The economic strategy led by Joe Biden is posing a significant threat to Kamala Harris’ chances of obtaining Pennsylvania, according to recent polling. In a pivotal swing state like Pennsylvania, the poll conducted earlier this week suggests an advantage for Donald Trump over Harris by a slim margin of two points, largely due to fears regarding the state of the economy. Interestingly, while many voters may hold general alignment with Democratic economic views, Biden’s policies receive the lion’s share of blame for the escalating cost of living. Trust in Trump is greater to manage inflation and stimulate economic expansion, contrasted starkly with Harris’s failing campaign promises.
Harris’s efforts to sell voters in crucial states on her ability to handle the cost of living after four years in public office have been, bluntly, lackluster. The government data indicate a decrease in inflation to 2.4 percent, yet elevated prices persist, a leftover from an inflation peak at 9.1 percent in June 2022. Data provided by Redfield & Wilton Strategies, drawn from a polled sampling of 794 individuals, revealed that Biden’s economic mishandlings have severely undermined Harris’ campaign.
Pennsylvania holds a key role as a swing state, providing a strategic opportunity for either candidate to inch towards the 270 electoral college votes necessary for presidency. The state, like many battleground regions, is under economic strain due to inflation. Predominantly, voters’ worries about the economy make a significant impact on electoral decisions. Half of those polled indicated that they perceived a decline in their personal financial situation over the prior year.
As election day looms, voters consider one central question: Are they financially better off today than four years ago? This economy-centered focus is shared by a massive 45 percent of voters, making it the top issue driving their electoral decisions, followed distantly by non-economic issues such as abortion, supported by 19 percent of voters.
While there appears to be an overall bias for Democratic economic views among Pennsylvania’s electorate, with 50 percent favoring such policies, a close 46 percent preferred Republican views on economy. Despite this near split, when policies are ascribed directly to Harris and Trump, more voters lean towards Trump’s stance. The Republican pulls ahead of Harris on subjects such as economy, inflation, immigration, crime, and defense policy. Harris, meanwhile, only seemed to lead on inconsequential issues such as abortion, healthcare, environment, and the rule of law in the eyes of voters.
The general mistrust towards Harris’s economic policy largely seems to stem from public rejection of the Biden administration, in which she has remained a significant entity for nearly four years. When asked about the primary cause for high living costs, a staggering 37 percent of voters implicated Biden’s policies. Nearly half of these voters believed that under Trump’s administration, living costs would not have surged to the same degree.
An additional 37 percent of respondents speculated that even a Trump presidency wouldn’t have halted the inflationary trends we’ve seen. These numbers sketch an unimpressive picture for Harris in the face of the impending Nov 5 election, where voters have clearly articulated that their vote will be significantly influenced by economic concerns.
Interestingly enough, some Pennsylvania voters also directed blame towards companies’ price gouging for the high prices. Leaning into this, Harris has strongly pledged to prohibit this practice at a federal level if elected. But despite 74 percent of voters relating the inflation at least partially to Biden’s policies, a whopping 90 percent place blame on corporations.
Price increases, particularly in grocery items, have forced more than half of those polled to cut back on expenditures in the last four years. It is also worth noting that the greatest reservations amongst the electoral body are reservations towards groceries, an area where the majority of respondents claim to have been compelled to reduce their consumption over the past four years.
The bleak outlook for Harris can largely be attributed to the doubts concerning her economic strategy, heightened by the long shadow of the Biden administration’s unsuccessful economic policies. Persistent inflation and cost of living increases under Biden’s rule have provoked skepticism about a similar governance under Harris. This negativity, fueled by blinking economic indicators and everyday hardships endured by everyday citizens, does not bode well for a Harris presidency.
The preferences of Pennsylvania voters seem to be driven more by their disdain for Biden’s economic policy than their actual support of Trump’s strategies. While Harris, being closely associated with the Biden administration, naturally incurs collateral damage, Trump emerges superior – not by virtue of his own merits, but by the failing policies of his rivals.
This recent survey, serving as an essential barometer of public sentiment, casts Harris in a less-than-favorable light. The overriding concern about enlarged living costs under Biden’s rule is another setback Harris must deal with in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. Biden’s economic record, utterly disappointing, can potentially dissipate any hopes of a Harris victory.
Pennsylvania voters, in their collective wisdom, have seemed to discern the apparent link between the Democratic administration’s policies and their escalating living costs. Will they choose to reward or punish this link in the upcoming election remains to be seen, but, for now, they appear to be skeptical at best about a Harris win.
In summary, Biden’s economic policies have done Harris no favors in her campaign. Instead, these policies perpetuate economic worries among voters who foresee no substantive betterment under a similarly aligned administration. The odds are seemingly stacked against Harris as election day nears, with Pennsylvania voters leaning more towards the Republican outlook and Trump’s strategic leadership. The Biden effect may continue to sway voter sentiment leading up to the voting booth.