Swing state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (May 2008)

For the film of the same name, see Swing State (film).

The swing states during the past two decades.

A swing state (also, battleground state or purple state) in United States presidential politics is a state in which no candidate has overwhelming support, meaning that any of the major candidates have a reasonable chance of winning the state's electoral college votes. Such states are targets of both major political parties in presidential elections, since winning these states is the best opportunity for a party to gain electoral votes. Non-swing states are sometimes called safe states, because one candidate has strong enough support that they can safely assume they will win the state's votes.

1 Origin of swing states
2 Determining swing states
3 Historical swing states
4 Swing States as of 2008
5 Other terms for swing state
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

[edit] Origin of swing states

Heavy television advertising by candidates in a swing state can bring out supporters for the candidates more than in other states. These yard signs in a residential district of Grosse Pointe, Michigan during the 2004 Presidential election show the difference in opinions between two neighbors.

These maps show the amount of attention given in the 2004 election by Bush and Kerry campaigns during the final five weeks of the election. At left, each waving hand represents a visit from a presidential or vice-presidential candidate during the final five weeks. At right, each dollar sign represents one million dollars spent on TV advertising by the campaigns during the same time period.

In US Presidential elections, the U.S. Electoral College system allows each state to decide the method by which it awards electors. Since legislatures want to increase the voting power of the majority of their states, all states except Maine and Nebraska (explained below) use a winner-take-all system, where the candidate who wins the most popular votes in a state wins all of that state's electoral votes. Under this system no advantage is gained by winning more than a plurality of the vote, nor is there any advantage gained by winning additional votes in a state that will still be lost. In other words, Presidential candidates have no incentive to spend time or resources in states they are likely to win or lose by a sizeable margin.

Since a national campaign is interested in electoral votes, rather than the national popular vote, it tends to ignore states that it believes it will win easily; since it will win these without significant campaigning, any effort put into them is essentially wasted. A similar logic dictates that the campaign avoid putting any effort into states that it knows it will lose.

For instance, a Republican candidate (the more conservative of the two major parties) can easily expect to win many of the Southern states like Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina, which historically have a very conservative culture and a more recent history of voting for Republican candidates. Similarly, the same candidate can expect to lose Illinois, Vermont, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, traditionally liberal states, no matter how much campaigning is done in those states. The only states which the campaign would target to spend time, money, and energy in are those that could be won by either candidate. These are the swing states.

In Maine and Nebraska, two electoral votes go to the person who wins a plurality in the state, and a candidate gets one additional electoral vote for each Congressional District in which they receive a plurality. Both of these states have relatively few electoral votes (for the 2004 election, Maine had 4 and Nebraska had 5; the minimum is 3) and are usually not considered swing states (Maine is generally considered a Democratic-leaning state while Nebraska is typically thought to be a Republican state). Despite their different rules, neither has ever had a split electoral vote.

In the 2004 elections Colorado voted on Amendment 36, an initiative which would have allocated the state's electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in the state. The initiative would have taken effect immediately, applying to the selection of electors in the same election. However, the initiative failed and Colorado remains under the winner-take-all system that is present in 48 states.

[edit] Determining swing states

The Oregon Daily Emerald cited University of Oregon political science professor Joel Bloom as mentioning three factors in identifying a swing state: "examining statewide opinion polls, political party registration numbers and the results of previous elections." The article also cites Leighton Woodhouse, co-director of "Driving Votes," as claiming that there is a general consensus among most groups regarding about 75 percent of the states typically thought of as swing states. ^[1]

[edit] Historical swing states

The swing states of Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey and New York were key to the outcome of the 1888 election.^[2] The swing states of Illinois^[3] and Texas^{[citation needed]} were key to the outcome of the 1960 election; however, today Illinois (D), Connecticut (D), New York (D), Indiana (R) and Texas (R) are not considered swing states, while New Jersey is more of a swing state than the previously mentioned states, with a nearly even split of the congressional delegation, possibly to account for the urban-suburban divide.^{[citation needed]} Ohio has often been considered a swing state ^[4] ^[5] ^[6], particularly during the 2004 election, having voted with the winner in every election since 1948 except for 1960. It has often been said that "as Ohio goes, so goes the nation." ^[7] ^[8] Missouri has voted for the winner of every presidential election since 1904, save for its support of Adlai Stevenson in 1956; see Missouri bellwether. Florida was key to the outcome of the 2000 election.^[9] California has the largest number of electoral votes (55) in the nation. However, because its votes have gone to the Democratic candidate since 1992, it is not considered a swing state, and candidates do not see any reason to campaign.

[edit] Swing States as of 2008

The following states are grouped by geographic regions: (in parenthesis are the total number of electoral votes allocated to that state, followed by the winning party in 2004)

[edit] Northeast

New Hampshire (4-D): Once very reliably Republican, New Hampshire became a swing state in the 1990s. Republicans still have somewhat of an edge in statewide elections, however the Democrats took control of the state legislature and both Congressional seats in 2006. The New Hampshire Republican Party tends to be more socially liberal than the national party, and as a result their behavior in national elections is harder to determine.

Pennsylvania (21-D): Pennsylvania is famously described by Democratic strategist James Carville as "you’ve got Philadelphia at one end of the state, Pittsburgh at the other end, and Alabama in the middle.”^[10] Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortés stated on March 17, 2007, that "The commonwealth’s large number of electoral college votes and diverse population make Pennsylvania a key battleground state." ^[11] Pennsylvania has leaned Democratic since 1992, giving its electoral votes to Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996), Al Gore (2000) and John Kerry (2004). President George W. Bush visited the state more than 40 times during his 2004 campaign.^[12]

[edit] South

Arkansas (6-R): Although a conservative state in the heart of the Bible Belt, the state Democratic Party is a powerful force in Arkansas and Democrats tend to have a comfortable advantage in statewide races. Presently, the Governor, both U.S. Senators, and 3 out of 4 of Arkansas' House members are Democrats, and Democrats control the state legislature by a large margin. The Arkansas Democratic Party tends to be more conservative than the national party, however, and as a result voters there tend to be open to Republican Presidential candidates. Though favorite son Bill Clinton won Arkansas easily both times he ran, Arkansas gave their electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 by a fairly large margin.

Florida (27-R): The outcome of the 2000 Presidential Election hung on a margin of roughly 500 votes in this state, and the fierce legal battles that ensued. Florida's electorate is balanced by heavily Democratic large cities like Miami and sparser, more Republican areas (the Florida Panhandle in this case). Republicans have been winning handily in statewide elections lately; however, the large Hispanic vote near Tampa and Orlando (particularly Puerto Ricans who tend to be the Democrats and have a significant presence in the Orlando area) provide Democrats an edge, but the Cuban-American vote is crucial near Miami; their votes gave an edge to George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.

West Virginia (5-R) Although registered Democrats in the state outnumber registered Republicans, Bush narrowly won the state in both the 2000 and 2004 elections with 52% and 56% of the vote respectively. President Clinton won the state in both 1992 and 1996, and the state was one of only a handful to vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Virginia (13-R): Despite being a long time Republican stronghold, Virginia has been trending Democratic in recent elections. In 2005, Tim Kaine won the state's governor race; a position Democrats have held since 2002. Mark Warner also is leading in polls for the 2008 Virginia Senate Race by a fairly comfortable margin. The state's high African-American population could also benefit the 2008 presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

[edit] Midwest

Indiana (11-R): Although Indiana has not voted for a Democratic President since 1964, this states proximity to Obama's home state of Illinois, its unpopular GOP Governor Mitch Daniels, and split Congressional delegation, Indiana has become a swing state. Also, a Democratic ticket featuring popular Senator and former Governor Evan Bayh could bolster this possibility.

Iowa (7-R): Al Gore won Iowa in 2000 by a razor-thin margin, and George W. Bush did the same four years later. The state's highly influential caucus makes Iowa the political holy grail of Republicans and Democrats alike.

Michigan (17-D): Michigan has generally tended to lean Democratic. One of the country's biggest centers of manufacturing, labor unions inevitably come into play, and the economic hard times the state has fallen on recently will no doubt be a major issue for the Great Lakes State in 2008. Republican strength tends to be primarily in the western portion of the lower peninsula of the state, particularly in the Grand Rapids Metropolitan area, which is also one of the fastest growing regions in the Midwest. The Democrats are strong in the Southeastern region of the state around the Metro Detroit area in particular and also around the Ann Arbor, Flint, and Saginaw areas as well.

Missouri (11-R): Missouri is geographically situated where the South, the Midwest, and the Great Plains meet, and is in many ways a microcosm of the entire country. Missouri has voted for the winner of every Presidential election since 1904 except in the year 1956, and voters there have proven themselves to be an effective gauge of the national mood. The "coastal" urban areas of St Louis and Kansas City, like urban areas elsewhere in the U.S., tend to lean strongly to the Democrats while the rural and suburban/exurban areas tend to lean to the Republicans.

Ohio (20-R): "I think 2008 is very likely to be a hotly contested race in Ohio," stated Eric Rademacher, director of the University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll, for the Cincinnati Enquirer. ^[13] Its 20 electoral votes were critical to President Bush's reelection in 2004. In 2006, however, Ohio voters elected Democrats Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown for Governor and U.S. Senator. The industrial urban areas of Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, Akron, and Youngstown tend to lean to the Democrats while the rural areas and the suburbs and exurbs (in particular around the ever growing Greater Cincinnati and Columbus areas) lean to the Republicans.

Wisconsin (10-D): Wisconsin went to John Kerry in 2004 by only .4% of the popular vote, the closest margin in any state.

[edit] West/Pacific

Colorado (9-R): Once a reliable GOP stronghold, Colorado has moved towards the center during the last decade. With the victories of Ken Salazar to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Bill Ritter to the Governor's Mansion in 2006, and an additional U.S. House seat pick-up that same year, Democrats are finding themselves in a better position than before. Large Hispanic populations with strong penchant for populist themes makes this a true battleground state; nevertheless, Republicans still have a 100,000 registration edge against the Democrats. Democrats selected Denver as the site for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Nevada (5-R): Long considered a "fly-over" state due to its proximity to the populous state of California, the Silver State is once again looking like a strong swing state. The presence of strong labor unions and Hispanic voters in Las Vegas and Reno sway those districts toward Democratic candidates, while the balance of the state is mostly rural and Republican. Populism plays well in this long-standing bastion of the GOP.

New Mexico (5-R): Personalities trump party affiliation in this classic swing state. New Mexico is truly politically divided, with registration amongst Democrats and Republicans nearly equal and the existence of a strong independent voting bloc. The state went to Al Gore in 2000 by a mere 400 votes while George W. Bush carried it by a margin of 6000 votes in 2004.

[edit] Summary

Overall, the candidates spend a significant amount of time in the Midwest, as this region has 75 electoral votes. Most of the Midwestern states have been inclined to vote for the Democrats, albeit by a small margins, making them just volatile enough to switch parties.

As for the "Big Three", Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, all of the candidates invest much of their time there partially in order to offset any surprises election day, but also because the trio provides a total of 68 electoral votes, making them a strategic necessity in their own right. No candidate since John F. Kennedy has won the White House without winning at least two of these three states.

Historically, no Republican candidate has won the White House without winning Ohio; indeed, the winner of Ohio has been the winner of every general election since 1960. And with the exception of 1956, no candidate since 1904 ever has won without also winning the state of Missouri, making it the longest running bellwether state.

[edit] Other terms for swing state

Battleground state
Purple state, so named because purple is the combination of the colors red and blue, which (since the 2000 election) are used to represent Republican- and Democratic-majority states, respectively. See Red states and blue states.