One of the seven core swing states is likely to be the "tipping-point" state in the 2024 presidential election. That is, if we line up each state (and the congressional districts in Maine and Nebraska) by how large the margin of victory is for the winner of that state — from most Democratic to most Republican, or vice versa — the tipping point is the one that hands the Electoral College winner the clinching 270th electoral vote. Each presidential race has a tipping point, regardless of whether it's a landslide or a nail-biter — although it's only likely to be closely watched, or even decisive to an outcome in the latter.

This time around, 538's presidential forecast sees Pennsylvania as far and away the most likely tipping-point state. In 26 in 100 cases, the Keystone State provides the winning electoral votes for either Harris or Trump. The next-most likely are Michigan or North Carolina, then Georgia or Wisconsin. Beyond them, the remaining scenarios mostly involve Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Minnesota serving as the tipping point.

Knowing there'll likely be some degree of polling error, the 2024 election could very well turn into an Electoral College blowout — even if the national popular vote is fairly close. Yet because the race seems so tight, this year's contest could also join a select group of elections that were decided entirely by the outcome in the tipping-point state. This has occurred just seven times in the 39 presidential elections from 1868 to 2020: four straight elections from 1876 through 1888, another in 1916 and two more in 2000 and 2004. Of those, the 2000 race effectively stands as the closest presidential election in history, as the decisive state (Florida) was decided by an absurdly small margin of 0.01 percentage points in favor of Republican George W. Bush.

The U.S. remains one of the few wealthy countries without a mandate that employers provide paid sick days or longer-term paid medical and family leave to their workers. Three states — Alaska, Missouri and Nebraska — will have paid sick days on the ballot this year.

A need for paid sick days, which allow workers to call out when they or a family member has a sudden, acute illness, became clear during the COVID-19 pandemic — but the temporary expansion of sick leave requirements during the pandemic expired in December 2020. Since then, Democrats have worked to extend paid sick day policies — along with those to require longer-term paid family and medical leave, such as for the birth of a child — on a national level, but those efforts have faltered, and the fight has shifted to the state level. If voters in these three states approve their ballot measures today, they will join 14 others and Washington, D.C., in guaranteeing paid sick days to workers.

Harris has made paid family and medical leave part of her economic policy plan, and has also supported an increased minimum wage. When it comes to the economy and labor issues, Trump has backed away from previous support of an increased minimum wage and instead focused his economic plans on tax cuts that have drawn skepticism from economists. But it's not uncommon for voters to support more progressive worker-oriented policies while also voting for more conservative candidates who might oppose them, so even if voters in these three red-leaning states might pass new sick day policies, that won't necessarily translate into support for Harris.

In this year's GOP primaries, Texas Governor Greg Abbott went on a full-blown crusade, endorsing against fellow Republicans in the state House who refused to back a controversial school voucher plan that would siphon taxpayer funds from public schools and send them to private ones.

In the March primaries and May runoffs combined, the governor's efforts were largely successful: Between Abbott's endorsement power and fundraising prowess, he helped depose nine of the 16 anti-voucher Republicans who ran for reelection. Plus, other legislators he targeted retired so, in total, Abbott netted 13 more pro-voucher votes ahead of next year's legislative session.

Given that the Texas legislature's solidly Republican makeup is unlikely to change, coupled with the fact that the majority of anti-voucher Republicans are gone, Abbott should, theoretically, have the votes to pass the program next year. The only thing that could get in his way is if some of his primary-endorsed candidates (many of whom represent the far-right) are knocked down by Democrats tonight.

Here's the math: Pro-voucher Republicans are currently positioned to hold a tentative majority in the 150-member House. But the chamber's Democrats, who are largely opposed to the program, can stop this if they pick up a handful of seats in today's elections. For their part, Texas Democrats are hoping to flip at least seven seats that were redrawn during the 2021 redistricting process to make them more favorable to the party. Of course, the party has a reputation for being dysfunctional, but if they can manage to wrangle just three new seats in the state House (while not losing races elsewhere) and the remaining anti-voucher Republicans hold their votes, then the two blocs would have enough manpower to stop a voucher bill from passing.

Ahead of tonight, Abbott has put his full weight behind helping his cherry-picked Republican candidates win. And he's likely to not give up on his push for a voucher program, especially since top Republican donors have expressed a want for it despite evidence the vouchers don't always produce good educational outcomes. But voters are more torn on the issue. According to an April survey from the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation, 57% of Texas's likely voters said they opposed using tax dollars to provide school vouchers to parents. Legislators from rural areas, too, have long been opposed to vouchers because they represent areas where private alternatives to public schools are few or nonexistent.

By now, you're probably well familiar with the handful of swing states that are all-but-certain to decide who wins the race for control of Congress and the White House this November. But, as I detailed last week, many of those states are also hosting highly competitive elections for their state legislatures too.

Democrats currently control 41 state legislative chambers, while Republicans hold majorities in 56. These races may be lower-profile, but don't mistake their importance; across a myriad of social and economic issues, state legislatures could end up having an even bigger impact on public policy across the country over the next two years than Congress.

Democrats have a shot at flipping state legislative chambers in Arizona (both chambers), Wisconsin (state House) and New Hampshire (both chambers), while Republicans are hoping to regain control of the Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania state Houses, as well as an outside shot at flipping the Minnesota state Senate in a special election. Power is also likely to shift in Alaska's state House, though bipartisan coalitions in both chambers make control of the state legislature particularly difficult to predict.

In New Hampshire and Arizona, if Democrats flip both chambers (and win the governor's race in New Hampshire), they would win a state government trifecta in those states, giving them full control over the legislative process.

The elections analytics site CNalysis rates most of these chambers as toss-ups, though Democrats have a small edge in the New Hampshire state House and slightly larger edge in Minnesota's, while Republicans are slightly favored to keep control of the Wisconsin state Assembly.