Connect with us

Economics

A much-watched poll from Iowa points to a Harris landslide

Published

on

AS THE ELECTION approaches its climax, dozens of opinion polls of American voters are churned out each day. None is so eagerly awaited as the final Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of Iowa, produced by Selzer & Co, a polling firm. On “Election Twitter”—the colloquial name for a community of political-data junkies on X—this particular poll has taken on a legendary status. On the evening of November 2nd, it showed Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in Iowa, sending Election Twitter into a frenzy. Why?

Selzer & Co is a high-quality pollster. It is rated as one of the best in the country by FiveThirtyEight, a data-journalism outfit that tracks polling accuracy. The Selzer Poll is recognised for its success projecting the Iowa caucus—the early test that has been a staging ground for presidential nominees. And the pollster’s predictive powers in presidential elections has been stretched beyond Iowa, the state it usually surveys.

In the past five presidential elections, the final Iowa polls by Selzer and Co have had an average absolute error of 3.1 percentage points in the state. They have predicted the result in Iowa correctly four out of five times—an impressive record. But the most surprising thing about this record is that the Selzer Poll performs better in some states other than Iowa, where its respondents live.

Taking the implied change in vote shares from the Iowa poll and applying them to other states, the average absolute error is lower in four of them than in Iowa: North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan and Wisconsin. Indeed, this crude method outperforms 14 states’ own polling averages from 2004 to 2020. The strange phenomenon has been particularly striking in the past two presidential cycles, when Michigan and Wisconsin were crucial battleground states. Polls in those states underestimated Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, whereas the Selzer Poll did not.

Despite the obvious point that a poll of Iowans cannot be directly translated to Michiganders or Wisconsinites, for some poll-watchers the survey has taken on a near-mythical ability to forecast the election across the country. If that were the case, the results published on Saturday would be very good news for Ms Harris. The poll shows her leading in Iowa by three percentage points; Mr Trump won the state by eight points in 2020. Applying that shift across the country would see Ms Harris win the election in a landslide, with 416 electoral-college votes.

Democrats should not celebrate too soon. It is true that states such as Wisconsin and Michigan have characteristics in common with Iowa, but the Selzer Poll’s historical out-of-state record is probably a fluke. With only five polls to go on (Ms Selzer has been running the Iowa poll since 1987 but archived results have not been digitised), the sample is too small to say if the Iowa poll is truly predictive of other states. Even within the state, the record is not perfect. The poll estimated Barack Obama to have a lead of 17 points in 2008, for example, and he went on to win by just ten. Taking the average error from previous Iowa polls in each state, the projected advantage for Ms Harris is within the margin of error in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, among the key states.

That said, our forecast gives Ms Harris a 4-in-100 chance of flipping Iowa now that the Selzer Poll is included. It is a respected survey which happens to have outperformed other pollsters, even outside Iowa. If Saturday’s reading correctly foretells a landslide for Ms Harris, prepare for the Selzer Poll to enjoy even greater veneration.

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending