Why Democrats and Republicans Campaign in Partisan States: A Strategic Analysis
When looking at political campaigning in the United States, it might seem counterintuitive why parties would bother dedicating resources to heavily partisan states. However, the reasons behind these decisions are rooted in strategic advantages and the complexities of the electoral system.
The Importance of Fundraising in Partisan Strongholds
It's not just about the votes. In some cases, partisan strongholds can be valuable for fundraising. While the political leaning of the state suggests one party's victory, the presence of opposing supporters can still provide a rich source of donations. For example, during the 2016 campaign, Bernie Sanders raised more money from Republican donors in traditionally Democratic states such as New York and California.
The Strategic Value of Battleground States and Swing Areas
In the 2016 presidential campaign, candidates made 71 visits to the battleground state of Florida. In contrast, they only visited California and Texas once each. This stark difference highlights the importance of swing states like Florida and the critical nature of securing votes in areas where both parties have a chance.
This phenomenon, known as the electoral college, transforms each election into a strategic game where every vote counts, particularly in swing states. The winner-take-all system means that votes in many states, unless they are swing states, effectively do not contribute to the outcome. As a result, campaigns do not waste resources on states that are a foregone conclusion for one party. This is why you rarely see campaigns in deep red or deep blue states outside of fundraisers.
Strategic Concentration on Key States
Both Democrats and Republicans typically focus their efforts on states where the outcome is uncertain. The key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin are continually targeted because they can swing the election. These states contain areas of significant opposition support, meaning that simply ignoring these regions would be a mistake.
The 2016 election is a prime example. Hillary Clinton lost the presidency despite winning the popular vote by less than 80,000 votes across three Midwest battleground states. This outcome underscores the importance of not taking anything for granted, especially in areas expected to favor a particular party geographically.
The Impact of Changing Electoral Systems
Should the electoral college system change to proportional voting, the current strategy of concentrating on swing states would be rendered obsolete. In a proportional system, there would be a need to secure votes in areas of opposition, making the entire state campaign more crucial.
While it's tempting to assume that support is guaranteed in partisan states, it's actually quite divided. 'Blue' states often have regions with significant support for the 'red' party, and vice versa. This means that candidates should not understate their efforts in traditionally strong states but should instead adopt an inclusive strategy to earn every possible vote.
Conclusion
To sum up, the strategic decision to campaign in partisan states is driven by the realities of the electoral college system and the uneven distribution of political support within those states. Understanding and capitalizing on these dynamics can provide the advantage needed to win the presidency.