It is very common, especially in a context of , to speculate about the impact of the economy on voting. The slogan “it’s the economy, stupid” (it’s the economy, stupid) will be repeated ad nauseam. That the very perception of the economy is influenced by party preference or individual voting loyalty is nothing new. Disregarding that research incorporates this problem (the evaluation is endogenous) recurrently leads to mistakes.
In 2022, 2/3 of voters thought the economy had gotten worse, while 1 in 10 among voters agreed the economy was worse (Nunes and Traumann, 2024). There is evidence of this nature literally all over the world. What we don’t know yet is whether this fan effect will be greater in 2026 than in 2022.
The literature has already discussed the phenomenon as a form of (partisan crowd effect). and economics do not just reflect objective judgments about performance; they are a form of expressive behavior in which voters signal political loyalty. Survey responses are contaminated by this, leading supporters to better evaluate governments with which they identify politically. The literature also shows that the more intense the partisanship, the greater the bias. It is an extension of the so-called “halo effect”: the perception of the positive characteristics of a politician or party influencing voters’ assessment of their performance.
There is strong evidence that the effect of partisanship on economic perceptions has increased greatly, but with an important nuance: the increase is clearer in sociotropic assessments — “how is the national economy?” — than in egotropic assessments — “how are mine?”
Research shows that the gap between Democrats and Republicans approximately doubled between 1999 and 2020. In Trump’s first term, the estimated difference was a staggering 73%! The correlation between economic indicators and performance assessment has decreased.
The most immediate implication of these research findings is that the real behavior of the economy tends to lose relative importance in voting. It could be happening in Brazil too. As a result, accountability (for poor performance or corruption) tends to weaken. This overlaps with the well-known availability bias (the heuristic gives more weight to recent information in decision making). In the USA, over the last 70 years, the performance of the economy in the previous three years of the mandate does not matter for voting in presidential elections: only the last semester or year is decisive. The voter only looks in the rearview mirror in the last few meters of the race.
But there are other fundamental issues that should not be forgotten. First, the group of independents — the only one without party support — has grown in the country, something that also occurred in the USA, where it currently represents the largest share of the electorate. This is where the volatile voters are. And this is where the analysis should focus. Second, what really matters at the end of the day is the architecture of choice. Even a very poorly evaluated candidate can be elected.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
