Connect with us

Economics

How did the Iowa result change the Republican primary?

Published

on

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

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

Donald Trump dominated public-opinion polling before the Republican presidential primary in 2023. Yet his rivals could reasonably argue that the party faithful still had not cast any votes, and the actual results might reveal a greater appetite for an alternative than surveys suggested. Mr Trump’s decisive victory in the Iowa caucus on January 15th seems to have put an end to that hopeful theory.

Some Republicans had predicted record attendance at Iowa’s caucuses this year, but turnout fell by around 40% from the peak in 2016. No doubt many voters opted to stay at home given the sub-zero temperatures and Mr Trump’s apparent invincibility. But TV networks also began calling the race for the former president less than an hour after the caucuses began; some caucus-goers were even told that he had won before they had a chance to vote.

Naming a victor while others are still voting was bad democratic hygiene but unlikely to sway the eventual outcome. Mr Trump won 51% of the vote and half of Iowa’s 40 delegates to the Republican National Convention. Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, took second place with 21% and nine delegates. Nikki Haley, a former South Carolina governor, fell to third with 19% and eight delegates. Vivek Ramaswamy, a bloviating biotech entrepreneur, finished fourth and dropped out. The first-time candidate, whose speeches were frequently ominous, kept it weird until the very end: “There’s no path for me to be the next president absent things that we don’t want to see happen in this country.”

The only hope for Mr DeSantis and Ms Haley is that a candidate needs 1,215 delegates to become the nominee, and nearly 2,400 are still up for grabs. Both runners-up agree that a head-to-head slog with Mr Trump over the next several months is the only path to victory. The problem is that neither is willing to back down in order to let the other become the former president’s sole challenger.

“I can safely say, tonight Iowa made this Republican primary a two-person race,” a smiling Ms Haley declared after finishing third. Betsy Ankney, her campaign manager, argued in a memo published after the results came in that “the race now moves to less Trump-friendly territory. And the field of candidates is effectively down to two, with only Trump and Nikki Haley having substantial support in both New Hampshire and South Carolina.”

Ms Haley, endorsed by New Hampshire’s Republican governor, is betting that a surprise victory on January 23rd would provide momentum ahead of the South Carolina contest a month later. But if she pulls off an unlikely upset, it will be thanks to support from moderate Republicans, independents and strategically minded Democrats who loathe Mr Trump. That coalition might win a state of 1.4m but isn’t fit for purpose in a national Republican primary.

A Haley win in New Hampshire is a long shot. A polling average from FiveThirtyEight, a data-journalism website, shows Mr Trump with 44.4% in New Hampshire compared with Ms Haley’s 31.4%. Chris Christie, a former New Jersey governor and Mr Trump’s most direct critic, stood at third place before dropping out. He disparaged Ms Haley ahead of his exit and declined to endorse a candidate. Mr DeSantis fares even worse in New Hampshire polling than Mr Ramaswamy did in Iowa.

The DeSantis campaign exudes confidence nevertheless. “While it may take a few more weeks to fully get there, this will be a two-person soon enough,” says Andrew Romeo, communications director for Mr DeSantis. “Despite spending $24m in false negative ads against Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley couldn’t buy herself the kill shot she so desperately wanted [in Iowa], and now she will be out of this race after failing to win her home state on February 24.” That state is South Carolina, where Mr Trump has nearly 55% of likely primary-goers, according to FiveThirtyEight. Ms Haley trails him by 30 points, while Mr DeSantis is at about 12%.

Ms Haley may think a third-place finish in Iowa was enough to make this a two-person race, and Mr DeSantis that a third-place finish in South Carolina will do the trick for him. Both camps seem to confuse barely surviving with building momentum. Nor is it clear whether they will have the financial wherewithal to sustain an expensive multi-state campaign.

The coming contests in New Hampshire and South Carolina could inject some life into the Haley campaign. Perhaps Mr DeSantis will raise the cash needed to hang on. But Mr Trump’s lead in national polling—around 55 points above Mr DeSantis and Ms Haley, according to The Economist’s tracker—means that there wouldn’t be much of a race even if one of the remaining candidates dropped out. Mr Trump’s ongoing legal travails have only helped cement his bond with Republican primary voters.

Mr Trump’s campaign called for an end to primary debates and for a focus on beating Joe Biden months ago. The candidate probably won’t gain an insurmountable lead until March 5th, “Super Tuesday”, when more than a third of delegates will be up for grabs. But on the night of the caucuses he clearly had his eyes on November. He called his Republican opponents “very smart people, very capable people” and declared: “We’re going to come together. It’s going to happen soon.”

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