AH Challenge: Different Swing States

So, how could the United States end up with a different core set of swing states during presidential elections?

For instance, how could states like California, Illinois, and Texas be more swingish? Or regions like New England and the Deep South?

On the flip side, how could the seminal swing states Florida and Ohio be less swingish, and more firmly in the camp of one party (in Ohio's case, like how Missouri went from a bellwether to a lean Republican state)?

PODs can be whenever you want, but preferably in the late 1980's and 1990's or later.
 
I think that it's pretty easy to have different swing states if you have a POD in, say, the 1950s/1960s. But if you want a POD in the late 1980s and 1990s, I can think of a few examples, but it mainly focuses on who the top of a presidential ticket is. Clinton was able to win states like Kentucky and Louisiana because he was a Southerner (I know, Al Gore was as well, but by 2000, most Tennesseans, and especially other Southerners saw Gore as a creature of Washington).

Depending on the nominee, and discounting a polarizing presidency (Like Bush II's), it's pretty easy to see a wider field of battle, with Republicans running neck-and-neck in Wisconsin and Democrats invading West Virginia (especially if the Republican is, say, a moderate, and the Democrat is a pro-union blue collar guy). But if you're asking for California to keep being contentious, that's a tougher order. The demographics of the state were shifting rapidly in the late 1980s and 1990s, making it only winnable for the GOP if it was a landslide election. If you want to make the GOP more competitive, have them ditch the "Only English" campaign and embrace issues that are supported by Latinos. Texas is probably harder than that; If you want a competitive Texas, nominate Lloyd Bentsen for President, and moderate Democrats. Not even Clinton could win Texas, though.
 
The obvious POD is changing the mid century realignment of the parties, but that's a bit too easy.

California specifically has been discussed here before IIRC, and certainly there are a lot of conservatives there who aren't really represented in Presidential elections. At least part of California's swing to the Democratic Party over the 1990s was apparently because of two factors; Pete Wilson discrediting the party and the decline of the military industrial complex after the end of the Cold War. So perhaps avoid Pete Wilson's Governorship and the state remains more in play through the 1990s. Before the War on Terror American competition with China was apparently the big foreign policy issue, so somehow get Bin Laden apprehended in Sudan in 1995-1996, preventing 9/11. Butterflies lead to more US-China tension and a new Cold War sets in, injecting new energy into the defense industry. California, leaning towards the Democrats in the 1990s, sees a Republican resurgence, but it's urbanization and political and demographic diversity mean the Democrats retain a strong base. California becomes the quintessential swing state, which both parties can not realistically win the Presidency without.
 
California specifically has been discussed here before IIRC, and certainly there are a lot of conservatives there who aren't really represented in Presidential elections. At least part of California's swing to the Democratic Party over the 1990s was apparently because of two factors; Pete Wilson discrediting the party and the decline of the military industrial complex after the end of the Cold War. So perhaps avoid Pete Wilson's Governorship and the state remains more in play through the 1990s. Before the War on Terror American competition with China was apparently the big foreign policy issue, so somehow get Bin Laden apprehended in Sudan in 1995-1996, preventing 9/11. Butterflies lead to more US-China tension and a new Cold War sets in, injecting new energy into the defense industry. California, leaning towards the Democrats in the 1990s, sees a Republican resurgence, but it's urbanization and political and demographic diversity mean the Democrats retain a strong base. California becomes the quintessential swing state, which both parties can not realistically win the Presidency without.

Hmm, maybe Dianne Feinstein wins the gubernatorial election in 1990, allowing the Democrats to be the ones who look responsible for the tough illegal immigration laws. Some Republican (Tom Campbell?) beats her in a landslide in the Republican Revolution of 1994.
 
Last edited:
If the Democrats (maybe pushed by the unions) come down hard on illegal immigration, maybe aided by Diane Fienstein's win in California in 1990, then the Republicans might be able to make states with large Latino populations vote Republican on the national level.
 
Any way Washington could be made into a purple state?

The Republicans shift their rhetoric away from defending big business towards a more pro-growth, pro-small business, pro-research & development message. Clinton did just that (moving away from the New Deal rhetoric) and was able to help tilt Washington, Oregon, and California all towards the Democrats.
 
In terms of California, a good POD would be 1965 and the immigration overhaul of that year, which did away with pro-European immigration rules. A California with demographics similar to those of 1965 looks closer to Ohio of today.
 
The Republicans shift their rhetoric away from defending big business towards a more pro-growth, pro-small business, pro-research & development message. Clinton did just that (moving away from the New Deal rhetoric) and was able to help tilt Washington, Oregon, and California all towards the Democrats.


Two other at least semi-realistic PODs would be Slade Gordon and Dino Rossi (2004) winning their elections that they narrowly lost.
 
Top