The 2024 Presidential election was a significant setback for the Democratic Party. A plethora of analyses and commentaries have emerged attempting to dissect why Vice President Kamala Harris experienced a major defeat, even as lower-ticket Democrats performed notably better. Central to these discussions is a blame game, often with centrists pointing fingers at the left for their inclusivity towards transgender individuals. However, a predominant theory has surfaced suggesting that Harris was bound to lose due to global discontent with incumbents, primarily because of inflation related to Covid-19.<\/p>\n
Initiated by commentators like Matt Yglesias and expanded upon by others including Derek Thompson in The Atlantic<\/em>, Noah Berlatsky in Public Notice<\/em>, John Burn-Murdoch in the Financial Times<\/em>, and David Dayen at The American Prospect<\/em>, this theory has gained traction. It argues that a unique loss of vote share by incumbents in developed nations during the 2024 elections, as evidenced by ParlGov data showcased in Burn-Murdoch\u2019s widely shared chart, was a direct result of inflation.<\/p>\n At first glance, this assertion seems compelling. Yet, upon closer inspection, several questions arise. What exactly defines a “major country”? Why focus solely on the 2024 data, excluding 2023? If incumbents managed to stay in power despite a slight drop in vote share, does that truly reflect a universal desire to oust them due to economic dissatisfaction?<\/p>\n The notion that Harris’ loss was inevitable due to inflation oversimplifies the situation. Not all electoral systems function like America\u2019s two-party system, and the dynamics can vary significantly. Moreover, the selection of which elections to consider, the exclusion of 2023’s elections, and the disregard for Democrats as partial incumbents (considering the existence of the House of Representatives) further complicate the analysis.<\/p>\n Take Mexico’s 2024 election for instance, where the incumbent party won decisively under President Claudia Sheinbaum, who improved upon her predecessor\u2019s performance despite previous high inflation rates. This contradicts the theory that inflation universally harms incumbents, suggesting a more nuanced interaction between economic conditions and electoral outcomes. Yglesias and Dayen acknowledge Mexico as an outlier, attributing its results to a pre-existing tolerance for inflation. However, the significant inflation spikes before the 2024 election suggest that other factors may have influenced the electoral outcome.<\/p>\n Other countries also buck the trend. Taiwan\u2019s ruling DPP narrowly missed a legislative majority but increased its vote share. The Dominican Republic\u2019s PRM and Bulgaria\u2019s GERB-SDS coalition both won re-election and gained vote share despite high inflation. These examples challenge the rigid framework that limits the analysis to \u201cmajor countries\u201d as defined in some narratives.<\/p>\n The varied global electoral outcomes in 2023 and 2024 suggest that inflation alone does not determine the fate of incumbents. Notably, in countries like Greece, Spain, and Estonia, incumbent parties succeeded despite high inflation rates, challenging the inevitability of electoral defeat due to economic conditions.<\/p>\n This context is crucial for understanding the U.S. scenario. The Democratic Party, and Harris in particular, had opportunities to shape their electoral narrative irrespective of inflation concerns. The argument that inflation dictated the 2024 election overlooks the agency of political parties and their ability to resonate with voters and adapt to challenges.<\/p>\n Moreover, the U.S. political system, with its distinct separation of powers, offers different strategic opportunities compared to parliamentary systems. The Biden-Harris administration could have pursued more aggressive policy measures and positioned themselves against an uncooperative Congress to appeal to voters concerned about inflation and economic management.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the assertion that all incumbents were doomed globally because of inflation is an oversimplification that serves more as an excuse for the Democratic campaign’s shortcomings than a reflection of reality. It disregards the complexity of electoral politics and the strategic choices available to parties to influence their electoral outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\nExamining the Complexity of Election Outcomes<\/h2>\n
Relevance to the U.S. Presidential Election<\/h2>\n