The Edge of Seventeen: 2020 Swing States

Just a week after the Trump campaign flew a banner over the Democratic debate in Houston warning that “Socialism Will Kill Houston’s Economy,” I recently came across a picture on President Trump’s Facebook page highlighting how “Democrats Will Destroy America’s Economy.” It looks like President Trump has decided to take a page out of Bill Clinton’s playbook by making the 2020 Presidential Election all about “the economy, stupid.”  Unlike in the 1992 Presidential Election, where the American people had concerns about the health of the economy, President Trump will likely choose to focus on how Democrats will wreck the economy if and when they take back the White House.

President Trump posted the picture on his Facebook page as a handful of the Democratic candidates for President appeared on MSNBC advocating for radical proposals such as declaring war on meat in order to combat climate change. For example, Andrew Yang indicated a goal to “modify Americans’ diets over time” by making meat more expensive. The picture lists the economic impact of the Democrats’ environmental policies as well as the number of fossil fuel jobs that implementing them would cost in 17 states.  Coincidentally, those 17 states all have one thing in common: none of them voted for one of the two Presidential candidates in 2016 by a margin of ten points or greater. In other words, residents of those states can expect many more visits from President Trump as he seeks to win over their voters ahead of the 2020 Presidential Election. While President Trump eventually provided the figures for all 50 states in two additional pictures, his decision to group all of the swing states on one poster illustrates his campaign strategy for winning a second term. Check out the poster below, taken directly from President Trump’s Facebook page:

In all but one of the states listed above, the combined vote total of the right-of-center candidates exceeded the combined vote total of the left-of-center candidates in the 2016 Presidential Election. An article written for the University of Virginia Center for Politics’s Crystal Ball defined the right-of-center candidates as President Trump, Gary Johnson, and Evan McMuffin while defining the left-wing candidates as Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein. The author only produced the liberal and conservative vote shares for what he saw as the six big swing states: Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. However, some states’ ballots had more third-party candidates on them; which I included in the liberal and conservative vote shares listed below in the 17 swing states as defined by the Trump campaign. In many cases, the liberal and conservative vote shares will not add up to 100 percent because the figures do not include write-in candidates or candidates who represented parties whose ideology does not fit neatly into a position on the left or right side of the political spectrum. For detailed information on the performance of every single candidate in the 2016 Presidential Election in these sates and all states, consult Dave Leip’s Election Atlas.

State	2016 Winner	Liberal Vote Share	Liberal Parties on Ballot	Conservative Vote Share	Conservative Parties on Ballot
Arizona	Trump	45.90	Democratic, Green	52.87	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin, Constitution
Colorado	Clinton	49.54	Democratic, Green, Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Workers, Socialist	49.95	Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, Evan McMuffin, American Delta, Prohibition
Florida	Trump	48.09	Democratic, Green	51.05	Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, Reform
Georgia	Trump	45.54	Democratic, Green	53.81	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin, Constitution
Iowa	Trump	42.63	Democratic, Green, Legal Marijuana Now, Socialism and Liberation	56.09	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin, Constitution, Rocky De La Fuente
Maine	Clinton	49.74	Democratic, Green	50.25	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin, Constitution
Michigan	Trump	48.15	Democratic, Green, Socialist	51.32	Republican, Libertarian, U.S. Taxpayers, Evan McMuffin
Minnesota	Clinton	48.14	Democratic, Green, Legal Marijauna Now, Socialist Workers Party	50.94	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin, Constitution, Rocky De La Fuente
Nevada	Clinton	47.92	Democratic	49.52	Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, Reform
New Hampshire	Clinton	47.70	Democratic, Green	50.84	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin, Reform
New Mexico	Clinton	49.65	Democratic, Green, Socialism and Liberation	50.30	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin, Constitution, Rocky De La Fuente
North Carolina	Trump	46.43	Democratic, Green	52.57	Republican, Libertarian
Ohio	Trump	44.08	Democratic, Green	54.72	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin, Constitution
Pennsylvania	Trump	48.27	Democratic, Green	50.97	Republican, Libertarian, Constitution
Texas	Trump	43.92	Democratic, Green	55.77	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin, Constitution
Virginia	Clinton	50.44	Democratic, Green	49.75	Republican, Libertarian, Evan McMuffin
Wisconsin	Trump	47.55	Democratic, Green, Workers World	51.66	Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, Evan McMuffin, Rocky De La Fuente

           

If President Trump wants to win all or most of the states listed above, he must make sure that everyone who votes Republican in 2016 does so again in 2020.  It would behoove his campaign to win over as many of the people who voted for other right-leaning candidates as possible in case the Democrats manage to consolidate all the left-leaning votes behind the Democratic nominee.  The Democrats’ support for the Green New Deal makes it clear that the Democrats hope to appease as many members of the Green Party as possible. President Trump can make an appeal to people who voted Libertarian in 2016 by presenting himself as the only obstacle standing in the way of the implementation of the Green New Deal; which amounts to the nightmare scenario for any true libertarian.

President Trump only won ten of the 17 states listed above in 2016 while Hillary Clinton won the remaining seven.  The combined electoral votes of the 17 swing states as defined by the Trump administration add up to 229; just a little bit short of the magic number of 270.  That number does not include the electoral vote in Maine’s 1^st Congressional District, which will almost certainly end up going to the Democratic candidate; even if the Republican candidate wins statewide. However, each side has states they can count on heading into the 2020 Presidential Election. Republicans can count on winning 20 states with a combined 125 electoral votes.  While the list of reliable red states includes Nebraska, the electoral vote total only includes four of the state’s five electoral votes because the electoral vote in Nebraska’s 2^nd Congressional District could go either way in 2020. Democrats can assume that the remaining 13 states as well as Maine’s 1^st Congressional District, which boast a combined 183 electoral votes, will vote for their candidate next year.

While all of the 17 states will have competitive races at the presidential level, most of the 17 swing states have competitive races further on down the ballot as well. With the exception of Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all of the states have Senate races that will help determine the balance of power on Capitol Hill and both sides can probably point to House races in each state they can plan to target. Let’s take a look at President Trump’s chances to win in each of them.

State	2016 Winner	Senate Race	D Targets in House	R Targets in House
Arizona	Trump	Yes	6	1, 2
Colorado	Clinton	Yes	3	6
Florida	Trump	No	15, 16, 18	7, 13, 26, 27
Georgia	Trump	Yes (2)	7	6
Iowa	Trump	Yes	4	1, 2, 3
Maine	Clinton	Yes	N/A	2
Michigan	Trump	Yes	3, 6	8, 11
Minnesota	Clinton	Yes	1	2, 3, 7
Nevada	Clinton	No	N/A	3, 4
New Hampshire	Clinton	Yes	N/A	1, 2
New Mexico	Clinton	Yes	N/A	2
North Carolina	Trump	Yes	2, 9, 13	N/A
Ohio	Trump	No	1, 12	N/A
Pennsylvania	Trump	No	1, 10, 16	7, 8, 17
Texas	Trump	Yes	10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31	7, 32
Virginia	Clinton	Yes	5	2, 7, 10
Wisconsin	Trump	No	N/A	3

As the table above demonstrates, the Senate battlefield overlaps with the Electoral College battlefield, for the most part. With the exception of Alabama, which President Trump should have no trouble winning, all of the competitive Senate races will take place in swing states. Republicans will find themselves playing defense in Senate races in Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Maine, Iowa, and Texas.  Republicans will have to defend two Senate seats in Georgia as a special election will take place next year to fill the remainder of resigning Senator Johnny Isakson’s term, which does not expire until 2022. As of right now, it looks like Republicans will have the hardest time holding onto the seats in Colorado, Arizona, and North Carolina. Depending on who wins the 2020 Presidential Election, Republicans can afford to lose no more than three or four seats in the Senate and still hold onto the majority.

Meanwhile, the Republicans can play offense in the remainder of Senate races taking place in competitive states. Besides Alabama, Republicans have a strong pickup opportunity in Michigan and possible pickup opportunities in Minnesota and New Hampshire. Republican Senate wins in New Mexico and Virginia look like long shots at this point but never say never. Unlike in many other states where Republican Senate candidates will want to tether themselves to President Trump, Republican Senate candidates in New Mexico and Virginia may make the calculation that distancing themselves from the President could help them win in states that he might have a hard time carrying in 2020.

Republicans need a net gain of 19 seats in order to retake control of the House of Representatives. In theory, Republicans could retake control of the House of Representatives simply by winning every competitive However, Republicans have much stronger targets in redder-than-average districts in states that overwhelmingly favor one party over the other in Presidential Elections.

While the Green New Deal and all the other radical environmental policies championed by the Democrats will hurt the states’ economies, illegal immigration already has hurt the states’ economies. Check out the cost of illegal immigration in the 17 swing states, as provided by The Washington Examiner.

State	Cost of Illegal Immigration	Foreign-Born Population
Arizona	$2.3B	13.4
Colorado	$1.6B	9.8
Florida	$6.3B	19.4
Georgia	$2.5B	9.7
Iowa	$272.1M	4.6
Maine	$42.4M	3.4
Michigan	$857.6M	6.0
Minnesota	$734.9M	7.1
Nevada	$1.6B	18.8
New Hampshire	$87M	5.3
New Mexico	$602.7M	9.9
North Carolina	$2.4B	7.5
Ohio	$649.1M	4.1
Pennsylvania	$1.4B	5.8
Texas	$11B	16.4
Virginia	$2.2B	11.4
Wisconsin	$568.5M	4.5

Illegal immigration costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year and a combination of 50 years of low-skilled immigration, birthright citizenship, and the 1986 amnesty have arguably cost Republicans electoral victories in several states that once voted reliably Republican. In addition to providing the cost of illegal immigration in the 17 swing states, I also included the foreign-born share of the population for each of the states. Four of the seven swing states President Trump lost in 2016 have noticeably high foreign-born populations. Take a look at what happened in the Virginia gubernatorial election in 2017. Republican candidate Ed Gillespie received more votes than any Republican gubernatorial candidate in his state’s history but his strong showing could not match the performance of his Democratic opponent, buoyed by an explosion in the foreign-born population. 

Winning a majority of the 17 swing states discussed in this article will ensure President Trump’s re-election. Immigration will have an impact on President Trump’s ability or inability to carry certain states, as will the identity of the Democratic nominee.  Based on the picture President Trump posted on his Facebook page, it looks like he knows which states he needs to focus on if he wants to win a second term.