Tipping Point Counties

18 thoughts on “Tipping Point Counties”

1. A bellweather county for Florida that is not mentioned on your list – Flagler.  Flagler is nearly exactly 50/50 Dem/Rep registration and was THE fastest growing county in the entire country between 2000-2005.  However, the county made headlines earlier this year by having by far the highest unemployment rate in Florida of something like 8-9%.  It’s still a relatively low population county by FL standards, but should be a bellweather nevertheless.

   Here are the past Presidential results for the county:
   
         R     D
   
   2004 51.0% 48.3%
   
   2000 46.5% 51.3%
   
   1996 41.0% 47.7%
   
   1992 38.2% 40.9%
   
   1988 60.3% 39.4%
   

2. This is some amazing work. I do feel, though, as you suggest, that we’re perhaps a bit more likely to win some swing states on the presidential level by increasing turnout in Dem/urban areas, rather than focusing on the latest Mark Penn flavor-of-the-month. But undoubtedly Obama is pursuing a two-track stragegy, so it’s gonna be a little of both.

3.   It’s interesting to see which counties are trending our way, and which one aren’t.  In Pennsylvania, the biggest county trending away from us is Lackawanna county – home of, you guessed it, Scranton.  Kerry didn’t do as badly in the Lehigh Valley and the Pittsburgh area as I would have guessed.  It just looks like already red counties are becoming even redder. The only Philly suburb we have to worry about is Bucks county. It looks like Delaware, Chester, and Montgomery counties will take care of themselves.

4. Do you know what would be AMAZINGLY cool?

   Tipping point precincts.

   Is there any way to find a list of precincts in these counties?

5. The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do county-by-county and state-by-state, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

   The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

   Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

   Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

   The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes– 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

   See http://www.NationalPopularVote…  

   susan

Comments are closed.