If Edmondson narrowly wins ...

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

... what will the county map look like?
This is an interesting question, inasmuch as the most populous counties - unlike in almost every other state - are Republican strongholds.
Whenever a Democrat narrowly won a statewide election (or narrowly lost, respectively) they couldn't win the five most populous counties: Oklahoma, Tulsa, Cleveland, Comanche, Canadian. These counties make up 46% of the whole Oklahoman population.
Why do you think this is?

Here's the 2002 gubernatorial election results map; Democrat Brad Henry beat Republican Steve Largent by 0.66%:



In 1976, Jimmy Carter only lost by only 1.21%:



And here's the current population map:

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

It ain't 2002 anymore. Oklahoma County and Cleveland County are must wins for Edmondson if he wants to win. Actually, he'd probably need to get decent sized margins in them.

Even Joe Dorman, who performed quite decently and took six counties, didn't win any of the big five. I'd guess those were counties with a high share of Native Americans.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Something like this:

That would literally be a realignment election with a state. Where did this happen the last time? Probably in Minnesota during the presidential election?

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

It would just be Oklahoma becoming like the rest of the country--D cities and R rural.

The Kansans and Alaskans still vote Oklahoma-style, but they are poised to vote "normally".
To some extent, the New Hampshirites and Hawaiians vote similar to the Oklahomans as their most populous counties are way more Republican than their smaller ones.

But why do they still vote the way they vote? Are the big five counties more upscale than the others?