New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Interactive Map: Presidential Battleground States

These will likely be the states where the presidential election is decided. Find out where science and environmental policy issues will play a role

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When John McCain's campaign last week pulled out of Michigan—the state New York Times columnist Frank Rich called "ground zero for the collapsed Main Street economy"—it seemed to signal, along with a widening opinion poll gap between the candidates, that the time had come to reassess the "battleground" states in this election. 

True, Barack Obama had earlier redeployed staff from North Dakota to Minnesota and Wisconsin, where their candidate appeared to have a shot at winning. Now, even Karl Rove, architect of George W. Bush's victories, claims that Obama could win if the election were held today—and projections of broad Democratic gains in House and Senate races have implications for whomever moves into the White House in January. 

But despite flexible strategies among the campaigns as they attempt to cobble a "path to 270" (the number of electoral college votes needed for victory), the struggle will center on eight states where hotly contested races as well as some interesting state propositions and ballot initiatives -- some of which involve science and energy policy -- will be in flux up until Election Day. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Given the margins of error in recent polls, independent voters and those still undecided could still hold the key.

* Data from fivethirtyeight.com show an average of the most recent state-by-state tracking polls.
Averages as of October 10.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe