What's the difference between a swing state and a swing voter?

What's the difference between a swing state and a swing voter?

What's the difference between a swing state and a swing voter?

A guide to the swing states.
Sept. 30 2008 8:23 PM

So You Think You're a Swing Voter?

Think again: It depends on whether you live in a swing state.

Read the rest of the Swingers  series.

Illustration by Robert Neubecker. Click image to expand.

If you are lonely, declare yourself a swing voter. You'll get lots of attention. Volunteers will come to your house with reading material. Politicians will beam at you. The pollsters will come in swarms. Tell them you are either undecided or committed but willing to change your mind. Your phone will ring incessantly, and if it's not a legitimate pollster, it'll be a push-pollster telling horror stories or a reporter who wants to know your every whim. If you frequent a diner or some other authentic-looking eatery near a major airport, a network producer will put you on television.

John Dickerson John Dickerson

John Dickerson is a Slate political columnist, the moderator of CBS’s Face the Nation, and author of On Her Trail. Read his series on the presidency and on risk.

Just one thing, though: Do you live in a swing state? You don't? Oh—then, never mind. If you're lonely, get a dog.


There may have been a time when the political world cared about the views of voters in non-swing states, but with just 34 days until the election—and some voting already under way—all that matters is what happens in the 15 or so states that will determine whether Barack Obama or John McCain will win the 270 electoral votes necessary to become the next president.

You've heard of most of the battleground states before. Ohio and Florida are the two most famous, making all of the other swing states jealous because they've had movies made about them. Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico are also among the traditional swing states that have supported candidates from both parties in recent elections.

The number of battleground states is not fixed. Different news organizations have varying counts. NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Mark Ambinder, and Pollster.com, all see it slightly differently. The slight distinction among the different analysts is about which new states will be accorded the coveted "swing state" title and which traditional swing states should fall off the list. Indiana and North Carolina are new states flickering in the desirable "tossup" category, whereas Iowa, a state George W. Bush won in 2004, appears to be headed out of McCain's reach.

To determine the states that are truly competitive, we start with the states that historically have been close and then look at the current polls, which are now quite favorable for Obama. Statewide polls can be unreliable, though, because of small samples and crazy methodology, so analysts also look at other cues like party registration. If the party that is traditionally the underdog is signing up lots of new voters—perhaps enough to make up for the 2004 margin—it might hint that the state is really in play. In traditionally red Colorado, for example, Democrats have seen the number of registered voters grow. It's also worth checking who or what else is on the ballot: Anti-union initiatives in Colorado might help McCain, while popular candidates like Mark Warner, who is running for Senate in Virginia, might help Obama.

When determining swing states, there is really only one iron-clad rule: Don't listen to what the campaigns say. They will claim to be competing in states they're not serious about to throw off their opponent and make them spend time, money, and attention defending their turf.

Instead, watch where the campaigns spend their time and money. The best way to tell whether a campaign is serious about a state is if the campaigns are spending money on advertisements and staff and offices in the state. And the most important indicator is how much time the candidate is spending in the state. If the candidate's spouse goes but the candidate doesn't, it probably means the campaign is not hopeful about the state but not yet willing to take it totally off the list.

When the McCain campaign pulled out of Michigan, no more evidence was needed that we didn't need to consider Michigan a swing state any more. Iowa is a more complex test case of this theory: It's a true swing state. Gore won it in 2000. Bush won it in 2004. Obama has been ahead there consistently in the polls. He started his campaign with a caucus victory in Iowa. McCain has constantly bashed ethanol subsidies, as he did in the last debate, which doesn't endear him to some Iowa voters.

The upshot is that Obama campaign aides think they've got the state locked up. The McCain team, meanwhile, says it's seen a dramatic pickup in Republican support in Iowa, mirroring a larger trend it sees across the battleground states. Since the Palin pick, McCain aides say, the number of volunteers willing to make calls and knock on doors in swing states has surpassed the number who did so in 2004 for George Bush. They say this boost of energy has been particularly strong in Iowa, where Republicans' support for McCain was far less enthusiastic than Democrats' support for Obama.

They're blowing smoke, right? Perhaps. But McCain has been to Iowa twice in the last two weeks, and he's running ads there. There's nothing more precious in the final days of a campaign than the candidate's time. A candidate's visit generates enthusiasm among supporters, helps organize volunteers, and gets lots of local news coverage. You don't waste that on a state that's not in play. McCain's advisers might still be wrong about Iowa. But at least they're backing up their beliefs with their candidate.