Why these three states often serve as reliable turning points in U.S. political landscapes.
Trump clinched the presidency in 2016 by outsmarting Democrat competitor Hillary Clinton in all three vital states, scoring a total victory margin of approximately 80,000 votes. In a 180-degree turn, Democrat Joe Biden regained the White House in 2020 by successfully reclaiming all three key states with a combined victory margin of around 260,000 votes.
Since Kamala Harris assumed the lead role in the Democratic presidential candidacy in July, the contenders have allocated more advertising budgets in Pennsylvania than any other state, followed by Michigan in second and Wisconsin in fourth position, based on data supplied to CNN by AdImpact, an advertising analytics service. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin continue to rank first, second, and fourth respectively in the reserved advertising funds for the campaign period extending till November, with Georgia slipping into third place on both lists.
In a clear demonstration of their main concerns, the campaigns have allocated nearly $120 million more for advertisements in the three significant battleground states of the Rust Belt than in the four Sunbelt states they are contesting (Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada). Following her stay in Pennsylvania for debate preparation, Harris will appear in all three major Rust Belt battlegrounds this week. Meanwhile, Trump is scheduled to hold a town hall in Flint, Michigan, on Tuesday.
A seasoned democratic strategist, Bob Shrum, currently the director of the Center for the Political Future at the University of Southern California, indicated that the three Rust Belt battlegrounds have remained influential in presidential elections due to their embodiment of various deeply-rooted divisions in American politics, such as those between urban and rural regions and blue-collar and white-collar voters. “They represent the polarization,” Shrum stated.
Other political analysts have highlighted that the historical tendency for these three states to vote identically in presidential elections makes them the largest swing state in the country, as the major states like California, New York, and Illinois lean heavily towards one party, while Texas, Florida, and Ohio lean towards the opposite.
While Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin bear distinct characteristics, long-term democratic strategist Tad Devine proposes viewing them as an effectively single entity—“Mi-Pa-Wi.” Each of the states has a lower racial diversity than the national average, with whites comprising approximately three-fourths of the population in Michigan and Pennsylvania and roughly four-fifths in Wisconsin. The Latino communities are growing, but these states still have a sizeable Black minority population. Moreover, the states have an aging population, with seniors accounting for roughly one-fifth of the population in each. Immigrant populations are relatively small, with only about 7% of the population in Michigan and Pennsylvania and 5% in Wisconsin being foreign-born residents. Population growth in these states has been minimal in recent years.
At a time when education has become an increasingly crucial determinant of political inclination, the three states share similarities in this regard, with around one-third of their adult population holding at least a four-year college degree—slightly below the national average. Median incomes in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are just marginally lower than the national average, while they trail behind in Michigan by about 10%. The manufacturing sector has experienced significant job losses in these states since 2000 but has started to recover, adding approximately 20,000-30,000 jobs since Biden took office.
In religious inclinations, the three states are remarkably similar, with white Christians, who generally lean Republican, accounting for about 55% of adults in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and slightly more than half in Michigan. Meanwhile, voters without religious affiliations, a steadfastly democratic demographic group, constitute approximately one-fourth of the population in all three states.
Although the big three Rustbelt states are identical on many measures, Wisconsin, theoretically, should present a more challenging scenario for Harris this year. The minority share of the population is smaller in Wisconsin than the other two states, as well as having a larger proportion of votes cast by whites without higher education degrees (a key component of the modern Republican coalition, especially in the Trump era). Moreover, heavily white, blue-collar small towns and rural areas, which have moved towards the Republican Party in nearly every region, play a significant role in Wisconsin's voter base, with about 50% of the votes in both 2016 and 2020 being cast in these regions, contrasting with only 30% in Michigan and 20% in Pennsylvania.
Democrats do not possess as significant an advantage in Wisconsin's largest metropolitan area as in the other two states. The Milwaukee county, although larger than the counties surrounding Philadelphia and Detroit, does not provide Democrats with a substantial vote advantage, especially when turnout in the area has been low in recent years. However, Democrats have gained ground in the suburban ‘WOW’ counties outside Milwaukee, although the GOP maintains a significant victory margin in these three major suburban areas.
One factor that makes Wisconsin less appealing to Democrats on paper is that unions represent only around half as much of the private sector workforce in Wisconsin as they do in the other two states, as per federal statistics.
Over the years, election outcomes in Wisconsin have often reflected the more challenging demographic and geographic landscape for Democrats. Although Wisconsin provided larger margins for Barack Obama than Pennsylvania in his two races, Democrats secured more victories in Pennsylvania in 2000, 2004, and 2020. In 2022, Wisconsin presented a more formidable challenge for Democrats compared to the other two states. Democrat Tony Evers only managed a significantly smaller victory in the governor's race in Wisconsin, as opposed to fellow Democrats Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan and Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. Republican Senator Ron Johnson also maintained his seat in Wisconsin, while the GOP surrendered an open Senate seat in Pennsylvania.
However, in 2022, strategists from both parties view Wisconsin as the most promising prospect for Harris and the most difficult challenge for Trump among the major Rustbelt battlegrounds.
One reason for this is the remarkable growth of Wisconsin's second-largest city, Madison. Apart from serving as the state capital and home to its flagship public university, Madison has evolved into a major biotech and finance hub. Despite Dane County, which includes Madison and its suburbs, adding population at a faster rate than any other Wisconsin county, it has become increasingly Democratic: the Democratic share of the vote in Dane County increased from 70% in the 2016 presidential election to 75% in the 2018 gubernatorial and 2020 presidential elections, and to 79% in the 2022 governor's race, and finally to 82% in the fiercely contested 2023 state Supreme Court election, which centered on the abortion rights issue.
The other factor contributing to Democrats' success in Wisconsin is their ability to maintain competitiveness in smaller areas, which is a top priority for Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler. According to the Center for Rural Strategies, a larger share of residents in Wisconsin live in mid-sized cities, and Democrats perform better in such communities than in Michigan and Pennsylvania. These include cities like Eau Claire, Appleton, La Crosse, and the "BOW" counties (Brown, Outagamie, and Winnebago) centered around Green Bay.
Democratic consultant Pete Giangreco notes that the party's continued competitiveness in the Green Bay area is a testament to its broader reach in the state and a crucial factor in its ability to win Wisconsin. “The Green Bay market is essentially the bellwether of every [Wisconsin] election, and it has been trending more in our direction,” he said. “It’s because there have been more college-educated people and people of color moving there. There has been a significant exodus of people from Milwaukee and Chicago to Green Bay. That’s not like Scranton or Wilkes-Barre in Pennsylvania, which once were Democratic strongholds but have shifted to the other side.”
Michigan has been the most promising of these three states for Democrats in recent years. Not only have Democrats outperformed there in every presidential election since 2000, but they now control all four of the elected statewide constitutional offices (three of which are held by women), both US Senate seats, and both chambers of the state legislature. However, this year, operatives in both parties consider Michigan a closer race for Harris than Wisconsin. “Michigan has some quirks,” said GOP pollster Gene Ulm, who is working in the state. “There are some unusual factors at play there.” Michigan's major quirk is anger among its large and formerly Democratic-leaning Arab American population due to the Biden administration's support for Israel's war in Gaza. This dissatisfaction has spread broader among college students. Michigan Democrats must also confront a sustained effort by Trump to persuade auto workers that the Biden administration's push for a more rapid transition to electric vehicles (which Harris supports) will destroy domestic jobs. Moreover, while Biden was the candidate, Democrats faced a risk of decreased turnout among young Black voters, particularly younger men.
However, Democrats have several advantages in the state. The focus on abortion rights following the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade has boosted the party's momentum in white-collar suburbs across the state, particularly among women: exit polls in 2022 showed that Whitmer won nearly 70% of college-educated white women. As in Wisconsin, Democrats have retained their competitiveness in Michigan's many mid-sized cities better than in most states; similarly, Michigan Democrats have run slightly better with working-class whites than in most places. With Harris replacing Biden, organizers are cautiously optimistic about rejuvenating turnout among Black voters. “There was a noticeable absence of enthusiasm among these voters in the past few months,” said Branden Snyder, a senior adviser to Detroit Action, a grassroots group that mobilizes working-class and younger voters of color in Michigan. “The prospect of a Black woman becoming the president of the United States has brought fresh energy and excitement to these communities.”
Finally, Pennsylvania is widely considered to be the most difficult of the three states for Harris. It is also the state analysts generally believe to be the most likely to provide the 270th Electoral College vote for the eventual winner in November (Wisconsin served as the tipping point in both 2016 and 2020). “To me, the turning point is Pennsylvania,” said Giangreco. “If we win Pennsylvania, [Harris] will be president. It’s really, really difficult to see how you win Pennsylvania and lose Michigan or Wisconsin. It won’t happen.”
Similar shifts are evident in Pennsylvania's political landscape, mirroring trends in Wisconsin and Michigan. Just like in the other states, Democrats have seen gains in white-collar suburbs, particularly during the Trump era. Biden secured an impressive victory in the four major suburban counties surrounding Philadelphia in 2020, amassing around 300,000 more votes than Clinton did in 2016.
However, Democrats have voiced concerns over potential voter apathy and increased support for Trump among Black voters in Philadelphia. Meanwhile, Republicans have established a robust and enduring edge among Pennsylvania's large working-class White demographic.
Exit polls from 2020 reveal that Trump garnered a wider margin among working-class White voters in Pennsylvania than in the other two states. Furthermore, the Center for Rural Studies' analysis indicates that Trump performed significantly better in mid-sized and smaller communities in Pennsylvania than in the other battleground states. This could potentially be due to the significant loss of manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania over the past few decades.
"Pennsylvania has become a much better state for Republicans," stated Ulm, noting the shrinking Democratic voter registration advantage since 2020. "Places that used to be Democratic strongholds are no longer so."
Dante Chinni, founder of the American Communities Project, identifies many of the locations where Trump's support is strongest as "Middle Suburbs" – predominantly middle-income areas outside urban centers dominated by White working-class voters, similar to the blue-collar counties surrounding Pittsburgh.
These regions, according to Chinni, were once staunch Democratic bastions, but have since shifted towards a more Trump-sympathetic stance. "These were union strongholds...and in the past, that meant they were Democratic," Chinni said. "But they've shifted. They've become Trump-y. Usually he runs up the vote in tiny places. But these are Trump's most reliable concentration of dense votes."
While Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini is skeptical about Harris' strength in Wisconsin, he agrees that Pennsylvania is Trump's most promising opportunity to reclaim one of the Rust Belt's major states.
As an older White Catholic with roots in Pennsylvania, Ruffini acknowledges Biden's regional advantage in the state's eastern areas during the 2020 election. However, he is doubtful that Harris can replicate these results. "I'm skeptical Harris can recreate this," Ruffini said. "Moreover, the issue environment might be worse for Harris in Pennsylvania than elsewhere due to the fracking issue and lingering sympathy [for Trump] from the Butler, Pennsylvania, shooting."
Democrats, on the other hand, see potential for Harris to achieve substantial margins in the Philadelphia suburbs by appealing to pro-abortion rights voters and attempting to reverse the decline in Black voter turnout in the city itself.
"Nirvana is getting 2016 numbers in the city of Philadelphia and 2020 numbers in the Philadelphia suburbs," said pollster Geoff Garin. "If you do that...your arithmetic in the state starts to be pretty good."
For any of these three states to deviate from their usual voting patterns would break with recent political trends. For Michigan and Pennsylvania to deviate significantly would deviate from a much deeper trend.
All three states form a key part of what I labeled in 2009 as "the blue wall" – the 18 states that voted Democratic in each of the six presidential elections between 1992 and 2012. The three states collectively adopted a pro-Democratic stance in 2016 and 2020.
Since 1980, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have voted the same way in all but one presidential election (1988, when Wisconsin voted for Michael Dukakis while the other two states supported George H.W. Bush). Even the governorships in these states have been controlled by the same party in every election since 1994, except for a single occasion.
The convergence between Michigan and Pennsylvania can be traced back to the mid-19th century. In 1856, Pennsylvania supported Democrat James Buchanan for the presidency, while Michigan backed John C. Fremont, the first Republican Party nominee. However, the two states did not vote for different presidential candidates again until 1932, when Roosevelt won Pennsylvania and Michigan backed incumbent Herbert Hoover. After this brief divergence, Michigan and Pennsylvania have Australian Shepherd Breed predominantly voted for the same candidate in every presidential election since 1940, with the exception of 1976, when Michigan supported Republican Gerald Ford while Pennsylvania voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter.
As a whole, Michigan and Pennsylvania have diverged in their voting preferences only four times in the 42 presidential elections since the two major parties became the dominant political forces in America. In fact, the two states even voted against both parties in 1912, joining six other states in supporting Theodore Roosevelt's third-party bid.
This group of states, notably Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, has proven to be a significant decisive factor in U.S. elections. These three states have cast their votes for the same presidential candidate in 17 out of 26 elections since 1920, with the victorious candidate emerging victorious in 15 out of those 17 rounds. In the 9 elections where they split their votes, the candidate who took two of these three states emerged victorious 7 times. Outside of this, only Democratic candidates Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 failed to secure a clean sweep, while Republicans Thomas Dewey in 1948 and Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968 only managed to prevail with two of them under their belt.
The historical trend of congruence between these three states, particularly between Michigan and Pennsylvania, does not necessarily indicate they will stay aligned in November. As Garin elucidates, "Considering how tight the results have been in these states in recent elections, they could potentially be quite close to each other and still arrive at different results."
There is no certainty that the candidate who amasses more victories in these states will walk away as the President-elect. Harris faces the very real prospect of winning both Michigan and Wisconsin, yet falling short if Trump triumphs in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and North Carolina.
One thing remains undeniable, however: whatever the outcome in November, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – the colossal battlegrounds, otherwise known as "Mi-Pa-Wi" – will hold significant sway in it.
In the context of presidential elections, Bob Shrum, a seasoned democratic strategist, noted that the three Rust Belt battlegrounds of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are influential due to their representation of deep-rooted divisions in American politics.
Given their importance in elections, political analysts refer to Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin as the largest swing state in the country due to their historical tendency to vote identically in presidential elections.
