The Map to Victory in America
The map to victory in America in 1979: Jimmy Carter never imagined that he would no longer be in the White House a year later. The hostage crisis at the American embassy completely changed the atmosphere for Carter, and the emergence of double-digit inflation in America and the rise in gasoline prices on one hand, and on the other, the charismatic character of Ronald Reagan defeated Carter. Reagan even won 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 terms with the Democrats’ defeat in presidential elections.
A review of American election records shows that pre-election events and the character of the rival play a significant role in victory.
Twenty years after Jimmy Carter’s defeat due to bad luck and a charismatic opponent, the Democrats numerically won the election with Al Gore’s candidacy, but with less than six hundred votes in the crucial state of Florida, they were once again kept out of the White House.
This time, no weakness was seen in the Democrats.
Their candidate had a relatively good character, and the U.S. economy was in one of its best historical periods, but losing in the critical state of Florida conveyed the real message of America’s electoral structure to the world, where one can have more votes but accept defeat with fewer than 270 electoral votes.
Since 2000, non-American analysts have also developed a special sensitivity to American elections, raising serious questions for them.
The multitude of questions created was somewhat forgotten in the face of two relatively strong victories by the charismatic Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.
However, the results of the 2016 election even made many Americans object to the Electoral College structure.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton received about three million more votes, but surprisingly, with fewer than 270 electoral votes, she ceded the field to Donald Trump.
How can it be that Clinton received more votes but still lost? 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 electoral votes out of a total of 538 to become a guest of the White House and a representative of the American people for four years.
In the fifty states of America, there are 535 electoral votes, which each state receives proportionally based on its population.
Three electoral votes are also allocated only in the presidential election to the District of Columbia in the center of the 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, and some consistently vote for Republicans.
Now we are faced with seven states where their votes in various elections are usually swing or variable. A major victory in elections 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 without success in these states, or at least part of them, is not possible.
The reason for Trump’s victory in 2016 was that he won the crucial states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the reason for Biden’s victory over Trump in 2020 was that Biden won five of the seven mentioned states.
The difficulty in analyzing the 2024 election lies in which candidate, between Trump and Kamala Harris, can secure more electoral votes from these seven states. The surprise victory of Donald Trump in 2016 was due to the impact 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, and 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 on November 5 approaches, Donald Trump has taken the lead in betting agencies’ polls and even in the likelihood of victory in some battleground states over Harris.
Meanwhile, in national polls, Harris is slightly ahead, though for various reasons, national polls cannot be very reliable.
The 2016 election taught election analysts that focusing solely on national polls is a mistake, as in most pre-2016 election polls, Clinton was shown to be ahead of Trump, but a different result emerged.
Hillary Clinton lost because she lost the electoral votes of the three main and crucial states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, while Biden won because, apart from these three states, with the help of the McCain family’s campaign in Georgia and also Arizona, he won by a very close margin.
The election on November 5 is being held while in September, the results of three national polls, battleground state polls, 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 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 5.
However, post-October 7 developments have even divided Arab-Muslim Michiganders into three groups: one group votes for Harris, a smaller group supports Donald Trump, and some Arab-Muslim Michiganders, due to dissatisfaction with the current situation, have even refrained from registering to participate in the election.
November 5 is on the way, and another important election is being held that 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 must be noted that whoever wins the election has at least won three of the seven swing states.
