What is a swing state?

A little help for the GOVT 2306 essay.

- From Wikipedia: 

In American politics, a swing state (also known as battleground state, toss-up state, or purple state) is any state that could reasonably be won by either the Democratic or Republican candidate in a statewide election, most often referring to presidential elections, by a swing in votes. These states are usually targeted by both major-party campaigns, especially in competitive elections. Meanwhile, the states that regularly lean to a single party are known as "safe states" (or more specifically as "red states" and "blue states" depending on the partisan leaning), as it is generally assumed that one candidate has a base of support from which a sufficient share of the electorate can be drawn without significant investment or effort by the campaign.


What are the swing states in 2024? 

- From the NYT: Tracking the Swing States for Harris and Trump.

- - Pennsylvania
- - Georgia
- - North Carolina
- - Michigan
- - Arizona
- - Wisconsin
- - Nevada


How competitive will Texas be? 

- From Wikipedia: 2024 United States presidential election in Texas.

Texas is generally considered to be a red state, not having voted Democratic in a presidential election since Southerner Jimmy Carter won it in 1976 and with Republicans holding all statewide offices since 1999. Texas' location in the American South and largely in the greater Bible Belt has given the GOP the upper hand in the state in recent decades. Texas is considered by some to be potentially competitive, as the state has not backed a Republican for President by double digits since it favored Mitt Romney in 2012, which can be largely credited to the fast-growing Texas Triangle trending leftwards in some recent elections.

For More: 

- From Axios: As Harris invigorates Dems, Texas appears out of play.

- From KXAN: 2024 election: Exploring claim Texas is ‘sleeper battleground state’

- From KXAN: These are the reddest and bluest counties in Texas, based on recent election results.

From Ballotpedia: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

- Click here for the article.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact to award member state's presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt the legislation.[1][2]

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to determine how their electoral votes will be awarded: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." This compact does not abolish the electoral college system; rather, the compacts awards all of the electoral votes from the member states to the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide.[1]

From Politico: The People Who Pick the President

This is sweet!

Background on the handful of people who will cast the actual votes for the president on the real election day: December 19.

They might not vote as expected - see this link to faithless electors.

- Click here for the complete calendar.

- Click here for the article.

Tear up your countdown calendar: The 2016 election will not end on Nov. 8. In fact, it'll carry on until mid-December, when 538 members of the Electoral College huddle in their respective state capitals and cast the only ballots with the power to formally elect the next president.

Because they have rarely deviated from the will of the voters—and never changed the outcome of an election—this constitutional process remains an obscure and anonymous relic of the Founding Fathers. But for six weeks, this assortment of party insiders, donors and, in some cases, fringe activists will be the most powerful force in American democracy. And most Americans will never know who they are.

They include people like Tim Dreste, who was convicted of inciting violence against abortion providers in the 1990s and still wants them to fear him, and Monica Acosta-Zamora, the Texas Democrat who despises Hillary Clinton but became an elector to help a jailed friend. They also include Sybrina Fulton—Trayvon Martin’s mother—and Chris Christie’s dad, Wilbur. There’s a 93-year-old granddaughter of slaves and a 19-year-old Republican activist. Others still are Bernie Sanders supporters and political trailblazers, a motorcycle lobbyist and a Powerball winner.

Though voters will cast ballots for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and several third-party candidates on Election Day, their votes will actually elect partisan slates of Electoral College members. The smallest have just three, and the largest, California, has 55. Republicans and Democrats in each state choose a set of electors—and if their candidate wins the popular vote on Election Day, their slate of electors gets picked to cast ballots in December.

These members are largely bound—by law and by oath—to uphold the will of the voters. And throughout history, few have deviated from that path.

But 2016 is an upside-down year featuring deeply unpopular candidates. A few electors have already threatened to break from Trump or Clinton and vote their conscience—even if that means bucking the will of their state's voters.

From 538: The Polarization Of Red And Blue States From McGovern To Trump, In One Chart

A different take on political polarization.

- Click here for the article.

Putting the pieces back together

And here are a few items related to the respective efforts of each candidate to adjust themselves towards the political center in an effort to win the general election.

The most commonly used term is "pivot." More on that soon.

- The New Republic: How Many Young Bernie Supporters Does Hillary Clinton Really Need?
- The Fiscal Times: Why Sanders’ Supporters Might Not Switch Their Votes.
- NYT: Hillary Clinton Denounces Donald Trump as Untrustworthy on Women’s Issues.
- AP: Back in Washington, Clinton, Trump work toward party unity.
- The Washington Post: Romney loyalists’ divisions over Trump spill out into the open at Utah summit.
- The Washington Post: Trump doesn’t have a national campaign. So the GOP is trying to run one for him.
- The Washington Post: After briefing with Trump’s chief strategist, House Republicans see ‘pivot’.
- The Hill: Evangelicals give Trump stamp of approval.

From 538: Ted Cruz’s General Election Strategy Is Wishful Thinking

There are multiple reasons I like this story. The graph below breaking voter turnout into ideological categories might be the best.

- Click here for the article.

From the Green Papers: HOW DID WE GET HERE, ANYWAY? an historical analysis of the Presidential Nominating Process.

A manageable, but thorough look at the process.

- Click here for it.

Here's a bit of it:

In the original Constitutional framework, the Electoral College itself was to be the presidential nominating body- the equivalent of today's National Conventions. Each Elector was to choose two men for President without having any idea as to how his individual ballot would affect the ultimate cumulative vote of the Electors as a whole. With the proviso that no more than one of the Elector's two choices could be from the same State as the Elector himself, the assumption was that the Elector's first choice would, most likely, be some "favorite son" from the Elector's own home state while his second choice would be forced to be some other notable from perhaps the same region but, by constitutional edict, from a different state. Clearly, the Framers considered it more than likely that the second choices of various Electors would ultimately determine the five "nominees" for the office from whom the House of Representatives, voting by State not as individuals, would pick the next President (for it is doubtful any of them entertained the notion that- except in the case of George Washington- the Electoral College would ever produce a majority of the electoral vote for any of the Electors' choices for President); it is equally as clear that the Framers also believed that they had come up with a system that would keep faction/party from becoming a factor in the election of a President. They, of course, were very wrong.

From Ballotpedia: Ballot Access for Presidential Candidates

Here's the full rundown on how presidential candidates get on the ballot in each of the 50 states.

- Click here for it.

From the National Journal: Conservative Leaders Plan Two Secret Meetings Aimed at Picking a 2016 Candidate

Here's an addition to our discussion of the nature of democracy in the United States. Are we better understood as being an oligarchy - or more specifically a plutocracy?

- Click here for the article.

A secretive group that serves as the umbrella operation for leaders and activists within the conservative movement will host two meetings in the coming months,National Journal has learned, the first to vet Republican presidential candidates and the second to discuss coalescing behind one of them.

The Council for National Policy, a shadowy organization of several hundred dues-paying members, typically meets three times a year in various locations around the country. But with the 2016 cycle accelerating, and many conservative leaders intent on rallying behind a single candidate, CNP's leadership is taking extraordinary measures—scheduling two top-priority meetings outside of Washington—and inviting a large number of nonmembers to both.

The group will host a two-day summit on May 15 and 16 at the Ritz-Carlton in Tyson's Corner, Virginia. The format will be simple: Candidates will have an hour on stage to address the room and answer questions, followed by 30 minutes of meet-and-greet with guests. Organizers say they've begun sending invitations to all of the major Republican candidates—"even Chris Christie," one said—and several candidates have already committed to the event.

The candidates' performances in May could have enormous implications. That's because five months later, CNP will reconvene—in the same city, at the same hotel—but with a different agenda: To begin narrowing its list of candidates with the aim of collectively supporting just one.

Don't blame Sandy, credit the first debate, or argue that Romney was a lousy candidate.

At least according to political scientist Samuel Popkin.

His take about what happened?

To put it bluntly: either the Romney campaign never had a chance, or they blew it through early strategic choices. I believe that, while it is never easy to take on an incumbent, the Romney campaign lost whatever chance they had because of early mistakes.
- read it here.

1972 Presidential Candidate McGovern Dies

The NYT has a look at his life. The word liberal is tossed around carelessly, this is what one really looks like.

Do debates matter?

Aside from 1976, there is little evidence that presidential debates have had a major impact on the relative positions of the two candidates, but there are a slew on of minor effects.

Ezra Klein outlines them here, and John Sides here.

The biggest impact seems not to be from the debate, but from the media spin following the debate.

Who Runs the Republican Party Right Now?

For my 2301s as we start to discuss elections and parties. This author argues that the Republican Party is currently being defined by "state activists and governors, " not by potential presidential candidates. This may not serve the party well in 2012. It does introduce a major point we will hit when we discuss the decentralized nature of political parties in the United States. At any one point in time it can be tough to determine who or what is in charge, what the party truly stands for, and who made that decision.

From Along for the Ride:

With the 2012 class coalescing so slowly, the initiative has flowed elsewhere. On Capitol Hill and in the states, Republican legislators and governors empowered by the party’s historic gains in 2010 are advancing aggressive agendas with major 2012 implications. Rather than influencing those ideas, the potential GOP presidential candidates are mostly racing after them.

The best example is in Wisconsin, where newly elected Gov. Scott Walker is seeking to revoke most collective-bargaining rights for public employees. Every major Republican presidential hopeful has endorsed Walker’s initiative—which has galvanized conservatives but ignited volcanic resistance from organized labor. The eventual Republican nominee may still consider that issue a winner in 2012. But regardless, he (or she) has already locked onto a position that will allow union leaders to present a GOP White House victory as a threat to the very existence of organized labor. That could electrify rank-and-file mobilization.

Something similar has already happened with Hispanics. Most of the major 2012 candidates have embraced Arizona’s tough anti-immigration law (except for Huckabee and Romney, who hedged). Again, the eventual nominee might consider that to be a winning issue next year. But if Republicans choose an Arizona-style hard-liner, Democrats will undoubtedly find it easier to portray the GOP ticket as hostile to a burgeoning Hispanic population.