By Vanessa Davidson / Broadcast version by Farah Siddiqi reporting for the Kent State NewsLab-Ohio News Connection Collaboration.

“As Ohio goes, so goes the nation” is a saying that rang true for many presidential election cycles. Ohio was a key swing state for decades, voting with the winner of U.S. presidential elections every year from 1960 until 2020. 

But since 2012, the margin of voters in favor of Republican presidential candidates has steadily increased. In 2012, around 47.7% of Ohio voters favored the Republican presidential candidate, followed by 51.7% in 2016 and 53.3% in 2020. 

In 2024, Donald Trump won 55.2% of Ohio votes. 

Experts cite a variety of reasons for that shift — including a decline in the power of labor unions, fewer college-educated voters than the national average and the effectiveness of the Republican Party’s campaign methods.

“Because we were a big manufacturing state, and because manufacturing jobs did usually require a college education, it wasn't necessary for a lot of Ohioans to get a college degree,” said former Ohio Governor Bob Taft, now a professor at The University of Dayton . 

“And you know, one of the key breaks now between Republican voters and Democrat voters is Republicans are doing a lot better with and particularly Trump is doing a lot better with voters without a college degree,” he said. “So I think that too is one of the factors that explains why Ohio has become so red as a state.”

Like many of the states that surround it, Ohio is what’s known as a Rust Belt state. With the flourishing of automotive and manufacturing industries, many blue-collar jobs emerged between the 19th century and the 20th century.

However, throughout the later half of the 20th century and early 21st century, factories gradually closed, taking manufacturing and supporting jobs with them. As a result, numbers in labor unions dwindled, causing a lack of resources and campaigning — a hit that impacted the strategy of the Democratic Party.

“Organized labor was a big part of the Democratic strength in Ohio when I first entered politics, because the labor unions had to have more members,” said Taft.

Taft was governor of Ohio from 1999 to 2007, representing the Republican Party. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, served one term after Taft. All Ohio’s governors since 2011 have been Republicans. 

Unions at that time, Taft said, “Had more resources. They actively engaged in political campaigns, generally on behalf of Democratic candidates. We still have labor unions which still have some members, but it's not on the scale that it used to be, say, 20 or 30 years ago.”

Ohio’s working class sought out support and representation after the 2007 recession, and still continue to by voting for candidates that prioritize their needs. The focus on blue-collar workers was key to former President Barack Obama’s consecutive wins in 2008 and 2012. 

“Obama did carry Ohio twice, but Obama was, I think, perceived as a change candidate, someone that would make things better,” Taft said. “And so, he was able to appeal to a broader group of voters than a Democrat might normally appeal to in Ohio.”

Donald Trump's victory in 2024 has also been partly attributed to his focus on promising change and speaking towards the working class. 

Social media has also played a role in Trump’s victories since he was able to reach broader audiences, said Dr. Lauren Copeland, the director of Community Research Institute at Baldwin Wallace University.

“Social media has played a large role in creating divisiveness in society, and at the same time, it's also provided candidates — such as former President Trump and now incoming President Trump — with platforms to directly reach out to their base without having to go through the media,” Copeland said. 

“I don't think that Trump would have succeeded as much as he did in 2016 had he not used Twitter effectively to reach his base.”

College degrees have also had a big impact on the way Ohioans vote. People with college degrees are more likely to vote Democrat than people without college degrees. 

Voters without degrees lean toward Republicans. According to the Pew Research Center, around 63% of Republican voters in 2022 did not have college degrees, compared to 49% of Democratic voters.

This divide in education represents a broader perspective. Often, people without college degrees prioritize issues like immigration and job security, which are topics that align with more conservative policies.

“People without a four-year college degree tend to be more conservative than people who have a four-year degree, or especially an advanced degree,” said Copeland.

According to 2023 census data, 32% of Ohioans have bachelor’s degrees, 4.2 percentage points below the national average of 36.2%. 

Racial demographics also play a part in how a community votes. Outside of major cities where the majority of people of color live — like Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, Toledo and Dayton — all other counties in Ohio voted red in 2024.

“People who are nonwhite, such as African Americans, tend to be more liberal than their white counterparts,” said Copeland. 

In 2023, 76.7% of Ohioans were white, compared to 58.4% of Americans overall. 

“When you have a state like Ohio that has a lot less diversity than, say, other states like Illinois, New York, or even some of the states in the southwest, then you're going to have a climate in which Republicans are going to be more likely to win,” Copeland said.

With these many different factors influencing Ohio’s political landscape, Ohio’s future as a swing state is questionable. 

“Ohio will still be overall, in all probability, a Republican state, but… not as Republican as a state like Montana,” said Taft. “So I think a Democrat will win, potentially statewide, in Ohio. But it's a little uphill for the Democrat Party.”


This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Despite voter approval in November, Missouri lawmakers are moving to undo part of Proposition A, specifically, the clause requiring employers to provide paid sick leave.

The Missouri House passed the repeal legislation last month by a 96-51 vote. The provision was approved by nearly 60% of voters, who also supported raising the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026.

Prop A proponents said repealing any part of the measure so soon after its approval undermines the will of the voters.

John Davis, partner at the bipartisan polling firm Red America, Blue America Research, said its latest survey showed 75% of respondents oppose efforts to repeal the legislation.

"Legislators who are thinking about what voters had approved just this past November should be concerned that there's such a strong response in opposition to that particular type of proposal," Davis noted.

Supporters of the repeal contended the sick-leave mandate is too rigid and burdensome, warning it could lead to reduced hiring or even business closures. The bill is now in the Senate, which has two weeks to act before the mandate takes effect May 1.

Business groups have filed lawsuits claiming Proposition A violates Missouri's single-subject rule by linking minimum wage hikes with paid sick leave. Supporters of the repeal also argued the Legislature can amend the law without a public vote since it changed state law, not the constitution.

Davis highlighted the importance of public opinion surveys.

"Some of the decisions made at statehouses are of extraordinary consequence," Davis pointed out. "What we have tried to do is just establish sort of baselines, to take a look over time how folks are feeling about a variety of topics, because state laws really do impact people very, very directly."

If the Missouri Senate approves the bill, it will move to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk, where he can sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.


get more stories like this via email

Final action is expected soon on a plan that would prevent North Dakota cities and counties from using alternative voting methods for local elections.

Both chambers of the Legislature have approved a bill that focuses on two options - ranked-choice voting and approval voting.

In recent election cycles, Fargo has used approval voting when local candidates appear on the ballot. It became the first U.S. city to do so, after residents showed support for the idea.

Bismarck resident Andrew Alexis Varvel testified against banning these options.

"The rest of the state does not need to follow everything that Fargo does," said Varvel, "but we do need to have a certain amount of respect for what people at the local level decide."

Other bill opponents also said they don't want the state micromanaging local elections.

The Fargo-endorsed option, approval voting, allows voters to choose more than one candidate. Backers say it reduces polarization by prompting candidates to appeal to more people.

But some lawmakers believe these approaches are ineffective, and want the whole state to use the same voting method.

Gov. Kelly Armstrong hasn't indicated whether he'll sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe supports the proposed ban on alternative voting methods.

In his testimony, he noted that Fargo's use of approval voting hasn't created any issues, but he said he worries other cities will follow suit.

"Multiple election methods implemented across the state," said Howe, "would have an impact on the administration of a statewide election."

But a Fargo City Commissioner argues that across North Dakota, there are already many variations - including at-large candidates.

A similar proposed ban was vetoed by former Gov. Doug Burgum two years ago.




get more stories like this via email

A number of lawsuits have been filed in opposition to President Donald Trump's executive order which could reshape how U.S. elections are run and the League of Women Voters of Arizona is one of the groups fighting back.

Pinny Sheoran, president of the group, said democracy is not just on the line, it is actively being broken. Trump's executive order would usher in new requirements, such as having voters provide in-person documentary proof of citizenship and identity. Sheoran called the president's action unconstitutional and illegal.

"Even the states serving as a buttress against the breaking of democracy is greatly under threat, in Arizona, specifically," Sheoran stated.

The White House has defended the president's executive order and called the measures "common sense," and all objections "insane." But Sheoran contends the executive order will suppress voters and enact "unnecessary hoops," making it harder for Arizonans to make their voices heard.

Sheoran argued the directive from the White House will disproportionately affect Arizonans across the board, including people of color, those in rural communities, those with disabilities and women.

She pointed out more than 1.5 million women in the state have changed their last name after marriage, which means many will not have a birth certificate matching their legal identity. Nationwide, the issue grows exponentially.

"For those 61-plus million women, we are talking about many of them, (a) not having a passport; (b) having to now prove why their ID has got a different name than the ID that they registered in," Sheoran outlined.

Sheoran stressed the importance of highlighting the narrative of how the "disastrous" order will affect everyday Arizonans.

"What makes sense to the general public, to the women who don't watch Fox News or MSNBC, is, 'Oh, I can't vote with my voter ID?' 'What, I've been voting, I am 70 years old, I've been voting for almost 50 years, and now you're telling me I can't vote?'" Sheoran underscored. "Think about those conversations."