It Was Still The Economy, Stupid

For all the post-election analysis going on, the results came back to people's wallets and pocketbooks

Post-election “autopsies” usually discuss obscure issues, and 2024 was no different. Podcasts were center-stage, but there is no evidence that they significantly influenced the election, as some claim. Team Trump ran ads showing Kamala’s support for providing taxpayer-funded transition surgeries for California prisoners and broad Democratic support for biological males playing girls’ sports. That, too, was an issue but certainly not one that cut across vast swaths of support for Trump.

The economy was one of two issues voters considered most pressing in the election. And for those who think the economy was not doing all that well, those voters broke primarily for Trump.

Throughout the spring and summer, journalists and Democrats could not comprehend why Biden was not getting better job approval numbers and puzzled over his poor marks on the economy. What was their reaction?

Blame the voters.

“It’s all vibes!” “They know things are good, but they feel like it isn’t, so they’re not giving credit Biden!” “Voters really don’t understand these macroeconomic issues.”

Look at this story from Politico (with CNN’s Brian Stelter — more on him in a moment — sharing a particular tidbit):

“They simply refuse to believe it! Bunch of dummies!”

To which I replied:

I hate to be that guy (well, not really), but I have been warning about it for months. I warned that Democrats were downplaying the economy, that it was more than just “vibes,” and that while unemployment was low and year-over-year inflation was down, people were still seeing more of their paychecks go toward higher food prices, car insurance, rent, homeowners insurance, home prices, energy prices, and credit card interest rates.

People didn’t see it that way. Tom Nichols tried to blame the media (of which he is a part):

Fundamentals in elections still matter despite all the think pieces you’ll read trying to pull at threads to find the deep-hidden meaning behind the results. When looking at the data, you see what it was all about.

The gimmicks did not work. I said the “weird” thing Tim Walz started when Kamala chose him as a running mate would not last and was much more of a social media phenomenon than anything else. I was told, “We will see it until November.” We did not.

Democrats tried to turn immigration into an issue that didn’t necessarily favor them but one in which they could find some room to move. I said it would not happen because people saw the previous three years with millions of people crossing the border — and that no one would buy Kamala the “border hawk” act she was selling. Of those who said immigration was the most crucial issue in the election (11% of voters), 90% voted for Trump.

I said the whole “joy” thing with the Harris campaign was almost entirely media-driven (and the bump she received was more about Democrats getting excited than anything else) and was not reflected in the overall electorate, and by the fall, that was true as the race moved back to a tie. And the Harris campaign knew it wasn’t working because it went from a campaign of joy to her hollering, “NEVER AGAIN!” by the middle of October when the “threat to democracy” theme returned. It was given an octane boost with comparisons to Hitler and calling Trump a fascist in the final weeks.

This is not to say that Trump won’t go rogue, and he already has with several of his cabinet nominees. Contrary to all the fear-mongering about Trump and being a dictator, he knows he enters office as a lame duck, so he’s swinging for the fences with ridiculous picks like Matt Gaetz to head up the Justice Department, RFK Jr. as HHS Secretary, and Tulsi Gabbard as head of Director of National Intelligence.

There is also the concern over how much executive power Trump will exert, and we’re already watching a battle play out with the threat of recess appointments to mold his administration the way he wants. Chances are, the scheme doesn’t work, but it’s not for a lack of trying. Andy McCarthy of National Review is having none of it:

The Framers were concerned that the presidency they were creating could become tyrannical. The road to tyranny — meaning, to the eradication of Americans’ liberty — would always be the accumulation of too much power in any one government actor’s hands. Hence, they divided power, structuring the government so that the branches checked each other’s authority. In that vein, they empowered the Senate to ensure that high executive officials had the qualifications and character fitting for public trust — the government offices in which they would wield enormous power. The president can fire any executive official at any time — subordinates are delegated to exercise the president’s power only at the president’s pleasure. But the president cannot hire anyone he wants. Nominees are subject to the Senate’s constitutional duty to advise and consent (Article II, Section 2).

This is where the “mandate” issue becomes ridiculous. I loathe the word “mandate” to begin with, regardless of the margin of victory in a presidential election. But too often, an incoming administration views its victory as a green light to run down a checklist of everything it wants to do and claim they were elected to do so. That’s not the case.

Trump won because of the economy and the horrid job the Biden administration did with combating illegal immigration.

Regarding the deportations, I am sure Tom Homan will do the job effectively. Why? He was the point person in the Obama administration, during which the former president deported more illegal immigrants than any other president before him.

On the economy, that’s a different matter altogether. People tend to credit or blame presidents for the state of the economy, but they don’t have as much control as they think. Still, Trump’s plan to raise tariffs exponentially will only exacerbate inflation and cause prices to increase. Whether someone has his ear to tell him is another matter. Republicans in Congress will likely not stand in his way, and he’ll use “emergency” executive powers to implement the tariffs, which could turn the opportunity for prices to come down on its head.

Time will tell.