Donald Trump’s whirlwind return to office has seen him take a number of dramatic actions that are putting the nation’s economy in danger. Government layoffs, broad tariffs and other tariff threats, as well as immigration roundups have created an unsettling economic outlook for the United States. These policies are causing immediate economic distress for some Americans and putting others at risk for the same.
In a new article published in The Forum, we explore whether voters still hold presidents accountable for their personal financial circumstances. While political science research traditionally shows that perceptions of the national economy matter more than individual experiences, rising polarization complicates this dynamic. Republicans think the national economy is terrible when a Democrat is in charge and great when their party holds power. And Democrats do the same thing in reverse. What does it mean when partisan voters see what they want to see in the national economy? Our research suggests that looking at personal financial circumstances may tell us more about how economic conditions really influence voting.
Our analysis of the two most recent presidential elections (2020 and 2024) reveals that voters’ personal economic circumstances still influence how they vote. Using data from the Cooperative Election Study, we found that in presidential elections, economically vulnerable independent voters consistently tend to vote against the incumbent in the White House. Partisan voters, in contrast, only vote against their party’s incumbent president under severe economic shocks like job losses or pay cuts. But do these penalties extend to midterm elections? If Americans suffer pay cuts and job losses over the next two years, will Republican candidates pay the price in 2026?
Even co-partisans punish incumbents when they suffer severe economic distress
To explore whether voters punish incumbents for their own personal economic hardships, we focused on two major economic shocks – job losses and pay cuts – while controlling for other economic hardships.
In presidential elections, economically vulnerable circumstances do drive significant anti-incumbent voting. But we found that voting patterns differ markedly across partisan lines. In 2020, Republicans who experienced a pay cut or a job loss during the last year of Trump’s presidency were about 3.5 points more likely to vote for Joe Biden over the incumbent Trump. Democrats’ vote choices, however, remained largely unaffected by economic hardship, likely because they were already disinclined to consider voting for Trump. This was not merely due to the covid-19 economic disruptions, as the pattern continues in 2024.
Thus, in 2024, as this first figure shows, we see similar effects among Democratic voters. Democrats who faced a pay cut or job loss in the last year of Biden’s term were about 3 points less likely to support Kamala Harris, the incumbent vice president. Clearly, even in the current highly polarized era, severe economic shocks do prompt some partisan voters to cross party lines.
Even more, in 2020, independents who did not report any financial hardships gave 55% of their votes to Biden, while those experiencing multiple vulnerabilities increased their Democratic support to 71% – a striking 16-point swing against the incumbent Trump. This pattern reversed in 2024, with Harris’ support dropping from 54% among independents who weren’t suffering from hardships to just 32% among the most economically vulnerable independents – an even more significant 22-point decline.
Overall, general economic hardship has a strong influence on whether independents support the presidential incumbent. However, for members of the president’s party, only the most severe economic shocks cause them to consider voting against their party’s incumbent.
What happens during midterm elections?
While our article focused only on how people cast their presidential vote, the more recent economic uncertainty raises the question of whether the patterns we found might extend to midterm elections. The next figure shows how this played out in the 2018 midterm election during Trump’s first term. Specifically, this shows the effect of suffering a job loss in the past year on the probability of voting for the Republican House candidate in 2018, as we did not ask about experiencing a pay cut that year. The pattern is mostly consistent with what we find in presidential elections.
In 2018, Republicans experiencing a job loss were 2.5 percentage points less likely to support their party’s House candidates, while independents in the same boat showed an even more dramatic 6.5-point decrease. Because they were already so disinclined to vote for Republican House candidates, severe economic hardship only had a small effect for Democrats.
Here’s what this suggests for the 2026 midterms
Trump’s current economic policies create a perfect storm of conditions that could prove particularly damaging for GOP congressional candidates in 2026. Two factors make this situation uniquely consequential:
1. The scale of economic impact.
Trump is implementing tariffs in an erratic way, making it difficult to project their ultimate effects. But some estimates suggest the policies could function as one of the most significant tax increases in decades, costing the average household over $800 annually and potentially eliminating 330,000 jobs nationwide. These broad economic effects will touch voters across partisan lines.
2. The ability of voters to attribute the cause of economic upheaval.
Unlike typical economic downturns with complex or even global causes, the current wave of job losses has a clear source in specific Trump administration decisions. Federal workforce reductions across the Department of Defense (5,400 probationary employees cut), U.S. Veterans Affairs Department (over 1,000 employees cut), and the National Park Service (approximately 1,000 employees cut), along with cuts at several other agencies, create a direct line of accountability to the White House.
This combination – widespread economic impact and clear attribution – creates precisely the conditions that our research shows drive voters away from the president’s party in midterm elections.
Fear, uncertainty, and recession may guide voters next year
If the Trump administration hopes to preserve Republican congressional majorities in 2026, our research points to a simple imperative: Stop the widespread layoffs and avoid policies that could lead the economy to spiral into a recession. The data consistently show that job losses create the most significant electoral penalties, driving even loyal partisans to vote against their party’s congressional candidates.
One potential question is whether Republicans will embraceTrump’s ideological projects – like the notion of projecting strength through tariffs, or the goal of shrinking the U.S. government. Would this make GOP voters more tolerant of personal economic hardship than they would be if job losses came from global economic forces beyond their party’s control?
Nobody can answer this question in 2025, but even ideological alignment has its limits. Trump’s current strategy of federal workforce reductions and tariffs may satisfy certain ideological goals, but his policies are creating the exact economic conditions most likely to trigger voter backlash. And since Trump will not be on the ballot in November 2026, it is congressional Republicans who are likely to discover how unhappy constituents vote.
Caroline Soler is a recent graduate of Tufts University, majoring in political science and mathematics, and is currently a research associate for the Cooperative Election Study.
Brian Schaffner is the Newhouse Professor of Civic Studies in the Department of Political Science and Tisch College at Tufts University. He also serves as a co-director for the Cooperative Election Study.
