The Inflation Election
Elections are decided by how people feel, and lots of Americans still feel pretty grumpy about how much it costs to go to the grocery store these days.

In retrospect, the most important incident along the road to this Election Day may not have been the Democratic Party's decision to shove aside President Joe Biden, or the unprecedented (and undemocratic) elevation of Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the ticket. It wasn't the Republican Party's inability to break out of the thrall that Donald Trump holds over it, or the two assassination attempts aimed at him.
The thing that most shaped this election happened long before all that. It was a decision made in the early days of the Biden administration. With the last election barely in the rearview window, Biden pushed a major stimulus bill through Congress—a bill that spent $1.9 trillion, nearly all of it borrowed—despite warning signs that the already recovering economy might not be able to handle the full-throttle infusion of more dollars.
"Now is the time for big, bold action to change the course of the pandemic and begin economic recovery," Biden promised. Bloomberg termed it a "big bet on run-it-hot economics," and noted that the White House had "shrugged off warnings that the economy may overheat as a result."
It was a wager that didn't pay off the way the White House had hoped.
A year later, inflation had surged to over 9 percent, its highest level in 40 years. As I've written before, that fact undersells the historical context: Before 2021, the last full year in which America experienced an average inflation rate of more than 4 percent was 1991. There was only a single year (2008) from then through 2020 when the annual inflation rate exceeded 3 percent. In other words, peak inflation in the first half of 2022 was two to three times worse than the worst bout of inflation that most Americans could easily recall.
For those of us who follow political and economic news for a living—or even as a serious hobby—all of this probably feels like, well, old news. Prices have been rising at a much more normal pace for the past year or more. In September, the annualized inflation rate was 2.4 percent. Higher than the prepandemic norm, but nothing that should cause an electoral freak-out.
But the average voter isn't a political or economics junkie, and much of America sees 2024 as the inflation election: a referendum on the federal policies that caused that brief and horrific surge in prices. (That causation is well established by now: A study by the St. Louis Federal Reserve found that "domestic stimulus" played a "sizable role" in driving inflation to 40-year highs.)
An Ipsos poll in August found that 50 percent of voters said inflation was their top concern heading into the election. In October, Gallup found that 90 percent of voters rated "the economy" as being "extremely important" or "very important" to their vote—the highest it has scored since the 2008 election in the depths of the mortgage crisis. Polling guru Nate Silver crunched the numbers further and found a stunning correlation: "Each additional $100 of inflation in a state since January 2021 predicts a further 1.6 swing against Harris in our polling average vs. the Biden-Trump margin in 2020," he posted on X last week.
It's been impossible for the Biden-and-then-Harris ticket to escape the inflation issue for two reasons. First, Harris has been unwilling or unable to distance herself from the Biden administration. And, second, because the Biden White House made economic policy so central to its message for three years—even coming up with the counterproductive "Bidenomics" slogan.
"Bidenomics was, at heart, a philosophy of throwing money at programs, people, political allies, and favored constituencies. That spending contributed directly and significantly to the rapid rise in inflation that helped fuel voter dissatisfaction with the state of affairs," Reason's Peter Suderman summarized in a March 2024 cover story. "Thanks to misallocation, poor implementation, and self-contradictory regulatory requirements, the substantive public payoffs to that spending have been weak at best and counterproductive at worst."
Of course, there are logical counterpoints to the feelings voters have about inflation ahead of Election Day. For example, wages have gone up faster than prices. Moody's estimates that the average American household is now spending $1,120 more per month to buy the same goods and services as in January 2021, but is also earning $1,192 more per month. Some products have even defied inflation: Plane tickets are cheaper now than they were before the pandemic, as liberal commentator Matt Yglesias pointed out this week.
It's also true that former President Donald Trump's economic agenda seems likely to cause prices to rise. Mass deportations and huge new tariffs will cause all sorts of economic disruptions and will make Americans poorer. It seems bizarre that voters seeking a stable economy after the past four years would put their trust in an erratic populist, but if this election season has proven anything, it's that humans get pretty irrational about inflation. In part, that's because our brains attribute economic gains to our own accomplishments but look for someone (or something) else to blame when things go the other way. In other words, your paycheck got fatter because you worked harder, but your groceries got more expensive because Biden (or the big corporations) are out to get you.
Of course, that's not true—both things happened for the same reason—but inflation breaks our brains and Election Day is not a time for deep thinking about political science or psychology. Elections are decided by how people feel, and lots of Americans still feel pretty grumpy about how much it costs to go to the grocery store these days. It's really that simple.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You know, Boehm, back in 2016 you and a bunch of journo-lists predicted an endless Parade of Horribles if Orange Man Bad was elected. You and the rest of them were totally wrong.
Why are you any more right today than you were then?
What have YOU learned since 2016?
Trump was hampered during his last term by disloyal appointees who respected the law and the Constitution. If he's elected again he will be surrounded by loyal followers who don't give two shits about the law or the Constitution. So he could get a lot more done this time.
Is this you pretending The Resistance were the true heros. Unelected bureaucracy?
Good times sarc.
It is funny how you say he doesn't respect the constitution when he refused to use covid powers states asked him to.
It is funny how you pretend any Democrat gives one shit about the constitution.
You're broken. You're a Democrat. You're ignorant.
This is your response to Trump's economy vs Bidenomics?
Parade of Horribles
Examples, even anecdotes?
Trump's biggest mistake was listening to fake conservatives like McConnell, and once Trump lost in 2020, you could see who was really on his side and who wasn't like Graham, Ryan, Graham, etc.
Seems to me that Constitution said something about enumerated powers which the EPA (Trump Cut) doesn't have while the Department of Defense (Trump Added to) does have. Seems it also said something that wasn't a power of the 'Fed' should be left to the 'State' something Trump did exactly as so a couple times.
Seems to me Biden and Democrats on the other hand did the exact opposite.
Maybe Trump isn't a Constitutional Champion but there isn't a reasonable doubt he's MUCH MORE SO than Democrats.
Counterpoint.
https://reason.com/2023/05/16/for-6-5-million-durham-report-finds-fbi-didnt-have-solid-dirt-on-trump-and-russia/
They have learned nothing.
.
Boehm et al are not practical people. They are theorists who conceptualize and proselytize.
.
If real world data contradicts their theories, the data is wrong, or not properly understood, or insufficient to show how right they are.
.
They will happily watch society crash and burn rather than reconsider the validity of their theories.
It's as if you are describing communists. Half of Ukraine died of starvation? Well they just didn't communist sincerely enough.
"They have learned nothing." <-------------- THAT!!!!!
Makes a person wonder why the US fought a Revolutionary War and claimed Independence in the first place. 200-years later and the Gov-Gun THEFT gang is dictating and stealing 500% worse than the British monarchy.
There is NO US Constitutional provision for 'armed-theft' wealth distribution.
Is it time for the “Fight for $50” crowd to start?
If Kamala pulls off the steal, immediately stock up on non-perishables for an EO capping prices in response to Biden-Harris inflation is going to lead to shortages.
I don't look forward to waiting in line at the store before it opens to buy my single allotted portion of meat.
They may offer squirrel meat during the next round of pet confiscation.
Better keep your dogs and cats inside. I might be out shopping.
Springfield, huh?
Bringing a little Springfield to everyone.
LOL, like you are going to be allotted any meat.
Like stores will be open!
Tom’s Gynoplasty will still be open. Enter through the front or rear.
My portion of bugs?
" Bread lines are good, because that means people are getting food."
Then mayor of Burlington Bernie Sanders
Ever notice that the "smartest guy in the room" is so often a total narcissistic imbecile? That's most of our government.
It means they are spending time together.
Meat flavored crickets most likely.
What is this "meat flavoring" of which you glibly speak?
Anyone who says otherwise is guilty of spreading misinformation.
The wages you describe as increased are not evenly distributed across the economy. As a result MOST people did not see those increases.
.
Further, the cost increases (as you acknowledge) are not evenly distributed. Those cost increases are heavily concentrated in what most people see as basic goods (think eggs).
.
This means that working Americans, those paid hourly for example, saw a larger inflation impact on costs and a lower inflation impact on incomes. This double-whammy has people (including me) pissed off.
.
Your desire to somehow dismiss inflation’s impact on mainstream America (but wages are up!) just pisses us off more.
These are such basic, known facts that any writer refusing to acknowledge them would have to be A) a liar, B) economically illiterate, or C) reluctantly and strategically retarded.
Boehm is all three. Still hard to believe a "libertarian magazine" is pulling this shit. The Fed's "preferred measure of inflation" is PCE core which is up 2.7% yoy and the rise is accelerated to 0.3% month over month. The economic reporting on inflation always points to whatever gauge indicates the most positive result , including or excluding components as needed to minimize inflation.
I can't believe so many people are still believing their lying eyes, ears and wallets.
All this fuss about a 10¢ increase in spittin terbackey?
Good point.
I had completely forgotten how inflation spiked dramatically in Trump's first term because of tariffs.
"For example, wages have gone up faster than prices."
Maybe for followers of Moody's estimates - - - -
On the other hand -
Since the beginning of the post-pandemic inflation surge in Jan. 1, 2021, prices have risen 20.0 percent, compared with a 17.4 percent increase in wages over the same period, Bankrate’s second-annual Wage To Inflation Index found.
https://www.bankrate.com/banking/federal-reserve/wage-to-inflation-index/#bankrate-s-2024-wage-to-inflation-index
Who the heck saw a 17% increase in wages?
I got a 30% due to promotion. But average annual is less than that for company.
Let's see now.
Who shall I vote for?
A candidate who supported the halt of offshore drilling and not allowing an oil and gas pipeline to be continue let a necessary commodity to be produced so inflation wouldn't raise its ugly head, or a candidate that will allow more offshore drilling and open up the pipelines again to at least curb inflation a little bit?
Gee, that's a tough one.
I guess I'll just have to flip a coin.
Flip it strategically and reluctantly.
>>Elections are decided by how people feel
if the People lose this one elections will be decided by whether 100% or only 99% of the vote went to each candidate.
"Elections are decided by how people feel,"
Yeah, and most of those identify as liberal urban dwelling Democrats, with a noticeable female demographic. White women for Kamala, because, there!
[no women were harmed by this message]
Pity.
Words are not violence, so sayeth the Enlightenment.
is the severity of the words, not the words themselves.
People frequently confuse the current inflation rate with the current price levels. The fact that current inflation RATES are more normal than they were at their height a couple of years ago is does not confuse people who are still paying prices that are still ten to twenty percent higher than they were before the "brief" period of high inflation RATES. Add to that the persistent "supply chain" problems and shortages and you get the current level of voter animus.
So Boehm.......
How come Venezuela's paychecks didn't fatten to fit the bill?
Good grief. A Libertarian journalist telling everyone their socialist economic concerns are just "emotional". Sometimes I swear Reason got a grant from the Nazi-Empire to indoctrinate.
“Moody’s estimates that the average American household is now spending $1,120 more per month to buy the same goods and services as in January 2021, but is also earning $1,192 more per month.”
TL-DR this is cherry picking. The broad trend is that people are making less today than they did the final year of Trump's presidency due to inflation.
I have now seen this type of post dozens of times- at least twice at Reason. The general tenor is questioning why it is that those dumb Americans don't realize that inflation wasn't as bad as they think. It is yet another of those "Don't Believe your Lying Eyes" arguments that Reason makes whenever the popular zeitgeist seems to benefit anti-establishment candidates. They did this for crime in San Francisco, crime in general, and now inflation.
Moody's makes it very difficult to find their methodology, because they hide most of that stuff behind a paywall. So let's look at some other data:
go to dqydj(DOT)com/household-income-by-year/
Inflation-adjusted income in 2020 was $116,739 (in 2024 dollars). Average income for households this year (which is obviously an estimate) is $114,395.
Of course, if you cherry pick 2023 ($108k) it appears that people are doing better. But they are not doing better compared to 2020 before the inflation spike began. People aren't mis-remembering or over-emphasizing the pain. They are living with a reality that the past 4 years they have done worse and continue to do worse than before Biden got into office.
And note that is the AVERAGE- if you were an average earner, you were actually in the 65th percentile. The 50th percentile watched their income drop from $81.5k (2020) to $75.5K in 2023- a 7.4% drop over 4 years! Assuming the estimates for 2024 are correct, they will have only rebounded to $80,000.
And I would just add a bunch of other confounding factors:
1) We do not know Moody's methodology, so we cannot be sure if this "Income" is including non-dollar contributions. So, for example, if they include Health Insurance in their income levels (not uncommon on some data-sets), then it is plausible that people are actually pocketing less money, because their corporation is paying more for health insurance (and that almost always rises faster than inflation).
2) Wages are sticky. So while there might be many people who changed jobs or got a raise, still many others are sitting in old jobs that received little or no raise for the past few years. All those people aren't imagining tighter budgets, they are living it.
3) Boehm's numbers are not necessary telling us what people have experienced. He compares January 2021 to November 2024, and says HEY LOOK, $72 more per month. But people just went 3 years with wages NOT keeping up with inflation. If I lost money in the 36 months prior, I shouldn't be forgiving Biden just because this month I am doing as good as I was when he started.
"Elections are decided by how people feel, and lots of Americans still feel pretty grumpy about how much it costs to go to the grocery store these days."
Perhaps leakin' Joe and Cackles might have had something to do with that...
Unmentioned in the article is that Harris is on TV every commercial break blaming "corporate greed" for inflation and promising price controls to remedy it.
What could go wrong with economic illiterates running the country? If only we gave them more power surely everything would work out.
Like the Holodomor.