G. Elliott Morris on Vibes and the Midterms

SUMMARY

Paul Krugman and G. Elliott Morris discuss the impact of recent redistricting, Supreme Court decisions, and shifting voter sentiment on the upcoming midterm elections. The conversation explores the structural Republican advantage in congressional maps, the phenomenon of economic 'vibes,' and the challenges of modeling public opinion in a changing political landscape.

MAIN POINTS

• The Supreme Court's invalidation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and recent redistricting in Southern states have shifted several congressional seats away from Democrats. [1:02]
• The cumulative effect of redistricting across multiple states has resulted in a significant Republican bias in the House map, reminiscent of the post-2010 landscape. [4:00]
• Republican redistricting strategies in Texas may risk overextending their advantage if Latino voters swing heavily toward Democrats, but overall GOP gains remain likely. [7:01]
• Key events such as tariffs, immigration crackdowns, and healthcare cuts have driven persistent declines in Donald Trump's approval ratings, reflecting widespread public dissatisfaction. [10:01]
• Despite stable personal financial assessments, public sentiment about the overall economy has sharply deteriorated, with consumer confidence indices lagging behind economic fundamentals. [16:02]
• A new phase of negative economic sentiment, or 'Vibe Session 2,' has emerged since 2025, which cannot be fully explained by traditional economic indicators or models. [21:00]
• Historical context shows that inflation shocks after long periods of price stability provoke stronger negative reactions from the public than similar shocks during already volatile times. [29:00]
• The discussion highlights the limitations of both objective economic measures and survey-based sentiment indices in fully capturing the public's economic anxiety. [39:00]
• Persistent low approval ratings for Trump on economic issues suggest a potential Democratic wave in the midterms, possibly overcoming the structural Republican advantage from gerrymandering. [44:00]

DETAILED ANALYSIS

The discussion between Paul Krugman and G. Elliott Morris centers on the significant political and economic changes shaping the current U.S. landscape, with a particular focus on the consequences of recent redistricting and the evolving nature of voter sentiment. The conversation opens with an examination of the Supreme Court's decision to invalidate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a move that has allowed several Southern states—such as Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana—to redraw congressional maps in ways that dilute Black voting power.

Since Black voters in these regions predominantly support Democratic candidates, these changes directly translate into a loss of Democratic seats, with estimates suggesting a net loss of at least three, and potentially up to five, seats for the party.

This development is compounded by additional redistricting setbacks for Democrats, notably in Virginia, where a court ruling overturned a Democratic-leaning map, forcing a return to a previous configuration that costs Democrats two seats. When considering the broader national picture, Republican-controlled states like Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Missouri have collectively shifted about 13 seats away from Democrats, while Democratic gains have been limited mostly to California. The net effect is a structural disadvantage for Democrats, who are now estimated to be down by approximately six seats due to these cumulative changes.

This shift is reminiscent of the post-2010 redistricting cycle, which also produced a pronounced Republican bias in the House of Representatives.

Despite these structural hurdles, current polling suggests that Democrats could still regain control of the House if they achieve a sufficiently large margin in the popular vote. However, even in a wave election scenario, Democrats would remain underrepresented relative to their share of the vote, particularly in the South. The conversation highlights the potential for a 'dummy mander' effect, where Republican mapmakers, in their efforts to maximize partisan advantage, may have inadvertently made some districts more competitive if demographic shifts—such as a significant swing of Latino voters toward Democrats—materialize.

Nevertheless, the overall impact of gerrymandering continues to favor Republicans, and the risk of overextending is seen as a marginal concern compared to the broader partisan advantage.

The dialogue then shifts to the broader issue of political legitimacy and public trust in government. With congressional approval ratings languishing around 20% and similar levels of disapproval for the Supreme Court and former President Trump, there is concern that continued Republican control of the House through gerrymandering, despite potential Democratic popular vote victories, could further erode confidence in democratic institutions. The possibility that such a scenario might catalyze support for electoral reforms, such as proportional representation, is noted, though the immediate outlook is described as bleak.

Turning to the dynamics of public opinion, Morris outlines a sequence of events during the Trump administration that have contributed to declining approval ratings. These include the imposition of tariffs, high-profile immigration enforcement actions, the deployment of the National Guard to major cities, government shutdowns affecting healthcare coverage, and international conflicts such as the Iran war. Each of these events has produced measurable drops in Trump's approval, particularly on issues related to the economy and immigration.

Despite these declines, congressional Republicans have largely remained supportive of Trump, even in the face of low approval ratings in their own districts. This disconnect is attributed to the insulation of legislators—especially on the right—from general public opinion, a phenomenon reinforced by partisan polarization and the mechanics of districting.

A key theme of the conversation is the concept of 'vibes' or economic sentiment, popularized by commentators like Kyla Scanlon. Krugman and Morris discuss the persistent gap between objective economic indicators and public perceptions. While most Americans report that their personal financial situations are stable, their assessments of the national economy have become increasingly negative.

Traditional models, which use variables such as inflation, unemployment, and stock market performance to predict consumer sentiment, have struggled to account for this divergence. Even after adjusting for 'excess prices'—the difference between actual price levels and what would be expected based on long-term inflation trends—consumer sentiment remains significantly lower than historical patterns would predict.

Morris introduces the idea of a 'Vibe Session 2,' a new phase of economic pessimism that has emerged since 2025 and is not fully explained by standard economic measures. This phase coincides with the implementation of inflationary policies, such as tariffs, under the Trump administration, and may reflect heightened public awareness of these policies. The discussion draws on historical parallels, noting that inflation shocks following long periods of stability—such as those experienced in the early 2020s—tend to provoke stronger negative reactions than similar shocks during already volatile periods, like the 1970s.

However, even during the stagflation era, consumer sentiment did not reach the depths observed in recent years, suggesting that contemporary factors—possibly including media coverage and political polarization—are amplifying public anxiety.

The conversation also explores the methodological challenges of modeling public sentiment. Krugman and Morris debate the merits of using objective economic data versus survey-based measures of anxiety, acknowledging that neither approach fully captures the complexity of public attitudes. The influence of the stock market, as measured by the S&P 500, on consumer sentiment is noted, despite the fact that most Americans have limited direct exposure to equities.

This may reflect the role of media coverage and broader economic narratives in shaping perceptions.

In conclusion, the persistent low approval ratings for Trump on economic issues, coupled with widespread price anxiety, suggest the potential for a significant Democratic victory in the upcoming midterms—one that could overcome the structural Republican advantage created by gerrymandering. However, the underlying causes of the current 'vibe session' remain elusive, highlighting the need for continued research and nuanced analysis of the interplay between economic fundamentals, public opinion, and political outcomes.

LINKS

• Paul Krugman's Substack post featuring the discussion with G. Elliott Morris on vibes and the midterms.

KEYWORDS