Rethinking "what is a 'swing state'"? We must question the narrow conventional view that limits us

[Texas Lawyer]

The "conventional wisdom" endlessly repeated by the media and punditry is that this race presidential will be decided by just a few swing states; here is a typical repetition of that conventional thinking:

The true swing states are the ones that matter—the ones where the race still is truly competitive between President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney. And at this point, that list probably has narrowed to just nine of the 50 states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/25/political-perceptions-in-new-swing-state-math-obama-retains-an-advantage/

We should reject this idea of a small contest in a few venues and bring this election to a broader debate about our national future (a debate that we are winning handily).

Why is Iowa a "swing state" but not Indiana or Missouri? The President's 5% advantage in Iowa is as large as Romney's 5% advantage in Indiana and Missouri. Source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

Why are Nevada and Virginia considered "swing states" while Tennessee, Montana, and Arizona aren't? The President's 6% advantage in Nevada and Virginia mirrors Romney's 6% lead in Tennessee, Montana, and Arizona. Source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

The President's 8% lead in "swing state" Wisconsin equals Romney's 8% lead in Georgia and South Carolina. Source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map

We need to expand the map! The debate about our future is national in its implications and so it should not be so narrowly limited in its scope. We must bring this debate to more states and we must bring this debate to down-ballot races in those states.