As we approach the decisive Election Day, the competition for the presidency appears to hinge on the outcome in seven key states – Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. However, the most prominent campaign events over the weekend are not taking place in these places. Instead, they are happening in Houston and New York City, where Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump have scheduled events respectively.
This Friday, Harris landed in Houston, Texas for a significant campaign rally. The event was a star-studded affair, featuring not just political luminaries, but also country music icon Willie Nelson and pop superstar Beyonce. This event was set against the backdrop of already active early voting in the region.
Meanwhile, slated event for this Sunday is a unique show by Donald Trump. The former president plans to take center stage at Madison Square Garden, New York, alongside his disbarred lawyer and an eclectic mix of surprise guests. This event signifies Trump’s current inclination towards ‘blue’ states, marking a strategic departure that’s expected to keep audiences and analysts on their toes.
In fact, Trump’s blue-state detour started earlier, when he visited the Nassau Coliseum in Long Island in September, where he promised to secure a victory for New York. Later, he moved towards the West Coast, including a visit to the iconic Coachella festival in Southern California. He even made an unconventional pitstop at a Bronx barbershop last week.
The visits by both Harris to Texas and Trump to New York and California are more strategic than they may appear. Both states are battlegrounds in their own right, containing multiple high-stakes races crucial to the balance of power in Congress. New York holds the key to several seats that could swing control of the House. Equally, Texas’ Senate race could very well determine which party holds the Senate majority.
With the presidential strategy evolving, these states are being viewed as potential game-changers in the national political landscape. The once reliably red Texas could soon turn ‘purple’, becoming a central part of Democratic strategy. Meanwhile, Trump’s unusual attention to traditionally blue California could have implications for down-ballot races, potentially influencing the balance of power in the House.
Becoming president is only half the challenge; these candidates understand the importance of a compliant Congress to implement their agendas. Therefore, they are not just fighting to win the presidency, they are also targeting these pivotal states to ensure control of the legislative branch.
Trump and Harris’s campaign directions reflect their larger promises – they each aim to prevent the nation from following the path of the other’s representative states. For Harris, Texas serves as a symbol of the threats to reproductive rights she is battling to overcome. Trump, on the other hand, uses New York and California to illustrate his narrative of urban decay and increased crime.
The theme of Harris’ Houston event centred around the safeguarding of reproductive freedoms in the backdrop of Texas’s stringent abortion restrictions. This law, established during Trump’s tenure, outlawed abortions with no exceptions for victims of rape and incest – a pertinent issue in this campaign.
In contrast, Trump uses his presence in traditionally blue states to portray a vision of widespread disorder marked by crime and homelessness. He argues that his administration would prevent such a scenario from becoming a nationwide reality.
Despite being in deep-blue regions, Trump has a significant local support base – not enough to win the state, perhaps, but substantial nonetheless. Intriguingly, in the 2020 election, Trump’s vote count from New York City surpassed his totals in 16 other states, eight of which he won. Furthermore, polling data suggests a rising tide of support in these areas for him.
Interestingly, Trump secured more votes in the five boroughs of New York City than he did in the entire swing state of Nevada. At the same time, his support in California exceeded the volume of votes he garnered from any other state. As a result, the overall popular vote is surprisingly close this year because Trump seems to be gaining traction in areas deemed uncompetitive.
Nevertheless, Trump’s strategy underscores a surreal element of the Electoral College system. It’s one thing to focus on key Electoral College states where every vote has disproportionate weight, but it’s another matter to direct resources towards areas where votes carry less significance for the Electoral College outcome, hoping for a vague but hopeful beneficial fallout.
The fact that Trump is investing time in campaigning in these states highlights the underlying issue – it becomes harder to argue that the votes there are not equally important when you acknowledge the people and their concerns. This strategic conundrum might spark a much-needed conversation about the effectiveness and fairness of the Electoral College system.