Latinos will play a key role in the upcoming presidential election on November 5 in the United States, which will be the final step in the process of determining not only the President, but also determine the new members of the House of Representatives, and one-third of the Senate.
At The Latino Effect, we aim to break down and analyze the current state of the presidential election, so that everyone can better understand the mechanisms and outcomes of an event that will have significant consequences for both this great nation and the world at large.
In this article, we will focus on the presidential election, examining the two main blocs of states based on their partisan leanings and then diving into the smaller group of undecided states, where the final outcome of the election will be determined.
Before we dive into the analysis, it’s essential to clarify a few key points.
How to Vote in the United States?
Every citizen has the right to express their political will through voting. Depending on the state in which they live, they can vote early by mail or, in some cases, directly at a designated office. Additionally, they can vote on Election Day itself (which is actually the last day of the election period) by going to a polling station set up by their state’s electoral authority.
All votes cast in the 50 states and the District of Columbia are processed and tallied by state election authorities, who announce the name of the winning candidate in each respective territory. It’s important to note that the United States does not have a federal electoral authority; each state is responsible for organizing, executing, and counting the voting process within its own jurisdiction.
Therefore, it’s crucial to understand that votes are not totaled into a national aggregate, but rather into 50 state aggregates plus the District of Columbia. This is why, in U.S. presidential elections, the final result does not necessarily reflect the total number of votes cast and validated across the entire country, but instead the geographical distribution of those votes expressed in «electoral votes.»
When each of the state election authorities officially announces the name of the winning candidate in their respective constituencies, that candidate is awarded a specific number of «electoral votes» to be used in a national aggregate that determines the final winner.
How is a Presidential Election Won in the United States?
Beyond winning or not the Latino vote, in order to win the presidential election in the United States, a candidate must secure at least 270 electoral votes out of a total of 538.
Each state has a specific number of electoral votes based on its population size within the union. Therefore, states with larger populations have more electoral votes than less populated ones, ensuring the principle of proportional representation.
States are ranked by the number of electoral votes they have in the national convention as follows:
California: 54
Texas: 40
Florida: 30
New York: 28
Pennsylvania: 19
Illinois: 19
Ohio: 17
Georgia: 16
North Carolina: 16
Michigan: 15
New Jersey: 14
Virginia: 13
Washington: 12
Arizona: 11
Indiana: 11
Massachusetts: 11
Tennessee: 11
Colorado: 10
Maryland: 10
Minnesota: 10
Missouri: 10
Wisconsin: 10
Alabama: 9
South Carolina: 9
Kentucky: 8
Louisiana: 8
Oregon: 8
Connecticut: 7
Oklahoma: 7
Arkansas: 6
Iowa: 6
Kansas: 6
Mississippi: 6
Nevada: 6
Utah: 6
Nebraska: 5
New Mexico: 5
Hawaii: 4
Idaho: 4
Maine: 4
Montana: 4
New Hampshire: 4
Rhode Island: 4
West Virginina: 4
Alaska: 3
Delaware: 3
North Dakota: 3
South Dakota: 3
Vermont: 3
Wyoming: 3
Washington D.C.: 3
Which States are Strong for Donald Trump?
Considering the historical voting patterns of each state in presidential elections, recent polls, and the outcomes of recent referendums on various issues, it is likely that Donald Trump will win in the following states: Texas, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Utah, West Virginia, Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, and part of Maine (this state splits its electoral votes by districts).
With this group of states, Trump would have 219 electoral votes secured.
Which States are Strong for Kamala Harris?
Using the same reasoning and criteria applied to predict where the Republican candidate is likely to win, Kamala Harris has high chances of securing victories in the following states: California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, Connecticut, New Mexico, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Delaware, Vermont, Maine, the District of Columbia, and part of Nebraska (this state divides its electoral votes by districts).
With this group of states, Harris would be assured of 226 electoral votes.
Which States are Still Undecided?
With the two blocks of states previously mentioned, neither candidate reaches the required 270 electoral votes to win the election. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on the remaining states, which are: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada.
These states, collectively totaling 93 electoral votes, are known as the «swing states» that will ultimately determine the outcome of the election.
How could Harris or Trump win?
Harris needs to secure at least 44 electoral votes from the group of states that are still in dispute to reach the White House, while Trump needs at least 51.
In the context of an extremely close election like this one, the «least complicated» route (if such a term could apply) for Harris to achieve a final victory would be to secure the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which together add up to the 44 votes she needs.
Historically, considering the last 15 presidential elections, those three states have swung between candidates from both parties.
However, despite the results of 2016, it is worth noting that Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are considered part of the “Blue Wall,” which is the name given to the states with a Democratic majority since 1992. Since then, the only Republican presidential candidate able to break the “Blue Wall” has been Donald Trump. George W. Bush did not achieve this in the elections of 2000 and 2004, but he secured vital victories in states with a recent Democratic tradition like New Hampshire (in 2000) and New Mexico (in 2004), and even managed to win Iowa (2004) and Ohio (2004).
Therefore, the primary objective of Harris’s presidential campaign must be to secure the Blue Wall, as that would almost guarantee her election.
Not only Latinos: Trump must break the Blue Wall to increase his chances
For his part, Donald Trump is once again required to break the Blue Wall. He did it in 2016 and is likely to do so again in 2024. In fact, he may not need to win in all three key states mentioned earlier, as securing North Carolina and Georgia (both with some Republican tradition) would allow him to win the election by just winning Pennsylvania, which would give him the 51 electoral votes he needs.
If Trump does not win Pennsylvania, he could still have a chance to win the election if—and only if—he manages to win in Michigan or Wisconsin. So, if he wins those two states and also maintains North Carolina and Georgia, he secures the final victory. But, if he only wins in Michigan or only in Wisconsin, he will need to secure, in addition to North Carolina and Georgia, also Arizona and Nevada.
Therefore, the emphasis of the Republican presidential campaign must not only be on the Blue Wall—especially on Pennsylvania (which could be, in some sense, the key to this election)—but also on the Republicans in the South, specifically North Carolina and Georgia, which are, figuratively speaking, the safety net that prevents a potentially fatal fall for the campaign.
What is the current reality in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin?
Considering the most recent results from recognized and reputable polling agencies, the race for the presidency appears to be a photo finish.
According to YouGov, less than a month from November 5, the electoral preferences in Pennsylvania are divided with 50% favoring Harris and 48% favoring Trump. However, this 2% difference falls within the margin of error of the poll (+/-2.6%), so it is more accurate to speak of a “statistical tie.”
On the other hand, the predictive model from the 538 platform –which weighs a collection of polls differentiating them by timing, sample collection methodology, and the quality of the pollster; shows an interesting evolution in the probability of victory for both candidates over the past months.
The model is updated daily and is highly sensitive to any variations due to the closeness of the race. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that as of October 21, Donald Trump shows a higher probability of winning in Pennsylvania than Kamala Harris, something not seen since September 9.
Obviously, this is a snapshot of an event that is still in full motion; therefore, it is not an unequivocal forecast but rather a valuable interpretation of the current evolution of the electoral campaign.
What happens to the rest
In Michigan, the story is similar. According to YouGov, also less than a month before the presidential election, the electoral preferences are divided with 50% favoring Harris and 47% favoring Trump. The 3% difference falls within the margin of error (+/-3.2%), so once again, we could speak of a “statistical tie.”
According to the 538 model, as of October 21, both candidates have the same probability of winning the state, something not seen since July 28, and which indicates an increase in the probabilities favoring Donald Trump.
Finally, Wisconsin presents an equally tight scenario. According to YouGov, Harris leads Trump 51% to 47%, with this 4% difference falling outside the margin of error, so we could say that, according to this study, there is no statistical tie but rather a narrow victory for Harris.
However, the 538 model leans towards giving equal probabilities of victory to both candidates, which, similar to what happens in Michigan, indicates a recovery for Trump’s candidacy, which had not been favored by the predictive model since August 8.
What is the current reality in North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada?
These four states are key to the final outcome of the election, but unlike Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, their importance is conditioned by the results of the Blue Wall. If the Blue Wall is broken, the final result of the election could depend on the results from these four states.
North Carolina and Georgia are the most important in this group in terms of the weight of their electoral votes (together they offer 32 electoral votes, 16 each). In contrast, Arizona and Nevada, while potentially crucial, offer fewer electoral votes (11 and 6, respectively).
According to YouGov, also less than a month before the election, in North Carolina and Georgia, Donald Trump leads Kamala Harris 49% to 48%. However, as is evident, the 1% difference falls within the margin of error, making it impossible to assume a clear winner.
Nevertheless, with almost three weeks to go before the election, the 538 model gives Trump higher probabilities of victory in both states (in North Carolina, out of 1,000 simulations, Trump wins in 571 scenarios and Harris in 429; while in Georgia, Trump wins in 628 scenarios and Harris in 372).
In Arizona and Nevada, the scenario of a tie, or at least the impossibility of determining a clear advantage, is common according to YouGov. However, according to the 538 model, in Arizona, Trump has a higher probability of winning (623 scenarios in his favor versus 377 against), while in Nevada, it seems that Harris has a greater probability (515 winning scenarios versus 485 losing scenarios).
Why Latinos are key to defining the presidential election with their votes?
More than 36 million Latinos will be eligible to vote on November 5, a significantly higher number than the 32 million registered during the last presidential election. Currently, Latinos make up 15% of the U.S. electorate, establishing themselves as one of the fastest-growing ethnic groups in the country and as a key voting bloc not only in this election but in many future ones.
Considering that forecasts for the upcoming presidential election agree it will be an extremely close race, the decisive importance of the Latinos is evident, not only because of its size but also due to its demographic distribution in key states for both parties’ electoral strategies.
In Pennsylvania, the most critical state among the three already mentioned as part of the Blue Wall, around 580,000 Latinos will be eligible to vote. To put the relevance of this voting population into perspective, it is worth noting that in 2020, Joseph Biden won the state by a margin of just over 80,000 votes. This means that the Latino voting population in this year’s presidential election is seven times larger than Biden’s margin of victory in 2020.
Latinos in Pennsylvania for presidential election
More than 53% of Latino voters in the state are from Puerto Rico, which could benefit Harris, as although Donald Trump has made significant inroads in support among Latinos in general, the Puerto Rican vote, in particular, has been the most consistent in maintaining its pro-Democratic tradition at the ballot box.
In light of this, Harris’s campaign has produced communication materials specifically targeting Puerto Ricans and has made attempts to get Latin trap and reggaeton star Bad Bunny to endorse her. Regarding this last point, we conducted an analysis in The Latino Effect. For his part, Donald Trump has done the same by featuring Puerto Rican singers at his campaign events in Pennsylvania.
The Latino vote in Michigan
In Michigan, the Latino vote exceeds 400,000 voters. Like in Pennsylvania, it is a key electorate for winning the state, as Biden won Michigan in 2020 by a margin of 154,000 votes.
Traditionally, the Latinos vote in Michigan has supported Democrats. During the last two presidential elections, 70% of Latinos in the state voted for the Democratic candidate. However, according to recent studies, the support this community has given to the Democratic Party may be weakening—not enough for a majority to shift to the other party, but sufficient to narrow the gap.
The Latino vote in Wisconsin
In Wisconsin, the Latino population eligible to vote exceeds 180,000. In 2020, Biden won the state by a margin of just over 20,000 votes. Just like in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the Latino vote in Wisconsin has traditionally leaned Democratic. During the last presidential election, more than 60% of Latinos supported Biden over Trump, who received 37% of that community’s votes.
However, the Republican Party has made considerable efforts to reduce the Democrats’ advantage among Latino voters. A sign of this is the appointment of Hilario Deleon as the Chairman of the Republican Party of Milwaukee County. Deleon is not only the first Latino to hold this position within the party but also the youngest person to do so.
The Latino Effect editorial team
