MASARYK UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL STUDIES

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Bachelor thesis

TEREZA VAHANČÍKOVÁ

Supervisor: Mgr. Jakub Šedo, Ph.D.

Department of Political Science Political Science UČO: 450388

Brno 2018/2019

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Bibliografický záznam

Autor: Tereza Vahančíková Fakulta sociálních studií, Masarykova univerzita Department of Political Science Název práce: Role of Swing States in U.S. Presidential Election Studijní program: Political Science Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Jakub Šedo, Ph.D. Akademický rok: 2018/2019 Počet stran: 56 Klíčová slova: USA, voľby, prezident, Demokratická strana, Republikánska strana, volebný systém, zbor voliteľov, swing state, battleground state, competitive state

1

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Bibliografic record

Author: Tereza Vahančíková Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University Department of Political Science Title of Thesis: Role of Swing States in U.S. Presidential Election Degree Programme: Political Science Supervisor: Mgr. Jakub Šedo, Ph.D. Academic Year: 2018/2019 Number of Pages: 56 Keywords: USA, election, president, Democrat, Republican, election system, Electoral College, swing state, battleground state, competitive state

2

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Anotace

Bakalárska práca rozoberá vlastnosti americkej politickej mapy, ktorá sa delí na demokratické a republikánske štáty a tzv. swing states. Komplexný proces voľby prezidenta v USA vytvoril podmienky, v rámci ktorých malé množstvo štátov rozhoduje o výsledku volieb. V tejto práci sa ich snažím identifikovať a analyzovať ich volebné správanie, ale hlavne demonštrovať ich vplyv na voľbu amerického prezidenta v predchádzajúcich voľbách, v posledných voľbách v roku 2016 ale aj vo voľbách budúcich.

3

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Abstract

The bachelor thesis discusses the means of the American political landscape, which has been divided into Democratic and Republican strongholds and swing states. The complex presidential election process has created conditions, in which a small amount of states has the power to determine the outcome of the election. This work aims to identify them and analyze their voting behavior, but mainly to demonstrate their significance in electing the U.S. president in past elections, in the most recent 2016 election and in the future.

4

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I hereby declare that I wrote my bachelor thesis on the topic of Role of Swing States in U.S. Presidential Election by myself. All sources used are cited and listed in the bibliography.

Brno – May 6th, 2019 ...... Tereza Vahančíková

5

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I would like to thank Mgr. Jakub Šedo, Ph.D. for his time and valuable advice, which were crucial for the creation of this thesis.

In addition, I would like to thank whoever supported me throughout the writing process. You know who you are and I am incredibly thankful for you.

6

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 9 1. Theoretical Background ...... 12 1.1 President in the U.S. Political System ...... 12 1.2 Presidential Election Process ...... 12 1.3 Electoral College Debate ...... 16 2. Swing State Phenomenon ...... 17 2.1 State of Research ...... 17 2.2 Swing States ...... 22 1. Ohio ...... 22 2. Florida...... 23 3. North Carolina ...... 24 4. Wisconsin ...... 24 5. New Mexico ...... 25 6. Colorado ...... 25 7. Nevada ...... 26 8. New Hampshire ...... 26 9. Virginia ...... 27 10. Iowa ...... 27 Determining Swing States ...... 28 2.3 Dividing Swing States ...... 28 3. Methodology ...... 30 4. Role of Swing States in U.S. Presidential Elections ...... 31 4.1 Swing States and Presidential Elections 1988 – 2012 ...... 31 1988 ...... 31 1992 ...... 31 1996 ...... 32 2000 ...... 32 2004 ...... 33 2008 ...... 33 2012 ...... 33

7

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Summary of the Findings ...... 34 4.2 Historical Close Runs ...... 35 Table 1 – Presidential Election Results ...... 36 5. Role of Swing States in the 2016 Presidential Election ...... 39 5.1 Swing states in 2016 ...... 41 5.2 New-found Swing States ...... 42 11. Michigan ...... 42 12. Pennsylvania ...... 43 4. Wisconsin ...... 44 5.3 Emerging Swing States ...... 44 13. Arizona...... 44 14. Maine ...... 45 15. Minnesota ...... 45 5.4 Role of Swing States in Future Elections ...... 46 Conclusion ...... 47 Bibliography ...... 49

Number of Characters: 85 176

8

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Introduction

In September 2015, a former Republican presidential candidate and Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, made a memorable note regarding the upcoming election: “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president, 12 states are.” (Walker cited in Lovelace 2015). The reality in 2016 turned out to be three states deciding that Donald J. Trump would be elected. Trump won all three of the former Democratic strongholds - Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than a 1% victory margin. Approximately 77,000 voters decided the future of the 323-million nation (U.S. Census Bureau 2016).

The complex process of choosing the Leader of the Free World has created conditions, in which voters in a small number of states determine the outcome of the election. The so-called swing states that emerged in recent elections therefore receive nearly all the attention and spending from presidential campaigns, they have become the centerpiece of political news coverage. My goal is to explain and define the swing state phenomenon and demonstrate its role in presidential elections. I will attempt to do so by examining previous academic research on the subject, but also by analyzing voting behavior of swing states in past elections. I seek to answer the question whether the next president of the United States really is elected by a handful of states.

The swing state phenomenon and its potential impact on presidential elections is a relatively new subject in the field of political science. It has not been sufficiently researched by academics; therefore, I will try to demonstrate that the issue deserves more attention. I will be using an inductive method, firstly describing the phenomenon and later demonstrating its significance in presidential elections. My qualitative research of recent presidential elections, with the main focus on the last election in 2016, will be mainly based on two publications, Hecht and Schultz’s Presidential Swing States: Why only ten matter (2015) and an updated version, Schultz and Jacob’s Presidential Swing States (2018). My primary sources were also election results, mainly from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. The research aims to answer following questions: What are the swing states and how has the presidential election process helped to create the phenomenon? What states belong to the category and what are their characteristics? Lastly, what role have they played in past

9

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION presidential elections including the 2016 election and what role will they play in the future? The feasibility of the work depends on the scope of the thesis and availability of data, both should be sufficient for the subject of swing states.

For better orientation, the work is divided into five major chapters. In Chapter 1 – Theoretical Background I shortly discuss the role of the president in the United States. A considerably bigger portion of this chapter is dedicated to a description of the election process. The Electoral College and its mechanisms are discussed, so are controversies connected with it. The following Chapter 2 – Swing State Phenomenon consists of an extensive literature review and characterization of ten swing states, determined by Hecht and Schultz (2015). Chapter 3 – Methodology explains the methods used in the practical section of the work. In Chapter 4 – Role of Swing States in U.S. Presidential Elections, I examine voting behavior of such states in elections 1988 – 2012 and summarize my findings in relation to them. Concluding part of the chapter is dedicated to a discussion of historical close runs, or elections that were determined by a single state. The last Chapter 5 – Role of Swing States in 2016 is a case study of the most recent election and the role that swing states played in it. In the text, I argue about its uniqueness and examine voting behavior of swing states in it. The following part is dedicated to a characterization of new and emerging swing states, that were not part of the category, but have displayed some tendencies towards it. The chapter is concluded with a short discussion of the future of the swing state category. The whole work is wrapped up by a summary of the findings. On the following page, I have intentionally included a map of the United States for a better navigation when discussing particular states.

10

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Source: Jones 2009

Alabama - AL Louisiana - LA Ohio - OH Alaska - AK Maine - ME Oklahoma - OK Arizona - AZ Maryland - MD Oregon - OR Arkansas - AR Massachusetts - MA Pennsylvania - PA California - CA Michigan - MI Rhode Island - RI Colorado - CO Minnesota - MN South Carolina - SC Connecticut - CT Mississippi - MS South Dakota - SD Delaware - DE Missouri - MO Tennessee - TN Florida - FL Montana - MT Texas - TX Georgia - GA Nebraska - NE Utah - UT Hawaii - HI Nevada - NV Vermont - VT Idaho - ID New Hampshire - NH Virginia - VA Illinois - IL New Jersey - NJ Washington - WA Indiana - IN New Mexico - NM West Virginia - WV Iowa - IA New York - NY Wisconsin - WI Kansas - KS North Carolina - NC Wyoming - WY Kentucky - KY North Dakota - ND

11

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

1. Theoretical Background

1.1 President in the U.S. Political System

The United States of America is a federation with a democratic presidential system, meaning that a single leader serves as a head of the state and a head of the government, receiving extensive powers in comparison to presidents in countries with parliamentary systems (Issit 2019). The Constitution of the United States of America therefore “vests all executive Power in the hands of the President” (U.S. Const. art. II, §1) The elected president becomes the Commander in Chief of the nation’s Army and Navy, appoints heads of the executive Departments. The president also possesses a right to appoint many important offices, including Judges of the Supreme Court (U.S. Const. art. II, §2).

To ensure the functioning of the checks and balances system, the legislative and the judiciary branch were given extensive powers in order to control the president. Despite that, it can be argued that the president is a dominant figure in the U.S. political system. With consideration of the historical and current geopolitical power of the United States, the president has become a key figure in global politics and international relations as well. The fact that this person, who becomes one of the most influential people in the world, is elected, brings attention to the election process itself.

1.2 Presidential Election Process

It is clear, that in the United States, the president plays a key role not only in domestic but also in foreign affairs. In presidential systems, it is typical for the president to be popularly elected, which made the U.S. presidential election a popular target of the worlds’ academics, politicians and media. Its uniqueness and complexity have historically attracted a lot of attention, but at the same time they have been a cause of confusion for many American voters (Medvic 2010: 41) To fully comprehend the role the swings states play in the election process, it is necessary to explain the means of the system first.

12

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The election of president and vice president of the United States is a result of an indirect vote made by a by electors, elected by American voters. The whole process is done through a complex institution called Electoral College (Neale 2011a: 64). It is a product of a “compromise reached by the framers of the Constitution during the Constitutional Convention in 1787” (U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2011: 43). The Electoral College system of today consists of the Electoral College and “an array of subsequent Federal and State laws and political party practices” (Congressional Digest 2017: 2). It differs from the original plan due to constitutional amendments that were adopted over the years. It has endured many tests in form of difficult elections that instigated necessary alternations. However, it still represents its original ideas and it has become a cornerstone of American politics.

The Constitution of the United States defines the election of the president in Art. II. § 1, in eight clauses that were augmented by the 12th, 20th and 25th Amendments. The president and vice president hold their office for the term of four years. They are elected by electors, appointed by states in their preferred way. The number of Electors for each state shall “equal to its whole number of Senators and Representatives” (U.S. Const. art. II, §2, 1-2) The electors vote in their “respective states” and then deliver the list of votes to be counted in a joint session of the Congress. The candidate who has reached a majority of the whole number of electors appointed and a majority of the total votes becomes a president. In case of a tie, the House of Representatives elects the president and the Senate chooses the vice president.

The Electoral College system consists of elements governed by the federal government and elements governed by the individual states. The federal government decides on structure of the Electoral College system, the number of electors allotted to each state. The Constitution also determined that electors must vote in their home states and that they are guaranteed two votes1 (U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2011: 47). The state privileges include deciding the qualifications of electors and mainly the way they were appointed (U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2011: 48).

1 Originally, the electors were entitled to two votes for the president, the runner-up became the vice president. After the 12th Amendment was adopted, one vote was cast for the president and another for the vice president. (U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2011: 49) 13

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The description of the electoral process in the Constitution is a bit austere for how complex the system is. According to Neale: “the document only described the system’s basic elements, leaving ample room for development” (Neale 2011a: 66). The Electoral College is made up of 538 electors, who are responsible for casting votes on behalf of their states. Each state is allotted a number of electors, which shall equal to the state’s congressional representation (Medvic 2010: 41). The higher the population of a state, the bigger the number of its electoral votes. The electors serve as civil servants and they are not allowed to be senators, representatives or to hold any other important federal office. The Democrats and Republicans usually nominate well-known figures, such as governors, local officials or party activists (Neale 2011a: 67). According to the Constitution, the states are responsible for deciding how electors will be chosen. Nowadays, they are all chosen by a popular vote. In all states, with the exception two, “the plurality winner of the state’s popular vote wins all of the state’s electors” (Medvic 2010: 42). The total of forty-eight states and the District of Columbia use the “winner-take-all” election system when appointing electors, Maine and Nebraska use a “district system2” (Neale 2011a: 70).

General Election Day was set by the Congress and it occurs on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. American voters vote for their electors, but in most cases the election is decided on this day. “To win the presidency, a presidential candidate must secure a majority of electoral votes in the Electoral College,” which is currently 270 votes (Medvic 2010: 42) If a candidate reaches the 270-vote threshold and has a majority of the total 538 electoral votes, he or she will be voted to become the next president. On Monday after the second Wednesday in December the electors meet in their states, vote for the candidate preferred by voters in each state and send a Certificate of Vote which declares their votes (Medvic 2010: 42). In some states, the electors are required to vote for the state’s preferred candidate, in some it is just a custom. There have been cases of “faithless electors”, who purposely voted against the winner of the state’s popular vote for various individual reasons. However, they have never influenced the election in any major way. In the end, the task of the electors is to ratify the voters’ choice (Neale 2011a: 69-70). The final steps of the presidential

2 District election system used in Maine and Nebraska consists of appointing two electors statewide (representing two senators for each state) and later electing one elector in each congressional district. Each vote counts twice, first at the state level and later at the congressional district level (Neale 2011a: 75). 14

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION election process include counting, ascertaining and declaring the vote in a joint session of the House and the Senate, which is presided by the vice president. The whole process is concluded by a ceremonial inauguration (Neale 2011a: 73).

The presidential election process is indeed a complex system which contains formal precedents listed above. However, it also consists of a candidate nomination process and it has another side of rules and customs that are of informal character. It is necessary to briefly look into them as well, when trying to fully comprehend the role of the swing states in the process.

The whole election process is preceded by a nomination process. Presidential candidates announce their candidacy way ahead, usually two years before the election. The first step for candidates towards getting the party nomination is receiving enough influential endorsements and campaign contributions. Medvic calls this stage the “invisible primary”. It helps eliminate candidates that are not capable of gaining support of enough voters (Medvic 2010: 281). This process significantly reduces the number of candidates for each party when they go into the nomination contests. These contests are a set of caucuses and primaries happening in each state that decide who will get the Republican and the Democratic nomination at the national convention (Medvic 2010: 282). Winning state’s caucus or primary gains the candidate a certain number of party delegates that will vote for the candidate at the convention3. As the delegate count increases, candidates start dropping out until the final two, most successful candidates are fighting for the party’s nomination. At the national conventions, delegates vote in favor of the candidate who won their state’s caucus or primary (Medvic 2010: 283). The campaign for the general election begins after the major parties nominate their official candidates. That is the point when almost all “the attention turns to the swing states,” where “the presidential contest will be competitive” (Medvic 2010: 285).

3 Readers interested in further research of the primary and caucus system should consider examination of following titles: “Primaries versus Caucuses: Strategic Considerations of Presidential Candidates” by Paul-Henri Gurian (1993) or “Measuring the Consequences of Delegate Selection Rules in Presidential Nominations” by Stephen Ansolabehere and Gary King (1990). 15

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

1.3 Electoral College Debate

The Electoral College is possibly the most controversial institution in the history of U.S. politics. “More proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress regarding electoral college reform than on any other subject.” (Whitaker and Neale 2004: 17). The debate regarding the fairness of the system is ongoing, especially after the last presidential election. Until 2016, the Electoral College has selected a candidate with the most popular votes in 48 out of 52 elections. In 1878, 1888 and 2000 candidates with fewer popular votes were elected into the office thanks to the Electoral College. The fourth case was in 1824 when the president had to be elected by the House of Representatives due to a tie (Neale 2011b: 1). The history repeated itself in 2016, when Donald J. Trump won the presidency with a majority of electoral votes but lost the popular vote.

Critics agree that the system gives voters in swing states an advantage and it “violates the principle of one person one vote” (Boxer 2017: 19). They believe that votes should count the same wherever they were cast. Rakove calls swing states “mere accidents of geography”, that became competitive due to demography and receive all the attention (Rakove 2017: 29). According to the National Popular Vote Initiative (2019), 94% of campaigning done by presidential candidates in the 2016 election happened in twelve states. A majority of safe states are ignored once the general campaign begins. Critics believe, that the Electoral College demotivates people from safe states to vote and it has a huge impact on the total turnout.

Many reforms have been introduced over the years in order to change the presidential election process. They could be divided into two categories; those trying to eliminate the electoral college and those who wish to repair its defects and keep the existing system. The first option is the alternative of a Direct Popular Vote that would abolish the Electoral College and the president would be decided based on a national popular vote. This alternative requires a constitutional amendment (Neale 2011b: 4). The more realistic option is the alternative of an Electoral College reform. Many plans have been developed under this category of reforms, but the most visible is the National Popular Vote Initiative. According to its supporters, it would eliminate existing Electoral College arrangements without the need for a constitutional amendment,

16

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION through an interstate compact. The system of electors would remain; however, they would not cast their votes according to state results, but according to the national popular vote (Neale 2011a: 16). The National Popular Vote Initiative is gaining bipartisan support and has already passed through some states’ legislatures (National Popular Vote 2019).

Whether the Electoral College system endures another test or will be reformed is not to be discussed in this work. The most important lesson is that it has helped to create the swing states and unless a reform is adopted, they will continue to play a key role in deciding the outcome of presidential elections.

2. Swing State Phenomenon

Approximately one third of American voters can be satisfied with the presidential election process, because they are lucky enough to vote in swing states. They receive almost all the attention from presidential candidates, majority of the campaigning occurs there. These states “truly benefit from the Electoral College system” previously described (Medvic 2010: 46). In this chapter, I will examine previous academic research of the subject, I will define and determine which states belong to the category before I analyze the way these states have influenced presidential elections.

2.1 State of Research

Prior academic research of the swing state phenomenon falls short of the growing significance they have in U.S. presidential politics. According to Hecht and Schultz, the concept is “a product of the media” and “a recent campaign invention” (2015: xi). They believe, the term was invented by journalists, long time ago.4 However, an increased use of the term started at the turn of the 21st century, due to it

4 The first mention of the term “swing state” was in a New York Times article in 1936 (Hecht and Schultz 2015: xii). 17

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION simply being a new word to describe the concept, but also because it was mentioned by an influential politician, Joseph Lieberman in 2000. Hecht and Schultz claim, that the real reason behind the increased use of the term is due to it successfully describing “an emergence of a new phenomenon in American presidential politics” (2015: xiv-xv). Among journalists, the term swing state has been used as a synonym to other terms describing a similar occurrence, such as: battleground state, competitive state, contested state, purple state, bellwether or a toss-up state. Ostermeier has conducted a research on the “preferred nomenclature” when discussing the concept by political news coverage and he found out the term swing state was the most frequently used among journalists (Ostermeier, 2012). Despite it being very popular in the media, the concept is not precisely defined and using other terms as synonyms may be misleading.

In political science, the term itself has not been adequately studied as a unique phenomenon either. Academics have taken a similar path as journalists, switching between different terms to describe what we now understand as competitiveness in presidential elections. Johnson (2005) and James and Lawson (1999) use the term “competitive states” and define them as the ones where the popular vote victory margin falls within five percentage points. Another popular term among political scientists is “battleground state”, which is often mistook for a swing state. Gleaser and Ward describe battleground states as those with a margin of victory that was less than ten percentage points (2006: 120). This definition differs significantly from the one used by Hecht and Schultz, who understand battleground states as simply the ones where presidential candidates choose to campaign (2015: xxix). The connection between battlegrounds and campaigning can be seen in numerous works, including a research conducted by Panagopouos (2009) on campaign dynamics in such states. Other terms aiming to describe the competitiveness of states, such as purple, bellwether, contested or a toss-up state are less mentioned in the academic sphere and more frequently used in news coverage.

My intention was not to confuse the reader right from the beginning, just to demonstrate how journalists and political scientists often use different terms describing competitiveness. However, all these terms have a slightly different meaning and switching between them may be inaccurate. I believe it is necessary to define swing

18

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION states as a unique phenomenon and I will try to prove that none of the words can serve as a substitute for the term.

In the academic sphere, the concept was initially mentioned when discussing the role of swing voters in American presidential elections. Mayer (2007) was among the first who payed attention to the term “swing” and distinguished it from others that describe competitiveness. He defined the swing voter as “a voter whose final allegiance is in doubt all the way up until election day” (Mayer 2007: 359). He believed that swing voters receive disproportionate attention from both campaigns because their vote has the “greatest expected pay-off” (Mayer 2007: 361). Indicating that a swing voter, in case of a very close race, can be the one deciding the outcome of the election.

In her book The Swing Vote (2012), Linda Killian further develops the concept of a swing voter in a slightly more popular way. She decided to focus on four key swing states, each representing a crucial group of swing voters. She believes they are in general centrist voters, often unaffiliated, fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. They feel disconnected from the major political parties and the government. Many of them are politically aware and they swing back and forth when voting, often seeking change (Killian 2012: 9-10). She claims that the number of swing voters is increasing, in some states they have become a majority compared to registered Democrats or Republicans (Killian 2012: 29). This is also a part of the reasoning behind the emergence of modern swing states. She directs her attention towards four swing states, New Hampshire, Ohio, Colorado and Virginia and defines four distinct groups of swing voters in these states. Socially moderate and fiscally conservative Rockefeller Republicans in New Hampshire, working middle-class voters of Ohio, millennial voters in Colorado, and suburban “Starbucks” moms and dads in Virginia (Killian 2012: 30- 32). Four groups identified in “The Swing Vote” are likely to play a major role in deciding future elections.

One of the first major publications focusing on the swing state phenomenon itself is America’s New Swing Region (2012), where Teixeira and his co-authors focus on the region of the Mountain West. States discussed in their work are Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. States that were, for most of the 20th century, reliably Republican have begun turning Democratic. The authors believe that

19

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION the reason behind this is the ongoing demographic change in the region. The publication discusses these factors particularly: increased minority share, increased share of white college graduates and a simultaneous decrease of the white working class. In addition, increasing urbanization and creation of large metropolitan areas play a major part in the region’s swinging (Teixeira et al. 2012: 5). The increased role of minority voters, especially Hispanic, rising liberal Millennial generation and ideological characteristics typical for the region are changing the politics in the Mountain West (Teixeira et al. 2012: 6-8). Similarly, Frey in his two sole publications about the effect of minorities (Frey 2012) and race (Frey 2009) on the 2008 and the 2012 presidential election claims, that Democrats benefit from the minority increase and especially the Hispanics voters are likely to “tip the balance” in many key states (Frey 2012). While both of their works are very valuable and provide a great insight into the change of the American political landscape, we will later find out that the demographic change is not the only reason behind the emergence of a swing state and many different factors play a role in the process.

Montgomery (2017) has expanded the scope of factors that influence the swing state status with what he calls political properties of such states. He conducted a research of the so-called elasticity of a state, or simply the fact, whether a state is likely to swing in presidential elections. He claims that the elasticity is increased with an increase in middle class households in the state and an increase in young adult population (Montgomery 2017: 35). In addition, elasticity increases with a decrease of religious adherents in a state (Montgomery 2017: 36). Regarding the non- demographic factors, he found out that states with lower number of electoral votes per capita are more likely to be elastic (Montgomery 2017: 37).

In their publication Presidential Swing States: Why only ten matter (2015), Hecht and Schultz were able to identify many more factors that cause the “swinging” of a state. Demographic changes are not the sole reasons. Swing states emerge also due to state-specific politics, number of independent voters, states’ party politics and organization, but also due to a preference of a certain Republican - Democratic balance (2015: 311-315). All these factors will be further discussed later, when describing the specifics of each swing state. Hecht and Schultz have also defined the concept in the most profound way. They believe that the term represents an “independent political phenomenon” (2015: xxviii). Their extensive definition consists

20

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION of four criteria, that each state must fulfill in order to be called a swing state. First criterium comes from the definition of a “competitive” state status or whether it has been won by five percent or less of the popular vote. Second criterium deals with a “bellwether” state status, meaning that a state has sided with the winner in presidential elections in a given period. Third criterium deals with “swinging” or whether the state has flipped back and forth going for Democrats or Republicans. Last criterium deals with the “battleground” status, which means, whether it has been a target for both major campaigns over a period of time (Hecht and Schulz 2015: xxx). A swing state is simply a state that has the competitive, bellwether, swinging and the battleground status.

The Hecht and Schultz (2015) definition is so precise, that all other definitions I have encountered when conducting the literature review seem too simple. Comparing it with Murse’s definition who sees a swing state as “the one in which the popular vote margin in a presidential race is relatively narrow and fluid, meaning that either a Republican or Democrat could win the state's electoral votes in any given election cycle” (Murse, 2019) or Franklin et al. definition, who see swing states “as electorally competitive states that can determine the outcome of presidential elections” (2013: 113), one has to conclude that the Hecht and Schultz (2015) definition is the most suitable.

Before I move on to the description of states with a swing status, it is necessary to also briefly define the opposite, the so-called “safe states”. Even though, they will not be a subject analyzed in this thesis, a short definition is essential for proper understanding of the American political landscape. Safe states are the ones which have repeatedly voted in favor of one party in the course of numerous elections and have become solidly Republican or Democrat. Republican bastions include states like Texas, South Carolina or Alabama. Democrats have strongholds in California, New York or the District of Colombia, to name but a few. (Medvic 2010: 285-286). The term has many synonyms, scholars and media tend to use alternatives like blackout, spectator, noncompetitive, non-battleground or they distinguish safe states as red and blue. These are the states where the election is not competitive, and they are usually won by a larger margin compared to swing states. Presidential candidates consider campaigning in safe states as useless and they tend to ignore them. They are not recipients of campaign visits or almost any spending (National Popular Vote 2019).

21

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

2.2 Swing States

In Presidential Swing States: Why only ten matter, Hecht and Schultz (2015) have identified the swing states as those, which have been competitive (5% vote victory margin) in the last presidential election, as those which have repeatedly matched the nation’s popular vote, have been swinging back and forth and lastly, those who have received attention from presidential campaigns over the years. They applied these criteria on the states’ popular vote in seven presidential elections, that have occurred in years 1988 - 2012, and found out, that ten states were able to qualify. These states include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin. Hecht and Schultz (2015) have also decided to include chapters on Indiana and Missouri, which do not fall into the category, but they have had some discrepancy in voting recently. Bergboner (2015) sees Indiana as a potential swing state, while Warren and Jacob (2015) cover Missouri due to its historical bellwether status. None of these states are as contested as the ten previously mentioned therefore I have decided not to discuss their profiles in this thesis.

Detailed analysis of the states’ voting history, demographics and their own political history helped them develop a theory about the existence of specific factors, that cause the swing states to swing. Despite the states being quite diverse, there are also some characteristics that they share. In the following section, I discuss these factors and I will try to find some similarities despite their distinctness.

1. Ohio

The state, that bears a nickname “battleground of the battlegrounds”, accounts for 18 electoral votes (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). Ohio can easily meet the criteria for a swing state. It has swung during presidential elections numerous times; it has also consistently mirrored the nations popular vote. Ohio has also repeatedly been a top priority of presidential campaigns and during the last two decades (Hendriks and van Doorn 2015: 66). Ohio has also demonstrated a higher turnout of voters in the elections 1988 - 2012 compared to the national average. Ohio’s swing state status is

22

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION caused by its diversity. There is a major difference between its urban and rural communities. Ohio is economically diverse, ranging from heavy industries to farming. Regional diversification also influences its swing state status, the state is composed of five regions that are culturally, economically and politically distinct (Hendriks and van Doorn 2015: 77). Another factor that plays a key role in its swinging is a very slim margin between registered partisans while a majority of voters identifies as moderates. Hendricks and van Doorn conclude, that Ohio “resembles the nation as a whole on variety of demographic and political variables” and that “it is very likely that the state will continue being pivotal” (2015: 79-80).

2. Florida

The biggest swing state in the American political landscape accounts for 29 electoral votes (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). It continues to get most of the attention from campaigns, especially, after the controversial 2000 election, when the state decided, that George W. Bush would become the next president. According to Foreman, the swinging of Florida can be explained by three factors: cultural, geographical and political. There has been a major switch in the Florida electorate, from being traditional southern to more and more culturally diverse (Foreman 2015: 83). The “Florida mosaic” is currently composed of older generations that have moved here due to the state being a “retirement refuge”. Florida is also home to many military bases, that increase the conservative vote. However, there has been an increase of migrants from South America and the Caribbean, which made the Hispanics the fastest growing minority in Florida. Despite the white population being a majority, the African-Americans also account for a significant part (Foreman 2015: 86). Florida is geographically diverse, the differences between the liberal urban and conservative rural communities are significant. The political factor also plays a major role, Republicans have “consolidated their hold on power on the state legislature”, however the citizens’ views often differ, and they tend to seek change in presidential elections (Foreman 2015: 83). Florida is likely to remain in the center of attention for many elections to come.

23

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

3. North Carolina

Being described as “the Bluest Red State in America”, North Carolina possesses 15 electoral votes (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). According to Cooper and Knotts, its allegiance during presidential elections is influenced by the quality of the candidate, “dynamics of gubernational elections”, which occur simultaneously with the presidential elections, but also its changing voting procedures (2015: 112). Despite having a white majority and a smaller proportion of ethnic groups, its three regions differ demographically and politically (Cooper and Knotts 2015: 113). The ideology of the majority of voters leans conservative, despite having the plurality of voters registered as Democrats (Cooper and Knotts 2015: 117). The state has been reliably Republican (1980 - 2004), but the Obama victory in 2008 was not an anomaly, there have been “hints of change in form of lowering margin of Republican victories” (Cooper and Knotts 2015: 123). North Carolina is likely to continue to hold its swing status due to Republican tight grip on state legislation while having a majority of registered Democrats and a demographic profile that does not favor any party (Cooper and Knotts 2015: 126).

4. Wisconsin

Kraus and Weinschenk claim that the reason behind Wisconsin’s swing state status is a “long-standing clash of political cultures”, the moralistic and individualistic (2015: 131). The majority of voters who decide about the state’s ten electoral votes (U.S. Census Bureau 2011), consider themselves to be moderates (Kraus and Weinschenk 2015: 133). The clash of political cultures is visible in the Wisconsin economics, where the industrial part is represented with individualistic Democrats and agricultural part with moralistic Republicans. The state is largely white, however there has been an increase in the ethnic group share of the population. Also, unions continue to play a major role in state politics (Kraus and Weinschenk, 2015: 134). There are visible regional differences in the state and its gubernational politics have shown a “consistent two-party competition” (Kraus and Weinschenk 2015: 138). Wisconsin is likely to remain a swing state due to being “relatively evenly divided

24

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION politically”, but also due to lots of campaigning, candidate visits and spending in the state (Kraus and Weinschenk 2015: 141).

5. New Mexico

Despite only having five electoral votes (U.S. Census Bureau 2011), New Mexico has received a decent amount of attention by presidential candidates. It has repeatedly matched the national outcomes and it has flipped from one party to another in recent elections. The reason behind that may be, that demographically, the state is one of the most distinct American states (Beachler 2015: 145-146). New Mexico has the largest Hispanic population of any U.S. state, while having the second largest Native American population. The white non-Hispanic share of the population is the second lowest in the whole nation. Beachler argues that despite being a swing state in several recent elections, New Mexico is leaning towards becoming a safe Democratic state (2015: 146).

6. Colorado

With its nine electoral votes, Colorado has only recently established its swing status (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). Prehus et al. argue, that it was caused by changing demographic trends, state-specific policy issues, “long-standing preferences for divided government” and an increasing number of independent voters (2015: 163). There have been three major demographic shifts in Colorado. The Hispanic share of the population is increasing while the white share is losing influence. There has been an increase of college educated residents with higher incomes and lastly, the majority of the population is moving to cities (Prehus et al. 2015: 178). Colorado is also known for its “lively initiative process”, that causes greater involvement of citizens and a competitive environment in local politics. This aspect affects voter turnout in a major way (Prehus et al. 2015: 179-180). Colorado’s electorate is fairly divided with a growing majority of unaffiliated voters and “equalizing of partisan attachments” (Prehus et al. 2015: 170-171). Colorado is likely to remain a contested state due to

25

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION increasing number of liberal-leaning voters, changing politics and unique policy contestation (Prehus et al 2015: 186).

7. Nevada

Accounting to only six electoral votes, Nevada has also been in the center of attention in recent years (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). Its swing status is caused by competitive partisan environment, rapid changes of demographics and explosive growth (Damore and Gill 2015: 194-195). Damore and Gill claim, that Nevada has developed a “recent trend of Democrats winning presidential election and Republicans rebounding in midterm election”, while a growing majority of Nevada electorate is nonpartisan (2015: 199). Weak party organization in the state has caused that the Nevada electorate is skeptical about supporting parties and rather supports individuals. Lastly, Nevada has been a popular destination for economic migrants but also foreign-born residents, which caused that the composition of the electorate is peculiar (Damore and Gill 2015: 204). All these factors suggest that Nevada’s swing status will remain.

8. New Hampshire

Despite only having four electoral votes (U.S. Census Bureau 2011), the state has a unique position in American presidential politics due to its first primary in the nation. New Hampshire has received major media attention, because its verdict became essential in the path to a party nomination (Palmer 2015: 221-222). The state, once regarded as Republican-dominated, has been shifting towards a swing status due to demographic change and ideological conversion of parties that increased liberal identification. The well-informed voters of New Hampshire have increased the voter turnout significantly due to media attention. The state is very likely to maintain its swing status (Palmer 2015: 240-241). The growing population of highly educated, high income and secular votes have changed their party preference because of economic interests. Palmer calls it a larger, long-term trend in the New England region (2015:

26

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

227). New Hampshire has also been switching back and forth in the state politics, which further proves its swing state tendencies (Palmer 2015: 237).

9. Virginia

The 13 electoral votes of Virginia (U.S. Census Bureau 2011), have served as a great motivation for presidential candidates to pay attention to the “Mother of presidents” (McGlennon 2015: 247). Its swing status can be easily demonstrated by examining candidate schedules and campaign spending, but also its electoral results. It is likely to maintain the status due to increased racial and ethnic diversity, urbanization, increasing number of young voters and a simultaneous decrease in rural white voters (McGlennon 2015: 246). Gradual transformation of the electorate, regional diversity and realignment of voters for the two major parties will continue to play a major role in Virginia (McGlennon 2015: 245).

10. Iowa

Similarly, Iowa has been getting significant media coverage because of its first caucus in the nation. Iowa’s six electoral votes were at stake during every recent election (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). Its swing state status is influenced by “strong party organization” in the state that was created due to caucus system, “non-partisan redistricting scheme” and easy conditions of changing partisanship for Iowa voters. Demographics of the state are not changing in a major way, which proves that they are not the sole reason behind states’ swing status (Hoffman and Larimer 2015: 267). Iowa has a majorly decentralized party structure where caucuses create competitive environment. (Hoffman and Larimer 2015: 270). Its redistricting mechanism is done through a non-partisan agency, which creates more competitive elections (Hoffman and Larimer 2015: 271). Another factor contributing is the majority of independent voters and the possibility to change partisanship very easily (Hoffman and Larimer 2015: 275). Last factor that plays a role in its swinging is Iowa’s political geography and a major rural-urban division (Hoffman and Larimer 2015: 276). Iowa is “likely to

27

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION reinforce its position as a swing state due to its institutional structures, geographic distribution of voters and organizing function of the Iowa Caucuses” (Hoffman and Larimer 2015: 283).

Determining Swing States

It is evident, that each of these states discussed above is unique and there are particular factors that cause their swinging. However, after conducting an extensive case study of the ten swing states, Hecht and Schultz (2015) have found a pattern of repeating characteristics. They might serve as general attributes that cause the states’ swinging. The first factor is a relative balance of Republican and Democrat registered voters, while at the same time, swing states tend to have high percentage of independent voters. The third factor is a demographic change, that has the biggest impact on the composition of the electorate (Hecht and Schultz 2015: 311-312). Majority of voters in swing states also leans towards centrism in terms of ideology. Fifth, the swing states tend to have regions, that are culturally, politically and economically distinct (Hecht and Schultz 2015: 313). They also tend to be relatively balanced when it comes to the political power within a state, alternating between Republican and Democratic state legislators, governors, representatives and senators. This balance has helped to develop the ability of both parties to mobilize voters in large numbers, therefore the swing state turnout is usually higher that the national average. Finally, swing states are in the center of attention of media, presidential candidates and their campaigns and they are recipients of large sums of campaign funding (Hecht and Schultz 2015: 314).

2.3 Dividing Swing States

When conducting my research, a question has arisen whether these states could be divided into distinct categories that would group those with similar patterns. Despite swing states being a fast-changing aspect of American presidential politics

28

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION and despite them having contrasting characteristic, I have come across two such divisions.

Silver (2012) has made a division of swing states into elastic and in-elastic categories, based on the way they react to campaigning. Elastic swing states “shift back and forth between parties in the midst of a campaign, in reaction to events”. They also have a higher percentage of independents and presidential campaigns have much bigger influence in these states. The category includes states such as New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin. In-elastic swing states are those that do not shift as quickly, their independents are “more rooted in party preferences” and react less to campaigns. Silver (2012) lists North Carolina and Virginia as in-elastic (Silver 2012 in Mc Lean 2015: 38).

Schultz and Jacob (2018) have come up with a slightly different and more precise division. They identify four categories of swing states that divide them into classic, recent, new-found and emerging swing states. The first category of classic swing states has been “consistently purple since at least the start of the 21st century” and includes Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Ohio. The category of recent swing states unites those, which have “gradually moved towards the Democrats, as the party became reliable on minority and urban voters in the 2000s”. Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia are considered recent swing states (Schultz and Jacob 2018: Introduction, 7). The new-found swing states include Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which are a trio of states with surprising voting behavior in 2016 (as we will see in the last chapter). The last category of emerging swing states are states which have been solidly Democratic or Republican for over two decades but came close to shift in 2016 and may possibly do so in the future. Arizona, Maine and Minnesota fall into the category (Schultz and Jacob 2018: Introduction, 8).

In this chapter I have attempted to define and discuss the swing state phenomenon in the context of previous academic research of the subject. Also, to look at specific traits of each state that fits into the category of swing states, and to find similar patterns that distinguish the category as a whole from safe states of the American political landscape. The following chapter determines the methodology of the work before we move to the analysis itself.

29

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

3. Methodology

The main goal of this thesis is to define and explain the swing state phenomenon and to analyze the role it plays in U.S. presidential elections. After an extensive literature review that defined and distinguished which states belong to the swing state category, it is necessary to examine their voting behavior.

The following analytical part will be divided into two major sections. The first one aims to analyze the role swing states, identified by Hecht and Schultz (2015), played in presidential elections that occurred in years 1988 - 2012. I have decided to focus on these seven elections, simply because Hecht and Schultz based their criteria for qualifying swing states on data from these elections, but also because it is a sufficient scope to demonstrate their behavior. I will be focusing on how the ten states voted in these elections. The aim is to single out the number of electoral votes they provided for the winner and recognize how tight the victory margin was in these states. I will use the criterium for a state to be considered competitive defined by Hecht and Schultz (2015), which is whether it was won by less than (or equal to) a 5% margin. States, that do not belong to the category but were especially close in these elections will be also mentioned. I will be using data from National Archives and Records Administration and Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. After examining the election results, I will further discuss the findings and point out runs that were especially close and decided by a single swing state.

The last major chapter will be dedicated to a case study of the most recent presidential election in 2016 and the role that swing states had in it. I will attempt to answer the question why was the 2016 election unlike any other in the history. I will discuss the change of electoral support and voting behavior of the ten swing states in this election. I will identify the tight victories and examine states that belong to the the new-found and emerging swing states subcategories identified by Schultz and Jacob (2018). The last part of the chapter will be dedicated to a discussion of trends involving swing states, looking ahead to 2020 and beyond.

30

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

4. Role of Swing States in U.S. Presidential Elections

4.1 Swing States and Presidential Elections 1988 – 2012

1988

The election in 1988 was considered a landslide for George Bush, who won the Electoral College with 426 votes and obtained more than 7 million more popular votes than his Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis (National Archives and Records Administration5 2019a). All swing states except for Wisconsin and Iowa delivered their electoral votes to Bush, accounting to one third of the threshold (90/270 votes). For Bush, the victory margin was especially tight in California, Missouri, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Vermont. Dukakis won tightly in Washington, Oregon, West Virginia. Swing states, in which the election was tight (less than 5% margin of victory) were New Mexico, which voted for Bush and Wisconsin which sided with Dukakis. The closest competition occurred in Washington (1,59%) and Illinois (2,08%) (Leip 2019).

1992

Democrat William Clinton was able to beat George Bush seeking reelection in 1992 with 370 electoral votes and over a 5 million majority of popular votes (NARA 2019a). Seven swing states, except for Florida, North Carolina and Virginia voted for Clinton and accounted for 60/270 vote threshold. The race was especially close in Arizona, Texas and South Dakota for Republicans. Montana, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky and New Jersey were won by Clinton with a very tight margin. Swing states that were especially competitive that year include Florida, Virginia and North Carolina, which voted for Bush, but also Clinton’s wins in Ohio, Nevada,

5 Further cited using a shortcut – NARA. 31

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Wisconsin, Colorado and New Hampshire were by less than 5%. The closest wins were in Georgia (0,59%) and North Carolina (0,79%) (Leip 2019).

1996

In 1996, Clinton won reelection with 379 electoral votes and almost a 7 million vote difference against Republican Robert Dole (NARA 2019a). Similarly, as in 1992, seven swing states voted for Clinton and delivered 77 electoral votes. North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia voted for Dole. For the Republican nominee, the race was tight in Montana, Texas, South Dakota and Georgia. All three swing states that did not vote for Clinton were won by less than 5% margin. The wins in Arizona, Kentucky, Tennessee and lastly Nevada were also very close for Clinton. The lowest victory margin was in Kentucky (0,96%) and Georgia (1,17%) (Leip 2019).

2000

The presidential election in 2000 was probably the most controversial in American history. George W. Bush won the Electoral College with only 271 electoral votes and lost the popular vote to Albert Gore by almost 0,5 million votes (NARA 2019b). Bush was able to get seven swing states on his side, except for Wisconsin, New Mexico and Iowa. The rest delivered almost one third or 89 electoral votes. The race was close in Missouri, Tennessee, Florida, Nevada, Ohio and New Hampshire for Republicans. Gore won by less than 5% of votes in Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Iowa. The victories were especially close in Florida (0,01%), New Mexico (0,06%), Wisconsin (0,22%), Iowa (0,31%), Oregon (0,44%) and New Hampshire (1,27%) (Leip 2019). The 2000 election was the closest in modern history and it ended up being decided by voters in Florida, therefore it will be further discussed in the “Historical Close Runs” section.

32

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

2004

The attempt for reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 was similarly close as was his 2000 run. He beat Democrat John Kerry with just 286 electoral votes, the popular vote was in his favor by 3 million votes (NARA 2019b). Eight swing states, except for Wisconsin and New Hampshire, sided with Bush and delivered 101 electoral votes. For Bush, the victory was once again very tight in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio and Florida. Kerry won with less than a 5% margin in Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Swing states which voted for Kerry, Wisconsin (0,38%) and New Hampshire (1,37%) were especially close. Swing states that sided with Bush with a very low margin of victory include Iowa (0,67%), New Mexico (0,79%) and lastly Ohio (2,11%) which had the power to decide the outcome of the election (Leip 2019). The 2004 presidential election will also be discussed in the “Historical Close Runs” section of this chapter.

2008

The 2008 election once again brought relatively stable results. Barrack Obama received 365 electoral votes, a majority of popular votes by almost 10 million and won against Republican John McCain (NARA 2019b). Obama collected wins in all ten swing states, which accounted for 115 electoral votes. It was the greatest number of votes the swing states as a distinct category delivered to a presidential candidate in modern history. The race was not as tight as the last two previous elections, McCain only received a tight victory in Missouri (0,13%). Obama won Indiana (1,03%), Ohio (4,58%), North Carolina (0,33%) and Florida (2,81%) by less than 5% of votes (Leip 2019).

2012

The Obama reelection in 2012 was achieved with 332 votes and almost 5 million more popular votes than his opponent, Republican Mitt Romney (NARA

33

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

2019b). Obama lost North Carolina but was able to keep support of the remaining nine swing states and their 100 electoral votes delivered have accounted for a large portion of the 270-vote threshold. Romney’s win in North Carolina was tight, he only won by 2,04%. Swing states including Ohio (2,97%), Florida (0,88%) and Virginia (3,87%) ended up being close wins for Obama. There were no other states in the election, that would be decided by less than a 5% victory margin (Leip 2019).

Summary of the Findings

For a more compact summary of the findings I have decided to put the data in Table 16. I have included the 2016 presidential election as well for better overview of the trends involving the swing states. After the examination of presidential election results from years 1988 - 2012, it is evident that swing states play a key role in deciding the outcome. There are two main lessons one can take away from the results. The first one is that the winners of the presidential elections that occurred during 1988 - 2012 have gained support of most swing states in every election. They have delivered approximately one third of the votes required by the 270-vote threshold. The lowest number, 60 votes, was delivered in 1992 in favor of Clinton by seven swing states. The greatest number of swing electoral votes was 115, delivered by all 10 swing states, which helped elect Obama in 2008. The support of swing states was essential for each presidential candidate. With the exception of the Bush victory in 1988 and both Clinton’s wins in 1992 and 1996, every candidate needed the support of swing states in order to win the election. In the last five presidential elections, the swing states delivered the essential electoral votes to pass the threshold. Both victories of Bush in 2000 and 2004, both victories of Obama in 2008 and 2012 and lastly, the victory of Donald Trump in 2016 were made possible thanks to the support of swing states.

The second main message, that results from the examination of presidential elections in the period of 1988 – 2012, is that the number of tight victories varies for specific reasons. In 1988, eleven states voted with a victory margin less than 5%. In

6 See pages 36 – 38. 34

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

1992 it was the greatest number; seventeen states were won closely. In 1996 there were eleven states, in 2000, there were twelve and in 2004, there were eleven states once again. Both Obama’s wins had a significantly lower number of tight victories, with only five states being competitive in 2008 and four states in 2012. The election in 2016 restored the trend again, when eleven states were won by less than a 5% margin, which will be further discussed in the following chapter. The number of these competitive states is not the only thing that varies with each election. There is also a great variety when it comes to the list of these states. In the three elections that occurred between 1988 – 1996, the states that do not qualify as swing states constituted a majority of the competitive races. Starting from 2000, the last five presidential elections, swing states dominated the lists of tight victories. States that did not fall into the swing state category for specific reasons, but have been repeatedly competitive since 1988 include Pennsylvania, Missouri, Oregon, Arizona, Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Georgia and Montana.

4.2 Historical Close Runs

The presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 were some of the most exceptional in American history. The reason why I discuss them in this section is because their winner was decided by a single state. In both runs, swing states have had the largest influence on the outcome. In 2000, Florida voters decided that George W. Bush would become the next president when the rest of the country was evenly divided. In 2004, the victory in Ohio delivered the remaining electoral votes for Bush to be reelected. Both Florida and Ohio are swing states with the two highest numbers of electoral votes, both have had a tight victory margin repeatedly since 1988.

The 2000 Presidential Election was a unique historical event. Not only because it was the closest state election in memory and it had to be decided by a Supreme Court verdict, but also because Bush did not secure a win of the popular vote (Erikson 2001: 29). The results in Florida were as close as 930 votes (0,01%) deciding which candidate gets the 25 electoral votes at that time. Ballots were counted and recounted mechanically, however the subsequent hand recounts were stopped by the Supreme Court on December 12th, 2000 with the famous Bush v. Gore Decision (Posner 2004:

35

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

2). Some believe that the popular vote difference in Florida was as low as 202 votes. Both Bush and Gore decided to take legal action not only because of the tight result, but also due to controversies involving the voting machinery and a confusing ballot design. Neither of the candidates in 2000 demanded a recount of the whole state, only particular districts, which was later stopped by the Supreme Court (Yatanoor 2005: 135-136).

The 2004 presidential election was in many ways similar to the case of 2000. However, Ohio ended up being the decisive state instead of Florida and the victory margin was significantly higher (2,11%). In addition, Bush was able to win the popular vote against his opponent Kerry. Even though a legal battle was expected after the election, Kerry decided not to pursue it in the end (Yatanoor 2005: 136). The 2004 election was exceptional with its increase in turnout by almost 17 million votes. This voter surge caused that it is now considered to be one of the most narrowly decided elections in history (Campbell 2005: 219).

To conclude, the presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 were an important impulse for the research of the swing state phenomenon. They proved a race can be so close, that it is decided by voters in a single state. They helped demonstrate the key role the swing states continue to have in recent presidential elections. They also continue to justify the necessity of the debate regarding the fairness of the Electoral College system.

Table 1 – Presidential Election Results

Source: Leip 2019

* out of the total swing state electoral votes for the election ** states in bold do not belong to the swing state category, but were won by tight margin repeatedly (at least twice) in the time period

36

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Winner EV PV Swing states in favor EV delivered by Swing states against ≤ 5% victory margin** ≤ 5% victory margin swing states* swing states

1988 George Bush [R] 426 53,37% Florida 90/109 Wisconsin Washington (1,59%) Wisconsin (3,62%) Ohio Iowa Illinois (2,08%) New Mexico (4,96%) North Carolina Pennsylvania (2,32%) New Mexico Maryland (2,91%) Colorado Vermont (3,52%) Nevada California (3,57%) New Hampshire Missouri (3,89%) Virginia New York (4,01%) Oregon (4,67%) West Virginia (4,74%) 1992 William Clinton [D] 370 43,01% Ohio 60/112 Florida Georgia (0,59%) North Carolina (0,79%) Wisconsin North Carolina Arizona (1,95%) New Hampshire (1,22%) New Mexico Virginia New Jersey (2,37%) Ohio (1,83%) Colorado Montana (2,51%) Florida (1,89%) Nevada Kentucky (3,21%) Nevada (2,63%) New Hampshire Texas (3,48%) Colorado (4,26%) Iowa South Dakota (3,52%) Wisconsin (4,35%) Louisiana (4,61%) Virginia (4,37%) Tennessee (4,65%)

1996 William Clinton [D] 379 49,23% Florida 77/112 North Carolina Kentucky (0,96%) Nevada (1,02%) Ohio Colorado Georgia (1,17%) Colorado (1,37%) Wisconsin Virginia Arizona (2,22%) Virginia (1,96%) New Mexico Tennessee (2,41%) North Carolina (4,69%) Nevada Montana (2,88%) New Hampshire South Dakota (3,46%) Iowa Texas (4,93%)

2000 George W. Bush [R] 271 47,87% Florida 89/112 Wisconsin Oregon (0,44%) Florida (0,01%) Ohio New Mexico Minnesota (2,40%) New Mexico (0,06%) North Carolina Iowa Missouri (3,34%) Wisconsin (0,22%) Colorado Tennessee (3,86%) Iowa (0,31%) Nevada Pennsylvania (4,17%) New Hampshire (1,27%)

37

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

New Hampshire Nevada (3,55%) Virginia Ohio (3,51%)

2004 George W. Bush [R] 286 50,73% Florida 101/115 Wisconsin Pennsylvania (2,50%) Wisconsin (0,38%) Ohio New Hampshire Michigan (3,42%) Iowa (0,67%) North Carolina Minnesota (3,48%) New Mexico (0,79%) New Mexico Oregon (4,16%) New Hampshire (1,37%) Colorado Ohio (2,11%) Nevada Nevada (2,59%) Virginia Colorado (4,67%) Iowa Florida (5,01%) 2008 Barrack Obama [D] 365 52,86% Florida 115/115 Missouri (0,13%) North Carolina (0,33%) Ohio Indiana (1,03%) Florida (2,81%) North Carolina Ohio (4,58%) Wisconsin New Mexico Colorado Nevada New Hampshire Virginia Iowa 2012 Barrack Obama [D] 332 51,01% Florida 100/115 North Carolina Florida (0,88%) Ohio North Carolina (2,04%) Wisconsin Ohio (2,97%) New Mexico Virginia (3,87%) Colorado Nevada New Hampshire Virginia Iowa 2016 Donald Trump [R] 304 45,93% Florida 78/115 New Mexico Michigan (0,22%) New Hampshire (0,37%) Ohio Colorado Pennsylvania (0,72%) Wisconsin (0,77%) North Carolina Nevada Minnesota (1,51%) Florida (1,19%) Wisconsin New Hampshire Maine (2,96%) Nevada (2,42%) Iowa Virginia Arizona (3,50%) North Carolina (3,66%) Colorado (4,91%)

38

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

5. Role of Swing States in the 2016 Presidential Election

The list of exceptional presidential elections in the U.S. was extended in November 2016. Ever since the official results were published, journalists and political scientists have been competing on who comes up with a more eye-catching phrase to describe the election. It has been called “one of the most shocking U.S. elections in modern political history” (Berenson 2016), “An American Tragedy” (Remnick 2016), “Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment” (Flegenheimer and Barbaro 2016). Also “one of the most striking political upsets in American history” (Dziak 2017) or simply “unprecedented” (Kurtzleben 2016). Before I analyze the voting behavior of swing states in 2016, it is necessary to explain why has this election earned such reputation.

The 2016 election was influenced by recent societal and political development of the country. The Obama era was marked by a Health care act and economic stimulus packages after the recession in the first decade of the new century. The foreign policy was dominated by the response to the rise of terrorism, domestic issues involved shootings with racial motivations and mass shootings which opened the debate about gun control. There was a significant division in partisanship, the contrast between the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats was growing. The 2016 election would determine the course of the country and its response to contemporary issues (Dziak 2017). After both major parties nominated Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump as their candidates, it was evident that the election would be unlike any other in the history. The main reason behind this claim were the immense differences between the nominees. Whether it was their experience, way of communication, controversies uncovered during the campaign, ideology and policy stance or gender, they have all multiplied the polarization of the race. The liberal-leaning Clinton was the first female candidate of a major political party in history with experience as a First Lady, Senator and a Secretary of State. Trump, who embodied a conservative candidate, was considered an outsider with his career of a businessman and no prior political practice (Dziak 2017). The campaign was marked by new forms of communication strategies, with an increased use of social media. It was also marked by various controversies involving both candidates, whether it was Clinton’s use of a

39

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION private email server or Trump’s infamous remarks on the Access Hollywood tape. Vavreck (2016) claims, that the 2016 election campaign was seemingly more about candidates’ traits, characteristics and fitness for office than about policies and ideas. Controversies received more coverage than their views on economy, they spent majority of their advertising time attacking the other’s character (Vavreck 2016). The only thing they seemed to have in common was their unpopularity as candidates.

The 2016 presidential campaign was bitter and full of conflicts that further enhanced the polarization of the electorate (Dziak 2017). Disinformation or “fake news” spread throughout social media played a major role in the race. Howard et al. claim, that “computational propaganda flourished during the 2016 election” (2017: 1). After conducting their analysis of Twitter usage during ten days around the election, they conclude that polarizing and conspiracy content was concentrated in swing states. Eight states previously discussed, except for Iowa and Wisconsin, had an above average concentration of such content compared to the national level. States that do not fall into the category but were expected to be competitive had similar results (Howard et al. 2017: 4). Alcott and Gentzkow (2017) add, that voters were exposed to a higher number of pro-Trump articles than pro-Clinton, but they could not confirm the effectiveness of “fake news” exposure in changing voting behavior (2017: 232).

A determinant of the uniqueness of the 2016 elections was also the failure of polling. Pre-election polling claimed that Clinton’s likelihood of winning was 71-90%. The polls have severely underestimated Trump’s support, especially in Upper Midwest (Kennedy et al. 2018: 2). The State Polls Aggregate predicted a Clinton win in both Minnesota and Wisconsin, Michigan was considered a tossup, but was leaning towards Clinton. According to the Aggregate, Clinton had a head start with 233 electoral votes compared to Trump’s 191 votes of the 270-vote threshold. The tossup states were Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida, but also Michigan and Pennsylvania and they constituted 114 electoral votes that would decide the election (Leip 2016).

The 2016 presidential election was surely one of the most exceptional in history. The reasons listed above are just the tip of the iceberg. The scale of this thesis does not allow me to further discuss issues such as the Russian Interference in the election or many other controversies involving the candidates. The crucial thing for now is that

40

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION the electorate was highly polarized, which is proved by the split between the popular vote and electoral college vote, but also a split between how the swing states voted.

5.1 Swing states in 2016

The 2016 election was special also due to voting behavior of swing states. Republican candidate Donald J. Trump was able to secure the support of only five swing states, identified by Hecht and Schultz (2015). In presidential elections that occurred between 1988 and 2012, a majority of swing states have always supported the winning candidate. In 2016, it was only a half. Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Iowa have together accounted for 78 electoral votes in favor of Trump out of the 115 votes from the swing state category. Clinton received the support of New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia (Leip 2019). Trump would not win without the support of swing states; they have delivered almost one- third of the votes required to pass the 270-vote threshold.

The recent trend of having more than ten close runs was reestablished in 2016 and proved that the small number of contested states during both Obama’s runs were an exception. States won by Trump with a tight margin (less than 5% of the vote) were Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Florida. Clinton gained a tight victory in Minnesota, Maine (although 1 electoral vote went to Trump because of the district election system), Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire. The closest victories in the 2016 elections were in Michigan (0,22%), New Hampshire (0,37%), Pennsylvania (0,72%) and Wisconsin (0,77%) (Leip 2019). For the whole list of closely contested states with precise victory margins see Table 1.

Comparing the results with The State Polls Aggregate, one can notice significant splits that were not predicted. Biggest upsets for the Clinton campaign occurred in Michigan, which was a pre-election tossup with a 2% lead for Clinton but voted for Trump with a 0,22% margin. Similarly, Pennsylvania was considered a tossup with a 2% lead for Clinton but ended up voting for Trump by a 0,72% victory margin. Wisconsin was predicted as a Democratic-leaning state with a 5% lead, but Trump won the state by a 0,77% margin. Clinton’s pre-election lead in New Hampshire

41

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION by 4% was reduced to a 0,37% win. In addition, Clinton’s lead of 8% in Democratic- leaning Minnesota has lowered to a 1,51% margin victory. North Carolina was predicted to be a close win for Clinton by 1%, however, it ended up voting in favor of Trump by 3,66%. Lastly, Arizona and Maine are worth mentioning. Previously solid- Republican Arizona was polling with a surprising 4% lead for Trump, the result was a 3,50% victory margin. Maine was considered a Democratic-leaning state but ended up giving one electoral vote to Trump due to its district system (Leip 2016 and Leip 2019).

Apart from New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin, the above- mentioned states do not fall into the category of swing states, defined by Hecht and Schultz (2015). However, in 2016 they have demonstrated unusual voting behavior and that is the reason why Schultz and Jacob (2018) have distinguished them as new- found and emerging swing states. Their characteristics and reasoning for such classification will be discussed in the subsequent sections.

5.2 New-found Swing States

The new-found swing state category constitutes of states, that were won by a very tight margin and tipped the balance in favor of Trump in 2016, despite voting consistently Democratic in the last few elections. The victory margin in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin was lower than 1%, therefore, it is reasonable to ask whether the results were an exception or if they demonstrate a new trend.

11. Michigan

Not long ago, Michigan was considered a battleground, but could not meet the swing state criteria (Dulio and Klemanski 2018: Ch.10, 2). The 2016 election proved, that its “blue wall” status, the state gained because of consistent Democratic wins since 1992, is not accurate anymore (Dulio and Klemanski 2018: Ch.10, 3). Donald Trump won its 16 electoral votes by the closest margin of victory (0,22%) on record for the 2016 election. Dulio and Klemanski claim, that the main reason behind his

42

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION victory was the voter perception of the candidates, voter turnout and campaign issues (2018: Ch.10, 6). Michigan has a potential to become a swing state due to competitive nature of elections in the state, history of ticket splitting, distinct features of the state’s electorate, especially the presence of Reagan Democrats7 and lastly, its tendency to consider election-specific factors the most crucial when voting (Dulio and Klemanski, 2018: Ch.10, 48). It is not clear whether Michigan will swing back to Democrats or add to the string of future Republican victories in 2020, however, it is evident that campaigns will invest their resources in the state. How competitive will the race in Michigan be depends on the turnout and ability to mobilize (Dulio and Klemanski 2018: Ch.10, 51).

12. Pennsylvania

Similarly, Pennsylvania has been Democratic since 1992. In 2016, its electoral votes constituted the national “breaking point”, delivering the 270th electoral vote to Trump (Jacob and Borick 2018: Ch.11, 2). Authors claim, that the 2016 election reestablished Pennsylvania as a swing state and its 20 electoral votes will be a major motivation for both parties in the future (2018: Ch.11, 29). Pennsylvania’s swing status is largely influenced by a geographic, cultural and political split between its two main regions, East and West and a history of ticket-splitting. The outcome of the 2016 election in Pennsylvania was, according to Jacob and Borick, influenced by favorable demographics and record turnout levels in Republican strongholds (2018: Ch.11, 28). Donald Trump also aggressively targeted its extensive rural population of older, white, working-class voters, who became more enthusiastic about voting for him rather than for Hillary Clinton (Jacob and Borick, 2018: Ch.11, 16-17).

7 Reagan Democrats are an important component of the Michigan political identity. They are voters, who traditionally voted for Democrats, but felt betrayed and turned to Republican Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Dulio and Klemanski believe, that Reagan Democrats reemerged as Trump Democrats in 2016 (2018: Ch.10, 14-16). 43

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

4. Wisconsin

Despite being previously described, it is necessary to briefly mention Wisconsin as well. The state became one of the three that decided the 2016 election. Kraus and Weinshenk claim that it will continue to be pivotal and it will attract the attention of campaigns because of the closeness of recent elections, but also because even a slight change in campaign strategies of one or few states can influence the outcome of the national election (2018: Ch.12, 36).

5.3 Emerging Swing States

The states belonging to this category, did not swing in the 2016 election, however they came very close to doing so, despite being considered solid Democrat or Republican. Similar question is raised, whether the results are an accident, or they are part of a developing trend.

13. Arizona

In the last five presidential elections (2000 - 2016), Arizona voted Republican. However, in the 2016 election, the state has demonstrated irregular voting behavior compared to the safe results of the previous races. Donald Trump won the state with only a 3,50% victory margin, which might suggest the state is turning purple. The reasoning behind it is state specific politics, growing number of unaffiliated voters, increasing Hispanic population that is altering Arizona’s demography, but also its political geography. Although Kenski argues, that the chances for a change in a short term is minimal, she also claims that if Democrats pursue effective mobilization, they can tip the balance in the state (2018: Ch.13, 26).

44

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

14. Maine

The state attracted attention after the 2016 election, because of its election system, which gave Trump one electoral vote, despite Clinton winning by 2,96%. Maine’s district system appoints two electors state-wide and two electors are appointed in each of the congressional districts. Fried and Melcher claim, that these districts are very distinct from one another, creating a “geographical schism” or “two Maines” (2018: Ch.14, 3). The 2nd District that voted for Trump is significantly more rural, less educated and has many more working-class voters (Fried and Melcher, 2018: Ch.14, 4) The split between the districts in voting, but also economics and demography could cause the 2nd district to become competitive or even Republican leaning (Fried and Melcher, 2018: Ch.14, 32). This could also help turn Maine as a whole into a swing state. According to the authors, whether Maine becomes a swing state depends on the voting behavior of the 2nd District in upcoming elections (2018: Ch.14, 45).

15. Minnesota

The Midwestern state be an example of consequences that a failed campaigning can have for a presidential candidate. The Clinton campaign did not pursue aggressive campaigning in the state, because it was considered a Democratic stronghold. The result, a victory margin of only 1,51% for Clinton, can serve as a reminder, that candidates should never take votes for granted. Schultz claims, that voting behavior of Minnesota in 2016 indicates both that it was a fluke, but also that the state is an emerging swing state. This is caused by the gradual narrowing of the gap between the Democratic win and Republican loss, but also an increased turnout in Republican areas. Whether Minnesota gains a swing status in the future will be influenced by the state’s demography, growing rural-urban divide, but also structural changes in local politics. The growing number of independent voters are also likely to play a role (Schultz, 2018: Ch.15, 48-52). Future elections will prove, whether the state gains the swing status, or the 2016 election and Clinton’s candidacy was just an exception.

45

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

5.4 Role of Swing States in Future Elections

It is evident, that the swing state category is very dynamic. Based on data and election results from 1988 - 2012, Hecht and Schultz (2015) have identified ten swing states – Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia and Iowa. Schultz and Jacob (2018) chose to include five more states, such as Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania, based on their behavior in 2016.

The above-mentioned states have played and will continue to play a key role in the process. What might change is the composition of the category, which is likely to remain dynamic due to the ongoing change of race and age demographics in the United States. Authors of States of Change (2017), publication that discusses the change of racial composition of U.S. electorate in years 1980 - 2060 claim, that white overrepresentation and minority underrepresentation is currently at peak levels in the country. This is likely to change due to decline of the white population and increase of Hispanics and Asians (Griffin et al. 2017: 2). Similarly, authors of America’s electoral future (2016), which focuses on the impact of changing demographics on presidential elections 2016 - 2032, believe the population as a whole is aging, especially its white part. Regarding race, they predict a sharp increase in minorities, especially Hispanics, while states with 80% white majority will be significantly reduced (Frey et al. 2016: 24- 26). They believe the effect that these demographic changes might have on the electorate is notable. Democrats are likely to benefit from these changes, however as we have seen in the text, demographics are not the sole factor that influences voter behavior. Both major parties will be forced to adjust to the changes. These trends, if predicted correctly, are mainly going to influence the swing state category and its composition.

It is almost impossible to forecast future election results, since they have proved to be quite unpredictable recently. At this moment, the only thing one can be sure about is that the numbers of electoral votes allocated to each state will change and so will their influence on the outcome. The U.S. Census 2020 will determine how many votes will states get for the next presidential elections. Bearing in mind, that many swing states have had a significant demographic change since the 2010 Census,

46

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION some can become more or less valuable for future presidential candidates. In close elections, even a few more electoral votes per state can make a difference.

Conclusion

The president of the United States is elected in an indirect vote made by electors, who are appointed in 50 states of the federation based on a popular vote. Over the years, the American political landscape was divided into Democratic and Republican strongholds, but also states, which are competitive and change their support in elections. These are the states that ultimately decide the outcome, depending on which side they lean to. Swing states are a relatively new phenomenon. They were defined by Hecht and Schultz (2015) as those, which have been competitive (less than a 5% victory margin) in the last presidential election, as those who have repeatedly matched the nation’s popular vote, have been swinging back and forth and lastly, those which have received attention from presidential campaigns over the years. The authors have identified ten states, including Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia and Iowa, that qualify for bearing a swing state label. Schultz and Jacob (2018) have recently added five more, including Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. Despite their differences, these states have similar attributes that influence their swing status. Swing states have a high percentage of independent voters while registered Democrats and Republicans are relatively even. Most of the states have had a severe demographic change in recent years, mostly in form of increasing racial diversity and urbanization. Typical swing states have a significant regional diversity when it comes to politics, culture and economics. Majority of voters in such states tend to identify themselves as moderates and they prefer a certain Republican – Democratic balance when it comes to state legislature and congressional representation. In swing states, both major parties pursue strategies to mobilize voters and the turnout is usually higher than the national level. Lastly, swing states and their electoral votes are a great motivation for presidential candidates, who invest most of their time and funding in order to tip the balance in the state in their favor.

47

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The significance of swing states in presidential election has proved to be crucial. The analysis of presidential elections that occurred in years 1988 – 2012 proves, that the winners received support of a majority of swing states, delivering almost one third of the electoral votes on average. Since the election in 2000, every elected president needed the support of swing states in order to pass the 270-vote threshold. Both victories of George W. Bush, both victories of Barrack Obama and lastly, the most recent victory of Donald Trump were made possible due to the support of swing states. Since 2000, there were three very close elections, in 2000 and 2004 one swing state decided the outcome, in 2016, the result was determined by three states with a victory margin that was less than 1%. Since 2000, swing states dominate the list of tight victories.

The case study of the 2016 election has proved that it was exceptional for many reasons listed, but also in relation to the swing state phenomenon. Donald Trump secured the support of only a half of the traditional ten swing states, but their electoral votes were essential to pass the 270-threshold. The 2016 election reestablished the trend of having numerous tight victories, especially in swing states, but also brought attention to new states that could be a part of the category. Five states have demonstrated unusual voting behavior and they were listed as new-found and emerging swing states by Schultz and Jacob (2018). Three states previously discussed, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania tipped the balance in favor of Trump and decided the 2016 election, all by less than a 1% victory margin.

It is evident, that swing states play a key role in deciding who will be the next U.S. president. Recent elections have proved that a small number of states determines the outcome. That is not likely to change, unless any proposals to reform the Electoral College system are passed. Likability of such occurrence is in question. What will certainly change is the composition of the swing state category and numbers of electoral votes per state due to the upcoming 2020 Census. The impact of the swing states’ allegiance to presidential candidates will remain crucial in presidential elections, therefore; one has to conclude that the subject deserves more attention from the academic sphere than it has been getting.

48

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Bibliography

Alcott, Hunt and Gentzkow, Matthew. 2017. “Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election” The Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 31, no. 2, 211-235. Ansolabehere, Stephen and King, Gary. 1990. “Measuring the Consequences of Delegate Selection Rules in Presidential Nominations” The Journal of Politics Vol. 52, no. 2, 609-621. Beachler, Donald, W. 2015. “New Mexico: A Swing State No Longer?” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 145-162. Berenson, Tessa. 2016. “Donald Trump wins the 2016 Election” TIME. November 9th, 2016 (http://time.com/4563685/donald-trump-wins/) (cit. April 13th, 2019). Bergboner, Matthew, L. 2015. “Indiana Politics at a Crossroad: Democrats Competing in a Conservative State” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 291-308. Boxer, Barbara. 2017. “The Pros and Cons of the Electoral College System: Is the Electoral College System Still the Best Mechanism for Electing U.S. Presidents?” In: The Electoral College Debate: Preserve, Abolish or Reform? Congressional Digest Vol. 96, no. 1, 18-31. Campbell, James, E. 2005. “Why Bush Won the Presidential Election of 2004: Incumbency, Ideology, Terrorism, and Turnout” Political Science Quarterly Vol. 120, no. 2, 219-241. Congressional Digest. 2017. “How the Electoral College Works: Constitutional Origins and Current Function.” In: The Electoral College Debate: Preserve, Abolish or Reform? Congressional Digest Vol. 96, no. 1, 2-5, 32. Cooper, Christopher, A. and Knotts, Gibbs, H. 2015. “The Bluest Red State in America: Exploring North Carolina’s Political Past, Present and Future” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 111-130. Damore, David, F. and Gill, Rebecca, D. 2015. “Swing State Politics in the Silver State” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 193-220. Dulio, David, A. and Klemanski, John, S. 2018. “Michigan: Hiding Behind a Thin Blue Wall In: Presidential Swing States. [E-reader version] Ed. David A. Schultz and Rafael Jacob. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Ch. 10, 1-59 (Single page setup). (https://www.kobo.com/) Dziak, Mark. 2017. U.S. Presidential Election 2016. 2016 Presidential Election. In Salem Press Encyclopedia (Online ed.) Retrieved from

49

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION https://www.ebscohost.com/discovery/content/research-starters (cit. April 14th, 2019). Erikson, Robert, S. 2001. “The 2000 Presidential Election in Historical Perspective” Political Science Quarterly Vol. 116, no. 1, 29-52. Flegenheimer, Matt and Barbaro, Michael. 2016. “Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment” New York Times. November 9th, 2016 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump- president.html) (cit. April 13th, 2019). Foreman, Sean, D. 2015. “Florida: The Purple Sunshine State” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 82-99. Franklin, Daniel; Richey, Sean and Yonk, Ryan, M. 2013. “Battlegrounds and Budgets: State-level Evidence of Budget Manipulation in Competitive Presidential Election States” State & Local Government Review Vol. 45, no. 2, 108-115. Frey, William, H. 2009. "How Did Race Affect the 2008 Presidential Election?" Population Studies Center Research Report no. 09-688, September 2009 (https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/abs/5993) (cit. March 28th, 2019). Frey, William, H. 2012. “Why Minorities Will Decide the 2012 U.S. Election” The Brookings Institution. May 1st, 2012 (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why- minorities-will-decide-the-2012-u-s-election/) (cit. March 28th, 2019). Frey, William, H.; Teixeira, Ruy and Griffin, Robert. 2016. America’s Electoral Future: How Changing Demographics Could Impact Presidential Elections from 2016 to 2032. Washington D.C.: Center for American Progress. Fried, Amy and Melcher, James, P. 2018. “The ‘Two Maines’ in a (Potentially) New Swing State” In: Presidential Swing States. [E-reader version] Ed. David A. Schultz and Rafael Jacob. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Ch. 14, 1-65 (Single page setup). (https://www.kobo.com/) Glaeser, Edward, L. and Ward, Bryce, A. 2006. “Myths and Realities of American Political Geography” The Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 20, no. 2, 119-144. Griffin, Robert; Frey, William, H. and Teixeira, Ruy. 2017. States of Change: Demographic Change, Representation Gaps, and Challenges to Democracy, 1980- 2060. Washington D.C.: Center for American Progress. Gurian, Paul-Henry. 1993. “Primaries versus Caucuses: Strategic Considerations of Presidential Candidates” Social Science Quarterly Vol. 74, no. 2, 310-321. Hecht, Stacey Hunter and Schultz, David, A., ed. 2015. Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Hecht, Stacey Hunter and Schultz, David, A. 2015. “Conclusion” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 309-315.

50

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Hecht, Stacey Hunter and Schultz, David, A. 2015. “Introduction” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ix-xlviii. Hendriks, Henriette and van Doorn, Bas. 2015. “Ohio: The Battleground of the Battlegrounds” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 65-81. Hoffman, Donna, R. and Larimer, Christopher, W. 2015. “Battleground Iowa: Swing State Extraordinaire” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 265-289. Howard, Philip, N.; Kollanyi, Bence; Bradshaw, Samantha and Neudert, Lisa-Maria. 2017. “Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?” The Computational Propaganda Project. Oxford University. September 28th, 2017 (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.03573.pdf) (cit. April 14th, 2019). Issit, Micah. 2019. Presidential Systems. Presidential System. In Salem Press Encyclopedia (Online ed.) Retrieved from https://www.ebscohost.com/discovery/content/research-starters (cit. March 20th, 2019). Jacob, Rafael and Borick, Christopher. 2018. “Pennsylvania: Keys to the Keystone State” In: Presidential Swing States. [E-reader version] Ed. David A. Schultz and Rafael Jacob. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Ch. 11, 1-32 (Single page setup). (https://www.kobo.com/) James, Scott, C. and Lawson, Brian, L. 1999. “The Political Economy of Voting Rights Enforcement in America’s Gilded Age: Electoral College Competition, Partisan Commitment and the Federal Election Law” The American Political Science Review Vol. 93, no. 1., 115-131. Johnson, Bonnie, J. 2005. “Identities of Competitive States in U.S. Presidential Elections: Electoral College Bias or Candidate Centered politics?” Publius Vol. 35, no. 2. pp. 337-355. Jones, Bruce. 2009. USA 50 State, Map, Outline Printable, Blank Map with 2 Letter State Names. 2009. Map. Free US and World Maps. Retrieved from: http://www.freeusandworldmaps.com/html/USAandCanada/USPrintable.html (May 4th, 2019). Kennedy, Courtney; Blumenthal, Mark; Clement, Scott; Clinton, Joshua, D.; Durand, Claire; Franklin, Charles; McGeeney, Kyley; Miringoff, Lee; Olson, Kristen; Rivers, Douglas; Saad, Lydia; Witt, Evans, G. and Wlezie, Christopher. 2018. “An Evaluation of the 2016 Election Polls in the United States” Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 82, no.1, 1-33. Kenski, Kate. 2018. “Arizona: Right of Center with Potential to Change” In: Presidential Swing States. [E-reader version] Ed. David A. Schultz and Rafael Jacob.

51

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Ch. 13, 1-34 (Single page setup). (https://www.kobo.com/) Killian, Linda. 2012. The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents. [E- reader version] New York: St. Martin’s Press. (https://www.ebooks.com/) Kraus, Neil and Weinschenk, Aaron, C. 2015. “The Badger State as a Battleground: Wisconsin Politics Past, Present, and Future” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 131-144. Kraus, Neil and Weinschenk, Aaron, C. 2018. “Wisconsin - A Blue State Turns Red: And the Future of Politics in the Aftermath of the Surprising 2016 Election” In: Presidential Swing States. [E-reader version] Ed. David A. Schultz and Rafael Jacob. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Ch. 12, 1-40 (Single page setup). (https://www.kobo.com/) Kurzleben, Danielle. 2016. “The Most ‘Unprecedented’ Election Ever? 65 Ways It Has Been” NPR. July 3rd, 2016 (https://www.npr.org/2016/07/03/484214413/the- most-unprecedented-election-ever-65-ways-it-has-been?t=1555340859732) (cit. April 13th, 2019). Leip, Dave. 2019. “United States Presidential Election Results” https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ (cit. April 30th, 2019). Leip, Dave. 2016. “2016 Presidential Election Polls: Election 2016 State Polls Aggregate”. https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2016/polls.php (cit. April 30th, 2019). Lovelace, Ryan. 2015. “Walker: 'The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president, 12 states are'.” Washington Examiner. September 1st, 2015 (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/walker-the-nation-as-a-whole-is-not-going-to- elect-the-next-president-12-states-are (cit. March 18th, 2019). Mayer, William, G. 2007. “The Swing Voter in American Presidential Elections” American Politics Research Vol. 35, no. 3, 358-388. McGlennon, John, J. 2015. “Virginia: Not Leaving the Spotlight” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 245-264. McLean, Scott, L. 2015. “Purple Battlegrounds: Presidential Campaign Strategies and Swing State Voters” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 30- 46. Medvic, Stephen K. 2010. Campaigns and Elections: Players and Processes. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Montgomery, Fielding, A. 2017. The Statistics of Swing: The Demographics and Political Properties of U.S. Presidential Swing States. Honors Thesis. Baylor University, Department of Political Science, Waco, Texas.

52

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Murse, Tom. 2019. Swing States in the Presidential Election. Thought Co. January 28th, 2019 (https://www.thoughtco.com/swing-states-in-the-presidential-election- 3367944) (cit. March 28th, 2019). National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 2019a. “Historical Election Results: Electoral College Box Scores 1789-1996” https://www.archives.gov/federal- register/electoral-college/scores.html#1988 (cit. April 30th, 2019) . National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 2019b. “Historical Election Results: Electoral College Box Scores 2000-2016” https://www.archives.gov/federal- register/electoral-college/scores2.html#2000 (cit. April 30th, 2019). National Popular Vote. 2019. Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation) (cit. March, 25th, 2019). Neale, Thomas H. 2011a. “The Electoral College: How it works in contemporary Presidential Elections.” In The Electoral College: An Analysis. Ed. Robert T. Miller. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 63-81. Neale, Thomas H. 2011b. “Electoral College Reform: 111th Congress Proposals and other Current Developments” In The Electoral College: An Analysis. Ed. Robert T. Miller. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 1-42. Ostermeier, Eric. 2012. “Swing States, Battleground States or Purple States?” Smart Politics. August 2nd, 2012 (http://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2012/08/02/swing- states-battleground-stat/) (cit. March 27th, 2019). Palmer, Niall. 2015. “New Hampshire and the Limits of the New England Democratic Revival” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 221-224. Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009. “Campaign Dynamics in Battleground and Non- battleground States” The Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 73, no. 1, 119-129. Posner, Richard, A. 2004. “The 2000 Presidential Election: A Statistical and Legal Analysis” Supreme Court Economic Review vol. 12. 1-40. Prehus, Robert, R.; Provizer, Norman and Thangasamy, Andrew. 2015. “Contesting Colorado: The Politics of Change in the Centennial State” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 163-192. Rakove, Jack. 2017. “The Pros and Cons of the Electoral College System: Is the Electoral College System Still the Best Mechanism for Electing U.S. Presidents?” In: The Electoral College Debate: Preserve, Abolish or Reform? Congressional Digest Vol. 96, no. 1, 18-31. Remnick, David. 2016. “An American Tragedy” The New Yorker. November 9th, 2016 (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-american-tragedy-2) (cit. April 13th, 2019)

53

ROLE OF SWING STATES IN U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Schultz, David A. and Jacob, Rafael, ed. 2018. Presidential Swing States. [E-reader version] Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. (https://www.kobo.com/) Schultz, David A. and Jacob, Rafael, 2018. “Introduction” In: Presidential Swing States. [E-reader version] Ed. David A. Schultz and Rafael Jacob. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Introduction, 1-9 (Single page setup). (https://www.kobo.com/) Schultz, David, A. 2018. “Minnesota: The Loyal Blue State of Minnesota Turning Purple” In: Presidential Swing States. [E-reader version] Ed. David A. Schultz and Rafael Jacob. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. Ch. 15, 1-57 (Single page setup). (https://www.kobo.com/) Silver, Nate. 2012. Swing Voters and Elastic States. FiveThirtyEight. May 21st, 2012 (https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/swing-voters-and-elastic- states/) (cit. April 1st, 2019). Teixeira, Ruy, A., ed. 2012. America’s New Swing Region: Changing Politics and Demographics in the Mountain West. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution. U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. 2010 Census Brief: Congressional Appointment. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. November 2011. (https://www.census.gov/population/apportionment/data/2010_apportionment_results .html) (cit. April 4th, 2019). U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. “U.S. and World Population Clock on November 8th, 2016” November 8th, 2016 (https://www.census.gov/popclock/) (cit. April 29th, 2019). U.S. Constitution Art. II., § 1-2. Web. (http://constitutionus.com/) (cit. March 20th, 2019). U.S. Election Commission. 2011. “The Electoral College.” In The Electoral College: An Analysis. Ed. Robert T. Miller. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 43-62. Vavreck, Lynn. 2016. “Why This Election Was Not About the Issues” New York Times. November, 23rd 2016 (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/this- election-was-not-about-the-issues-blame-the-candidates.html) (cit. April 14th, 2019). Warren, Jacob. 2015. “The One That Got Away: Missouri’s Break from the Ultimate Swing State Status” In: Presidential Swing States: Why only 10 matter. Ed. Stacey Hunter Hecht and David A. Schultz. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. 47-69. Whitaker, Paige, L. and Neale, Thomas, H. 2004. The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Yatanoor, Chandrakant. 2005. “American Presidential Election 2004: Post-Election Analysis” The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol. 66, no. 1, 135-152.

54