Day 5: Election Fundamentals

Fundamentals can predict, but explain

Political scientists are politely disagreeing on social media over the implications of the 2024 election. While there's consensus on a couple of points, the interpretation of those points—and what they mean for the future—remains a matter of debate.

Shared Points of Agreement

First, most political scientists agree that poor economic conditions contributed to a global backlash against incumbents. Economic discontent has been a consistent driver of elections, with voters expressing frustration inflation and perceived economic mismanagement.

Second, there’s broad agreement that a fundamental forecast of the 2024 election would have been largely accurate. In fact, my own fundamental model, run with data available right after Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee, predicted a tight race that favored Trump:

The output shown above was based on a model I created in 2014, which I ran in August 2024. The specific details of the model aren’t all that important, as any basic model that factors in voting history, incumbency, economics, and presidential approval is likely to produce similar results.

So, what do we learn from this? If the outcome of the election aligns with what a basic model would predict—without taking into account who the candidates are, their platforms, or how the campaign played out—what does that tell us?

This brings us to the two major schools of thought:

1. "Business as Usual" Theory

One camp argues that this election is just like any other. They suggest that the outcome is predictable based on historical trends, and that the world will swing back as it always does. From this perspective, the Democrats focus should be on reaching out to Trump voters, messaging them, and avoiding alienation. Democrats should aim to understand why Trump voters cast their ballots the way they did, and make efforts to win them back in future elections.

In other words, don’t panic—continue building bridges with voters who may have felt disconnected or disillusioned, and try to reframe the political conversation in a way that appeals to those who may not be fully committed to either side.

2. The "Moment of Crisis" Theory

The other camp, of which I am firmly a part, believes that while the election forecast may match expectations, we cannot dismiss the larger, more alarming trends at play. This camp sees the 2024 election as marking a significant break from historical patterns of partisan realignment—and the stakes are too high to downplay this moment.

For example, while the U.S. did experience inflation, it was far less severe and shorter-lived compared to other countries, and it was offset by wage growth. Trump’s proposed economic policies, which would likely worsen inflation and stifle economic growth, should have raised red flags. Even if fundamental models suggest that the opposition party (i.e., Republicans) should benefit from economic discontent, the reality of Trump’s specific policy proposals should have blunted that impact. Voters were generally not aware (or misinformed) about the current state of the economy and how Trump’s policies would further harm the economy and everyday Americans.

Moreover, the extreme nature of Trump’s platform—ranging from mass detention and removal of 10-20 million to stripping away women’s rights to consolidating dictatorial powers—represents an existential threat to vulnerable populations. Underestimating this threat is perilous. Even if the outcome of this election seemed predictable, Democrats need to focus on what is at stake on January 20, 2025, when the next president is sworn in, not simply the outcome of Election Day in 2028.

For this camp, the priority isn’t just about winning over Trump voters—it's about safeguarding democracy and protecting the rights of marginalized populations that who suffer irrevocable harm before any potential elections could save them.

The Importance of Media Narratives

While I’m a strong proponent of the predictive power of fundamental models, I also recognize they can obscure what happens between elections. From my work with Duncan Watts, one of my biggest concerns in political science right now is the massive imbalance in media narratives. Republican-aligned and corporate media outlets dominate the information landscape, while Democratic voices are fragmented and underfunded. This imbalance creates a powerful pro-Republican narrative that can push the public further to the right—regardless of how individual elections play out.

In the long run, this media environment has a corrosive effect on democracy. Voters, misled by biased narratives, are increasingly disconnected from the truth. And if Democratic voices fail to find a counterweight to the right-wing media juggernaut, the political center of gravity in the U.S. will continue shifting to the right, regardless of which party holds power at any given moment.

Conclusion

In sum, while fundamental models can be invaluable tools for predicting election outcomes, they don’t tell the full story. The real lessons from the 2024 election might not just lie in the outcome itself but in the broader trends at play—trends that suggest a growing divide in the electorate, the erosion of democratic norms, and the dangerous rise of authoritarian politics that threaten real people who cannot wait for the election to save them.