the three counties key to Obama winning the WH

[freepcrusher]

I remember reading a time magazine article that says that if Obama can maintain his performance in Franklin, OH; Wake, NC; and Arapahoe, CO; he should be able to win those states and in turn, the presidency. What do you think of that statement? IMO, its places like these that are keys to winning the presidency.

[NVGonzalez]

No love for Washoe in NV? We are the swing of the swing!

[TJ in Oregon]

I think Franklin County, Ohio is no longer really a swing area at all. It's a pretty solid Dem area. A few better Ohio Counties to watch are Hamilton, Montgomery, Lake, Stark, Ottawa, Sandusky, Jefferson, Tuscarawas, and Wood.

[LastVoter]

No love for Washoe in NV? We are the swing of the swing!

Isn't it pretty much democratic now because of Reno growth? Or are all the lake Tahoe liberal concentrated in a different county in Nevada?

[NVGonzalez]

No love for Washoe in NV? We are the swing of the swing!

Isn't it pretty much democratic now because of Reno growth? Or are all the lake Tahoe liberal concentrated in a different county in Nevada?

No actually it was once a very solidly Republican County until the Reno growth. Most of Lake Tahoe though is in California. The make up in 2008 had Democrats leading in registered voters by around 4000. Now Republicans are leading by around 1000 with a decline in active voters.

[© tweed]

Mitt Romney is gonna BOMB Obama in DuPage IL.  BOMB

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Moronic argument.

[California8429]

I remember reading a time magazine article that says that if Obama can maintain his performance in Franklin, OH; Wake, NC; and Arapahoe, CO; he should be able to win those states and in turn, the presidency. What do you think of that statement? IMO, its places like these that are keys to winning the presidency.

The Jeffco- Arapahoe and Adams county vote control the state. He can win by winning Jeffco and losing Arapahoe (less likely, but possible) and still get a squeakier winning Adams and losing Jeffco and Arapahoe.

[Linus Van Pelt]

This blasted kind of argument re-emerges every election cycle, sometimes in geographical form and sometimes not (whoever wins "office-park dads" or "Reagan democrats" will win the election!) and it's based on the statistical fallacy that a closely divided group is somehow more important to the total result than a lopsided one.

In reality, if 12% of the electorate are black and 12% are in some random subset of whites that have a certain all-American imagery and are cross-pressured by what gets called "economic" and "social" issues, then going from 95-5 to 85-15 among blacks is just as valuable as going from 55-45 to 45-55 among group X. The only time one demographic is really more important than another demographic of equal size is when one's vote is less efficiently distributed by FPTP boundaries.