Part III of a series of specials on the US Elections, written by the members of the Americas Focus Group
Michigan: Red Mirage in the Wolverine State?
by Roberto Gandolfi
As pundits, the media, and the public at large will anxiously follow the vote over the coming days, the only foregone conclusion in an otherwise unpredictable election cycle appears to be that much (too much, some observers, especially foreign ones pondering the global ramifications of the vote, might opine) will hinge on a handful of voters in the state of Michigan. The Great Lakes State is central to both campaigns’ path to victory and its 15 electoral college votes represent a tantalizing prize which, according to the latest wave of polling, remains impartially up for grabs. Nor is it lost on both presidential candidates and their entourage that securing Michigan granted the keys to the White House in all of the past four elections, including in 2016, when Donald Trump won the state by just 10,704 votes. And while President Biden reclaimed it for the Democrats in 2020 by a more comfortable margin of 154,188, that still amounted to a modest 1.2% edge. In keeping with the tradition, the race is once more a nail-biter, with Harris’ already uncomfortably thin lead over Trump steadily dissipating over the coming weeks and a ramp up in visits throughout the state by both sides’ presidential and vice-presidential candidates in a last-ditch attempt to sway undecided voters.
Setting the stage for this high-octane rush to secure the state by a handful of votes are a few demographic and socio-economic traits which distinguish Michigan even from other fellow battleground states. To begin with, Michigan is home to one of the nation’s largest Black communities, representing over 15% of its 10,077 million inhabitants. It also counts over 200,000 Arab Americans among its citizens, more than any other US state and around 9% of Michigan’s voting-age population identifies as LGBTQ+. On the economic front, while Michigan ranks 40th out of US States in terms of per-capita income, it can count on a significant share (14.1%) of the labor force being unionized. And while it recently enjoyed above-average economic growth, it also suffered from higher unemployment compared to the nation as a whole and the economy remains the issue Michigan voters cared more about, according to recent polls.
Against this backdrop, the Harris campaign has repeatedly highlighted the Biden Administration’s unwavering support for the middle class and a its push to revitalize US manufacturing, a message that should resonate with voters, especially considering that funds unleashed by the US Inflation Reduction Act have spurred over $21.5 billion in investments by the likes of Detroit icon General Motors and other firms across the electric vehicles or clean energy supply chains. Trump has countered by promising to relaunch the state’s automotive industry and to reopen plants that had closed in recent years, appealing in particular to voters who lost their employment as a result of globalization and automation trends. He also accused the Biden-Harris administration of being responsible for the inflation surge that, despite subsiding in recent months, has brought cost of living concerns to the forefront of the debate. The vice-president on the other hand, repeatedly painted Trump’s proposed tax counts as a handout to the wealthy and equated his tariffs plan to a sales tax on the American people, all while strengthening her appeal to small business owners and holders of student debt.
Closely related to the state’s economy is the battle for union votes, which, despite President Biden’s pledge to be “the most pro-union president in US history” and the administration’s favorable track record, is not translating into an easy win for the democrats. Both campaigns are making a play for the support of organized labor, though encouragingly for Harris, she received the official endorsement of both the United Auto Workers and the local chapter of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, despite the Teamsters’ president refusal to issue a nation-wide endorsement and his appearance at the Republican National Convention.
On abortion, another salient issue to many Michigan voters, Harris is on the offensive, hoping to galvanize young voters once again, after in the 2022 midterms they recorded the highest voter turnout in the nation. However, the Democrats’ own success in passing a 2022 referendum protecting abortion rights in the state may come back to haunt them, as it might have reduced the salience of abortion rights in the current election cycle.
Immigration and crime, conversely, remain central campaign issues on which the Trump campaign is maintaining the spotlight, including by means of unrelenting misinformation efforts on an alleged crime wave unleashed by illegal immigrants which however has, to date, failed to materialize in the actual data. This has not prevented the former president from making vitriolic claims on the perceived safety of Michigan’s cities, including the questionable statement that the entire US would “end up like Detroit” if Harris wins, a comment he made during a speech in the very same city. Whether Trump’s bombastic rhetoric will resonate with the state’s voters remains to be seen.
Another weakness for the Harris campaign lies in its challenging relationship with the state’s large Muslim and MENA community, which has steadily abandoned the Democratic Party as a result of what they perceive as an unforgivable foreign policy failure by the Biden administration, which maintained its steadfast support to Isreal’s war effort in Gaza and Lebanon, even amid horrific civilian casualties and mounting calls for a ceasefire. That support is now weighting on the vice president as well, who has failed to distance herself from the position of the administration and has only marginally tempered her position on the conflict. Alienating the Arab electorate may prove a costly misstep, not least because on this issue in particular, the Harris campaign must also contend with, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who has spearheaded the cause of pro-Palestine voters who felt abandoned by mainstream Democrats. Despite the Democratic Party’s effort to paint Stein as a mere “spoiler candidate”, and even more sinister allegations connecting her to Russian election interference efforts, her name remains on the ballot, and she could siphon off just enough votes to deny Harris the state.
Amid such a heated campaign, action on the ground could prove instrumental in delivering the entire state. Following a surge of enthusiasm in the aftermath of President Biden’s abandoning the race and vice-president Harris stepping in as the Democratic nominee, Michigan Democrats were able to rally thousands of volunteers to join candidates in an extensive door knocking campaign to persuade potential voters in the presidential election and in down-ballot races. Both campaigns have also inundated the state of TV, radio and social media ads, paired with billboards and yard signs. And while both president and vice-president candidates held multiple rallies across the state, Kamala Harris recently joined forces with Lizz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman and staunch Trump opponent, touring together suburban areas in battleground states, including Michigan. The vice president was also endorsed by veteran Michigan Republican Fred Upton, which may increase her appeal with former Nikky Haley supporters reluctant to back Donald Trump.
Given the past four years, no overview of a US State election would be complete without touching upon the point of election integrity, especially considering that MAGA Republicans in Michigan still believe that the 2020 election was stolen, and that Trump should have been certified as the winner, despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary. Voter suppression before or on election day is also a concern, made all the more concrete by the recent discovery that a GOP House candidate had ran a newspaper ad in a Black-owned Michigan newspaper incorrectly informing readers to vote on November 6 rather than on November 5. The only certainty in what has otherwise been a highly polarized and unpredictable election run-up, is that as soon as the election booths close and the first exit polls are announced, pre-emptive claims to victory, unverified allegations and recriminations will be sure to follow. This uneasy realization is only compounded by what will be by all counts an unprecedentedly close election whose result will be confirmed only days after votes are cast, the potential for disruptions at polling places caused by partisan observers and organization, as well as a degraded informational environment where fearmongering and disinformation thrive.
The coming days certainly have historical importance and will send shockwaves far beyond US borders. Regardless of the outcome, a truly momentous occasion calling on Michigan voters, to determine the future of the nation. One can only hope that it will manifest itself as a celebration of American renewal, rather than a descent into chaos and a further erosion of confidence in the future.
Wisconsin: Another Polling Error?
by Pavel Marinov
For much of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, Wisconsin leaned Democratic in presidential elections, the state consistently supported Democratic candidates from 1988 through 2012, thanks to strong union support and a base of urban and rural working-class voters. Hence, why the state had once been considered a core part of the “Blue Wall states”. The consecutive electoral victories for Democratic candidates masked just how split the state had become. Starting from Al Gore’s victory in 2000 by a margin of just around 5700 votes no presidential candidate, that wasn't called Barack Obama, managed to win the state by more than 25 000 votes.
This trend of razor-tight victories is set to continue at this election. Wisconsin’s Blue Wall state status was broken in 2016 when Donald Trump won Wisconsin by a narrow margin of 22,748 votes (0.77%), marking the first Republican victory in the state since 1984. His focus on trade and economic issues resonated with blue-collar voters disillusioned by the decline of manufacturing. In 2020, Joe Biden reclaimed the state for the Democrats, but the victory was equally slim—20,682 votes (0.63%).
The state’s political complexity extends to its legislative structure, with a Republican-controlled legislature frequently at odds with the Democratic governor Tony Evers. This dynamic has resulted in contentious legislative battles over voting access and budget appropriations, characterized by vetoes and partisan gridlock. Wisconsin's delegation to the U.S. Congress reflects its battleground status. The state sends eight representatives to the House, currently split 6-2 in favor of Republicans. This tilt has been reinforced by gerrymandering that favors the GOP. The situation is the same in the House, where Wisconsin is represented by progressive Democrat Tammy Baldwin and staunch conservative Republican Ron Johnson Another notable aspect of Wisconsin's electoral landscape is the presence of numerous "Obama-Trump" communities—areas that voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012 and then shifted to support Trump in both 2016 and 2020, particularly prominent in the state's 3rd District.
Wisconsin’s economy has long been synonymous with manufacturing and agriculture. Historically a manufacturing powerhouse, the state has been known for producing machinery, paper, and metal products. It also ranks among the top states in dairy production, earning its nickname, “America’s Dairyland.” However, the decline in manufacturing jobs due to globalization and automation has hit many small towns and rural areas hard, fuelling economic and political shifts toward the GOP. Despite these challenges, Wisconsin’s economy has diversified.
Urban centers like Milwaukee and Madison have experienced healthcare, education, and biotechnology growth. Madison, in particular, has become a hub for research and innovation, driven by the University of Wisconsin’s influence. This growth however hasn’t reached the more rural communities and can explain the rise of the GOP among blue-collar workers in the state.
Wisconsin’s political geography underscores its internal divisions. The southeastern region, including Milwaukee and Madison, leans Democratic, supported by urban and suburban voters. Madison is particularly progressive, influenced by its university-driven culture. In contrast, the northern and western regions, characterized by rural communities and small towns, align with the GOP, driven by conservative social values and economic concerns tied to agriculture and manufacturing. Suburban counties surrounding Milwaukee, such as Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington, have historically been Republican but have shown signs of becoming more contested in recent elections.
As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the political debate in Wisconsin is centered on three main issues: abortion, the economy, and immigration.
Abortion has become a defining issue in Wisconsin following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in “Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization”, which overturned “Roe v. Wade” and shifted the power to regulate abortion back to the states. This reactivated an 1849 Wisconsin law that criminalizes most abortions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The law led to significant legal and political uncertainty until a 2023 Dane County circuit court ruling clarified that the 1849 statute did not apply to consensual abortions, effectively allowing procedures up to 22 weeks. In January 2024, Wisconsin Republicans introduced a bill proposing a statewide referendum to ban abortions after 14 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother's health. The Assembly passed the bill on January 25, 2024, but it did not advance in the Senate, and Governor Tony Evers indicated he would veto any legislation restricting abortion access. Governor Evers and Wisconsin Democrats have pushed for legislation to codify abortion rights, viewing it as essential to safeguarding women's health and autonomy. Republicans, however, have argued for stricter limits, positioning their stance as part of a broader commitment to traditional values.
The economy remains a top issue for Wisconsin voters, driven by inflation, job security, and the impacts of manufacturing decline. Globalization and automation have significantly affected Wisconsin’s industrial base, reshaping the economic landscape and influencing political allegiances. Donald Trump’s platform emphasizes economic nationalism, including tax cuts, deregulation, and higher import tariffs to boost domestic manufacturing. This message resonates with rural and blue-collar voters who feel left behind by shifting economic tides. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, has championed policies that support the working class by proposing targeted tax cuts and incentives, along with an increase in taxes for higher-income earners to fund programs aimed at boosting the middle class. These include infrastructure investments and a $25,000 first-time homebuyer credit to address housing affordability.
Although immigration is not as central in Wisconsin as it is in southern states, it remains a relevant issue due to its importance to the state’s agricultural industry. Dairy farms and other agricultural sectors heavily rely on immigrant labor, making immigration policy significant to the local economy. Republicans, led by Trump, have campaigned on stricter immigration policies, emphasizing border security and reducing undocumented migration. This approach appeals to voters concerned about job competition and national security. On the other hand, Democrats advocate for a more comprehensive approach that balances border security with pathways to citizenship, aligning with the interests of industries that depend on immigrant labor and appealing to urban voters.
Ever since Biden dropped out of the race, polling has shown a small, but consistent for the Harris campaign, and as of the writing of this article, polling by 538 shows a 0.8% lead for Harris and a 2.3% lead for the incumbent Wisconsin senator Tammy Baldwin over Republican candidate Eric Hovde. This is a positive sign for the Democratic Party, however, Trump has had a history of outperforming the polls. The key to his victory in 2016 was the big shift of many rural blue-collar voters to his side, however, experts speculate, that the Trump campaign has reached its electoral ceiling among rural voters while losing out on many suburban republican voters, especially in Dane County or the suburbs of Milwaukee. This shift in support for the Democratic Party in the suburbs was crucial for Joe Biden’s victory and combined with the over 300,000 college students in Wisconsin, of whom overwhelmingly voted Democrat as a very strong base to the Haris campaign. That said, the most important battle in this election is for the urban blue-collar vote. If Donald Trump manages to win over some of them to his camp and increase his support with the relatively small Black and Hispanic communities in the state ( roughly 15% of the State’s population), then that would be enough for him to once again surprise pollsters and win the state.
Pennsylvania: Commonwealth Bellwether
by Antonio Carapella
As the 2024 presidential election nears, Pennsylvania remains a pivotal swing state, with intense campaign activity underscoring its significance. From Kamala Harris's massive rallies in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to Donald Trump's populist stunts in small towns, the focus on Pennsylvania has intensified. This attention reflects not only the narrow margins and controversies of past elections—especially in 2016 and 2020—but also the unique demographic and economic characteristics that make the state emblematic of broader national divides.
Pennsylvania’s political prominence comes from a distinctive demographic profile that mirrors the broader American electorate. The state, with a population of nearly 13 million, features a stark urban-rural divide, as well as varied economic sectors and cultural identities that make it a microcosm of the nation.
Rural Pennsylvania, which geographically comprises the majority of the state, is characterized by small towns and agricultural communities. According to recent census data, Pennsylvania’s rural areas are predominantly white (85%) and Protestant (over 75%), with deep-rooted Scots-Irish ancestry and a conservative, religious tradition. Many counties in central and northern Pennsylvania, such as Cameron and Forest Counties, are sparsely populated with fewer than 5,000 residents each, fostering a sense of isolation and a unique, region-specific cultural identity.
Economically, these regions rely heavily on agriculture and resource extraction. Pennsylvania ranks 18th nationwide in agricultural output, contributing about $135 billion annually to the state’s economy. Family farms, many of which have been passed down through generations, dominate the landscape. However, increasing competition from larger, more technologically advanced agribusinesses has strained traditional farming, leading to financial instability for small-scale farmers.
In recent years, the emergence of the natural gas industry, particularly fracking, has provided a crucial economic lifeline to rural communities. Pennsylvania is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the U.S., and the industry contributed $583 million in state and local tax revenue in 2022. Fracking has allowed many rural landowners to lease land for drilling, bringing substantial royalties and boosting local economies. Yet, the industry has polarized the state politically, as many rural voters view national Democratic opposition to fossil fuels as a threat to their livelihoods. Consequently, fracking has solidified Republican loyalties and fostered a deep skepticism toward environmental regulations favored by Democrats.
The region's political landscape reflects its conservative values. Once dominated by moderate Republicans like former Governor William Scranton and Senator John Heinz, rural Pennsylvania’s politics have grown increasingly radicalized, aligning with figures like Doug Mastriano, a state senator and staunch Trump ally. Mastriano, a vocal critic of pandemic restrictions and an advocate for religious conservatism, gained prominence during the 2022 gubernatorial race, though he lost to Democrat Josh Shapiro. His evangelical base remains powerful, as conservative voters rally around candidates who champion religious values and traditional industries like fossil fuels.
In contrast to rural conservatism, Pennsylvania’s urban centers—Philadelphia and Pittsburgh—are solid Democratic strongholds, characterized by diverse populations, liberal social values, and post-industrial economies. These two cities house over 30% of the state’s population, making them crucial for Democratic voter turnout. The cities’ political influence and economic transformation from industrial hubs to service-based economies have shaped their unique political dynamics.
Philadelphia, the state’s largest city, with a population exceeding 1.6 million, is known for its diverse demographics. The city’s population is 42% Black, 15% Hispanic (predominantly Puerto Rican), and about 34% white. This ethnic diversity has shaped Philadelphia’s politics, where a robust Democratic machine relies on a clientelistic structure. Political loyalty is maintained through ward leaders and patronage networks, which mobilize voters and ensure Democratic dominance in local elections.
Philadelphia has produced several prominent Democrats, such as Governor Josh Shapiro and former Governor Tom Wolf, who are both products of the city’s moderate political machine. Shapiro, a centrist with a reputation for bipartisan cooperation, won the 2022 gubernatorial race by a wide margin against Mastriano, emphasizing the appeal of moderate politics in a polarized state. Shapiro’s platform focused on preserving Pennsylvania’s energy economy while balancing environmental concerns—a stance that resonated in urban centers and some suburban areas but left rural voters wary.
Philadelphia’s Democratic machine has also helped produce influential leaders like former Mayor Michael Nutter and current Mayor Jim Kenney, both of whom have implemented policies aimed at reducing poverty and improving public safety. However, progressive factions within the city, often clashing with the establishment, are rising in influence. These factions advocate for criminal justice reform and increased investment in education and public health, creating tension between moderate Democrats and the more insurgent progressive base.
Pittsburgh, the state’s second-largest city, with a population of over 300,000, is a former industrial powerhouse that has successfully transitioned to a service economy focused on healthcare, technology, and education. Historically, Pittsburgh was dominated by industries like steel, glass, and coal, which attracted large numbers of Central and Eastern European immigrants and African Americans during the Great Migration. By the mid-20th century, the city had one of the most powerful labor movements in the country, centered around the United Steelworkers and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).
Comments