US Politics and Policies Early expectations for the 2024 election

Despite a persistently low public approval rating, President Joe Biden has reiterated his intent to seek his party’s nomination again. Registered Democrats appear ambivalent about a second Biden term, and, as a recent CNN poll suggested, two-thirds of voters who lean Democratic would prefer a different nominee due to concerns about the president’s age and health. However, a quixotic challenge by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has failed to gain much traction. The Republican Party faces a choice: whether to nominate a former chief executive whose own low approval rating rivals the sitting president’s, or to seek a new nominee. Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the polls, but it is still too early to conclude he will receive his party’s nomination.

The polling industry was subjected to severe criticism after failing to predict the palpable surge in support for Donald Trump in 2016. A variety of explanations were offered, including the concept of the “shy Trump voter” who provided pollsters with expected but misleading answers to leading questions. Critics also cited the prevalence of respondents who “leaned Democratic” and the practical challenges imposed by the use of mobile phones. With few exceptions, national polls should be treated with particular skepticism. In the US, we elect presidents based on electoral votes. A Democrat running up the margin of victory in Oregon, or a Republican doing so in Oklahoma, is less impactful than winning a swing state by the narrowest of margins.

The notion that political affiliation has a direct impact on one’s level of optimism regarding the future direction of the economy is supported by ample academic research. A perception that the economy is improving—or deteriorating—can affect investment decisions in a way that can impair investment returns. Investors who share an affiliation with the political party in office are more likely to believe that financial assets are undervalued and respond accordingly by increasing their allocation to equities. Conversely, investors disappointed with the outcome of an election often adopt a risk-off strategy and take refuge in fixed income securities.¹ While that type of impulse may be less costly when yields are high, as they are today, it runs the risk of distorting longer-term asset allocations.

The upcoming election has the potential to be among the most acrimonious on record. There is no love lost between the two leading candidates, and our political parties vehemently disagree on fundamental fiscal, regulatory, and social policies. Take comfort in the fact that incendiary speech is nothing new to US politics. John Adams was called a “repulsive pedant” and “hideous hermaphrodite” by Thomas Jefferson’s campaign. The Adams campaign responded in kind, calling Jefferson a “godless atheist” and circulating a rumor that he had died during the campaign. The severity of personal attacks has ebbed and flowed in the succeeding two centuries. Adams and Jefferson ultimately reconciled, so there is always hope for a kinder and gentler reconciliation of our political differences.

Despite a persistently low public approval rating, President Joe Biden has reiterated his intent to seek his party’s nomination again. Registered Democrats appear ambivalent about a second Biden term, and, as a recent CNN poll suggested, two-thirds of voters who lean Democratic would prefer a different nominee due to concerns about the president’s age and health. However, a quixotic challenge by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has failed to gain much traction. The Republican Party faces a choice: whether to nominate a former chief executive whose own low approval rating rivals the sitting president’s, or to seek a new nominee. Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the polls, but it is still too early to conclude he will receive his party’s nomination.

The polling industry was subjected to severe criticism after failing to predict the palpable surge in support for Donald Trump in 2016. A variety of explanations were offered, including the concept of the “shy Trump voter” who provided pollsters with expected but misleading answers to leading questions. Critics also cited the prevalence of respondents who “leaned Democratic” and the practical challenges imposed by the use of mobile phones. With few exceptions, national polls should be treated with particular skepticism. In the US, we elect presidents based on electoral votes. A Democrat running up the margin of victory in Oregon, or a Republican doing so in Oklahoma, is less impactful than winning a swing state by the narrowest of margins.

The notion that political affiliation has a direct impact on one’s level of optimism regarding the future direction of the economy is supported by ample academic research. A perception that the economy is improving—or deteriorating—can affect investment decisions in a way that can impair investment returns. Investors who share an affiliation with the political party in office are more likely to believe that financial assets are undervalued and respond accordingly by increasing their allocation to equities. Conversely, investors disappointed with the outcome of an election often adopt a risk-off strategy and take refuge in fixed income securities.¹ While that type of impulse may be less costly when yields are high, as they are today, it runs the risk of distorting longer-term asset allocations.

The upcoming election has the potential to be among the most acrimonious on record. There is no love lost between the two leading candidates, and our political parties vehemently disagree on fundamental fiscal, regulatory, and social policies. Take comfort in the fact that incendiary speech is nothing new to US politics. John Adams was called a “repulsive pedant” and “hideous hermaphrodite” by Thomas Jefferson’s campaign. The Adams campaign responded in kind, calling Jefferson a “godless atheist” and circulating a rumor that he had died during the campaign. The severity of personal attacks has ebbed and flowed in the succeeding two centuries. Adams and Jefferson ultimately reconciled, so there is always hope for a kinder and gentler reconciliation of our political differences.

Despite a persistently low public approval rating, President Joe Biden has reiterated his intent to seek his party’s nomination again. Registered Democrats appear ambivalent about a second Biden term, and, as a recent CNN poll suggested, two-thirds of voters who lean Democratic would prefer a different nominee due to concerns about the president’s age and health. However, a quixotic challenge by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has failed to gain much traction. The Republican Party faces a choice: whether to nominate a former chief executive whose own low approval rating rivals the sitting president’s, or to seek a new nominee. Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the polls, but it is still too early to conclude he will receive his party’s nomination.

The polling industry was subjected to severe criticism after failing to predict the palpable surge in support for Donald Trump in 2016. A variety of explanations were offered, including the concept of the “shy Trump voter” who provided pollsters with expected but misleading answers to leading questions. Critics also cited the prevalence of respondents who “leaned Democratic” and the practical challenges imposed by the use of mobile phones. With few exceptions, national polls should be treated with particular skepticism. In the US, we elect presidents based on electoral votes. A Democrat running up the margin of victory in Oregon, or a Republican doing so in Oklahoma, is less impactful than winning a swing state by the narrowest of margins.

The notion that political affiliation has a direct impact on one’s level of optimism regarding the future direction of the economy is supported by ample academic research. A perception that the economy is improving—or deteriorating—can affect investment decisions in a way that can impair investment returns. Investors who share an affiliation with the political party in office are more likely to believe that financial assets are undervalued and respond accordingly by increasing their allocation to equities. Conversely, investors disappointed with the outcome of an election often adopt a risk-off strategy and take refuge in fixed income securities.¹ While that type of impulse may be less costly when yields are high, as they are today, it runs the risk of distorting longer-term asset allocations.

The upcoming election has the potential to be among the most acrimonious on record. There is no love lost between the two leading candidates, and our political parties vehemently disagree on fundamental fiscal, regulatory, and social policies. Take comfort in the fact that incendiary speech is nothing new to US politics. John Adams was called a “repulsive pedant” and “hideous hermaphrodite” by Thomas Jefferson’s campaign. The Adams campaign responded in kind, calling Jefferson a “godless atheist” and circulating a rumor that he had died during the campaign. The severity of personal attacks has ebbed and flowed in the succeeding two centuries. Adams and Jefferson ultimately reconciled, so there is always hope for a kinder and gentler reconciliation of our political differences.

Despite a persistently low public approval rating, President Joe Biden has reiterated his intent to seek his party’s nomination again. Registered Democrats appear ambivalent about a second Biden term, and, as a recent CNN poll suggested, two-thirds of voters who lean Democratic would prefer a different nominee due to concerns about the president’s age and health. However, a quixotic challenge by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has failed to gain much traction. The Republican Party faces a choice: whether to nominate a former chief executive whose own low approval rating rivals the sitting president’s, or to seek a new nominee. Donald Trump holds a commanding lead in the polls, but it is still too early to conclude he will receive his party’s nomination.

The polling industry was subjected to severe criticism after failing to predict the palpable surge in support for Donald Trump in 2016. A variety of explanations were offered, including the concept of the “shy Trump voter” who provided pollsters with expected but misleading answers to leading questions. Critics also cited the prevalence of respondents who “leaned Democratic” and the practical challenges imposed by the use of mobile phones. With few exceptions, national polls should be treated with particular skepticism. In the US, we elect presidents based on electoral votes. A Democrat running up the margin of victory in Oregon, or a Republican doing so in Oklahoma, is less impactful than winning a swing state by the narrowest of margins.

The notion that political affiliation has a direct impact on one’s level of optimism regarding the future direction of the economy is supported by ample academic research. A perception that the economy is improving—or deteriorating—can affect investment decisions in a way that can impair investment returns. Investors who share an affiliation with the political party in office are more likely to believe that financial assets are undervalued and respond accordingly by increasing their allocation to equities. Conversely, investors disappointed with the outcome of an election often adopt a risk-off strategy and take refuge in fixed income securities.¹ While that type of impulse may be less costly when yields are high, as they are today, it runs the risk of distorting longer-term asset allocations.

The upcoming election has the potential to be among the most acrimonious on record. There is no love lost between the two leading candidates, and our political parties vehemently disagree on fundamental fiscal, regulatory, and social policies. Take comfort in the fact that incendiary speech is nothing new to US politics. John Adams was called a “repulsive pedant” and “hideous hermaphrodite” by Thomas Jefferson’s campaign. The Adams campaign responded in kind, calling Jefferson a “godless atheist” and circulating a rumor that he had died during the campaign. The severity of personal attacks has ebbed and flowed in the succeeding two centuries. Adams and Jefferson ultimately reconciled, so there is always hope for a kinder and gentler reconciliation of our political differences.