Connect with us

Economics

How does Ron DeSantis dropping out change the Republican primary?

Published

on

Editor’s note (January 21st 2024): This story was updated after Ron DeSantis said he was suspending his campaign for the Republican nomination.

RON DESANTIS’S campaign ended, as it began, on X. His live launch event was meant to show how au fait with the future the Florida governor was. Instead the glitchy launch turned into the equivalent of dad dancing. Mr DeSantis took no such chances with his withdrawal from the Republican primary, which he announced in a video posted on the same platform. As a final act of self-degradation he endorsed Donald Trump, who has been bullying him for months about his height and his table manners.

That leaves just two candidates standing: Mr Trump and Nikki Haley. Ms Haley’s hopes hinge on the tiny state of New Hampshire, which votes on January 23rd. Though only three of the past eight winners of a competitive Republican Iowa caucus have gone on to win their party’s nomination, New Hampshire has voted for six eventual nominees. Ms Haley hopes to become the seventh. Mr DeSantis’s departure is unlikely to make a hard task any easier.

Her campaign is right to bet on New Hampshire. Ms Haley’s base—independent, moderate and college-educated voters—makes up an unusually large share of the state’s primary electorate. But the promise New Hampshire offers is also why Ms Haley finds herself in a bind. Although a triumph in the Granite State could give her a lift, the electorate across the remaining key states in the Republican primary is more religious, less educated and as a result far Trumpier. The coalition she has crafted to be competitive in New Hampshire will be hard, perhaps impossible, to recreate elsewhere.

Image: The Economist

A Republican non-incumbent candidate has never won both Iowa and New Hampshire in the party’s primary. But judging by the latest polling Donald Trump, ever the disruptor, looks set to make history. He leads Ms Haley in the state by 15 points; Mr DeSantis had sunk to single figures (see chart 1). In a Republican primary marked by candidates fighting for second place (the former president leads nationally by 55 points), the Haley campaign reckons her smaller deficit in New Hampshire is surmountable. A month before the Iowa caucuses Mr Trump’s lead in the state was nearly double what it is today. Her campaign and allied super PACs have bombarded New Hampshire’s airwaves with ads, spending twice as much as Mr Trump and a bit more than three and a half times as much as Mr DeSantis, who finished just above Ms Haley in Iowa on January 15th (chart 2).

Image: The Economist

Now he is no longer in the race, where will his voters go? The Economist’s YouGov poll, taken earlier in January, asked Republican primary voters about their second preferences. The race may have moved since, and the poll was taken before Vivek Ramaswamy dropped out, but the numbers are still instructive. Among first choice DeSantis voters in that survey, 44% said Mr Trump would be their second choice. Only 24% said they would vote for Ms Haley. The sample is small, so aim off for that. But the reason the sample is small is that there are so few DeSantis voters in the poll.

If Ms Haley wins in New Hampshire it will be in no small part thanks to the state’s open primary rules and, to a lesser extent, a kink in the Democratic primary. Unaffiliated voters, not just Democrats and Republicans, can take part in one of New Hampshire’s primaries. This year some independents will have little choice but to vote in the Republican one because New Hampshire (living up to its state motto “live free or die”) has rendered the Democratic Party’s primary obsolete. In an effort to make the set of states that vote earlier in the primary process more reflective of the Democratic Party’s voters, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) moved the state’s primary to follow or coincide with those of South Carolina and Nevada, which have more non-white voters. But New Hampshire state law requires its primaries to be the first in the country. As a result, the contest on Tuesday is not formally recognised by the DNC, and Joe Biden is not on the ballot.

This is fortunate for Ms Haley. Independents in New Hampshire back her by a 15-point margin. According to poll estimates, they are expected to account for nearly half the state’s primary electorate, compared with 30% in 2016. However, other states with open Republican primaries will have a corresponding Democratic primary to siphon off independents. Such is the case in South Carolina, Ms Haley’s home state. According to a poll taken in early January, although independents there support her by a four-point margin, they make up only an estimated one-quarter of the state’s Republican-primary electorate. And because Mr Trump’s grip on the remaining three-quarters of South Carolina’s electorate is so strong (they back him by three to one), the overall gap between Ms Haley and the former president was a canyonesque 29 points before Mr DeSantis dropped out. For her four-point advantage among independents to outweigh her 41-point deficit among Republicans, independents would need to make up 91% of the South Carolina electorate. They do not.

Just possibly she could win New Hampshire’s Republican primary on the backs of independents, but she cannot win the nomination with this formula. So winning alone is not enough; rather, Ms Haley needs to show marked improvement among the party faithful if her candidacy is to remain viable. She failed to surge among Republicans in Iowa and polling suggests it will be a tall order in New Hampshire, too. According to a Suffolk University poll, nearly half of Ms Haley’s would-be voters there say they are casting their ballot against Donald Trump, rather than in support of her. In contrast, 93% of Mr Trump’s supporters say they are voting for him, not against Ms Haley. MAGA voters’ support seems to be set in granite.

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