Electing a U.S. President: What Is a Landslide?

A landslide electoral victory in representative democracy is typically limited to the criterion of the extent of the vote-spread between candidates for a given office. In regard to the U.S. presidency, the Electoral College presents an alternative criterion, especially as a significant difference in votes in the College may not be reflected in the popular vote. Although that vote is by member state, the totals from all of the states are typically used to assess whether a landslide has occurred and thus whether the winning candidate has a political mandate to implement campaign promises. Whether a landslide or not, winning an election legitimates a candidate implementing the platform on which a candidate has campaigned. So whether a candidate for U.S. president has a landslide has typically been over-emphasized by American journalists, as if not having a large spread in the popular vote—even if such a spread exists in the Electoral College vote (which is the vote that really matters in the election of a U.S. president)—means that the winner has no prerogative to enact one’s agenda. I contend that even under the assumption that an electoral landslide is important, there are alternative ways of assessing whether a landslide has occurred.

A landslide can be inferred in terms of the extent of a shift from one party’s candidate to that of another. In the election of 2024, over 90% of counties in all of the U.S.’s member states shifted in the direction of Donald Trump from the election in 2020. That the shift took place in so many counties can be reckoned as significant, and thus as a landslide in terms of shift.

Yet another way to interpret whether a landslide has occurred is to compare how many more or less votes a candidate (or party) has received in an election relative to previous election. For instance, “Donald Trump added about 2.8 million votes to his total in his 2024 victory [from the election in 2020]. Vice President kamala Harris, on the other hand, underperformed by about 6.8 million votes compared with Joe Biden in 2020, according to CNN election results as of November 25 [2024].”[1] Viewing Trump’s gain with Harris’s underperformance relative to Biden in 2020 is arguably more revealing than is looking at small percentage-point difference (49.9% to 46.9%) between the two candidates’ totals in the popular vote (158,425, 893 and 154,247, 094, respectively) in 2024.[2] 

Blue: Where Harris Underperformed; Red: Where Trump Gained (Source: CNN)

The tide was coming in for Donald Trump and was going out for the Biden-Harris administration. Harris had said during the campaign that she would not differ from Biden’s policies, so comparing Biden in 2020 with Harris in 2024 is valid. That Harris received almost 2 million fewer votes in California, her home state, than Biden had received there in 2020 is also revealing regarding the depth of the shift away from her in 2024.[3] 

The top line shows California (source: CNN)

Loading only on the 49.9% to 46.9% difference in the overall popular vote totals masks the magnitude and depth of the shift; the 312 to 226 significant difference in the Electoral College in the 2024 election results is a better indication, though the bias toward relatively less populated states that typically vote Republican overstates the real difference that would exist if the number of electoral votes that each member state has were based only on the number of the number of U.S. House representatives rather than adding the number of U.S. senators in too. Therefore, a landslide in the Electoral College can be considered as less legitimate than the percentage spread in the overall popular vote.

Therefore, I contend that measures indicative of the extent and depth of a basic shift pervading all the electorates of the states can be used to assess whether a landslide has indeed occurred. Using this criterion, the 2024 U.S. presidential election can be viewed as a landslide. Contributing factors may include Harris’ decision to continue arms sales to Israel even though the International Court of Justice had ruled that Israel’s entire occupation violates international law. The International Criminal Court would subsequently issue arrest warrants for two Israeli government officials, including Netanyahu. Another factor may have been the failure of the Biden-Harris administration to sufficiently aid Ukraine to forestall territorial advances of Russia in its invasion of the sovereign country. Still another factor may have been the spreading anti-woke reaction and the failure of the Democratic Party to push back on its woke wing in the general election. The Biden-Harris administration’s refusal to apply anti-trust to the meat-producing and grocer industries when prices stayed high after the pandemic may have influenced the working-class voters who had not shifted over to voting based on social/cultural (i.e., woke) issues. Trump’s visual use of an assassination attempt to “Fight” may also have been a factor. In short, the image of Trump’s fist in the air as he was ushered away from his speaking platform with a bloody ear is miles away from the image of half-measures and political calculation. I contend that the indicators of a general shift from 2020 in the election results better reflect these factors than does the small overall percentage-spread in the popular vote for Trump and Harris in 2024.

---

1. Amy O’Kruk et al, “7 Charts and Maps Where Harris Underperformed and Lost the Election,” Cnn.com, November 27, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3  Ibid.

Greedy Grocers: Exploiting Customers and Workers with Impunity

Adam Smith theorized that price competition on products and labor would allow the self-interests of the buyers and sellers to result in unintended beneficial consequences. For one thing, price gouging would not happen because, assuming low barriers to enter the market to sell, competitors would quickly drop their prices and gain market share. That grocery prices did not fall after the supply-shocks, including in shipping and hiring workers, ended with the end of the coronavirus pandemic in early 2023 is a pretty good indication that the grocery (and meat producer) industry was not competitive. Oligarchic markets—those in which just a few, often times very large, sellers exist—are devoid of the competitive mechanism that would otherwise maintain prices that are fair to buyers. That is, not only do competitive markets efficiently allocate goods and services at prices that connect supply to demand; such markets can also satisfy the ethical virtue of justice as fairness. Smith was not shy in admitted that a government willing to stand up to big companies is necessary to keep a market from slipping into the decadence of an oligopoly and especially a monopoly. I contend that both Americans and their elected representatives were blind, perhaps conveniently so given the power of large companies in American governments, both during the coronavirus pandemic, which ran from roughly 2020 to 2022, and even afterwards as Kroger and Albertsons colluded at the expense (literally) of their respective customers and workers.  

On February 26, 2024, about a year after the coronavirus pandemic ended in the United States, the Federal Trade Commission “sued to block the largest proposed supermarket merger in U.S. history—Kroger Company’s $24.6 billion acquisition of the Albertsons Companies, Inc.—alleging that the deal is anticompetitive.”[1] While testifying to a Federal Trade Commission attorney ,  Andy Groff, Kroger's senior director for pricing, said the grocery giant had raised prices for eggs and milk beyond inflation levels. In an internal email to other Kroger executives, he had written, "On milk and eggs, retail inflation has been significantly higher than cost inflation."[2] Of course, the company’s strategy was to try to discredit Groff rather than assume responsibility for having taken advantage of the pandemic. It was telling, however, that at least at Albertsons, including its Safeway division, the practice of weekly discounts shown on the shelves was greatly diminished. So, we can add ending discounts to price gouging to understand the true sticker shock that customers encountered.

The price gouging alone was “not at all surprising," Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, has said. Economists had “long indicated that the grocery sector, which is composed of only a few chains like Kroger and Walmart, was benefiting from supply chain disruptions during the pandemic, allowing the companies to hike prices beyond what was necessary to retain profits. According to Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor, "Supply chain issues, rising shipping costs, and increased wages certainly played their part in the higher prices we're currently seeing. However, the admission some prices were elevated simply because businesses knew they could doesn't help the case for those arguing price gouging isn't an issue."[3]  

Perhaps even more disturbing, but much more subtly, Kroger and Albertsons did not lower prices after the unique economic context of the pandemic had ended. In fact, both companies saw record profits into 2024 and a generally increasing trend from 2010 that belies any claim to have needed to raise prices during the pandemic to stay in business. In fact, the profits during the pandemic were greater than in 2018-2020, and record profits as of January 31, 2024. Not coincidentally, the grocers provided customers with just a slight reduction in prices of food items in 2024 even though the huge increases during the pandemic had been said to be specific to it. This demonstrates that the industry had ceased to operate in a competitive market. The following graphs from Metatrends.net of gross profits for the years (January 1) 2009 - (January 31) 2024 tell the tale, a picture being proverbially said to be worth a thousand words. 

Kroger (left) and Albertsons (right) Gross Profit ($)

That Albertsons increased prices excessively during 2022 can be inferred from the fact that the company's net income that year increased 51% from 2021 even though the pandemic was still occurring. In July, 2024, Newsweek stated the following: “Companies across multiple industries have been posting record profits since the [coronavirus pandemic] while consumers have faced the highest inflation in recent history. The math can only point to companies raising prices above the general level of inflation. As the old saying goes, 'Never let a good crisis go to waste.'"[4] And never let the end of a crisis be the end of the party, for the excuses can run their natural course if the herd animals (and their leaders) are gullible (and corrupt) enough.

That a grocery-store worker filed a class-action lawsuit against both Kroger and Albertsons in Colorado on November 25, 2024 for having colluded “against striking employees to keep pay and benefits down” may indicate that the giant chains took advantage of workers too.[5] The suit alleges that “the two competitors reached an illicit agreement not to poach employees or customers during a 2022 work stoppage.” This “gave Kroger an upper hand against its employees’ union during contract talks,” and Albertson too would likely benefit as it had the same union.[6] The word most erroneous here is competitors, and if Kroger and Albertsons were not competing for employees or customers, then it would have been easy for both managements to raise prices, essentially creating inflation (i.e., above costs and a reasonable profit), in taking advantage of the pandemic turned into a rationale for higher prices and then of societal expectations that price increases would happen and be legitimate.

That Kamala Harris ran for U.S. president in 2024 with only vague promises to help consumers with high food prices rather than a bold promise to wipe off the Sherman Anti-trust Act to apply it to break up both Kroger and Albertsons is so glaring that it could (and should) be asked whether, or to what extent, that industry, as well as the concentrated meat-producer industry, was made financial contributions to Harris’ campaign. Even President Biden’s decision to oppose the merger of those two companies ignored the likely possibility that the grocery (and meat-producer) industry was already too concentrated (i.e., oligopolistic) for price competition to have lowered food prices after the pandemic.  Both the president and the vice president (i.e., Harris) were too snug with the status quo, and perhaps relatedly too influenced, financially and otherwise, by the grocery (as well as meat-producing and even restaurant) industry. That the profits of Kroger and Albertson grew not only during the pandemic, but also in its wake, especially as compared with the pre-pandemic numbers, should have been an obvious indication that Adam Smith’s apotheotic competitive-market model could no longer operate due to the enormous sizes and few number of grocery chains in the United States. Enough voters may have been angry at Biden and Harris for not using the judiciary to restore competition—only acting to oppose the merger—to vote for Harris even though Trump would not likely apply anti-trust law even to the merger. A similar rationale concerning Biden and Harris actively supporting Israel militarily even after the UN’s top court had ruled that the occupation violated international law can be applied for why Harris lost. Enough of the American electorates wanted boldness in place of status-quo timidity that they were willing to vote against Harris and even for Trump even while disagreeing with his bold policies, such as on stopping illegal immigration.

---

1. “FTC Challenges Kroger’s Acquisition of Albertsons,” FTC Press Release, February 26, 2024.
2. Suzanne Blake, “Kroger Executive Admits Company Gouged Prices Above Inflation,” Newsweek, August 31, 2024.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid. 
5. Dave Jamieson, “Worker Sues Kroger and Albertsons, Alleging Collusion Against Union,” The Huffington Post, November 26, 2024.
6. Ibid.