Swing State Analysis Pros And Cons

In 2012 President Obama spoke to a group of people at a fund raiser event in Texas and seemed optimistic that Texas would soon be a battleground for the Democratic Party (Parker, 2013). Unless Democrats possess an extraordinary strategic plan this could prove to be a challenging task to accomplish. Recent voting in Texas has faithfully been favorable toward the Republican ticket for over 30 years (Parker, 2013). There has been a widespread margin in the percentage of votes between Republican and Democratic candidates in the last four presidential elections. Currently Republicans occupy all elected statewide offices, both state

It is election season in the Port City. Throughout the summer, and well into the fall, leaders of Wilmington’s Democratic party soaked their campaign speeches in the language of white supremacy and patriotism. The Democrats had lost everything in 1894. Their attacks on economic reform and farmers’ rights made them unpopular and allowed Republicans and Populists to sweep the state in 1894, creating a successful Fusion alliance. The Fusion movement extended full political participation to black North Carolinians and honored the black vote with opportunities for political office . Black office holders, in turn, supported the economic growth of black communities through civil service appointments and

The stately white columns the interior for The Arkansas capital lead to the executive office occupied by William J. Clinton only 30 years ago. After a successful college career at an elite university Governor Clinton decided make the move home to his birth state of Arkansas. Hillary Rodham begrudgingly followed along with fierce independence and a law degree. Rodham maintained a job at the university of Arkansas after her husband’s loss in a congressional election, and practiced law through court appointments. Eventually her husband would successfully run and become Arkansas’s Attorney General, then Governor. As Hillary continued to practice law, her focus would eventually shift to early childhood education and health. Rodham wasn’t what Arkansas envisioned for a first lady at the time. She was a working wife, who refused to take her husbands last name, and didn’t seem to fill the role as a traditional homemaker. Still, her husband remained fairly popular after his rebounding election in 1982. In 1992 and 1996, Clinton easily carried the state, although that was the last time a Democrat would take the six electoral votes from Arkansas. Now in a matchup with New Yorker Donald Trump, it is highly unlikely Arkansas’s former first lady will come close to Trump in the Natural State. Racial distribution, religion, education, a large rural population, and indications from previous elections, all point toward a significant Clinton defeat on November eighth.

Author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness and an associate professor here at Ohio State, wrote an article “Why Hilary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote.” This article not only touches on how Hilary Clinton is only using black people as her “winning card (Alexander, 2)” in the 2016 Election, but also her past decisions she made as the wife of the 42nd President of the United States that should be taken into consideration by black voters. Mrs. Clinton and Bernie Sanders are the two Democratic Party presidential candidates. Although Bernie Sanders promises “a political revolution that will bring universal healthcare, a living wage, an end to rampant Wall Street greed, and the dismantling of the vast prison state...(Alexander, 5),” Hilary Clinton seems to be receiving all of the black votes, according to recent polls. Alexander explains that because many African Americans believed (and still believe) that Bill Clinton was the first “black president,” Ms. Clinton will receive several black votes.

Furthermore, according to the Nevada Secretary of State, “Democrats registered to vote in the district far outnumbered registered Republicans, roughly 130,000 to 97,000”, giving the Democrats the upper hand on the Republicans based on their supporters inside the district. If we analyze these numbers, we can say that a Republican candidate will never be able to get elected as a representative for the 4th district because the Democrat and his fellow democrats will outweigh him by many. That’s why when a Republican, Crescent Hardy, went up against Horsford, a Democrat, who was the Representative for Nevada's 4th congressional district from 2012 to 2014 and the incumbent at that time, everyone thought that Horsford would be reelected with ease and that the race wouldn’t be a close one. To everybody’s surprise, Republican Cresent Hardy wins the race for Nevada's 4th Congressional District, defeating Steven Horsford by 3% according to American Community Organization (Crescent Hardy (R) 49% Steven Horsford (D) 46%). The explanation to this surprise according to the Cook political report was that the midterm elections tend to have lower voter turnout, and 2014 was an exceptionally bad year, with 50 percent less voters showing up at the polls

Although Burr was never able to reach 50% in the polls, he exceeded that threshold on Election Day and defeated Ross by almost 6%. In order to analyze the political climate further, I will be comparing the exit polls for both Trump vs. Clinton and Burr vs Ross. This will help explain why Ross was entering the Senate race with a disadvantage despite media pundits arguing that higher turnout in presidential election years should benefit Ross. Although Five Thirty Eight gave Clinton the slight edge to defeat Trump in North Carolina, Trump’s was able to carry the state with a modest performance. Although Real Clear Politics had Burr winning by an average of 2%, that was certainly below the 5.7% final result. In a three way race between Trump, Clinton, and Johnson, Trump was predicted to win North Carolina by about 1%. The actual results, however, showed Trump winning by about 4%. Although this paper is focusing on the Senate race, it’s certainly important to note the impact that a presidential candidate can have on the electoral map, particularly

Looking at the electoral map of the United States, the color blue is beginning to sweep the Nation. Republicans are starting out behind with only 102 promised electoral votes. Strategist, Alex Lundry, states "We have to expand the map because the map right now is really disadvantaged distinctly for Republicans." With 18 strong democratic states and 242 out of the 270 electoral votes needed, democrats are turning their heads to the one state that could push them over the edge and win presidency. (web)

The 2014 mid-term elections are some of the most telling that the United States has experienced within the past several decades. As President Barack Obama serves out his final term in office, many throughout the country are wondering which of the two major political parties will have the upper hand in government as America moves toward the next Presidential Election of 2016. In recent years, Florida has been considered one of the closest “battleground states” in all of the United States. The 2000 Presidential Election resulted in the votes needing to be recounted to finally give Republican candidate George W. Bush the victory over Democrat Al Gore and the last two Presidential Elections boasted narrow victories for the Democratic Party. The 2014 Florida gubernatorial election will likely feature incumbent Republican Rick Scott facing-off with Democratic challenger Charlie Crist, both a former governor of Florida and former member of the Republican Party. The contest is likely to be one of the closest races in all of 2014, and recently polling has shown the projected outcome of the race to be almost entirely unpredictable. After careful analysis of the Florida electorate, past elections, the primary candidates, public opinion polls, and projected campaign spending, I conclude that incumbent Governor Rick Scott will be re-elected to the governorship for his second term as head of the Florida

This leverage directly effects the ways in which presidential candidates coordinate their campaigns in order to secure the electoral votes of states large enough to impact their electoral vote total. In order for a candidate to secure the presidency he or she must obtain a majority of the electoral votes which currently sits at 270. The three largest electoral vote states, California (55) and Texas (38) and Florida (31), while representing over one fifth of the total electoral votes available provide a window into the way in which politicians view some states versus others. For example, California has been a Democratic Party stronghold in the electoral college for the past two decades. Texas, a Republican Party stronghold for the greater part of three decades, represents the other side of that coin (Office of Federal Register, www.archives.gov) . Considering what seems an insurmountable task for say a Democrat to waltz into Texas and glide off with their 38 votes or a Republican to saunter into California and leave with its 55 it is no wonder politicians are forced to configure their campaigns to allocate millions of dollars in campaign resources to states where their campaigning efforts might matter. Florida, by way of their electoral college results in the proceeding two decades has been that very state. Since 1992 there have been five presidential elections with the Republicans winning 3 and the Democrats 2 (Office of Federal

The Electoral College prevents candidates from just trying to get votes from big cities like New York CIty or Dallas because of swing states that are very important to win.Ohio receives eighteen electoral votes and North Carolina has only fifteen electoral votes (Document A). This is important because these states are swing states which can go to either party. There are not any major cities within these states that a candidate would go after if the popular vote was used. Thanks to the Electoral College these states are not forgotten because they have so many electoral votes and are very important to winning an election.

In the final chapter of his book, Price hints at this indecision when he writes, “Perhaps Iowans figured out something before the rest of the country: Mitt Romney would never become president. Maybe that helps explain how Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain, yes, Herman Cain, all spent time as the front-runner, with Ron Paul never far behind (Kindle Locations 3729-3730).“ There are numerous figures out there that highlight how incumbent candidates have an advantage in political elections, which could explain part of how Obama reclaimed the Presidency in 2012. However I believe there is some merit to Price’s thesis that the Republican Party at the state level here in Iowa, and national level was too indecisive about who they wanted their candidate to be in 2012, and that this indecisiveness may have played a part in losing the election. You can see similar factionalizing today in the Republican Party in regards to Trump and the other candidates. This newest round of indecision could cost them another election. Expanding past the issue of indecision within the Iowa Republican Party, the text also points to the disorganization within the Iowa Republican Party under chairman Matt

In a stunning upset, the deep red state voted for the first Democratic Senator in more than two and a half decades in a slim victory, giving the Democrat party momentum heading into the 2018 election while wounding a divided GOP.

There is a lot of pressure forced on the candidates because of the knowledge that, “for the last ten Iowa Caucuses, Iowa has identified the nation’s two primary picks for the top runner from both the Democratic and Republican Party five times and from just the Democratic Party six times” (Iowa Caucus). Additionally, “in the past, the Iowa Caucuses have become more of a clearing field in determining which candidates will stay in the race and which candidates will throw in the towel” (2016 Iowa Caucus). These statistics illustrate how important the Iowa Caucus is. History has shown that the Iowa Caucus at times seems to predict the future candidates that will succeed in the presidential election by eliminating the candidates and narrowing the parties

During the 2012 presidential elections, many of the vote turnout rates revealed that the minority vote was the most decisive and important vote for the election. In fact, the minority vote, in 2012, was accredited for Barrack Obama’s presidential incumbency. An example analysis of the aforementioned statement was shown in the Minority Turnout Determined the 2012 Election article by William H. Frey. In his article Frey reports that “[the] increased minority turnout was indeed responsible for Obama’s win in the 2012 election… during this period, the (typically Democratic leaning) combined Black and Hispanic electorate rose to approach nearly quarter of eligible voters” (The Brookings Institution). Frey’s research helps illustrate how crucial,

The issue of race will have a significant effect on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have vastly different demographics in voting support, a much of that difference lies between different ethnic/racial groups. According to Pew Research, a recent polls shows that white voters are expected to vote in favor of Donald Trump at a 45% rate, as opposed to 33% of the white electorate supporting Clinton. The White vote has traditionally been in favor of the Republican nominee, and in 2012 the white electorate voted in favor of Mitt Romney at a 20-point margin (Pew). However, the divide between Clinton and Trump in regards to the Black voting population is staggering. According to the same Pew poll, Hillary