Trumped
The 2024 U.S. Presidential election — polling, public opinion and populism
It was considered too close to call, an unpredictable “coin toss” of an election. In the event, the U.S. presidential election was decisive, and, despite all its unique characteristics, it reflected a trend seen across many full and partial democracies this year — incumbency is a burden not a boost.
Donald Trump became the first former President since Grover Cleveland in 1892 to win two non-consecutive terms. He did this despite facing dozens of criminal charges relating to hush-money, the 6 January insurrection, classified documents and efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.
Appropriately, Georgia was one of a handful of crucial ‘swing states’ taken by Trump — it ‘flipped’ his way having been lost to Biden in 2020. Why did such a controversial figure prevail and what do the polls tell us?
The ‘economy stupid’
An Ipsos poll for ABC News conducted between October 18-22 found most registered voters (90%) saying the economy was the single most important or is a very important issue in their choice of which candidate to support. Inflation was also salient (85%).
Trump was seen as having the best policies in this area by a margin of eight percentage points — 48% to 40% — with a similar seven points lead on the issue of inflation. Other polling evidence similarly pointed to a perception that Trump’s time in office was economically successful while Biden’s wasn’t despite huge stimulus, job creation and deficit reduction (curiously so given the strength of the economy as seen from Europe).
The importance of perception as well as reality was one of the themes of ‘Deliverism Defeated’, a 2022 paper by Deepak Bhargava, Shahrzad Shams and Harry Hanbury which used Bidenomics (among other things) as a case study to illustrate the far from linear relationship between policy outcomes and public recognition of success.
The authors called for a less “economistic approach” suggesting that delivery is insufficient on its own. They advised providing “the milk with the cloth — the material with the emotional” and “a more holistic approach to addressing people’s fears and anxieties”.
While Biden offered a calmer, steadier presidency — enough to win the popular vote in 2020 — his presidency was all cloth, all material. The lack of a clear, compelling narrative about his term before his mental and physical frailties became the story, meant that Kamala Harris had too much ground to make up. As Vice President, she was stuck in the middle of continuity and change, neither one thing nor the other.
Closer but not close enough
Harris was seen as better than Trump on abortion (a 15-percentage point lead), health care (10 points) protecting American democracy (8 points) and looking out for the middle class (6 points). On questions of character and fitness for office, she outperformed him.
Though hamstrung, her campaign was impressive, wrestling momentum and positivity from Trump who had looked unassailable after an assassination attempt at a rally in Pennsylvania (an incident which generated an iconic image of a bloodied but defiant candidate).
However, Harris’ upward trajectory plateaued and her campaign’s tone moved onto more negative territory. It possibly suffered by dint of its more west coast and celebrity vibe in contrast to Trump’s appeal to Main Street as well as Wall Street (stocks and the dollar jumped after news of his victory).
It was the economy that mattered. On that, Harris did manage to narrow the gap with Trump doing better than Biden had in April but by the time of Ipsos’ final poll she was only marginally ahead of her boss’ measure back in July.
Populism pertains
Trump’s strategy was centred around an offer with broad appeal across the country — three-quarters of Americans are dissatisfied with the state of their country — rather than targeting specific demographics (aware that Latinos are quite different in Texas and Florida).
As Ipsos put it, the “blame game is the hammer of the populist toolbox” (something which is “alive and well” globally), and Trump continued to hammer away. He repeated baseless claims that illegal immigrants from Haiti had been eating domestic pets in a small Ohio city, probably mindful of its clickbait potential. The Democrats didn’t want to talk about immigration, Trump didn’t want to stop.
Adding fuel to this fire, the sentiment that the political system is unresponsive to the needs of ordinary citizen motivates a desire for a strong leader who can overhaul the status quo. Trump was part of that system in 2016–2020 but was, again, outside it in 2024. He told a story about the ‘deep state’ and institutional resistance, about shaking things up, and about how Project 2025 will give him a real opportunity to achieve success if given a second chance.
Not short of hyperbole, Trump has promised a “golden era”, to “fix everything” and to “heal” a polarised nation. His promises are extremely ambitious — some say foolhardy — but populists tend to struggle in power. That won’t bother the 45th and 47th President of the United States — he can’t stand in 2028.
