What Swing States Historically Tell Us About This Election

American Eclectic posts articles twice a month, on the 1st and 15th. This is the third year of publication; previously published articles can be found on my site.

October 15, 2024

Delving into the Presidential elections from 1976 to the most recent one in 2020, I found myself drawn to the states where the margin in voting between the winner and the runner-up was a mere 3 percent or less. Much like most of the previous 11 Presidential elections, the upcoming election is shrouded in palpable uncertainty, with the outcome hinging on these close state elections.

An historical context provides us with a deeper understanding of the election dynamics. The 1976, 1980, and 1984 elections, with states having 3 percent or less of a difference between the winner and the loser, may stand out as oddities.  1976 Gerald Ford (R) ran as president against Jimmy Carter (D).  Ford, who had not been elected President, nor had he been on a Presidential ticket as the Vice President, was chosen to become Vice President after Spiro Agnew was forced to resign in 1973 and when Richard Nixon resigned as President a year later in 1974 because of Watergate became President. Carter’s opponents in the Democratic primaries often called him “Jimmy Who?” since he had little or no national recognition and was not known outside of Georgia, where he had served as governor. Winning the Democratic nomination to run did not necessarily increase his familiarity among voters.

In the 1976 election, there were 15 states with a 3 percent or less difference between the winner and loser: Ford won 10, and Carter won 5 of these states. Despite Ford winning more of these states, Carter won. The shadow of Watergate undoubtedly loomed over this election, but the uncertainty of Ford as an unelected President and Carter as a relatively unknown figure influenced voters and led to a slow decision-making process by voters whom they favored. This was the first election in the post-Vietnam War era, a year after the war had ended, which added to the uncertainty and tension of the political climate.

In 1980, Carter ran as the incumbent against Ronald Reagan, the Republican challenger.  In this election, 12 states were decided with a 3 percent or less between the winner and the loser, and Reagan won 10 of those states and the Presidency. The influence of the 1970s, a decade still studied today for its profound impact on American politics and culture, was evident in this campaign. One subtitle of a book about the 1970s referred to it as “The Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics.” Another writer said of the 1970s:

They were strange feverish years, the 1970s.  They were a time of unease and despair, punctuated by disaster.  The murder of athletes at the 1972 Olympic games.  Desert emirates cutting off America’s oil.  Military humiliation in Indochina.  Criminals taking control of America’s streets.  The dollar plunging in value.  Marriages collapsing.  Drugs for sale in every high school.  A president toppled from office.  The worst economic slump since the Great Depression, followed four years later by the second-worst economic slump since the Depression.  The U.S. government baffled as its diplomats are taken hostage.  And in the background loomed still wilder and stranger alarms and panics.  The ice age was returning.  Killer bees were swarming across the Rio Grande.  The world was running out of natural resources. 

Carter was unlucky to be President at the wrong time, and all this economic and social turmoil impacted the 1980 election.

The 1984 election had Reagan as the incumbent running against Walter Mondale, the Democratic challenger. Mondale tried to capitalize on an emerging gender gap where women voters favored the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. Geraldine Ferraro, Mondale’s Vice-Presidential candidate, was the hope that the Democrats held out as a way to win—it did not help; only two states had a 3 percent or less difference between the winner and loser. Mondale only won his home state of Minnesota, but only by .2 percent.

In the nine elections between 1988 and 2020, six of the elections had between 6-8 states with a vote difference of 3 percent or less.  Incumbents ran for re-election in 1992, 1996, 2004, and 2020. Unlike Reagan’s re-election in 1984, which he won overwhelmingly, in these elections, the fact that between six and eight states had a three-point difference indicated uncertainty as to whom would win the election.  Barack Obama in 2012 ran as an incumbent, and three states had a three percent difference or less, and Obama won two of them.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush was the incumbent running for re-election and won three out of the eight states with a three-percent difference or less; Bill Clinton won the election. In 1996, Clinton ran as the incumbent, and eight states had a three percent or less difference, with Clinton winning half of them. In 2020, Donald Trump ran as the incumbent, and of the seven states with a three-point difference between him and the challenger, Joe Biden, Trump won only one state, Biden won.

In this current election, the number of swing states where we expect to see a close election is seven (Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia), which is within the range of what we have seen in most elections since 1992. In addition, these seven states represent different regions of the country, as in previous presidential elections. Despite various factors impacting this election, particularly Kamala Harris replacing Biden on the Democratic ticket, seven remain the number of swing states. A close election is a crap shoot, so understandably, there is guesswork involved in determining where this election stands and how to read the tea leaves.

Historians often see the 1896 election as a realignment election following the Panic of 1893. It was called a panic, but it was a depression with high unemployment and businesses closing. As a result, the South became increasingly isolated from the rest of the country.  Grover Cleveland (Democrat) won the Presidential election in 1892, and there were states in the South, the Midwest, and the Northeast that supported him.  The 1896 election saw the beginning of a shift where the Northeast and Midwest went for William McKinley (Republican), and that pattern continued and spread westward.  By the 1904 election, which Teddy Roosevelt won (Republican), the South could be seen as solidly isolated from the rest of the country.  Republicans won the presidency in 1896, then again in 1900 (McKinley), 1904 (Roosevelt) and 1908 (William Taft).

Franklin Roosevelt’s election in 1932, which followed the onset of the Great Depression, brought another realignment.  Roosevelt won almost everywhere (Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire voted Republican, as did three other states).  Maine and Vermont again voted Republican in 1936, when Roosevelt ran for re-election.  Some cracks were seen in 1940 when Roosevelt ran for an unprecedented third term as ten states voted Republican in three different regions of the country.  Roosevelt ran again in 1944; this time, twelve states voted against him. Roosevelt’s 1932 win led to four more Democratic wins in a row (three for Roosevelt and one for Harry Truman in 1948)

Depressions began before the 1896 and 1932 realignment elections; both caused severe economic chaos for the country and influenced voters significantly.  The quote above from the 1970s gives some sense of why Carter may have been unlucky to have been elected President in 1976 and how the economic and social upheaval of that decade helped Reagan win in 1980 and also helped him in 1984.  Voters by 1984 could contrast the 1970s with the changes that took place while Reagan was President. However, the 1982 Congressional elections showed uncertainty about what the country thought of Reagan. The Democrats gained 26 seats in the House of Representatives and won the popular voter nationally by 11.8 points.

Many Republicans, no doubt, hoped that Trump would be re-elected in 2020, the way Reagan won re-election in 1984. I see a unique period where the economic turmoil of the 1970s influenced voters in 1980 and 1984. The impact of the 1973 Middle War and the Iranian Revolution in 1979 enormously impacted gas prices in the United States, and voters in 1980 and 1984 were still close in their memories of those years. With Jimmy Carter in the White House during the Iranian Revolution, which led to gas prices going up again, whoever the Republicans put up to run against Carter in 1980 probably stood a good chance of winning. Reagan was a good choice for the Republicans, and his optimism spilled over into a large cross-section of the public.

Reagan may have been a good choice for Republicans because his honed skills from years of making Hollywood movies and appearing on television helped him to know how to communicate well with the public. Still, he cannot be credited with bringing down inflation—the primary problem of the 1970s. In 1970, inflation was 5.7 percent, rising to 11 percent by 1974, before Carter became President. However, during the Carter presidency, inflation reached 11.3 percent in 1979 and 13.5 percent in 1980. By 1982, Reagan’s second year as President, inflation was down to 6.2 percent and continued lower for the rest of his Presidency. Carter became president in January 1977, and the Federal Funds rate was 4.62 percent. By the end of the Carter Presidency, it had reached 20.02 percent. The Federal Funds rate determines the interest rate on all items you buy, such as cars or homes. As one economist said, “Reagan merely endorsed the slowdown in the growth rate of the money supply that the federal reserve had already begun.” A slower growth rate in the money supply was tied to the increase in the rate of federal funds rate. The Federal Reserve, through the pain of high interest rates, broke the back of inflation.

Unfortunately, too many Republicans believed that Reagan had somehow supplied the answers to economic problems and continue to believe so today. Putting aside Reagan’s economic policies, however, the public developed a fond impression of him. 60 Minutes, the popular television newsmagazine, did a story on Reagan confusing reality with movies-he made 52 of them. The public reaction was interesting. One historian wrote:

What is noteworthy has been the public reaction to commentaries on [Reagan confusing reality with movies.] “Leave him alone!” ran the tenor of most of the letters CBS received after the 60 Minutes’ airing of the segment “Reagan, the movie.”

Trump has taken the Republican Party in a dark direction, contrasted with the Morning in America slogan that became a hallmark of Reagan’s re-election campaign in 1984. The Vietnam War had begun to fade by the 1984 election, which was not the case in 1980. The Los Angeles Olympics before the 1984 election is seen as an American success story and impacted the election. By 1984, America was in a different place mentally and economically than it was four years earlier. Trump brings fear to everything he touches, contrasted with Reagan, who is remembered for bringing hope.  A recent statement Trump made on crime, for example, goes:

The crime is so out of control in our country.  I mean, you have cities — I will say this, the top 25, almost all are run by Democrats, and they have very similar policies. It's just insane.

But you can’t walk across the street to get a loaf of bread.  You get shot. You get mugged. You get raped, you get whatever it may be. And you’ve seen it and I’ve seen it, and it’s time for a change. We have to bring back our cities. We have these cities that are great cities where people are afraid to live in them, and they’re fleeing the cities of our country.

Quotes such as this one by Trump are meant to create the impression that America today is fundamentally different from its better past and in a darker place. Trump gave the above speech in Michigan, but violent crime had dropped—not precisely the darkness Trump tries to convey.

The country does not necessarily believe in Trump, as reflected in how we look at the swing states.  We have seen patterns with a range of swing states through many elections; many swing states in this election were swing states in previous elections.  We are not, yet at least, seeing an unusual number of swing states.  We are witnessing swing states that are not confined to one region of the country but spread out nationally, as in previous elections.  Trump can be seen as an unusual candidate, once again running for the Presidency, but this election follows previous patterns.

The fear Trump tries to arouse about illegal immigrants in the country plays well with selected loyal Trump supporters.  He claims that many of the illegal immigrants were criminals back wherever they came from or were institutionalized in those countries. Because he says it does not make it true, and it is not. The image, however, that Trump is conveying may come from the Mariel Boatlift of 1980.  A mass migration was organized between Cuban Americans and Fidel Castro, the Cuban leader.  Some 125,000 refugees arrived in the United States.  The fear of increased crime came with so many refugees arriving in a six-month compressed period.  One study on this mass exodus stated:

[R]ecords reveal Fidel Castro exploited the flotilla as a means of ridding Cuba of its mentally ill and criminal populations.4 While individuals with such backgrounds would generally be barred from entry, political tensions between the US and Cuba virtually eliminated the option to deport undesirable While individuals with such backgrounds would generally be barred from entry, political tensions between the US and Cuba virtually eliminated the option to deport undesirable newcomers. To exacerbate matters, federal authorities were both unaware of Castro’s actions and unprepared to interview Mariel Cubans.

… Marielitos’ characteristics strongly correlate with criminal activity. Reports Fidel Castro forced those with mental illnesses and felony records into Miami further stoked fears. Therefore, it is unsurprising the arrival of the flotilla triggered widespread panic.

…Limited evidence from the Criminal Justice Council of Miami found Mariel Cubans committed more crimes than pre-Mariel Cuban-Americans.  

However, this study also noted that the Mariel Boatlift is not a helpful example for looking at immigrants presently.  As they concluded:

It bears repeating that the mental health issues and felony backgrounds among Marielitos cannot be downplayed. This characteristic is sui generis relative to other inflows. The US has long prevented those who fail to demonstrate “good moral character” from becoming citizens. This restriction has tightened dramatically since the 1990s and now serves as a “powerful exclusionary device.”  In practice, felony convictions essentially disqualify individuals from entering the country.  Therefore, this dimension alone reduces the likelihood Marielitos serve as an appropriate benchmark for other migration waves.

If Trump hopes that fears of crime and illegal immigrants will completely upend the electorate and they see the concern he sees and be influenced to vote accordingly, that may not be developing.  The Panic of 1893 and the Great Depression contributed to realignments with the elections in 1896 and 1932, fundamentally changing how voters looked at candidates and the political parties.  The way swing states are looked at in this election and seen in terms of previous elections does not show the same type of voter change that took place as a result of severe economic problems. Trump can still win the Presidency, but if so, he will not bring about any realignment, and hope for a better America will not be part of his Presidency.

Springfield, Ohio: Domestic Animals on the Menu

I drove through Springfield after Trump referred to the city in his debate with Kamala Harris. I intend to write several articles about the impact of his very odd statement that Haitian immigrants are taking cats and dogs and eating them. I saw Springfield as normal while driving around the city and surrounding area. There is this beautiful antique mall on the city’s outskirts (one of the better ones I have visited), and I heard nothing about cats and dogs being eaten or Haitian immigrants. I am sure things are developments below the surface that matter—this election might affect relations between immigrants and long-time residents for several years to come. The repercussions of Trump's (and his Vice-Presidential candidate, J.D. Vance) inability to stop talking about domestic animals on the menu will matter even after this election is over. At some point, the bomb threats will end, although the fear of those threats will take longer to end. Here, I address ways to look at this election with past elections as part of a pattern we have seen before, but this odd way of looking at a midwestern city seems more than strange. These immigrants are here legally. Trump says he wants to deport the Haitians in Springfield—how do you deport immigrants who arrived legally? I will put Springfield aside and return to it in a few months after the election.

Arizona and All Those Street Signs

Arizona is one of the seven swing states. I spent months here in 2020 when Trump was running for re-election. What stood out about street signs was that almost every Republican, regardless of what they were running for, said on their signs that they stood with or were endorsed by Trump. I am here again, playing in the World Series (OK, age-related so the more important World Series), and once again, street signs are everywhere. The difference this time is that I do not see Republicans on those signs saying they are with Trump or endorsed by him. Of course, I am also having a problem telling who a Republican is—the word is conspicuously left off most signs. One exception is Kari Lake, who is running for an open Senate seat. Her signs show her with Trump and that he endorses her. Recent polls have her trailing her opponent, Ruben Gallego, the Democratic.

Notes

Alexander Billy and Michael Packard, “Crime and the Mariel Boatlift,” Social Science Research Network (August 30, 2022): https:// elsevier-ssrn-document-store-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/22/08/30/ssrn_id4204180_code3328577.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEOz%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQCYl1hpzJ7%2Bg5Uk713MY%2BNZy2eTw8iSYphAoBjANdTQYwIgQUf713reu1dtzAHHqPwEpVlqChEtnVL8GrfwG%2FhTo58qxgUI9f%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAEGgwzMDg0NzUzMDEyNTciDB%2BNiAtdk4blJPaDcyqaBSwyzwI2fge5KQXNK2zb84XVzmYFsY5cQjIydr%2FeIa1PoSHo%2BY1qPYNq6lEJ3GeWnJjdDiyHxuFgCod2en%2BEDUn1sVYUUthOVTnRuV6JvBY7bq7oXm%2F0u9ORXdAjIFkBMFp1TXV1YmTdzLX2NOFgBpTrFcQN%2BRIPIndX1aOzRW75vTR6YkJqy1vsiBIxl5RMrJ4%2Fr7ymVM2qGbSCbEaD7uXYs7E6FG3CeQEJiL4DoLb5AqcUmZ13y0wefZL8BYoeO%2FMQJ6%2F3L%2BaT2s59hCjzrUGwLldFrPdmkkZooc3EuNKZXvqDgeQmQtrM0J%2FJgfU0ZwpYfW1bisNqdnHwt%2B5mZDkxyM8ZuCD8J6VkXr1FtovkSDznu%2BWSqf8kxsTFuF21qLvwh72T1JBZcKK3yCucSTFznGrCyTi6ImyFebUtmWcOGry2UVBzNELms5VuYARowQB4KRPjeGSJ8En1nxGmrxh62W4Eh9jMTUOY%2Bw150EH3C%2BoTZ%2FvLwZo0743JBNn5SsLBFIHv9NhrTMaGwCE%2BKlbcYtha66AU7avEoPmRVCYJmx%2FmDQaIZjPjZY8%2FgZ7YuRUyg4FnAwV6gWArUdd7Se7KVUaXcNKQANbmFUsaoaYXo7XoTSvNYCklTKd6OYtDvSdMmuPfhRJ73xjs7ZZSYv0vFikJhPAa36eJn0De765b3c79nXIhD4BVZEKGMWbl5wzXlsHuBDUAed2gFU1CZInOAEOWPmbB7hP%2BkgJtYFfdyoE5Qhc5Yt1osYT5H%2BgPKkUzyLmDoF2msMz%2FlQ%2BZlQFF7NGbuKroaRlSZ52Mp%2BsLIqLptjYVngbRfd5AQFqRh7TTgT%2Fs0B%2BJtxCo0ecPvR6ZFyCk1a7jd6yLdXEw3OnGXWnJvglkHqUmDjCRrLO2BjqxAZK%2F%2Fj%2B59UNQkILoMeZp2w8kc0j204Z%2BJNgc1Rmwauruzs7YvnrDgOenJzRBxWQgTDjmBqc%2FaXpTpCjfz6oUVRxqGMt9fj3Gwope90GIF%2FBBgACLXI1uODb85WKZJ5cBvFlxer8OA%2BQJRwv6jemKmkXGXHDz%2BKH6M%2BcOECdwrfkLjkjHEyH5HHfUMm4bbx6%2FOWIJALRAKzlb86bOonzktlJkCy1DrgfIP2GCxJiOf0trWg%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20240826T200649Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAUPUUPRWEXN4HPMVL%2F20240826%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=9294d87a2ead9337a37c05772546e4044ec2aa8c8fd5d636e118593a1fbaeff4

Jess Bidgood, “The Four Swing States That Could Matter Most,” New York Times (September 25, 2024): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/25/us/politics/most-important-swing-states.html. Here, four, not seven, states are seen as the swing states.

Lily Boyce, Eli Murray and Alicia Parlapiano, “Tracking the Swing States for Harris and Trump,” New York Times (August 14, 2024): https:// www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/elections/presidential-election-swing-states.html

Philip Bump, “Trump’s claims about violent crime increasingly diverge from reality,” Washington Post (August 21, 2024): https:// www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/21/trump-crime-fear/

Charles Fisk, Jr., “Reaganomics: The Revolution That Never Happened,” in James Horgan and Joseph Cernik, eds., The Reagan Years: Perspectives and Assessments (Saint Leo, FL, Saint Leo College Press, 1988)

David Frum, How We Got Here: The 70’s: The Decade That Brought You Modern Life (For Better or Worse) (New York, Basic Books, 2000)

James Horgan, “The Reagan Presidency in Historical Perspective,” in James Horgan and Joseph Cernik, eds., The Reagan Years: Perspectives and Assessments (Saint Leo, FL, Saint Leo College Press, 1988)

Shelley McConnell, “Jimmy Who? A Legacy of Leadership.” Smerconish.com (February 23, 2023): https:// www.smerconish.com/exclusive-content/jimmy-who-a-legacy-of-leadership/

Bruce Schulman, The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, Society, and Politics (Boston, MA, Da Capo Press, 2001).  Online it can be found here:  https:// archive.org/details/seventiesgreatsh0000schu/page/n7/mode/2up