The outcome of the American elections confirmed Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States, as declared by the electors ahead of predictions. This result, unexpected in its timing, has opened a reflection on global economic and geopolitical prospects, explored in the debate “After the American vote: international scenarios between economy and wars” organized by Il Sole 24Ore and moderated by Rosalba Reggio. The debate featured the participation, in addition to Fabrizio Milano d’Aragona (CEO and co-founder of Datrix), of other illustrious names: Professor Giuliano Noci (Politecnico di Milano), Professor Gianmarco Ottaviano (Bocconi University) and the Deputy Director of Sole 24 Ore Daniele Bellasio.
Datrix brought a unique contribution to the debate, thanks to the analyses developed by FinScience, the Fintech company of the Datrix Group, created specifically for this election round and which supported the editorial content of Sole 24 Ore (coordinated by Luca Salvioli and Silvia Martelli) by populating the dashboards of the page dedicated to the Lab24 Elections in real time.
For those who missed the live broadcast, you can rewatch the interesting debate below:
Below is an in-depth look at Fabrizio Milano d’Aragona’s interventions during the live broadcast and some considerations by Alessio Garzonio, Principal Finscience and coordinator of the collaboration project with Sole 24 Ore.
A distinctive methodology that enhances data granularity thanks to Finscience AI technologies
The methodology behind the project that powered the dashboards of the Lab24 page dedicated to the American Elections allowed for a complete analysis, thanks to the combination of traditional and alternative high-granularity data. This innovative method allowed for the collection and interpretation of not only conventional data but also unstructured information, such as articles, social interactions and web searches. The strength of this analysis lies in the ability to identify trends and sentiment at the level of individual states and counties, highlighting themes that had a different impact in the various geographical areas of the United States.
This process is made possible by modern artificial intelligence tools, which allow for the processing of enormous volumes of data and the synthesis of significant insights.
The hot topics highlighted by Finscience analyses
Entering into the detail of the analyses, what emerged as a very strong distinction compared to the 2020 elections is that “while some themes such as women’s rights and abortion had national media relevance, in the so-called swing states they took on a much more nuanced dimension.”
In these areas, voters paid particular attention to economic issues such as inflation and, in some key states, to immigration. Abortion and the economy were the central themes of this campaign, pushed strongly by Kamala Harris and Donald Trump respectively. Harris made abortion a key point, winning the consensus of a large part of the female and progressive electorate. On the other hand, Trump bet on the economy, strengthening his image as a leader capable of improving the well-being of Americans.
An additional difference with the 2020 elections is the role of secondary characters.
The analyses allowed us to “monitor in real time how public opinion perceived the political proposals and prominent figures, such as that of Elon Musk, whose influence on Trump’s campaign was significant, both in terms of topics addressed and strategic support.”
Elon Musk played a prominent role, often dominating the media and social debate with statements and positionings that influenced a relevant part of the electorate. While main Democratic supporters, such as Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, maintained a significant presence, their impact was less incisive than that of Musk: his role was very active on the electoral campaign, managing to shift attention to three key themes such as: government simplification, industrial policies and freedom of expression on media. Precisely this last point aroused great interest, proposing a narrative that shifts the confrontation from a challenge between candidates to a struggle between the establishment and the people.
The distinctive variability of this electoral campaign made evident by data granularity: the impact of candidates on states and micro-sectors
The electoral campaign was particularly unstable and changing, much more so than in other recent American elections. The integration of traditional and alternative data allowed for real-time monitoring of key moments of the campaign and changes in candidate performance, including initially similar performances between Biden and Trump, Biden’s collapse following the television debate, the initial enthusiasm for Kamala Harris and finally the head-to-head between Trump and Harris in the swing states.
With Trump at the top, the political picture shows an elected president who influences the priorities of individual states on concrete issues, such as energy production and fracking in Pennsylvania.
The analysis of online conversations, which often anticipated polling trends, allowed Sole 24 ore to trace a detailed view of the political sentiments of Americans. This advanced methodology, made possible by artificial intelligence, made it evident how the main themes had a significant impact on candidate performance, at both the federal and state levels.
Analyses showed that in the Sunbelt, including states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia and Florida, Harris’s candidacy recorded a strong rise thanks to the support of local minorities, while Trump consolidated his position by focusing on economy and immigration. Specifically, thanks to the support of ethnic minorities, Harris narrowed the gap with Trump, even managing to overtake him in some polls. However, in states like Arizona, where the issue of immigration is more felt, Trump managed to maintain an advantage. Georgia proved fundamental for Harris, with a margin reduced to 0.6% thanks to the support of the African American community and prominent figures like Stacey Abrams and former President Obama.
In the Midwest, on the contrary, although Harris sought to gain consensus with a plan for SME support, economic concerns, such as inflation, favored Trump. Pennsylvania and Michigan were crucial: in Pennsylvania, a communication error put Harris under the spotlight, while in Michigan, the theme of foreign policy had a strong impact on the Muslim vote.
An innovative element of this electoral campaign was the strategic orientation of the candidates on specific micro-sectors rather than on entire sectors, as happened in the past. “The advantage of our approach lies in evaluating the connection of the two candidates with micro-sectors and stocks, in fact the change reflects a more granular understanding of market needs, showing how much economic themes today are diversified and far more complex than a simple distinction between Republicans and Democrats, or between public and private.”
For example, Kamala Harris emphasized eco-friendly fuels, considering them a more immediate and applicable solution for reducing the carbon footprint in transportation, compared to the exclusive adoption of slower-to-spread technologies such as electric. Her proposal to incentivize the adoption of these fuels could have given a big boost to companies like Gevo, involved in the production of eco-friendly fuels.
In the energy sector, although Trump is known for his support for fossil fuels, his protectionist approach may paradoxically favor some industries linked to renewable energy, such as solar. Trump’s policies, aimed at promoting national production and reducing imports from competing countries like China, could open new opportunities for American solar panel companies, such as First Solar, which would benefit from a more favorable context.
In the healthcare field, Trump favored a less regulated approach, and this position could facilitate the traditional care and medical device sectors. Companies like Humana and UnitedHealth, operating in private insurance and healthcare, could find fertile ground thanks to a context that values market competition and the consolidation of paid care, guaranteeing these companies greater expansion.
Conversely, Harris showed a strong interest in telemedicine, an emerging sector that fits into her vision of more accessible and widespread public health. Her proposals included investments to improve access to telemedicine, making it available to a wider part of the population through the public system.
Domestic security is another sector in which Trump focused, supporting “law and order” policies that, with a more rigorous management of prisons and security, would favor companies like CoreCivic, involved in the management of private prisons. His positions in favor of tightening security policies and border protection could therefore incentivize a greater use of these services, supporting the growth of these companies.
Furthermore, Trump demonstrated a particular interest in the semiconductor sector, especially in the context of competition with foreign companies like TSMC. Thanks to his protectionist approach and willingness to reduce taxes and increase tariffs for foreign competitors, American companies like Micron and GlobalFoundries could find significant growth opportunities, strengthening the national technology sector and making it more competitive globally.
Finally, the cryptocurrency sector could benefit from the deregulated context promoted by Trump, with an approach aimed at simplifying regulations to stimulate economic and technological growth. This could create a more favorable environment for platforms like Coinbase or for entities like MicroStrategy, active in cryptocurrency investments, in a market that would open up to growth less constrained by federal restrictions.
