What happened in Ohio? – Infobay

For many years, Ohio has been considered a bellwether state: with rare exceptions, whoever wins Ohio in a presidential election will win the entire nation. But in 2020, Donald Trump Ohio won by about 8 points, even then Joe Biden He led by more than 4 points in the national popular vote and, of course, won the Electoral College vote.

Then, won the 2022 Ohio Senate election J.D. VanceThose who have defended a radical ideological position may be more thorough Maga than Trump himself. And in Tuesday’s Republican primary for the Senate, Trump’s endorsement was enough of a boost Bernie MorenoThe former auto dealer, who had never held elected office, won over candidates favored by the state’s relatively moderate Republican establishment.

That’s why I’m trying to understand what happened in Ohio and what it can teach us about America’s future. My short answer is that the United States of America has become Disconnected States of Americaat different levels.

At one time, Ohio’s bellwether status can be explained by the fact that it resembled the United States in some ways. Today, no state really resembles the United States because the economic fortunes of various regions have changed dramatically. And Ohio found itself on the losing end of that deviation.

Ohio voters are expected to support politicians whose policies will help reverse this relative decline. But there is a shocking disconnect between whose side voters, especially white working-class voters, are on and the actual policies of politicians. In fact, there is a surprising disconnect between voters’ opinions about what is happening to the economy and their personal experiences. It’s vibes all the way.

OK, some facts.

A quick way to see differences in regional fortunes is to compare the per capita income of a given state with the income of a relatively wealthy state like Massachusetts. During the generational boom that followed Second World War, Ohio and Massachusetts were bound by default. However, since around 1980, there has been a relative decline in Ohio; Its income is now less than a third of that of Massachusetts.

Much of this is related to the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs. Ohio has fewer manufacturing jobs than ever, due to foreign competition, including the famous “China Shock” (A rise in Chinese imports between the late 1990s and around 2010 resulted in job losses in the manufacturing sector), although deindustrialization has increased. This is happening almost everywhere, even in Germany, where there is a huge trade surplus.

And wages for manufacturing workers in Ohio have lagged behind inflation for over 20 years. That probably has a lot to do with the decline of unions, which used to represent a quarter of Ohio’s private-sector workers but are disappearing from the scene.

More generally, the 21st century economy has favored metropolitan areas with a highly educated workforce; Ohio, with its relatively low share of college-educated adults, lags behind.

So it makes sense that Ohio voters are dissatisfied. But then again, disaffected voters might be expected to support politicians who are actually trying to address the state’s problems. The Biden administration certainly hoped that its industrial policies, which boosted manufacturing investment, would win over more blue-collar voters. Even before the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, Democrats may have expected to reap some dividend from the fact that unemployment in Ohio is now significantly lower than it was under Trump. But that doesn’t seem to have happened.

What is wrong with Trump? For the most part, he governed as a traditional right-wing Republican, trying to reverse the success of Obamacare, among other things, which greatly reduced the percentage of Ohioans without health insurance. However, Trump broke with party orthodoxy by launching a trade war with significant tariffs on some manufacturing imports.

In economic terms, the trade war failed. A new paper, whose authors include the authors of the original China Shock analysis, confirms the results of other studies that have found that Trump’s tariffs have not increased manufacturing employment. The authors go on to break down the regional effects, specifically finding that the trade war “has not provided economic support to the American heartland.”

However, they found that the trade war appeared to be a political success. Regions whose industries were protected by tariffs were more likely to vote for Trump and Republicans overall, even though the tariffs did not increase employment. This, as the authors quietly note, “is consistent with the expressed views of politics.” That is, in 2020, many working-class voters in Ohio and elsewhere saw Trump on their side, even though his policies did not help them. And if you look at some of the polls today, they refuse to give Biden credit for policies that actually help workers.

I am not making any predictions for November. The outlook for the economy has improved, although it is still somewhat depressed. So, the economy may be so good that other issues, including reproductive rights, push Biden over the top.

But it remains disturbing to see how different the opinions about politicians are from what those politicians do.

© The New York Times 2024