Re-live: About The Impact Of Bidenomics On Voting Behavior

A core tenet of Bidenomics was to reinvigorate economic activity in regions left behind in the era of hyper-globalization. By fostering new investment in these areas, the Democratic Party sought to regain the trust of its traditional voting base, especially middle-class voters. However, Robert Gold´s findings based on county-by-county analysis show that Bidenomics did not significantly benefit the Democrats in the 2024 elections.

Based on the currently available election data on 19 November, Gold’s preliminary findings suggest that while Bidenomics had some regional impacts, in certain subsets of (mainly impoverished) counties in battleground states, it did not translate into a significant advantage for the Democrats in the 2024 elections. His study compares similar counties with and without funding to assess the impact of Bidenomics on Democratic vote shares. The analysis includes regional-level controls and explores the heterogeneity of effects based on regional characteristics, labor market conditions, demographics, and types of investment.

In the discussion of these results, the IfW Kiel economist stressed that despite the positive general economic outlook, many voters were severely affected by the elevated cost of living. He also underscored that psychological factors such as hindsight bias can make voters feel worse off than they were four years ago and that ideological factors and populist campaigning play a role. US voters seem to perceive the economy along party lines. While the majority of those who had a negative impression of the economic situation voted for Donald Trump, those who had a positive impression, predominantly voted for Kamala Harris. According to exit polls, the economy was the second most important issue to Trump voters (behind immigration) and only in fourth place for Democrats.

Expert on US economic policy Laura von Daniels (SWP) mentioned that the “no-finding” might be due to a time lag and that the positive effects of Bidenomics might materialize in a few years. Besides the economic argument, she highlighted the cultural drivers of populism such as widespread racism and misogyny. Von Daniels also hypothesized that Bidenomics might have been “too little, too little” for some voters. In her view, Bidenomics could have received more broad-based support if it had included the more comprehensive provisions in Build Back Better, including on care.