing Director, Ipsos Scotland
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here