On July 21st Matt Roan, chair of the Cumberland County Democratic Committee, hosted a meeting with volunteers. The event took a turn when Mr Roan stopped to read a statement from Joe Biden announcing his departure from the presidential race. “There was this sort of sense of sadness—and then immediate hope,” Mr Roan recalls in his office, which overlooks the Pennsylvania state capitol. The activist speaks highly of Mr Biden but acknowledged that “things were not looking good” at the time. The rise of Kamala Harris attracted a surge of volunteers to a county that favoured Donald Trump by around 18 points in 2016 but only 11 points in 2020. If such improvements hold there and in other areas like it, Ms Harris would probably win the state and the presidency.
Both campaigns see Pennsylvania as a fulcrum of the 2024 election, and for good reason. The Economist’s forecast model suggests that the state—with its 19 electoral-college votes, the most of any swing state—is the tipping-point in 27% of the model’s updated simulations, meaning it decides the election more often than any other state. Mr Trump wins only 7% of the time when he loses the Keystone State. Indeed, he narrowly won Pennsylvania in 2016, and then he lost by 80,000 votes out of nearly 7m cast in his unsuccessful re-election bid four years later.
No state has drawn more money. Of the $839.5m that the Harris campaign and allied organisations already have spent or committed to advertising, $164.1m has gone to this state of 13m people. The less well-heeled Trump operation has directed $135.7m of $458.8m to Pennsylvania. Turn on the television, watch a YouTube video or listen to the radio inside Pennsylvania and it won’t be long before spots for Ms Harris or Mr Trump begin to play.
The battle for Pennsylvania is on.
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) September 20, 2024
For all the money both presidential candidates are pouring into the swing state, the race remains extremely close https://t.co/Su2xduW2Pr 👇
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.