The race to become the next US president has entered its last phase. What are your thoughts on the electoral campaigns of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump and on the data coming from the US election polls?
In the United States, winning the popular vote does not necessarily mean winning the election due to the Electoral College. The national vote captures a sense of popularity, but this popularity is not enough to translate into power. Ultimately, the swing states are often the ones that decide the outcome, making the reliance on national polls even less important. Now, just a week before election day, it is still too close to call. The polls indicate a tight race, with the result likely resting in the hands of independents and key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona. Regarding trends, Kamala Harris has been leading in the polls since early August. She has gained momentum since taking over Joe Biden’s candidacy, steadily expanding her voter base. However, we should remember that Donald Trump’s vote shares were underestimated in both 2016 and 2020, making it important to avoid firm predictions based on the current polls.
As for my thoughts on the electoral campaigns, I would refrain from judging the quality of one candidate over the other. Overall, the campaign took time to take shape, primarily due to the uncertainty surrounding Joe Biden's candidacy. The campaign truly gained momentum once the doubts were cleared, and Joe Biden’s replacement was confirmed.
What is ‘affective polarisation’ and what is its role in this US presidential election?
Affective polarisation refers to the growing emotional and social distance between political groups, where partisans increasingly view those on the other side not just as political opponents but as threats or enemies. This deepened division makes bipartisan consensus harder to achieve, as emotions and personal animosities influence political interactions. The effects of affective polarisation are not limited to politics. It fosters distrust, resentment, and even discrimination toward members of the opposing political camp. High levels of affective polarisation can also threaten democratic norms, as it potentially legitimises anti-democratic behaviours such as rejecting election outcomes or supporting political violence. I say "potentially" because the link between affective polarisation and support for undemocratic behaviour is not always conclusive based on findings in political science.
In the context of the 2024 election, affective polarisation could exacerbate tensions, especially if Donald Trump were to lose again and his supporters contested the results as they did in 2020. The lack of trust and high resentment between political groups may fuel post-election conflict or non-acceptance of the results. However, affective polarisation also has the potential to boost turnout. The emotional intensity of political division can foster higher voter turnout as people are more motivated to participate when they feel that core values or identities are under threat.
How does the economic situation in the United States affect the presidential election? What economic arguments do the two primary candidates put their focus on?
The correlation between the state of the economy and vote share is well established in political science. When the country performs well economically, voters tend to reward incumbents by re-electing them. Conversely, in the context of poor economic performance in the year leading up to the election, voters are more likely to punish incumbents by voting for their opponents. This is the theory. However, the perception of the economy also plays a crucial role—how voters interpret the economy and, more importantly, how it impacts their daily lives.
Objectively, the US economy is improving, with steady GDP growth and unemployment returning to pre-pandemic levels. However, voters might use items they purchase weekly as a test to evaluate the economic context and its evolution. With inflation affecting households’ main consumption points, such as food, gas, health care, and housing, voters may rely on these cues to form an opinion on the country’s economic situation. This does not even account for the role of partisanship, which can distort perceptions of economic reality— from overconfidence among the incumbent’s supporters to excessive negativity among opponents.
In this context, Kamala Harris faced a strategic decision: whether to fully embrace Joe Biden’s economic record, which objectively shows improvement, or distance herself to avoid the negative perceptions many voters have, partly due to the rising cost of living. Harris’s economic platform reflects her focus on the cost of living and the middle class, particularly families, first-time homebuyers, and small businesses. One of her main proposals is offering first-time homebuyers $25,000 toward a down payment, addressing one of the central concerns of middle-class voters struggling to enter the housing market. Trump also speaks to the middle class by emphasising inflation. However, he also links the economy to his protectionist policy by limiting foreign goods through trade tariffs. In short, both candidates made the cost of living the core of their economic platform, though they present two different approaches to alleviating the economic pressures on the American middle class.
Housing affordability is one of your main research interests and it has become a critical issue in the US presidential election. What do you think about the solutions proposed by the two main candidates to America’s housing crisis?
Housing affordability has been a key issue in recent elections in many countries, including the Netherlands, the UK, Canada, and France. The US presidential election is no exception, especially since homeownership is often perceived as a cornerstone of the so-called ‘American Dream’. Housing has become what we call a ‘valence issue’, meaning a political issue where there is broad consensus among voters. All parties and voters agree that there is a problem, that unaffordability is detrimental to household economic well-being, and that solutions need to be implemented. In my research, I focus mainly on individuals’ reactions to price variations regarding their perceived economic standing or how it affects their political preferences, and not really the efficiency of one policy over another. Regarding potential electoral gains, it is essential to understand that access to homeownership and, more broadly, affordable housing is not a concern for the sole tenants. Housing often represents the most significant expense for households, whether for owners who can hardly afford their mortgage, potential first-time buyers who have failed to secure a mortgage or a dwelling, or tenants burdened by their rent. Even outright owners with no intention to move may be interested in housing policies that benefit their children.
For instance, my research shows that inadequate housing among young adults also affects parents exposed to their children's economic difficulties. Due to the salience and valence of the topic and the size of the potential pool of voters interested in housing policies, it is not surprising that both candidates have recognised the housing crisis and proposed solutions to ease access to homeownership while highlighting some differences regarding how to tackle regulations that could hinder construction. However, it is not easy to predict who will benefit electorally from the topic. Since the housing crisis can be associated with Biden, Kamala Harris might be held accountable for the incumbent's record. Following the logic of economic voting, some voters might be tempted to blame her for their financial difficulties. For now, it is too early to gauge the importance of the topic and candidates’ proposals on voters’ decisions.
Alexandra Jabbour is an Assistant Professor at the EUI Department of Political and Social Sciences and a Fellow at the EUI’s Max Weber Programme for Postdoctoral Studies, the largest international postdoctoral programme in the social sciences and humanities in Europe. Alexandra's research focuses on the intersection of political opinion, geography, and economy. She also explores topics related to political behaviour, group identity, and the political implications of the housing market. Alexandra has been Teaching Assistant for various courses, including Elections, Political Science Research Methods, and a graduate seminar on US Politics.