For decades, media outlets have discussed presidential elections in the context of how either party could win over voters in industrial states, particularly Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It’s no secret that these four states have helped determine the outcome of multiple presidential elections, and they’ve hosted competitive races for other federal and state offices. 

During the first half of the twentieth century, these states were industrial powerhouses. Michigan was known for producing cars while Ohio and Pennsylvania won reputations for steel production. Wisconsin, which many know as a beer and cheese-producing state, has also produced Harley-Davidson motorcycles and electrical equipment and machinery. 

Starting in the 1960s, manufacturing declined in these states due to a variety of factors. The  Federal Reserve of Minneapolis reported in 2014 that the states bordering the Great Lakes saw a 28% reduction in jobs and a 34% reduction in manufacturing jobs from 1950 to 1980. 

What might surprise those of us who don’t reside in an industrial state is that these places have seen their share of manufacturing employment remain stable since 1985. Wisconsin is an outlier because the number of manufacturing jobs in the Badger State has remained roughly the same since 1970. 

National news reporting has suggested that the decline of industry in the Midwest is ongoing, especially in places that some have referred to as post-industrial cities. These cities have faced decades of deindustrialization, racial injustice, an epidemic of vacant homes, substandard schools, high levels of poverty, crumbling infrastructure, environmental degradation, and residents struggling to afford food and find quality healthcare. Over the years, much has been written about these cities and the hard-working, resilient, and hopeful people who call them home. 

It is this hard work and resilience that has allowed several prominent post-industrial cities to make a comeback, while providing other cities with a roadmap to follow suit. It is a largely untold story that has been reported locally but not nationally. Cleveland, once a leader in the production of steel, saw decades of outward migration. Today, the city is emerging as a center for technological advancement.

Similarly, Detroit is making a comeback more than a decade since it filed for bankruptcy. After decades of population decline, high levels of poverty, and rampant crime caused by racial injustice and the loss of manufacturing jobs, the Motor City has seen renewed investment and the lowest level of crime in nearly six decades, spurring hope for the future. 

Presidential candidates have traveled to Pennsylvania and the industrial Midwest in a quest for votes in competitive states. But they have another reason for doing so―voters everywhere want to see the United States reclaim its place as an industrial powerhouse. Presidential nominees who spend time in these jurisdictions are trying to send a message that their agenda will help us get there. 

The post-industrial states have voted differently in presidential elections: Michigan and Pennsylvania have shifted between voting Democratic and Republican for president since 1932; Wisconsin has voted for Democratic and Republican nominees fifteen times each since 1900; Ohio has voted Republican seven times and Democratic five times since 1976. 

As we approach the 2024 election, Ohio is considered a solidly Republican state. Meanwhile, there are at least three reasons why Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin remain swing states. 

First, we’ve become a more polarized nation. For decades, it has generally been the case that rural communities backed Republicans, urban communities supported Democrats, and the suburbs went either way―perhaps slightly more Republican pre-1992 and more Democratic since. Today, Republicans are getting bigger margins out of rural counties, Democrats have maximized their urban support, and the suburbs have moved closer to the Democrats while remaining relatively competitive. A greater share of people in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania live in the largest metropolitan area, in contrast to the Buckeye State with a high percentage of rural voters who tend to support GOP presidential candidates. 

Ohio’s two largest counties are Franklin (home to Columbus and surrounding suburbs) and Cuyahoga (home to Cleveland and surrounding suburbs). In 2020, these counties cast around 21% of the total votes cast statewide.. This was also true in the 2004 election, when Ohio decided the entire election. Republican President George W. Bush carried the state by 2% that year, underperforming fellow Republican Donald Trump’s 8-point win there in 2020. Both candidates got roughly the same percentages out of Cuyahoga County, while Bush performed considerably better than Trump in Franklin. The difference was rural Ohio. President Bush carried seventy-two of Ohio’s eighty-eight counties, while Trump won eighty-one. 

In Pennsylvania, six of the seven largest counties in the state have trended more Democratic in recent years. Alleghany (home to Pittsburgh), Philadelphia, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester Counties accounted for 44% of the total number of votes cast in 2004. By 2020, that number declined slightly to 43%. However, in 2004, Republican President Bush and Democrat John Kerry were competitive in more places across the state than Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump were in 2020. 

For example, in Montgomery County, the third largest county in the state by population and a home to quintessential suburban Philadelphia voters, Kerry won by 56% to 44% in 2004. Sixteen years later, Biden won the county by a margin of 62 to 36%. Conversely, George W. Bush won rural Warren County by a 57% to 42% margin in 2004 and Trump carried it by 69% to 29% in 2020. Like Michigan, Wisconsin, and much of the entire country, Pennsylvania has become more geographically divided. 

A second reason for Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin remaining swing states has to do with the labor vote. Those working in labor-intensive positions traditionally voted Democratic, while management and executives voted Republican. This was because Democrats supported unionization, and the GOP tended to push policies favoring management. Over the past four decades, the percentage of workers belonging to a union has fallen by 50%. Still, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have a larger share of workers belonging to unions than the nation as a whole. But the level of unionization everywhere isn’t what it was, meaning that union endorsements remain helpful, but don’t reach as many voters as they did in the past. 

Third, free trade has caused controversy in the political process. Proponents of free trade have argued that it allows U.S. firms to import commodities and consumer products at a discount while increasing their customer base both at home and abroad while creating jobs to serve those customers. Opponents of free trade have made the case that it encourages outsourcing to countries with lower wages and safety standards while destroying domestic industrial production and causing a lower standard of living at home. 

Interestingly, free trade has not been a partisan issue. Republican President George H.W. Bush and Democratic President Bill Clinton worked towards implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA, between the United States, Canada, and Mexico in the 1990s. When the U.S. Senate voted to ratify the agreement in 1993, the vote was 61-38; twenty-seven Democrats and thirty-four Republicans voted for the agreement, while twenty-eight Democrats and ten Republicans opposed it. It was a similar story in the House of Representatives, where the proposal passed 234-200. One hundred and fifty-six Democrats and forty-three Republicans were in opposition to the agreement.

It’s also worth noting that congressional delegations from Ohio and Wisconsin were roughly split on the issue, while just five of fifteen Michiganders and seven of twenty-one Pennsylvanians voted for it. 

Nationally, polling has shown voters have a rather nuanced view of trade. Gallup polling has revealed that the percentage of Americans who view free trade as positive for economic growth keeps shifting: it was 53% in 1994 before declining to 45% by the mid-2010s; it then rose to 79% before declining to 63% in 2021. Negative sentiment about free trade was 38% in 1994 and then as high as 52% during the financial crisis, before falling to 32% in 2021. 

Similarly, a 2018 survey of Ohio voters found that a slight majority had a favorable view of NAFTA. However, another 2018 survey showed that voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and Iowa are more skeptical as to the benefits of free trade compared to the nation as a whole.

Despite shifting views about international trade in principle, there has been a relatively consistent decline in how Americans view our top trading partner, China. According to surveys conducted by PEW Research, 81% of Americans today have an unfavorable view of China, compared to just 29% who held that same view in 2005. Specific to industrial states, polling found that Michigan residents opposed using economic development funds to help a battery company with ties to the Chinese Communist Party from opening a plant in their state. Voters have rewarded candidates who are considered to be defensive towards China on trade. 

As time marches on, it is likely that post-industrial cities and towns in the Midwest will thrive once again. As I mentioned above, there has been renewed investment in the region. Cities such as Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, South Bend, and Allentown have either made a comeback or are in the process of doing so. 
In time, there will be more and more local stories on post-industrial cities such as Akron, Milwaukee, Scranton, and others that are reinventing themselves. I anticipate that political candidates will shift their knowledge base and pitch to voters as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin remain competitive for years to come.