Most of the drama in this year’s presidential election will focus on a handful of states.
While each major U.S. political party has many states it counts on winning on November 5, a handful of states are too close to predict.
These “swing states” have populations that are closely divided politically. In recent elections, outcomes have swung back and forth between Democratic and Republican wins. They are the “battleground states” that candidates target with frequent campaign visits, advertising and staffing.
All states except Maine and Nebraska give all their electors (who ultimately determine who wins the presidency) to the popular vote winner, with the runner-up getting nothing. Because some states reliably vote Republican or Democratic by popular vote, candidates don’t have an incentive to put focus there. And predicting which states are sure things for one side or another has become easier with improved polling techniques.
“In most states, the outcome in a two-person contest is going to be clear, and the campaign will take it for granted,” says Alex Keyssar, a history professor at Harvard University. In “the swing states, that’s not true.” The only reason he sees political ads is because his home in heavily Democratic Massachusetts is in the same television coverage area as New Hampshire, a state where election contests are often close.
One important factor is that in swing states, an independent or third-party candidate who might draw a small share of voter support away from a major-party candidate can have an outsized influence.
Candidates’ focus on swing states, Keyssar says, means that issues salient in those states frequently get the most discussion. During the primary elections that choose the major parties’ nominees, politicians visit states like Pennsylvania and hear from voters directly about their concerns. In the past, for instance, candidates might have talked a lot about energy prices — a hot issue for New Hampshire voters.
The up-for-grabs states change over time. Florida, Ohio and Iowa “exited stage right” to join the Republican-leaning ranks after their time in the spotlight, says David Wasserman, an analyst at the non-partisan Cook Political Report. “New Hampshire has probably exited stage left,” to join Democrat-leaning states, he adds.
This year’s group of swing states is therefore smaller. The list includes Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University and law professor at University of Minnesota. “What happens in those five really will affect the election,” he says.
Political observers say Nevada, North Carolina and Minnesota also could be swing states this year.
Schultz, who authored a book called Presidential Swing States, says it’s not even swing states that matter — it’s certain counties within those states that are toss-ups and that can determine which candidate wins all of a state’s electors. Within such counties, the outcome can come down to ballots cast by a slim share (5%) of voters. Schultz calls it the 5-5-5-270 theory. Out of the entire nation, usually only about five states decide the winner, and within those five, just 5 percent of voters in five bellwether counties help one candidate to get to at least 270 electors — a majority.
One of history’s most famous swing states is Florida, which tipped the election to George W. Bush in 2000, with a close election result that took weeks of rechecking ballots to settle.
“Don’t look at the national popular vote or polling, because neither of them picks the president,” Schultz reminds students of the American system.