Very misleading graphic, as always with these sorts of things, because it ignores density -- those vast blue spaces have hardly any people in them, while a number of the red spaces have fairly high density. There are a number of reddish areas in Seattle, for instance. In general, the big beneficiary of the Romney tax plan would be wealthier suburbs. Most Americans live in suburbs.
All of this is moot, however, as @1 points out, because Romney's plan is competely unworkable and unsustainable.
I'm sort of intrigued by the sizeable red patches out in the middle of nowhere in Texas. Big, wealthy ranches, I guess? Anyway, Fnarf, some of the red areas have high density, but obviously some of the larger ones don't, and a lot of high density areas are quite blue.
Um, are we looking at the same map? When I look it shows Mercer Island (98040) as breaking narrowly for Obama (58% to 42% Romney.) Medina, Kirkland, Redmond, Issaquah and most of East King County do break for Romney.
Mine was only about $100 apart, in favor of Obama...but I guess when you are unmarried, with no dependents, low capital gains, and avail yourself of no government services, it should be expected.
With Mitt: - $509.00
Hhhmmmm... Who to choose, who to choose....
Under the old plan plan revenues were going down, down, down -- but under the new plan...
All of this is moot, however, as @1 points out, because Romney's plan is competely unworkable and unsustainable.
Romney: +$60,000
Sorry, but $50,000 isn't enough to compel me to vote for a douchebag like Romney.
Romney: $2,303
Huzzah for me! So the question is, if Mitt Romney walked up to me and said, "I will hand you $260 to vote for me."
Would I do it?
Yeah...no. Not that it matters and all, Utah's going to Romney anyway.
Obama: +$8,002
Romney: +$6,526
I'm voting for BOTH of them.
Romney: +$9,000
Answer is obvious. $3,500 won't cover all of the lost services and infrastructure.
Soooooooobama!
Romney +4800
Well, Stranger, I'm sold. I can always appreciate a well-argued point.