The now popular definition of “swing state” wasn’t always known. The definition first appeared in the political vocabulary in 1915 in the New York Times, but as often happens with political terms, it remained largely unnoticed for decades. It wasn’t until the fiercely competitive 1988 national election between Dukakis and George H.W. Bush that the concept of swing states saw his resurrection and was truly integrated into the daily jargon of American politics.
The political landscape shifted in the post Reagan era making it clear that while many states were firmly entrenched in the Donkeys or Elephants camps, others emerged as the wildcards of American Politics. Suddenly, these “up for grabs” states became the obsession of political scientists, media outlets, and campaign strategists who tried to understand the nature and secrets behind the unpredictability of modern American democracy.
The winner-take-all system that’s American Democracy, ensures that even a small change in the vote margin within a few states can change the Electoral College outcome, as was demonstrated in the 2000 election. It took only 537 votes in Florida to tip the balance, giving Bush the presidency over Gore. The stakes in swing states are always high, but in a tight election like the one taking place on the 5th of November, both candidates understand that states like Pennsylvania could decide who gets the keys to the Oval Office. In this ruthless arena called American politics, the winner takes all and no one is playing to lose.
To grasp Pennsylvania’s significance today, we must first explore its deep electoral roots and diverse population. This State has long been a battleground, playing a crucial role in shaping American democracy, with the unpredictable outcomes of recent elections being no accident.
The Electoral History of Keystone State
Pennsylvania went from having a foundational role in American democracy to its characteristic modern electoral volatility, Pennsylvania is the American keystone state, both literally and figuratively because it holds together the nation’s political landscape. At the same time, the state’s unique and hastily changing social fabric, made Pennsylvania a modern American melting pot between rural and urban communities whose diverse ethnicities, contrasting ideologies and metaphysical views add a complex layer to its political character.
Pennsylvania’s role in presidential elections is not a recent phenomenon but a continuation of its historical significance dating back to the founding days of the American Republic. Known as the “keystone of the federal union” , this metaphor of Pennsylvania as the critical piece holding the political arch together has endured through centuries of American history. The state was crucial in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, hosted the Continental Congress in the 1770s, and was the final state to approve the Declaration of Independence unanimously.4 Notwithstanding the heroic aspect implied in the historical literature, the raw reality of its electoral history is less grandiose portraying that once an American powerhouse State now only mirrors the nation’s political and social crisis which has divided the republic into two different camps.
For much of the 20th century, Pennsylvania’s electoral behaviour was relatively stable, typically siding with Democrats during presidential elections. From 1992 to 2012, it was a reliable member of the “blue wall,” a block of industrial northern states that Democratic candidates could count on. Yet, in the grand tradition of swing states, Pennsylvania couldn’t resist making things more interesting in 2016. In a move that surprised many, the state broke its Democratic streak by delivering its 20 electoral votes to Donald Trump, who won by a razor-thin margin of 0.7%. Pennsylvania’s unpredictability, once a reliable feature of its founding mythology, was on full display, as its industrial regions, long battered by economic decline, found a new political expression.
Notwithstanding this, the year 2020 showed that Pennsylvania can still swing, but it doesn’t always swing far. Joe Biden put the state back under Democratic control, winning by a similarly narrow margin of 1.2%. With 19 electoral votes (down from 38 a century ago due to population loss), Pennsylvania might have lost some of its numerical clout, but its influence remains intact.
Pennsylvania, the social melting pot.
Once the poster child of white, working-class America, Pennsylvania is now a curious cocktail made of diversity, rural and urban, progressive and conservative, shaken up by time and demographic shifts. The 2020 U.S. Census Bureau data reveals how much has changed the white population, once seemingly immovable, shrank by 6.3% over the past decade, while the multiracial population exploded by 226%. Hispanic and Latino communities grew by nearly 46%, transforming cities like Reading and Hazleton into cultural mosaics. What was once a homogeneous stronghold, has turned into a politically unpredictable mix, mirroring the nation’s broader, chaotic evolution throughout the centuries.
Amid these demographic shifts, Pennsylvania is home to unique subgroups whose political leanings deny easy classification, yes, I’m talking about the Amish. Almost 80,000 souls in Pennsylvania belong to this traditional anabaptist group which appears to be the perfect conservative voter base on paper. They value religious liberty, big families, and a life free from government interference and the advantages of modern technology.
Their communities are the last bastions of a lost traditionalism drastically opposed to modern societies that do not seek relations based on shared metaphysical views but prefer to stick with the dangerous game of online dating. Rooted in Christian values, they seem like natural allies for Republican candidates. But there’s a big issue, most Amish don’t vote. They are focused on building a heavenly kingdom, far removed from the scratchy dealings of worldly politics. While outsiders may appeal for their votes, the Amish remain quietly indifferent to democracy, as unfazed as they are by the charm of their horse-drawn buggies.
Political strategists (mostly Republicans) haven’t given up on the dream of a big Amish voting bloc that could change everything. George W. Bush achieved a small miracle in 2004 with a 13% turnout, and more recently, Trump supporters tried to woo the Amish with “Amish for Trump” signs and promises of protecting their way of life from government overreach. Notwithstanding this, the results have been poor, at the very least. The irony is that while political parties view the Amish as a kind of potential swing-state saviour, the Amish see voting as just another worldly distraction.
Final Note
The Keystone State remains a curious beast for the observer, with one foot stubbornly trapped in its quicksand industrial past and the other trying to keep up with a changing, multicultural future. This American contradiction created an electorate so volatile and unpredictable that political analysts and lobbyists remain clueless in front of the real world. The experts will write and speculate endlessly, but only the polls will reveal if people will be with the Donkeys or Elephants.
