If you follow the presidential election in the world’s only superpower, you get to know Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin extra well. These are divided into two “belts” – Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada are in the so-called “sun belt” of states with strong population growth in the south and west of the country, while the rest of the states are in the so-called “rust belt” which was hit hard of times of crisis in the industry from the 1970s onwards.
In the “sun belt”, the old, conservative south meets a younger, more diverse population. In the “rust belt”, the population is somewhat less diverse, but in return the region is characterized by large cities and higher levels of trade union organization than in the rest of the country.
The explanation is the system for electing presidents in the United States. The candidates fight for the states’ votes in an electoral college – the Electoral College. Each state gets electors based on the number of representatives they have in Congress (two senators for each state, plus at least one in the House of Representatives, the latter apportioned by population), in addition to the capital Washington DC getting three electors.
If Democrat Kamala Harris gets one vote more than Republican Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, she will win all 19 electoral votes there. And vice versa. Altogether there are 538 electors, and the candidates look at how they can win at least 270 of these – not how they can win the most votes from the people.
A handful of states play a role
Thus, the calculation is simple: States that one of the parties is likely to win anyway, neither of them chooses to spend resources or time in. It is not worth it for Trump to make many visits or buy up a lot of TV time in California, the majority of voters there are “unwavering” Democrats. The majority of voters in a state like Tennessee, on the other hand, are “staunch” Republicans.
Then you are left with a handful of states that play a role: Where it is very even between the candidates, and where a sufficient number of voters are inclined to change their minds from election to election. These are the “tipping states” that in practice decide the election in the United States. A number of media and actors make forecasts of what the electoral college will look like – among them actors such as CNN , RealClearPolitics , DDHQ , Fivethirtyeight and The Economist – and the picture that begins to emerge is as follows:
* Harris is “guaranteed” about 225 electoral votes.
* Trump is “guaranteed” about 220 electoral votes.
* Somewhere between 90 and 95 electors are “on the move,” and it’s unclear who will win them.
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania
With tools like 270towin you can calculate yourself how many voters the candidates need to win. Harris’ path to victory is the “shortest” – she needs to defend the states Biden won, and can also “resign” some of these. If she also wins in North Carolina, she has a huge advantage. Trump needs to win most of the seven swing states. In any case, the candidates must win a combination of states from the “Sun Belt” and the “Rust Belt”.
The largest swing state is Pennsylvania, with its 19 electors. The candidate who wins this is in the driver’s seat. Victory in Pennsylvania would leave Trump in a position where he could win with, say, North Carolina and Georgia. On the other hand, with a victory in Pennsylvania, Harris can “discard” almost all the other swing states.
Historical changes
In 2016, Donald Trump secured victory against Hillary Clinton by winning over voters in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. If 80,000 voters in these three states had voted for Clinton instead, she would have become president, writes Washington Post.
In 2020, it went the opposite way. 44,000 voters in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin decided that the victory went to the Democrats’ Joe Biden, writes National Public Radio.
The seesaw states have varied throughout history. From 1904 to 2004, Missouri was known as the state that always “hit” – with the exception of 1956, the winning presidential candidate always won in Missouri. Since 2008, however, it has always ended up voting for the Republican candidate. Illinois was also a very even state for a long time, and a narrow victory there secured John F. Kennedy’s victory in 1960. Since the 1990s, Illinois has been considered safe for the Democrats.
#Harris #Trumps #paths #victory #United #States
2024-09-24 00:16:48
