Economics
Who are the swing voters in America?
Published
12 months 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
-
Trump tariffs’ effect on consumer prices debated by economists
-
Trump’s tariff gambit will raise the stakes for an economy already looking fragile
-
Will Elon Musk’s cash splash pay off in Wisconsin?
-
First-quarter GDP growth will be just 0.3% as tariffs stoke stagflation conditions, says CNBC survey
-
DOGE comes for the data wonks
-
Checks and Balance newsletter: Who is (or was) the smartest person in government?

Attendees check in during a job fair at the YMCA Gerard Carter Center on March 27, 2025 in the Stapleton Heights neighborhood of the Staten Island borough in New York City.
Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images
Private payroll gains were stronger than expected in March, countering fears that the labor market and economy are slowing, according to a report Wednesday from ADP.
Companies added 155,000 jobs for the month, a sharp increase from the upwardly revised 84,000 in February and better than the Dow Jones consensus forecast for 120,000, the payrolls processing firm said.
The upside surprise comes amid worries that President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs could deter firms from adding to headcount and in turn slow business and consumer activity. Trump is set to announce the next step in his trade policy Wednesday at 4 p.m.
Hiring was fairly broad based, with professional and business services adding 57,000 workers while financial activities grew by 38,000 as tax season heats up. Manufacturing contributed 21,000 and leisure and hospitality added 17,000.
Service providers were responsible for 132,000 of the positions. On the downside, trade, transportation and utilities saw a loss of 6,000 jobs and natural resources and mining declined by 3,000.
On the wage side, earnings rose by 4.6% year over year for those staying in their positions and 6.5% for job changers. The gap between the two matched a series low last hit in September, suggesting a lower level of mobility for workers wanting to switch jobs.
Still, the overall numbers indicate a solid labor market. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the level of open positions is now almost even with available workers, reversing a trend in which openings outnumbered the unemployed by 2 to 1 a couple years ago.
The ADP report comes ahead of the more closely watched BLS measure of nonfarm payrolls. The BLS report, which unlike ADP includes government jobs, is expected to show payroll growth of 140,000 in March, down slightly from 151,000 in February. The two counts sometimes show substantial disparities due to different methodologies.
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
Trump tariffs’ effect on consumer prices debated by economists
Published
1 day agoon
April 1, 2025
The U.S. government is set to increase tariff rates on several categories of imported products. Some economists tracking these trade proposals say the higher tariff rates could lead to higher consumer prices.
One model constructed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston suggests that in an “extreme” scenario, heightened taxes on U.S. imports could result in a 1.4 percentage point to 2.2 percentage point increase to core inflation. This scenario assumes 60% tariff rates on Chinese imports and 10% tariff rates on imports from all other countries.
The researchers note that many other tariff proposals have surfaced since they published their findings in February 2025.
Price increases could come across many categories, including new housing and automobiles, alongside consumer services such as nursing, public transportation and finance.
“People might think, ‘Oh, tariffs can only affect the goods that I buy. It can’t affect the services,'” said Hillary Stein, an economist at the Boston Fed. “Those hospitals are buying inputs that might be, for example, … medical equipment that comes from abroad.”
White House economists say tariffs will not meaningfully contribute to inflation. In a statement to CNBC, Stephen Miran, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, said that “as the world’s largest source of consumer demand, the U.S. holds all the leverage, which means foreign suppliers will have to eat the economic burden or ‘incidence’ of the tariffs.”
Assessing the impact of the administration’s full economic agenda has been a challenge for central bank leaders. The Federal Open Market Committee decided to leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at the meeting in March.
The Fed targets its overnight borrowing rate at between 4.25% and 4.5%, with the effective federal funds rate at 4.33% on March 31, according to the New York Fed. The core personal consumption expenditures price index inflation rate rose to 2.8% in February, according to the Commerce Department. Forecasts of U.S. gross domestic product suggest that the economy will continue to grow at a 1.7% rate in 2025, albeit at a slower pace than what was forecast in January.
Consumers in the U.S. and businesses around the world are bracing for impact.
“There is a reason why companies went outside of the U.S.,” said Gregor Hirt, chief investment officer at Allianz Global Investors. “Most of the time it was because it was cheaper and more productive.”
Watch the video above to learn how much inflation tariffs may cause.
Economics
Trump’s tariff gambit will raise the stakes for an economy already looking fragile
Published
1 day agoon
April 1, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks alongside entertainer Kid Rock before signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House on March 31, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Andrew Harnik | Getty Images
President Donald Trump is set Wednesday to begin the biggest gamble of his nascent second term, wagering that broad-based tariffs on imports will jumpstart a new era for the U.S. economy.
The stakes couldn’t be higher.
As the president prepares his “liberation day” announcement, household sentiment is at multi-year lows. Consumers worry that the duties will spark another round of painful inflation, and investors are fretting that higher prices will mean lower profits and a tougher slog for the battered stock market.
What Trump is promising is a new economy not dependent on deficit spending, where Canada, Mexico, China and Europe no longer take advantage of the U.S. consumer’s desire for ever-cheaper products.
The big problem right now is no one outside the administration knows quite how those goals will be achieved, and what will be the price to pay.
“People always want everything to be done immediately and have to know exactly what’s going on,” said Joseph LaVorgna, who served as a senior economic advisor during Trump’s first term in office. “Negotiations themselves don’t work that way. Good things take time.”
For his part, LaVorgna, who is now chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities, is optimistic Trump can pull it off, but understands why markets are rattled by the uncertainty of it all.
“This is a negotiation, and it needs to be judged in the fullness of time,” he said. “Eventually we’re going to get some details and some clarity, and to me, everything will fit together. But right now, we’re at that point where it’s just too soon to know exactly what the implementation is likely to look like.”
Here’s what we do know: The White House intends to implement “reciprocal” tariffs against its trading partners. In other words, the U.S. is going to match what other countries charge to import American goods into their countries. Most recently, a figure of 20% blanket tariffs has been bandied around, though LaVorgna said he expects the number to be around 10%, but something like 60% for China.
What is likely to emerge, though, will be far more nuanced as Trump seeks to reduce a record $131.4 billion U.S. trade deficit. Trump professes his ability to make deals, and the saber-rattling of draconian levies on other countries is all part of the strategy to get the best arrangement possible where more goods are manufactured domestically, boosting American jobs and providing a fairer landscape for trade.
The consequences, though, could be rough in the near term.
Potential inflation impact
On their surface, tariffs are a tax on imports and, theoretically, are inflationary. In practice, though, it doesn’t always work that way.
During his first term, Trump imposed heavy tariffs with nary a sign of longer-term inflation outside of isolated price increases. That’s how Federal Reserve economists generally view tariffs — a one-time “transitory” blip but rarely a generator of fundamental inflation.
This time, though, could be different as Trump attempts something on a scale not seen since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930 that kicked off a global trade war and would be the worst-case scenario of the president’s ambitions.
“This could be a major rewiring of the domestic economy and of the global economy, a la Thatcher, a la Reagan, where you get a more enabled private sector, streamlined government, a fair trading system,” Mohamed El-Erian, the Allianz chief economic advisor, said Tuesday on CNBC. “Alternatively, if we get tit-for-tat tariffs, we slip into stagflation, and that stagflation becomes well anchored, and that becomes problematic.”

The U.S. economy already is showing signs of a stagflationary impulse, perhaps not along the lines of the 1970s and early ’80s but nevertheless one where growth is slowing and inflation is proving stickier than expected.
Goldman Sachs has lowered its projection for economic growth this year to barely positive. The firm is citing the “the sharp recent deterioration in household and business confidence” and second-order impacts of tariffs as administration officials are willing to trade lower growth in the near term for their longer-term trade goals.
Federal Reserve officials last month indicated an expectation of 1.7% gross domestic product growth this year; using the same metric, Goldman projects GDP to rise at just a 1% rate.
In addition, Goldman raised its recession risk to 35% this year, though it sees growth holding positive in the most-likely scenario.
Broader economic questions
However, Luke Tilley, chief economist at Wilmington Trust, thinks the recession risk is even higher at 40%, and not just because of tariff impacts.
“We were already on the pessimistic side of the spectrum,” he said. “A lot of that is coming from the fact that we didn’t think the consumer was strong enough heading into the year, and we see growth slowing because of the tariffs.”
Tilley also sees the labor market weakening as companies hold off on hiring as well as other decisions such as capital expenditure-type investments in their businesses.
That view on business hesitation was backed up Tuesday in an Institute for Supply Management survey in which respondents cited the uncertain climate as an obstacle to growth.
“Customers are pausing on new orders as a result of uncertainty regarding tariffs,” said a manager in the transportation equipment industry. “There is no clear direction from the administration on how they will be implemented, so it’s harder to project how they will affect business.”
While Tilley thinks the concern over tariffs causing long-term inflation is misplaced — Smoot-Hawley, for instance, actually ended up being deflationary — he does see them as a danger to an already-fragile consumer and economy as they could tend to weaken activity further.
“We think of the tariffs as just being such a weight on growth. It would drive up prices in the initial couple [inflation] readings, but it would create so much economic weakness that they would end up being net deflationary,” he said. “They’re a tax hike, they’re contractionary, they’re going to weigh on the economy.”
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!

Treasury Secretary Bessent says market woes are more about tech stock sell-off than Trump’s tariffs

Senate unveils plan to fast-track tax cuts, debt limit hike

How asset location decides bond ladder taxes

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
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
Student loans could be managed by the Small Business Administration
-
Economics6 days ago
Young Americans are losing confidence in economy, and it shows online
-
Economics6 days ago
PCE inflation February 2025:
-
Accounting5 days ago
IRS sets new initiative with banks to uncover fraud
-
Economics1 week ago
White House denials over the Signal snafu ring hollow
-
Personal Finance1 week ago
Millions of student loan borrowers past-due after bills restarted: Fed
-
Economics6 days ago
Consumer sentiment worsens as inflation fears grow, University of Michigan survey shows
-
Economics6 days ago
Texas troopers are in more and more lethal car chases