-Edited & Reviewed by Samuel Lee & Declan Browne
In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s poll defying victory in the US election, the first thing that came to mind is its similarities with the UK election, and why they turned out differently. Both elections operated on first past the post voting and the warring parties bore striking resemblances – a centre-left wing party (Democrats, Labour) facing a right-wing party (Republican, Conservatives). Before continuing, it is important to acknowledge that the Democratic party would not be considered a centre-left political party in UK politics, most in the UK being inclined to label them a centrist/centre-right party. Considering this Overton window, it is important to clarify that I refer to them as centre-left in the context of US politics, not politics in general. Similarly, the same applies for the Republican party which would be considered a far-right party in UK politics.
In both cases, neither side of the political spectrum was willing to take a strong pro-Palestine stance. Predictably, this led to Muslim voters condemning the centre-left parties, who they traditionally voted for, in both cases. In the US, the Democrats faced heckling from enraged pro-Palestine supporters,[1] whilst the Labour party in opposition faced rebellions from its own MPs on its Gaza stance.[2] Consequently, in their respective elections, these parties faced challenges from the left who promised to deliver on the stronger pro-Palestine stance that Muslim voters desired – the US Green party’s Jill Stein and multiple UK independent candidates.
As seen, both center left parties argued that voting for them would prevent the right from coming into power. This messaging emphasized a criticism of the opposition rather than advocacy for their policies. Using Meta’s ad library, a tool to explore advertisement data across Meta platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, Bellingcat was able to deduce that leading up to the US election, Harris’ campaign mentioned the phrase “Donald Trump” more than they did “Kamala Harris” in their Facebook and Instagram advertisements. Using the same tool, I discovered that from the announcement of the UK election, 22/05/24, to election day, 04/07/24, Labour official accounts posted 14,000 total advertisements. 2,100 ads, more than a seventh, mentioned the keyword ‘Tories’, repeating slogans such as “Don’t risk the Tories winning”. Though not as egregious as the Harris campaign, a significant portion of the Labour campaign still focused on opposing the Conservatives rather than advocating for themselves.
Finally, both elections occurred in the same year, with inflation and the economy thus being a key issue in each one. In the US election, 81% of voters said the economy was a very important issue for them[3] whilst in the UK election, 33% and 29% said the economy and inflation were, respectively, the most important issues for them.[4] After Trump’s victory, Starmer congratulated him on his “historic election victory,” one decisive winner acknowledging another. Yet, these victors sit at opposite ends of the political spectrum, their differences masked by the shared impression of a comfortable win. In the UK it was their centre-left, Labour, who took home the spoils whilst in the US it was their right, the Republicans, who enjoyed the same. So how could such mirrored elections lead to almost reversed results?
Whilst one may simply claim that the Conservatives were in a far more precarious position pre-election than the Republicans, which is true. However, this remains an insufficient explanation as to how the Republicans performed so much stronger, winning, rather than losing, decisively. One reason for this comparatively strong performance was the lack of a significant harder right party in the US to divert votes from the Republicans. Conversely, many votes were diverted from the Conservatives towards Reform UK, a further right party, which earned 14.3% of the vote in 3rd place. A stunning example of how Reform UK impacted the Conservatives is the constituency of Southwest Norfolk, where former PM Liz Truss lost her seat to Labour by 630 votes whilst Reform UK almost won 10,000. Conversely, in the US, the only equivalents to Reform UK were Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who endorsed Trump,[5] and perhaps the Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, both of whom earned less than 0.5% of the nationwide vote. It appears a key difference is that Trump commanded the entire right wing of the US, whilst Sunak only commanded a more moderate portion of it. This is due to the far more bipolar political climate in the US, in which only 1 presidential candidate can win.
Arguably, the most significant factor in the differing results is the role of incumbents. The Conservatives were defending their seat in government, whilst the Democrats were the ones defending the same party in government. Though the Democrats were fielding a different candidate, Harris, instead of ‘reusing’ Biden, Harris was seen as a continuation of Biden by most of the public. Not only are they in the same party but Harris was a vice-president in Biden’s administration. Additionally, in an ABC interview she responded to a question on what she would have done differently from Biden with: "Not a thing comes to mind."[6] Now that we’ve established different political wings played the role of incumbent in these elections, it’s important to discuss the significance of this.
Typically, incumbents are favoured in seeking re-election, except when a recession has recently occurred.[7] The cost-of-living crisis had a significant part to play in Sunak’s defeat, and though there was no official recession before the US election, inflation remained relatively high – high enough for 81% of the electorate to label it a very important issue, as aforementioned. During this inflationary period beginning in 2022, other incumbents all over the world also struggled due to global inflation, such as Brazil’s Bolsonaro and Australia’s Scott Morrison.[8] While it is common to say in political analysis that incumbents do worse when the economy is worse, its dullness does nothing to diminish its significance.
Additionally, incumbency likely affected the success of the centre-left’s campaign strategies. As aforementioned, both the Democrats and Labour defined themselves in opposition to the right. However, I’d argue Labour had more success with this strategy as the memory of the Tory government was much fresher in people’s minds, being the incumbent party. Whereas in the US, it didn’t work nearly as well as Trump’s administration had occurred four years prior. Defining yourself in opposition to a party makes less sense when the memory of said party is not as recent. This is due to people not remembering why they should fear said party winning the election. Additionally, every election is to a degree a consensus of whether people are satisfied with the incumbent government’s progress. Arguably, Harris would have been better served defending the Biden administration and promoting its successes.
Another way that incumbents suffered in the US and UK elections was the issue of Palestine. Though in the US election neither Harris nor Trump held pro-Palestine positions, it was Harris who fared worse among Muslims in the US. The Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported in an exit poll that 21.4% of Muslims voted for Trump, 20.3% voted for Harris and 53.2% voted for Jill Stein.[9] Similarly, the Arab American institute polled the Arab vote at 42% for Trump, 41% for Harris and 12% for independents.[10] Though Trump only leads slightly in both polls, it’s a startling result, considering that in the previous 2020 US election, Biden garnered 86% of the Muslim American vote compared to 6% for Trump.[11] This translates to the Democrats losing 76.3% (-65.7%) of their share, whilst Republicans increased their share by 360%.
Similarly, in the UK, the incumbent Sunak won 12% of the British Muslim vote whilst Starmer won 63%. Though the Conservative party has historically not done well with Muslim voters, it marked a 36.8% drop (-7%) in their share, whilst Labour only suffered a 1.5% drop (-1%).[12] Of course, the situations were not identical as Labour had eventually pursued a ceasefire, though their initial refusal to do so, alongside not supporting a full ceasefire, already dented their support among Muslim voters. This seems to support the argument that in a situation where the Muslim electorate is forced to choose between two unsatisfactory options, the incumbent tends to suffer more than the opposition.
To further evidence this point, it’s worth including a similar situation into the conversation. The 2004 US election occurred amidst the US invasion of Iraq, Republican candidate Bush and Democratic candidate Kerry both supporting the War on Terror. 93% of Muslim Americans voted for Kerry[13], an extreme shift from 72% voting for Bush in the 2000 US election.[14] Though this was primarily done out of civil liberty concerns, the invasion of Iraq was also an important issue. The election plan of the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT), a coalition of 10 national Muslim organizations, was supported by 81% of Muslim Americans, and it emphasized “global peace with justice, prevention of war, and U.S. relations with the Muslim world.”[15] What is the explanation for this phenomenon? There is some plausibility in the UK, with Starmer’s policies being more pro-Palestine than Sunak’s, for Muslims voting against the incumbent Conservatives. However, it initially makes little sense in the context of US politics where Trump has had a more pro-Israel record than Harris.
Many switched their vote to Trump because they saw it as a gamble. For example, in an interview with Al Jazeera, an Arab American voter said “Even if he will continue this genocide at a 99 percent chance, I’m going to take that 1 percent chance that he’s going to stop it, as opposed to the 100 percent chance that it’s going to continue under Harris.”[16] As seen, it appears that the incumbents suffered worse as it’s under them that the situation occurred. Though the Muslim vote was not crucial to either election, Michigan being the only swing state with a concentration of Muslim Americans and Labour winning the non-Muslim dominated red wall and North-East of England, it’s interesting to study this phenomenon. Furthermore, an interesting future study could be whether it applies to other electorates (e.g. Asian Americans and the Vietnam War).
In conclusion, there are multiple factors that can impact whether an incumbent party is favoured or not to win re-election. Outlets such as the Financial Times have decreed 2024 a “graveyard of incumbents,” noting how issues relating to economics and immigration have impacted incumbents across the world. Whilst these factors, especially the economy, are well-documented and significant, no effort has been made to analyse the relationship between Palestine and its adverse impact on incumbents. An analysis of this relationship highlights a more general phenomenon - when both political parties have similarly unsatisfactory policies, it tends to harm the incumbent party more among affected voters. Furthermore, the elections suggest that certain campaign strategies perform better in certain political situations. Thus, the Democrats lost when Labour won due to their respective roles of incumbent/opposition, the political situation favouring the latter in both cases.
[1]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/08/08/kamala-harris-scolds-anti-israel-hecklers-detroit-rally/ [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67432393
[4]
[5]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/23/robert-f-kennedy-jr-drops-out-endorses-trump [6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr4l5j2v9do
[7]
[8] As pointed out by TLDR News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EBG5762DuQ&t=468s
[9]
[10] https://www.aaiusa.org/s/YallaVote-poll241002-ffrc.pdf, I’m aware that not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs, but this is still useful to reinforce the CAIR poll.
[12]
[13]
[15]
[16]