The American electoral system remains something of an oddity to outside observers – and even some inside participants.
Unlike the popular vote, which indicates overall support, it’s the Electoral College that ultimately elects the president, with each state contributing a certain number of electoral votes based on its population.
This system allows the 50 states as a collective to elect a president for the entire nation, making it more difficult for larger states like California, New York, Texas, and Florida to simply dominate executive governance. However, as much as the Electoral College serves its federal purpose, it has turned a few states into the deciding factors in US presidential elections – the so-called battleground swing states.
In 2024, few states are more critical than Pennsylvania, where both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have invested significant time and resources. Pennsylvania’s role as a keystone in the electoral process has never been more literal, with the campaign strategies of both parties factoring it into the complex decisions of the final stretch of the presidential election. With its large share of 19 electoral votes, down from 20 in 2020, winning Pennsylvania could very well be the deciding factor in a closely contested race.
Trump’s 2016 victory in Pennsylvania by a slim margin was pivotal in his path to the White House, marking a break from the state’s history of voting Democratic in presidential elections since 1992.
For Harris, winning back Pennsylvania is crucial. Her campaign understands that Pennsylvania’s decision is often seen as indicative of broader Midwestern trends and that losing the state could signal similar losses in neighbouring Michigan and Wisconsin.
Key battlegrounds
These three states share several socio-economic and political similarities that contribute to their status as key battlegrounds. All have a significant reliance on manufacturing, which has shaped their economies and labour markets. The decline of this sector has led to economic challenges, including job losses and shifts toward service-oriented jobs, impacting voter sentiment and political alignment.
Known as the “Rust Belt,” these states once thrived on manufacturing industries, which have since declined, leaving economic scars and influencing voter sentiment. This multi-generational economic downturn has fostered a blend of nostalgia for the manufacturing heyday and frustration over job losses to automation and overseas production.
As of September 2024, Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate stood at 3.4%, Wisconsin’s at 2.9%, and Michigan’s slightly higher at 4.5%. These relatively low unemployment rates reflect varying economic conditions but also mask underlying issues such as underemployment and wage stagnation. The economic recovery post-Covid-19 has been uneven in these states, with differing levels of growth impacting local economies and voter priorities. Economic issues remain central to voter concerns as they navigate recovery from the pandemic.
Champions of blue-collar America
Over the last decade, Republicans have seized upon these grievances, positioning themselves as champions of blue-collar America. There has been a notable shift among voters in these states regarding party affiliation. While traditionally Democratic strongholds due to their industrial bases and strong union presence, there has been an increase in support for Republican candidates among white non-college-educated voters, particularly during the Trump era. This shift has altered the political dynamics, making these states even more unpredictable and fiercely contested.
Pennsylvania’s demographic mix – rural, suburban, and urban voters, combined with a blue-collar foundation – creates a microcosm of broader American sentiments. The state has a significant proportion of white voters without college degrees, accounting for about 54% of eligible voters in 2020. This demographic has historically leaned Republican but is seeing its influence wane as the electorate diversifies. Similar trends are evident in Wisconsin and Michigan, where white non-college-educated voters make up 59% and 56% of eligible voters, respectively.
Each of these states exhibits a stark urban-rural divide in voting patterns. Urban areas like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, Milwaukee in Wisconsin, and Detroit in Michigan tend to support Democratic candidates, while rural regions favour Republicans.
Substantial advantage
If Trump’s working-class appeal secures Pennsylvania, it’s likely he’ll carry Michigan and Wisconsin too, giving him a substantial advantage in the Electoral College. Conversely, if Harris manages to claim Pennsylvania, she stands a good chance of flipping the remaining Rust Belt states, securing her path to victory.
This socially, economically, and politically similar bloc of states – Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan – has voted as a package in every single presidential election since 1992, forming a triad that has paved a path to victory. The last presidential race that saw these three states fail to go to the same candidate was in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, with Michael Dukakis winning Michigan.
Both the Trump and Harris campaigns have heavily targeted the state, with Harris and Trump frequently making stops in key cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as well as smaller towns in swing counties.
Trump’s message has leaned into his familiar themes of economic revival through a decidedly protectionist approach – one that blames liberalised trade relationships with countries like China for the long-dragging decline of American manufacturing – the heart of the blue-collar economy. He’s aimed his campaign events at these blue-collar areas where he’s connected through a one-two approach of being to the conservative right on social issues, yet to the progressive left on economics with state intervention promised, implicitly and explicitly, as the means to restore the industrial economies of the Rust Belt.
Traditionally fared better
Harris, meanwhile, has adopted a different approach. With her campaign focusing on themes of healthcare, reproductive rights, and economic opportunity, she’s strategically targeted suburban areas where Democrats have traditionally fared better. Harris has also drawn, unusually for a Democrat, on some more socially conservative rhetoric over the course of the campaign, speaking of her own ownership of a firearm and, especially at the start of her campaign, dusting off the rhetoric of freedom from government overreach, patriotism, and family values.
These swing states have shown a tendency to shift between Democratic and Republican candidates based on prevailing economic conditions and candidate appeal. In the 2024 election cycle, polling indicates that all three states are closely contested, with neither major party holding a definitive advantage.
Recent polls show tight races between candidates like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump across these states, emphasising their critical role in the electoral landscape. Both candidates’ concentrated efforts reflect an understanding of Pennsylvania’s power to shift the election outcome. Yet, Harris faces a particular challenge with Pennsylvania’s more centrist leanings, which may not fully align with the progressive stances some Democratic leaders have pushed in recent years on social issues that go against the more conservative views on things like gender and race among what used to be called “the Reagan Democrats”.
Valuable local appeal
One aspect that could critically impact Harris’s success in Pennsylvania is her decision to select Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Shapiro, a popular figure in Pennsylvania politics, would likely have brought a valuable local appeal to a campaign that, with a Pennsylvania win, could eke out a victory.
Shapiro’s track record as a centrist and his familiarity with Pennsylvanian issues could have helped Harris to address the state’s unique concerns more effectively – not to mention, ensuring a more competitive Pennsylvania being a greater advantage heading into voting day than a win in rather safely Democratic Minnesota.
If Harris narrowly loses Pennsylvania, it could well be attributed to this decision – and go down in history as one of the few times where the choice of VP candidate actually impacted the election outcome.
With the election now mere hours away, and with its status as key to unlocking the Rust Belt to win Wisconsin and Michigan, Pennsylvania will be the state to watch as the election results trickle in.
[Image: Gerd Altmann from Pixabay]
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend