No. of Recommendations: 3
It's the 10% in the middle of a handful of states that swing the election one way or the other. And those folks tend to vacillate back and forth.
I don’t dispute that there are some people who vacillate back and forth, although with a contest so clearly defined and polarized it’s hard to imagine.
But I am coming more to the view that elections are decided at least as much by enthusiasm and turnout as by “switchers.” I know a couple of people who didn’t vote for Hillary, not because they didn’t like her but because “she had it in the bag.” It wouldn’t have mattered (much) because they weren’t in a swing state, but I can see how that effect, multiplied again and again, could swing an election.
While Biden was behind in the polls, after the disastrous debate performance, I suspect his final vote would have been even worse because so many people were dispirited and thought he wouldn’t have a chance. That has been reversed, of course, but it’s also true that Trump’s minions are energized as well, but at least that puts things back on a more or less even keel.
And yes, the (long outdated) Electoral College means the election really comes down to just a handful of states, meaning the candidates can sometimes avoid important national problems to pander to parochial issues. I would like to see us try, at least once, a national election by popular vote. Crazy idea, I guess but no crazier than changing how Senators are elected, taking it away from state legislatures and handing it to - voters. Doesn’t seem to have worked out so badly, does it?
