The drift of black voters away from the Democratic Party has become a touchstone of the 2024 election. In Georgia, the anxieties of the Kamala Harris campaign are hard to miss. On one night in Atlanta it deployed music moguls to run a “Brothas and Brews” event. Then it released an “opportunity agenda for black men”, promising to give more business loans, protect cryptocurrency and legalise marijuana. To press her closing arguments Ms Harris is sitting down with Charlamagne tha God and other influencers.
Four years ago, Mr. Biden won the state by a razor-thin margin of 11,779 votes. If turnout remains constant this year, a gap like that among black voters would amount to a deficit of 139,000 votes for Ms Harris.
Donald Trump’s allies are pouring it on as early voting opens in Georgia: “For the last three and a half years the Democrats haven’t given a damn about black men unless they’re dead or gay,” Michaelah Montgomery, a black Republican activist, roared onstage at a rally featuring Mr Trump on October 15th. In the packed audience, black men in suits stood and clapped as white women looked on, beaming. Liberals can seem befuddled about why some black voters are turning to Mr Trump but the defectors are often moved by the same issues as other supporters: jobs and reinvesting at home. “You can’t fund other countries if your own backyard is on fire,” says Kiersen Harris, a 22-year-old security guard who plans to vote for Mr Trump.
Mr Biden’s narrow win in Georgia, the first by a Democrat since 1992, was one of the most remarkable results of the 2020 election. It announced that Democratic presidential candidates could again compete in old Dixie after years of mostly fruitless effort. An influential prophet of the turnaround was Stacey Abrams, a Democratic politician who had argued for years that the state was ripe for flipping. Anything less than full investment in Georgia “would amount to strategic malpractice”, she told national Democrats in 2019.
Stacey Abrams, photographed in her back yard in Decatur, Georgia.
Image: Rita Harper
Why was she right? In the two decades to 2020 Georgia’s voting population grew by 1.9m. Nearly half of that growth came from black voters—the largest percentage-point increase in any state’s black electorate. New voters came mostly from New York and Florida, but also the Caribbean and Africa. They bolstered the state’s well-established black elites. Black voters born outside Georgia are now more than twice as likely as black natives to have a college degree. This was a double advantage for Democrats, who increasingly rely on college-educated and minority voters.
Georgia, black people as % of population
By census tract, 2022
Share of total votes cast
by Black voters, 2020, %
Sources: Catalist; OpenStreetMap; Federal Election Commission;
Redistricting Data Hub; The Economist
Georgia, black people as % of population
By census tract, 2022
Share of total votes cast by Black voters, 2020, %
Sources: Catalist; OpenStreetMap; Federal Election Commission;
Redistricting Data Hub; The Economist
Georgia, black people as % of population
Share of total votes cast by black voters,
2020, %
Sources: Catalist; OpenStreetMap; Federal Election Commission;
Redistricting Data Hub; The Economist
Now Mr Biden’s achievement in 2020 lies on a knife’s edge. If Ms Harris does not match Mr Biden’s share of the black vote, she would need to make up votes among white voters, who skew Republican. But whereas Mr Biden won 30% of the white vote in Georgia, polls show Ms Harris up by just one point, at 31%. If that finding proves accurate she can afford to drop just two percentage points with black voters, not the ten shown in current polls.
Read more on America’s election:
Democrats’ struggles with black voters are not new, or confined to Georgia. The party’s presidential candidates won an average of 87.5% of the black vote between 1984 and 2004. Barack Obama changed the equation and won 96% in 2008. “It was a lightning-in-the-bottle moment,” says Terrance Woodbury, a Democratic strategist. Since 2012, however, Democrats have fallen back towards their pre-Obama norm. Black support slipped to 90% by 2020, but a surge in turnout that year—200,000 more black voters in Georgia, in particular—masked the decline. More black votes even at a slightly lower margin delivered Democrats a significant net gain. The alarm for Ms Harris is that polls show her attracting the lowest share of any Democratic nominee in decades. The national Economist/YouGov polls have her at 83.5%, while other polls find her share as low as 78%.
Jobs on their mind
Lower turnout this year could exacerbate Ms Harris’s problem. In 2020 Georgia had two Senate races that attracted national attention and ultimately determined control of the chamber. This time there are no statewide contests to motivate voters disaffected by the presidential candidates. And the black migration that helped Democrats win in 2020 seems to have slowed. Data from L2, an analytics firm, show that of the 187,000 voters who moved to Georgia since 2020 only 24% are black, half the share of those who came before.
Source: YouGov/The Economist
Perhaps the most striking feature of black voters’ evolving outlook is that young black men see less salience in the civil-rights movement than did their parents’ generation. Just 65% of black men under 30 say civil rights are an issue that is very important to them, compared with 84% of those over 65. Auburn Avenue, a black business district that was once the epicentre of Atlanta’s civil-rights movement, is now hollowed out and quiet. “Thinking about racial politics is a luxury,” says a black millennial who works in Georgia politics. “These days young people are more concerned about jobs.”
Ms Abrams reckons this is a messaging problem—fears about the futures of black men and their access to jobs “are inherently civil-rights issues”, she says. She argues that the idea that black voters are moving away from Democrats is “an extrapolation that is not warranted yet”, especially as polling suggests that black women are heavily motivated by Ms Harris.
Ms Abrams and her peers are confident that the Harris campaign can defy the polls. “We saw some similar softness two years ago and we ended up closing that gap,” says Lauren Groh-Wargo, a longtime Georgia operative. Political scientists have shown that tight-knit black communities have strictly enforced political norms, to include voting for Democratic candidates, even as conservatism has become more popular. Trump-curious black voters may yet be persuaded to back Ms Harris by pastors and women in their extended families. If they express support for Mr Trump “out loud in black spaces, research suggests it’s not going unchallenged,” says Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University. Most undecideds, she thinks, will break in the end for Ms Harris.
Top: Thomas Anderson, who is 36 years old, is not voting this year in part because “our votes don’t matter”. He considers job creation the most important issue. Bottom: William Owen, a 54-year-old salesman for Frito-Lay, is leaning towards voting for Kamala Harris. He grew up in council housing and sees affordable housing as the election’s most important issue.
Image: Rita Harper
At Fade Away Cutz in South Atlanta Richard Wright, once a candidate for Atlanta mayor and named for the black author, is getting a crisp shave. He and his barber, both middle-aged, are sceptical of the left but say they are voting for Ms Harris. They worry about the younger men who intend to back Mr Trump—and about the fallout from the campaigns’ obsessions with voters who look like them. “If Trump wins, me and you are going to have to move,” Mr Wright tells his barber between treatments, “because black men are going to get blamed.”■
This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline “Getting the drift”
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.
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.
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.
Economics5 days ago
Economics6 days ago
Economics5 days ago
Finance7 days ago
Leaders7 days ago
Finance5 days ago
Economics7 days ago
Technology5 days ago