Connect with us

Economics

Hispanic men helped propel Donald Trump back to the White House

Published

on

DONALD TRUMP has claimed victory in America’s election, and may even win the popular vote, something he failed to do in 2016. Political pundits are now trawling through results to figure out how he did it. Among counties that have counted almost all of their votes, some of Kamala Harris’s most disappointing results came from Texas, in particular on the border with Mexico. In Webb County her vote share was 13 percentage points lower than Joe Biden’s in 2020. It was ten points lower in Dimmit and Starr, and nine points lower in Zapata. In each of these counties, more than five in six residents are Hispanic—a group that has historically been at the core of the Democratic coalition.

Pre-election polling suggested that Donald Trump had made substantial inroads with Hispanic voters across the country. Partial results suggest this swing has materialised, helping to push the former president over the line in battleground states. And while Hispanic voters as a whole have swung away from Democrats—along with voters of all ethnicities—his gains were particularly concentrated among Hispanic men.

Chart: The Economist

In 2016 Hillary Clinton won Hispanic voters by a margin of 38 percentage points, according to exit polls. By 2020 Joe Biden’s margin had shrunk to 33 points. This year early exit polling conducted by CNN suggests that Ms Harris’s margin of victory among Hispanic voters is just eight percentage points—a remarkable collapse if right. This is reflected in county-level analysis, which shows her winning a substantially lower share of the vote than Mr Biden in heavily Hispanic counties, especially those in Florida (see chart). There are a number of possible explanations for the shift.

One is a long-term trend of racial depolarisation. American politics has realigned along social and cultural lines, making religion and education crucial demographic variables. These characteristics divide Hispanic voters just as they do the rest of the country. Another explanation is that Hispanic voters are more likely than other groups to say the economy is their most important issue, favourable territory for Mr Trump.

These explanations can also account for the fact that Hispanic voters are not moving towards the Republican Party at one pace. CNN’s exit poll finds a dramatic widening of the gender gap among Hispanic voters. Hispanic men have swung from voting for Mr Biden by 23 percentage points in 2020 to voting for Mr Trump by ten points this year. Hispanic women, by contrast, voted for Ms Harris by 24 points. While men of all ethnicities were more likely to vote for Mr Trump, the widening gender gap among Hispanic voters may indicate divides over issues such as abortion.

There is also substantial variation within the Hispanic population based on heritage or country of origin. Mexican voters, especially those in south west Texas, swung dramatically towards Mr Trump in 2020, for example. This year early evidence suggests that counties with large Dominican and Cuban populations swung the furthest away from Democrats, while Puerto Rican and Mexican communities shifted by a smaller margin. This could be the result of the feisty and divisive election campaign—marked by episodes such as a comedian insulting Puerto Rico at one of Mr Trump’s rallies—or of structural differences such as geography, language and generation.

As votes continue to be counted in the west, we will see further data from states, such as Arizona, California, and Nevada, that have large Hispanic populations. In Arizona and Nevada—important battlegrounds in this year’s election—a shift among Hispanic voters could be the difference between Mr Trump or Ms Harris winning the state. But the result of the presidential election is not in doubt. This year has cemented Hispanic voters’ position as a crucial swing constituency. For Democrats looking to what comes next, rebuilding their Hispanic coalition will be a difficult task.

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