Ballot box amplifies American demand for economic change

“It’s the economy, stupid.”

As Americans turned out to state and local elections across the nation last month, this observation proved as true as ever. Even as Americans grow increasingly concerned with political polarization, immigration policy, intervention in foreign countries, and a host of other issues amid a historically unstable political landscape, the nation’s economy still weighed heavily on them on Nov. 4, and that anxiety continues to today. 

In an election widely viewed as a referendum on the first nine months of Donald Trump’s second presidency, the success of Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey, California, and other states across the nation suggested a souring on the president’s policies, and economic discontent was a major driver of this trend. An October ABC/Washington Post/Ipsos poll found that Trump’s approval ratings for tariffs and the economy were 33% and 37%, respectively, and 66% of American adults blame Trump for inflation “a great deal/good amount.”

Much of the frustration with Republican leadership of the economy stems from the perpetuation of an affordability crisis that many believed Trump would alleviate when he was elected last year. Social studies teacher Daniel Lewis ascribes pessimism about the economy to rising costs in a number of key areas.

“I would say cars and housing are the big ones for me,” he said. “I think housing is showing signs of slowing down, but I don’t think it’s necessarily become affordable yet. America still has a housing crisis.”

Dr. Marianne Johnson, Distinguished Professor of Economics at UW-Oshkosh, believes strong spending by the nation’s highest earners masks economic indicators like mounting job losses, lower raises than in the tight post-pandemic job market, and higher prices at the onset of the holiday shopping season.

“You have the top 20% of income households spending, and then you have the bottom 80% who are really feeling pressure, but the top 20% is driving the stock market, economic growth, the fact that planes are full and hotels are full,” she said. “On paper, things look kind of good.”

The public’s political inclinations have shifted alongside consumer sentiment. The election of Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, in New York’s mayoral election last month drew national attention. Lewis says that the label of democratic socialist may offer a benefit to candidates like Mamdani and House Representative Bernie Sanders among lower and middle income voters dissatisfied with the status quo.

“People have not been satisfied with the two-party system for the last 30-40 years, where you have one Democrat and one Republican always opposing each other,” he said. “I think if you have a term like democratic socialist that differentiates you from an ordinary Democrat, that means that maybe you’re going to do more for voters; you’re going to provide more opportunities.”

At the same time, democratic socialism carries significant connotative baggage in the U.S. because of the country’s Cold War history. Johnson distinguishes actions like state confiscation of businesses and private wealth, which may be associated with this political label, from the policies typically advocated by democratic socialists.

“It’s democratic in the sense that people get input and they vote, and it’s socialism in the sense that the government plays a much bigger role in the economy,” she said. “Soviet socialism is not so democratic, but what Mamdani wants is much more like Sweden or Finland, but not even that far.”

Throughout his campaign, Mamdani articulated a commitment to freezing the rent and providing free childcare and public transit in New York City. Achieving this policy agenda would require higher taxes, which critics have said may scare away investors and residents from the region. Mamdani hopes to impose a 2% tax on individuals earning more than $1 million annually, and his corporate tax proposal—11.5%—would match the current rate in New Jersey. Johnson points out that New York City has strong pull factors and says that there is a mixed record of how individuals react in the private market when politicians enact more progressive economic policies.

“Until the 1960s, the highest income tax rate in the United States was 90%, and we had extremely robust economic growth throughout the 1950s and the 1960s and a significant reduction in inequality. And people didn’t abandon the US to Canada,” she said. “On the other hand, there were a lot of people who did actually flee the high tax rates in England for the United States or for Canada from other places.”

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of Mamdani’s leadership in New York, policy makers have taken note of the public dissatisfaction suggested by his victory. Since the election, President Trump has floated a number of new measures aimed at addressing affordability. These include lifting tariffs on more than 200 food products, including coffee and beef; suggesting vague $2000 “tariff-dividend” payments to all Americans except the highest income earners; and proposing 50-year mortgages to reduce the up-front cost of purchasing a home. Some of the president’s earlier moves to support American businesses and consumers, such as the acquisition of a 10% share in Intel and the opening of savings accounts with a $1,000 federal seed deposit for all newborn babies, mark a divergence from the free market ideals espoused by Republicans in the past.

According to Lewis, recent policy proposals on both sides of the aisle both involve the government stepping in to bolster the economy, though the shape of that support reflects philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans.

“If President Trump sends out checks to the American citizens, they’ll turn around and use that as consumption, so they’ll buy products from other businesses that will help the businesses bottom line grow and hire more workers,” he said. “What the Democrats are planning on doing is to provide more of your basic needs. That’s going to maybe eliminate some of the competition and could possibly drive up prices, but if your basic needs are met, then you can use the money from your job to buy consumption stuff. I think they’re both trying to get people to consume more in the American economy to help it grow.”

by Aria Boehler

Published December 1, 2025

Oshkosh West Index Volume 122 Issue III