Top 10 Swing States in U.S. Elections

Crazy.

I believe Donald Trump can win

But I hope he doesn't.

There's a good chance he may win, but the odds are in Hillary Clinton's favour now that her emails have been confirmed not to have anything of importance in them. Will be very interesting to see who wins today, and as a citizen of Canada, I do not have to worry too much about the results! (Although being neighbours with Donald Trump isn't exactly fine, as I'd prefer not to see a Canadian wall along the border).

If Trump wins I think you'll have some new neighbors, because I'll be moving to Canada.

@Walacama, and others on either side who make similar statements: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

We believe in democracy, except of course when the other side wins.

I believe in Democracy, doesn't mean I have to stay when the people are stupid enough to vote for a stupid person. That's why the Framers invented the electoral college, to save the people from their own stupidity.

I'm with Walacama. Praying Trump dosent win. (The sAd thing is that my state is on this list)

Looks like the other winner is the Electoral College system, because Clinton won more votes than Trump, even though she lost the Electoral College by 305 to 232. She lost because she won her states by large margins, whereas Trump won several states (Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) by wafer-thin margins of between 0.3% and 1.4%.

I'll need a lot of Faithless Electors to change those results. I hope he does a great job for our country. I would never wish for the president to fail. I'll be moving to Ireland, so I'm hopeful the country will be in good shape if I ever decide to move back.

I believe Jerry meant Hillary won states by more people (California for example), not by more percentage.

* Spoiler Alert * Trump won... ;)

I didn't think a Trump win was possible until about 8:30 pm Central time on election night. P.S. I got seven out of ten - good quiz!

This has to be one of the most lopsided elections in the modern history of the USA, besides the Reagan ones and the George H.W. Bush one. Andybody has some data about that? I mean, Trump is even at risk of losing Utah to McMullin...

@MetopeTriglyph: Thank you for your great data. Actually, this one seems to be far less lopsided about the popular vote compared to the Reagan, Bush, Johnson, and FDR elections, at least in popular vote. Following Election Night from France on CNN, it seems that Clinton could make a roll if she can win Florida, Virginia and North Carolina (but I'm not sold about Ohio), but it's not comparable with the elections I talked about. Right now, Clinton fate in Florida seems to be bound to Broward County, and I can only imagine a blowout in this very urban county. Election Night is a very funny thing to witness as a French guy becuase of the differences between our respective systems of voting.

And he won all the swing states except Virginia, plus Michigan and Wisconsin... What a tremendous upset...

It's funny how short people's memories are. The phenomenon of presidential elections being SO close and so hotly contested, with each party crunching numbers over and over and over again to eke out 51% of the vote is quite recent. 2000 Bush v. Gore was one of the closest presidential elections in US history and since it seems like people almost expect that to be the norm. They called Obamas 365-163 victory over McCain a "landslide." But you don't have to go far back to find true landslides that make this one seem like a nail-biter. Just in 1996 Clinton beat Dole 379 - 159. Going further back, George Washington carried 100% of the states in both 1789 and 1792. James Monroe won 231 to 1 in 1820. and then those others that Metope mentioned.

Metope's comment has disappeared. I assume he probably mentioned some or all of the following: Bush beating Dukakis 426 - 111 in 1988, Reagan over Mondale 525 - 13 in 1984, Reagan over Carter 489 - 49 in 1980, Nixon over McGovern 520 - 17 in 1972, or Roosevelt over Landon 523 - 8 in 1936. Those were some proper landslides.

Hey Quizmaster, what's number 11? Also, you can do a quiz for the closest states in 2016: Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota, Maine, Nebraska's second congressional district, and Michigan would make the list, while Iowa, Ohio, and Maine's second district would become safe Republican.

Even if you counted Trump states like Michigan and Maine's second district as Democratic holds, Clinton would've needed 53 more electoral votes, while Trump still has to get 79.

Would've never thought of Missouri.

We're a flyover state. Nobody ever thinks of us.

Which explains why I hate the whole "red state/blue state" thing. These days it seems that liberals think everyone in a red state is ignorant and conservatives think everyone in a blue state is elitist. Historically I would guess that most states have changed back and forth over the years. Changes in population or social or economic issues which tip the balance don't mean that every resident of the state suddenly changes affiliation, and some are always independent. My son once volunteered for a presidential candidate in our state and was dismayed to learn that the national party wouldn't give any funds to the state organization because they had determined in their formula our state wasn't needed to win. That is why who wins the popular vote doesn't matter. If the system was different, money would be distributed differently, and the results would probably be about the same. It's called politics.

Though there are many factors and some anomalous years, if you look at the data (go on, take a look, it's interesting and revealing) it becomes clear that since the American Civil War the major defining factor in US presidential elections has been race. I'm loathe to admit this as I tend to disagree with people who see racism as the reason for everything, but, just look at the map. Democrats were the party of racists (in the south, and to a lesser extent in the mid-west) from 1860 until 1964. 100 years of Democrats owning the "solid south." Then what happened? The Civil Rights Act of 1964, introduced by a Democratic Congressman, signed into law by a Democratic president, and *immediately* the country flips completely, defying 100 years of precedent. The racist states turned from blue to red and vice versa. The only years that are different since then are 1968 when the Democrats splintered

... and formed the Dixiecrat party, and in 1976 when the Democrats ran a southern peanut farmer from Georgia. (he would go on to carry Georgia in 1980, as well) but the overall pattern in every other year for the past 150 years can be explained by this one thing. The racist states try to dress up their racism in different ways and call it different things. Things like "states rights" and "smaller government" which was their way of saying keep the federal government weak so that state and local governments are free to oppress their minority populations; and of course gun rights became a big thing because southern militias needed to be armed to keep said minorities in line. This one issue has shaped American political discourse so pervasively and for so long that most people don't even realize it, they think that their party is in favor of small government because they believe in fiscal responsibility or something like that.

and of course not all Republican voters are racist and many now actually do believe in these things racism aside but that is where our current two-party national divide originally came from and how many ideas that we now take for granted as conservative or liberal principles came to take shape.

That's an exorbitant amount of time. I'm pretty sure a quick typist could type all 50 states twice in that amount of time. That's what I did to get New Hampshire. Started at Alabama and worked my way down alphabetically.

How about all quizzes being so short that only the top 2% typists can actually finish it on time, that way those of us in pursuit of knowledge can relax and take up gardening instead?

I finished it with 14 seconds remaining, and my average typing speed is 38 wpm. Probably 96% of people could easily finish this quiz.

This group is changing steadily. Missouri is pretty safe for the GOP - even in Trump's worst polling periods it never looked like going blue. Virginia is increasingly behaving as a blue state, not a swing state. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, could become more of a swing state and North Carolina looks to be following Virginia's trajectory. Meanwhile I think Iowa could follow Missouri and move towards becoming a more GOP-leaning state.

The reverse quizzes, for Republican and Democratic states, are here.

Where is the source Trump is up in Iowa, Ohio and is closer in New Hampshire in Real Clear Politics

Arizona, Michigan, and New Hampshire not officially counted as of 4:15 today

Not that it matters

This is the fifth election in which the Democrat won the popular vote but a different candidate won the presidency. (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and now 2016. 1824 Republicans weren't around but the other elections the Republican won)

Before 1964 the Democratic and Republican parties were very different, with completely different platforms and constituencies. I'd be careful drawing any broad conclusions going back to the 1800s. But the fact that this has happened twice in the last two decades is troubling.

No we'd get the citizens of the USA picking the winner. There's no reason why voters in WY should havemore say than voters in CA, and if we used a popular vote states wouldn't decide anything. The 10 million people of GA would count exactly the same as the 10 million people of OK+CT+IA. Also this would eliminate the way the minority in each state is subsumed by the majority, rendering their votes meaningless. That applies as much to Republicans voting in CA as it does to Democrats voting in TX. Finally, the main purpose of the EC as devised by the founding fathers was to protect against dangerous but popular demagogues (like Trump) coming to power. The founders were very wary of direct democracy for this reason. They knew such villains could appeal to the plebes before betraying them. If the EC decides to vote against Trump this year it'll have done what it was designed to do. But it probably won't, and if it doesn't, then it is useless.

Here's my two cents: the electoral college is stupid (see CGP Grey video), Trump didn't win the popular vote but won the electoral college (see different CGP Grey video) because he played his cards well (there'll probably be a CGP Grey video on that soon). He may not have won fairly, but that's not a problem with him, it's a problem with the country, and the way we elect our leaders.

Everybody has campaigned how they've campaigned because of the EC. If candidates really wanted to win the popular vote, they'd campaign in population-rich areas, not in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Maine, etc. The EC makes candidates campaign in those states.

Well you can make an argument that the states in the United States are like small countries. Similar to how the UN security council gives 1 vote per member. Now, i'm not saying this is a strong argument, but it was an incentive for some states to join the United States following independence.

The Electoral College votes are unevenly distributed, and the bigger states like California and Texas don't get the representation they deserve, while tiny states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska all get 3 votes. It also gives the majorities in each state an advantage, so in safely Democratic states like California and solidly Republican ones like Alabama the minor party really has no shot at winning, rendering their votes essentially useless for the purpose of electing the candidate they voted for. It's only in the swing states that people's votes really count since that is what can tip the election in favor of either candidate. This can barely be called democratic, as in a democracy all votes count equally. I find this system absurd, and don't see any reason as to why the US doesn't go by popular vote, since that is after all what determines what the majority of people want. Also, in the Electoral College, a candidate can technically win with only 21.91% of the vote.

Also, the Electoral College doesn't actually benefit the small states, since presidential candidates don't really care about them unless it's an insanely close election. This means that the EC doesn't really benefit anyone and should be abolished altogether. Popular vote benefits everyone equally, no matter if you live in a big city of in the countryside.

Roxy: not so good at math, are we?

Gamer: why is that a good thing? Why should Iowa get visited by presidential candidates 1000x more often than Los Angeles? That makes zero sense at all.

Aqua: that's the way it was 200 years ago. But it's not the way it is today and it's harmful to think of things in that way.

Tim: exactly

@Kal my comment on the EC wasn't trying to make it seem as though it's a good thing. I was just pointing out that the system makes candidates campaign how they do now. Instead of campaigning by trying to get a majority of the people's votes.

Okay. That's true, then, and in my opinion that's a very bad thing. It's absurd that the politics of Iowa should shape the discourse of the presidential primaries. Iowa is a small state home to fewer residents than the city of Phoenix. Meanwhile California is largely ignored.

You know that California is part of the United States, right?

and you accuse other people of being infants...

You know that whether or not you like California's political atmosphere, it's still a state, right. So as far as I'm aware, you can't just remove the votes of any state. If not, time to remove the votes the Republicans get in Texas, Georgia and North Carolina.

Some people were saying California allowed illegal immigrants to register to vote and that cost Trump the popular vote. Whilst that would have made zero difference to California's outcome alone, are there any legs in that claim?

zero. The only people who believe this, including the commander in chief, are detached from reality. Also why on Earth would Democrats be committing massive voter fraud in states where they were already guaranteed to win? The DNC made some catastrophic errors but they're not quite *that* dumb. If there really was voter fraud they could have stolen the election with just a few thousands well placed votes in certain key swing states. But instead they chose to cast 3 million fraudulent votes in states that were solidly Democratic? If that makes sense to you I'd like to sell you a degree from Trump University...

Pork, please seek professional help. I'm worried about you.

It seems like the U.S. is, on the whole, trending more liberally in the swing states. Not a bad thing, but it's interesting.

The world and history trends liberal. Change and progress is inevitable. The question in a two party liberal/conservative democracy is whether the conservatives can update their platform quickly enough to stay relevant. The past many years Republicans have been dragging on this and lagging further and further behind the mood of the country, in some ways even moving backward. The only way they can win elections, and they *know* this, is by disenfranchising as many voters as possible (see Pork's phony concerns above about voter ID and votes cast by illegal immigrants) and depending on cynical and undemocratic systems like the Electoral College and the system of gerrymandering to steal power from the people. In 2008 when Obama won a resounding victory the GOP did some soul searching and *tried* to move in a more progressive direction, understanding that they couldn't win in the future with just old "white" men. But...

Judging by recent elections in many countries (including now Brazil), I'd say this isn't true.

there are always swings of the pendulum, but that pendulum constantly moves further and further in one direction on every or every other successive swing. Unless you think they are going to move back to a feudal economy or perhaps an absolute monarchy in Brazil, maybe take away the vote from women and indigenous people, or something like that.

... we all know how that went. Trump represents everything the GOP was trying to get away from. And he may very well destroy the party completely going forward. He shouldn't have won the election in 2016. What would have been hard to anticipate in 2008, though, was just how much Democrats and liberals would empower forces like Trump with their focus on identity politics and a seeming passive indifference if not willful animosity toward the types of voters (old "white" men) that gave Trump the win in all the rust belt states.

traitor

As a Danish person, I don't know anything about the swing states. Got 7/10 by typing random states though.

Virginia? Really? That’s surprising as NoVa is all democrat and that’s where most of VA lives

The state is solid red, though, outside of NoVA, Richmond, and some parts of the Norfolk metro area. As those areas have become more densely populated it turned more and more purple, and is now starting to become blue. But before 2008 Virginia had voted for the Republican candidate for president in every single election going back to 1952 except once ('64).

*angrily typing about politics*

*getting reported multiple times for making political comments on political quizzes*

Maine will probably soon be here.

Going by the most recent polling data, the 10 most competitive states this year look to be (in descending order):

Ohio
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Iowa
Texas
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Arizona
and Pennsylvania

I'm not really sure I believe that Arkansas poll. If that was a fluke, then Nevada would slide in to the 10th most competitive spot. Would be pretty crazy if Trump lost in Arkansas. But the fact that Texas and Georgia are competitive this year is also bad news for him. Those have traditionally been Republican strongholds and also where they get a substantial chunk of their electoral college votes.

None of the other states are surprising. My home state of Virginia is leaning more blue all the time. Happy to see that sanity is prevailing there.

The least competitive states appear to be West Virginia and Massachusetts.