Economics
Who are the swing voters in America?
Published
1 year agoon

DURING HIS two previous presidential campaigns, Donald Trump never led general-election polling averages for a single day. In 2016 he pulled within a percentage point of Hillary Clinton in July and September, but trailed in the opinion polls by four on election day. Four years later Joe Biden enjoyed a large, stable advantage over Mr Trump throughout the race, and ended it with an eight-point edge, according to pollsters. In both contests such surveys sharply underestimated the support Mr Trump received on election day, particularly in swing states.
Today, the first former president seeking to return to office since 1912 is in the strongest position in polls of his electoral career. Mr Trump first inched ahead of Mr Biden, the incumbent, in national surveys last September, and has held a narrow lead for most of 2024. Our national poll tracker has them tied now, but state-level polls give Mr Trump clear leads in four of the six states that could plausibly decide the election (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).
Even more surprising than the scale of Mr Trump’s apparent electoral renaissance is its source. Delve inside these samples of voters and you will see that white voters’ preferences have changed little since 2020, whereas racial-minority groups—long the bedrock of Democratic support—have lurched away from Mr Biden. Mr Trump has also cut into his successor’s advantage among young voters, another core Democratic constituency, and in some surveys actually leads among people aged 18-29.
However, standard surveys do not obtain enough data to drill down within these groups and identify the exact types of voters who, on current trends, are poised to return Mr Trump to office. At least one source of information, thankfully, does not suffer from such limitations. Every week YouGov, an online pollster, conducts a survey of 1,500 people for The Economist, asking a wide range of questions about religion, race, voting intentions and political views, among other things. Since last April the firm has obtained a total of 49,000 responses from registered voters to its question on general-election voting intentions in 2024. Among them are 632 who say they backed Mr Biden in 2020 and now support Mr Trump, more than the standard size of an entire state-level poll.
Using this rich dataset, we have built a statistical model of voting intentions. Based on the relationships between poll respondents’ stated candidate preference and a wide range of demographic characteristics—ranging from age and sex to specific states and religious affiliations—it estimates the probability that an American with any particular combination of these attributes plans to vote for Mr Trump or Mr Biden this year, as well as how such a person recalls having voted in 2020. Some patterns are well known: white evangelical Christians tend to back Republicans, whereas black voters are still heavily Democratic overall. Others, however, are less familiar, and many have changed since 2020. You can plug in any demographic profile and explore the model’s findings at https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/build-a-voter
Most Americans are reliable partisans. They are far easier to identify with a few pieces of information than swing voters are. Although race is often cited as the central cleavage in America, the single most powerful predictor of voting intention is religion. A model that knows nothing save for respondents’ religious affiliations (including atheist, agnostic, “something else” and “nothing in particular”) can correctly identify which of the two leading candidates they prefer 62% of the time, compared with 59% for race. Of Mormons and evangelical voters, 73% say they support Mr Trump. This compares with 53% of Catholics and non-evangelical Protestants, 37% of Jews, 22% of agnostics and just 13% of avowed atheists (see chart 1). Regardless of affiliation, the more importance someone places on religion, the more likely they are to be a Trump voter.

Race does play a large role in shaping political choices as well, but its impact varies widely by age and sex. According to YouGov’s data, among white voters Mr Trump surprisingly attracts more support from women aged 18-24 (41%) than from the youngest men (35%). His vote shares rise with age, at a faster rate for men than for women, up to people in their late 50s: he wins 59% of white women aged 55-59, and 70% of white men. Mr Trump actually fares poorly among the baby-boomers, who came of age during the turbulent 1960s and 70s. He does best of all with the oldest white voters, winning 66% of female octogenarians and 75% of male ones.
For black people, by contrast, the age-partisanship pattern is the opposite. The youngest black voters are decidedly Trump-curious: 21% of such women and a remarkable 33% of men aged 18-24 say they plan to support him. But with each successive age cohort, backing for Mr Trump and the size of the gender gap both shrink. Among black voters aged 70 or older, who have personal memories of America before the Civil Rights Act, Mr Trump wins just 10% of men and 6% of women.
Perhaps the most misleading variable is income. A simple plot of household income against support for Mr Trump shows that the former president does best among middle-class voters whose families earn around $50,000, and worse among both poorer and richer ones. However, income is also closely correlated with other demographic categories: poor voters are disproportionately non-white, whereas rich ones tend to be white with college degrees, and both of those groups lean Democratic.

Only when you look within race-education pairings—black people with graduate degrees, or Hispanics who did not attend college—do the historical affinities between Democrats and the working class, and between Republicans and the wealthy, reveal themselves. In general, the richest members of each of these groups are also the Trumpiest. In contrast, among people of the same education level and race, those whose households include a member of a labour union are around ten percentage points more likely to back Mr Biden—a slightly larger impact than moving up one tier of education (see chart 2).
Movers and flippers
Taken together, the demographic characteristics in YouGov’s surveys do a good job of distinguishing Mr Biden’s voters from Mr Trump’s. Our full model, which also includes variables like home ownership, marital status, sexual orientation and residing in a city versus a rural area, can intuit the voting intentions of three-quarters of respondents based on other data about them. If you input your own profile, there is roughly a 75% chance that you support the candidate whom the model deems the likelier choice. But identifying the narrow sliver of voters who will account for changes from the results of 2020—those who are either switching between voting and not voting, or plan to flip from one candidate to the other—is far harder.
The two percentage points of vote share that Mr Trump has gained since 2020 come from three sources. The largest group is people who supported Mr Biden last time, but are now undecided or backing minor candidates, who outnumber those making the same shift from Mr Trump’s camp. These voters account for 0.9 points of Mr Trump’s two-point improvement. Undecided former Biden voters are slightly younger, more likely to be black or female and less likely to have attended college than repeat Biden voters are.
Mr Trump also enjoys a narrow edge among people entering or returning to the major-party electorate. The share of respondents who say they did not vote for either him or Mr Biden in 2020 but have now settled on Mr Trump is 3.7%, slightly above the 3.3% who are choosing Mr Biden. This group adds another 0.3 percentage points to Mr Trump’s tally.
The final group, swing voters, is the smallest but also the most impactful. Because people who flip between the two major-party candidates both subtract a vote from one side and add one to the other, they matter twice as much as do those who switch between a candidate and not voting at all. Such voters are rare—just 3% of respondents fall into this category—but Mr Trump is winning two-thirds of them. With 2% of participants shifting from Mr Biden to Mr Trump versus just 1% doing the opposite, swing voters contribute a full percentage point to Mr Trump’s two-way vote share.
In today’s polarised political climate, with the same nominees running in both 2020 and 2024, who could possibly change their mind? One political cliché supported by YouGov’s data is that swing voters are far more focused on “kitchen-table” issues than on the culture-war subjects that animate reliable partisans. Among repeat Biden voters, the topics most often cited as most important are climate and the environment; civil rights, abortion and guns are also among the leaders. Immigration ranks second on the corresponding list for repeat Trump voters, as well as conventional Republican topics like taxes and national security. In contrast, Biden-Trump swing voters are most likely to list inflation as their top issue, followed by “jobs and the economy”. Health care ranks third for them and first for Trump-Biden voters, suggesting that Mr Biden might be well-advised to make defending the health-care reform passed when he was Barack Obama’s vice-president a core campaign issue.
Mr Biden has also lost ground among conservative-leaning African-Americans. By 2020 Mr Trump had already alienated virtually the entire left-of-centre electorate: among self-described liberals who recall supporting a major-party candidate that year, Mr Biden won at least 90% within each racial group. In contrast, although Mr Trump won 94% of the two-party vote among white conservatives and 79% of Hispanic ones, he actually lost black voters who identify as conservative, receiving just 35% of their support. This year, Mr Trump is on the brink of winning this group outright, with a 46% share among decided voters. A similar trend applies to the 23% of black respondents registered to vote who say that they disapprove of Mr Biden’s job performance. Of this group, 9% have already decided to flip to Mr Trump after backing Mr Biden last time, and a further 27% say they voted for Mr Biden in 2020 but are now undecided, supporting a third-party candidate or do not plan to vote.
The most intriguing pattern in YouGov’s data, however, is probably an equally powerful factor that has nothing to do with ideology. Compared with committed partisans, swing voters are vastly more likely to have children aged under 18: 47% of those flipping from Mr Biden to Mr Trump and 40% of those switching the other way are currently raising children, compared with 22% of repeat Biden voters and 19% of consistent Trump ones. And once the effects of race and parenthood are combined, the disparities are striking.
Family matters
Among people who backed one of the two leading candidates in 2020 and plan to do so this year, 10% of non-white respondents with school-age children are flipping from Mr Biden to Mr Trump; another 3% are switching from Mr Trump to Mr Biden. The corresponding figures for the rest of the electorate are 2% and 1%. These switchers do not seem to have any demographic factor in common besides their race and children. In a statistical model accounting for 15 other variables—including sex, education, income, religion and location—being a non-white parent is the second-best predictor (after being young) of being a Biden 2020-Trump 2024 swing voter.
Of the 183 non-white parents in YouGov’s surveys who say they are switching from Mr Biden to Mr Trump, just 3% list education as the election’s most important issue, compared with 48% citing inflation or the economy. This suggests that they are feeling squeezed more than voters who do not have children. It may also suggest that there is something about raising children.
There is no shortage of possible culprits, from concern about school curriculums to a parental reaction against progressive ideas on gender. But one thing that affected non-white parents of schoolchildren disproportionately was public policy during the covid-19 pandemic. Lockdowns were unusually difficult for parents raising children, who had to watch their kids while schools were closed. And although lockdowns began during Mr Trump’s presidency, they persisted well into Mr Biden’s term, after the advent of covid vaccines made them harder to justify. Teachers’ unions, allied with the Democratic Party, embraced school closures despite evidence from other countries or concerns about learning loss. Moreover, the expansion of federal transfer payments during the pandemic, which were particularly generous for parents, also began under Mr Trump and ended under Mr Biden.
Non-white students were much likelier than white ones to have had fully remote education during the pandemic. And non-white parents were unusually prone to have jobs that required showing up in person. Most white working-class parents who were upset about lockdowns were already solidly Republican by 2020, limiting the number of voters from this group available to defect from Mr Biden. In contrast, the president won large majorities of non-white voters that year, so angering them was far more electorally costly. Mr Biden faces a parent trap in November. ■
You may like
-
German finance minister prefers zero for zero tariff solution
-
America’s poster-in-chief is very, very online
-
Donald Trump hopes to become a one-man deregulator
-
How Donald Trump plans to ramp up deportations
-
How courts might stop Donald Trump’s attack on civil society
-
Expect more chaos in Donald Trump’s tariff policies
Economics
ECB members say inflation job nearly done but tariff risks loom
Published
14 hours agoon
April 25, 2025
Guests and attendeess mingle and walk through the atrium during the IMF/World Bank Group Spring Meetings at the IMF headquarters in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2025.
Jim Watson | Afp | Getty Images
After years dominated by the pandemic, supply chains, energy and inflation, there was a new topic topping the agenda at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s Spring Meetings this year: tariffs.
The IMF set the tone by kicking off the week with the release of its latest economic forecasts, which cut growth outlooks for the U.S., U.K. and many Asian countries. While economists, central bankers and politicians have been engaged in panels and behind-the-scenes talks, many are attempting to work out whether trade tensions between China and the U.S. are — or perhaps are not — cooling.
Policymakers from the European Central Bank that CNBC spoke to this week broadly stuck a dovish-leaning tone, indicating they saw interest rates continuing to fall and few upside risks to euro zone inflation. However, all stressed the current high levels of uncertainty, the need to keep monitoring data, and the high risks to the growth outlook — sentiments also echoed by Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey in his interview with CNBC on Thursday.
These were some of the main messages from ECB members this week.
Christine Lagarde, European Central Bank president
On inflation and monetary policy:
“We’re heading towards our [inflation] target in the course of 2025, so that disinflationary process is so much on track that we are nearing completion. But we have the shocks, you know, and the shocks will be a dampen on GDP. It’s a negative shock to demand.”
“The net impact on inflation will depend on what countermeasures are eventually taken by Europe. Then we have to take into account the [German] fiscal push by the defense investments, by the infrastructure fund.”
“We have seen successive movements, you know, announcement [of U.S. tariffs], and then a pause, and then some exemptions. So we have to be very attentive… Either we cut, either we pause, but we will be data dependent to the extreme.”

On market moves:
“When we had done our projections, we anticipated that… the dollar would appreciate, the euro would depreciate. It’s not what we saw. And there have been some counter-intuitive movements in various categories.”
“The German market has obviously been shocked in a positive way by the program soon to be put in place by the German government, with a commitment to defense, with a commitment to a big fund for infrastructure development.”
Klaas Knot, The Netherlands Bank president
On tariff uncertainty:
“If I look back over the last 14 years, in the initial days of the pandemic I think that was comparable uncertainty to what we have now.”
“In the short run, it’s crystal clear that the uncertainty that is created by the unpredictability of the tariff actions by the U.S. government works as a strong negative factor for growth. Basically, uncertainty is like a tax without revenue.”
On the inflation impact:
“In the short run, we will have lower growth. We will probably also have lower inflation. As we also see, the euro is appreciating as energy prices have also come down. So together with the sort of negative factor uncertainty in the short run, it’s crystal clear that it will accelerate the disinflation.”

“But in the medium term, the inflation outlook is not all that clear. I think there are still these negative factors. But in the medium term, you might get retaliation. You might get the disruption of global value chains, which might also be inflationary in other parts of the world than the U.S. only. And then, of course, we have the fiscal policy coming in in Europe. So this is actually a time in which you need projections.”
On a June rate cut and market pricing for two more ECB rate cuts in 2025:
“I’m fully open minded. I think it’s way too early to already take a position on June, whether it would be another cut. It will fully depend on these projections.”
“I would need to see a more structured analysis of the impact on the inflation profile ahead of us, and only then can I say whether the market is pricing fair or whether I don’t.”
Robert Holzmann, Austrian National Bank governor
On the need to wait for more data and news on tariffs:
“We have not seen this uncertainty now for years… unless the uncertainty subsides, by the right decisions, we will have to hold back a number of our decisions, and hence, we don’t know yet in what direction monetary policy should be best moved.”
“Before looking at data in detail, the question is, what kind of political decisions will be taken? Is it that we will have some tariff increases? Is it that we will have strong tariff increases? Is it that we will have retribution by high counter tariffs?”

On the ECB’s April rate cut:
“I think there’s a broad consensus [on rates]. But of course, at the margin, people differ.”
“My assessment is that at this time, it wasn’t clear yet to what extent [tariff] countermeasures were being taken. Because with countermeasures in Europe, prices may have increased. Without countermeasures, quite likely the price pressure is downward. And for the time being, we don’t know yet the direction.”
On the direction of interest rates:
“I think if the recent noises about an arrangement [on trade] were to be true, in this case, quite likely it is more towards the downside than the upside with regard to prices. But this can be changed with different decisions and the result of which, we may even imagine in [the] other direction. For the time being, no, it will be down.”
“There may be further cuts this year, but the number is still outstanding.”
Mārtiņš Kazāks, Bank of Latvia governor
On opportunity from tariffs:
“With all this uncertainty and vulnerability, this is also the time of opportunities for Europe.”
“It’s a time for Europe to grasp all the aspects of being an economic superpower and becoming a really fully-fledged political and geopolitical superpower, and this requires doing all the decisions that in the past, were not carried out fully.”
“This requires political will, political guts to make those decisions, and to strengthen the European economy and assert its place in a global world.”

On market reaction to tariffs:
“So far it seems to be relatively orderly … but if one looks at the spillovers to Europe, the financial markets are working more or less fine, we haven’t seen spreads exploding or anything like that.”
“But in terms, however, of the macro scenarios, this uncertainty is extremely elevated in the sense that, given the possible outcomes, the multiple scenarios and their probabilities are very similar with the baseline [tariff] scenario.”
Economics
Trump insists bond market tumult didn’t influence tariff pause: ‘I wasn’t worried’
Published
16 hours agoon
April 25, 2025
US President Donald Trump speaks during a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Store in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2025.
Saul Loeb | Afp | Getty Images
President Donald Trump denied that an aggressive bond market sell-off influenced his decision earlier this month to hold off on aggressive “reciprocal” tariffs against U.S. trading partners.
“I wasn’t worried,” Trump said in a Time magazine interview during which he was asked about financial market tumult after his April 2 “liberation day” announcement.
In the decree, Trump slapped 10% across-the-board duties against all U.S. imports and released list of tariffs against dozens of other nations. The extra levies were based on trade deficits the U.S. had against the respective countries and raised fears about inflation, a potential recession and disruption of long-held trade agreements.
Markets recoiled following the release. Treasury yields initially headed lower but quickly snapped higher. The 10-year yield rose half a percentage point in just a few days, one of its quickest moves ever, as investors also ditched stocks and the U.S. dollar.
Ultimately, Trump issued a 90-day stay on the reciprocal tariffs to allow time for negotiation. But he said it wasn’t because of the market tumult.

“No, it wasn’t for that reason,” Trump told Time in the interview from Tuesday that was published Friday. “I’m doing that until we come up with the numbers that I want to come up with. I’ve met with a lot of countries. I’ve talked on the telephone. I don’t even want them to come in.”
Yields have since moved lower, with the 10-year most recently around 4.28%, about a quarter percentage point higher than its recent low. Trump had said when he made the decision to hold off that the bond market had gotten the “yips.”
“The bond market was getting the yips, but I wasn’t. Because I know what we have,” he said. “I know what we have, but I also know we won’t have it for long if we allowed four more years of the gross incompetence. This thing was just running — it was running as a free spirit. This was — this was the most incompetent president in history.”
Though negotiations over tariffs are ongoing, Trump added that he would consider it a “total victory” even if the U.S. has levies as high as 50% still in place a year from now.
Get Your Ticket to Pro LIVE
Join us at the New York Stock Exchange!
Uncertain markets? Gain an edge with CNBC Pro LIVE, an exclusive, inaugural event at the historic New York Stock Exchange.
In today’s dynamic financial landscape, access to expert insights is paramount. As a CNBC Pro subscriber, we invite you to join us for our first exclusive, in-person CNBC Pro LIVE event at the iconic NYSE on Thursday, June 12.
Join interactive Pro clinics led by our Pros Carter Worth, Dan Niles, and Dan Ives, with a special edition of Pro Talks with Tom Lee. You’ll also get the opportunity to network with CNBC experts, talent and other Pro subscribers during an exciting cocktail hour on the legendary trading floor. Tickets are limited!
Economics
Bank of England chief focused on tariff ‘growth shock’
Published
1 day agoon
April 24, 2025

The Bank of England is focused on the potential impact of U.S. tariffs on U.K. economic growth if there is a slowdown in global trade, the central bank’s governor Andrew Bailey said Thursday.
“We’re certainly quite focused on the growth shock,” Bailey told CNBC’s Sara Eisen in an interview at the IMF-World Bank Spring Meetings.
Going into its May 8 monetary policy meeting, the central bank will consider “arguments on both sides” around the impact of tariffs on growth and domestic supply constraints on inflation, Bailey said.
“There is clearly a growth issue we start with, with weak growth … but a big question mark is how much of that is caused by the weak demand, how much of it is caused by a weak supply side,” he continued.
“Because the weak supply side, of course, unfortunately, has the sort of the upside effect on inflation. So we’ve got to balance those two. But I think the trade issue is now the new part of that story.”
Inflation could be pulled in either direction by wider forces, with a redirection of trade exports into other markets being disinflationary, but a retaliation on U.S. tariffs by the U.K. government — which he stressed did not appear likely — pushing up inflation.
Bailey added that he did not see the U.K. as being close to a recession at present, but that it was clear economic uncertainty was weighing on business and consumer confidence.
IMF downgrade
The IMF earlier this week downgraded its 2025 growth forecast for the U.K. to 1.1% from 1.6%, citing the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs, higher borrowing costs and increased energy prices.
However, economic forecasting remains mired in uncertainty as countries engage in negotiations with U.S. officials over Trump’s swingeing universal tariff policy, currently on pause. The U.S. has imposed 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos and a 10% levy on other British exports.
U.K. policymakers have expressed hopes of reaching a trade deal with the White House, with U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance saying there is a “good chance” of an agreement.
Bailey told CNBC on Thursday that he would be “very encouraged if the U.K. does make a deal,” but that its economy was very open and services-oriented, so it would still be impacted by a wider slowdown in growth or trade.
He also noted that inflation would increase from the current 2.6% in the coming readings due to effects from markets such as energy prices and water bills, but that the bump up would be “nothing like what we saw a few years ago.”
The Bank of England held interest rates at 4.5% at its March meeting, before Trump shocked the world with the scale of his tariff announcement.
Markets now see the BOE slashing rates to 4% by its August meeting.

Many Americans are worried about running out of money in retirement

IAASB tweaks standards on working with outside experts

Tariffs will hit low-income Americans harder than richest, report says

New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations

The Essential Practice of Bank and Credit Card Statement Reconciliation

Are American progressives making themselves sad?
Trending
-
Economics1 week ago
Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
Here’s why retirees shouldn’t fully ditch stocks
-
Economics1 week ago
China targets U.S. services and other areas after decrying ‘meaningless’ tariff hikes on goods
-
Blog Post6 days ago
Documenting Bookkeeping Processes and Procedures
-
Economics1 week ago
Can Progressives learn to make progress again?
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
IRS’ free tax filing program is at risk amid Trump scrutiny
-
Economics6 days ago
Donald Trump wants a certain kind of immigrant: the uber-rich
-
Economics7 days ago
Trump’s approval rating on economy at lowest of presidential career