Is It Possible the Democrats Were Hurt by a Strong Economy?

There’s an intriguing theory that the presidential bid of Vice President Kamala Harris was hurt by the performance of the U.S. economy — not because it was too weak, but because it was too strong. I can’t figure out whether I buy it, but it’s definitely worth a think.

The idea is that Democrats win presidential elections when the economy is performing badly, because voters want the strong safety net that Democrats promise. Republicans win elections when the economy is performing well, because voters don’t worry so much about the safety net and care more about low taxes, which they associate with Republicans.

Since the economy was doing well on Election Day, the argument goes, some swing voters who might have swung to Harris’s safety net opted instead for Donald Trump’s tax cuts, and that was the difference in an election decided by just a sliver of the electorate.

The theory is spelled out in a university magazine article, “The Economy Has Been Great Under Biden. That’s Why Trump Won,” by Lubos Pastor and Pietro Veronesi, finance professors at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.

Pastor told me that election pundits make a mistake by assuming that voters think retrospectively and base their decisions on whether the party in the White House has done a good job. There’s some of that, he said, but it’s swamped by voters who think ahead to which party will do what they want in the coming four years. Right now, he said, they’re not too worried about needing the government.

For journalists, pollsters and others to say that people are confused about the economy, thinking it’s bad when it’s not, is “a tad arrogant,” Pastor said. “Our story is not arrogant at all. Our story is deeply respectful of the American voter. Everyone is voting in their own self interest.” In the election this month, he said, they showed that they’re feeling bullish and “willing to take on risk.”