top of page

Affordability: Driving Decisions on the Ballot 

Minji Choi
Aug 31
6 min read

Affordability: Driving Decisions on the Ballot 

In June and July of 2023, the White House embraced “Bidenomics,” insisting that its economic program was producing stable growth and easing inflation (Potts; Popli). From an empirical standpoint, this assertion did have some merit, as unemployment remained low and inflation was stabilizing while the entire world was dealing with unique global inflation from the fallout of the pandemic (Potts). Yet for many Americans, that message was unfelt as their grocery totals at the checkout counter were still not coming down (Popli). The discrepancy between government economic indicators and economic belief had begun to widen, and many voters came to see politicians as more committed to defending the economy on paper rather than in practice. By the time of the 2024 presidential election, previous president Donald Trump returned to the campaign trail with newly powerful messaging such as “Starting on day one, we will end inflation” while reviving his old slogan of “America First” (Hutzler). Americans were compelled, and ultimately re-voted him into office. 


In the United States, the term “economy” no longer refers only to the labor market or GDP strength; it increasingly means affordability. It represents the hope that ordinary people might finally stop relying on installment plans and “buy now, pay later” services just to keep up with the cost of living. Therefore, with the 2026 midterm elections fast approaching, candidates must focus on the “micro” of economics—those indicators that are felt more tangibly for everyday Americans—rather than “macro” foreign policies. This focus on the economy is essential and will likely determine which party wins the majority of seats during the midterms. The notion that Americans are more concerned about the economy in inflationary terms is apparent when analysing recent voting patterns. Strangely, Trump-backed candidates have been underperforming in states that usually vote red. The Associated Press (AP) reported that in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, Trump-endorsed Republican Clay Fuller failed to win a majority and was pushed into a runoff despite the district’s conservative tilt (Amy). In Texas, Democrat Taylor Rehmet flipped a state Senate district that Trump had won by 17 points in 2024 (Hanna). AP also noted that Democrat James Andrew Malone captured a state Senate seat in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania—a district which had not elected a Democratic candidate in 136 years (Scolforo and Levy). Such Republican upsets are too frequent to be brushed off as isolated incidents. Even when Trump was convicted of felonies or implicated in political scandals, he still had widespread support from his voter base. He was able to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris by a whopping 86-point margin in the Electoral College, and even gained a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (“2024 Presidential Election”; Lindsay). The dichotomy of these recent voting patterns reveals a striking twist: voters are willing to absorb controversy, but are unwilling to absorb today’s higher cost of living. The economy has become a threshold of what Americans want to see improved in their country more than possibly any other factor. 


Considering these recent trends, affordability may be replacing tradition as the driving force behind individual political ideology in the United States. For much of American history, party loyalty was often the main indicator of how an individual would vote in an election. But as identities even within the parties have shifted, voters have begun asking: Should I vote for the same party as I have in the past, or should I vote for the candidate who will lower my grocery bills? It is this fascinating dilemma that helps explain the rise of younger political figures, particularly in expensive cities. One of the clearest examples of this phenomenon is Democratic politician Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York City mayoral election. According to Reuters, Mamdani’s platform ran on concrete proposals to lower public grocery store prices and to go after predatory landlords (Marshak). Newcomer Mamdani’s victory over established Democratic candidates suggests that voters may be willing to put affordability over the status quo (Tawfik). 


When Mamdani’s success is juxtaposed with Trump’s remarks about the word “groceries” being an “old-fashioned” term and dismissing the word “affordability” as a Democratic “hoax,” it certainly raises an eyebrow—especially because affordability contributed to why Americans lost their faith in Joe Biden’s presidency (Raposas; Sentner). Even after a year of the Trump administration taking control of both the executive branch and the majority of seats in Congress, the costs of food and fuel are, for many Americans, still just too high (Johansen and Gangitano). 


So, what should candidates do about this focus on affordability? One of the best strategies for candidates going into the 2026 midterm election is to emphasize ways to bring the cost of housing down, especially in high-priced metropolitan cities. Although the price of groceries is important to voters, it is often overshadowed in comparison to steep rent prices. In big cities like New York, Dallas, and San Francisco, some renters may even devote 50% of their monthly earnings to rent costs (Cunningham), making three home-cooked meals per day seem like a luxury. While Trump has attempted to address this issue, his success is not clear. According to the White House, he signed a January 2026 executive order with the objective of stopping Wall Street investors and big hedge funds like BlackRock from buying up single-family homes (“Stopping Wall Street”). In March 2026, he also signed an order to make housing construction easier and mortgage credit more accessible (“Removing Regulatory Barriers”; “Promoting Access”). The problem is that these moves are not directly translating to affordability for everyday Americans. Housing reform is still a contentious point, especially when the upper middle class actually depends on rising house prices and rents to uphold value. When housing reform policies are buried by bigger agendas such as the Big Beautiful Bill and Operation Epic Fury, voters can get conflicting messaging. It is difficult to convince Americans of long-term gains when, in the short-term, they are struggling to receive necessities like food stamps and health care. 


No matter which side of the political aisle they fall on, all Americans are beginning to prioritize the same value: affordability. Whether a citizen voted for Trump three times in a row or not even once, they still feel the impact of high prices at the checkout counter or the gas pump. This is the metric that constantly reminds people of how much money is leaving their pockets, and arguably the best representation of “economics” to the individual taxpayer. When the administration is touting the success of foreign policy, and Trump rates himself “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus,” it can fall on deaf ears as broader economic policies and foreign interventions do not provide immediate relief to citizens (Lalljee; Johansen and Gangitano). For candidates in the upcoming midterm election, the best course of action is to provide a convincing core political message around economics, redefined not as long-term financial stability, but rather as making it easier to fill up the gas tank in your car.


Works Cited 

“2024 Presidential Election.” 270toWin, 2024. https://www.270towin.com/2024-election. Amy, Jeff. “Trump-Endorsed Republican Clay Fuller Wins Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Former House Seat in Georgia.” Associated Press, 9 Apr. 2026. 

Cunningham, Mary. “Americans' Paychecks are Getting Swallowed by Rent. See How Much People Pay in Major U.S. Cities.” CBS News, 14 Aug 2026. 

Hanna, John. “Texas Democrat Taylor Rehmet Flips Republican State Senate District Trump Won by 17 Points.” PBS News, 2 Feb. 2026. 

Hutzler, Alexandra. “Trump Vowed to Make the Economy Better on Day 1. Now He Says the US is in 'Transition.'” ABC News, 12 Mar 2025. 

Johansen, Ben, and Alex Gangitano. “Trump Makes Another Affordability Push as Americans Sour on the Economy.” Politico, 3 Dec. 2025. 

Lalljee, Jason. “Trump Grades His Economy ‘A+++++’—Most Americans Don’t Agree.” Axios, 9 Dec. 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/12/09/trump-tariffs-economy-gas-prices. Lindsay, James M. “The 2024 Election by the Numbers.” Council on Foreign Relations, 18 Dec. 2024. https://www.cfr.org/articles/2024-election-numbers. 

Marshak, Samantha. “Mamdani Lead in New York Mayoral Democratic Primary Leaves Businesses on Edge.” Reuters, 26 June 2025. 

Popli, Nik. “Inflation Dropped Again in June. Here’s What That Means for Biden.” Time Magazine, 12 July 2023. https://time.com/6294014/inflation-dropped-june-biden/.

Potts, Monica. “Why ‘Bidenomics’ Isn’t Working for Biden.” ABC News, 13 Sept. 2023. https://abcnews.com/538/bidenomics-working-biden/story?id=103120921. “Promoting Access to Mortgage Credit.” The White House, Executive Order 14393, 13 Mar. 2026. 

Raposas, Rachel. “Trump Calls Groceries an ‘Old-Fashioned’ Word During Tariff Speech.” People, 3 Apr. 2025. 

https://people.com/trump-calls-groceries-old-fashioned-term-11708310#main. “Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction.” The White House, Executive Order 14394, 13 Mar. 2026. 

Scolforo, Mark, and Marc Levy. “Democrats Win Pa. Senate Seat in Northern Lancaster County.” Associated Press, WHYY, 26 Mar. 2025. 

https://whyy.org/articles/democrats-win-pennsylvania-senate-seat-district-36/. Sentner, Irie. “Trump, Stung by Republican Losses, Stands His Ground on Affordability.” Politico, 6 Nov. 2025. 

“Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street Homebuyers.” The White House, Executive Order 14376, 20 Jan. 2026. 

Tawfik, Nada. “New Yorkers Could Pick a Political Newcomer to Run Their City - and Take on Trump.” BBC, 4 Nov. 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rjjdvx5r5o.

Comments

bottom of page