What Changed Over the Last Three Presidential Elections

Image and statistics from 270towin.com

The past three presidential elections have provided a unique chance to understand what can shift an election; Donald Trump has been the republican candidate for president for the past 8 years straight, which allows each of the elections to be contrasted with fewer external variables as one of the candidates has stayed the same. Reaffirming an already well-established factor, Pennsylvania remained one of the most critical swing states in all three of the elections along with Michigan and Wisconsin. But more significantly, for the first time in over 20 years, the GOP took back the popular vote. This marks a massive shift in the U.S. political spectrum, as this may be a sign that the electoral advantage for the republican party is waning. While a republican can win the electoral college and lose the popular vote by a small margin, it is nearly impossible for a democrat to do so due to a large number of democratic votes being wasted and clustered in Texas. Democrats consistently lose Texas by a margin of 5-9 points, meaning that Texas receives many democratic votes but not enough to seriously challenge the state. This was the primary driver of Trump’s first win in 2016, where he lost the popular vote by over three points. However, in 2024 Trump widened the gap in Texas by over 2 points from 2020. In 2020, Biden took back Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and most surprising of all Georgia. Biden’s win in Georgia came as a massive shock, as the last time a democrat won Georgia was when Bill Clinton won 32 years ago by a tiny margin. However, aside from the states that were flipped, Biden also gained ground in states that he lost like Texas, gaining 3.3 points compared to Hillary Clinton in 2016. In 2024, Trump also made progress in states that he lost by a large margin, like California (gaining 4 points), and New York (gaining 1.3 points) from 2020 to 2024. These results seem to show that targeting states for growth may not be an effective campaign strategy, and that gains made in key states are natural gains made nation-wide. It is extremely difficult to make progress in one specific state, showing how it may make sense to campaign at a national level rather than trying to target specific areas.