Clinton and Trump in the 'Battlefields' of the U.S. Elections

With only a few weeks left until the U.S. presidential election, the competition between the two main candidates is heating up. Alongside this relentless competition, the market for scientific polling is thriving, and the available statistical results indicate that the two candidates are unprecedentedly close to each other. Hillary Clinton has lost her clear advantage in thirteen states over the past two weeks, and statistics show that in some states where she previously led, Donald Trump has either tied with her or is very close behind. In most cases, when a candidate's popularity decreases during the election campaign, the other candidate manages to attract some of the opposing votes. If the decline in popularity is due to voter disillusionment with both candidates, the overall election process will naturally see a decrease in the number of votes cast. In U.S. elections, the freedom of the voter until the last moment is crucial, and this factor, which is highly susceptible to daily developments, causes fluctuations in individual voter preferences. For instance, a voter might change their final vote based on the last statement they heard from a candidate. Of course, party affiliation plays a role, but one of the battlefields is the votes of individuals who have no party affiliation and fluctuate between the two parties until the last moment. Ultimately, these individuals will vote for a candidate supported by a party, but for the voter, that party is not the deciding factor; rather, the thoughts, beliefs, promises, and personality of the candidate, along with the voter's judgment, determine whom they will vote for. In American political literature, any state where the two major political parties receive roughly equal support from voters is recognized as a place that can influence the outcome of the election. During an election, this closeness of votes occurs in various places, and the total votes of the people in a region or state fluctuate towards supporting or not supporting a candidate. In common electoral literature, terms like 'swing state' (a state that is volatile) and 'battleground state' are used, indicating the decisive role that state will play in the overall election results. Throughout an election, more than one 'battleground' may emerge. This situation means that both candidates must change the results in various states in their favor to win the election. Until last week, it was said that Hillary Clinton had such a situation in thirteen states. With new polling, these battlegrounds have now become more limited. It is not necessary for the fate of the battleground to be determined on election day. Daily news events, speeches, and soon the electoral landscapes between the two candidates can change these results and either increase the popularity of one candidate or decrease that of the other. Although these results are obtained through scientific polling, they can be influenced by various factors and change daily. According to the latest statistics updated by 'Politico', Clinton and Trump currently face a 'battleground state' situation in eleven states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. To understand the phenomenon of 'battleground', one must pay attention to the main concepts in U.S. elections. Many states are traditionally divided into those with majority votes leaning towards Democrats (known as blue states) or those leaning towards Republicans (known as red states). It is important to note that the 'Electoral College' is the institution that elects the President and Vice President every four years. Although this is done indirectly through representatives known as 'electors' who support a presidential candidate and their running mate. In each state, the number of these individuals is equal to the number of congressional members from that state. There are a total of 538 electors (equal to the number of congressional members) who, according to the Constitution, cannot be members of the federal government. Red and blue states (named after the colors of the American flag) are sometimes referred to as 'safe' states because candidates are confident that the votes of the people in those states will not experience significant fluctuations. Thus, a state recognized as blue usually votes for the Democratic candidate, while a red state votes for the Republican candidate. States with volatility are shown in purple. However, the main problem lies with states that experience fluctuating voter preferences from one election to another. As a result, when the majority of votes in a state change, it also affects the votes of the 'electors' and thus alters the overall election results. It is worth recalling that in the 2000 election, George W. Bush (Republican) won the presidency with 271 electoral votes against Al Gore (Democrat) who had 266 votes. At that time, the minimum votes needed to win the presidency were 270 electoral votes. Bush's votes surpassed the threshold due to winning 25 electoral votes from Florida, while Gore, who had the majority of the popular vote, only received 266 electoral votes due to 3 abstentions from Washington D.C. The statistical results themselves have a psychological impact on voter decisions. Additionally, other factors in the election can potentially affect the statistical results and indirectly influence the election outcome. Statistical results in states known as 'battlegrounds' are constantly fluctuating. For example, statistics before a candidate's speech can fluctuate based on the content or questions raised during that event. For instance, in one situation, a candidate discusses women's capabilities, while another speaker talks about immigration policies, and public opinion shifts in favor of or against that candidate, leading to a detectable wave movement of voters from one side to the other in scientific polling. In other words, minor changes in public opinion can alter the views and votes of the people and can change a candidate's fate in a 'battleground' state. Another factor that can influence states known as battlegrounds is the holding of 'debate' sessions or argumentative discussions between the two candidates. During the current election, Clinton and Trump will have three debate sessions, and the vice presidential candidates will also have a separate debate session. The first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be broadcast live on various radio and television channels on Monday, September 26. It is likely that these four debate sessions will impact the statistical results in states where votes are on the edge and can swing toward either side. Even the vice presidential candidates' debate will influence public votes, as many people do not care about long-term party programs and decide whether voting for that candidate meets their expectations based solely on the content and persuasive abilities of the speakers and debaters. In addition to what has been mentioned above, paying attention to the following points also helps in better understanding the issue: 1- Statistical population - In a state with several million people, the sample may not be representative of the voting population. For example, in the latest polling in Wisconsin, which has a population of about 7 million, a group of 577 voters who indicated they would participate in the November election was surveyed. According to the report, 44% of this group said they would vote for Hillary Clinton, and 42% for Donald Trump. This is the same 'battleground' situation, especially when we note that 12% of the total statistical population also indicated that they would not vote for either candidate or were still undecided. Increases and decreases in the statistical population can affect the polling results. 2- With changes in time and source of polling, different results can be obtained. For instance, between late August and this week, 'Politico' and Marquette University conducted polling on Clinton's status in Wisconsin using different methods. The results were similar in many respects. In late July, an average of five consecutive polls conducted in Wisconsin showed Clinton leading Trump by about 6% (45.8% to 40%). In Nevada, this polling showed a tie between the two candidates (42.8%). In some other battleground states like New Hampshire, the gap is slightly larger (45.2% to 36.6%), and in Colorado, it is 46.2% to 36.4%. 3- Changes in multiple polling - Previous polls from Marquette University, particularly a four-way poll in Wisconsin, showed that 41% favored Clinton and 38% supported Trump, with 2% favoring the Green Party and 7% undecided. 4- The margin of error in polling can fluctuate. 5- The nature of polling institutions may differ. For instance, ad hoc and biased institutions may design questions in a way that leads to specific results. In any case, in the coming weeks, the fate of the U.S. presidential election in the so-called battleground states will be determined.