Connect with us

Economics

Three reasons why Donald Trump might outperform the polls

Published

on

THIS IS AMERICA’S closest presidential contest since at least 2000. With hours to go before the polls close, forecasting models, including The Economist’s, are showing a nearly 50/50 race, because swing-state polls are roughly tied. Thanks to one last batch on the campaign’s final day, our model favours Kamala Harris over Donald Trump by a very narrow margin, giving her a 56% chance of victory. Others show an even tighter race: Split Ticket puts Ms Harris on 53%, and both FiveThirtyEight and Silver Bulletin have her at 50%.

In states where our model gives the leader at least a 90% chance to win, Ms Harris has 226 electoral votes to Mr Trump’s 219. In the remaining seven states, the two are within three percentage points of each other in all state polling averages. Ms Harris is clinging to one-point leads in Michigan and Wisconsin; Mr Trump has similarly small edges in North Carolina and Georgia, and a slightly larger one in Arizona. Nevada and Pennsylvania are a dead heat.

The vice-president’s easiest path to victory is winning the Rust Belt states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—just as the former president’s task is to break through this northern “blue wall”, as he did in 2016. If Ms Harris loses even one of these states, she would have to pick off a Sun Belt state where Mr Trump is currently in the lead.

And yet the race will probably not wind up as close as polls suggest. Since 1976, state polling averages have missed the final margin between the two nominees by an average of four percentage points. Moreover, when surveys underestimate a candidate in one part of the country, they generally err in the same way in other parts, too. At least a modest nationwide error is likely. Such an error, given how close the polls are, would probably deliver most or all of the swing states, and a decisive electoral-college victory, to whichever candidate benefits.

The chances of a big error may be even larger than usual this year because of evidence that at least some pollsters have been “herding”. This means that, when they get an outlier result, they decline to publish it or adjust their weighting to bring it closer to consensus. To be sure, America’s two most revered pollsters have released some stunning results this year. The New York Times and Siena College put Mr Trump up 13 points in Florida. On November 2nd, Ann Selzer gave Ms Harris a three-point lead in Iowa, which Mr Trump won by eight points in 2020. But the share of polls that put the candidates within a point of each other in the swing states is greater than random chance alone can explain.

Betting markets suggest that Mr Trump is likelier to outperform than is Ms Harris. On real-money exchanges with unlimited stakes, he is currently a 56-62% favourite. Some Democratic pundits dismiss this as “manipulation” by Trump supporters. Such charges are hard to stand up. Mr Trump is favoured on all major markets. Unless Elon Musk himself is propping him up on most of these sites, the prices simply reflect the (dollar-weighted) wisdom of crowds.

Three Trump cards

More convincing reasons can explain the divergence between models and markets. The first is that forecasts that rely mainly on state polling averages, rather than national ones, may be underestimating the “stickiness” of Mr Trump’s advantage in the electoral college. In 2016 and 2020, Democrats fared far better in the national popular vote than in Wisconsin, the state that delivered the decisive 270th vote in both elections. Currently Ms Harris clings to a tiny one-point edge in national polls.

Most of Mr Trump’s gains since 2020 have come from non-white and Hispanic voters, who are concentrated in big, uncompetitive states. State-level surveys support the idea that Republicans will “waste” many more votes this year: Mr Trump has inefficiently narrowed his deficit in New York and expanded his leads in Florida and Texas. None of that will decide the election. But if Ms Harris really does prevail by a single point in the popular vote, Mr Trump would need to retain only a fraction of his four-point electoral-college advantage of 2020 to return to the White House.

The second argument in Mr Trump’s favour lies in early-voting data. In 2020 Mr Trump denounced early and postal voting, allowing Democrats to bank huge leads before election day. This year he has sent mixed messages. As a result, the big gap in early voting that Democrats enjoyed four years ago has shrunk and, in some states, even become a deficit. Only when early-voting numbers started to come in did market prices begin to diverge from polling averages in 2024.

The third and final pro-Trump theory is that he is more likely than Ms Harris to outperform the polls because he did so in each of his past two campaigns. There are good reasons to expect this trend to continue. His supporters tend to distrust the media and universities, which account for most non-partisan public polling. This may make them less likely to participate in surveys. Pollsters use weighting methods to try to overcome this bias. But such efforts fail if Trump voters are less willing to share their views than are others with the same demographic profile.

Three Kam-terarguments

Or is it Ms Harris whom models are underestimating? Democrats offer three strong arguments for this. The first is an alternative explanation for previous polling errors that favoured Mr Trump. In 2016 many pollsters failed to weight their surveys by educational attainment. Because voters who graduated from college are very likely to talk to pollsters, this caused surveys to under-sample Mr Trump’s working-class supporters. By 2020 education weighting was de rigueur, but the incumbent beat his polls again, by an even greater margin.

Trump fans may believe that their man’s backers simply cannot be polled. But the 2020 election took place amid a once-in-a-century pandemic, in which Democrats were far more likely to stay at home, and so had time to participate in surveys, than Republicans were. Polls of the Trump-Biden race taken before covid began came much closer to the final result than subsequent ones did. No such imbalance in free time exists this year.

Most pollsters have also adopted “recall-vote weighting”, adjusting their samples so that the share of people who say that they supported Mr Biden and Mr Trump in 2020 matches the actual result. More respondents generally claim they voted for the winner of the past election than the number who actually did. As a result, recall weighting tends to increase vote shares for the party whose candidate lost last time: in this case, the Republicans. This method makes polls less accurate, but many firms lowballed Mr Trump for two straight cycles. Abundant recall weighting this time may have overshot the mark, which would raise the probability of a polling error in Ms Harris’s favour.

The second argument is that Ms Harris may have an advantage in the turnout battle. During Barack Obama’s two terms, Democrats depended on less reliable voters, and got walloped in midterm elections. But the Trump-era realignment, which has pushed college-educated voters towards Democrats and working-class ones towards Republicans, has reversed this dynamic. Since 2017 Democrats have consistently outperformed in lower-turnout contests. The “top-two” primary in Washington state, a reliable predictor of general elections, suggests a more Democratic national environment than current polls do, for instance.

The third argument is that Mr Trump’s tactics and strategy seem misaligned. He has given himself a tough task by focusing his campaign on appealing to groups with a low propensity to vote, such as young men and non-whites without college degrees. A candidate who is counting on such supporters should, as Mr Obama did, invest in a robust “ground game” to maximise turnout among expected backers.

Yet Mr Trump has outsourced most of this to an untested outfit funded by Mr Musk, called the America PAC. It is true that Hillary Clinton also enjoyed an advantage in field offices and among canvassers in 2016. But Mr Trump benefited from far more support from college-educated white voters that year than he is expected to in 2024.

The arguments are persuasive on both sides. So models are probably right to land around 50/50. But that is assuming the candidate who wins enough states to secure 270 electoral votes will also become president. And, if history is any guide, Mr Trump is unlikely to accept defeat. With six of the nine Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans, a repeat of 2000—when the court handed the presidency to George W. Bush in an election decided by 537 votes—gives Mr Trump one more potential path back to the White House.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economics

Trump and Fed Chair Powell could be set on a collision course over rates

Published

on

Jerome Powell and President Donald Trump during a nomination announcement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2017.

Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

President-elect Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell could be on a policy collision course in 2025 depending on how economic circumstances play out.

Should the economy run hot and inflation flare up again, Powell and his colleagues could decide to tap the brakes on their efforts to lower interest rates. That in turn could infuriate Trump, who lashed Fed officials including Powell during his first term in office for not relaxing monetary policy quickly enough.

“Without question,” said Joseph LaVorgna, former chief economist at the National Economic Council during Trump’s first term, when asked about the potential for a conflict. “When they don’t know what to do, oftentimes they don’t do anything. That may be a problem. If the president feels like rates should be lowered, does the Fed, just for public optics, dig its feet in?”

Though Powell became Fed chair in 2018, after Trump nominated him for the position, the two clashed often about the direction of interest rates.

Trump publicly and aggressively berated the chair, who in turn responded by asserting how important it is for the Fed to be independent and apart from political pressures, even if they’re coming from the president.

When Trump takes office in January, the two will be operating against a different backdrop. During the first term, there was little inflation, meaning that even Fed rate hikes kept benchmark rates well below where they are now.

Trump is planning both expansionary and protectionist fiscal policy, even more so than during his previous run, that will include an even tougher round of tariffs, lower taxes and big spending. Should the results start to show up in the data, the Powell Fed may be tempted to hold tougher on monetary policy against inflation.

LaVorgna, chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities, who is rumored for a position in the new administration, thinks that would be mistake.

“They’re going to look at a very nontraditional approach to policy that Trump is bringing forward but put it through a very traditional economic lens,” he said. “The Fed’s going to have a really difficult choice based on their traditional approach of what to do.”

Market sees fewer rate cuts

Futures traders have been waffling in recent days on their expectations for what the Fed will do next.

The market is pricing in about a coin-flip chance of another interest rate cut in December, after it being a near-certainty a week ago, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch. Pricing further out indicates the equivalent of three quarter-percentage-point reductions through the end of 2025, which also has come down significantly from prior expectations.

Investors’ nerves have gotten jangled in recent days about the Fed’s intentions. Fed Governor Michelle Bowman on Wednesday noted that progress on inflation has “stalled,” an indication that she might continue to push for a slower pace of rate cuts.

“All roads lead to tensions between the White House and the Fed,” said Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM. “It won’t just be the White House. It will be Treasury, it’ll be Commerce and the Fed all intersecting.”

Indeed, Trump is building a team of loyalists to implement his economic agenda, but much of the success depends on accommodative or at least accurate monetary policy that doesn’t push too hard to either boost or restrict growth. For the Fed, that is represented in the quest to find the “neutral” rate of interest, but for the new administration, it could mean something different.

The struggle over where rates should be will create “political and policy tensions between the Federal Reserve and the White House that would clearly prefer lower rates,” Brusuelas said.

“If one is going to impose tariffs, or mass deportations, you’re talking about restricting aggregate supply while simultaneously implementing deficit finance tax cuts, which is encouraging an increase in aggregate demand. You’ve got a basic inconsistency in your policy matrix,” he added. “There’s an inevitable crossroads that results in tensions between Trump and Powell.”

Avoiding conflict

To be sure, there are some factors that could mitigate the tensions.

One is that Powell’s term as Fed chair expires in early 2026, so Trump may simply choose to ride it out until he can put someone in the chair more to his liking. There’s also little chance that the Fed would actually move to raise rates outside of some highly unexpected event that would push inflation much higher.

Also, Trump’s policies will take a while to make their way through the system, so any impacts on inflation and macroeconomic growth likely won’t be readily apparent in the data, thus not necessitating a Fed response. There’s also the chance that the impacts might not be that much either way.

“I expect higher inflation and slower growth. I think the tariffs and the deportations are negative supply shocks. They hurt growth and they lift inflation,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “The Fed will still cut interest rates next year, just perhaps not as quickly as would have otherwise been the case.”

Battles with Trump, then, could be more of a headache for the next Fed chair, assuming Trump doesn’t reappoint Powell.

“So I don’t think it’s going to be an issue in 2025,” Zandi said. “It could be an issue in 2026, because at that point, the rate cutting’s over and the Fed may be in a position where it certainly needs to start raising interest rates. Then that’s when it becomes an issue.”

Continue Reading

Economics

Congestion pricing in New York gets the go-ahead after all. Maybe

Published

on

NOVEMBER 20th marks the first “Gridlock Alert” day of New York City’s holiday season. This is the official designation for the city’s busiest traffic days of the year. But traffic is bad most days, with more than 900,000 cars entering Manhattan’s central business district. INRIX, a traffic-data firm, found that New York City leads the world in urban traffic congestion among the cities scored, with the average driver stationary for 101 hours a year. After years of false starts, including a cowardly pre-election pause by Kathy Hochul, New York’s Democratic governor, congestion pricing has the green light.

Continue Reading

Economics

Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump’s pick for commerce secretary

Published

on

Editor’s note: On November 19th Donald Trump chose Howard Lutnick to be commerce secretary in his new administration. We published this profile of Mr Lutnick on November 16th and have updated it to include his appointment.

Continue Reading

Trending