Connect with us

Economics

After winning New Hampshire, Trump is cruising to the nomination

Published

on

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

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

MOST THINGS become banal after a near-decade of cultural dominance. But not Donald Trump. Republican voters are still enthralled by him, undaunted by all the turmoil and scandal of his time in the White House and his post-presidential life. His rallies retain their feeling of secular religious revival. His fresh-faced rivals, by contrast, have looked unoriginal and uninspiring. By the time Republicans had voted in just one state, Iowa, only one serious challenger remained. All the rest had dropped out; most had endorsed him. The last woman standing, Nikki Haley, a former governor of South Carolina who served as America’s ambassador to the United Nations while Mr Trump was in office, mounted her resistance in New Hampshire, the second state to cast ballots. Like all the rest, she was overrun.

Mr Trump got 54.3% of the vote to Ms Haley’s 43.3%, and quickly pointed out that no one had ever won both Iowa and New Hampshire and failed to secure the nomination. An unbowed Ms Haley vowed to fight on. “You’ve all heard the chatter among the political class, they’re falling all over themselves saying this race is over,” she said at a speech in Concord, New Hampshire, conceding victory to Mr Trump. “This race is far from over. There are dozens of states left to go. And the next one is my sweet state of South Carolina.” Mr Trump was not pleased. “Who the hell was the impostor that went up on the stage before and, like, claimed a victory?” he sniped at his victory speech.

The problem for Ms Haley is that, if she cannot win in New Hampshire, she cannot expect to win anywhere. Entrance polls conducted during the Iowa caucuses, held on January 15th, show Ms Haley overperforming among Republicans with college degrees, who labelled themselves as political moderates, who didn’t identify as evangelical Christians and especially well among those who believe that President Joe Biden legitimately won the election of 2020. Those kinds of voters are over-represented in New Hampshire.

It was not just a demographic dividend that Ms Haley had hoped to cash in. She won the endorsement of Chris Sununu, New Hampshire’s popular Republican governor, who barnstormed the state with her. She and her allies heavily outspent Mr Trump, splashing out $31m versus his $15.7m. She spent months traipsing around the state’s breweries and diners, while Mr Trump eschewed such drudgery. Anti-Trump Republicans had said the only way to beat the former president was to consolidate support into a single opponent—which has now happened. And even after all that she lost by 11 points.

Chart: The Economist

Subsequent states in the primary calendar are more hostile terrain for Ms Haley. Republicans in her home state of South Carolina, which holds its primary on February 24th, look much more like those in Iowa—where Ms Haley came 32 points behind Mr Trump—than New Hampshire. An average of recent polls there shows Ms Haley trailing by a crushing 37 points. Mr Trump has secured the endorsements of the top South Carolina Republicans with whom Ms Haley once worked as governor.

In trying to explain away this uncomfortable reality at an election-eve rally in Salem, New Hampshire, Ms Haley branded herself as somehow more of a populist insurgent than Mr Trump. One candidate “has got the entire political elite all around him. It’s all of Congress. It’s all these legislative people. He’s got the media all around him. But you know what? I’ve never wanted them.” Only the most credulous supporters in the crowd would believe Ms Haley’s line that her former colleagues were abandoning her because she had been so zealous in pursuing ethics reforms while governor. One especially bored reporter (not this one) began timing their Rubik’s-cube-solving abilities midway through the speech.

In a memo released on the day of the New Hampshire vote, Ms Haley’s campaign argued that she had a viable path to the nomination, urging a “deep breath” until “Super Tuesday” on March 5th, when many states hold their primaries. Her team’s argument is that many of the states that will vote in the next six weeks are “open primaries”, in which independent voters who are not registered Republicans can take part. This factor will indeed help Ms Haley. But in order to be the Republican presidential nominee, one unfortunately needs to be able to command a majority of the party.

The bigger battle ahead

The meek and muddied anti-Trump resistance looks close to its last gasp. Only late in her campaign did Ms Haley take to attacking Mr Trump by name. Her criticisms of the man are usually meticulously crafted to avoid moral judgment. “Rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him,” is a favourite line of hers, as if the chaos had been a curse of some vindictive god rather than intrinsic to the man himself.

Ms Haley’s demise would commit the Republican Party to Trumpism, with its blend of isolationism, illiberalism and protectionism, and away from the internationalism of which Ms Haley sometimes seems the sole influential ambassador on the Republican side. In America, voters get what they want. And it seems that nothing—not a dozen vanquished Republican candidates, not the one remaining woman, not the 91 criminal indictments facing Mr Trump—can get in their way.

Mr Trump can’t wait to swat away Ms Haley so that he can focus on the coming contest with Mr Biden. Mr Biden won 56% of the votes in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire on Tuesday, even though (because he disputed New Hampshire’s cherished right to hold the first primary) his name was not on the ballot. He, too, is cruising to the nomination. Brace yourself for a Biden-Trump rematch.

Stay on top of American politics with Checks and Balance, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter, which examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

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