We hear almost daily that this election will be about economics…..some call it the “pocketbook vote”….people will vote for the person that they think will improve their income so they can better support their families.
I want to go on record as saying that I do not believe that BS for a moment.
Why would I make such a bold statement?
Let’s look at my state of Mississippi….which by the way is at the bottom of the economic scale….voters on local, state and national level do not vote with their wallets…..if they did this state would be a lot better off than it is today.
Many studies assume that policy issues have little bearing on voting, while the economy has a substantial impact, especially in congressional elections. Yet from 2020 to 2022, congressional voting preferences changed in fundamentally rational ways based on abortion views, thus suggesting evidence of democratic accountability with respect to this particular issue.
“What people tell you is ‘most important’ in determining their vote is likely to be a reflection of their partisanship, rather than a source of change in their vote preferences,” conclude Mutz and Mansfield.
“It could mean that people’s perceptions of the economy are less important than journalists typically imply in their coverage. As a result, lingering effects of the Dobbs decision and general distrust of the Supreme Court may be especially influential in 2024.”
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-conventional-wisdom-americans-pocketbook-voters.html
Do Americans “vote their pocketbooks?” This near-ubiquitous cliche seems at first to pass the test of common sense. Why wouldn’t people vote for the candidates under whom they’ll do the best financially? A wealthy voter should favor the candidate who will lower their taxes. A chronically unemployed voter should support the candidate promising lavish government handouts.
In the most basic economic terms, however, this logic falls apart. If one votes, for example, to maximize the present value of their future income, the answer is to not vote at all. Given the vanishingly low probability of breaking a tie, voting isn’t worth the gasoline used to drive to one’s local fire station and cast a ballot.
Perhaps this critique says more about the limits of economic modelling than it does about voting. Slogans like “It’s the economy, stupid” and “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” suggest a bigger-picture view people can take when voting their pocketbooks. But once again, this view fails to hold water.
The concept of “voting one’s pocketbook” frequently causes partisans who don’t understand the other party’s voters to make strategic errors. It also perpetuates the destructive idea that different groups of citizens are playing a zero-sum game against each other. Finally, and perhaps most insidiously, it creates the myth that the right politician can make our pocketbooks grow.
The Myth of Voting One’s Pocketbook
I ask for your input.
Do you think Americans will vote with their wallets?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
Any number of interviews I’ve seen have confirmed that people want the cost of living reduced. Some believe that Trump has a better grasp on this. They don’t realise or want to understand that by keeping levels where they are helps destroy and thus manage the middle class and that suits the businesses that keeps the prices at these levels for the sake of profit.I’m hoping the information from Project 2025 will help ensure a Blue Wave in November that gives a majority in both houses so that changes can be made to help people manage on their incomes.
I think it will be a small splash of blue….I hope I am wrong but I do not see much changing. chuq
I can only hope you’re wrong and Blue is the colour of the year to give a majority. Democracy works better under the Democrats. Hugs
I agree and under normal circumstances I would say Blue will prevail but these are not times that give me confidence. chuq
The best I had it as a single parent was under Nixon, when I only had to work one job and once a week, my son and I dined at a top rated restaurant. I have not seen a president since work for the prosperity of the middle class. Democrats work at getting votes by giving the country and treasury away – the Republicans try to stay rich. This year, I doubt I’ll vote at all – I give up!
Don’t give up we need more thinking people voting….lobbyists are doing the working stiff in….money talks….as they say chuq
I’m not convinced that people anywhere in any election vote with their wallets. I think they vote on the personalities of the leaders of the parties, and whether or not they like them or identify with them. Some also vote racially, or for gender reasons. (Thatcther got the votes of very poor women just because they thought a female in charge would be better. How wrong they were!)
Best wishes, Pete.
I believe that is accurate….but I think it should be more about real life problems than some smiley twat…..chuq
If the economy goes into a recession during an election year, the sitting president’s party is more likely to lose the election. If the economy is booming, sitting president’s party is more likely to keep the White House. That is the general trend. Ford and Carter both lost. Regan won reelection on the economic boom, and do did Bush. Then the economy took a dive and Bush lost to Clinton. Economy boomed and Clinton won re-election.
I see a definite trend in elections depending on the economy.
That indicates if the economy holds up through November, Harris should maintain her lead and win.
Under normal circumstances I would agree but for the last decade nothing has been normal. chuq
I liked Mississippi– it was casual, comfortable and laid back….hot as hell…but laid back…
A hot bed of MAGAts and neo-nazi thinking….just lovely chuq
wasn’t the case when I was there in the 1960s—
John racism has always been there…..chuq
people knew their place in the good old days and that is what made them good old days
There was nothing good about those days in Mississippi…I was raised there……chuq
You must not have qualified for the good old boy club then.
I am now and always have been radical….good old boys are dinosaurs that still rule. chuq
I think it is very hard to vote your pocketbook. Information as to where the candidates stand on pocketbook issues is hard to find, and both of the major candidates are more on the side of the top 1 percent than they are of the majority.
There does seem to be a consensus that we Americans need to build up our infrastraucture and our industrial capacity, which is good.
Donald Trump canceled the odious Trans Pacific Partnership Act. He sought to counter China by enacting tariffs. Under his administration, regular folks got some benefits to tide them through the Covid pandemic. But his administration removed environmental and labor protections and pushed through tax cuts mainly for the rich.
The Biden administration mainly continued the Trump policies. The Federal Trade Commission did try to enforce the anti-trust laws and the National Labor Relations Board did try to enforce labor laws. The administration pushed through legislation to repair infrastructure and subsidize industry.
Kamala Harris as prosecutor decline to prosecute a major bank for mortgage fraud. Otherwise we don’t know what she will do.
Tim Walz had a good record as governor of Minnesota. He signed bills giving free breakfasts and lunches for school children, allowing 20 weeks of paid family and medical leave, free tuition for students whose families make less than $80,000 a year and banned non-compete agreements.
J.D. Vance makes a show of being on the side of working people and opposing Silicon Valley monopolies. I’m not sure that to make of him.
In general, I prefer Walz and Vance to Harris and Trump.
But none of the above favor the fundamental reforms that reverse economic decline or growing inequality.
Voters will believe whatever their candidate of choice has to say….economics, racial, et….they will are not voting with their pocketbook….mostly they vote from ignorance and deception. chuq