Blake Sooter is a freshman Honors College Fellow majoring in industrial engineering and minoring in finance at the University of Arkansas. Originally from Bentonville, Arkansas, Blake is a member of both the Associated Student Government’s Freshman Leadership Forum and the Honors College Student Advisory Committee. After graduation, he plans to pursue employment with a major logistics company or pursue a graduate degree in operations.
Imagine a state that, since 2012, has sent the Democratic ticket their 9 electoral votes by a minimum of 5 percentage points. Imagine, for just a moment, a state where ballot measures to legalize recreational marijuana, increase the minimum wage, and limit campaign contributions at the state level have passed with strong majorities. A state where for the better part of a decade, population growth in urban counties has vastly outpaced that of more rural, and traditionally conservative, counties. For this is the political reality in Colorado. It’s simply not a swing state, or at least not by any reasonable definition of the term.
Is it possible for President Trump to pull off the surprise victory? Yes. Is it a plausible, likely, workable, or realistic scenario for the President’s re-election campaign? No. Let’s examine the evidence. In 2016, Hillary Clinton defeated President Trump in Colorado by approximately 5 percentage points, garnering the votes of nearly 136,0000 more Coloradans than President Trump. This victory came in spite of Clinton having the highest election day unfavorable ratings of any Democratic candidate for President in history, culminating in Clinton becoming the first Democrat to lose every state in the rust belt since Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral vote blowout of Walter Mondale in 1984. My point here is simple: even in a down year for Democrats nationally, Colorado’s electorate swung in favor of the Democratic nominee by a decisive margin. The fundamentals simply do not support Colorado’s status as a presidential swing state.
Analysis of campaign spending data brings this reality into focus. Throughout the general election campaign, neither candidate has purchased even a single television ad. That’s right. Not a single one. Conversely, residents of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin have suffered through a combined $69 million dollars’ worth of ad buys from the two campaigns, not to mention the formidable spending of outside groups to further blanket the airways. In essence, these spending figures serve as a clear signal of the campaigns’ internal strategies: No matter what the two campaigns may say publicly, neither campaign views Colorado as a competitive state.
Prediction: Like so many others, the state of Colorado will not be in the limelight on the evening of November 3rd, nor does it risk being at the center of a post-election day recount controversy in the days that follow. For some in the state, November 3rd will feel no different than any other in the state’s history. As for the political junkies who anticipate election night with a spirited fervor, they will have to follow the returns like the vast majority of Americans: as outsiders watching over a select few highly competitive states that will decide the future direction of our Nation.