Connect with us

Economics

How Nevada’s Republicans made their primary irrelevant

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

PARTICIPATING IN Nevada’s Republican primary this year is a bit like playing a choose-your-own-adventure game. Your first choice is between voting in the state-run primary election or the caucus put on by Nevada’s Republican Party. You pick the February 6th primary, since the state has kindly mailed you a ballot. But wait: Donald Trump, your preferred candidate, isn’t listed. Instead you can choose between Nikki Haley, two people who are no longer running and four others you have never heard of. What if you picked the caucus on February 8th? Well, then you can vote for Mr Trump or Ryan Binkley, a pastor from Texas. Fans of Ms Haley are out of luck.

How did Nevada end up with duelling Republican primaries? In 2021 the state legislature passed a law replacing the caucuses run by the Democratic and Republican parties with state-run primaries on the first Tuesday of February. The move was intended to boost Nevada’s importance in presidential-primary elections by holding them earlier and making them more representative of the electorate. President Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee endorsed the change. Nevada and New Hampshire would vote on the same day, behind only South Carolina.

The bill was bipartisan, but the Nevada Republican Party revolted. Michael McDonald, its chairman and an ardent supporter of Mr Trump, argues that the party objected to the primary because it didn’t require voter-ID. He feared that Democrats, and specifically members of the powerful culinary union, would change their party preference on the day of the poll to skew the results of the Republican primary. To exert control, Republicans decided to put on a caucus. The result is two votes in three days and utter confusion.

If a candidate is on the primary ballot they are barred from participating in the caucus, which is the only way to win any of the state’s delegates. Ms Haley has suggested that Mr Trump’s allies in Nevada pushed for a caucus to help his chances. When she was asked why she decided to participate in the meaningless primary instead, she said her campaign would “focus on the states that are fair”. Mr McDonald—who along with several other high-profile Nevada Republicans recently pleaded not guilty to charges alleging that they tried to falsely pledge Nevada’s electoral votes to Mr Trump in 2020—denies that the party put its thumb on the scale.

The duelling primaries have probably not changed the outcome of the contest. But they have changed politics in the Silver State in two ways. First, voters are miffed that they are being denied an actual choice between the top two candidates. While waiting in line to enter a Trump rally in Las Vegas on January 27th, several said they were baffled when they opened their primary ballot and didn’t see Mr Trump’s name. Karen Marrs, a Las Vegan, says she does not trust the party. “I’m going to do what Trump tells me to do,” she explains.

Nevada is not the only important swing state where a chaotic Republican Party could be a liability in November. Republicans in Michigan mutinied against their MAGA party chair, and Arizona’s party chairman resigned on January 24th after a recording revealed that he had tried to bribe Kari Lake, a Trumpian provocateur, to stay out of politics.

Second, caucuses are less likely than primaries to reveal how voters will act in November because fewer people take part. Queuing for hours in churches and schools requires more time from voters than posting a ballot. Because Nevada is one of just six states that will in effect decide the presidential election, the opinions of voters there have outsize importance.

Mr Trump encouraged Nevadans to caucus during his rally. But in his remarks he revealed the vote’s irrelevance. “Don’t waste your time on primary,” he urged. “Waste all of your time on caucus.”

Economics

The low-end consumer is about to feel the pinch as Trump restarts student loan collections

Published

on

Andersen Ross Photography Inc | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Wall Street is warning that the U.S. Department of Education’s crack down on student loan repayments may take billions of dollars out of consumers’ pockets and hit low income Americans particularly hard.

The department has restarted collections on defaulted student loans under President Donald Trump this month. For first time in around five years, borrowers who haven’t kept up with their bills could see their wages taken or face other punishments.

Using a range of interest rates and lengths of repayment plans, JPMorgan estimated that disposable personal income could be collectively cut by between $3.1 billion and $8.5 billion every month due to collections, according to Murat Tasci, senior U.S. economist at the bank and a Cleveland Federal Reserve alum.

If that all surfaced in one quarter, collections on defaulted and seriously delinquent loans alone would slash between 0.7% and 1.8% from disposable personal income year-over-year, he said.

This policy change may strain consumers who are already stressed out by Trump’s tariff plan and high prices from years of runaway inflation. These factors can help explain why closely followed consumer sentiment data compiled by the University of Michigan has been hitting some of its lowest levels in its seven-decade history in the past two months.

“You have a number of these pressure points rising,” said Jeffrey Roach, chief economist at LPL Financial. “Perhaps in aggregate, it’s enough to quash some of these spending numbers.”

Bank of America said this push to collect could particularly weigh on groups that are on more precarious financial footing. “We believe resumption of student loan payments will have knock-on effects on broader consumer finances, most especially for the subprime consumer segment,” Bank of America analyst Mihir Bhatia wrote to clients.

Economic impact

Student loans account for just 9% of all outstanding consumer debt, according to Bank of America. But when excluding mortgages, that share shoots up to 30%.

Total outstanding student loan debt sat at $1.6 trillion at the end of March, an increase of half a trillion dollars in the last decade.

The New York Fed estimates that nearly one of every four borrowers required to make payments are currently behind. When the federal government began reporting loans as delinquent in the first quarter of this year, the share of debt holders in this boat jumped up to 8% from around 0.5% in the prior three-month period.

To be sure, delinquency is not the same thing as default. Delinquency refers to any loan with a past-due payment, while defaulting is more specific and tied to not making a delayed payment with a period of time set by the provider. The latter is considered more serious and carries consequences such as wage garnishment. If seriously delinquent borrowers also defaulted, JPMorgan projected that almost 25% of all student loans would be in the latter category.

JPMorgan’s Tasci pointed out that not all borrowers have wages or Social Security earnings to take, which can mitigate the firm’s total estimates. Some borrowers may resume payments with collections beginning, though Tasci noted that would likely also eat into discretionary spending.

Trump’s promise to reduce taxes on overtime and tips, if successful, could also help erase some effects of wage garnishment on poorer Americans.

Still, the expected hit to discretionary income is worrisome as Wall Street wonders if the economy can skirt a recession. Much hope has been placed on the ability of consumers to keep spending even if higher tariffs push product prices higher or if the labor market weakens.

LPL’s Roach sees this as less of an issue. He said the postpandemic economy has largely been propped up by high-income earners, who have done the bulk of the spending. This means the tide-change for student loan holders may not hurt the macroeconomic picture too much, he said.

“It’s hard to say if there’s a consensus view on this yet,” Roach said. “But I would say the student loan story is not as important as perhaps some of the other stories, just because those who hold student loans are not necessarily the drivers of the overall economy.”

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Economics

Consumer sentiment falls in May as Americans’ inflation expectations jump after tariffs

Published

on

A woman walks in an aisle of a Walmart supermarket in Houston, Texas, on May 15, 2025.

Ronaldo Schemidt | Afp | Getty Images

U.S. consumers are becoming increasingly worried that tariffs will lead to higher inflation, according to a University of Michigan survey released Friday.

The index of consumer sentiment dropped to 50.8, down from 52.2 in April, in the preliminary reading for May. That is the second-lowest reading on record, behind June 2022.

The outlook for price changes also moved in the wrong direction. Year-ahead inflation expectations rose to 7.3% from 6.5% last month, while long-term inflation expectations ticked up to 4.6% from 4.4%.

However, the majority of the survey was completed before the U.S. and China announced a 90-day pause on most tariffs between the two countries. The trade situation appears to be a key factor weighing on consumer sentiment.

“Tariffs were spontaneously mentioned by nearly three-quarters of consumers, up from almost 60% in April; uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers’ thinking about the economy,” Surveys of Consumers director Joanne Hsu said in the release.

Inflation expectations are closely watched by investors and policymakers. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has said the central bank wants to make sure long-term inflation expectations do not rise because of tariffs before resuming rate cuts.

A final consumer sentiment index for the month is slated to be released on May 30, and will likely be closely watched to see if the tariff pause led to an improvement in sentiment.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

Economics

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon says recession is still on the table for U.S.

Published

on

Jamie Dimon, chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co., speaks during the 2025 National Retirement Summit in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, March 12, 2025.

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Wall Street titan Jamie Dimon said Thursday that a recession is still a serious possibility for the United States, even after the recent rollback of tariffs on China.

“If there’s a recession, I don’t know how big it will be or how long it will last. Hopefully we’ll avoid it, but I wouldn’t take it off the table at this point,” the JPMorgan Chase CEO said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.

Specifically, Dimon said he would defer to his bank’s economists, who put recession odds at close to a toss-up. Michael Feroli, the firm’s chief U.S. economist, said in a note to clients on Tuesday that the recession outlook is “still elevated, but now below 50%.”

Dimon’s comments come less than a week after the U.S. and China announced that they were sharply reducing tariffs on one another for 90 days. The U.S. has also implemented a 90-day pause for many tariffs on other nations.

Thursday’s comments mark a change for Dimon, who said last month before the China truce that a recession was likely.

He also said there is still “uncertainty” on the tariff front but the pauses are a positive for the economy and market.

“I think the right thing to do is to back off some of that stuff and engage in conversation,” Dimon said.

However, even with the tariff pauses, the import taxes on goods entering the United States are now sharply higher than they were last year and could cause economic damage, according to Dimon.

“Even at this level, you see people holding back on investment and thinking through what they want to do,” Dimon said.

— CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed reporting.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Continue Reading

Trending