what does "the economy" even mean, exactly? it's a vague, undefined term.
the actual reason that such a large number of americans tell you that the right, not just trump, is good for "the economy" is that they've been bombarded with advertising telling them as much for their entire lives. what these exit polls are measuring is advertising reach rather than any kind of deconstructible economic logic.
i want to step in on the statistics that democrats are pushing, though.
gdp is worthless to an average person, and i'll cite joseph stiglitz on that point. the premise that increases in gdp and increases in growth benefit the average worker is the definition of trickle down economics. gdp per capita is better, but it's skewed by the inequality gap. measuring wages vs inflation actually obscures the inequality problem due to the way that real wages are measured as an average.
"The average personal income in the United States is about $54,000. But that number is significantly bumped up by the small number of people who make significantly more. The median personal income, on the other hand, is just under $36,000. This means that more than half of people in the US make less than $36,000, a significant drop from the $54,000 average. This difference is even more pronounced when you look at wealth. The median net worth of US households is $121,700, yet the average net worth is a whopping $748,800."
the harrisites are trying to argue that people were misled by fox news, but it's actually the democratic party statistics that are off base with reality. i am barely old enough to remember stiglitz having this exact argument with the clintonites during gore v bush. people didn't get it and it's because the statistics they were using sucked. worse, democratic voters have been trained to believe what they see on msnbc with as much faith as republican voters have in fox. there's no critical analysis; they just absorb it and repeat it, which is by design.
we all think we're better than the other guys. most of us are actually exactly the same.
if you inflate average wages using wonky averages then it looks like real wages increased faster than inflation, but tell that to the mother of three working at walmart that's had her mortgage doubled by an interest rate hike and seen the price of groceries go up 500%. that statistic is meaningless to that person.
that is not a "perception", that is a fact and it is a fact that the stats being thrown around do not and cannot capture at all.
i think i can convince most people of the basic truth of this, that the standard economic stats used are for investors and not workers and have no relevance to real people (even these so-called real wages, which are skewed by high income earners and would by the definition of what is being measured be skewed the most during periods of inflation, as high income earners would tend to benefit from inflation, as they get the profits from the higher profits, either directly through ownership or via investments like shares). stiglitz really is a really good source on this.
i was able to find an article at brookings that examines this issue, for popular consumption:
using this far more real statistic,
median real wages adjusted for inflation to 2023 dollars in q1 2021: $1136
median real wages adjusted for inflation to 2023 dollars in q4 2023: $1130
that is a decrease of $6 from biden's inauguration until the end of 2023, and then you need to factor in interest rates.
so, that's the actual empirical reality: the statistics you see on msnbc are propaganda, just like the stats you see on fox news. if you ask some more honest people, they'll present a different picture to you.
if we can agree that the cost of living right now is difficult, and that "the economy" is not working for normal people, how then do we get to the logical conclusion that trump is the better option?
the answer is that you don't, it's just advertising. maybe the advertising doesn't work as well when people aren't struggling, but it's just advertising. most people don't know how to write policies to better their material conditions and would not have an informed opinion if given a direct vote.
what they know is:
1. right now, this objectively and empirically sucks.
2. the tv says republicans are better for the economy.
3. therefore, vote republican.
you are making a mistake if you are trying to probe deeper into the thought process than this.
worse is that this record turnout data suggests that trump won because he's a tv star and there isn't anything more to it than that. republicans have figured this out: trump, arnie, reagan himself. celebrities get people off the couch, and trump got the zombies out to vote in record numbers.
the actual smart analysis is that the democrats should run an actor, like de niro or clooney. according to tarantino, clooney is washed up, so why not let him run for office himself? he'd probably win in a landslide.
they could also convert the process of picking your vp choice into a reality show like the bachelor. that would get people voting for sure.