Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[The Govanah Jake]

Just read through the whole thing and i just want to say its really good!

[The Govanah Jake]

Great Timeline you have here!

[The Govanah Jake]

Texas - I assume those west Texas county's are do to Tejano's Hispanics in the Western part of the part becoming a majority in mainly of those county's and voting on economic issues combined with non Hispanic residents correct? Also if there is such a trend of Hispanics towards the Democratic Party in Texas then wouldn't Brewster County which is already 43.8% Hispanic and close on the national level be democratic like the surrounding county's. Same thing to a lesser extent towards Jeff Davis County. Also if the Republicans are the secular civil libertarian, fiscally moderate to conservative party they are set up to be then why would they win Fort Bend County but loss Tarrant County. I understand Fort Bend is alot more wealthier and i assume demographics vote alot more on fiscal issues then social issues but wouldn't the republicans who obviously aren't winning Hispanics in that state win a relatively whiter (Both would be Minority-Majority though) county like Tarrant which is also a Suburban county like Fort Bent which the republicans seem to do better in here before Fort Bent with its more diverse population. For Republicans to win back Fort Bent then they would have to become the Party mentioned in this timeline so how in that process would they lose Tarrant. Is it the Correct opinion that due to Tarrant being poorer (relative), they would vote more on economic interests and appeal to a populist liberal Democratic Party?

California - Interesting we have here. We have a Democratic central valley (Which was the Democratic base in the state before 1980) versus a more republican bay area and republicans gains from 2016 in SoCal along with continued republican control of Northern California and take over of the coastal county's by Ventura County. This is basically no more or less a return to Pre-Reagan Californian politics. This could easily be mistaken (Minus the north) for a 1940s-1970s election map of a race in the state. As economic issues prevail and social issues are irrelevant this is what a natural California county map would look like in imao if the republicans became secular and non-Trumpian. The Central Valley is propelled by Poor and Middle Class Hispanics who by that time will be a majority and Non Hispanics who became like FDR democrats and are attracted to a Populist message. Meanwhile in the Bay Area, even though it is left wing economically still, its less so and the republicans are more so economically and so that with a secular image makes the bay area competitive and returns to pre Reagan voting habits.. The southern part of the state doesn't fully come back to the republicans due to Hispanics but they make gains regaining San Bernardino and Orange as shown. I think that's a fair map for a party system like this

Oregon - Whats with the sudden rightward shift of Portland. Even if the Republicans become Secular and Moderate economically, i fail to see how that versus a populist democratic party would win the city and county. I suppose it would be a return to Pre-1960 Portland when the County went Republican.

Washington - King County would be the main issue for this one. Though this might be easier to explain with big republican gains in the city and suburbs of Seattle and also King County is more Republican Friendly and last voted republican in 1988 so theirs that. But the question above stands. Also Island County Imao would probably vote for this Republican Party. Besides that i see economic issues rule again as Hispanics are finally majority's in many western county's of the state and form a coalition with poor whites to create victory's along with the coastal county's which are mostly working class of the white version.


Excited to see the county maps of the South though!

[The Govanah Jake]

Texas - I assume those west Texas county's are do to Tejano's Hispanics in the Western part of the part becoming a majority in mainly of those county's and voting on economic issues combined with non Hispanic residents correct? Also if there is such a trend of Hispanics towards the Democratic Party in Texas then wouldn't Brewster County which is already 43.8% Hispanic and close on the national level be democratic like the surrounding county's. Same thing to a lesser extent towards Jeff Davis County. Also if the Republicans are the secular civil libertarian, fiscally moderate to conservative party they are set up to be then why would they win Fort Bend County but loss Tarrant County. I understand Fort Bend is alot more wealthier and i assume demographics vote alot more on fiscal issues then social issues but wouldn't the republicans who obviously aren't winning Hispanics in that state win a relatively whiter (Both would be Minority-Majority though) county like Tarrant which is also a Suburban county like Fort Bent which the republicans seem to do better in here before Fort Bent with its more diverse population. For Republicans to win back Fort Bent then they would have to become the Party mentioned in this timeline so how in that process would they lose Tarrant. Is it the Correct opinion that due to Tarrant being poorer (relative), they would vote more on economic interests and appeal to a populist liberal Democratic Party?

California - Interesting we have here. We have a Democratic central valley (Which was the Democratic base in the state before 1980) versus a more republican bay area and republicans gains from 2016 in SoCal along with continued republican control of Northern California and take over of the coastal county's by Ventura County. This is basically no more or less a return to Pre-Reagan Californian politics. This could easily be mistaken (Minus the north) for a 1940s-1970s election map of a race in the state. As economic issues prevail and social issues are irrelevant this is what a natural California county map would look like in imao if the republicans became secular and non-Trumpian. The Central Valley is propelled by Poor and Middle Class Hispanics who by that time will be a majority and Non Hispanics who became like FDR democrats and are attracted to a Populist message. Meanwhile in the Bay Area, even though it is left wing economically still, its less so and the republicans are more so economically and so that with a secular image makes the bay area competitive and returns to pre Reagan voting habits.. The southern part of the state doesn't fully come back to the republicans due to Hispanics but they make gains regaining San Bernardino and Orange as shown. I think that's a fair map for a party system like this

Oregon - Whats with the sudden rightward shift of Portland. Even if the Republicans become Secular and Moderate economically, i fail to see how that versus a populist democratic party would win the city and county. I suppose it would be a return to Pre-1960 Portland when the County went Republican.

Washington - King County would be the main issue for this one. Though this might be easier to explain with big republican gains in the city and suburbs of Seattle and also King County is more Republican Friendly and last voted republican in 1988 so theirs that. But the question above stands. Also Island County Imao would probably vote for this Republican Party. Besides that i see economic issues rule again as Hispanics are finally majority's in many western county's of the state and form a coalition with poor whites to create victory's along with the coastal county's which are mostly working class of the white version.


Excited to see the county maps of the South though!

On Fort Bend, I actually initially had it at lean r, I don't know why it was likely r.

North Texas appears to have a very strong(but not perfect) correlation between hispanics and lower PPP. Many whiter areas have PPP's similar to the interior plains. While I was initially going to make the Tejanos less democratic than average, that correlation, combined with high inequality made me decide that the rural hispanics trended democratic. I was already going to have those counties swing to the democrats based on increased hispanic turnout, I just added the existing hispanic electorate swinging dem. In summary, racial polarization increases in West/North Texas, to the benefit of the democrats.

Washington and Oregon, I was just too cautious in Hispanic gains for dems in the east and overly aggressive for republican urban gains in the west. I'm probably going to shift some counties around. It shouldn't shift the states too much, as any democratic gains in the new map are still more than cancelled out by the rest of these state's. King I kept as Republican because it has a higher PPP than Portland and some asians(about 15% of the county) that can be swung republican, perhaps even more than the county whites.

I also added Wyoming. Next I'll do Montana and Colorado.

That doesn't answer Tarrant at all though and also doesn't too regarding Brewster and Jeff Davis Counties. Is it because Tarrant is a little less wealthy(but still not poor) so poorer Hispanics and minority white populations vote democrat and because of this the county goes democratic and is the opposite in Fort Bend with richer hispanics and whites of course voting Republican? Would this mean the Hispanic vote is split Wealthier versus poorer with the middle I guess a battleground? And if that is the case why would a suburb like tarrant which isn't exactly horrible economically vote democratic

For Washington I could see you on King County. I guess a pre Reagan type of party the republicans act like ideology wise in this timeline would be a good fit for the county like it was pre 1980. However this time it's more diverse with a Asian coalition behind it which would likely be more then 20% of the county population by post realignment times and probally much more then that. But Seattle which is still economically progressive would hold a bigger problem to that then before. Also if Seattle is still majority white then how would the Republican Party try to make plays in the city if its white population is still still liberal (for Pete sake elected a actual socialist to council).

Also it seems from observation that resort county's swing republican.

[The Govanah Jake]

Texas - I assume those west Texas county's are do to Tejano's Hispanics in the Western part of the part becoming a majority in mainly of those county's and voting on economic issues combined with non Hispanic residents correct? Also if there is such a trend of Hispanics towards the Democratic Party in Texas then wouldn't Brewster County which is already 43.8% Hispanic and close on the national level be democratic like the surrounding county's. Same thing to a lesser extent towards Jeff Davis County. Also if the Republicans are the secular civil libertarian, fiscally moderate to conservative party they are set up to be then why would they win Fort Bend County but loss Tarrant County. I understand Fort Bend is alot more wealthier and i assume demographics vote alot more on fiscal issues then social issues but wouldn't the republicans who obviously aren't winning Hispanics in that state win a relatively whiter (Both would be Minority-Majority though) county like Tarrant which is also a Suburban county like Fort Bent which the republicans seem to do better in here before Fort Bent with its more diverse population. For Republicans to win back Fort Bent then they would have to become the Party mentioned in this timeline so how in that process would they lose Tarrant. Is it the Correct opinion that due to Tarrant being poorer (relative), they would vote more on economic interests and appeal to a populist liberal Democratic Party?

California - Interesting we have here. We have a Democratic central valley (Which was the Democratic base in the state before 1980) versus a more republican bay area and republicans gains from 2016 in SoCal along with continued republican control of Northern California and take over of the coastal county's by Ventura County. This is basically no more or less a return to Pre-Reagan Californian politics. This could easily be mistaken (Minus the north) for a 1940s-1970s election map of a race in the state. As economic issues prevail and social issues are irrelevant this is what a natural California county map would look like in imao if the republicans became secular and non-Trumpian. The Central Valley is propelled by Poor and Middle Class Hispanics who by that time will be a majority and Non Hispanics who became like FDR democrats and are attracted to a Populist message. Meanwhile in the Bay Area, even though it is left wing economically still, its less so and the republicans are more so economically and so that with a secular image makes the bay area competitive and returns to pre Reagan voting habits.. The southern part of the state doesn't fully come back to the republicans due to Hispanics but they make gains regaining San Bernardino and Orange as shown. I think that's a fair map for a party system like this

Oregon - Whats with the sudden rightward shift of Portland. Even if the Republicans become Secular and Moderate economically, i fail to see how that versus a populist democratic party would win the city and county. I suppose it would be a return to Pre-1960 Portland when the County went Republican.

Washington - King County would be the main issue for this one. Though this might be easier to explain with big republican gains in the city and suburbs of Seattle and also King County is more Republican Friendly and last voted republican in 1988 so theirs that. But the question above stands. Also Island County Imao would probably vote for this Republican Party. Besides that i see economic issues rule again as Hispanics are finally majority's in many western county's of the state and form a coalition with poor whites to create victory's along with the coastal county's which are mostly working class of the white version.


Excited to see the county maps of the South though!

On Fort Bend, I actually initially had it at lean r, I don't know why it was likely r.

North Texas appears to have a very strong(but not perfect) correlation between hispanics and lower PPP. Many whiter areas have PPP's similar to the interior plains. While I was initially going to make the Tejanos less democratic than average, that correlation, combined with high inequality made me decide that the rural hispanics trended democratic. I was already going to have those counties swing to the democrats based on increased hispanic turnout, I just added the existing hispanic electorate swinging dem. In summary, racial polarization increases in West/North Texas, to the benefit of the democrats.

Washington and Oregon, I was just too cautious in Hispanic gains for dems in the east and overly aggressive for republican urban gains in the west. I'm probably going to shift some counties around. It shouldn't shift the states too much, as any democratic gains in the new map are still more than cancelled out by the rest of these state's. King I kept as Republican because it has a higher PPP than Portland and some asians(about 15% of the county) that can be swung republican, perhaps even more than the county whites.

I also added Wyoming. Next I'll do Montana and Colorado.

That doesn't answer Tarrant at all though and also doesn't too regarding Brewster and Jeff Davis Counties. Is it because Tarrant is a little less wealthy(but still not poor) so poorer Hispanics and minority white populations vote democrat and because of this the county goes democratic and is the opposite in Fort Bend with richer hispanics and whites of course voting Republican? Would this mean the Hispanic vote is split Wealthier versus poorer with the middle I guess a battleground? And if that is the case why would a suburb like tarrant which isn't exactly horrible economically vote democratic

For Washington I could see you on King County. I guess a pre Reagan type of party the republicans act like ideology wise in this timeline would be a good fit for the county like it was pre 1980. However this time it's more diverse with a Asian coalition behind it which would likely be more then 20% of the county population by post realignment times and probally much more then that. But Seattle which is still economically progressive would hold a bigger problem to that then before. Also if Seattle is still majority white then how would the Republican Party try to make plays in the city if its white population is still still liberal (for Pete sake elected a actual socialist to council).

Also it seems from observation that resort county's swing republican.

I was mostly focused on the west coast in that revision- In the below revision, I shifted both Jeff Davis and Brewster left, to Lean R and Lean D respectively. Tarrant is because I expected it to be majority-minority by then, even when excluding asians. Adams county in Colorado goes dem for similar reasons. I initially colored in Fort Bend Lean D, but it was so wealthy and the asian count was so high that I decided against having that in the release.

Eh, resort counties will have a disproportionate amount of people who "should" vote GOP but don't. In general, the sort of white, wealthy, already dem, quasi-rural and rural county that 'resort county' entails will have a slower transition to GOP stronghold status than their suburban and urban counterparts, and that will be reflected most strongly in Vermont, western New Hampshire, western Colorado and western Massachusetts being lean-likely dem from being currently likely-safe dem.

Feel free to contest these points, but that's my take.

1. Isn't Tarrant already only 46% Non Hispanic. I don't know if that's including white Hispanics or not but if its only 46% now then it will probably be even lower as minority population grows. It will probably be Minority Majority but Non Hispanic White Plurality.

2. Yep. Places like Vermont you should expect to be strongly Republican but its not. It was from 1856 to 1992 but a influx of white liberals from neighboring states and social conservatives taking over the republican party ended that. What you see in these sort of county's like the ones you listed plus Grant County in Utah, Alpine in California, and the one in each of Idaho and Wyoming (Teton) is areas were its overwhelmingly white and wealthy however vote strong democrat (except fro Grant) due to outside migration of white liberals and progressives to the area due to the ski resorts which makes the democrats more likely to win it.

BTW nice maps your making here.

[The Govanah Jake]

I see there has been a rebound for democrats in the industrial areas from 2016 in the Midwest (Specifically Ohio and Pennsylvania). They also are doing much better in the rural areas here and in the Northeast post-trump. Again i could easily mistake this for say a 1968 Election map which goes to show how this is more or less a return of normalcy to the New Deal Coalition except with more minority's as a factor and a little more rural and industrial appeal for republicans.

Also is Maine a democratic PVI? there. I see the democrats regained the northern county's there and industrial timber areas there which seems odd due to the fact that republicans are still winning those same types of areas big in the midwest in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and too a lesser extend in Ohio and Michigan.

Also i see Manhattan and Queens borough are 40%> along with 50%> in Queens and the Bronx. Is that a mistake because the Five boroughs are so democratic and have been throughout history and with non Hispanic white populations still staying in a minority and probably growing more so combined with a the city still containing loads of poor whites and minority's which would seem perfect ground for a Populist democratic party (the poorer working class would trend back to the democratic from say a high in the 2020s-2030s in trumpist republican politics as shown from democratic gains in the Midwest margin wise) i would assume it would either be a mistake or a error. Don't get me wrong, i would think a republican party like this would narrow the margins here big time due to moderates and wealthier folks coming home to there party (like pre-reagan) but i see that narrowly going only as far as 60-40% margins throughout the four boroughs minus Staten island with maybe 55-60% in Queens if the Republican is right and other factors are there.

Orleans County in New York seems out of place. It has only voted once for a Democrat and that was in 1964. It doesn't have any significant minority population (89% White plus White Hispanics) nor no democratic trend. If any thing as shown through its history, i think it would trend for a moderate republican party.

Why would Wisconsin be so much more republican then Michigan? At a national level, yes, Wisconsin is 1-3 points more, on average, more republican then Michigan but that maps shows Wisconsin something like a R+5-10 State while Michigan is much less so. Why would democrats gain here like in the rest of the rust belt and narrowly some of those western and eastern county's. Its already been questioned below but i cant see any way the republicans can make Madison a likely county for them. If any there best shoot is tossup up and they will gain post alignment margin wise but unless Madison College and city is suddenly populated by conservatives then i fail to see how republicans win. Even if the Suburbs in the county go here plus the outer rings of the city, the county would most likely still go democrat and by a fair 1-10 point margin.

[The Govanah Jake]

I see there has been a rebound for democrats in the industrial areas from 2016 in the Midwest (Specifically Ohio and Pennsylvania). They also are doing much better in the rural areas here and in the Northeast post-trump. Again i could easily mistake this for say a 1968 Election map which goes to show how this is more or less a return of normalcy to the New Deal Coalition except with more minority's as a factor and a little more rural and industrial appeal for republicans.

Also is Maine a democratic PVI? there. I see the democrats regained the northern county's there and industrial timber areas there which seems odd due to the fact that republicans are still winning those same types of areas big in the midwest in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and too a lesser extend in Ohio and Michigan.

Also i see Manhattan and Queens borough are 40%> along with 50%> in Queens and the Bronx. Is that a mistake because the Five boroughs are so democratic and have been throughout history and with non Hispanic white populations still staying in a minority and probably growing more so combined with a the city still containing loads of poor whites and minority's which would seem perfect ground for a Populist democratic party (the poorer working class would trend back to the democratic from say a high in the 2020s-2030s in trumpist republican politics as shown from democratic gains in the Midwest margin wise) i would assume it would either be a mistake or a error. Don't get me wrong, i would think a republican party like this would narrow the margins here big time due to moderates and wealthier folks coming home to there party (like pre-reagan) but i see that narrowly going only as far as 60-40% margins throughout the four boroughs minus Staten island with maybe 55-60% in Queens if the Republican is right and other factors are there.

Orleans County in New York seems out of place. It has only voted once for a Democrat and that was in 1964. It doesn't have any significant minority population (89% White plus White Hispanics) nor no democratic trend. If any thing as shown through its history, i think it would trend for a moderate republican party.

Why would Wisconsin be so much more republican then Michigan? At a national level, yes, Wisconsin is 1-3 points more, on average, more republican then Michigan but that maps shows Wisconsin something like a R+5-10 State while Michigan is much less so. Why would democrats gain here like in the rest of the rust belt and narrowly some of those western and eastern county's. Its already been questioned below but i cant see any way the republicans can make Madison a likely county for them. If any there best shoot is tossup up and they will gain post alignment margin wise but unless Madison College and city is suddenly populated by conservatives then i fail to see how republicans win. Even if the Suburbs in the county go here plus the outer rings of the city, the county would most likely still go democrat and by a fair 1-10 point margin.

Orleans County, NYC are mistakes. New York was one of the last states I added in the previous revisions. Orleans is just a misclick, NYC is overexaggeration of the democratic losses there.

Madison is >40% because it's a lean r county, although I could see the case for it being lean or likely d. What rating would you assign it?

Michigan is WAD, it has PPP closer to IN and OH than WI and MN. So is Maine, it's poorer than Minnesota and Wisconsin, lasted longer for dems in this alignment, and is closer to OH and MI

Politically, WI and MN are very similar to the interior plains in this alignment, even if more urban.

1. I figured.

2. I would rate it as a lean D due to Madison but it could just as well be a tossup due to everything else

Also waiting for the county returns from the upper south; probably the most interesting part of the rest of the map for me.

[The Govanah Jake]

I know Oklahoma would still have a republican PVI but i wonder how much due to Democrat gains in the Southeast (Which is nice and looks better then all republican all sweep of county's in present Oklahoma). Same with Virginia due to Republicans regained strength in the suburbs of the southeast and partially the north and center regions though that is in exchange for more rural and poor southwestern and south center county's. I assume it is either a small D PVI like a D-1/2 however it could just as well be a even one and possibly though unlikely a small R PVI of like D-.25-1%.

[The Govanah Jake]

I know Oklahoma would still have a republican PVI but i wonder how much due to Democrat gains in the Southeast (Which is nice and looks better then all republican all sweep of county's in present Oklahoma). Same with Virginia due to Republicans regained strength in the suburbs of the southeast and partially the north and center regions though that is in exchange for more rural and poor southwestern and south center county's. I assume it is either a small D PVI like a D-1/2 however it could just as well be a even one and possibly though unlikely a small R PVI of like D-.25-1%.

VA is a modestly republican state, R+1 to R+3

Yea i see that now. I didn't zoom in on NOVA when i said that. I now see that Fairfax is close and the Republicans win Alexandria and republicans are getting 60%< in some of those upper Virginian county's too. I assume this is do to wealthier suburbs of both white and minority stature coming home to the republican party post realignment. The same could be said in the Southeast and in the center regions where republicans retake the democratic gains there. How about Oklahoma though? I'm going to say anywhere from R+5/10 to R+15.

[The Govanah Jake]

I know Oklahoma would still have a republican PVI but i wonder how much due to Democrat gains in the Southeast (Which is nice and looks better then all republican all sweep of county's in present Oklahoma). Same with Virginia due to Republicans regained strength in the suburbs of the southeast and partially the north and center regions though that is in exchange for more rural and poor southwestern and south center county's. I assume it is either a small D PVI like a D-1/2 however it could just as well be a even one and possibly though unlikely a small R PVI of like D-.25-1%.

VA is a modestly republican state, R+1 to R+3

Yea i see that now. I didn't zoom in on NOVA when i said that. I now see that Fairfax is close and the Republicans win Alexandria and republicans are getting 60%< in some of those upper Virginian county's too. I assume this is do to wealthier suburbs of both white and minority stature coming home to the republican party post realignment. The same could be said in the Southeast and in the center regions where republicans retake the democratic gains there. How about Oklahoma though? I'm going to say anywhere from R+5/10 to R+15.

For the record, that map isn't 100% literal.My system is is

>40%=tilt/lean
>50%=likely
>60%=safe

I'd imagine that a lot of safe counties might be in the upper 50s in actual vote %, for example.

Oh I know. All I'm noting is in some northern Virginia counties I could see in some of those safe republican 60% and more for the republican nominee whomever that may be on average. Also I find it strange how they would lose Prince Williams County in this scenario. It seems perfect for this Republican Party: College Educated, Surburban, Filled with Wealthier Minority's and Whites.

[The Govanah Jake]

Beautiful Titanium D Georgia

[The Govanah Jake]

Ah East Kentucky. How it's suppose to be!

[The Govanah Jake]

How easy would it be to do Puerto Rico? In a Dem alignment I could see it becoming a state.

Also, why is the Appalachian region of Ohio that much more Republican than the Appalachian region in Kentucky and Tennessee?

A municipal map of post realignment Puerto Rico would be very interesting.

[The Govanah Jake]

Anyone know what happened to TD?

I think he's avoiding Atlas for some reason or another. He's on pretty active in the discord.

There's an Atlas discord?

Yea
https://discordapp.com/invite/CSkybsh

[The Govanah Jake]

Sorry for being MIA, guys. I had some personal business to work out requiring me to take a sabbatical from Atlas to handle them. Then life kind of happened and I have to deal with full time school, plus a full time job, and a new place and assorted various things. So yeah, I haven't had the time to devote to this as I did in the past.

Maybe next year, I might do more stuff here but right now, I don't really have that much time. I am on Discord, where I annoy Technocratic Timmy unduly and the walrus. I am really proud of what they've done regarding the work in BTM, especially walrus. You guys have done a fantastic job building on BTM.

And yes, I know North Korea has been in the news with increased speculation about a military strike. Yes, I know the timeline predicts Trump to order a military strike on North Korea tomorrow. I'm painfully aware.

I appreciate the overall concern though.

Ayyy

The God has returned to us.

[The Govanah Jake]

All is going to plan...

[The Govanah Jake]

Well, the GOP IS completely crippled, at least for a while. However, nothing last forever in American party politics

Yea, that gets me thinking what a hypothetical realignment between both party's would occur after this alignment. Say it would occur in the 2050s - Late 2070s