The Blueprint for Victory in America
In 1979, Jimmy Carter never imagined that he would be out of the White House within a year. The hostage crisis at the American embassy completely altered the atmosphere for Carter. The emergence of double-digit inflation in America and rising gas prices on one hand, and Ronald Reagan’s charismatic character on the other, defeated Carter. Reagan even managed to win over the Democratic voter base in the state of California.
Reagan’s victory with more than four hundred electoral votes shocked the Democratic Party, a shock that was repeated in the next two consecutive presidential elections with the Democrats’ defeats.
Reviewing the history of American elections shows that events leading up to the elections and the character of the opponent play a significant role in winning.
Twenty years after Jimmy Carter’s defeat due to bad luck and a charismatic opponent, the Democrats, with Al Gore’s candidacy, numerically won the election. However, with less than six hundred votes in the crucial state of Florida, they were once again prevented from entering the White House.
This time, no weaknesses were observed in the Democrats.
Their candidate had a relatively good character, and the American economy was in one of its best historical periods. However, losing in the crucial state of Florida conveyed the true message of America’s electoral structure to the world, where one can have a higher popular vote but lose with fewer than 270 electoral votes.
Since 2000, non-American analysts have also developed a special sensitivity to American elections, and serious questions have arisen for them.
The multitude of questions that arose were somewhat forgotten in the face of the relatively strong victories of the charismatic Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.
However, the results of the 2016 election even led many Americans to criticize the electoral college structure.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton received about three million more votes, but astonishingly, with fewer than 270 electoral votes, she conceded the race to Donald Trump.
How is it possible for Clinton to receive more votes but still lose? The answer to this question reveals how to win the U.S. presidential election.
In U.S. elections, each of the main candidates must secure at least 270 out of 538 electoral votes to be a guest of the White House and represent the American people for four years.
In the fifty states of America, there are 535 electoral votes, which each state receives based on its population.
Three electoral votes are also allocated only in the presidential election to the District of Columbia in central United States, Washington D.C., bringing the total number of electoral votes to 538. Among the states, some consistently vote for Democrats in most election cycles, while others consistently vote for Republicans.
Now, we are faced with seven states where their voting patterns have usually been swing or variable in different elections. A major victory in the election is achieved by winning in these seven states.
The states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada are these seven states. Winning the election is unlikely without success in these states or at least some of them.
The reason for Trump’s victory in 2016 was that he won the crucial states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The reason for Biden’s victory over Trump in 2020 was that Biden secured five out of the seven mentioned states.
The difficulty in analyzing the 2024 election lies in determining which candidate, between Trump and Kamala Harris, can secure more electoral votes from these seven states. The surprise of Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 was due to the influence of the electoral votes from these seven states.
For example, the state of Wisconsin, with 10 electoral votes, was completely ignored by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. She was so confident that she did not make a single visit to Wisconsin during a year of campaigning. However, after the surprise of 2016, Democrats have realized how crucial the battleground states are for victory.
As the election approaches on November 5th, Donald Trump is ahead of Harris in betting agency polls and even in the likelihood of winning in some battleground states.
Meanwhile, in national polls, Harris is slightly ahead, but for various reasons, national polls cannot be heavily relied upon.
The 2016 election taught election analysts that focusing only on national polls is a mistake, as most pre-election polls in 2016 showed Clinton ahead of Trump, but the outcome was different.
Hillary Clinton lost because she lost the electoral votes of the three key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Biden won because, apart from these three states, he also won with very close votes in Georgia and Arizona, aided by the McCain family’s endorsements.
On November 5th, the election is held while in September, the results of three national polls and those from the battleground states and reputable betting institutions were all in favor of Harris, but in October, the trend completely changed.
If we analyze the three types of polls mentioned above, it can be said that if the election had been held in September, Kamala Harris’s chances of winning would have been higher than in October and November 5th.
However, post-October 7th developments have even divided Arab-Muslim Michiganders into three groups: one group supports Harris, a smaller group has supported Donald Trump, and some Arab-Muslim Michiganders, due to dissatisfaction with the current situation, have even refrained from registering to vote.
November 5th is approaching, and another important election is taking place, which is of significant importance to the people of the Middle East, especially Iran, and even this time, the people of Ukraine.
Regardless of what the announced election result will be, it should be noted that whoever wins the election has secured at least three of the seven swing states.