The shrinking battleground of American presidential politics has fundamentally reshaped how candidates campaign—and how they win. The 2024 election, where Donald J. Trump defeated Kamala Harris, showcased not only the power of three pivotal states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—but also the growing influence of a digital, borderless political landscape. It’s a trend that offers a glimpse into the future, where a celebrity candidate may rise by strategically focusing on these battlegrounds, leveraging the interconnectedness of voter preferences across state lines.
A recent study by Mikhail Chernov, Vadim Elenev, and Dongho Song provides valuable insights into this dynamic. Their research explores how voter preferences are no longer siloed by state but interconnected, with outcomes in key states creating ripple effects elsewhere. Using an innovative two-factor model, the authors found that Pennsylvania, for example, plays an outsized role in influencing probabilities in neighboring battleground states. A win in Pennsylvania doesn’t just secure its 19 electoral votes—it meaningfully improves a candidate’s odds in places like Michigan and Wisconsin, amplifying the impact of a targeted campaign strategy.
This interconnectedness is fueled, in part, by a media ecosystem where state boundaries matter far less than they once did. Social media platforms, influencers, and viral trends now shape voter behavior in ways that local TV stations and newspapers once did. Where a candidate like Ronald Reagan mastered the art of broad, unified messaging in the 1980s, modern campaigns must contend with fragmented audiences who consume information through TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. The study highlights how these digital connections can amplify the significance of key states: a decisive win in one can shift momentum across others, thanks to the shared digital spaces where voters engage with politics.
Trump’s 2024 victory is a testament to this shift. His campaign’s focus on Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin capitalized on the very trends identified in the study. By targeting these states with tailored messaging that resonated across digital platforms, Trump not only reclaimed ground in the Rust Belt but also demonstrated how battlegrounds are no longer just geographic—they’re virtual, too. The same social media influencers shaping opinions in Philadelphia are likely influencing voters in Detroit, highlighting the interconnected political ecosystem of the modern era.
This dynamic is what makes the study’s findings so critical for understanding not just how Trump won in 2024 but how future elections could be shaped. The model presented by Chernov, Elenev, and Song illustrates how the battleground map has become both smaller and more influential. With fewer states truly in play—thanks to gerrymandering, polarization, and demographic shifts—the stakes for those remaining battlegrounds have never been higher. Their interconnectedness means that a campaign’s success in one state could cascade into others, creating a path to victory that feels almost surgical in its precision.
Looking ahead to 2028, this raises an intriguing possibility: a future where a celebrity candidate, equipped with social media savvy and mass appeal, leverages these dynamics to win the presidency. Figures like Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky or Argentina’s Javier Milei provide international examples of this trend—leaders whose outsider status and charisma propelled them to power in fragmented political landscapes. The U.S. could follow suit, with influencers, entertainers, or tech magnates seizing the opportunity presented by a shrinking battleground map and an electorate shaped by digital platforms.
A hypothetical celebrity candidate in 2028 wouldn’t need to appeal to the entire country. Instead, they could focus on just a handful of states, crafting tailored narratives amplified by the same interconnectedness identified in the study. Pennsylvania could become their digital springboard, sending waves of influence into Michigan, Wisconsin, and beyond. The future of American politics may not lie in broad coalitions built in Congress but in finely tuned campaigns designed to capitalize on the unique power of these battlegrounds.
But while this evolution creates opportunities, it also raises questions about the health of democracy. The reliance on influencers and viral trends could obscure the importance of policy and governance, replacing substance with spectacle. Voters may be left choosing between candidates based on charisma rather than competence, driven by the loudest voices in their feeds rather than the most informed analysis. The study’s findings suggest that while the battlegrounds may grow smaller, their significance will only grow, concentrating power in the hands of a few states—and a few voices.
As 2024 demonstrated, the battleground states are no longer just critical—they are the presidency. And with their interconnectedness now amplified by a digital age, the path to the White House may no longer run through the halls of Congress but through the feeds and screens of a fragmented, influencer-driven electorate. Whether that future leads to more accessible politics or a descent into political theater remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the battleground states of today aren’t just shaping elections—they’re shaping the very nature of what it means to run for president.