Here's another way to think about it: it's a product of the nationalization of US politics. Each state's average swing in two-party vote share between elections used to be much higher and there used to be less correlation between states, because politics was more local. Hence the idea of a "swing state" was unnecessary because consequential swings could happen in nearly all states. Now US politics is both more national and more calcified, and the "swing states" that are left are the ones in which changes can still plausibly matter to the outcome.
The consequences of running a 21st Century superpower with an 18th Century constitution deserve more attention. But is this really the biggest problem?
Adam's excellent discussion reveals these seven swing states to be pretty diverse and to bracket national medians in a number of ways. Forcing politicians to engage in retail politics in geographically limited areas has advantages, and highlights issues that affect small but relevant constituencies. Do we want to cultivate a tyranny of the national majority against minority interests?
Perhaps another reason these voters are capable of voting for either party nationally is because they're comfortable switching sides locally? It would explain why they don't feel strongly one way or another.
I think you may be overestimating the effects of recent cultural "sorting" in creating red and blue, that is non-swing, states. Many deep red and deep blue states are that way because of legacies arising from the long-resident population. This is particularly visible in the white south, whose current deep red loyalty in most states reflects, I suspect, less "red home seeking" in-migration than members of long-resident white families and their historical religious and racial attitudes. Likewise, long-red states that have become "swing" states--Georgia and Arizona, but also Virginia and Texas to some extent (though not in this election) have become swing states because liberal-leaning knowledge worker types have been migrating there for economic reasons, not because they're looking to live in a state governed by liberals, which GA, AZ, VA, and TX historically, and mostly still, are not. Similarly, the in-migration that has turned California deep blue has happened in strong measure for economic reasons, though that the Pacific coast as a whole may be a region where cultural sorting plays a specially strong role.
I think you would see more cultural sorting on the county level--but again this may have as much to do with economics and urban-rural divides, as with liberals seeking other liberals to live with, and so on. On general principles, it's also worth quoting a line attributed to James Carville: "What state lies between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? Alabama."
In 2020, there were concerns about the legitimacy of some votes. Some people felt that the left didn't want to investigate where all the votes at 5:00 am came from. They believed that if the situation had been reversed, the right would have felt the same way. They also felt that the left always gets what they want, while the right gets labeled as racists, xenophobes, and weirdos. The power of large metropolitan cities, which are predominantly held by Democratic leaders, is stronger than many people realize. Even though there may be 30-40% of voters who are moderates or right of center, they feel that their participation in local governments is almost non-existent because they believe it's a hopeless waste of time to try to bring about any change. 80% of Americans live in large urban areas. The space between Philly and Pittsburgh called Alabama has 20% of the population.
1) If we switched to the popular vote, ca and ny would just ballot harvest brown people to win every time.
2) I don’t think it’s the end of the world that suburbs/exurbs in swing states are the focus, they are moderate by nature.
3) red states are growing and blue states are declining. It’s notable that you don’t mention a former swing state, Florida, which is no longer a swing state and one of the countries most economically dynamic and populous.
The reason the question seems to be matter of which discursive button to push is because major redistributive policy is off the menu. Why can't / won't the major parties offer people super popular things like a raise in the minimum wage? I'm guessing economic elite capture of US politics, from which follows the non-existence of pluralism, is the go-to for an answer to that. I suppose AT is taking this as read, but it bears mentioning that winning options are precluded by these dynamics.
I see very little discussion about voter turnout. Has it been consistent over the years in the swing states or counties? I somehow doubt it. Turnout is low which means small changes matter and do it is a n issue of which candidate is able to motivate voters to take the trouble to vote.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Mormonism is not prevalent in the midwest. It is prevalent in an area that is more or less west of the middle of the country, but that is not the midwest.
Something to throw into the pot: counties that voted for Obama twice and then for Trump. Don't neatly match swing states but it shows that something has been happening . My guess is that Hillary's persona as an establishmentarian and strict, judgmental authority figure had a lot to do with it.
More directly relevant: if about 50,000 votes had switched from R to D in WS, MI.and PA in 2016, we never would have heard the phrase "President Trump". Or if Hillary had had more success in the SE.
I think the concluding note is interesting, that the planners and modelers are really just trying to figure out what possible angle they can take to trick people into voting. Because at the end of the day, the vast majority of Americans hate the government, and the government hates us, passionately; the government undoubtedly celebrates and pops champagne when a hurricane destroys towns in swing state North Carolina, because there are now fewer people for them to "deal with." They view the entire population as a problem to be solved. There certainly are a lot of WMDs piling up here.
when people talk about the sacred Constitution, different people mean different things. Liberals mostly think about the Bill of Rights, above all the First and Fifth Amendments.
The separation of powers, the bicameral legislature, and federalism are central constitutional principles, and in my opinion, at this point they do more harm than good (and maybe they that did all along).
One thing I haven't noticed anyone commenting on is that our constitutional structure provides an almost infinite number of points where bribes may be offered. For example, on certain topics Delaware law is authoritative in all 50 states.
If an election came down to a very near split, 80,000,001 voters v. 79,999,999, IF that split happened, then nobody would believe the count. And that would probably be true for anything within a half point. In other words, we would need something as a backup to a complete nothing but the votes national system. If it came down to a single vote or even within a half percentage point, we'd be counting and recounting forever.
In 2020, there were concerns about the legitimacy of some votes. Some people felt that the left didn't want to investigate where all the votes at 5:00 am came from. They believed that if the situation had been reversed, the right would have felt the same way. They also felt that the left always gets what they want, while the right gets labeled as racists, xenophobes, and weirdos. The power of large metropolitan cities, which are predominantly held by Democratic leaders, is stronger than many people realize. Even though there may be 30-40% of voters who are moderates or right of center, they feel that their participation in local governments is almost non-existent because they believe it's a hopeless waste of time to try to bring about any change. 80% of Americans live in large urban areas. The space between Philly and Pittsburgh called Alabama has 20% of the population.
People felt concerns, , but upon examination their concerns turned out to be unfounded. Trump lost 50+ court cased and did not convince a single state Secretary of State.
Groundless feelings are still a factor to be considered in real-world politics, but in this case their a factor in a possible insurrection.
Republicans have been talking about voter fraud for 20+ years (Hans von Spakovsky has made a career of it), but without bringing forward cedible evidence of a significant amount of fraud.
Here's another way to think about it: it's a product of the nationalization of US politics. Each state's average swing in two-party vote share between elections used to be much higher and there used to be less correlation between states, because politics was more local. Hence the idea of a "swing state" was unnecessary because consequential swings could happen in nearly all states. Now US politics is both more national and more calcified, and the "swing states" that are left are the ones in which changes can still plausibly matter to the outcome.
The consequences of running a 21st Century superpower with an 18th Century constitution deserve more attention. But is this really the biggest problem?
Adam's excellent discussion reveals these seven swing states to be pretty diverse and to bracket national medians in a number of ways. Forcing politicians to engage in retail politics in geographically limited areas has advantages, and highlights issues that affect small but relevant constituencies. Do we want to cultivate a tyranny of the national majority against minority interests?
Perhaps another reason these voters are capable of voting for either party nationally is because they're comfortable switching sides locally? It would explain why they don't feel strongly one way or another.
I think you may be overestimating the effects of recent cultural "sorting" in creating red and blue, that is non-swing, states. Many deep red and deep blue states are that way because of legacies arising from the long-resident population. This is particularly visible in the white south, whose current deep red loyalty in most states reflects, I suspect, less "red home seeking" in-migration than members of long-resident white families and their historical religious and racial attitudes. Likewise, long-red states that have become "swing" states--Georgia and Arizona, but also Virginia and Texas to some extent (though not in this election) have become swing states because liberal-leaning knowledge worker types have been migrating there for economic reasons, not because they're looking to live in a state governed by liberals, which GA, AZ, VA, and TX historically, and mostly still, are not. Similarly, the in-migration that has turned California deep blue has happened in strong measure for economic reasons, though that the Pacific coast as a whole may be a region where cultural sorting plays a specially strong role.
I think you would see more cultural sorting on the county level--but again this may have as much to do with economics and urban-rural divides, as with liberals seeking other liberals to live with, and so on. On general principles, it's also worth quoting a line attributed to James Carville: "What state lies between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? Alabama."
In 2020, there were concerns about the legitimacy of some votes. Some people felt that the left didn't want to investigate where all the votes at 5:00 am came from. They believed that if the situation had been reversed, the right would have felt the same way. They also felt that the left always gets what they want, while the right gets labeled as racists, xenophobes, and weirdos. The power of large metropolitan cities, which are predominantly held by Democratic leaders, is stronger than many people realize. Even though there may be 30-40% of voters who are moderates or right of center, they feel that their participation in local governments is almost non-existent because they believe it's a hopeless waste of time to try to bring about any change. 80% of Americans live in large urban areas. The space between Philly and Pittsburgh called Alabama has 20% of the population.
1) If we switched to the popular vote, ca and ny would just ballot harvest brown people to win every time.
2) I don’t think it’s the end of the world that suburbs/exurbs in swing states are the focus, they are moderate by nature.
3) red states are growing and blue states are declining. It’s notable that you don’t mention a former swing state, Florida, which is no longer a swing state and one of the countries most economically dynamic and populous.
a retarded system for a retarded country.
The reason the question seems to be matter of which discursive button to push is because major redistributive policy is off the menu. Why can't / won't the major parties offer people super popular things like a raise in the minimum wage? I'm guessing economic elite capture of US politics, from which follows the non-existence of pluralism, is the go-to for an answer to that. I suppose AT is taking this as read, but it bears mentioning that winning options are precluded by these dynamics.
I see very little discussion about voter turnout. Has it been consistent over the years in the swing states or counties? I somehow doubt it. Turnout is low which means small changes matter and do it is a n issue of which candidate is able to motivate voters to take the trouble to vote.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Mormonism is not prevalent in the midwest. It is prevalent in an area that is more or less west of the middle of the country, but that is not the midwest.
Something to throw into the pot: counties that voted for Obama twice and then for Trump. Don't neatly match swing states but it shows that something has been happening . My guess is that Hillary's persona as an establishmentarian and strict, judgmental authority figure had a lot to do with it.
More directly relevant: if about 50,000 votes had switched from R to D in WS, MI.and PA in 2016, we never would have heard the phrase "President Trump". Or if Hillary had had more success in the SE.
https://ballotpedia.org/Pivot_Counties_by_state
I think the concluding note is interesting, that the planners and modelers are really just trying to figure out what possible angle they can take to trick people into voting. Because at the end of the day, the vast majority of Americans hate the government, and the government hates us, passionately; the government undoubtedly celebrates and pops champagne when a hurricane destroys towns in swing state North Carolina, because there are now fewer people for them to "deal with." They view the entire population as a problem to be solved. There certainly are a lot of WMDs piling up here.
when people talk about the sacred Constitution, different people mean different things. Liberals mostly think about the Bill of Rights, above all the First and Fifth Amendments.
The separation of powers, the bicameral legislature, and federalism are central constitutional principles, and in my opinion, at this point they do more harm than good (and maybe they that did all along).
One thing I haven't noticed anyone commenting on is that our constitutional structure provides an almost infinite number of points where bribes may be offered. For example, on certain topics Delaware law is authoritative in all 50 states.
If an election came down to a very near split, 80,000,001 voters v. 79,999,999, IF that split happened, then nobody would believe the count. And that would probably be true for anything within a half point. In other words, we would need something as a backup to a complete nothing but the votes national system. If it came down to a single vote or even within a half percentage point, we'd be counting and recounting forever.
In 2020, there were concerns about the legitimacy of some votes. Some people felt that the left didn't want to investigate where all the votes at 5:00 am came from. They believed that if the situation had been reversed, the right would have felt the same way. They also felt that the left always gets what they want, while the right gets labeled as racists, xenophobes, and weirdos. The power of large metropolitan cities, which are predominantly held by Democratic leaders, is stronger than many people realize. Even though there may be 30-40% of voters who are moderates or right of center, they feel that their participation in local governments is almost non-existent because they believe it's a hopeless waste of time to try to bring about any change. 80% of Americans live in large urban areas. The space between Philly and Pittsburgh called Alabama has 20% of the population.
People felt concerns, , but upon examination their concerns turned out to be unfounded. Trump lost 50+ court cased and did not convince a single state Secretary of State.
Groundless feelings are still a factor to be considered in real-world politics, but in this case their a factor in a possible insurrection.
Republicans have been talking about voter fraud for 20+ years (Hans von Spakovsky has made a career of it), but without bringing forward cedible evidence of a significant amount of fraud.
The left always gets what they want like in 2000 when Al Gore was elected president after a recount of Florida votes.