Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => International What-ifs => Topic started by: Hash on July 21, 2009, 03:11:54 PM



Title: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on July 21, 2009, 03:11:54 PM
What's interesting is to simulate how the US would vote with French political parties. I know that American politics are as unique to the US and French politics are to France, but it's an interesting exercise and of course, all US simulations with more than two parties are much fun.

Which is what I'll try to do. Simulate, say, the 2007 presidential results in the United States without changing any major from French parties.

First problem, the UDF. The UDF is, at its base, a Catholic-Christian democratic party. Obviously, the US is one of the last countries where a Christian democratic party could develop. Still, the UDF had the PR (neoliberals) and the PRV (middle-class bourgeois seculars), but its vote represented more the implantation of Catholicism than it did that of neoliberalism. I will simulate the UDF as it was, though with Bayrou's latest discourse, that of radical centrism and moderate social liberalism.

The UMP can be kept as is, intact. It is obviously much less socially conservative than the Republican Party.

The MPF, renamed MPA, will potentially play a greater role due to its social conservatism (imagining that de Villiers was a Evangelical right rather than Catholic right man) and also its moderate protectionist attitudes.

The FN will kept as is, obviously, potentially placing more emphasis on its social conservatism. And its Pieds-Noirs base will be replaced by something else, you'll see.

The Socialists can be kept intact, though more social democratic. Of course, if the US *did* have French parties, then socialism wouldn't be as much of a swearword as it is today. And as you'll see, there is plenty of room in the US for a social democratic party.

The Greens will play a role, though they'll be less hippie.

PCF less relevant, though more moderate.

CPNT, LO-LCR, MNR and all others are not relevant, even less so than in France.

And I don't want stupid ideological hackish debates or anything of the like in this. It's a fun project.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on July 21, 2009, 04:37:03 PM
And what about DLR ?

It would have a role to play and not a marginal one, mutatis mutandis:
almost nationalist, protectionist, a bit "monroeist", some notes of "social-populism".

Villiers isn't enough to take the place of GOP's diverse right wing.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on July 21, 2009, 06:32:56 PM
And what about DLR ?

It would have a role to play and not a marginal one, mutatis mutandis:
almost nationalist, protectionist, a bit "monroeist", some notes of "social-populism".

Villiers isn't enough to take the place of GOP's diverse right wing.

Gaullism would undoubtedly play well in some parts of the United States, and I've already figured out a number of those places.

Of course, I never meant to suggest that the MPF-type party would be the sole to take the place of the Republican Party's right wing.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 22, 2009, 05:36:28 PM
Very interesting topic. It seems very complicated to determine the strength of each french party, but I would try to give my opinion. This analysis is based on the assumption that the US have an electoral system permitting a more than two parties system.

NPA, LO : Very marginal. Would actract neither the ecolo-liberal activist who voted for Nader, nor the traditionnal working class. In fact, they would rapidly turn into sectarian movements...

PCF : A very small attractivity on workers, no more than 1% of votes.

Greens : This would be the only party of the french hard left that has a chance to play a part in American politics. This would almost correspond to Nader's 2000 voters, I would say about 5%.

PS : would be really strong only outside the deep South and the West. Could be the second major party in the New England and the third in liberal-moderate states. Marginal in other states. Almost 10%.

UDF, MoDem : Would be one of the major parties, getting solid majorities in New England and in the West Coast. Could be also strrong in Northeast and Midwest, but absoultely not in the South. It would almost correspond to the progressive wing of the Democratic party, and get something like 25%.

UMP : Would be considered as a centrist party, and would gather the most moderate members of the GOP and the dems ( from Bill Clinton to John McCain 2000-version ). Reciprocally, the right wing of the UMP ( Sarkozy, Boutin... ) would be moderate republicans and the left wing ( the Chiraquians ) moderate democrats. As a result, it would be a dominant political party, strong anywhere outside the New England and the Deep South. I would see in getting something like 30% of the votes.

MPF : would be far stronger in US, gathering the majority of the conservative wing of the GOP, and so be a political force in the South and in states like UT, ID and WY. The social conservatives would have their party, getting at least 25%

FN : The traditionnal far-rightist movement in France would not be as strong as in France, and I see it as a marginal party in the US. It couldn't get more than 2%.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 22, 2009, 06:09:14 PM
As for the 2007 presdential election, here are two scenarioes, based on these initial results :
Nicholas Sarkozy : 39%
Philip Villers : 22%
Francis Bayroo : 20%
Ségolène [could not find a traduction] Royal : 7%
Dominique Voynet : 6%
John M. Penn : 1%
Mary-George Buffet : 1%
Others : 3%

Sarkozy would be a perfect candidate for UMP, getting many conservative votes. At the same time, Bayroo would be considere as too liberal and realize a very bad performance. As for Royal, his pointless campaign would ruin any chances for the PS to become a major party.


Now, we have two possible scenarioes : either the electoral system used is the french one, or it's the American one.

In the first case, we'd have an Sarkozy-Villers 2nd round. The leftist voters, who had failed to get a candidate, would haf abstain, refuing to chose between "bonnet blanc and blanc bonnet", half reluctantly vote for Sarko, to avoid the threat of Villers :
Sarkozy : 63%
Villers : 37%

In the second case, here's what the electoral map could look like :

(
)

Sarkozy : 357
Villers : 92
Bayroo : 89

Closest states :
- Texas : narrow win of Sarkozy against Villers because of his anti-immigration stances that pleases the american natives here.
- New York : Bayroo's loss in a so progressive state show his being a really bad choice for UDF, though the addition of PS, UDF and green vote would be majoritary.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on July 22, 2009, 06:39:33 PM
Let's start.

This post will be revised upon completion of the project

Maine

The north has a populist feel to it and is more working-class, from what I gather, so it would generally vote Socialist. The UDF could carry Aroostook, though the Socialists would do well there too. The UMP wins rural areas, potato country, and wealthy areas on the coast. The Greens are quite strong along the coast and in Portland, and would have probably come second in the 2009 'Euro' elections (presumably a North-Central American Parliament here!). Portland would probably be PS now, though right-wing in the past.

Overall: Lean UMP, and Sarkozy would have carried in 2007.

New Hampshire

The UMP is strong in wealthy communities with a strong number of Boston emigres and what's left of rural NH. The Socialists would win communities developed on the textile industry. Coos County is a UDF stronghold, though with a rising PS.

Overall: Lean UMP, and Sarkozy would have carried in 2007.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on July 24, 2009, 06:10:39 AM
Fine.
Do you intend to give us an overall trend for each State ?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on July 24, 2009, 05:25:45 PM
Fine.
Do you intend to give us an overall trend for each State ?

Ah, yes. That. Anyways, nice to see interest in this project.

This post will be revised upon completion of the project

Vermont

A hard state to pin down in terms of French parties. Vermont is rather homogeneous (very muchso in terms of race, less so in terms of ethnic origins nowadays). It has a strong independent, slightly libertarian streak, which makes it hard to pin down in the 3rd and 4th Republic eras. It would probably have been a ARD stronghold during the Third Republic, though the Radicals would have polled well and it would have been a Republican strongholds in the 1870s-1880s. In the Fourth Republic era, it would likely have been a strong state for the CNI, Radicals and perhaps the MRP. That being said, the old SFIO, with its rural anti-centralist appeal, would have always had a base in Vermont though I doubt the Programme Commun would have helped the PS in 1973-1981. The right's shift to the harder right and Sarkozyst sabre-rattling on immigration and other issues of that type and the PS' gains with middle-class white voters would have given the PS the edge starting in 1988 and solidifying throughout the 90s and the 2000s.

Overall: Would have certainly voted heavily (60+) for Royal in 2007, with the right registering a big swing against her in 2007. While there's room for local UMP strength even today, Vermont would be solidly PS in 2010-2012.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts, due to its very high percentage of Catholics, would have been a UDF stronghold. The UDF would have been strong quasi-universally, taking Irish voters in Boston, rural voters, and working-class voters. Nowadays, the UDF's strength is much reduced, maybe 30-35% for Bayrou in 2007, concentrated in solidly UDF rural MA. The UMP wins in affluent Boston suburbia and affluent coastal communities in Cape Cod and so forth. The Socialists would have gained a ground in minority areas (Boston, mostly. Probably gained the local govt from the UDF-CDS in 1989 or so) and in liberal areas. It's actually a tricky state to work with.

My estimate for CDs gives the UDF 4, the PS 4 and the UMP 2.

Overall: Bayrou's voters in the first round vote Socialist in the runoff by a decent margin, giving Royal an important margin here in the runoff.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on July 24, 2009, 06:18:14 PM
Fine.
Do you intend to give us an overall trend for each State ?

Ah, yes. That. Anyways, nice to see interest in this project.


I've understood that's not your aim, of course, but in states as Vermont or Idaho, I'm not a great specialist in local strongholds or fighting areas, so I wouldn't be able to discuss in details, hence an overall trend.

But in Ohio, PA, FA, CO or Missouri, I will grasp even the local details ;) .


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on July 24, 2009, 06:25:29 PM

Vermont

A hard state to pin down in terms of French parties. It would probably have been a ARD stronghold during the Third Republic and later a CNI (or RGR) stronghold. The influx of liberals from New England and the CNI's move to the right would have shifted the state to the Socialists - though liberal progressive 'champagne' socialists and not working-class socialists. The PRG (if they bothered to run candidates) and, in particular the Greens do very well, and the Greens would probably have won the state in 2009. The UMP is limited to very wealthy communities and maybe Essex County. The UDF-CDS would have done well in the Catholic areas in the past, but would be a non-factor now obviously.

Overall: One of Royal's best states in the runoff. Voynet's best state in the first round (5-6% vs. 1% nationwide) and Mamere would have done very well (10-13%). Perhaps Sarkozy's worst state, and Royal mightve broken 40% here in the first round.
Cohn-Bendit (let's say he'd have 2 nationalities, Canadian -but from where ?- and American) would be cherished in Vermont.


Massachusetts

Massachusetts, due to its very high percentage of Catholics, would have been a UDF stronghold. The UDF would have been strong quasi-universally, taking Irish voters in Boston, rural voters, and working-class voters. Nowadays, the UDF's strength is much reduced, maybe 25-30% for Bayrou in 2007. The UMP wins in affluent Boston suburbia and affluent coastal communities in Cape Cod and so forth. The Socialists would have gained a lot of ground in Catholic working class territory, and even 'champagne' type socialism. Greenies also do well in liberal yuppie land, wherever that may be.

Overall: Bayrou's voters in the first round vote Socialist in the runoff by a large margin, giving Royal a very big margin here in the runoff.


Don't you think on the contrary that MoDem would do better than the UDF, preventing the PS to rise in MA ? And would be on par with UMP in Boston suburbs (but not in Cape Cod and the coast, though).


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on July 24, 2009, 09:08:15 PM

Massachusetts

Massachusetts, due to its very high percentage of Catholics, would have been a UDF stronghold. The UDF would have been strong quasi-universally, taking Irish voters in Boston, rural voters, and working-class voters. Nowadays, the UDF's strength is much reduced, maybe 25-30% for Bayrou in 2007. The UMP wins in affluent Boston suburbia and affluent coastal communities in Cape Cod and so forth. The Socialists would have gained a lot of ground in Catholic working class territory, and even 'champagne' type socialism. Greenies also do well in liberal yuppie land, wherever that may be.

Overall: Bayrou's voters in the first round vote Socialist in the runoff by a large margin, giving Royal a very big margin here in the runoff.


Don't you think on the contrary that MoDem would do better than the UDF, preventing the PS to rise in MA ? And would be on par with UMP in Boston suburbs (but not in Cape Cod and the coast, though).

Not really, though you're right the UDF would be stronger in the Boston suburbia - quite Catholic areas, though they would be hurt by the big fall in church attendance in MA.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on July 25, 2009, 04:45:45 PM
This post will be revised upon completion of the project

Rhode Island

Catholic working-class stronghold. Would have been a UDF stronghold for a long time, though with decline in church attendance, you would see the Socialists making some important gains and UDF voters would be more likely to vote for Socialists in runoffs after, say, 1980 or 1984. The UMP is limited to some very wealthy towns and that's it.

Overall: Royal would have won the runoff in 2007, and Bayrou would have won the state in the first round.

Connecticut

Would be an important swing state. The UMP does well in wealthy New York suburbia and other wealthy places, the PS does well in inner city Hartford (minorities) and also surrounding areas which used to be industrial textile towns. Also does well in Bridgeport, obviously. The UDF would be worth around 15-25% depending on the election and would be relatively stable and geographically equally distributed. Greens do well in Litchfield etc.

Overall: Sarkozy narrowly wins in 2007.

Here's how I see it up to now in the 2007 runoff:

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Lief 🗽 on July 31, 2009, 04:06:18 AM
Please continue this. Southern states should be interesting.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on July 31, 2009, 04:18:06 AM
Please continue this. Southern states should be interesting.
Yeah !
Great Plains and Rocky Mountains also ! And OH, IN, MI, PA...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 31, 2009, 10:46:14 AM
Please continue this. Southern states should be interesting.

Not really : MPF strongholds.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on July 31, 2009, 10:55:07 AM
Please continue this. Southern states should be interesting.

Not really : MPF strongholds.

Wait and see, please.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 31, 2009, 12:32:26 PM
Please continue this. Southern states should be interesting.

Not really : MPF strongholds.

The US isn't as right-wing as you think.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 31, 2009, 05:08:46 PM
Please continue this. Southern states should be interesting.

Not really : MPF strongholds.

The US isn't as right-wing as you think.

The US no, the South yes.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 01, 2009, 01:18:45 PM
This post will be revised upon completion of the project

New York

An interesting state... let's break it down by region:

New York City proper (the 5 boroughs)

NYC would probably be a reliably Socialist city and I see the Socialist local administration in NYC being very similar to the (in)famous Socialist administrations in Marseille (you know, the deals with the mafia).

PS probably breaks 60% by the first round in black areas and would have gotten a sizeable share of the middle-class vote, obviously. Manhattan's West Side and NY-8 is Bobo land and there's a big gay community, though the UMP would have gotten a 9/11 boost (presumably, depending on the storyline this adopts) and they would get the Jewish vote. NY-8 is also the FN's best district and the UMP does well in the Brooklyn parts of it (Bensonhurst, Borough Park). The 1997 runoff in NY-8 would have been PS-FN, maybe the RPR makes it in.

CDs like 15, 16 - poor Hispanic (Catholic) areas could be especially interesting. They would probably have been solid UDF-CDS in the distant past (16 especially, not 15, it used to be black-land), but I get the impression that they would vote PS due to the UDF's alliance with the mainstream right and because it's very low-income. Plus, they would probably have been the top target of the Socialist machine and there's also a significant black  I could see legislative runoffs in CDs like 

The UMP would be strong in the affluent parts of Manhattan (Upper East Side) and Queens (I think NY-5 would actually be UMP), the Brooklyn parts of NY-8 (see above. Sarkozy would have done very well for a right-wing candidate there), NY-9 (a lean UMP district, quite safe. Also a large UDF vote in the Irish areas - Breezy Point) and Staten Island (see below). CD-14 and that area would have been UMP land until very recently, but it would have switched Socialist (champagne socialist) in 2007 probably - it reminds me of that very wealthy professional Grenoble district which elected a Socialist in 2007.

You could see a rump FN vote in some areas in Brooklyn (think those areas which swung from Kerry to McCain in '08), concentrated in Orthodox Jewish areas.

I'm not a specialist on Staten Island, but I have the feel it could be interesting. Probably UMP nationally and even locally where the UMP would lead the law-and-order campaign which, IIRC, works well there. The Socialists are of course strong with African-Americans (though it's a small base), and depending on the candidate and the year, they do well with white working-class voters. Staten Island is a big Italian place, very Catholic, but I think the UDF would do rather poorly compared to other Catholic areas, being too moderate socially and the right's law-and-order stuff would work well. Also, probably one of the only areas in the regions where the MPF is semi-relevant (as opposed to being a complete joke).

Congressional districts 2007:

All Socialist except: 4, 5, 9, 13 (UMP)

Outer Long Island

Ultra-solid UMP strongholds. Think Neuilly-sur-Seine, Saint-Cloud and so forth. The Socialists are 'strong' (relative term) in the poorer areas and black parts of NY-4 (which is also NYC, whatever, sue me), the unionized areas of the 3rd, the 2nd (the least solid of the UMP districts). Still ultra-safe UMP, overall. FN polls okayish.

NYC suburbia

Generally solid UMP, but the Socialists would always have had some strength in what working class/racial minority enclaves there are. Since I seem to analyzing by CD an awful lot, the 17th through 19th are UMP, 18 and 19 being solid UMP and the 17th less so due to it including black parts of the Bronx (solidly PS).

Upstate

Overall, lean UMP area. Agricultural areas and white-collar wealthy suburbs of various cities are obviously UMP, while the PS would have a relatively solid base in the manufacturing-dependent areas in Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, Troy and also poll well in places like Ithaca (Cornell U). The Socialists would hold, quite narrowly, the 25th and 27th though I suppose they would have gained the 27th in 2007 after losing it in 2002. The 28th, of course, is Socialist country.

OVERALL, New York would have voted Royal narrowly in 2007, because Sarkozy would have been a rather poor candidate Upstate (though better in Brooklyn etc). I would say, however, by my estimate, that 15 of the CDs are UMP-held.

(
)

MA write-up has been revised, btw.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 01, 2009, 04:36:55 PM
A very, very fine post on NY !
I really look forward to reading PA, OH, IN, MI, etc, almost everything in fact (except maybe the West coast) !

Just 2 questions:

- don't you think that in Harlem and some parts of Bronx, the PCF would have some good results ?
I mean, the PCF of feudalties, of clans, of "families", as in Bouches-du-Rhône or in Valenciennois.

- in rural upstate, don't you think the MPF would have up to 10-12%, wouldn't be only a "complete joke" ?
Those agricultural areas, very traditional but quite economically modern (IIRC), might behave along the inner Vendee line.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 01, 2009, 04:41:31 PM
- don't you think that in Harlem and some parts of Bronx, the PCF would have some good results ?
I mean, the PCF of feudalties, of clans, of "families", as in Bouches-du-Rhône or in Valenciennois.

Yeah, you make a good point which I conveniently forgot ;) It all depends on the PCF candidate, o/c.

Quote
- in rural upstate, don't you think the MPF would have up to 10-12%, wouldn't be only a "complete joke" ?

The agricultural areas upstate are either quite Catholic (remember, the MPF is an evangelical Protestant party here) or Yankee Republicans. Doesn't strike me as socially conservative and evangelical conservatism doesn't seem to play well.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 01, 2009, 04:55:32 PM
Quote
- in rural upstate, don't you think the MPF would have up to 10-12%, wouldn't be only a "complete joke" ?

The agricultural areas upstate are either quite Catholic (remember, the MPF is an evangelical Protestant party here) or Yankee Republicans. Doesn't strike me as socially conservative and evangelical conservatism doesn't seem to play well.
Oops, sorry.
So, forget this second question.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 01, 2009, 07:43:52 PM
New Jersey

A UMP stronghold, surprisingly. The UMP does best in rural areas, the affluent NYC suburbia (and suburbia in general, few exceptions o/c) and the wealthy coastal communities. The PS would be rather confined to Newark, Camden, parts of Atlantic City, Paterson, Trenton and various towns with an industrial tradition.

The PCF would do well in Essex County's working-class and minority population areas. NJ-10 is probably a Communist-held seat!

As in New York City proper, the Hispanic Catholic population in Hudson County, despite the apperances, would probably have been the target of Socialist machines (Newark would of course be a PS stronghold municipally) in the past and would vote Socialist, though not so much PCF - though I imagine Hudson County electing PCF deputies in the '50's or so. Maybe.

The FN polls well in Camden and the crime-ridden cities. I imagine a number of cantons in Camden, Newark would have been PCF-FN or PS-FN runoffs in the past, less so now.

Overall: One of Sarkozy's best states in 2007, but doesn't break 60%. One of the FN's worst results in memory.

Delaware

The UMP does well in Dover and Wilmington suburbia and wealthier inner-city areas if such things exists, as well as all the rural areas of the state. Overall, this gives DE a narrow UMP lean but the Socialists are a sizeable electorate with strength in inner-city Wilmington and Dover, cities that either have a union tradition or industrial tradition (plus a small but important minority population). The PS probably would have won the seat in 1997.

Overall: Sarkozy does surprisingly well for a rightist in a state which is quite polarized electorally, probably due to gains in old blue-collar areas.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 02, 2009, 08:18:19 AM
Very good analysis.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 02, 2009, 12:56:20 PM
Sure, difficult to put some UDF or MoDem in NJ and DE.

What is fine in your topic is that, apart from the West Coast, it is finer and finer (as New England is too "European" in a sense...).


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 02, 2009, 07:16:22 PM
Pennsylvania

An interesting state... let's break it down by region:

Philadelphia City

Hardcore Socialist city, in Communist hands until the '70's or so. The Socialists strong quasi-universally, especially in industrial areas and minority areas (here too, the Hispanics would have entered the very powerful PS-PCF machine). The UDF would be the second party, probably, strong in what remains of inner-city Irish and Italian neighborhoods in Philly. The UMP would limited to 'wealthy' areas in the city limits, though that would be a very weak base and probably wouldn't even win that. The 1st and 2nd are very safe left-wing seats, with the PCF probably holding or having held in the recent past the 1st.

Philadelphia suburbia

Swing region between Socialists and UMP-UDF, though the gentrification of the Socialists would be particularly pronounced here. While in, say, 1978 or 1988, the suburbia would have been mostly UDF-RPR, today it would lean Socialist. The UMP remains strong in rural and white-collar (white) wealthier suburbia, the UDF is the main right-wing party in Italian Catholic areas (mostly the 7th). The Socialists would have made gains in the middle-class suburbia in addition to their traditional base in blue-collar areas (Coatesville, Delaware County municipalities close to the river and Philly proper, old steel communities in Bucks County).

Good ol' PA-13 would be a real swing district in our scenario, with a narrow Socialist advantage, but most of the inner suburban constituencies would be swing districts with the PS sweeping them up (possibly) in a year like 1997 and the right (UMP, UDF or RPR) sweeping them up in a year like 1993 or 2002.

Exurbs are strongly UMP with the MPF doing very well too (especially in the batsh**t crazy Dutch areas - probably holds the 16th district). The Socialists would manage to get into runoffs due to Reading, though the UDF does well in Reading too (Hispanic Catholic pop)

Lehigh Valley

Generally working-class industrial area, so Socialist advantage, but with a social conservative lean means that the MPF is also strong and takes a fair share of Socialists votes, though the PS wins here, provided their candidate is more socially conservative and isn't an inner-city liberal.

Sarkozy is a great candidate for the Lehigh Valley. Le Pen also probably did well here since 1988 or so, or whenever industrial areas declined.

Rural Pennsylvania

Strongly UMP areas, though not so much MPF as it doesn't strike me as batsh**t insane socially conservative areas like Dutch Country does. In terms of districts, the 9th is one of the UMP's safest seats nationally, but the 5th is much more competitive. The UDF is very strong in Elk County (Catholic enclave) and the Socialists have residue strength in Centre County (students) and some manufacturing enclaves in a district which is still very blue-collar.

Coal Country

Strongly Socialist working-class areas with a very weakened PCF still somewhat relevant. Somewhat socially conservative, so the MPF is a definite factor in this region. Rural regions in the Poconos are more UMP and the UMP does well in new New York City/Philly exurbs, though the MPF is also strong and the Socialists can win districts like the 10th in landslide victories nationally.

Monongahela and Alleghany Coalfields

Socialist stronghold, though the FN would have done well in areas hurt by the decline of coal mining and heavy industry. UMP stronger in areas where there has been gentrification and post-recession economic development.

Pittsburgh and suburbia

Generally Socialist-leaning city, since I suppose the Irish Catholic working-class would be more likely to vote left-wing due to strong unionization here. The UDF, though, is the second party here and the UMP is basically a non-factor here. Communists weak due to high Catholic tradition here. The FN probably does relatively well.

UMP and of course the MPF, however, are strong in socially conservative Pittsburgh suburbia, and the MPF probably holds the 18th district.

In terms of districts, it's pretty straightforward, with the 4th being the only real swing district. Historically Socialist land, do to steel mills and industrial Mercer County, the UMP is a relevant force in newer white-collar and wealthy Pittsburgh suburbia.

Erie

Erie County itself is obviously a Socialist stronghold, due to an industrial and minority history. The suburbs and surrounding rural areas are obviously UMP.

OVERALL, Sarkozy probably narrowly wins the state in 2007 with a very good result for the right (Jospin probably won here in 1995, Mitterrand obviously won in 1988) due to inroads in blue-collar conservative Lehigh Valley and western PA industrial area/the coalfield. PA remains, of course, a major swing state and a crucial state in any election.

(
)



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 03, 2009, 05:49:13 AM
YEAH ! Just YEAH !


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 03, 2009, 05:53:02 AM

Thanks!


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 03, 2009, 06:40:39 AM
Are you planning to do some county maps ? It would be really great. :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 03, 2009, 08:21:15 AM
Are you planning to do some county maps ? It would be really great. :)
Great, of course... But maybe our Hash need to... live, just live, apart from posting in here ?!?

Do you realize the HUGE amount of work and time to make those maps (and that's not just a Dem/GOP one where, more or else, when you've made one, youve made the other one) ?

Try to be happy with what we already have, which is very, very fine.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 03, 2009, 01:04:53 PM
Are you planning to do some county maps ? It would be really great. :)
Great, of course... But maybe our Hash need to... live, just live, apart from posting in here ?!?

Do you realize the HUGE amount of work and time to make those maps (and that's not just a Dem/GOP one where, more or else, when you've made one, youve made the other one) ?

Try to be happy with what we already have, which is very, very fine.

You're right, but I was just speaking about some summary and imprecise maps to figure what he has written about the diffierent regions in a state.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 04, 2009, 08:33:35 AM
Maryland

Maryland would have been old RadSoc land in the past, though mostly of right-wing stock, meaning that it would currently lean UMP as a whole. The Eastern Shore would now be UMP, after having been the base of the Radicals in the past. And western MD would be generally UMP except for maybe what remains of manufacturing and industry in places like Allegany County and maybe some suburban areas.

Baltimore City would, however, be a PS stronghold due to minorities and its higher poverty rate, though Baltimore County (the suburbia) would be UMP strongholds: old wealthy suburban communities with some Jewish communities (Jews, moderate ones, would vote UMP strongly) and communities with national defense concerns.

What is interesting is that the UMP would still maintain a good share of the middle-class and more well-off black vote in places like Baltimore suburbia (and even some parts of the city) and Prince George County. However, the gentrification of the PS and its suburban growth would have made big inroads into this relatively volatile right-wing demographic.

What is also interesting is that many CDs I would classify to be 'swing' districts, meaning that you could have a very lopsided margin for either left or right in a landslide year. For example, the right could have been reduced to 1 or 2 seats in 1997.

OVERALL, Sarkozy does average for a UMP candidate with, say, around 52-53% of the vote.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 04, 2009, 09:20:46 AM
West Virginia

Socialist stronghold, predictably enough, and probably Mitterrand's old electoral base. The UMP might poll well in wealthier urban centres, growing DC suburbia and rural places not influenced by heavy industry and coal mining. However, it's likely the MPF is the largest right-wing party, especially in mining areas.

Overall: Royal's best state in the runoff.

(
)



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 04, 2009, 09:27:54 AM
West Virginia

Socialist stronghold, predictably enough, and probably Mitterrand's old electoral base. The UMP might poll well in wealthier urban centres, growing DC suburbia and rural places not influenced by heavy industry and coal mining. However, it's likely the MPF is the largest right-wing party, especially in mining areas.

Overall: Royal's best state in the runoff.

(
)



I tend to disagree with this one. I couldn't see the PS even close to be competitive in a so socially conservatve state. Even if WV is quite economically liberal, it wouldn't be enough to vote for PS.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 04, 2009, 09:39:58 AM
West Virginia

Socialist stronghold, predictably enough, and probably Mitterrand's old electoral base. The UMP might poll well in wealthier urban centres, growing DC suburbia and rural places not influenced by heavy industry and coal mining. However, it's likely the MPF is the largest right-wing party, especially in mining areas.

Overall: Royal's best state in the runoff.

(
)



I tend to disagree with this one. I couldn't see the PS even close to be competitive in a so socially conservatve state. Even if WV is quite economically liberal, it wouldn't be enough to vote for PS.

Anybody would disagree with your assessment. Anybody would tell you that WV is a stronghold for any left-wing social democratic party. Ask Al, afleitch, Alcon, anybody.

(on a side not, economics far outweigh societal junk in WV)

And please stop using the term 'economically liberal'.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 04, 2009, 10:21:47 AM
Anybody would disagree with your assessment. Anybody would tell you that WV is a stronghold for any left-wing social democratic party. Ask Al, afleitch, anybody.

Let's see.
Barack Obama, who can be considered as moderately leftist on economic issues and clearly progressive on social issues, was running against John McCain, who led a conservative campaign on economic issues but was quite moderate ( for the GOP standards at least ) on social issues. McCain killed Obama with a 13-points edge ( 20 points if we correct with the national margin ). So, what do you think that would happen with french political parties, which one is more or less social-democratic but also socially progressive ( how do you think WVers viewed things like the PACS ? ), and the other is, I would say, a bit less ridiculously conservative economically and socially moderate. Do you really think being "social-democratic" would be enough for a party like PS to win the State ? Maybe Al and afleithc agree with you, but that isn't enough to convince me.


Quote
And please stop using the term 'economically liberal'.

In this situation, I agree that it wasn't at all appropriate. But I don't think the french notion of "liberalism" is really more correct than american one. Both are uncorrec, I did a long post once to explain that, but I'm too lazy to search it. I'll try not to use this term in this kind of situations.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 04, 2009, 10:25:19 AM
Anybody would disagree with your assessment. Anybody would tell you that WV is a stronghold for any left-wing social democratic party. Ask Al, afleitch, anybody.

Let's see.
Barack Obama, who can be considered as moderately leftist on economic issues and clearly progressive on social issues, was running against John McCain, who led a conservative campaign on economic issues but was quite moderate ( for the GOP standards at least ) on social issues. McCain killed Obama with a 13-points edge ( 20 points if we correct with the national margin ). So, what do you think that would happen with french political parties, which one is more or less social-democratic but also socially progressive ( how do you think WVers viewed things like the PACS ? ), and the other is, I would say, a bit less ridiculously conservative economically and socially moderate. Do you really think being "social-democratic" would be enough for a party like PS to win the State ? Maybe Al and afleithc agree with you, but that isn't enough to convince me.

Obama is a black inner city liberal.

Anyways, if you don't like my assessment, do your own. I frankly don't feel the need to convince anybody about this, nor do I feel the need to enter ideological debates for something designed to be a bit of fun.

Nobody is forcing you to agree with my assessment. It's my assessment, and I do what I please with it and what I think is right. If you don't like it, I'm not forcing you to like it or even read it if it's so woefully inaccurate. Please.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 04, 2009, 10:39:30 AM
Anybody would disagree with your assessment. Anybody would tell you that WV is a stronghold for any left-wing social democratic party. Ask Al, afleitch, anybody.

Let's see.
Barack Obama, who can be considered as moderately leftist on economic issues and clearly progressive on social issues, was running against John McCain, who led a conservative campaign on economic issues but was quite moderate ( for the GOP standards at least ) on social issues. McCain killed Obama with a 13-points edge ( 20 points if we correct with the national margin ). So, what do you think that would happen with french political parties, which one is more or less social-democratic but also socially progressive ( how do you think WVers viewed things like the PACS ? ), and the other is, I would say, a bit less ridiculously conservative economically and socially moderate. Do you really think being "social-democratic" would be enough for a party like PS to win the State ? Maybe Al and afleithc agree with you, but that isn't enough to convince me.

Obama is a black inner city liberal.

Anyways, if you don't like my assessment, do your own. Nobody is forcing you to agree with my assessment. It's my assessment, and I do what I please with it and what I think is right. If you don't like it, I'm not forcing you to like it or even read it if it's so woefully inaccurate. Please.


Could I ask you why you are getting so harsh ? I was just giving my opinion about your assessment, that I found very good for other states. What's wrong with that ? That was neither a personal critic nor a mark of contempt for your very good and interesting work.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 04, 2009, 10:46:46 AM
Could I ask you why you are getting so harsh ?

Because I'm cranky and because you're taking this as if it was something real.

I frankly don't really care if you disagree with my assessment, since this is all supposed to be a fun project for me and readers. And I already warned about a number of things like this in my OP

WV is Socialist and it will remain such until I die.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 04, 2009, 01:29:40 PM
Could I ask you why you are getting so harsh ?

Because I'm cranky and because you're taking this as if it was something real.

I frankly don't really care if you disagree with my assessment, since this is all supposed to be a fun project for me and readers. And I already warned about a number of things like this in my OP

WV is Socialist and it will remain such until I die.

Excuse me, I thought the purpose of a forum was to discuss and confront different points of view about a certain argument. But you apparently don't appreciate opinions that disagree with your own analysis.
As you prefer.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 04, 2009, 03:37:34 PM
Could I ask you why you are getting so harsh ?

Because I'm cranky and because you're taking this as if it was something real.

I frankly don't really care if you disagree with my assessment, since this is all supposed to be a fun project for me and readers. And I already warned about a number of things like this in my OP

WV is Socialist and it will remain such until I die.
:D
This simple sentence in the end made me laugh !! Fine after a hard day...

Anyway, couldn't we compare WV with a mix of Allier and Puy-de-Dôme ?
Or Pas-de-Calais, with rural areas heavily with the traditional right, but an overall situation heavily to the left because of old industrial and mining areas.

Maybe even a bit of FN in WV: I mean, some areas with, on the right, MPF first, FN second, UMP third !

Oh, it makes me think that, even better than the overall map (er, sorry for having pushed for it, and not having thought about this first),
a national map for each of the 7 big parties, not at all with real results or percentages, but just a distribution between "strongholds", "solid areas", "so so", weak areas", "zero zones", would be very fine.
In the end, of course, and if you have time ;)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 04, 2009, 05:03:00 PM
Virginia

NoVA

A swing region, since recently, between the UMP and Socialists. The Socialists poll well in Alexandria and Arlington, and that since quite some years (I'm not sure if this would have been RadSoc land in the past, probably not) and places with a high minority population. The UMP would poll well in the NoVA exurbs, the uber-rich parts and rural areas that extend to the WV border. Though a candidate like Sarkozy is crap for NoVA and there's the eternal gentrification of the PS...

The Greens sweep NoVA in the 2009 'Euros'

Shenandoah Valley

UMP stronghold. Socialists poll well in slightly more blue-collar and unionized Roanoke, and that's it. Roanoke suburbia, though, is uber-UMP.

Southwest VA

Socialist stronghold in mining country. The MPF would poll well, probably making it the second force here after the PS. The FN is also strong, UMP less so and based mostly in Roanoke exurbs and rural counties.

Southside VA

Would have been a Socialist place for a long time, but the growing progressivism and strong religious practice here would have turned it to the MPF, though the black areas in Emporia County, Brunswick County and so forth would be PS strongholds.

Hampton Roads

The Socialists are strong in Norfolk, which is poorer and has a higher minority population, and also in shipbuilding areas in Newport News, Hampton and also Norfolk. The UMP does well in military areas, Virginia Beach and the peninsula.

Richmond and suburbs

Richmond, with its very high black population, is a Socialist stronghold. The suburbs lean UMP, though the Greens and Radicals would poll well in Henrico County.

Eastern Shore

An old UMP stronghold, the UMP polls well in the far exurbs of DC/NoVA and in rural areas. However, growing suburbia nearer to NoVA would help the Socialists here (see above) which would already be strongish in the areas about the Hampton Roads.

OVERALL, Sarkozy wins in 2007 though Royal does very well in NoVA and that strength also swings VA-11 in the legislative elections. Similar runoff margin (and map, kind-of) to 2004.

(
)




Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 04, 2009, 05:10:18 PM
A great one !  Thanks.

Don't you think Bayrou and MoDem could have made some inroads in 2007 in the northern "Washingtonian" VA ?
A local base for Marielle de Sarnez, for example ?

Sure, with 2009, come the Greens, but just before that.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 04, 2009, 05:15:12 PM
Don't you think Bayrou and MoDem could have made some inroads in 2007 in the northern "Washingtonian" VA ?
A local base for Marielle de Sarnez, for example ?

Too few Catholics there, though NOVA would have been Bayrou's 'best' region, so to say.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 04, 2009, 05:22:57 PM
Don't you think Bayrou and MoDem could have made some inroads in 2007 in the northern "Washingtonian" VA ?
A local base for Marielle de Sarnez, for example ?

Too few Catholics there, though NOVA would have been Bayrou's 'best' region, so to say.
Oh, that's just because I see MoDem as less strictly Catholic than UDF. And Sarnez, sociologically would be fine in Alexandria...

And what about a comparison between WV and Puy-de-Dôme/Allier or Pas-de-Calais ?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 04, 2009, 05:28:30 PM
WV is more Pas-de-Calais, though the WV 'prefecture' is more right-wing than the Pas-de-Calais' prefecture (mainly due to lack of Guy Mollet in WV ;))

I need to brush up my knowledge on Puy-de-Dôme voting patterns (I charge you with that!), but it doesn't really fit in well with WV, though Allier could be a nice comparison.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 05, 2009, 10:18:51 PM
Presumably, the SFIO would've polled total crap in WV in the 1960s.

Please continue this. Southern states should be interesting.

Not really : MPF strongholds.

The US isn't as right-wing as you think.

The US no, the South yes.

Southerners aren't pieds-noirs.

Word of advice: Hashemite isn't very pleasant when he's upset.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Serenity Now on August 06, 2009, 04:35:32 AM
This thread is great. Please, Hashemite, don't stop before you've done every state!


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 07, 2009, 05:24:08 AM
We need an update !


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 09, 2009, 11:46:15 AM
Let's see.
Barack Obama, who can be considered as moderately leftist on economic issues and clearly progressive on social issues, was running against John McCain, who led a conservative campaign on economic issues but was quite moderate ( for the GOP standards at least ) on social issues. McCain killed Obama with a 13-points edge ( 20 points if we correct with the national margin ). So, what do you think that would happen with french political parties, which one is more or less social-democratic but also socially progressive ( how do you think WVers viewed things like the PACS ? ), and the other is, I would say, a bit less ridiculously conservative economically and socially moderate. Do you really think being "social-democratic" would be enough for a party like PS to win the State ? Maybe Al and afleithc agree with you, but that isn't enough to convince me.

What you need to understand is that the basis of American voting patterns are often very different to European ones; class is a bigger factor in Europe, while the sort of cultural issues that have dominated recent elections in America and which have a huge impact on voting patterns are broadly irrevelant in Europe. If we assume that America has French political parties, then it's reasonable to assume that this would be true of America also; after all, it's no more absurd than assuming that America has French parties :)

Anyway, how would you expect an overwhelmingly working class area with a history of coal mining and historically strong unions to vote were it in France or Belgium?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 09, 2009, 06:08:16 PM
Let's see.
Barack Obama, who can be considered as moderately leftist on economic issues and clearly progressive on social issues, was running against John McCain, who led a conservative campaign on economic issues but was quite moderate ( for the GOP standards at least ) on social issues. McCain killed Obama with a 13-points edge ( 20 points if we correct with the national margin ). So, what do you think that would happen with french political parties, which one is more or less social-democratic but also socially progressive ( how do you think WVers viewed things like the PACS ? ), and the other is, I would say, a bit less ridiculously conservative economically and socially moderate. Do you really think being "social-democratic" would be enough for a party like PS to win the State ? Maybe Al and afleithc agree with you, but that isn't enough to convince me.

What you need to understand is that the basis of American voting patterns are often very different to European ones; class is a bigger factor in Europe, while the sort of cultural issues that have dominated recent elections in America and which have a huge impact on voting patterns are broadly irrevelant in Europe. If we assume that America has French political parties, then it's reasonable to assume that this would be true of America also; after all, it's no more absurd than assuming that America has French parties :)

Anyway, how would you expect an overwhelmingly working class area with a history of coal mining and historically strong unions to vote were it in France or Belgium?

Doesn't FN poll also well in this sort of regions ? Didn't Sarkozy win Pas-de-Calais in 2007 ? Even in France, working class areas are not socialist strongholds.


Anyways...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 09, 2009, 06:45:56 PM
Even in France, working class areas are not socialist strongholds.

wtf

Doesn't FN poll also well in this sort of regions ?

Yes. But it doesn't make them less left-wing in the long run.

Quote
Didn't Sarkozy win Pas-de-Calais in 2007 ?

No. In the first round he got a plurality but just 'cause the Trots polled like 10% together.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 10, 2009, 05:23:11 AM

Not necessarily, and not all of them.
 

Quote
Quote
Didn't Sarkozy win Pas-de-Calais in 2007 ?

No. In the first round he got a plurality but just 'cause the Trots polled like 10% together.

Sorry, I confused with Nord, that he won in 2nd round (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Carte-presidentielle-2007-2etour.png). That's even more representative.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 10, 2009, 07:41:35 AM

The big exceptions (rural Alsace, say) are mostly heavily Catholic.

Quote
Sorry, I confused with Nord, that he won in 2nd round (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Carte-presidentielle-2007-2etour.png). That's even more representative.

Not really; Sarko only won Nord because of Lille suburbia.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 14, 2009, 05:30:36 PM
A Note about the (Deep) South

However wrong it may be and not matter how many accusations of anti-socialism I get, this simulation will assume that the SFIO would have taken the place of the OTL Democratic Party in the South. You would see people like Déat, Doriot, and Chautemps became segregationists and Dixiecrats in the 1940s and 1950s. It is far from a perfect fit, but it is the best one imaginable. In addition, the quasi-racist and nationalist PCF of the 1970s would also have been a perfect fit in large areas of the South.

The role of the old Republican Party in the South (lol) is taken by the centre-right, nowadays the UMP, which is the party of the more affluent and suburban white Southerner while the poorer, more blue-collar Southerner is divided between the PS, MPF and FN (the FN being stronger with those in heavy industry).

Next: North Carolina


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 14, 2009, 05:59:10 PM
Yes, it's back ! :D
And with a very fine South to come !


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 14, 2009, 10:24:18 PM
North Carolina

Coast and Coastal Plain

The areas directly on the Atlantic would lean UMP, though there would be pockets of Socialist support in the north and Wilmington (a more recent development, and it is highly plausible that it remains a UMP-leaning city) and the UMP would poll strongly in military areas. The Greens would have done well in Wilmington in 2009 and the MoDem would do decently.

Black areas, of course, are strongly Socialist.

Raleigh, Durham and suburbia

The centre of the 'boboisation' of the PS in recent years would be, of course, in Raleigh and Durham. Raleigh would be quite a swing city, and the most UMP of the major cities in NC though the Socialists would have done well picking up seats in Congress (NC-2, most notably) and in the NC General Council. Durham, with its high minority population, is strongly Socialist.

In districts like the 4th, the Greens and PRG would also poll very well. I could see a Radical, probably a LeftRad, holding the seat.

The suburban areas devoid of progressive yuppies would lean UMP, though.

Piedmont

Would lean UMP overall, though the PS maintains a relatively good showing in tobacco country and textile areas. But it certainly isn't what it used to be, and the FN would have made important gains in this area, especially with petit commerçants and artisans.

Triad

Greensboro city is Socialist, but Greensboro suburbia is UMP country. Same with Winston-Salem.

Charlotte

The city is Socialist, and the suburbia is UMP. Though the PS polls well-ish in Gastonia and textile areas.

Blue Ridge Mountains

An old Socialist stronghold, they would be tossup areas today, though maybe with a slight PS lean. The MPF does best here.

OVERALL, it's a swing state with a UMP advantage in recent years. Sarkozy pulls off a narrow win here in 2007.

Also...

District of Columbia

Surprise, surprise. Socialist stronghold. The UMP polls well in western DC.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 15, 2009, 06:04:45 AM
A Note about the (Deep) South

However wrong it may be and not matter how many accusations of anti-socialism I get, this simulation will assume that the SFIO would have taken the place of the OTL Democratic Party in the South. You would see people like Déat, Doriot, and Chautemps became segregationists and Dixiecrats in the 1940s and 1950s. It is far from a perfect fit, but it is the best one imaginable. In addition, the quasi-racist and nationalist PCF of the 1970s would also have been a perfect fit in large areas of the South.

The role of the old Republican Party in the South (lol) is taken by the centre-right, nowadays the UMP, which is the party of the more affluent and suburban white Southerner while the poorer, more blue-collar Southerner is divided between the PS, MPF and FN (the FN being stronger with those in heavy industry).

Next: North Carolina


Seems a reasonable choice. No way you would be anti-socialist. The good thing is that, if PS takes the part of the Southern dems, it means that it has also been crushed recently for passing Civil Rights, didn't it ?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 15, 2009, 07:51:56 AM
South Carolina

The UMP polls well along the coast in Charleston (minus inner city), its suburbs, Columbia suburbia and other wealthy areas both inland and on the coast. The Socialists poll well in the black-majority areas, Charleston and Columbia inner cities and in poorer rural areas between Columbia and Charleston/Hilton Head Island.

The Piedmont would have been an old Socialist area that would have moved to the MPF (and, to a lesser extent, FN) in recent years. Perhaps the best guide here is to see in which areas of the region the Democrats survive locally (and maybe look at 1996). The MPF would pretty much dominate elsewhere. However, the UMP does well in areas of the Piedmont which has developed high-tech industries and also in parts of Greenville.

Way back when, early Gaullism would have done well too.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 15, 2009, 03:20:25 PM
Miam! GA will come soon...
And those fine NC and SC let me think KY will be interesting and surprising (maybe even TN).

One question about NC, again with MoDem: in the "triangle" and Raleigh-Durham, don't you think that it may have done well in 2007, disturbing the UMP as well as the PS ?
Of course not the UDF (;)), but MoDem ?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 16, 2009, 09:20:31 AM
One question about NC, again with MoDem: in the "triangle" and Raleigh-Durham, don't you think that it may have done well in 2007, disturbing the UMP as well as the PS ?
Of course not the UDF (;)), but MoDem ?

Kind of.

I don't want to make the MoDem the social liberal party and turn this into a type of simulation with Brithsh political parties but also because the MoDem's electoral support is not purely a map of social liberalism or wealthy college kids...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 16, 2009, 09:22:25 AM
One question about NC, again with MoDem: in the "triangle" and Raleigh-Durham, don't you think that it may have done well in 2007, disturbing the UMP as well as the PS ?
Of course not the UDF (;)), but MoDem ?

Kind of.

I don't want to make the MoDem the social liberal party and turn this into a type of simulation with Brithsh political parties but also because the MoDem's electoral support is not purely a map of social liberalism or wealthy college kids...

Well, it's looking more and more like that. Hard to consider it the catho's party.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 16, 2009, 09:29:07 AM
One question about NC, again with MoDem: in the "triangle" and Raleigh-Durham, don't you think that it may have done well in 2007, disturbing the UMP as well as the PS ?
Of course not the UDF (;)), but MoDem ?

Kind of.

I don't want to make the MoDem the social liberal party and turn this into a type of simulation with Brithsh political parties but also because the MoDem's electoral support is not purely a map of social liberalism or wealthy college kids...

Well, it's looking more and more like that. Hard to consider it the catho's party.

There is little fun in turning this into a type of simulation using British parties instead.

Anyways, the MoDem is irrelevant and can go die.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 16, 2009, 09:53:45 AM
One question about NC, again with MoDem: in the "triangle" and Raleigh-Durham, don't you think that it may have done well in 2007, disturbing the UMP as well as the PS ?
Of course not the UDF (;)), but MoDem ?

Kind of.

I don't want to make the MoDem the social liberal party and turn this into a type of simulation with Brithsh political parties but also because the MoDem's electoral support is not purely a map of social liberalism or wealthy college kids...

Well, it's looking more and more like that. Hard to consider it the catho's party.

There is little fun in turning this into a type of simulation using British parties instead.

Anyways, the MoDem is irrelevant and can go die.
Sure !
OK, I'll stop with MoDem. That was just to say something, apart from "I REALLY enjoy reading this topic" each time ;)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 16, 2009, 10:28:48 AM
One question about NC, again with MoDem: in the "triangle" and Raleigh-Durham, don't you think that it may have done well in 2007, disturbing the UMP as well as the PS ?
Of course not the UDF (;)), but MoDem ?

Kind of.

I don't want to make the MoDem the social liberal party and turn this into a type of simulation with Brithsh political parties but also because the MoDem's electoral support is not purely a map of social liberalism or wealthy college kids...

Well, it's looking more and more like that. Hard to consider it the catho's party.

There is little fun in turning this into a type of simulation using British parties instead.

Nobody spoke about British parties.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 16, 2009, 10:31:13 AM
One question about NC, again with MoDem: in the "triangle" and Raleigh-Durham, don't you think that it may have done well in 2007, disturbing the UMP as well as the PS ?
Of course not the UDF (;)), but MoDem ?

Kind of.

I don't want to make the MoDem the social liberal party and turn this into a type of simulation with Brithsh political parties but also because the MoDem's electoral support is not purely a map of social liberalism or wealthy college kids...

Well, it's looking more and more like that. Hard to consider it the catho's party.

There is little fun in turning this into a type of simulation using British parties instead.

Nobody spoke about British parties.

Turning the MoDem into a LibDem lite party would effectively turn this into a British simulation (Labour, Tories, LibDems, conservative far-right). And that isn't the point of this simulation. Or if not that, into some boring centre-right vs. centre-left vs. centre vs. far-right simulation, and that's so awfully boring it's not fun.

Anyways, as I said, the MoDem isn't Godly and my exclusion of the MoDem won't alter many things.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 16, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
Anyways, as I said, the MoDem isn't Godly and my exclusion of the MoDem won't alter many things.

Of course, but you need to put it somewhere, as you do for even more insignificant parties as PRG.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 16, 2009, 10:43:07 AM
Anyways, as I said, the MoDem isn't Godly and my exclusion of the MoDem won't alter many things.

Of course, but you need to put it somewhere, as you do for even more insignificant parties as PRG.

I have decided to replace it with the UDF, partly to make it simple and also to make it more interesting for readers.

I don't know why this comes up as an issue this late. I've been following the same system since I first started and there has never been any outrage about that, so to say.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 22, 2009, 06:54:22 PM
Georgia

Atlanta and suburbia

Atlanta city itself is of course an important Socialist stronghold, though the UMP would still poll well in affluent white neighborhoods within city limits (Buckhead). But yeah, the city is strongly Socialist.

The suburbia wouldn't be very homogeneous, but with a slight right-lean. The Socialists would still do well in black-majority suburbia, but the UMP would do well in kinda-affluent black areas in DeKalb County, actually. White and affluent, however, gives, on the whole, a strong UMP base. However, in places like Cobb County and other middle-class decently well-off suburbia, the PS would have made impressive gains in recent years in what would have been solidly right-wing land not so long ago. Very wealthy places, however, are relatively straightforward for voting patterns... and the exurbs (and the rural areas in the Metro area] are the same (mostly).

These type of rich suburbs are of course the base of the Southern UMP, and the MPF and FN poll quite badly here.

Northern Georgia and the Mountains

The north would generally be right-wing on the whole, due to strong support in rural areas, Unionist enclaves (on the assumption that the UMP carries on the traditions of OTL Republicanism there), old people, and recent white-collar/service bedroom communities for both Atlanta and Chattanooga, TN.

I'm not sure how socially conservative this area is, however. From my research, it seems pretty socially conservative so I would expect to see some high MPF results in this area but low FN results.

Eastern Georgia

The northern region (aka the 10th district save for the areas in the Blue Ridge Mountains), a rural region would be strongly UMP. In addition, places such as Columbia County (Augusta suburbia) also add to the strong UMP lean. In the region, only Clarke County (Athens) wouldn't be UMP. Athens, a liberal college town would lean PS with a strong Green (and MoDem :P) vote. Obviously, the Greenies would have won Athens in 2009. Once again, I'm not sure how socially conservative this area is, however... so that might determine the strength of the MPF. Again, the FN would be weak here.

The southern region (aka the 12th district) would be more volatile due to Augusta and Savannah being Socialist cities and the presence of black-majority counties. The white rural counties would be MPF areas, with a okayish UMP result. The FN polls well in crackerland surrounded by blackland and Effingham County, white flight country. The old textile areas in the centre of the region would also provide a good base for the FN, and the PS would have lost a lot of ground here.

Colonial Coast

Another region where the PS would have lost significant ground in recent years, mostly to the MPF. The MPF would dominate in rural white agricultural counties and the UMP would poll well in some of the more affluent coastal counties, Savannah's southern suburbs and military bases.

The Socialists could have a shot in some places if they nominate the right type of candidate.

Central Georgia

The black regions (as well as both Macon, Albany and Columbus) would obviously be Socialist strongholds, and white agricultural counties would lean MPF. The UMP's base would be in white (and affluent) suburban regions of cities like Macon, Albany or Columbus.

As in many regions of OTL Georgia, the Socialists could very well win if they nominate the right type of candidate. Lots of voters were yellow dog Democrats, so I assume they would be yellow dog 'populist' Socialists. More often than not, the UMP or MPF wins here. I would assume UMP generally, though, rather than MPF.

Northwestern Georgia (GA-3 and 11)

The region would lean UMP overall, but the PS would be an important factor. The UMP polls well in Atlantia exurbia and other wealthier areas, while the Socialists would poll well in black areas all the time and they would have residual appeal to white working-class voters in older textile industries and also in rural counties. However, a lot of that rural vote would have bled to the MPF and the more blue-collar working-class vote would have bled to the FN.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 23, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
Florida

Panhandle

The Panhandle would lean MPF overall, but the Socialists would do well in inner-city Tallahassee, the black majority areas here and there and older white working-class counties in the east Panhandle (forestry, tobacco. For more see the map of the 2002 Governor election). Affluent Tallahassee, Pensacola and Panama City suburbs as well as wealthy coastal communities are UMP strongholds.

First Coast and North Central Florida

Rural areas in the region are quite Deep South in this area, and would see MPF-UMP fights for the most part. Inner-city (black areas) Jacksonville and the harbour area would probably be Socialist, but the suburbs and the wealthy areas along the First Coast would be uber-UMP. Suburbs of Orlando, Gainesville, Daytona Beach etc are also UMP.

Gainesville is Socialist, partly due to the boboisation of the PS. The UMP would do better in 'small-towns'. Lower income whites (working-class) and blacks also vote Socialist.

East Coast (excluding Miami and surroundings) and Orlando

Inner-city Orlando would be a Socialist stronghold, so the city as a whole would probably lean Socialist. The very affluent suburbs of Orlando and areas along the coast, however, would be UMP but a Sarkozy-type UMP candidate would do rather poorly. The Socialists stand a growing chance in some coastal areas and suburbs due partly to the party's sociological evolution and young people in those areas. I also guess people working the large tourism industry would lean Socialist, might be wrong though.

Rural areas would be UMP strongholds, and I suppose national defense-dominated areas would too, more or less.

Florida Heartland and Rural Central Florida

UMP stronghold, due to rural areas. PS polls well in more urban areas and old phosphate mining areas in Polk County.

Miami, Coral Springs and surroundings

Coral Springs and black-majority areas would lean Socialist, though these areas are quite well-off and I could see the UMP polling quite well in those areas.

Affluent posh coastal areas filled with Jews and retirees would be quite solidly UMP, but the Greens (and PS, MoDem) would do well in Broward County. Districts such as the 22nd, 19th would be more and more competitive due to the sociological evolution of the PS vote. While these districts would still lean UMP, the Socialists could stand a chance in a few years and the Greens would have done very well in 2009. Sarkozy would have done quite badly, maybe. Or not. Depends on the Jews.

However, districts in Broward County would now lean PS after being quite right-wing in the past. Sarkozy's stuff wouldn't play well here. Greens, obviously, win in 2009.

Poorer black, Haitian and West Indian areas in Miami-Dade are Socialist strongholds.

Cuban areas lean FN (the American Pieds-Noirs) overall, and the FN's only chances at legislative seats are here. Sarkozy would probably have appealed to them in 2007 quite a bit, but I guess in runoffs they'd vote PS since they would likely have the same hate for the mainstream Gaullist right as Pieds-Noirs did in the past. Although I guess a Cuban UMP candidate could win. Non-Cuban Hispanics would lean UDF or UMP.

Coral Gables would lean UMP, save maybe more liberal parts which would lean Green or PS.

Florida Keys

Socialist or Green strongholds.

Nature Coast

UMP area, mostly due to retirees and rural areas (the MPF polls less and less well the further you get from the Deep South).

Tampa and surroundings

Tampa proper (and most of St. Petersburg) would lean Socialist as would, since recently, inner suburbs would too. Outer, richer suburbs, however would still lean UMP on the whole.

OVERALL, Florida would be a lean UMP state (polling higher than the Republicans do on a national 50-50 election) and the Socialists could win if they appeal to a diverse base. But their winning is possible.

(
)



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Barnes on August 23, 2009, 12:03:26 PM
Georgia

Atlanta and suburbia

Atlanta city itself is of course an important Socialist stronghold, though the UMP would still poll well in affluent white neighborhoods within city limits (Buckhead). But yeah, the city is strongly Socialist.

The suburbia wouldn't be very homogeneous, but with a slight right-lean. The Socialists would still do well in black-majority suburbia, but the UMP would do well in kinda-affluent black areas in DeKalb County, actually. White and affluent, however, gives, on the whole, a strong UMP base. However, in places like Cobb County and other middle-class decently well-off suburbia, the PS would have made impressive gains in recent years in what would have been solidly right-wing land not so long ago. Very wealthy places, however, are relatively straightforward for voting patterns... and the exurbs (and the rural areas in the Metro area] are the same (mostly).

These type of rich suburbs are of course the base of the Southern UMP, and the MPF and FN poll quite badly here.

Northern Georgia and the Mountains

The north would generally be right-wing on the whole, due to strong support in rural areas, Unionist enclaves (on the assumption that the UMP carries on the traditions of OTL Republicanism there), old people, and recent white-collar/service bedroom communities for both Atlanta and Chattanooga, TN.

I'm not sure how socially conservative this area is, however. From my research, it seems pretty socially conservative so I would expect to see some high MPF results in this area but low FN results.

Eastern Georgia

The northern region (aka the 10th district save for the areas in the Blue Ridge Mountains), a rural region would be strongly UMP. In addition, places such as Columbia County (Augusta suburbia) also add to the strong UMP lean. In the region, only Clarke County (Athens) wouldn't be UMP. Athens, a liberal college town would lean PS with a strong Green (and MoDem :P) vote. Obviously, the Greenies would have won Athens in 2009. Once again, I'm not sure how socially conservative this area is, however... so that might determine the strength of the MPF. Again, the FN would be weak here.

The southern region (aka the 12th district) would be more volatile due to Augusta and Savannah being Socialist cities and the presence of black-majority counties. The white rural counties would be MPF areas, with a okayish UMP result. The FN polls well in crackerland surrounded by blackland and Effingham County, white flight country. The old textile areas in the centre of the region would also provide a good base for the FN, and the PS would have lost a lot of ground here.

Colonial Coast

Another region where the PS would have lost significant ground in recent years, mostly to the MPF. The MPF would dominate in rural white agricultural counties and the UMP would poll well in some of the more affluent coastal counties, Savannah's southern suburbs and military bases.

The Socialists could have a shot in some places if they nominate the right type of candidate.

Central Georgia

The black regions (as well as both Macon, Albany and Columbus) would obviously be Socialist strongholds, and white agricultural counties would lean MPF. The UMP's base would be in white (and affluent) suburban regions of cities like Macon, Albany or Columbus.

As in many regions of OTL Georgia, the Socialists could very well win if they nominate the right type of candidate. Lots of voters were yellow dog Democrats, so I assume they would be yellow dog 'populist' Socialists. More often than not, the UMP or MPF wins here. I would assume UMP generally, though, rather than MPF.

Northwestern Georgia (GA-3 and 11)

The region would lean UMP overall, but the PS would be an important factor. The UMP polls well in Atlantia exurbia and other wealthier areas, while the Socialists would poll well in black areas all the time and they would have residual appeal to white working-class voters in older textile industries and also in rural counties. However, a lot of that rural vote would have bled to the MPF and the more blue-collar working-class vote would have bled to the FN.

(
)

Just a quick question, how would my home county, Newton, vote? We voted for Obama, and have man Democratic officials. Here's a Wikipedia page for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_County,_Georgia

Thanks! :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 23, 2009, 12:06:59 PM
Just a quick question, how would my home county, Newton, vote? We voted for Obama, and have man Democratic officials. Here's a Wikipedia page for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_County,_Georgia

Thanks! :)

Probably UMP. The UMP would have more of a suburban appeal than the Republicans did in 2008, since their platform is not OMG THE GAYZ and OMG BABYKILLERS.

But the PS wouldn't be a non-factor either.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Barnes on August 23, 2009, 12:08:54 PM
Just a quick question, how would my home county, Newton, vote? We voted for Obama, and have man Democratic officials. Here's a Wikipedia page for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_County,_Georgia

Thanks! :)

Probably UMP. The UMP would have more of a suburban appeal than the Republicans did in 2008, since their platform is not OMG THE GAYZ and OMG BABYKILLERS.

But the PS wouldn't be a non-factor either.

Thanks. :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on August 23, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
My pleasure :) Interest in this is always good.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 23, 2009, 12:58:27 PM
Really amazing. Congratulations for all your work.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 23, 2009, 05:17:21 PM
I need to read them more carefully, as these two are fine and complex.

I LOVE the idea of Cubans as a base for FN vote ! :D

In old colonial Georgia, why not Geroges Frêche as a good candidate for the PS ? ;)

Wouldn't Tampa vote UMP overall, but also "in detail", even in the centre ? I thought the city was really moderate GOP. But I may be wrong.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 23, 2009, 05:31:54 PM
Commenting on these one-by-one for the sheer hell of it... all comments assume that the party "translation" used is correct.

Let's start.

Maine

The north has a populist feel to it and is more working-class, from what I gather, so it would generally vote Socialist. The UDF could carry Aroostook, though the Socialists would do well there too. The UMP wins rural areas, potato country, and wealthy areas on the coast. The Greens are quite strong along the coast and in Portland, and would have probably come second in the 2009 'Euro' elections (presumably a North-Central American Parliament here!). Portland would probably be PS now, though right-wing in the past.

Overall: Lean UMP, and Sarkozy would have carried in 2007.

As a general overview this seems about right - though it's worth noting that the great PS stronghold in Maine would be Lewiston and surrounds. Oh, and some of the more working class rural areas would certainly be capable of voting PS.

Quote
New Hampshire

The UMP is strong in wealthy communities with a strong number of Boston emigres and what's left of rural NH. The Socialists would win communities developed on the textile industry. Coos County is a UDF stronghold, though with a rising PS.

Overall: Lean UMP, and Sarkozy would have carried in 2007.
[/quote]

Again, difficult to complain much. I think you're wrong about Coos though.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 23, 2009, 05:45:33 PM
Vermont

A hard state to pin down in terms of French parties. It would probably have been a ARD stronghold during the Third Republic and later a CNI (or RGR) stronghold. The influx of liberals from New England and the CNI's move to the right would have shifted the state to the Socialists - though liberal progressive 'champagne' socialists and not working-class socialists. The PRG (if they bothered to run candidates) and, in particular the Greens do very well, and the Greens would probably have won the state in 2009. The UMP is limited to very older wealthy communities and maybe Essex County. The UDF-CDS would have done well in the Catholic areas in the past, but would be a non-factor now obviously.

Not to say, the UMP could actually do well in state races depending on the candidate.

Overall: One of Royal's best states in the runoff. Voynet's best state in the first round (5-6% vs. 1% nationwide) and Mamere would have done very well (10-13%). Perhaps Sarkozy's worst state, and Royal mightve broken 40% here in the first round.

Less rich liberals moved to Vermont than is commonly thought. Anyway, as a general summary... not bad, I think. Though the PS would always have had a base in the state.

Quote
Massachusetts

Massachusetts, due to its very high percentage of Catholics, would have been a UDF stronghold. The UDF would have been strong quasi-universally, taking Irish voters in Boston, rural voters, and working-class voters. Nowadays, the UDF's strength is much reduced, maybe 30-35% for Bayrou in 2007, concentrated in solidly UDF rural MA. The UMP wins in affluent Boston suburbia and affluent coastal communities in Cape Cod and so forth. The Socialists would have gained a ground in minority areas (Boston, mostly. Probably gained the local govt from the UDF-CDS in 1989 or so) and in liberal areas. It's actually a tricky state to work with.

My estimate for CDs gives the UDF 4, the PS 4 and the UMP 2.

Overall: Bayrou's voters in the first round vote Socialist in the runoff by a decent margin, giving Royal an important margin here in the runoff.

Now here I think you're very wrong, though for understandable reasons. The "Catholic" vote in MA is not, and was never, anything like the Catholic vote in France. It was not a rural Clerical vote. It is better understood as an ethnic-immigrant (mostly Irish, but not entirely), and even a class, vote. It wasn't shaped by the clergy, but by urban machine politicians. Massachusetts was also one of the first parts of the U.S to get seriously industrialised (textiles as it happens - a lot of "rural MA" is only rural in an extremely broad sense of the term). As such the Irish vote would mostly be PS (firmly on the right of the party, obviously) with the Catholic influence showing up largely in the weakness of the PCF in an area that would otherwise be quite favourable for them.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 23, 2009, 07:29:24 PM
I wonder where the PS's strength is. It appears rather weak.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 23, 2009, 07:40:10 PM
I wonder where the PS's strength is. It appears rather weak.
Wait for some "continental" states, I think.
Appalachia, MidWest, Upper MidWest, inner South, etc are still to come.
And remember it's 2007.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 23, 2009, 07:49:41 PM
Rhode Island

Catholic working-class stronghold. Would have been a UDF stronghold for a long time, though with decline in church attendance, you would see the Socialists making some important gains and UDF voters would be more likely to vote for Socialists in runoffs after, say, 1980 or 1984. The UMP is limited to some very wealthy towns and that's it.

Overall: Royal would have won the runoff in 2007, and Bayrou would have won the state in the first round.

See MA but more so - real life Democratic domination of Rhode Island actually began with a sort of democratic revolution of the working class against the state's traditional elite. There's also a certain Liberal Republican tradition amongst affluent voters here (oh, this goes for MA, VT as well). Might translate as Radical strength, perhaps.

Quote
Connecticut

Would be an important swing state. The UMP does well in wealthy New York suburbia and other wealthy places, the PS does well in inner city Hartford (minorities) and also surrounding areas which used to be industrial textile towns. Also does well in Bridgeport, obviously. The UDF would be worth around 15-25% depending on the election and would be relatively stable and geographically equally distributed. Greens do well in Litchfield etc.

Overall: Sarkozy narrowly wins in 2007.

This though feels right, though the usual (lol) New England question mark about the UDF.

Good stuff so far though, interesting.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on September 07, 2009, 09:03:01 AM
Bump. Just bump. No demand.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 08, 2009, 03:07:30 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on October 07, 2009, 08:31:38 PM
Alabama

Black Belt

Guess.

Central Alabama and Birmingham Metro

Birmingham City itself, due to its high black population and so forth would be a Socialist stronghold, though suburbia would be the base of the Southern UMP and as UMP as they get. Rural areas in central Alabama would lean MPF, and you could have the weird outburst of PS and even PCF (!) support in some old mining areas here and there.

Cumberland Plateau

An old Socialist stronghold, the MPF and FN would have gained a lot here: the FN in the more industrial blue-collar areas, the MPF in the more agricultural and rural areas. Overall, the area would lean MPF with the FN and PS being the other major parties, with little UMP support due to the lack of suburbia, and maybe, again, the weird outburst of PCF (!) support here and there. Though probably not much of those PCF-outburts anymore. More under Georges Marchais maybe.

Tennessee Valley and Northern Alabama

I could see the TVA Democrats here being TVA Socialists, presumably, depending on how history works out. Conservative socialists, obviously (Georges Frêche would do well). Decatur and Huntsville would be PS strongholds, though their respective suburbia would be the base of the UMP in the region. The FN is the dominant far-right party here, not the MPF.

Alabama Piedmont and Western Alabama

Probably similar to the Cumberland Plateau, with MPF support in rural areas and FN support in older industrial areas. However, you do have a big city (Montgomery), which probably leans Socialist, and the predictably UMP suburbia. You would have some Green support in Auburn, where the PS would have made gains in recent years after falling off in the 80s or so (Auburn is a college town). The UMP also might win military-dominated areas. Bobby Bright-type Socialists would poll well and they'd be the dominant type in these parts (shock).

Gulf Coast

Mobile itself would probably still be Socialist, but most of the Bay area would lean UMP. White inland areas would resemble the rest of Alabama.

(
)

(I assume MPF voters vote Sarkozy in the runoff).


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on October 08, 2009, 02:05:03 AM
Chouette !
It's back !


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 08, 2009, 04:58:03 AM
Glad to see it statrs again. :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on October 12, 2009, 07:42:01 PM
Mississippi

Similar to Alabama, except that the racial voting is even more horrible here and this probably means the PS doesn't have the same success in old Socialist white areas like they do in some places in Alabama. Unless they're conservative white Socialists.

Black areas, obviously, provide the vast majority of the PS' vote in a year like 2007. In addition, you have some PS support in educated white areas (mostly unis) and the like, but that's it. Jackson proper is obviously a PS stronghold, the PS Mayor of Jackson consistently wins re-election by the first round.

Agricultural white areas would support the MPF, suburbia (Nashville, TN and Jackson) and the Gulf Coast would be the base of the UMP and the FN would win the old white manufacturing areas and the like. It might receive some votes in places devastated by Katrina and poorly reconstructed afterwards.

Louisiana

New Orleans and Florida Parishes

The city itself is Socialist, obviously, but the electoral effects of Katrina would be interesting. You could see a large protest vote for the PCF and maybe even Greenies and the FN if the recovery effort in 2005 is as poor as IRL. White affluent suburbia is uber-UMP, obviously. Baton Rouge is similar, inner city Socialist and suburbia UMP. Rural areas in the Florida Parishes, if they're very rural and non-Cajun would vote MPF.

Cajun Country

The base of the UDF in the South, and real Christian democratic country. The fact that Cajuns would have been UDF for a while, probably even during the era of PS dominance in the South, would make Louisiana a weaker state for the PS and they probably would've a tough time winning it even in their best years.

Central and Northern Louisiana

Black counties along the Mississippi River and so forth are predictably Socialist, while rural Southern Protestant areas would be MPF strongholds. The UMP has a limited foothold in the suburbs of Shreveport.

PS: Places where David Duke did well would probably lean MPF over FN, actually.

(
)



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 12, 2009, 08:04:25 PM
Much of rural northern Louisiana was almost as close as places came to being an SPA stronghold and was also the political base of Huey Long.

Cajuns-as-Christian-Democrats makes a lot of sense, though.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Lief 🗽 on October 12, 2009, 08:07:11 PM
The Socialists are getting crushed. :(


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 12, 2009, 08:09:37 PM
The Socialists are getting crushed. :(

Well, that's what usually happens in the real France, so...

Still. He may have great things planned for the Midwest. And um... maybe Washington and Oregon...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 13, 2009, 12:24:27 AM
Yeah; aside from WV, where is the left strong that the Democrats aren't?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 13, 2009, 01:25:18 AM
Yeah; aside from WV, where is the left strong that the Democrats aren't?

In the Outer South probably (KY, TN, AR, MO).


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on October 13, 2009, 02:35:56 AM
Just wait for Midwest and South West, we may have some surprises...
And remember this is 2007, not the end of 2009, with this dwindling UMP...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on November 07, 2009, 10:39:20 AM
Tennessee (warning: I don't know sh**t about TN)

Blue Ridge and Eastern Tennessee

There is an old Republican tradition dating back to a long time in these parts. I would assume it would carry over to the UMP with limited bleeding to the MPF and the FN. The only real Socialist areas would be the limited black pockets and university pockets in Knoxville and Chattanooga.

Central Tennessee and Nashville

To begin with, the inner areas of Nashville are Socialist but of the category that voted Green in June 2009. The suburbs, of course, are UMP.

The areas of central TN in the Cumberland Plateau area would have a continued old Socialist presence and base of support, though the MPF (in rural areas) and FN (in blue-collar areas) would have gained strength in the past. At the local level, I could definitely see a lot of Socialist councillors in the General Council from here. Other old Socialist areas in the Nashville Basin would have held slightly better, but the Socialists would have lost with the arrival of suburbanites.

Western Tennessee

The Mississippi River Plain and in rural western TN would still be a rather Socialist area, I suppose, though it would like Frêche-like people and other 'old style Socialists' (Mitterrand would have done well) over people of the DSK genre.

The suburbs of Memphis would be a lean UMP area, but since a lot of the people are in there are also white-flight from Memphis, I suppose you could see a large FN vote, especially for a suburban area. Memphis itself is Socalist and becoming more Socialist ever so slowly. The Greens would have done well in 2009, but not as well as in Memphis. I'm assuming that blacks stayed Socialist even in 2009.

Overall, I think Sarko might have narrowly won here in 2007 (quite a major win for him) due to his stupid populist rhetoric which would have played well here.

Arkansas

Arkansas would remain a Socialist-leaning state, with continued old Socialist support in poor rural Arkansas (like old Democratic support there). Predictably, the black areas on the Mississippi River would also be solidly Socialist.

Little Rock itself would be Socialist, and the suburbia strongly UMP making a district like AR-2 a real swing district.

The Ozarks would continue to have a strong UMP tradition with some MPF and FN inroads in recent years.

I could see Arkansas being narrowly won by Royal in 2008 though Sarko would have played very well.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on November 07, 2009, 12:39:41 PM
Nice, it's back ! :D


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on November 08, 2009, 04:26:35 PM
YES !

And with a fine Arkansas, a state Sarkozy may have hoped to win in 2007, but lost closely and where he backfires badly now...
I would see it as a rural version of the industrial Moselle.

And TN, a very narrow Sarkozy win in 2007... ;)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on November 08, 2009, 06:34:25 PM
Well, as we say in Quebec, j'ai mon voyage of the South, so let's move on for a bit now.

Kentucky

Cumberland Plateau and Eastern Kentucky

The working-class and poor counties of Appalachia (coal country) would be much like West Virginia and a strongly Socialist area with a strong PS machine (like in the Pas-de-Calais). So, that would kind of limit any Sarkozy-populist effect. However, you might see a Henin-Beaumont type thing these days in these parts, and in 2009, I think you could see the FN ahead of the UMP in a lot of places.

South Central Kentucky

This is an old unionist area dating to the Civil War, but a rather poor and working-class populist area. The UMP would be strong here, and I think Sarkozy would have been a perfect candidate in 2007 'round these parts, but bling-bling wouldn't play well anymore so you could see a protest vote for DLR, the FN or MPF (though SC Kentucky isn't a hardcore conservanutty area). I tend to privilege DLR for these parts.

Northern Kentucky

An affluent white-collar area outside of Cincinnati, so predictably strong UMP. The rural areas would be less straight forward, with some old PS support in a few areas (places like Ashland).

Bluegrass Country

A swing area between UMP and PS. The rural areas south of Lexington tend to the right, those north of Lexington tend to the Socialists. Lexington might have been UMP in a distant past, but the city proper would be Socialist (and Green in June 2009); as would Frankfort. The suburbs would be right-wing.

Louisville

Louisville itself would be a PS town, with strong PS support in black areas of the city and working-class white areas. The UMP would dominate its suburbs, including the very affluent Oldham County.

Western Kentucky

This is an old Dixiecrat area, so one would assume the Socialists would be dominant on paper but the region would be a swing region in reality. The PS would be strong in the old coal mining areas and probably slightly weaker in tobacco country. There would be 'yellow dog Socialist' support in the Purchase.

I think the PS would carry Kentucky in 2007, by a narrow margin again, thanks to the machine support in old coal mining areas and limited urban support for Sarkozy in Lexington, Louisville and Frankfort (places which aren't extremely hard to win for a good right-wing candidate, for the most part). Map probably not too dissimilar to the 2004 Senate map or soemthing.

(
)

OHIO next! Fabien will appreciate ;)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on November 09, 2009, 03:57:49 AM
Oh, Kentucky is already a very fine reading. Really.

I'm not so sure the margin would have been narrow for the PS, even in 2007.
And well, wouldn't influence area of Cincinnati be Socialist also, but a DSK-type ?

(yeah, maybe it's because I unconsciously would have wished that all the wings of the PS be represented in only one state ;D)

And I go back to TN: wouldn't it be better to put it in lighter blue on the map ?
(in fact, it's disturbing because TN is UMP only because there is 2 rounds, as, in the first round, the UMP wouldn't have been very high; but that's the game)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on November 09, 2009, 07:42:43 AM
I'm not so sure the margin would have been narrow for the PS, even in 2007.
And well, wouldn't influence area of Cincinnati be Socialist also, but a DSK-type ?

It seems way too affluent and white-collar suburban conservative for that, frankly. Even a 'urban-suburban' Democrat like Obama did badly there (though less badly than in rural KY).

Quote
And I go back to TN: wouldn't it be better to put it in lighter blue on the map ?

At first, I just color the map according to the runoff result, because it's easier for me to think in those terms at first, but after all is done, I'll post maps of 2007 first round, 2002 first round, 1995, 1988, 1981, 1974, 1969 and 1965...

Quote
(in fact, it's disturbing because TN is UMP only because there is 2 rounds, as, in the first round, the UMP wouldn't have been very high; but that's the game)

Guessed correctly. My first round map had Tennessee going PS in the first round, due to the division on the right: MPF at 8-9%, FN at 13% or so...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2009, 08:17:10 AM
Louisville

Louisville itself would be a PS town, with strong PS support in black areas of the city and working-class white areas. The UMP would dominate its suburbs, including the very affluent Oldham County.

Louisville would probably have been Communist until relatively recently.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 01, 2009, 09:31:28 PM
Ohio

Cincinnati-Dayton and suburbs

The city itself would obviously be Socialist, with its large black population and also more recently due to the gentrification of PS support. The UDF would have polled well in the past with German Catholics in the city, probably; and the UMP might poll 'decently' in the city compared to other major centres in the US.

Dayton would be a Socialist stronghold, an old one, with its blue-collar population and large black population.

The suburbs of both would be overwhelmingly UMP, but more rural disadvantaged places like Pike and Scioto County might lean Socialist, with an important FN vote (or maybe MPF).

Corn Belt

Solidly right-wing (UMP) territory, obviously. Odd outcrops of MPF protest votes once in a blue moon, and some Socialist strength in small college towns and that sort of stuff.

Rust Belt, Toledo and Cleveland

Solid PS area. Toledo and Cleveland are major Socialist strongholds in the region, with the cities' very important blue-collar working-class population - and in Cleveland's case - important black population - providing the base of the PS vote. There would be UMP strength in some rural areas as well as the most conservative and affluent suburbs of Toledo, Akron and Cleveland (Geauga County and parts of the 14th CD). Obviously, a good number of more liberal and racially diverse suburbs would lean PS (and Green in the Euros), and the PS machine in Cleveland would be exceptionally strong.

Further south, old steel mills in the Mahoning Valley would be solidly PS, but I suspect economically disadvantaged areas might see a large PCF or FN vote.

Ohio Valley and Appalachian Ohio

A generally Socialist area, though with a growing UMP base due to population decline in places like Canton in rural areas. Old coal mining and manufacturing areas in the Ohio Valley would be solidly Socialist, but a candidate like Sarkozy would play extremely well in these parts (in 2007) but the FN would be a very important factor here in 2002 and again in 2009/2010.

Athens County would be a PS stronghold in most elections, but unlike other PS areas in the region. It would also have voted Green in 2009.

Columbus and Central Ohio

Columbus itself is solidly Socialist, though not to the extent a city like, say, Cleveland, would be. The Greens would have polled well in the city in 2009, probably not win it due to a significant black population which would probably still have voted PS. But yeah, liberal white-collar workers and some blacks provide a strong PS lean, though the former demographic would be a 'swing' demographic but would have voted solidly against Sarko in 2007.

Suburbia is obviously solidly UMP and most rural areas in Central OH would be too. However, there might be PS support in some blue-collar cities and counties here and there.

Overall, Ohio would still be a swing state, but I suspect Royal would have managed a narrow win due to higher-than-average PS support in some suburban areas and inner city areas, which would probably offset Sarko's good performances in the Ohio Valley's industrial areas.

(
)







Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on December 02, 2009, 07:59:57 AM
See, Xahar, it begins to be really fun: OH for Royal, while PA for Sarkozy !

A really great one, Hash, and not many things to add.

Maybe it's in Ohio rather than in KY that I may be able to find all the wings of the PS:
- Emmanuelli and Hamon in the Rust Belt and Dayton
- Aubry in Cincinnati
- Hollande in the Corn Belt (;D)
- DSK and Royal in Columbus.

Indiana will be fine to read !


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 02, 2009, 01:14:08 PM
Indeed, I'm looking forward to Indiana.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 02, 2009, 01:58:36 PM
Yeah, it's back ! :D
Please keep it up for sometime...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 02, 2009, 06:20:55 PM
Indiana

Northwestern Indiana

Gary, East Chicago and all of the Rust Belt in NW Indiana is obviously a PS stronghold, and the historical base of the PS in Indiana. There might be some FN votes from white unemployed working-class voters, but it would not be anything extremely important.

The UMP would poll well in the wealthier suburbs and in more rural areas.

South Bend and Elkhart

South Bend would lean Socialist, due to its overall blue-collar ethnic nature and other surrounding blue-collar areas would also probably lean towards the PS. Elkhart is also rather blue-collar, but I suspect the Republican tradition there would carry over to the UMP. Sarkozy would have polled well in Elkhart, not so well in South Bend. In 2002, the FN would probably have carried the area in the first round. In 2009/2010, the UMP would be polling sh**t all over and specifically in areas with high unemployment - leading to a high FN and left-wing overall vote.

Fort Wayne and Corn Belt

Fort Wayne would be traditionally right-leaning, again because I suspect the Civil War Republicanism would carry over to the UMP and yadda yadda. The PS would be strong in blue-collar areas downtown, generally, but the city itself and the suburbs would be rather fertile ground for the UMP. Sarkozy would have polled very well here, even in traditionally PS areas. Now, in 2009/2010, the UMP's fall from grace here would be spectacular.

The Corn Belt is solidly UMP, fairly obviously. However, since its also fairly redneck-y type of place, the MPF would do well in some areas.

Manufacturing and/or union places like Muncie and Anderson would lean Socialist generally.

Indianapolis and suburbs

Indianapolis is a PS stronghold, though the PS' domination of the city would be more recent. The Greens would do well in more middle-class white-collar areas of the city, while black and older blue-collar areas would have be solidly Socialist. The PS would also be strong around Lafayette and West Lafayette in Tippecanoe County.

The suburbs are UMP to a level that is almost unhealthy.

Western Indiana and the Coalfields

Western Indiana would be a swing region split between UMP/MPF farming-rural areas and old Socialist bases in the old coalfield of western IN but most notably in Terre Haute and Evansville. Terre Haute, a traditionally populist area, might see some FN and PCF protest votes once in a while.

Evansville suburbia would obviously be solidly UMP.

Ohio Valley

Yet another swing area, though the traditionally blue-collar 'populist' nature would probably result in a traditionally Socialist lean though prone to massive swings as the area usually sees. However, the Ohio Valley is usually socially conservative, therefore there might be a strong FN vote in the past. Sarkozy would have polled above-average here in 2007.

Bloomington would be a lone outpost of unusual progressivism in the area, and, as a result would lean PS/Green.

I suspect Indiana would actually be traditionally PS ('old' PS) overall, but Sarkozy would have been a perfect candidate for the right in many PS areas in 2007 (in 2009, obviously, the UMP would be polling absolute crap). He would have carried it narrowly.

(
)



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 03, 2009, 06:33:35 PM
Michigan

Detroit and suburbs

Detroit, with its low-income black-majority population would obviously be a very strong Socialist stronghold. The UMP would poll well only in white affluent communities such as Grosse Pointe and whereabouts. I suspect there might be a strong FN vote in Detroit proper from the few whites there as a law-and-order and anti-black type of vote. Not that it matters, because the PS would have no trouble clearing 65-70% by the first round probably.

The PS would also be strong in the blue-collar auto manufacturing suburbs, though they might have been PCF areas not so long ago. They would also be strong traditionally in other blue-collar type cities (too many to list, you know them), or places like Dearborn with minorities. Ann Arbor, lastly, as well as Ypsilanti, would be reliably PS though maybe one of the few places in the general area to vote Green in 2009. In addition, the PS would have built up lasting strength in more affluent professional-liberal areas like the suburbs of Ann Arbor and Detroit, though most of that vote would have bled to the Greenies in 2009.

The UMP would have declined a lot in recent years, and would continue to do so now obviously. They would be limited to kinda rural areas and affluent white exurbs like Bloomfield Hills and places in Oakland and Macomb Counties.

Tri Cities and the Thumb

The Thumb itself, excluding the Tri Cities, would still lean UMP due to agriculture and some Detroit/Flint white exurbia propping up. However, Port Huron and the last outskirts of Macomb County would lean Socialist.

The Tri City area, poor (especially Flint) and blue-collar manufacturing type areas, would be old PS-PCF strongholds. I could very well see there being a lot of old PCF strength in manufacturing areas and crumbling inner-city places like Flint and Saginaw.

Mid-Michigan

Rural Mid-Michigan, as well as far-far affluent exurbia from Detroit and Flint, would be solidly UMP territory. Lansing, an old blue-collar area; East Lansing, a very liberal college-uni town; Battle Creek and Jackson would all be rather solidly Socialist.

Western Michigan

An overall UMP-leaning region, with a strong base in rural areas and good performances in Grand Rapids and its suburbs (though the city itself, legally, would still vote PS). Apart from the batsh**t crazy Dutch areas which would vote MPF if they could, the UMP would be rather moderate and the electorate wouldn't be very receptive to Sarkozy's populism in 2007, leading to a strong PS vote even in rural areas (except the Dutch loonies).

The only reliably PS areas of sort would be blue-collar Kalamazoo and Muskegon, as well as black Benton Harbor. Parts of Grand Rapids (downtown mostly) would also be rather safe PS.

Northern Michigan

A predominantly rural area, northern mainland Michigan would be relatively solid UMP territory, though again of a brand similar to the non-Dutch UMP vote in western Michigan. In addition, there may be a growing PS and Green vote in areas which get more tourists.

Upper Peninsula

The UP would be traditionally a Socialist-leaning area, due to logging and copper mining in an important part of the UP, but that strength, like in real life, would be quickly declining in favour of the right.

Historically, the Communists did well with Finnish people and loggers in part of the UP, so I suppose that could carry over to provide some old (but mostly evaporated) PCF support in the area.

Overall, Royal would have maintained the PS' traditional control of Michigan. Good showings by Sarkozy in blue-collar 'Reagan Democrat' places in Macomb County and the like would be cancelled out by lower-than-average performance in rural moderate centre-right Michigan, where Bayrou would have polled well in the first round despite the relative absence of Catholic strongholds.

(
)









Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 03, 2009, 08:22:10 PM
Given how well the CPUSA did in the Lake Superior region, I would think it would be very good for the PCF even today.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 03, 2009, 08:23:00 PM
Given how well the CPUSA did in the Lake Superior region, I would think it would be very good for the PCF even today.

Strongholds don't last forever, especially those with that kind of evolving social and professional demographics.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 04, 2009, 12:05:46 PM
Really great. :) BTW, do you plan to make a 1st Round map ? I guess it would be even more interesting.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 04, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
Really great. :) BTW, do you plan to make a 1st Round map ? I guess it would be even more interesting.

Quote
At first, I just color the map according to the runoff result, because it's easier for me to think in those terms at first, but after all is done, I'll post maps of 2007 first round, 2002 first round, 1995, 1988, 1981, 1974, 1969 and 1965...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 05, 2009, 03:07:47 AM
Really great. :) BTW, do you plan to make a 1st Round map ? I guess it would be even more interesting.

Quote
At first, I just color the map according to the runoff result, because it's easier for me to think in those terms at first, but after all is done, I'll post maps of 2007 first round, 2002 first round, 1995, 1988, 1981, 1974, 1969 and 1965...

Oh, well... sorry. :P
Great news anyways. :D


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on December 06, 2009, 05:07:24 PM
I'm really FOND of it.
Upper Peninsula was exquisite to read !

Illinois will be better than with US parties. Minnesota, Wisconsin (ah !) and Missouri will be very fine too, I'm sure...

You were right to begin with the NE, because the rest is far more interesting than this too European New England (and yet, it was already very interesting to read !).


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 06, 2009, 07:38:14 PM
Illinois

Chicago

Chicago is an overwhelmingly Socialist city, fairly obviously. There would be a very strong and feared PS machine in the city, probably operating in a way similar to the old SFIO-PS machines in Marseille under Gaston Defferre.

Black areas (south and downtown) in the city would be solidly PS, probably the most solid PS areas in the city. The PCF might poll relatively well in these poor inner-city areas, depending on candidate and strength of the PS machine. I have little doubt that all levels of government in this area would be dominated by the PS. The UMP might poll 'well' in more white middle-class areas, but even those would be solidly PS (as would white working-class areas) and some wealthy areas downtown (not that they're plentiful) but that is more likely to be Green.

Hispanic areas in the south, and throughout the city as a whole, would also be solidly PS (no UDF vote here...) as well, though the PCF vote would be significantly less important. Old European ethnic areas would also be solidly PS, with the FN potentially making an impact in these areas.

The liberal, more affluent, and gentrifying areas up north (Uptown, far north and so forth) would still be solidly PS, but would be one of the few areas in the actual city where the Greens would be strong. A more moderate UMP might poll well, as might the UDF-MoDem, but that is rather unlikely.

Outside of that area, the Greenies would be weak in the rest of the city except around DuPage University and condos on the lake whose inhabitants are perfect Green demographic. The FN might poll well in old ethnic working-class areas and parts of the western Bungalow Belt.

Chicago Suburbs

Northern Chicago suburbs, including Wilmette, Kenilworth and Winnetka would have been UMP-RPR areas until not so long ago, but the general social liberalism of the area and gentrification would have turned the area into a generally PS-leaning area. In addition, the PS would be traditionally strong in more blue-collar and ethnically diverse Waukegan. The UMP would still be very competitive with a moderate candidate, but Sarkozy wouldn't have played well here. Bayrou, otoh, might have done well in 2007 and the Greenies would have polled very well in the Euros.

Northern suburbs-exurbs in Lake and McHenry County would still lean UMP, but the PS would have made important gains in the area in the last few years.

Western Chicagoland would still lean UMP, because it's more suburban and less liberal than northern areas of Chicago. However, even here the PS would have made important gains in the past and Sarkozy's populist tone might alienate some in these parts. The Greens would also be strong, especially in the Euros and the MoDem would be weakening from better days in 2007.

Aurora, an older industrial area would be traditionally Socialist as would university areas in DeKalb most notably.

Exurbs, primarily in southern Chicagoland, would be the most solid UMP areas in the suburbs, probably.

Rural Northern Illinois

Rural areas in northern Illinois, such as the corn-growing areas bordering Wisconsin would be solidly UMP. The UMP vote here would be rather moderate, and in the past, the UDF might have polled well. In northern Illinois, the PS' only strength would come from the old manufacturing-industrial centres of Rockford and Joliet, as well as the growth of Chicagoland exurbs.

Central Illinois

Similarly to rural northern Illinois, rural areas in central Illinois would generally lean UMP with the notable exception of Rock Island-Moline, the blue-collar cities of the Illinois portion of the Quad Cities. In addition, the capital of Springfield and Peoria (the latter more so) would lean PS or atleast be more divided. Rural areas along the Indiana border in eastern central Illinois would be even more solidly on the right, with the exception of Bloomington-Normal and Urbana-Champaign, which would lean PS-Greens.

Southern Illinois and St. Louis suburbs

Rural southern Illinois would be solidly on the right (shock!), but the PS might maintain strength in the old coal mining counties in the far south of the state, but I could see the FN polling well there since the late 80s.

East St. Louis would be similar in voting patterns to similarly heavily-black areas in Chicago, and Alton would lean PS as well.

Overall, Illinois would generally lean Socialist, and Royal would have won it by a good margin in 2007.
 
(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Serenity Now on December 16, 2009, 08:58:20 AM
MOAR! :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 01, 2010, 10:40:53 AM
Bump !


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 02, 2010, 08:39:11 PM
Wisconsin

Milwaukee

Milwaukee would obviously be a major historical PS stronghold, and the PS would likely have a big electoral machine here. I suppose the PCF would have been strong, relatively speaking, in the past but the city would have been one of the PS' earliest strongholds. The FN would have polled well in Milwaukee and declining manufacturing areas at various times in the past, especially in 2002, but not anymore.

Milwaukee's suburbs would be a big UMP stronghold. However, Racine, Rock and Kenosha counties; old manufacturing and ethnic areas; would be solidly or generally PS. Generally speaking, the areas south of Milwaukee would be more volatile, but the northern suburbs and western suburbs would be the strongest UMP areas in the state (as they are for Republicans).

Green Bay and Northeastern WI

Rural conservative areas along Lake Michigan and in the Eastern Ridges of Wisconsin would be generally right-leaning, though Indian reserves and parts of Green Bay would be more volatile (the Indian reserves being solidly on the left). I guess the UDF would have been strong in this area in the old days, since a large chunk of it is largely Catholic.

Western Wisconsin and Madison

Madison, with the gentrification of the PS base, be a major Socialist stronghold but the Greens would have won the city by an important margin in the 'European elections'. With its large student population and social liberal attitudes, I suppose it could be compared to Grenoble. The wealthy suburbs and rural areas surrounding Madison would lean UMP, but Sarkozy wouldn't have played well in these politically moderate areas and would likely have performed below Chirac's results.

Rural areas in southwestern Wisconsin would likely be Socialist as well, a sort of 'rural-Socialist' area which is rather rare. I guess some Scandinavians in the area and old rural progressivism would give the PS an old traditional vote. In addition, the PS would be strong in the isolated, old manufacturing and blue-collar communities around the region.

The suburban areas commuting to the Twin Cities would, however, lean UMP, and the UMP could still do well in the general area depending on candidate.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 03, 2010, 08:26:37 AM
Very nice. :) MN, IA and MO will be interesting to see.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 03, 2010, 09:13:16 PM
Minnesota

Twin Cities and suburbs

Minneapolis would obviously be PS, though the Greens would probably have polled ahead of the PS in 2009. St. Paul would also be a PS stronghold, but with the Greens weaker than in Minneapolis. The UMP would still poll better than Republicans usually do, but it would require a moderate candidate who can appeal to wealthy, liberal whites.

The Minneapolis suburbs would be universally right-wing except for PS strength in blue-collar areas such in parts of Dakota, Anoka and Washington Counties. In the wealthy inner suburbs in Hennepin County, the Greens would poll well depending on circumstances and candidate.

The UMP would also be strong in St. Cloud, the northern suburbia and rural areas in the region; though the Greens wouldn't be strong in those areas, which are far more conservative.  I'm not sure on how conservative some of them are, but the MPF could be strong from time to time in those areas which are conservative and Protestant.

Rural Minnesota

A general swing area between the PS and the UMP. The UMP would be favour due to the general right-leaning nature of most of the rural areas, but old traditions and more left-wing economic views in some areas would favour the PS. Rochester in southeastern MN would also be a swing city.

Iron Range

Old PS stronghold with some areas of PCF strength.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 03, 2010, 09:32:49 PM
North Dakota

North Dakota would generally lean to the right, due to the rural and generally more conservative nature of the state. However, since the state is not steadfast partisan and farm issues play an important role, the PS could poll well from time to time. The PS would strong or stronger than average in Grand Forks, Fargo and Indian counties.

Sarkozy would have been a decent candidate for the state, and would have won in the runoff with around 53-56% of the vote. However, the trends of rural discontent seen in parts of France could happen here in ND.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Barnes on February 03, 2010, 09:33:52 PM
This is really quite fantastic, Hashemite! :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Bo on February 03, 2010, 09:37:54 PM
This is really quite fantastic, Hashemite! :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 04, 2010, 01:25:11 AM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: live free or die on February 04, 2010, 01:37:29 AM
Love it.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on February 04, 2010, 05:02:55 AM
Of course, there isn't a question of "souverainisme" in the US, but don't you think some rural areas would be a welcoming ground for MPF ?

That's just because I've just read your post on ND.

In fact, my question is more about NE, KS, inner Missouri, and also about Iowa, but SD and ND (and some Rocky states) might also qualify for a "defensive" farmer vote (against cuts in subsidies, e.g.).

BTW, very happy to see this restarted :D

PCF would be very resilient in Minnesota, I think.
And in Minnesota and some quarters of Wisconsin (and Michigan and Ohio), Mélenchon would be high but I know your topic is a 2007 one).


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 13, 2010, 03:55:26 PM
Iowa

Eastern Iowa and the Quad Cities

The Quad Cities area in Iowa would lean Socialist, notably the older blue-collar town of Dubuque (Davenport would be PS as well, though). The Socialists would also be strong in Waterloo and Cedar Falls (where there would be a sizable Green vote). Rural areas between those cities would be more right-wing, but the PS would maintain a fair rural vote. Catholic areas in northeastern Iowa would have been historically UDF, though the PS (and UMP) would have picked up that vote.

Further south, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City as well as smaller areas with blue-collar population would lean Socialist. Iowa City would have a large Green vote, the others less so.

Des Moines region

The capital Des Moines would lean Socialist, though the UMP would still poll relatively well in the city, owing to its smaller working-class population. The Greens would also poll well, and polled ahead of the PS in 2009.

The suburbs of Des Moines would be a growing UMP-leaning area. North of the city, the towns of Ames, Marshalltown, Mason City and a number of other towns in the region would lean Socialist, either due to the presence of education (Ames) or a more blue-collar vote. Rural areas would generally lean UMP in the region.

Western Iowa

The very conservative Corn Belt rural areas of western Iowa would be solidly UMP. The Dutch areas in the northwestern tip of Iowa would probably even lean MPF, because of their strong social conservatism.

However, the parties position on ethanol, which is big here (and also in other regions) would also have a big electoral effect.

Overall Iowa would lean to the left and Royal would have carried the state by a narrow margin, due in part to Sarkozy's appeal to blue-collar workers.



South Dakota (and a note on the Dakotas)

South Dakota would lean to the right, again, for the same reasons (mainly) as North Dakota. As in ND, the PS would poll well in the big cities (Sioux Falls, Rapid City) and in Indian counties (Shannon, Buffalo etc).

As for the Dakotas in general, Fabien's comment led me to note something which I had forgotten in my analysis of ND. The Dakotas, in general, are not as libertarian-leaning as other parts of the west, they like some subsidies and big government at times. Gaullism would have played very, very well - it is similar to Old Prairie Populism in some aspects. As a result, the Dakotas would have been amongst de Gaulle's best states in 1965, and this would be the only area where the DLR would register on the screen (except where thingee would be based). Yes, the MPF would also poll well but it would be more of a protest vote than a ideological vote. The Dakotas aren't as steadfast socially conservative as the MPF areas in the South. For example, in the 2009 vote in the Dakotas, I would see something like MPF 5-7% and DLR 3-6%.

Exception: The Badlands, which are quite libertarian, would probably be UMP as well, but the DLR and MPF wouldn't poll as well. DL would have polled well in its heyday, and they'd be left in the dark now.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 13, 2010, 05:20:47 PM
Why would Gaullism be so strong in Dakotas ?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 13, 2010, 05:27:52 PM

vvv

Quote
Gaullism would have played very, very well - it is similar to Old Prairie Populism in some aspects.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 14, 2010, 02:42:21 AM

vvv

Quote
Gaullism would have played very, very well - it is similar to Old Prairie Populism in some aspects.

You mean populism in the style of Bryan ? I don't think it could still play in the 1958-1974 years.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Bo on February 14, 2010, 02:45:33 AM

vvv

Quote
Gaullism would have played very, very well - it is similar to Old Prairie Populism in some aspects.

You mean populism in the style of Bryan ? I don't think it could still play in the 1958-1974 years.

The silver standard (which Bryan advocated) would be extremely unpopular after 1900.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 14, 2010, 02:52:24 AM

vvv

Quote
Gaullism would have played very, very well - it is similar to Old Prairie Populism in some aspects.

You mean populism in the style of Bryan ? I don't think it could still play in the 1958-1974 years.

The silver standard (which Bryan advocated) would be extremely unpopular after 1900.

Yeah, but by looking to the election maps it seems that Dakotas definitively abandoned populism in the 1940s.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 14, 2010, 08:40:27 AM

vvv

Quote
Gaullism would have played very, very well - it is similar to Old Prairie Populism in some aspects.

You mean populism in the style of Bryan ? I don't think it could still play in the 1958-1974 years.

The silver standard (which Bryan advocated) would be extremely unpopular after 1900.

Yeah, but by looking to the election maps it seems that Dakotas definitively abandoned populism in the 1940s.

The silver standard is irrelevant. The Dakotas support farm subsidies and federal government funds for agriculture. They're not neoliberals.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on February 16, 2010, 08:15:48 AM

vvv

Quote
Gaullism would have played very, very well - it is similar to Old Prairie Populism in some aspects.

You mean populism in the style of Bryan ? I don't think it could still play in the 1958-1974 years.

The silver standard (which Bryan advocated) would be extremely unpopular after 1900.

Yeah, but by looking to the election maps it seems that Dakotas definitively abandoned populism in the 1940s.

The silver standard is irrelevant. The Dakotas support farm subsidies and federal government funds for agriculture. They're not neoliberals.

That's the big point I think.
And, of course, I agree with Hash on Dakotas and on (relative) strength of MPF and DLR, through protest vote.

On another point, when I said Frêche socialism for some parts of Kentucky or Appalachia, I'm happy, today, after Murtha's death and Frêche's new star status, to imagine Frêche as a populist Dem in some lost part of those states... ;)

Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and Alaska will be very fine to read too ;) Maybe some surprises...
I repeat it all the time, but this is really a very good idea, and very well managed.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 16, 2010, 11:04:15 AM
Yeah, Frêche would fit perfectly as a Dixiecrat. :P


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Nichlemn on March 27, 2010, 03:13:18 AM
Solid analysis, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the right in France wouldn't just crush in the US, given the latter's conservatism. Considering that Obama won 53% in the US but opinion polls had him 80%+ in France, we could possibly extrapolate from that that the converse is true, that conservative French candidates would do vastly better in the US. On the other hand, it's possible that Obama's high worldwide support stemmed considerably less from the relatively leftist leanings than an image of multilateralism that appeals to foreigners. Would that make up that much of the gap though?

An analysis of the US with British parties would be interesting as well. As would an election being purely hypothetical parties who focus almost entirely on economic issues (as is usually the case in New Zealand).


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on March 27, 2010, 07:24:35 AM
Solid analysis, but I'm having a hard time seeing how the right in France wouldn't just crush in the US, given the latter's conservatism. Considering that Obama won 53% in the US but opinion polls had him 80%+ in France, we could possibly extrapolate from that that the converse is true, that conservative French candidates would do vastly better in the US. On the other hand, it's possible that Obama's high worldwide support stemmed considerably less from the relatively leftist leanings than an image of multilateralism that appeals to foreigners. Would that make up that much of the gap though?

An analysis of the US with British parties would be interesting as well. As would an election being purely hypothetical parties who focus almost entirely on economic issues (as is usually the case in New Zealand).

I already explained that in my original post and countless times throughout this thread, so I'm not much in the mood to re-explain it at length. In an atmosphere based more around economic issues than hot-button social issues, in an atmosphere were socialism isn't a swearword, there is much room in the US for a strong left, and I'm not alone in thinking that. If you look at the socio-political demographics, you would also think that.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Colin on April 19, 2010, 02:23:05 AM
Really great job Hashemite. Keep up the good work.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 11, 2010, 10:15:25 AM
Missouri

St. Louis and suburbs

St. Louis would obviously be a Socialist stronghold, for reasons I don't need to explain. I know that there are some white areas within the city itself that are quite racist, and they would likely provide the FN with an important base in the city. In 1997, for example, I would predict that the FN would be quite a bit ahead of the RPR-UDF (and the PS far ahead).

The north-ish suburbs of St. Louis in St. Charles County would be solidly UMP, as would most white-collar suburbs. More blue collar areas along the river, with an old manufacturing base, would be safe-ish areas for the PS.

Central Missouri, Mid-Missouri and the Boot heel

The rural stretch of central Missouri would be like much of the old south: old PS areas, with 'yellow dog Socialists' slowly declining in favour of UMP (growth of white-collar suburbia) and the MPF (growth in rural formerly PS areas). I suppose the UMP would do well in the (predominantly German) wine-growing areas of the Missouri Rhineland, though it would have been a PS area in the past.

The Lead Belt would be an old conservative PS area, with a high FN vote and declining UMP vote. The boot heel of Missouri would be a Dixiecrat PS area and all that entails (for more info, refer to past posts on the Deep South).

The city of Columbia would be PS, though the type of city with a high Green vote and lost by the PS in 2009 to the Greenies. Jefferson City would probably be UMP.

Kansas City and surroundings

Kansas City itself would be strongly Socialist, with the strongest PS support in black and old blue-collar areas while the UMP or Greens would find more support with white, middle-class white-collar employees. The affluent suburbs would be UMP, though older not-as-big suburbia would be traditionally PS with a very strong FN (and in 2007, a big UMP. Some reminds me of the not-so-affluent suburbs of Lyon).

Rural areas in western Missouri would be like the rest of small-town Missouri, old Dixiecrat PS areas.

Ozarks

Like in Arkansas, the old Republican Ozarks would be a UMP stronghold, with the MPF also strong. It would obviously be unlike the other rural Dixiecrat areas in the rest of the state.

Overall Missouri would be one of those southern-like PS states which shifted slowly to the UMP-MPF, and one where Sarkozy's populist and blue-collar appeal in 2007 would have worked well (other such states include parts of PA, TN, IN, parts of IA, AR and the Deep South). In 2010, of course, the UMP would be polling at Moselle-levels.

(
)

To give an idea of what Chirac's 1995 victory would look like

(
)

Jospin does better in the Rust Belt, Deep South; Chirac does better in moderate rural areas, Gaullist Dakotas, wealthy moderate suburbs in NoVA and Maryland, upstate NY, New England, Catholic areas (Louisiana esp.). Map might be a tad too generous to Jospin, though, but I might (or might not) have cool stuff planned for the Plains and Pacific.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 11, 2010, 10:28:34 AM
Yeah, it's back !! :D


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Psychic Octopus on May 11, 2010, 01:14:50 PM
I'm interested in getting to the west. :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 13, 2010, 08:04:09 PM
Nebraska

On the whole, Nebraska would be solidly UMP, for rather obvious reasons. However, I suppose that farm issues in various years could allow some PS strength, and the agricultural discontent with Sarkozy would likely mean a high DLR protest vote in 2009. The MPF would be rather weak, because it would be outside its base and doesn't fit with the MPF's image here of 'southern Baptist redneck party'.

Omaha would have old pockets of PS strength, but would be generally UMP (50-53% Sarkozy in 2007, about) though it would likely have a PS mayor and a quasi-full slate of PS general councillors. Lincoln would be traditionally PS, with a high Green vote and a strong UMP. The PS would also have traditional strength in some 'ethnic' areas (Saline County) and Native areas (Thurston County).

Rural areas would now be uniformly UMP, though in the distant past, there would have been more variation and local PS candidates could cause some variation as well.



Kansas

Kansas would be similar to Nebraska in overall political leanings with a few differences, including a stronger PS.

Kansas City proper, which is blue-collar, rather poor and working-class, would be a PS stronghold; though obviously Johnson County would be solidly UMP. Lawrence, KS (Douglas County) would also lean PS, with a very high Green vote and fast declining UMP vote (especially with Sarko). There are some old mining areas of sorts (Crawford County, which voted Obama, voted Debs in 1912) and I would assume the PS would poll strongly there, especially in the past (PCF would pull a respectable share, much lower now). There'd be some sort of PS base in Wichita as well.

The Plains would be like the Plains in Nebraska are; solidly UMP. Sarkozy would have won the state easily in 2007, but I think he'd fall just short of 60% (due to poor results in Kansas City, Lawrence, though he'd do well in the [very] old mining areas).

(
)

and...

Quote
To give an idea of what Chirac's 1995 victory would look like

(
)

Jospin does better in the Rust Belt, Deep South; Chirac does better in moderate rural areas, Gaullist Dakotas, wealthy moderate suburbs in NoVA and Maryland, upstate NY, New England, Catholic areas (Louisiana esp.). Map might be a tad too generous to Jospin, though, but I might (or might not) have cool stuff planned for the Plains and Pacific.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 13, 2010, 08:23:28 PM
One thing which is kind of interesting is if the French politicians are transported as well... and where they'd fit in.

Basically my (awfully wrong, most likely) hunches are:

Sarkozy (Neuilly) > those awfully wealthy places in NJ with NYC commuters (NYC would probably be like Paris, with wealthy rightie exurbia and inner Red Belt suburbia in NJ and parts of Long Island). I don't think NoVA would fit in well with Neuilly, not enough old established bouregois wealth
Royal (ruralish areas south of Niort, some old leftie strength) > ?
Bayrou (moutains of Bearn east of Pau) > Aroostook County or Coos County(?)
Le Pen (wherever he can win) > FN strongholds with Cuban voters in Miami, obviously
Besancenot (Paris) > inner New York City or somewhere, and postman in those obnoxiously wealthy places in CT. Obviously the NPA would be an even *bigger* joke in the US than in France :)
Buffet (Red Belt, PCF machine bases) > Newark or other undesirable NJ places
Voynet (Montreuil) > Bergen County, NJ (?) or Red Beltish areas in NJ
Bové (Aveyron, Millau) > I have a really hard time figuring out where some rural syndicalist type like Asterix would fit in.
Aubry (Lille) > Some place like Boston, MA or Lowell, MA
Gaudin (Marseille) > Miami
Freche (Montpellier) > I can't think right now of any places in the US which are seaside resorts full of fascists, old people who hate browns and idiots. He would, however, fit right in the quasi-entirety of the Deep South and Appalachia
Delanoë (Paris) > One would assume NYC is the new Paris, and Chirac could have been mayor of NYC before (though it would be harder for him to win in NYC than in Paris)
Méhaignerie (Vitré) > Rural Catholic areas in New England, Méhaignerie sure ain't no Cajun
Fabius (industrial Rouennais suburbs) > The damn Potomac has no industrial areas on its shoreline, does it?
Cohn-Bendit (wherever he feels like setting up camp) > as Fab said early on, Canadian-American citizen living in Vermont or le Plateau/NDG in Montreal

It's harder to think of places for Fillon, Hamon (he'd probably fit in with some corrupt PS machine somewhere), Duflot

and ahem,
Besson > Oklahoma or Idaho panhandle (sorry, cheap shot, couldn't resist)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 14, 2010, 12:49:42 AM
Frêche could be from Myrtle Beach or someplace like that. I'm thinking northern Minnesota for Bové.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 14, 2010, 06:50:35 AM
Shouldn't Aubry be somewhere in the Rust Belt ? I'm thinking to MI or PA.
And for Frêche, Arizona could fit well.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 14, 2010, 10:04:29 AM
Shouldn't Aubry be somewhere in the Rust Belt ? I'm thinking to MI or PA.

The Lille area is historically based on textiles, so Lowell or some other Industrial Revolution town in MA fits better. She's not from the coalfields.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 14, 2010, 10:15:05 AM
Shouldn't Aubry be somewhere in the Rust Belt ? I'm thinking to MI or PA.

The Lille area is historically based on textiles, so Lowell or some other Industrial Revolution town in MA fits better. She's not from the coalfields.

Seems that once again you know things far better than me. ;) I'm not surprised however, I expected to be wrong but was still interested in learning something new.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Linus Van Pelt on May 14, 2010, 10:24:01 AM
The syndicalism doesn't quite fit, but I'm thinking the most plausible location for Bové is Vermont or western Mass, where you get left-wing politics mixed in with a love of pre-industrial farming.

Nice thread, by the way - I just noticed it since I don't normally really read the what-if board.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 14, 2010, 10:30:21 AM
The syndicalism doesn't quite fit, but I'm thinking the most plausible location for Bové is Vermont or western Mass, where you get left-wing politics mixed in with a love of pre-industrial farming.

Vermont would work best, since it's more mountainous, but the hippie-green aspect of Vermont isn't really like the Larzac, but then, it's hard to find a syndicalist mountainous anti-globalization locale in the US, but then it doesn't matter since Bove is only 1% in France and likely much less in the US.

Next up is Oklahoma, where I have some fun surprises planned.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 14, 2010, 10:54:12 AM
Next up is Oklahoma, where I have some fun surprises planned.

We'll, I guess we will have a result similar to west virginia : a very conservative State which you'll give to the PS because of its populism.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Mechaman on May 14, 2010, 10:59:38 AM
Next up is Oklahoma, where I have some fun surprises planned.

We'll, I guess we will have a result similar to west virginia : a very conservative State which you'll give to the PS because of its populism.

Actually, if the French parties were historical and say the Great White Terror never happened I could very easily see a Socialist stronghold in Oklahoma taking place.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 14, 2010, 11:04:56 AM
I keep meaning to comment in more detail. But really, this is an excellent thread. What's fun about projects like this is that they are an excellent excuse to comment on a range of issues relating to political sociology in a way that's easier for people who aren't academics and/or nerds to follow. I'll probably have another go at doing this with Britisher parties soon-ish. Hmm... might be amusing to flip things round as well.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 14, 2010, 11:43:09 AM
Next up is Oklahoma, where I have some fun surprises planned.

We'll, I guess we will have a result similar to west virginia : a very conservative State which you'll give to the PS because of its populism.

'Populism' (which is a word I hate) doesn't explain WV nor will it explain Oklahoma. There's some demographic factors, economic trends and socio-economic factors which explain it better than anything else.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 14, 2010, 01:25:08 PM
Next up is Oklahoma, where I have some fun surprises planned.

We'll, I guess we will have a result similar to west virginia : a very conservative State which you'll give to the PS because of its populism.

'Populism' (which is a word I hate) doesn't explain WV nor will it explain Oklahoma. There's some demographic factors, economic trends and socio-economic factors which explain it better than anything else.

Of course I hate this word too. ;)
However, in this case I meant that it's a state with some latent left-wing rhetoric on economic issues, but combined with a solid conservatism on social issues resulting in huge republican margins. Of course the explanation must be socio-economical, but don't forget the importance of political views.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 16, 2010, 10:56:54 AM
but don't forget the importance of political views.

You bring up a good point which I don't think I addressed sufficiently: in rl, the Republicans obviously won many poor white (Southerners) over by exploiting social conservatism and wedge issues, partly a result of the Southern Strategy and partly because of the influence of the evangelical movement. In a setup where the US has a French system (the basis of which is a US where the word 'socialist' is not a swear word people run away from, more the equivalent of what Americans stupidly call 'populism'), the major parties would be much less likely to shamelessly exploit wedge social issues. The UMP as a whole wouldn't, though a candidate Sarkozy might to cozy up with the MPF electorate in the South (though he'd already appeal to them with simple populist rhetoric). The MPF would be the only major party to use such rhetoric (the FN *might* do so as well) and it would have worked to some extent, but really, far less voters would have been bought to vote on social issues rather than economic issues.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 16, 2010, 12:38:57 PM
but don't forget the importance of political views.

You bring up a good point which I don't think I addressed sufficiently: in rl, the Republicans obviously won many poor white (Southerners) over by exploiting social conservatism and wedge issues, partly a result of the Southern Strategy and partly because of the influence of the evangelical movement. In a setup where the US has a French system (the basis of which is a US where the word 'socialist' is not a swear word people run away from, more the equivalent of what Americans stupidly call 'populism'), the major parties would be much less likely to shamelessly exploit wedge social issues. The UMP as a whole wouldn't, though a candidate Sarkozy might to cozy up with the MPF electorate in the South (though he'd already appeal to them with simple populist rhetoric). The MPF would be the only major party to use such rhetoric (the FN *might* do so as well) and it would have worked to some extent, but really, far less voters would have been bought to vote on social issues rather than economic issues.

Yes, it seems pretty right. Though of course, I think the French situation is trending towards a more and more "Americanish" right, with a growing expoitation of minor thematics in order to avoid difficulties about things that really matter. Of course these issues are not the same in France as in the US (immigration and criminality would replace social conservatism and religion). But anyways, if you translate this situation in America, I think States like WV or OK would be the typical places solidly trending right in 2007, and even more in 2012. Of course, such recent trend wouldn't be enough for sarkozy to carry them, but IMO he wouldn't poll bad.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 16, 2010, 04:16:10 PM
Hmm... might be amusing to flip things round as well.

Indeed. Preferably this would be someplace I'm somewhat familiar with.

Hashemite, any chance you could do Canada with American parties sometime?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 16, 2010, 04:21:29 PM
I wanted to try the US with Brazilian parties (but that wouldn't work, now would it?) or France with US parties.



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 16, 2010, 04:32:10 PM
Oklahoma

Oklahoma would undeniably have been a PS stronghold until the 80s or 90s, to be done in by a number of factors, including socio-economic factors (growing importance of oil industry and declining mining industry), conservative issues (social or otherwise) and working-class voters voting FN starting in 1984 or so.

"Little Dixie" would have a PS stronghold for a long time (the PCF might even have done half-decently, especially in the 70s-80s when some factions used a very right-wing tone on immigrants) and would largely remain so today (irl, it voted reliably Democratic, with a few exceptions, until 2000 or so). Royal would have done poorer than Jospin and Sarkozy would have done better than Chirac (by far) for the usual reasons. Obviously, the FN would have done quite well here in the past and again in 2010.

The other rural-Plains type areas and oil boom areas would be strongly UMP, the latter especially so. The MPF would remain a major player, especially in rural areas, though Sarkozy would have done them in by 2007. Oklahoma City and Tulsa would now be reliably UMP (at least at the national level).

Sarkozy would have won in 2007 narrowly, 52-48 or something, due in large part to his working-class rhetoric which would have so appealed in the Deep South and Appalachia. In 2010, however, you'd see a massive FN vote (similar to Moselle) out of discontent with a Sarkozy judged to be elitist, establishment and pro-rich - and the PS would also hold the General Council since 2004 (after presumably losing it in 1992, they could even have regained it by 1998/2001).

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 17, 2010, 05:02:17 AM
Seems totally right. ;)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 17, 2010, 05:08:03 AM
BTW, please do France with US Parties ! :D It would be great, especially if you include the little parties which are irrelevant there but could weigh a lot in France (Greens and maybe Libertarians, not to forget people like Perot).


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on May 17, 2010, 05:23:27 PM
The syndicalism doesn't quite fit, but I'm thinking the most plausible location for Bové is Vermont or western Mass, where you get left-wing politics mixed in with a love of pre-industrial farming.

Vermont would work best, since it's more mountainous, but the hippie-green aspect of Vermont isn't really like the Larzac, but then, it's hard to find a syndicalist mountainous anti-globalization locale in the US, but then it doesn't matter since Bove is only 1% in France and likely much less in the US.


What about fishers in Louisiana ?
Couldn't Bové make some good results here ?
Of course, this is not mountainous, but, still...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on May 17, 2010, 05:28:48 PM
One thing which is kind of interesting is if the French politicians are transported as well... and where they'd fit in.

Basically my (awfully wrong, most likely) hunches are:

Sarkozy (Neuilly) > those awfully wealthy places in NJ with NYC commuters (NYC would probably be like Paris, with wealthy rightie exurbia and inner Red Belt suburbia in NJ and parts of Long Island). I don't think NoVA would fit in well with Neuilly, not enough old established bouregois wealth
Royal (ruralish areas south of Niort, some old leftie strength) > ?
Bayrou (moutains of Bearn east of Pau) > Aroostook County or Coos County(?)
Le Pen (wherever he can win) > FN strongholds with Cuban voters in Miami, obviously
Besancenot (Paris) > inner New York City or somewhere, and postman in those obnoxiously wealthy places in CT. Obviously the NPA would be an even *bigger* joke in the US than in France :)
Buffet (Red Belt, PCF machine bases) > Newark or other undesirable NJ places
Voynet (Montreuil) > Bergen County, NJ (?) or Red Beltish areas in NJ
Bové (Aveyron, Millau) > I have a really hard time figuring out where some rural syndicalist type like Asterix would fit in.
Aubry (Lille) > Some place like Boston, MA or Lowell, MA
Gaudin (Marseille) > Miami
Freche (Montpellier) > I can't think right now of any places in the US which are seaside resorts full of fascists, old people who hate browns and idiots. He would, however, fit right in the quasi-entirety of the Deep South and Appalachia
Delanoë (Paris) > One would assume NYC is the new Paris, and Chirac could have been mayor of NYC before (though it would be harder for him to win in NYC than in Paris)
Méhaignerie (Vitré) > Rural Catholic areas in New England, Méhaignerie sure ain't no Cajun
Fabius (industrial Rouennais suburbs) > The damn Potomac has no industrial areas on its shoreline, does it?
Cohn-Bendit (wherever he feels like setting up camp) > as Fab said early on, Canadian-American citizen living in Vermont or le Plateau/NDG in Montreal

It's harder to think of places for Fillon, Hamon (he'd probably fit in with some corrupt PS machine somewhere), Duflot

and ahem,
Besson > Oklahoma or Idaho panhandle (sorry, cheap shot, couldn't resist)

Royal > in some far-away suburbs of the Triangle in NC ?
Just a try...

Fillon > somewhere in rural Minnesota, not far away from Minneapolis-St Paul (odd to compare it with Le Mans, I know :P)

Hamon hasn't even a base in France, so, in the US... :D

And Bové, I've already proposed fishing towns in Louisiana...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on May 17, 2010, 05:31:27 PM
I love your Missouri (especially the Rhineland and the Ozarks, for different reasons ;)).

NE and KS are without surprise.

The North-West, including Idaho and Alaska, will be fascinating.

And, as for your 1995 map, what about OK ?
I'm not sure at all Jospin would have won it. Mitterrand 1988 would have been the last one, I think.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 17, 2010, 08:13:42 PM
What about fishers in Louisiana ?
Couldn't Bové make some good results here ?
Of course, this is not mountainous, but, still...

Seeing those types on Thalassa on Sunday: certainly not. They don't seem at all like green-antiglobalization type, and if they are of the latter stock, they'd vote FN or MPF.

And, as for your 1995 map, what about OK ?
I'm not sure at all Jospin would have won it. Mitterrand 1988 would have been the last one, I think.

Chirac did not have the same appeal to the type of poor white working-class voters that Sarkozy had (and which would have ultimately carried him over the top in 2007). While 1995 would be quite close, Jospin would've won it, like he won Meurthe-et-Moselle (though there is obviously no comparison between the two)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on May 18, 2010, 03:25:17 AM
What about fishers in Louisiana ?
Couldn't Bové make some good results here ?
Of course, this is not mountainous, but, still...

Seeing those types on Thalassa on Sunday: certainly not. They don't seem at all like green-antiglobalization type, and if they are of the latter stock, they'd vote FN or MPF.

And, as for your 1995 map, what about OK ?
I'm not sure at all Jospin would have won it. Mitterrand 1988 would have been the last one, I think.

Chirac did not have the same appeal to the type of poor white working-class voters that Sarkozy had (and which would have ultimately carried him over the top in 2007). While 1995 would be quite close, Jospin would've won it, like he won Meurthe-et-Moselle (though there is obviously no comparison between the two)

You're right on both things.
Even though I think Bové isn't really deeply green... but that's another debate ;)

Might Bové be more at ease in Puerto Rico ? :D
I just try again !


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on May 18, 2010, 06:10:14 AM
Might Bové be more at ease in Puerto Rico ? :D
I just try again !

Yup, perhaps so. He'd catch the PIP vote perhaps :)

I'd do Puerto Rico as well, but I don't know enough about electoral sociology there (especially in rural areas)...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 25, 2010, 02:28:02 PM
Bump.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on July 25, 2010, 02:50:00 PM

Seconded. It's time for Texas. :D


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 26, 2010, 11:21:54 AM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on July 28, 2010, 01:25:45 PM
Texas

Texas would have been, generally, a Dixiecrat PS state up until the 1970s or so but would since have grown far more right-wing and the PS would remain much weaker than in other Deep South states. Generally, the Dixiecrat base would have been in East Texas with old lingering right-wing presence in German Hill County and West Texas. Prior to the RPR, I don't know which form this non-Dixiecrat otl Republican vote would take, probably the CNI in the 50s and various righties or Radicals pre-war. In a way, I could see the Radicals doing very well in those otl GOP bastions. Just a hunch.

East Texas

Nowadays, very much right-wing UMP/MPF region, even down to the local level perhaps. The oil boom, natural gas exploitations and petrochemical growth in the region in replacement of old Deep South-type ranching and agriculture as well as suburban growth in places like Montgomery County would partly explain the right's strength on practically all levels. Generally, suburbs and oil-dependent regions would be strongly UMP while older cattle/agricultural regions would be more MPF (and the PS would still do decent-ish). The PS would poll well in Beaumont, a coastal petrochemical town but would struggle elsewhere, especially at the national level with candidates like Royal.

As elsewhere in the Deep South, the UMP's base would be in suburbs like those in Montgomery, Collin, Denton, Kaufman Counties.

Dallas

Inner-city Dallas (see, roughly, TX-30), which is heavily black-Hispanic and rather blue-collar, would be strongly PS. Hispanic areas in Cockrell Hill and south Irving, roughly the southern end of TX-32, would remain strongly PS as well but the exclusive "Park Cities" suburbs as well as Plano and Frisco would be strongly UMP with MPF strength. I'm not an expert on Texas, but I doubt these rich folks would provide a strong FN vote though I suspect they may share some of the party's ideas.

Roughly, inner city of Dallas, Fort Worth and parts of Arlington would be PS; the rest (aka, suburbia) would largely be UMP.

Houston and Galveston

Shifting south to the other big city in eastern Texas, Houston, patterns are relatively similar. As mentioned earlier, suburban Houston - of the type found in exclusive white suburbia like Montgomery County - is uber-UMP. However, places in the Golden Triangle (Beaumont-Port Arthur) which may be wrongly counted as suburbia, would be far more competitive. Wealthy suburbs in western and southeastern Harris County would also be predictably UMP, you know the stuff.

Inner-city Houston, which is very non-white and especially non-English in parts would, of course, be strongly PS. No flicker of a doubt that Hispanics would be brought into the PS machine rather than the Christian democratic UDF however Catholic they may be. The young professional-artsy white liberal type in downtown Houston would also be PS but not so solidly; certainly Green nowadays and maybe UMP in the pre-Sarkozy populism days (1993, 2002 obviously). I suppose that since parts of Houston's Hispanic areas have a lot of people who don't speak English or aren't US citizens, the FN could catch the non-liberal white vote in those parts and could be the second party in TX-29.

Galveston itself would likely be PS, but the rest of the white oil-dependent Gulf Coast region would be strongly UMP.

Edwards Plateau and Austin

Straddling the middle of the division between Deep South East Texas and more 'outback' West Texas, the Plateau region would be almost universally on the right these days but back in the days where the east vs. west divide was important (it could be even more pronounced in this system, though then again, the PS would have a huge machine in Texas in the good ol' days, so no). These sparsely populated rural areas would be UMP areas these days with a good MPF vote, and quickly fading remnants of an old Socialist era in the past.

Austin, goes without saying, is a random island of progressivism in the middle of conservative heartland. Although the city is gerrymandered in a way similar to La Roche or Bourg-en-Bresse in France is, the downtown core of the city and especially around the uni would be strongly left-wing. That means PS in presidential ballots, but very strongly Green (35% or so) in other ballots. Might have a few Green state reps depending on the districts even. Minority-populated areas slightly east of the downtown core would be more strongly PS. Wealthier white suburbs of Austin in Travis County proper and Williamson/Hays counties would be more strongly UMP. Exurbia much more so than older suburbs closer to Austin. The UMP might have polled well (better than the GOP) in the 70s and 90s, but their rapid descent since 2004 would be particularly violent.

Almost directly west of Austin is the German Hill Country, which has always been a progressive anti-slavery German Catholic enclave (and a weird deep GOP enclave even in Dixiecrat days). As mentioned earlier, I think the Radicals would have done well here in their pre-war heyday. It would be UMP today, though a streak of dissension from the populist-MPF cuddling of Sarkozy wouldn't shock me (maybe a high DLR protest vote? Villepiniste ground in 2012?)

West Texas, Llano Estacado and the Panhandle

This is ranching county (with some oil) and the real west. Sparsely populated, vast outback desert land, and parochial-type feeling in the small counties. Therefore, conservative. Very much so.

"Cities" like Lubbock, Abilene, Wichita Falls and Amarillo would all remain strongly right-wing and the cantonal level would still be largely right-wing. I say 'right-wing' because I think the MPF would be very strong in these rural, isolated areas with ranching and all that. Kind of similar, in some weird way, to Villiers' home base in Vendee (the most conservative small-town, isolated, parochial area historically; no ranching of course but big properties). The UMP might be strong in cities and oil-driven areas, the MPF might be strong in rural areas and ranching country.

There was actually a Democratic rump at the 'base' of the Panhandle (in 2008, McCain's best areas in the country) until 2000 (!) in counties which were more in the East Texas-feel of things with no big ranches and their new ideas. The PS could have a small base there until the 90s (likely evaporated by the 1992 cantonals).

There are a good number of Hispanics and surprisingly many Hispanic-majority counties in this area; but they're largely older and disconnected with recent Mexican immigrants (and wealthier) and they're also quite evangelical (aka, there are fewer Catholics than Hispanics). They vote Republican (even in 2008) and I would assume they'd vote UMP (the evangelical few might vote UMP, the Catholic ones might have voted UDF until 2002) by a large margin.

I don't think the FN vote would be big, this region seems fairly libertarian in regards to government and doesn't have the "forgotten places" feel that those FN-heavy white rural areas in Champagne have. Gaullism though, like in the other Plains state, would play well and these would have been big de Gaulle areas back in '65 (when presumably Mitterrand would have swept east Texas and the RGV).

Rio Grande Valley, South Texas and the Trans-Pecos

This is the Hispanic country of Texas, and traditionally these Hispanics remain poor, recent immigrants and thus vote differently than those in west Texas. The problem in figuring out how they vote here is that while they're poor, a lot have not integrated the American mixing pot as much as those in urban areas and have traditional conservative 'populist' values. What we've seen thus far in this analysis are urban Hispanic voters, also poor, but loyal PS voters in Socialist-dominated big cities - them voting UDF thus makes no sense. I assume, personally, and I'm probably wrong, that Hispanics in these poor and non-urbanized might be slightly more likely to vote for the right (after all, Bush did very well with Texan Hispanics in 2004) and probably the UDF. In places like Starr County, Hidalgo County; I could see a UDF tailored to Hispanic needs and voters do very well in the not-so-distant past and Sarkozy would have done well too (though I have a hard time seeing the UMP poll well consistently). I still think there'd be a fairly important PS vote though, and one which is also increasing over time.

At any rate, actually, since this a region more and more influenced by Mexico, a party machine in the style of the Mexican PRI would have a nice little breeding ground here. Question is if it would be a UDF machine, a PS machine or some other type of machine. Locally, I think DVD-DVG type candidates would own the land, obviously.

San Antonio, majority Hispanic, though, being urban, would be a PS stronghold. I would suppose other Hispanic border towns such as Brownsville, McAllen and obviously El Paso would be big PS areas too.

I assume we'd see a large-ish white anti-Hispanic FN vote in border areas, especially in 2002 and maybe again in 2010.

Overall, Texas would be one of Sarkozy's best states in 2007, and the best result for the Texan right in a long time (not that they'd have 'bad' results often). Why? Big appeal with rural Hispanics (like Bush in 2004), big appeal in those old Dixiecrat PS rural areas (Royal is as bad of a candidate for those area as Obama/Kerry were), traditional populistic-Gaullist appeal and rhetoric, good results in suburbs. Breaks the 60 line, something Chirac wouldn't have come close to doing in '95. Though in 2010, you'd be seeing a big FN vote in Texas and some good results for the PS again. While an interesting state to look at, the 1965 election, I think, would be really interesting to look at.

(
)

So, folks, NM or MT next?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on July 28, 2010, 04:17:25 PM
I know very little about French politics, but this is very fascinating, with quite a few unexpected results.

I vote that you should do New Mexico next. It's a very diverse state and should have some interesting results.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 23, 2010, 03:22:03 AM
Why not NM ?

I really agree with your note on Radicals in those otl GOP bastions.

In TX, I'm trying to see if a local PS leader would fit and probably Delebarre would be fine: populist, productivist, from a polluted city...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on August 23, 2010, 05:16:25 AM
Yeah, NM loosk very interesting. :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: WMS on September 16, 2010, 11:10:32 AM
*ahem* I know NM is a weird state to figure out, but it's time for a bump anyway, because I'm interested in what you have to say about us. :P


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on September 21, 2010, 11:48:33 AM
I will likely get scolded by people who know far more about the state than I do, but here's my pathetic attempt.

New Mexico

Northeast and Northwest

First thing to talk about are the Hispanic counties, which gave me the most trouble. In northern New Mexico, these Hispanic areas are not Mexican, meaning that they were settled hundreds of years ago by people who might be better known as Spaniards and not as Mexicans. They're largely poor, and, with a few exceptions, heavily Catholic (especially in San Miguel and Guadelupe Counties). Similarly to rural poor Rio Grande Valley Hispanics in Texas, I don't consider it a stretch to see these areas being dominated until not too long ago by a "slightly" corrupt UDF machine, one which holds a doctorate in making dead people vote. Given the recent history of the UDF, it would be eroding as the Socialists get organized here and benefit from discontent with the new UDF. Though I still figure Bayrou would have done well here in 2007, definitely one of his best areas. You would have a lot of dvd/dvg independents at the cantonal level with a few remaining MoDem councillors spread out here and there. Prior to the 60s or so, these areas would likely see political machines led by various centrist and right-wing outfits.

The Navajos and natives who do vote would be strongly PS presumably. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see them voting for other parties on the basis of candidates and all that. But Sarkozy would be a bad candidate in those areas, presumably.

I don't know as much as I'd like to know about Santa Fe and Taos, but they would most likely be growingly Socialist while probably dominated by the non-UDF right in the not so distant past. Santa Fe seems to be a wealthy well-educated liberal town, which means that the Greens would be doing well and likewise in Taos.

The UMP would have pockets of strength in the northeastern counties which are part of Little Texas and have a large evangelical population, and they would also do well in the Farmington area which is natural gas country and is largely white. As well as in Los Alamos, which is full of military scientists of some sort.

Central

Albuquerque is an interesting place, and would be one of the most right-leaning major cities in the country. The PS would be strong in poor Hispanic areas in South Valley and Southeast Heights, as well as some more recent strength in more social liberal/yuppie areas such as Los Ranchos, downtown and near the uni; where the Greens would probably be outpolling the PS nowadays. The UMP would be strong in white wealthy areas such as North Albuquerque Acres and Northeast Heights, as well as in areas with a strong military place. Overall, it's a high-growth place with a big military and tech sector which means that it'd have been strongly UMP but less so nowadays.

White rural areas are UMP etc, Hispanic areas are either UDF or recently PS.

South and Little Texas

As briefly mentioned above, Little Texas would now be strongly UMP/MPF and similar to parts of West Texas described before-hand. The Hispanic (Mexican) turnout would be low, which would give the right big margins in most elections. You could see some white anti-Mexican voting for the FN, especially in key years such as 2002 or 2010. However, similarly to the Deep South, these areas would have been strongly PS until the 1960s/1970s, and would have formed the SFIO's base in the state for a long time. While the rest of the state would have been voting MRP or something. You could still see 'Dixiecrat' type PS general councillors at the local level.

The area surrounding the Bootheel and Las Cruces, which are Mexican (Hispanic) areas would be getting more PS presumably as more Mexicans start voting and they would likely vote for the PS given that they'd be more recent immigrants than that UDF-leaning Spanish.

NM is hard to pin down in 2007, because you can think rather easily of areas where Sarkozy would do better than your usual right-winger (Little Texas, Farmington, white rural areas, military-dependent places) and places where Royal would do better than your usual left-winger (Las Cruces, Santa Fe, Taos, downtown Albuquerque and likely the UDF-leaning Spanish vote), but I'll put it down at a 53-47 or something Sarkozy win.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 22, 2010, 08:33:45 AM
Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on September 22, 2010, 09:09:37 AM
Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

actually, it would be less Socialist than it is Democratic irl (at least since 1960) because of the political affiliation of the Spanish vote. Giscard, por ejemplo, would have won it in 1981 (though Mitterrand would presumably have won it rather easily in 1988) and Chirac would have won it in 1995.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: WMS on September 22, 2010, 10:54:30 AM
I thought it was a pretty good analysis, although I wonder how, in your view, the West Side of Albuquerque would vote in this system - since you mentioned every other part of Bernalillo County, I was left curious. :)

And yes, the Greens do quite well in Santa Fe and Taos IRL, so good call there.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on September 22, 2010, 10:56:39 AM
the West Side of Albuquerque would vote in this system - since you mentioned every other part of Bernalillo County, I was left curious. :)

poor "suburban" Hispanic, right? Presumably increasingly solidly PS with some old UDF machine being killed off.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on September 22, 2010, 03:31:59 PM
Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

actually, it would be less Socialist than it is Democratic irl (at least since 1960) because of the political affiliation of the Spanish vote. Giscard, por ejemplo, would have won it in 1981 (though Mitterrand would presumably have won it rather easily in 1988) and Chirac would have won it in 1995.

Indeed, you're right. Though considering the State's trends and Sarkozy's lack of appeal there, I think he could have performed less well there than nationwide.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on September 22, 2010, 03:45:49 PM
Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

actually, it would be less Socialist than it is Democratic irl (at least since 1960) because of the political affiliation of the Spanish vote. Giscard, por ejemplo, would have won it in 1981 (though Mitterrand would presumably have won it rather easily in 1988) and Chirac would have won it in 1995.

Indeed, you're right. Though considering the State's trends and Sarkozy's lack of appeal there, I think he could have performed less well there than nationwide.

Re-read my last line(s). I can agree with you that he'd have performed less well there within certain demographics than is usual for the New Mexican Right, but at the same time I can point out demographics in NM where he'd have performed better than is usual. It's a really tricky thing, but, on the whole, I agree with you that, given the weight of Spanish Hispanics in the electorate (and the fact that Sarkozy would underperform there), the state would be trending to the left.

Did that make any sense? No. Sorry, I have like 600 other things in my head right now.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 07, 2010, 06:11:16 PM

Certainly not. It's a fast-growing area (bulk of housing built post-1990 IIRC) with a population that has relatively high incomes (median hh income for most census tracts in the 45-50 and 50-75 brackets) but working class backgrounds. Whiter than the Albuquerque average, though pretty diverse.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Napoleon on December 24, 2010, 04:16:32 AM
bump please!


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 26, 2010, 06:09:50 AM
^^


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on December 27, 2010, 05:17:51 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 03, 2011, 10:06:03 AM
oy, this is hard. Be kind.

Colorado

Denver and suburbia

Denver would be a rather solidly Socialist area. Obviously, the PS would dominate at all levels in Hispanic (and black) neighborhoods. In the whiter liberal areas, the PS would be doing better and better as the UMP's strength with mid-income white urbanites erodes fast thanks to the likes of Sarkozy et al. However, the UMP or more likely the Greens would do well with these voters in other elections (presumably they'd vote more PS in presidential elections).

Denver's suburbs would have been largely UMP/RPR not so long ago, but would now be swing areas overall albeit with a slight UMP lean. There might be exceptions in older, more blue-collar type suburbs (which are not too affluent) which might have a PS lean going back a while. Exurbia would still be solidly UMP, though.

Eastern Plains

A UMP stronghold, overall, with a strong MPF and possibly FN vote from time to time. Would vote very similarly to, say, the adjacent parts of Kansas.

Front Range and San Luis Valley

So, this is a big regions. As mentioned above, Denver exurbs are UMP. Colorado Springs is UMP as well, as are most of the other small white counties.

Pueblo, with its Hispanic working-class tradition, would be an old PS stronghold though it might have weakened in recent years with a strengthening of the FN vote, and, from time to time, of the UMP vote.

The San Luis Valley area, generally speaking, is of Hispanic stock but like in northern New Mexico, of Spanish descent and not of Mexican descent. I figure my predictions for Spanish-descent Hispanics in New Mexico - an old ancestrally UDF demographic (with a corrupt UDF machine) which would have trended towards the PS in recent years. Though turnout here might be quite low.

Western Slope (Rockies, Boulder, ski bunnies)

So, this is the tricky part. Ski resorts in Europe, France in particular, are extremely solidly right-wing areas with few other parties doing well there. In the US and Canada, they're far less right-wing and instead have a strong (in the US, very strong) lean towards the local "left" despite high incomes and so forth. I don't know every single reason for this, but to my knowledge skiing in the US/Canada is a far more widespread, popular activity for many and resorts bring a lot of young types over (and presumably the jobs pay well). In France, it's a traditional bourgeois/rich folk's activity. Thus, it's harder to figure out how the ski resorts like Aspen, Telluride and so forth would vote in the US. I'll go forth to humiliate myself now. I would predict an old right-wing/centre-right voting block in those areas but which would be eroding very quickly (again thanks to Sarkozy) and translating into a more left-wing lean, with the PS doing better and better and the Greens doing extremely well in the ski counties. However, a lot of the counties here also had a big mining history which died right around the time skiing became popular, so one could presume the right-wing lean I predict is only around since the 70s and before that the areas were more left-wing with a working-class PS/PCF vote. Non-skiing areas would be right-wing except in areas with an old mining tradition in which case an ancestral PS vote might be dying out.

Boulder would probably be voting Green/PS these days, though the UMP would have done well in a not so distant past.

The FN and MPF would get some of their worst results in the ski bunny areas, unless there are old white snobby bourgeois there which I doubt.

Overall

Presuming my analysis is right, which I doubt, Colorado would have one of the strongest trends from right to left since the 70s (Giscard would have won like 60% in 1974). The "bobo" phenomenon, with the "boboisation" of the PS electorate would play a big role, as would the UMP's shift from traditional European centre-right to a more populist form of conservatism with Sarkozy. In 2007, a narrow 51-49 or so Sarkozy win.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 06, 2011, 09:55:49 AM
Wyoming

A solidly right-leaning state since at least the Fifth Republic's beginnings and probably before that too. I don't think the UMP's contemporary bases in Wyoming merit much explanation. Nowadays, the PS/left would be strong basically only in Teton County (Jackson Hole), though my question mark about ski resort voting patterns comes up here too. It would do well in Laramie as well. Amusingly, both of these areas seem much more favourable for the Greens now than for the PS, so I suppose the Greens would have easily outpolled the PS in 2009 and maybe even 2010. Sweetwater County (and other mining counties) would have been the PS' strongholds up until the late 80s when Teton and Laramie would be voting for the right. In recent years, the PS might still have underlying traditional strength 'round those parts but overall it would now lean slightly towards the right though probably with a strong FN. On that topic; presumably Chirac would've done poorly in WY in 2002, with a big protest vote for Le Pen (an "Alsatian-style" FN vote) and Madelin would have done quite well as well.

Given how the "Alsatian-style" FN vote in 2007 went, Sarkozy would have done extremely well in 2007 picking up both 2002-era FN voters and traditional PS working-class votes (like all 7 of them). Otoh, he would have done worse than usual in Jackson Hole and Laramie.

Given the "rural discontent" in France right now, one would suppose an isolated state like WY would have swung badly against the UMP in 2010, with the FN's vote perking upwards. In which case PS gains at the cantonal level in 2008/2011 would not be very surprising.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: tpfkaw on January 06, 2011, 10:15:55 AM
(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 08, 2011, 07:01:27 AM
Nice to see this restarted. :)

I really long for the West Coast now...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 12, 2011, 10:36:17 AM
Remember this?

Montana

Montana is an interesting state. It has a strong anti-establishment streak which would manifest itself through random voting patterns at times, which could be as diverse and nonsensical as a strong Le Pen in 2002, a strong Bayrou in 2007 and perhaps an early base for the RPR in the 70s against Giscard.

This might be one of the PS' strongest states in the Rocky Mountain west. It would poll very strongly in the large Indian rez all over the state. More recently, it would have gained strength in Missoula and Helena, though the Greens would poll 25-35% on a regular basis (since 2009) in Missoula and a bit less in Helena. Again, the question mark over ski resorts come up, but I assume Gallatin County would lean PS/Greens nowadays with a strong moderate UMP vote.

Butte-Anaconda, the silver mining and very unionized (and slightly politically bizarre) area of Montana would be interesting. I assume it would lean heavily PS with a decent PCF vote, though I wouldn't exclude a strong MRP vote in the 50s given the strong Irish population here and potentially a weird Gaullist-type tradition (of left-wing stock) in the past and other bizarre things. And also, a strong Green vote and very weak FN vote which is slightly bizarre for an industrial mining area. Other isolated mining areas like Mineral County would maintain a PS tradition.

The eastern stretch of the state would be solidly UMP, in that they're ranching/oil areas (again with the exceptions of the rez being strongly PS).

In the past, the UMP tradition here would have been of moderate stock (presumably the east would have been a stronghold of Fourth Republic 'moderates', aka right-wingers) and with the exception of Irish Catholic areas, Montana would probably have been a Radical stronghold for most of the Third Republic with strong Radical barons. The anti-establishment streak might manifest itself with early implantation of socialism in Butte-Anaconda, early radicalism (right around statehood) which refuses to die and later through a surprisingly strong FN vote in some parts (presumably the eastern ranching areas), a strong Bayrou in 2007 and then a strong EELV (and DLR) in 2009/2010. Also, Madelin and DL would have been strong in Montana when they were around.

While Sarkozy would have won the state with roughly 51-53% of the vote, he would be very unpopular here right now.

(
)

oooh, God, Mormons...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on February 12, 2011, 10:49:31 AM
God, I need to do U.S. with Polish parties.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 13, 2011, 07:02:43 PM
Idaho

Shockingly, Idaho would be a right-wing stronghold with the left's major bases having shifted somwhat in the past 20 years and with the right facing a strong challenge from the FN.

The first issue which needs some figuring out are Mormons. The common stereotype is that the Mormons flock like sheep to the candidate endorsed by the LDS Church, but I don't entirely believe that's true. At any rate, true or not, Mormons are a bit of a headache. They're not all that batsh**t insane on social issues, and they don't like Baptists much (and vice versa, obviamente) so more likely than not MPF is not a real possibility except maybe outside of islands of radical conservative Mormonism and even then. This leaves the modern mainstream right, the UMP, as the real choice and it's not all that bad of a possibility. Certainly the LDS leadership would see more advantages in siding with the larger right (UMP) than the sidekick right (MPF) and there is a right-wing social conservative base within the UMP which could be enlarged with Mormons. Given how well Schmitz the Nazi and Bo Gritz the loonie-toon did in some of the most redneck radical Mormon areas, there'd be a base for the FN and alternatively for fringe outfits led by far-right conspiracy theorists wearing tin foil hats. I suspect Carl Lang's recent outfit might have done best in Idaho. Still, overall, the Mormon areas would more likely than not be solidly UMP with a decently strong but not very strong MPF and FN presence.

The ski bunnies of the Sun Valley would have been solidly right-wing into the early 90s, when they'd presumably have voted Balladur in 1995 before evolving towards the bobo left since 2002 or so. Royal might have won Blaine County, but she'd certainly not do as well there as otl Dems (that's the general rule for ski resorts in this scenario). The Greens would obviously be strong there. The same for Teton County (the Idahoan parts of Yellowstone National Park's resort area, near Jackson Hole) though the evolution there would be more recent and drastic.

Boise itself would probably be Socialist, in an intensely right-wing area. Moscow would have shifted quite a bit to the left, with the PS winning it in 2007 and the Greens winning it solidly in 2009 and 2010.

The panhandle, which was known for having some neo-Nazi hangouts in the recent past, more importantly has a working-class mining (and logging, iirc) tradition which makes for it being a solidly PS (and PCF) area in the past. The FN would poll very strongly in these isolated white working-class locales, with the PS' base in these areas declining rapidly. Sarkozy would have won, but the PS would dominate at the local level in these areas if only because all recent local and regional elections were held during the peak of the left's popularity.

Sarkozy would have done pretty well for a right-winger, obviously breaking 60% with a good first round appeal to Mormons and taking a lot of Le Pen votes in the working-class areas of the panhandle.

Utah

The above comments on Mormons apply here and they apply to the quasi-entirety of the state. Provo and BYU seem to be some deeply conservative militantly LDS areas, so some MPF presence is possible but I doubt a Baptist-dominated MPF would ever do well anywhere in Deseret. So perhaps some smaller, perhaps local, conservative third party. The FN and other small far-right loonies would have a small base in rural Mormon Utah, as in Idaho.

The PS and Greens would do well in downtown SLC and in places near the university in SLC, and more recently would do well with Park City liberals and in the touristy spot of Moab. The same comments applied to touristy spots and ski bunny areas applies here, yeah.

Historically, and still kind of today, the PS would be based in mining areas such as Carbon and Tooele Counties. Tooele would probably have fallen off somewhat for them, but Carbon's larger ethnic (Greek) mining tradition would mean that the PS would still do decently out there. Native turnout is generally awful, but the PS wins those who do bother to turn out.

Sarkozy wins, does poorly in resort places and better in working-class areas like Carbon.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on February 14, 2011, 08:21:06 AM
Mormons in the UMP seems good: after all, Boutin and the PCD are still inside the UMP ;).
I guess that would "perfectly" fit with the differences between MPF and PCD in RL.



And I like your Radical Montana, imagining Herriot or Queuille in these landscapes ;D.

BTW, wouldn't Clemenceau have been at ease in Montana ?

Maybe even JJSS would have tried to make it its political base !



Eager to see if there will be a difference between north and south of Pacific Coast.
And if there will be surprises in Nevada vs California (the other way round between red & blue ?).
After all, this is 2007...


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 14, 2011, 08:55:05 AM
Very interesting as always ? :)

For the remaining States, I'm guessing socialists would win OR, WA and HI, Sarkozy would carry AZ in a landslide, NV easily and CA narrowly. AK is a mistery for me.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on February 14, 2011, 09:52:10 AM

For the remaining States, I'm guessing socialists would win OR, WA and HI, Sarkozy would carry AZ in a landslide, NV easily and CA narrowly. AK is a mistery for me.

Yep, but... not so sure for NV ;).

AK is safe for Sarkozy. Maybe a sort of rural Jura, or even rural Savoie, with ski boon playing th role of oil :P.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 14, 2011, 05:12:46 PM
Arizona

Arizona is largely a right-wing stronghold, and one of the FN's best state in the region. It would have voted solidl

Phoenix is too much an awful sprawling horror in the middle of arid wasteland to describe uniformly. The downtown core and the south of the the city (eg, Hispanic areas) would be the PS' strongholds (along with a few rez areas). Affluent, high-growth white suburbs and exurbs like Scottsdale, Glendale, Gilbert, Peoria, Surprise as well as Paradise Valley would be rock-solid UMP. The more liberal and uni town of Tempe would have a more 'bobo' lean, translating into more recent PS and Green votes despite being RPR in the past. Obviously, Mormon tradition communities in Maricopa would be solidly UMP.

Rural white areas would be solidly UMP. Flagstaff and the touristy-artsy town of Sedona are educated and liberal areas would have a 'bobo' lean which would nowadays mean PS/Green votes (Sedona would now be solidly Green). Tucson's Hispanic south would be solidly PS, while I suppose the rest of the city would be swingy with a PS lean, one which is more pronounced in whatever downtown parts are white liberal bobo/uni areas (I don't know Tucson, obviously). The suburbs would be solidly UMP.

Outside of those areas, the PS would find support in Hispanic communities (where turnout and generally voter registration is terribly low) such as Nogales and parts of Yuma. The white parts of Yuma filled with olds would be solidly UMP. Navajo Nation and the Hopi areas would be solidly PS areas (when the natives turn out), though it would be fun to see if there emerges some sort of difference between Navajo and Hopi voting patterns given the rivalry between the two. Finally, copper mining areas in Clifton (Greenlee County) would've been the PS' earliest base in the state though it would be in decline these days though probably still sorta reliably PS outside of Sarkozy's win there in 2007.

As mentioned in the introduction, the FN would be very strong in Arizona with a strong white anti-immigration/anti-Hispanic vote especially concentrated in border counties such as Yuma. The hillbilly Minutemen type loonies would vote FN (or maybe that 'Identitaires' outfit). Presumably the FN would be the second largest party (behind the PS) in heavily Hispanic border areas. Though the Le Pens would carpetbag their asses to Florida to get elected, maybe Marine would've attempted to establish a presence in Yuma or some place in 2004 (like she did in IdF).

Polygamous/incestuous FLDS Mormon communities such as Colorado City would probably vote heavily for some fringe far-right outfit or the FN. I'd think the UMP is too moderate for them and they probably wouldn't like UMPers like Georges Fenech :)

Sarkozy would have won roughly 55-56% of the vote in Arizona and that would be the right's normal ceiling in a normal contested presidential race. The state would have also been solidly conservative in the past.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 14, 2011, 07:10:28 PM
Fab suggested I do this way back when in this thread, so I've kind of done it. Party strength maps by state...

I've started with the FN:

()

A few comments. This is all relative to the party's overall standing, of course. 'Stronghold' for the PCF won't have the same meaning as 'stronghold' for the UMP. As for this map in particular:

-I might have overestimated a tad the FN in AZ, but I think there's lot of high-growth not super-affluent exurbs here which are perfect breeding ground for the FN
-NY might be better as 'moderate' rather than 'strong', but strong is fine enough
-TX is probably on the upper edge of moderate
-I might have overestimated the FN in general in ID, MO, PA, NM in general; and maybe a bit underestimated in MN, the Plains, MD, CO and WV; but I don't know


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on February 15, 2011, 04:38:57 AM
Arizona
I'd think the UMP is too moderate for them and they probably wouldn't like UMPers like Georges Fenech :)

YEAH !!



And great map on the FN: each time you look at a state because you think it's not entirely accurate, you think a bit and find it's OK in fact.

A map very vaguely reminiscent of Hillary's primaries map :P.

AK and NV will be very interesting for the FN.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 15, 2011, 06:19:26 AM
Great map Hash ! :) I long forward seeing those of PS, UMP, Greens, and the more the merrier !

As for Arizona, I'd have personally seen it voting for Sarkozy above 60% (this is the kind of State where PS should underperform democrats), but that seems fine anyways.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 15, 2011, 08:27:17 AM
As for Arizona, I'd have personally seen it voting for Sarkozy above 60% (this is the kind of State where PS should underperform democrats), but that seems fine anyways.

Too many Hispanics, natives and bobo types there. Brewer didn't even get 55% in 2010 and McCain won 58% against a semi-serious opponent. 55-56% to Sarkozy is being kind, actually.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 15, 2011, 07:54:09 PM
The Greens' map:

()

I'm generally happy with it, except maybe the west which is a bit tougher to do.



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 16, 2011, 04:38:46 AM
As for Arizona, I'd have personally seen it voting for Sarkozy above 60% (this is the kind of State where PS should underperform democrats), but that seems fine anyways.

Too many Hispanics, natives and bobo types there. Brewer didn't even get 55% in 2010 and McCain won 58% against a semi-serious opponent. 55-56% to Sarkozy is being kind, actually.

Well, Brewer is even more insane than Sarkozy and McCain was particularly weak in this cycle. I think 55% could fit for Sarkozy in a tied election, but remember that he won by 53% nationwide, so 55% would become 52%.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 16, 2011, 08:28:40 AM
As for Arizona, I'd have personally seen it voting for Sarkozy above 60% (this is the kind of State where PS should underperform democrats), but that seems fine anyways.

Too many Hispanics, natives and bobo types there. Brewer didn't even get 55% in 2010 and McCain won 58% against a semi-serious opponent. 55-56% to Sarkozy is being kind, actually.

Well, Brewer is even more insane than Sarkozy and McCain was particularly weak in this cycle. I think 55% could fit for Sarkozy in a tied election, but remember that he won by 53% nationwide, so 55% would become 52%.

I stand by what I said. There are too many Latinos, natives and bobos out there for the right to break 60% in a contested presidential election.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on February 16, 2011, 11:15:05 AM
The Greens' map:

()

I'm generally happy with it, except maybe the west which is a bit tougher to do.


VA a bit stronger ? and even NC ?
Washington suburbs, Triangle,... of course, it's vs rural and coastal zones not really "greens"...
You're probably right in the end.

As for, CA, OR, WA, strong or even very strong !


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 16, 2011, 08:06:33 PM
Nevada

Las Vegas proper would likely be a PS stronghold, thanks in part to a large unionized work force (NV has one of the highest unionization rates) and also Hispanic/black areas in North Las Vegas. I don't know much about the various neighborhoods of sprawl, but I suspect affluentish suburbs like Spring Valley, Summerlin and parts of Henderson would vote rather solidly UMP. Boulder City votes, of course, very solidly UMP. Mushrooming not-too-affluent exurbia, of which there is, iirc, plenty of in Nevada are the interesting parts. I would think that they'd be a very strong FN area. I find them similar to the small lower middle-class artisans/petit commercants which are so strongly for the FN. Plus, they're largely whites living in a state with a growing Hispanic population. Places like Pahrump (an exurb) and Eureka (some old mining town which is now growing, it's in the middle of nowhere) would probably have a very strong FN vote.

Reno would vote PS solidly, and Carson City would lean UMP. I know all of 17 people live outside Washoe and Clark Counties, but the old mining areas (copper, silver etc) would have been solidly PS/PCF in the distant past but with those mines closing (or declining), there would be a solid FN protest vote and they'd generally be establishing as UMP areas especially in places which are transforming into mushrooming 'exurbs' or places with a strong military contingent. Mormons in Lincoln County vote UMP solidly.

Nevada would be a reliably UMP state in 2007, and Sarkozy would have won it by a bit more than the national average. But in 2002, it'd have voted Le Pen (in the first round, obviously) with something like 23-26% or so, which would make it one of the FN's best states with Florida and maybe Arizona. But that was before the housing bubble exploded, and given all that, the UMP would now be polling the plague in a lot of Nevada and would have lost badly in 2009 and 2010. In 2010, the FN would have taken one a very high vote (19-21% or so, maybe). 

(
)

1995 map:

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on February 17, 2011, 04:35:29 AM
NV over the average for Sarkozy in 2007, I tend to disagree. Difficult to see Royal win here, sure, but its crazy side would have done well there ;).


NY, CT and Maryland for Chirac over Jospin in 1995 and OK (and KY) for Jospin !
Wow, it's a daring map...
There was a smell of rebellion in Chirac's vote that could have switched these states I think, even if I'm not entirely affirmative.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 17, 2011, 01:43:18 PM
Yeah, I have difficulties to immagine Jospin winning OK, but of course it's your map. ;)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on March 02, 2011, 07:51:17 AM
It's always easy to put forward ideas but never do anything...
But I'm afraid to do really STUPID things... That's why I just put forward an interesting idea:

Tixier-Vignancour strength map in the US :P

Florida would be very strong for him. But, otherwise, which South would vote for Tixier ?
And would he have been able to grasp Ron Paul's fans ?
Probably more Southern and Rocky than FN's one.

And what about a Poujade strength map ?
MidEast and MidWest, Northern Rocky Mountains ?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: big bad fab on August 25, 2011, 03:13:21 AM
Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

actually, it would be less Socialist than it is Democratic irl (at least since 1960) because of the political affiliation of the Spanish vote. Giscard, por ejemplo, would have won it in 1981 (though Mitterrand would presumably have won it rather easily in 1988) and Chirac would have won it in 1995.

Indeed, you're right. Though considering the State's trends and Sarkozy's lack of appeal there, I think he could have performed less well there than nationwide.

Re-read my last line(s). I can agree with you that he'd have performed less well there within certain demographics than is usual for the New Mexican Right, but at the same time I can point out demographics in NM where he'd have performed better than is usual. It's a really tricky thing, but, on the whole, I agree with you that, given the weight of Spanish Hispanics in the electorate (and the fact that Sarkozy would underperform there), the state would be trending to the left.

Did that make any sense? No. Sorry, I have like 600 other things in my head right now.

Rethinking about NM, in the past, the Alduy family ;) would have been perfect in the NE and the NW of this State: what do you think Hash ?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on September 27, 2011, 02:23:26 PM
How I long to see the West Coast results.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Username MechaRFK on October 04, 2011, 06:29:06 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on October 07, 2011, 06:32:02 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Jackson on October 13, 2011, 09:41:52 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on October 22, 2011, 01:04:36 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Pingvin on October 23, 2011, 02:35:35 AM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Simfan34 on October 24, 2011, 03:07:47 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Niemeyerite on October 24, 2011, 05:01:49 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: greenforest32 on October 25, 2011, 04:40:29 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Kushahontas on October 29, 2011, 10:19:43 AM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on October 30, 2011, 06:34:16 AM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 23, 2011, 01:05:51 PM
I will bow down to popular pressure and restart this a bit (dunno when exactly), but in the meantime here's a map showing a National Assembly with 577 seats.

(
)

If you want to do some maps based on it, that'd be great. Respect county boundaries as much as possible, but you can be looser on deviations (no more than 10%). No VRA-stuff necessary o/c


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 23, 2011, 03:39:24 PM
Alabama's 9 districts

()

1ere (Mobile): blue, dev -242 > solid UMP
2eme (Enterprise-Dothan): green, dev -186 > lean UMP, strong MPF
3eme (Selma-Tuscaloosa): purple, dev 865 > lean UMP/MPF, PS base
4eme (Montgomery): red, dev -588 > tossup PS/UMP
5eme (Birmingham Centre): gold, dev -290 > lean PS
6eme (Florence-Birmingham Nord): teal, dev -464 > lean MPF, strong UMP and PS
7eme (Alabaster-Birmingham Campagne): gray, dev -456 > solid UMP
8eme (Gadsen): cornflower blue, dev 843 > tossup MPF/UMP
9eme (Huntsville-Decatur): cyan, dev 516 > tossup UMP/PS

South Dakota

()

1ere (Sioux Falls): blue, dev -313 > lean UMP
2eme (Pierre-Aberdeen-Rapid City): green, dev 313 > solid UMP

Idaho

()

1ere (Boise): blue, dev -699 > lean UMP
2eme (Lewiston): green, dev 916 > lean UMP
3eme (Pocatello-Idaho Falls): purple, dev -216 > solid UMP


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on December 23, 2011, 04:00:47 PM
Your SD map is almost the same as mine.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 23, 2011, 04:29:30 PM
Arizona. Really did my best, but it's hard to balance compactness and equality...

()

McCain +17.9
McCain +19.4
McCain +17.3
Obama +20
McCain +21.8
Obama +0.7
McCain +3.3
McCain +19.2
Obama +22.9
McCain +6
McCain +21.6
McCain +8.2


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 23, 2011, 04:39:41 PM
Arizona. Really did my best, but it's hard to balance compactness and equality...

I've kind of decided to go with equality rather than absolute compactness myself, which isn't really the French way but meh.

Anyways, I'm working on building a national 577 constituency map based on the individual states' districting. So get to work people!

Montana

()

1ere (Missoula-Butte): blue, dev 271
2eme (Helena-Great Falls-Billings): green, dev -272

Your SD map is almost the same as mine.

And that's a problem because...?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 23, 2011, 04:44:51 PM
Arizona. Really did my best, but it's hard to balance compactness and equality...

I've kind of decided to go with equality rather than absolute compactness myself, which isn't really the French way but meh.

Anyways, I'm working on building a national 577 constituency map based on the individual states' districting. So get to work people!

Heck, it took me 3 hours to come with that map ! :P


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 23, 2011, 06:00:07 PM

He never said it was. It was just an observation.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 23, 2011, 08:15:44 PM
Washington, updated

()

1 (Spokane): blue, dev 10.481 R 57.5%
2 (Walla Walla-Wenatchee): green, dev 288. R 64.3%
3 (Yakima): purple, dev 18.990. R 63.4%
4 (Vancouver): red, dev 10.501. R 54%
5 (Pacific): gold, dev -6.469. D 51.4%
6 (Olympia): teal, dev 3.347. D 50.2%
7 (Bellingham-Mount Vernon-Puget Sound): gray, dev -2.772. D 50.5%
8 (Everett): weird colour, dev -6.509. D 51.2%
9 (Tacoma): cyan, dev 9.598. D 53.2%
10 (Burien-Kent-Covington-Vashon): pink, dev -13.220. D 53.8%
11 (Seattle Centre): light green, dev -7.836. D 82.1%
12 (Bellevue-King): cornflower blue, dev -12.474. D 53.9%
13 (Seattle Nord-Shoreline-Edmonds): brownish, dev -3.921. D 66%


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on December 24, 2011, 01:19:50 AM
I went for compactness and municipal boundaries with this. All are within 10% of ideal population.

()

Boston area:

()

The party stats for Massachusetts strike me as a little questionable, but here's what DRA has:

1 (Ouest): blue, dev -46,708, D 60.5
2 (Springfield): green, dev -16,993, R 53.1
3 (Worcester): purple, dev 49,506, R 56.1
4 (Needham-Attleboro): red, dev -12,189, R 57.9
5 (Middlesex-Ouest): gold, dev 32,828, R 50.6
6 (Lowell-Newburyport): teal, dev -17,439, R 56.9
7 (Salem-Gloucester): grey, dev 11,613, R 55.2
8 (Banlieues Nords): lilac, dev 24,066, D 64.5
9 (Boston-Nord-Ouest): cyan, dev 5,559, D 67.1
10 (Boston-Sud-Est): pink, dev 5,316, D 57.5
11 (Bristol): chartreuse, dev -40,080, R 50.7
12 (Cap-aux-Morues): cornflower, dev 4,518, R 56.1

I'm really, really questioning where exactly these partisan numbers come from, but that's what DRA has.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 24, 2011, 07:36:48 AM
Tennessee :

()


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 24, 2011, 09:49:31 AM
Louisiana :

()

It's a bit tricky to watch, because for some reason DRA includes sea areas, but the main patterns are clear.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 28, 2011, 09:13:41 PM
I'll restart this for a little while. California is going to be particularly long and tough.

Northern California

Upstate California (inland)

Rural, isolated and conservative, inland upstate California would, nowadays at least, be pretty solidly UMP. There might be some rump rural conservative FN support in the more isolated places. There would be a few rumps of boboish type PS and Green support in touristy places like Trinity County, Mount Shasta and Nevada County. There would have been a pretty marked trend to the right since the 1960s due in part to the decline of the timber industry and the shifting voting patterns in old timber-based counties due to the left's environmentalism. Mitterrand would have won much of the inland far north in 1965, for example.

North Coast

Besides Del Norte County, the entire coastal region north of Sonoma County would be solidly left-wing, with a marked trend to the left since the late 80s. It would be a largely bobo-type vote, with old hippies, artsy liberals, pot growers, affluent yippies in the Wine Country and similar types making up the bulk of PS-Green ranks. Arcata, Eureka, Ukiah and Noyo would be solidly left-wing, with some of the strongest Green votes in the country. Obviously, in 2009, the PS would have polled utter crap outside perhaps of Eureka and Fort Bragg which might keep a PS machine tradition dating back to lumber days. The left-wing vote then would have gone largely to the Greens, who would have swept Mendocino and Humboldt Counties. In presidential elections, it would probably lean towards the PS for obvious reasons.

The UMP would poll crap with Sarkozy, and there would probably have been a major trend to the left in 2007.

Sacramento Valley

Sacramento proper, especially the more Hispanic parts (Parkway), would be solidly PS in a way which needs not be described. Its suburbs, with a few exceptions for the more diverse inner suburbs, would be solidly right-leaning. Suburban growth would likely have moved places like Placer and El Dorado County (except touristy places around Lake Tahoe, which would be PS-Green) to the right in recent years, and they would be solidly UMP.

The rural areas of the Sacramento Valley, flat and rural agricultural areas, would have been solidly right-wing even perhaps in the days when the more mountainous working-class timber counties in the far-north were left-leaning. Chico is a rather large college town and would vote accordingly.

Napa, Yolo and Lake Counties - which I don't know much about - seem to be largely continuations of what we found on the North Coast. Davis is a college town and would vote like college towns vote. Woodland is largely Hispanic, and would be solidly PS.

Bay Area

North Bay

Sonoma and Marin Counties are affluent and liberal, and while in a not-so distant past (Giscard 74 and 81) they would have been right-wing strongholds, they would be ever more left-wing these days. Larger, more ethnically diverse cities which are also slightly less affluent - like Santa Rosa, San Rafael or Novato - would be more solidly PS. Affluent areas, especially places like Mill Valley or Tiburon would be slightly less left-wing, with a rump UMP support, but still rather left-leaning with a very strong Green vote, especially in 2009.

Solano County seems pretty boring to me. The less affluent and more diverse (blacks, Mexicans, Filipino Asians it seems) cities of Vallejo, Fairfield and Vacaville (though less diverse) would be solidly PS. The more affluent areas would be similar to Marin or Sonoma, though not as Green and more right-leaning.

East Bay

Things are rather interesting in the Oakland-Alameda area and in Contra Costa. Working-class areas in Contra Costa such as Richmond (shipyards) and Pittsburg (steel), which are now largely Hispanic, would be solidly PS and likely have been solidly PCF up until the 70s or so. The mayor of Richmond is actually a Greenie, but the city's demographics (poorer, non-white) do not lend to the place having a particularly strong Green vote. The right would always have been dead here. Concord and Walnut Creek are nondescript places and would be solidly left-wing. More affluent places such as Danville or San Ramon would probably still lean to the right (UMP) but with a bit of a left-wing trend in recent years.

TBC (Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, SFO, San Mateo and Silicon Valley)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 28, 2011, 09:53:04 PM
Good analysis. The North Bay certainly would have voted for Giscard both times, but it would be pretty solidly for the left now; I wouldn't be surprised if EE won it in 2009. It's worth noting that Democrats did very well in the rural Sacramento Valley up until a few decades ago for some reason; half the counties in the state that voted for McGovern also voted for McCain. Also, FWIW, nobody calls the far north "upstate" and Yolo, Napa and Lake counties are definitely not in the Bay Area.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on December 29, 2011, 05:06:54 AM
Great analysis ! I'm glad to see this restarted. :)

I think a nice thing you could do is adding a county map. It's not a problem if you're not 100% sure about a few counties, I'd just help me to understand the general pattern better.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 29, 2011, 07:40:03 PM
Northern California (continued)

East Bay

Berkeley, a huge college town and overwhelmingly liberal, would be a left-wing stronghold for reasons which need not be explained. Traditionally, the Greens would win some of their best results in the country in Berkeley, though I suppose in presidential elections the PS would dominate the field otherwise. In the 1960s, the PSU would have done very well, and Berkeley would have provided the LCR with one of its few bases in the country up until 2002-2007, when the old hippie Trot vote started being lost to the Greenies.

Oakland, which is a multicultural city with a strong working-class tradition (manufacturing, shipyards etc) would have been a PCF stronghold until not too long about (89? 95?) and would still be otherwise pretty solidly left-wing these days, though the PS would be the dominant party by far (though a few cantons, primarily the black ones, might elect PCF councillors). The growing Hispanic population would lean solidly PS. The Greens would poll well, but overall Oakland seems to be too poor and too diverse for there to be a strong Green vote as there is in Berkeley. That being said, Piedmont and the Oakland hills - which stand out from the city by their affluence and high education levels - would have a solid Green vote similar to that of Marin County with residual UMP strength (basically they'd be the only areas with a UMP vote which isn't laughably low).

Racial tensions and white flight in Oakland seems to have been a 50s phenomenon, so there would be no FN  vote to speak of in Oakland, even in 1984.

On a random note which I just thought of: Bayrou would have done quite well (second place behind Royal) in Marin/Sonoma Counties and similarly affluent liberal areas in the Bay Area, taking some of a bobo-yuppie vote which is too wealthy to be comfortable voting PS (which doesn't seem to exist in France, but would exist in these areas). The UDF would probably not have been particularly strong in these places (though Balladur would have beat Chirac in 95), but there would be a strong MoDem vote in 2007-2009.

San Leandro would be a PS stronghold, though it was apparently segregated/white flight land up until not that long ago, so you might have seen a strong FN vote in 1984. Hayward seems to have a working-class tradition and is pretty heavily Hispanic and Asian (Filipino) and would be, predictably, solidly PS, but with a Green vote around CSU East Bay. Union City would be solidly PS. Fremont (and Newark?) has an old car manufacturing base, and is pretty ethnically diverse and would be, again, solidly PS.

The affluent exurbs/outer suburbs of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton would likely lean slightly to the right (except for perhaps the more non-white parts) but Sarkozy would have done pretty badly as a right-winger in these places in 2007. I don't know if he'd have done badly to the point of Royal winning them (which I kind of doubt), but at any rate there would a pretty sharp trend to the left and Bayrou would have done very well.

South Bay: Silicon Valley/Santa Clara County

Before getting into Santa Clara/Silicon Valley, we should perhaps try to clarify the problem of Asians. Asians in France - if they vote to begin with - don't care much about politics but are presumably pretty solidly left-wing because, afaik, they're not as affluent and well-educated (except long-term Asian immigrants) as Asian-Americans. The Chinese in France live in pretty lower-income multicultural neighborhoods, which is not really the case in the US. Asian-Americans could be reliably right-wing because of their wealth, high educational achievement and residual social conservatism/religious conservatism (Koreans) or anti-communism (Vietnamese, Chinese in the past). Or they could be reliably left-wing, especially in recent years, because of them being close in terms of jobs and education to left-wing yuppies-bobos and reaction against the right's stance on immigration (especially Sarkozy) and, depending on how stuff is played out in the South, the alliance with Phil de Villiers' MPF. I think we can agree that Sarkozy would not be well perceived by Asian-Americans (immigration policy, faux populism). Chirac, otoh, might have had a much better image (remember how Chirac loves Japanese stuff, from sumo to banks in Tokyo to launder taxpayer money). While treating Asians as some homogeneous entity is wrong, I would assume that they would have shifted from more or less right-wing in the 70s-80s (for anti-communist reasons in part) to more left-leaning in the 90s and transforming into solidly left-wing post-2007.

Chinese-Americans would have followed this shift pretty closely, as would Indian-Americans. Koreans and Japanese are the least affluent (but still more affluent than average) so they might have been more solidly left-wing even in the past. Some Korean Americans are Christian fundamentalists, but they vote Democratic in OTL, so it's hard to say if they'd vote PS/left for economic reasons or be tempted by the right for moral issue reasons (maybe Christine Boutin would do well with them!). Filipinos are surprisingly affluent and pretty conservative, so they might be more right-leaning. The Vietnamese are anti-communist and would be the most right-leaning group to this day.

Overall, the Silicon Valley would be pretty solidly left-leaning. While not identical to Marin County's affluent bobo 'gauche caviar' type of leftieness, it would be a pretty similar young professional/highly educated intellectual kinda-bobo/yuppie type of leftieness mixed in with Asians and Hispanics.

Assuming that Asians especially Chinese, Indians and Filipinos are pretty leftie in this context, places like Milpitas, northern San Jose and Cupertino would be pretty left-leaning, though not in a way which needs particular description. As would, probably, the bulk of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Campbell. Certainly less affluent Hispanic neighborhoods such as Alum Rock, Seven Trees and Sunol-Midtown would be even more solidly PS.

Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Mountain View, Los Altos and especially Palo Alto/Stanford would have been similarly solidly left-leaning, but with a strong Green vote and, in 2007, some very good results for Bayrou and the MoDem. The right might have residual strength if it is particularly moderate, but the UMP's last holdouts in the Silicon Valley would largely be in the more hilly regions which surrounds the Santa Clara Valley.

The Peninsula: San Mateo County

San Mateo, like Marin (and possibly Santa Clara) would have been pretty reliably right-wing for most of the 60s, 70s and early 80s before shifting sharply to the left in recent years.

In some places, such as Menlo Park, voting patterns would be similar to those in adjacent affluent white/Asian Silicon Valley communities in Santa Clara County. However, East Palo Alto, while strongly PS, is quite dissimilar in that it is diverse (in the past, black, now Hispanic) and largely poor. Redwood City is similarly heavily Hispanic and hardly affluent compared to its neighbors, thus it would be one of the safest PS cities in the county.

On the other hand, wealthier places such as San Carlos, Belmont, Foster City, Burlingame and San Mateo and Millbrae to a lesser extent (they're not as affluent and a bit more Hispanic) would have been right-wing up until not too long ago but pretty safely left-leaning today in a yuppie/bobo/gauche caviar way which is getting pretty common in this description of the Bay Area. There would be, you know, a Green vote and a good Bayrou vote and yaddi yadda.

The one exception might be Atherton, which is exceptionally affluent and is much less solidly Dem in RL. I suppose it might have kept a small UMP lean.

San Bruno, South SF and Daly City would be solidly PS as well, but because they are rather less affluent and more ethnically diverse (Hispanics in South SF, Filipinos in Daly City etc) it would not be the same kind of leftiness as the rest of the county.

The Pacific coast (El Granada, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay etc) and southern San Mateo would be more or less left-leaning (leftiness type: affluent liberals) but would maintain a not-too-shabby rump UMP vote of maximum 40-43%.

City of San Francisco

The basics are that San Francisco would be a solidly left-wing city, and one of the PS machine cities in the country. The right would barely have a base, and the left would almost be evenly divided between the Greens and the PS while in the 60s there would have been a pretty strong base for small left-wing parties such as the PSU and, more recently, the LCR. San Francisco was historically a pretty working-class town with a strong labour movement and labour tradition. Presumably it would have been a PCF stronghold, at least at a local level, until the 70s or so.

Hippie/artsy/hipster/gay/bobo whatever districts such as Haight-Ashbury, the Castro, Hayes Valley, Mission (and Mission Bay) and Bernal Heights (Lesbian Heights) would be solidly left-wing with a huge Green vote (the highest in the country, presumably) and would usually give the left-wing candidate in presidential elections some of their highest margins in the country. It would be amusing to see how poorly Boutin/de Villiers types would poll there, haha. The Noe Valley, Saint Francis Wood, Presidio, Laurel Heights, Nob Hill, South Beach and Russian Hill would be largely similar in their politics, though with a slightly lower young hippie Trot (LCR-type) vote and a higher Bayrou 2007 vote (Bayrou wouldn't have done all that well in the Castro etc)

Lower-income and slightly more diverse areas in the downtown area such as Tenderloin would be heavily PS with a lower Green vote.

The Chinese vote would likely be solidly PS (though perhaps not as humongously overall leftie as in the Castro etc), and by consequence Chinatown, the Sunsets and Richmond would be heavily PS with a rather lower Green vote and probably no residues of the old PCF strength.

Southwestern San Francisco would be solidly left-wing as well, but of a much different type of leftieness than that found in Haights-Ashbury or the Castro. Poor black working-class neighborhoods such as Bayview-Hunters Point would be solidly PS, with a weak Green presence and the last residues of the old PCF machine (the canton of Bayview might elect a PCF councillor). For similar reasons, Visitacion Valley, Excelsior, Portola, Oceanview and part of Ingleside/Merced Heights would be politically similar. There might have been a not-too-shabby FN vote in some parts back in 1984, but today it is largely black (Bayview-Hunters Point) or less affluent Chinese/Asian (with residues of Irish and Italian working-classes). The PCF would poll best in SW SF.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 29, 2011, 07:53:24 PM
Northern California (continued)

Santa Cruz County

A bit outside the Bay Area, but Santa Cruz in part shares the general political feel of the Bay Area. Santa Cruz, a big uni town with an additional liberal/alternative side, would be solidly left-wing with a strong Green vote and maybe a nice result for Bayrou in 2007. Ben Lomond, Scotts Valley and Boulder Creek would be similar politically though Scotts Valley might be a tad more right-wing.

Further south, near the Salinas Valley, Watsonville (and Freedom, Interlaken etc) is heavily Hispanic and pretty poor, so it would be solidly PS but with a weak Green presence. Turnout would be lower, and politics are starting to resemble those we'll find in the Central Valley (north San Joaquin Valley).

Central Valley: the northern San Joaquin Valley

We left the Central Valley, the Sacramento Valley to be fair, roughly in Sacramento's right-wing suburbs. We're entering the poorer, more Hispanic agricultural part of the Central Valley. Agriculture - largely fruits and vegetables - is traditionally the main economic activity, and predictably those farms have hired (for quite some time) a lot of Mexican farmworkers and there are a lot of hired illegal immigrants too. There are also weird Eastern European, Azorean and Asian (Filipino, Cambodian, Hmong, Paki) communities.

A general rule is that the cities (Stockton, Modesto, Merced and Fresno) which are either largely Hispanic or have a large Hispanic population which actually votes would be more or less heavily PS with little Green strength outside the few uni/college campuses. These are largely urban poor, diverse and blue-collar districts with food processing in Modesto and Fresno and a large harbour in Stockton on the San Joaquin River.

In a lot of cases, some rural areas might be heavily Hispanic but this rarely shows up politically. I'd guess that either turnout is atrociously low (which it is) or that there are a lot of illegals or unregistered farm workers. I would assume that Hispanic voter registration/turnout is higher in urban areas. At any rate, whites of all types with a few exceptions (the few white liberals?) would be heavily right-wing. You might have a few conservative Hispanics who vote for the right in rural areas, but it is not likely to be statistically important. Thus, rural areas are conservative and heavily UMP.

Fresno, the heavily Hispanic parts of it at least (which accounts for a lot) would be solidly PS, while its whiter and more affluent suburbia more heavily UMP. Scattered Hispanic small towns in Fresno County (Firebaugh, Mendota, Reedley, Orange Cove, Selma, Sanger) would be largely PS with maybe a small conservative Hispanic vote for the right (UDF/UMP).

The Central Valley was - iirc - originally settled by Southerners and voted Democrat until the 60s or so, so presumably the region would have been pretty big for Mitterrand in 1965.

San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera and Fresno Counties (Fresno to a lesser extent) are all high-growth exurban counties, of a not too-affluent type so with a lot of huge mortgages and foreclosures. This whole environment of not extremely affluent high-growth exurbia (periurbanisation in France) is very conducive to a strong FN vote, especially in circumstances of high foreclosures, immigration, criminality and unemployment. White areas would likely see a strong FN vote, especially in 2010 and 2011.

Further south, Tulare (big milk industry) and Kings are largely Hispanic but voter turnout is uber-low, especially in those rural Hispanic precincts. Basically, they'd be solidly UMP despite it all, with the PS concentrated in a handful of 80-90%+ Hispanic precincts and Hispanic parts of Tulare, Visalia and Hanford.

Sierra Nevada

Outside the San Joaquin Valley, getting into the Sierra Nevada, the rural counties here are more heavily white (less agriculturally reliant on Mexicans?) and very conservative. They would likely be UMP strongholds, with PS strength mainly in towns with Hispanics (Madera) or towns of some size and touristy places like Yosemite (with a big Green vote).

The one exception, and it is a recent one, would be Alpine and Mono Counties. They're sparsely populated but they have some increasingly important ski resort/touristy-service communities such as Mammoth Lakes (Mono) and Kirkwood (Alpine) which would make them pretty leftie these days (though it is a very recent thing) with a big Green vote and an overall social liberal feel.

Monterey Bay, Salinas Valley and the Big Sur

The Hispanic areas outside of Watsonville (Pajaro, Castroville) would be solidly PS, as would most of Salinas which is a largely low-income Hispanic town (though with wealthy suburbs which seem Hispanic as well). The Salinas Valley, which is very agricultural (salads etc) is heavily Hispanic as well (Mexican agricultural workers probs), but turnout is pretty low and PS strength would be limited in the valley to cities like Soledad, Greenfield and King City.

Monterey, Carmel, Pacific Grove, Marina and the sparsely populated Big Sur coastal stretch is all pretty liberal (and white) and would be the final extension of the Bay Area's dominant upper middle-class young affluent leftie social liberalism. It would lean to the PS except for a few UMP enclaves in uber-rich places (Del Monte), and would have a strong Green vote (and Bayrou-2007, yaddi yadda).

TBC: Bakersfield, San Luis, Santa Barbara, LAX, Riverside, San Diego, OC etc


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 30, 2011, 08:57:45 PM
So people whine for this to come back, and when it does nobody reads it? Cool stuff, bros.

Southern California

Southern Central Coast: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara Counties

Continuing the patterns found along the northern Central Coast in NoCal, the coastal areas of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties would lean to the left, but, in SLO's case, this wouldn't make a sizable impact.

San Luis Obispo, home to Cal Poly, would lean to the left (with a Green presence), as would coastal communities such as Los Osos, Arroyo Grande and Santa Maria (largely Hispanic low-income and blue-collar), though those latter places wouldn't have any Green vote to speak of.

Santa Barbara, a tourist town and a college town with a particularly left-wing campus (UCSB), would be heavily left-leaning with a very strong Green presence. The student community of Isla Vista would obviously be heavily left-wing as well, while the affluent white-collar high-tech areas of the Goleta Valley would be more swingy, perhaps with a slight lean to the right (albeit declining).

Inland SLO and Santa Barbara Counties are largely agricultural (wine and cattle in SLO, fruits/veggies in SB), though Santa Barbara has a small oil and gas sector in the northern mountainous parts. Compounded with those inland places being largely white, they'd be traditional UMP strongholds.

San Joaquin Valley (south): Kern County

Kern County completes the Central Valley, and would largely share its political inclinations as well. Besides a few heavily Hispanic small towns (Delano, McFarland, Wasco), the rural parts of the valley would be rock-solidly conservative with huge UMP margins. Pretty standard-fare, but the agricultural aspect of the Central Valley is changed a bit (and it means that the mood is even more right-wing) by the presence of the big oil and gas sector here (and the military in the Mojave Desert). The Sierra Nevada and Mojave Desert parts of Kern would be solidly right-wing too.

Bakersfield, the downtown and eastern/SE parts of the city, has a large Hispanic population and those precincts would be heavily left-wing. But Bakersfield (and especially its suburbs, which I would gather are hell on earth) would be a solidly UMP city with a very strong FN vote as well. There would be some pretty bad racial voting, with the whitey parts being solidly UMP/FN.

Kern is very high-growth not-too-affluent country with high foreclosures and idiots who buy things they can't effing afford, so the comments made about the northern San Joaquin Valley and the likelihood of there being a particularly high FN vote applies very well here. Presumably, the FN would have done real well in 2010 here.

Ventura County

Ventura County would lean to the right overall, however, Oxnard, a largely Hispanic blue-collar town whose economy relies on the Port of Hueneme would be heavily left-wing. Ventura would be kind of swingy, perhaps with a slight UMP lean. Inland, Ventura's low-income farming communities in the Santa Clara River valley, which are largely Hispanic, would probably lean left depending on Hispanic turnout. The UMP's base would be in upscale residential areas, especially in the affluent and white Conejo Valley - the towns of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks particularly.

Los Angeles County: Santa Monica Mountains

This is a particularly famous, affluent and heavily white areas. Similar to the Bay Area, but with the added influence of the entertainment industry, the region mixes affluence with social liberalism and, in most cases, gauche caviar politics. It is once again tough to determine whether the social liberalism and environmentalism which makes these regions largely Democratic would be enough to make then lean to the left in this "Franco-American" context. It is still rather hard to see most of these regions being enamored by Sarkozy (or Royal, of course) in 2007.

Agoura Hills, largely affluent, would probably conserve a small lean to the UMP but with a sizable Green/Bayrou/bobo PS vote based on its important cultural scene and other general factors. Malibu has a sh**tload of rich people, but a lot of those rich people are affluent bobos, meaning that they would presumably give the area, in recent years, a small leftie lean, again with strong Green and Bayrou presence. Of course, both of these places would have gone solidly for Giscard in 1974 and again in 1981.

Topanga is a bohemian enclave and would vote solidly left-wing/Green. Calabasas and especially Hidden Hills are extremely affluent and slightly less boboish, and would presumably be rather moderately right-leaning, though Bayrou would likely have done very well there in 2007.

Los Angeles County: Westside and Santa Monica

Affluent neighborhoods such as Pacific Palisades, Brentwood and Westwood are continuations further south of the common ol' affluent liberalism pattern. They'd be rather swingy traditionally, but with a more pronounced trend to the left in recent years - Royal would probably have won those places narrowly in 2007, probably some kind of historic first for a PS presidential candidate. Westwood might be the exception as UCLA's presence might make it more leftie (profs?), but UCLA students largely live in Mar Vista, Palms and Culver City. Bel Air is even more affluent, so presumably more strongly right-wing.

Santa Monica is already slightly less affluent and more ethnically diverse (by wealthyland standards!), and the economy is already more service-reliant. Yet, it remains socially liberal and well-off, so it would retain the political feel of its neighbors while being more strongly left-wing (and historically leftie compared to the rest) with a strong Green presence. Marina del Rey is slightly posher than its surroundings, so it presumably continues the patterns of Pacific Palisades et al.

Mar Vista, Palms and Del Rey would be heavily left-wing - they're less affluent, more ethnically diverse and have a younger student population (Mar Vista, Palms) or a large number of renters rather than owners (Palms). The PS would be stronger, while the Greens would retain a presence. Bayrou's influence, perceptible in the affluent neighborhoods and Santa Monica, would be much reduced here. The same would likely apply for Culver City, though I don't see the Greenies as strong.

Venice Beach, on the other hand, is almost a hippie commune, and would have been leftie for decades, with a huge Green vote, following in the pattern of a strong PSU vote in the 60s. The PS is strong too, more in the lower-income parts.

West LA, Sawtelle, Rancho Park and Cheviot Hills are all pretty well-off quiet suburban professional neighborhoods, rather nondescript, and would likely be traditionally left-wing since the 90s with the PS as the dominant party. Century City is less suburban, but would vote similarly. Beverlywood and Pico-Robertson are similarly suburban and professional, though they both have a larger Jewish population (non-Hasidic oc), with a rising Hispanic presence. They would be traditionally left-wing as well.

Beverly Hills will be covered in the next post.

TBC: the rest of LA County


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 30, 2011, 09:01:19 PM
I've been reading it. It's a good writeup; I'll have some comments later.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 31, 2011, 04:28:47 PM
I've been reading it. It's a good writeup; I'll have some comments later.

Hopefully they're good and I didn't screw up anywhere! :)



Southern California (continued)

Beverly Hills

Beverly Hills, which is generally rather affluent and liberal, would lean to the left, but there would be a political division between the uber-rich mansions north of Santa Monica Boulevard, which would vote pretty solidly UMP, and the less affluent (but still rather well-off and white) 'flats' south of said road, which would vote more left-wing with the PS and Greens as the main parties on the left.

Los Angeles County: Central LA and Hollywood

West Hollywood, which has a huge gay "godless libruls" population, is practically some hippie or bobo-leftie enclave, and would vote very heavily left-wing with, presumably, a huge Green vote (and the PSU in the 1960s), though the PS would also do quite well (perhaps with the Jewish population). The Hollywood Hills are affluent and liberal, so they would follow the patterns of equally affluent hilly places described in the last post.

Carthay and Fairfax/Beverly Grove are largely white and rather well-off (not uber-rich, but not poor either) and they also have a fairly large Jewish population. It is hard to see them voting for anybody else than the PS, though perhaps with an important Green vote and maybe (maybe) a not too negligible UMP rump.

Mid-City is a very mixed neighborhood, both in terms of race (blacks, Hispanics, whites) and income. There are some middle-class black and white neighborhoods, while getting further towards downtown, the Hispanic areas are not as well-off. Despite the diversity, it would still be a heavily left-wing neighborhood overall with the PS, by far, as the dominant political force.

Mid-Wilshire as a whole is another mish-mash of different ethnicities and incomes. Mid-Wilshire proper is fairly white and middle-class, and would be of nondescript PS-voting nature. Further towards downtown, Arlington Heights, Harvard Heights and Pico-Union are largely Hispanic - the latter two especially, whose Hispanic population is rather unusual in that it is quite a fair bit Guatemalan or Salvadoran. They would, of course, be heavily PS. We are getting closer to LA's "pure" nature as a solidly Socialist city with no sizable Green or right-wing vote. They are, of course, socially conservative, but it would carry little impact in voting behaviour. Westlake is largely Hispanic as well, and has a large Central American element as well. It would be heavily PS.

Koreatown is getting increasingly Hispanic, but a good number of its areas remain largely Asian - Korean, of course, in large part. Koreatown is pretty poor now (especially the Hispanic areas), and lots of Koreans left following the 1992 riots which had a particularly bad effect on the neighborhood's economy. There might be a larger conservative law-and-order vote in the Korean community, which would likely have voted for Sarkozy, but for the most part both the Korean and Hispanic areas would vote largely PS.

Hancock Park and Windsor Square (parts of Larchmont as well) are far more affluent (in a few precinct's cases, very affluent) and less diverse (more white). While still likely being left-leaning since the 90s, there would be a sizable UMP rump.

Hollywood is actually not too affluent, and the Hispanic neigborhoods (large Central American element too) further east are quite deprived, and would be solidly PS. The whiter parts of Hollywood might have a slightly larger UMP rump, but would have a left-wing lean since the 90s at least. East Hollywood is largely low-income and Hispanic - with a small Thai and Armenian population, and it would be solidly PS.

Los Feliz, Silver Lake and Echo Park are more affluent, whiter (parts of Silver Lake and Echo Park are more Hispanic, and Echo Park is not all that affluent) and are largely hip/artsy/bobo type of neighborhoods. They would be heavily left-wing as well, like their neighbors, but would have a large Green vote which makes them stand out from their neighbors.

We are now in the downtown core of LA. Chinatown, which is more or less largely Asian (obviously Chinese), is rather poor (with some gentrification or artsy types) given that a lot of wealthier Asians have moved elsewhere (Monterey Park). It would be heavily PS.

Downtown LA is the city's business and cultural heart, but those who live there - while very ethnically diverse (Mexicans, Koreans, Japanese, blacks, whites) are largely low-income. It would be a PS stronghold, but the Green vote wouldn't be particularly high (except a few places).

Los Angeles County: South LA

South LA would be one of the most left-wing areas in the country: it is only 2% white and it is very much a working-poor area with high criminality and so forth.

South Park has seen gentrification with more luxury condos, but it and Historic South-Central, Central Alameda and Florence-Graham are basically parts of Mexico by their demographics, and they're also very poor. They would be the ultimate PS strongholds, with no Green or right-wing (UMP/UDF) presence.

Getting further south, into Watts, Willowbrook and other smaller neighborhoods (Green Meadows, Broadway-Manchester, Vermont Vista) are more ethnically mixed (Hispanics and blacks) but overall they're very deprived inner-city areas with crime problems and so forth. Watts is a pretty well-known place for such reasons. There might be racial tensions played out politically at a cantonal level, but overall there would be little ethnic differences in voting: this area is rock-solid PS.

Further west, Westmont and Gramercy Park are heavily black though the former has a growing Hispanic population. They are not as poor (though not very affluent still), but they'd still be rock-solid PS, as would Manchester Square and Vermont Knolls, which are also largely black and low-income.

Around Chesterfield Square, Harvard Park, Vermont-Slauson, Vermont Square and so forth are poor largely Hispanic areas with a black minority, and they would vote heavily PS. There would be some Green strength around USC in University Park, but the area in general is as solidly and homogeneously PS as they come.

Hyde Park, Leimert Park, Crenshaw and the Baldwin Hills are largely black, but they're slightly wealthier than surrounding neighborhoods (including West Adams, which used to be fairly middle-class black area but now appears to be largely Hispanic and lower-income). The middle-class black areas would be solidly PS as well. Ladera Heights and View Park-Windsor Hills are the most affluent black neighborhoods in the city, but it is unlikely that they would be any more right-wing as a result: the only difference might be a larger Green vote and maybe a not-too-bad result for Bayrou in 2007.

Los Angeles County: South Bay and the Palos Verdes

We're jumping around a bit and we're soon encountering new types of communities.

Inglewood proper is still largely income and closely divided between older black communities and newer Hispanic immigrants. The blacks would probably dominate politically, but overall there would again be little surface voting pattern differences. Inglewood would be a PS stronghold. Lennox, a small unincorporated neighborhood, is poor and Hispanic. No cookie for guessing how it votes. Hawthorne, Lawndale and Del Aire are more Hispanic and in some cases the black populations are quite small, but there's no use in breaking them down: all pretty solidly PS, though in Lawndale and Del Aire we might start seeing a bigger UMP vote in the whiter precincts. Hawthorne and Lawndale are more middle-class too.

Gardena is more diverse, with a fairly large Hispanic element but a small black element and a large Japanese population as well. The Hispanic and black areas would be the most solidly PS areas, which would give Gardena its strong left-wing lean, but the Japanese areas would be more swingy, thus a bit more right-wing though probably would have voted for Royal narrowly in 2007. That being said, remember what I said about Chirac winning the Japanese vote in the past.

Westchester, which includes LAX, is whiter and wealthier and includes a uni (Loyola Marymount), would be more swingy but probably with a narrow lean to the left in recent years. Wealthy neighborhoods north of the airport might vote UMP on a more consistent basis, though. Playa del Rey would be more left-wing, though seemingly of a bobo-left nature.

El Segundo is white and pretty well-off, and despite a large Chevron refinery, what drives the economy is the big aerospace industry in El Segundo and surrounding cities. As a defense-driven white middle-class suburban community, it would likely lean UMP without being a right-wing stronghold.

Manhattan Beach is a very affluent beachfront community with exorbitant property prices. It is socially liberal, though not as much as Venice Beach, which is basically a hippie commune. Manhattan Beach might be shifting away from the populist-right brand of the UMP under Sarkozy, but would likely have voted for Sarkozy in 2007 and, while being swingy, still have a slight UMP lean. Bayrou would have done very well. Hermosa Beach would be more leftie as it seems a bit more bobo.

Redondo Beach would be politically similar to Manhattan Beach, though it is not as affluent and the defense industry is more important. It would thus be more swingy, but Sarkozy would probably have won in 2007 - albeit pretty narrowly.

Torrance is largely white and Asian (largely Japanese), and its economy is driven by a mix of oil refineries, automaker sale offices and the aerospace industry. The Japanese parts would vote like those in neighboring Gardena, that is, more or less tied in 2007 and more Chiraquien in the past. The white affluent areas would be traditionally right-leaning. I don't know much about this place, but it seems to be a place where Sarkozy would have appealed well to the middle-class white suburbanites.

The Palos Verdes Peninsula (Rolling Hills etc) is extremely affluent (and white), with a fair number of gated communities. Also, in contrast to the more socially liberal places such as Bel-Air, the Palos Verdes doesn't appear to be particularly socially liberal. It would be a UMP stronghold with little left-Green presence.

TBC: the rest of LA County


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on December 31, 2011, 08:34:16 PM
Southern California (continued)

Los Angeles County: Compton, Harbor, Long Beach and Santa Catalina

Compton is an inner-city, low income and ethnically mixed community with a criminality problem but some slow 'gentrification' of sorts. Hispanics actually outnumber blacks now in Compton, though blacks dominate politically and Compton is usually associated with being a black community. As we found in South LA's more mixed neighborhoods, this ethnic difference is unlikely to result in any perceptible difference in voting patterns. Compton would be a PS stronghold, in the real sense of the word "stronghold".

Harbor Gateway and West Carson and largely Hispanic with a large Filipino population, at any rate they seem to be lower middle-class areas. Solidly PS, of course. Carson is a working-class city with large industrial activities (factories, oil refineries) and a diverse ethnic makeup: Hispanics, blacks and Filipinos. Black and Hispanic areas would be solidly PS, but Filipino areas lining the Interstate 110 would be slightly less left-wing, though still with a marked left-wing bias.

Harbor City and San Pedro are more mixed (especially in terms of income), though largely Hispanic (some whites near Torrance and the Palos Verdes). Wilmington, on the other hand, is heavily Hispanic and deprived in terms of income. All three would likely be PS strongholds, Wilmington especially so.

Long Beach is a mix of different communities and, as a result, some different voting behaviours. Long Beach's Hispanic communities downtown and on the east and west sides as well as in North Long Beach would be solidly PS. Filipinos, again, slightly less left-leaning, but Cambodians would probably be very left-leaning, like the Mexicans. There are some liberal 'bobo' type whites, I think, around Belmont Shores/Belmont Heights/Alamitos Heights and Cal State, and they would lean to the left with a strong Green vote. However, the white upper-income areas (I suppose the residents work in the aerospace industry) on the border with the OC and near Lakewood would be about tied up in 2007, with a shift to the left after having been more or less right-wing in the not so distant past.

Lakewood is largely white, suburban and middle-class/old WWC with defense probably a major employer. Save for Hispanic areas around the Hawaiian Gardens and slightly more diverse areas elsewhere, Lakewood would probably be an old PS area, but with a more recent lean to the right. Sarkozy would have done particularly well here.

Santa Catalina Island, and its sole settlement, Avalon, are fairly affluent places living off tourism and would seem fairly white though Avalon, surprisingly, is now Hispanic plurality. From what I know of Santa Catalina, it would be left-leaning with a large Green vote.

Los Angeles County: Southeast

Paramount, Lynwood, South Gate, Huntington Park, Maywood, Bell, Bell Gardens, Commerce and Cudahy are some of the most heavily Hispanic areas in LA, and while not dirt-poor, they're not breaking affluence records any time soon. They would heavily PS, presumably with some type of corrupt Mexican political boss-run type of machine. Vernon is a huge employment hub for the whole area with manufacturing and food processing plants, but nobody seems to vote there (24 people in 2010).

Downey is kind of weird in that it is pretty largely Hispanic (though not as big as in neighboring places) but also a bit more affluent and more conservative in its voting habits OTL. I don't know much about it, but based on what actually goes on there, there could be a strong UMP vote in the more affluent precincts despite them being more affluent.

Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, West Whittier, Pico-Rivera and Montebello are all heavily Hispanic, but more middle-class suburban types of neighborhoods. While the right (UDF?) might have more of a base than in poorer Hispanic neighborhoods, overall it would pretty much be a more or less strongly left-leaning area.

South Whittier has more second and third-generation Hispanics, and as a result is more right-wing though overall it would remain left-leaning, with the PS beating out the UMP in all but the worst years for the left.

Bellflower and Artesia, while plurality Hispanic, have a large white and Asian population respectively, which makes both of them slightly less left-wing than the little inner-city Mexicos, though not enough to make them lean to the right. The PS would retain a strong edge.

La Mirada is a high-growth suburb closer in its politics to the OC than LA County, and while there is very rapid Hispanic growth far outpacing white growth, it remains an upper middle-class white suburban county, thus traditionally a right-wing place, though changing demographics obviously favour the PS. There is a pretty important Evangelical uni here, so it might give the MPF its only base in California.

Cerritos is a heavily Asian-American (Korean, Filipino primarily with some Chinese) upper middle-class suburban community, and would probably have a slight lean to the left while retaining a solid enough UMP base to allow the right to win in its good and best years. On balance, in 2007, it would likely have split narrowly in the PS' favour.

Los Angeles County: Eastside and Northeast LA

East LA and Boyle Heights are two of the most Hispanic parts of LA, they are also poor inner-city/working poor neighborhoods. As with similar neighborhoods in the South and Southeast, they'd be rock-solid PS. El Sereno and Lincoln Heights are not as heavily Hispanic but they are similarly deprived. Once again, the hills start bringing less Hispanics, more wealth and more left-liberalness, but overall the Eastside would be a rock-solid PS area of the city.

In the Northeast, the hilly area of Eagle Rock is ethnically diverse but its defining features is its relative affluence and its artsy/young professional population. It would be left-leaning, but the PS would not be as hegemonic: there would be a strong Green vote. Neighboring Highland Park, Montecito Heights, Glassell Park and Atwater Village are perhaps more heavily Hispanic and not as well-off with pockets of deprivation, but they generally continue the left-liberal leanings of Eagle Rock. It would vote similarly as well.

Los Angeles County: Glendale and Burbank

Glendale is a fairly well-off middle-class suburban community, largely white and home to the corporate HQs of Nestlé USA. What sets Glendale out a bit is its large Armenian population - about 30% of the city's population iirc. Aznavour is the only French-Armenian I know, so it's not a great base about French-Armenian voting behaviour. I would assume they would be more or less leaning in the PS' favour. WASPish affluent places in the hills would be more right-wing.

Burbank is similarly well-off and white, though perhaps not as suburban given the size and importance of the entertainment industry (Walt Disney Studios, Warner Brothers). It would be a left-leaning city, with the left concentrated in the Armenian areas near Glendale and white liberal area on the border with LA City, as well as Hispanic areas near North Hollywood and Sun Valley. There would be pockets of UMP support in whiter hilly affluent areas.

That's it folks, until January 9-10 at the earliest. To be continued with the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, and the rest of California.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 16, 2012, 02:55:27 PM
Should I even bother with this? I had been given the opinion that a lot of people cared about this, but now I'm getting the total opposite.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on January 16, 2012, 03:17:36 PM
I, at least, am still interested.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on January 17, 2012, 03:03:47 AM
I am very much still interested in this.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 17, 2012, 04:59:59 AM
Oh, crap, I'm really sorry about not writing about California. I had some things come up, and I lost track of this. I'll have something soon.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 19, 2012, 01:54:53 PM
Just finished to read it. I'm really amazed by how detailed and approfondite your analysis was. However, as I said, I can't really comment much on it apart from saying it made me learn a lot of things I didn't know.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Bacon King on January 21, 2012, 02:03:14 PM
MOAR


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 24, 2012, 11:58:57 AM
Southern California

Los Angeles County: The San Fernando Valley

The San Fernando Valley is fairly easy to understand. The flats in the valley are poor and Hispanic, the hills are affluent and white(r). This has not always been the case, in fact the flats used to be white middle-class suburbia, though with a working-class tradition. Because of low housing prices in the flats, Hispanics who are largely low-income have replaced the whites.

North Hollywood, Sun Valley, Van Nuys, Panorama City, Arleta, Pacoima, Sylmar, San Fernando, North Hills and Mission Hills are all largely Hispanic neighborhoods and all pretty low-income. The most heavily Hispanic areas - Panorama City, Pacoima, Arleta and San Fernando - are also the poorest places in the valley and places like Pacoima have seen criminality and the like. There is a long working-class tradition, especially in Van Nuys which had a GM plant until not that long ago. All these places, to varying levels, would be PS strongholds. A large Asian Filipino presence in parts of North Hills and Mission Hills make those two areas slightly less left-wing.

The NoHo Arts District (which is close to the hills) in North Hollywood stands out from the rest as it is largely white, more affluent and far more socially liberal. There has been gentrification there and it has contributed to a large artsy element. While still solidly left-wing, the Greens would poll very well. Which makes it stand out from left-leaning but poor, Hispanic and conservative areas in the flats.

The entertainment industry is centered around Studio City and also has a significant influence on Valley Village (large Jewish population), Valley Glen, Sherman Oaks and parts of Van Nuys. The entertainment industry seems to make these white and affluent neighborhoods very socially liberal, so they would presumably be solidly left-wing again with a large Green vote. Encino, on the other side of the highway (405) seems pretty similar if not a bit less left-wing.

West of the 405, there is an area defined on the north by a railway line and on the south by Victory Boulevard (corresponding to the neighborhoods of Lake Balboa, Reseda, Winnetka and Canoga Park) which is now largely Hispanic (though still ethnically mixed, with a significant white and Asian population) and lower middle-class. With a few negligible exceptions, this area would be a PS stronghold.

Northridge is fairly interesting. The immediate area around the uni (CSU Northridge) would be liberal and strongly left-wing, with a strong Green vote, but in the rest of the neighborhood there are (white) pockets of affluence. Granada Hills, Chatsworth, Porter Ranch and West Hills are all pretty white (save for Porter Ranch which has a large Korean population) and very affluent. Basically forming a hilly ring around the poorer flats, these neighborhoods would be UMP-leaning swing vote places with a marked shift to the PS in recent years. The Greens would do fairly well too. Shadow Hills, north of Burbank, can be added to this list. But Woodland Hills, while still white and affluent, is more liberal because of the entertainment industry, and as such would be more left-leaning. Tarzana is similar, but the large Iranian population would make it more right-wing than Woodland Hills.



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: greenforest32 on January 24, 2012, 12:30:31 PM
I've been reading without commenting. It's interesting. Basically:



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Peeperkorn on January 24, 2012, 12:31:31 PM
Tony, don't you think that today's GOP is more like the "new" FN?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 24, 2012, 02:07:00 PM
Tony, don't you think that today's GOP is more like the "new" FN?

Are you talking to me ? Nobody here calls me Tony. :P

Anyways no, despite 2/3rds of the GOP would easily be seen as far-right in France, it wouldn't share a lot in common with the FN, which is extremist in a very different way. First of all, the FN is economically statist. Which is not to say they're left-wing (even though their rhetoric has adopted some left-populist tones), but they are protectionist, support government's intervention to defend local businesses against foreign competition and pledge to protect welfare and public services. This would basically be a no-goer for almost everybody in the GOP. On for social issues, the FN isn't as insane as the religious right. While they claim to defend "tradition" and are generally conservative on most social issues, they don't focus on this aspect at all and recently try to appear as "modern" and "open-minded". Actually, the "new FN" now even claims to support laïcité (the secularity of the French State). Although this is just a pretext to bash da evul muzlimz who can't integrate our society, and there are tons of religious nuts left in. And to be fair with the GOP, I don't think even people like Brewer go as far as Le Pen when it comes to immigrant hatemongering.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 24, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
Southern California

Los Angeles County: The Verdugos and Pasadena

Sunland-Tujunga is a largely white, middle-class suburb with a small Armenian presence (it is close to Glendale). It seems fairly non-descript, and would appear to be left-leaning overall. La Crescenta-Montrose is affluent with a fairly big Asian (Korean) presence, so it would probably be swingy or slightly right-leaning. La Cañada-Flintridge is white and extremely affluent, and it would be a UMP stronghold.

Pasadena is one-third Hispanic, but the whites are fairly liberal because of the big arts/cultural scene in the city. Obviously, the Hispanic neighborhoods downtown would be PS strongholds, but for the most part the white areas of Mid Central, East Central, West Central and South would also be solidly PS but with a Green presence. They're not very affluent, but they're rather liberal. Affluent places like Linda Vista and North East would lean to the right, however.

Altadena has a large black population, but the white areas are liberal as well. The whole city, which is small, would be left-wing all over.

Los Angeles County: San Gabriel Valley

South Pasadena is mixed Asian-white, is pretty affluent and would, from what I gather, lean to the left.

Alhambra is largely Asian, with some Hispanics living closer to inner city LA. It is largely middle-class and Asians are largely Chinese, so in general Alhambra would lean to the left, with the Hispanic areas being of course the most left-wing areas but the Asian areas still generally left-leaning too.

Monterey Park is a heavily Asian (Chinese, historically Taiwanese) middle-class suburban community. The politics here would be determined by how this type of suburban middle-class Chinese community would vote, but it would likely lean to the PS.

Rosemead is now majority Chinese, result of a major growth in the Asian population. It is not as wealthy as surrounding Asian communities, and as a result would be more left-leaning than its surroundings. South San Gabriel seems to be a similar story. San Gabriel is a wealthier but still heavily Chinese suburb, it would also lean to the left.

San Marino is an extremely affluent Asian neighborhood, and seems to have been the destination of Taiwanese who left Monterey Park. It would be right-leaning, a mix of the anti-communism of the Taiwanese and the massive affluence of the place.

Arcadia and Temple City are middle-class Asian suburbs. Politically, they would be rather mixed, with the wealthiest precincts being largely right-leaning and the other areas more undecided. Arcadia would be more right-wing than Temple City because it is more affluent. Voters here are socially moderate and economically right-wing, making them perfect swing votes.

That description applies to the white neighborhoods of Monrovia, but the downtown core of that middle-class suburb is now heavily Hispanic as are parts of next-door Duarte. South El Monte, El Monte, Baldwin Park, Irwindale, Vincent, Asuza, Citrus, Avocado Heights, Industry, La Puente, West Puente Valley, Valinda and South San Jose Hills are all more or less heavily Hispanic. El Monte, Baldwin Park and Irwindale are blue-collar working-class employment hubs, and are the poorest of these areas. The other neighborhoods, lying further eastwards, are more middle-class suburbs. In general, all those places would be PS strongholds. Downtown Whittier is also heavily Hispanic, and would vote similarly. More affluent (hilly) and white precincts of Whittier would lean to the right.

West Covina is pretty Hispanic, but there is a strong Asian and white presence as well. Voting would be on racial bases, the Hispanic areas being PS strongholds, the white areas leaning to the right and the Asian areas more mixed. Covina is pretty similar, only with a smaller Hispanic population and very few Asians. Again, white areas would go for the right, Hispanics for the left.

Glendora and San Dimas are white and very affluent suburban communities, so they would be pretty solidly UMP.

Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, Walnut and Diamond Bar are affluent Asian suburban communities. They would be pretty mixed in their voting patterns, being full of swing voters. They would probably lean to the left these days, but have been more right-leaning under Chirac. La Habra Heights is white and affluent, so it's predictably a right-wing stronghold.

Pomona is largely Hispanic, and there are pockets of deprivation in the most heavily Hispanic neighborhoods. But Pomona, La Verne and Claremont also have a number of uni campuses and colleges, adding liberal students and faculty to the mix. This is especially true in Claremont, which is white but very liberal. The two elements would make Pomona and its immediate neighbors solidly left-wing, but with a significant Green presence.

...

I will personally kill the first person who derails this thread into some boring discussion of stuff irrelevant to this.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 25, 2012, 10:01:29 AM
Southern California

Los Angeles County: Lancaster, Palmdale and Santa Clarita

North of the Los Angeles National Forest is some high-growth exurban (peri-urbain in French) country, rather similar to Kern County. Lancaster and especially Palmdale have large, growing Hispanic populations, meaning that politically they would likely lean to the left. But voting patterns would be similar to Bakersfield: heavily based on racial lines. The whites are exurban not-super affluent conservatives. If Palmdale is a PS city, it would be because of Hispanics. Lancaster's politics would be polarized on racial lines, with Hispanics voting for the PS and whites voting UMP (in years such as 2007) or FN (in years such as 2012). Because this is the same kind of exurban not-too-affluent country that we found around Bakersfield.

Santa Clarita is kind of similar, but with a lesser Hispanic presence and slightly more liberal whites.

Orange County: Northern OC

The OC is affluent conservative suburban country. Experiencing rapid growth in the post-war era from an influx of whites from liberal cities or from the Midwestern states, these affluent suburbanites became known for their ferocious anti-communism and ultra-conservatism. As a result, the OC has long been a conservative stronghold. In our context, Orange County would have similar politics. It would have been a stronghold of the right from its earliest days. It would have preferred the conservative Gaullist right (despite its statism of early days), and would have preferred Jacques Chirac to Giscard in 1981. Despite its affluence, anti-communism would likely have helped the FN in its early years - 1984, 1986 and 1988 - and Le Pen's party would have polled very well in those days of a more 'right-wing' FN electorate. However, it hardly seems like the type of place Marine Le Pen would do really well in, given her image. While Nicolas Sarkozy and his meritocratic, law-and-order populist conservative message in 2007 would have made him the best right-wing candidate for OC whites in decades (OC whites would have reservations about moderate-social Chirac of 1995), recent demographic trends would not be to the UMP's advantage. The OC is getting less conservative as left-voting Hispanics move in to give the county a one-third Hispanic population.

Let us still begin by looking at what would be traditionally left-leaning in this conservative stronghold. Pretty obviously, the Hispanic areas would be pretty left-leaning despite the cultural conservatism of most Hispanics. The Hispanic areas are usually lower middle-class suburban areas, though places like Santa Ana and Stanton have blue-collar backgrounds. Santa Ana is heavily Hispanic (78%) and is pretty poor in parts. It would form the solid backbone of the PS in OC, but the Hispanic vote would be less one-sided than in LA County. The UMP (or UDF) would maintain a minority following within the Hispanic community.

Anaheim is also Hispanic majority, and follows well-established voting patterns. The heavy Hispanic areas are reliably Socialist, the plurality Hispanic or ethnically mixed parts closer to Garden Grove and Stanton would have more open voting patterns while being traditionally PS leaning these days. Anaheim and Santa Ana would be the most left-voting parts of the OC, but Hispanic growth in parts of Stanton, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, Placentia, Orange and Contra Mesa would have opened the political game in those cities a bit. Stanton, Buena Park and La Habra by their larger Hispanic populations would have voted for Royal in 2007, while the other cities would still have voted for Sarkozy. The white areas of places such as Fullerton, Orange or Contra Mesa are conservative and affluent.

Yorba Linda - Nixon's birthplace - is a very affluent, white conservative suburb in North OC's hills. Villa Park and North Tustin/Tustin Foothills are similarly very affluent and very conservative white suburbs. Those places would be some of the most solidly UMP areas in the OC.

Jumping around to the coast, Huntington Beach and the neighboring communities of Sunset Beach, Seal Beach, Cypress and Fountain Valley are all white, middle-class residential suburbs. Some coastal neighborhoods are particularly affluent. Boeing and the aerospace industry have long been important to Huntington Beach and other neighboring communities. In general, they would be solidly UMP.

Westminster and Garden Grove (to a lesser extent) are not as affluent but still middle-class residential suburbs. But their particularity is that they have a large Vietnamese community. Settling and working in the OC, Vietnamese-Americans in the OC are particularly conservative for reasons related to anti-communism. One can assume that in our context they would be solidly UMP as well.

Next: southern OC (Irvine etc)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 25, 2012, 08:19:41 PM
Southern California

Orange County: Southern OC

Newport Beach is a very affluent white suburban community with lots of old people. There is little question that it would be a UMP stronghold.

Irvine, on the other hand, is another story. The campus of University of California Irvine gives the city a large academia-liberal feel, complemented to some extent by an important Asian population (largely Chinese, Korean or Filipino). The Asian parts would tend to be left-leaning, the whiter areas more right-leaning, while the university would be a left-wing stronghold with a large Green vote. Bayrou would have performed well in 2007 in Irvine, in contrast to pretty mediocre performances elsewhere.

Laguna Beach is the OC's other major liberal enclave. It is a pretty artsy/hip/environmentalist/left-liberal community, with a big gay community and strong local environmental movement. Even more so than Irvine, Laguna Beach would be a left-wing stronghold, the only such stronghold for the left in the southern OC. Again, the Greens would perform very strongly.

Aliso Viejo and some parts of the surrounding hills are more white-liberal, but for the most part the very affluent suburbs/retirement havens of Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, Mission Viejo, Lake Forest, Rancho Santa Margarita, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente would be UMP strongholds besides a few random Hispanic precincts. They do not seem as culturally conservative as other parts of the OC, so there might have been a stronger vote for Bayrou in these communities in 2007.

San Bernardino County: Inland Empire

A sort of extension of LA County's San Gabriel Valley, the IE in SB County extends to take in the cities of Ontario, Fontana and San Bernardino. Increasingly suburban by highway linkages of all sorts to LA County, there is still an important local economy: old manufacturing, warehousing, distribution facilities, more blue-collar service jobs, technology and defense. The IE here is all high-growth exurbia, which is not too affluent - there are pockets of deprivation in Ontario, Fontana and San Bernardino - but has attracted lower income or middle-class families, often Hispanics by cause of low land and property prices. Of course, this is also foreclosure country.

Ontario, Fontana and San Bernardino as well as smaller communities such as Montclair, Colton, Rialto, Bloomington, Muscoy and even parts of Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Redlands have become heavily Hispanic. The mix of lower-income, blue-collar Hispanics in this setting would make them, obviously, solidly left-wing. Turnout, however, is remarkably low in the IE, and even lower with Hispanics, making them less powerful actors than their demographic weight could indicate.

Politics and voting patterns would be pretty racially based. White areas, which are also more affluent, would be conservative. The white parts of Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands and Chino would be solidly right-wing. Chino Hills is very affluent, but a large Filipino population might make it less right-wing than its surroundings.

On the other side of the San Bernardino Mountains, development is more limited and population is sparser. Mountains and dry deserts make development difficult. In the Victor Valley, the cities of Hesperia, Apple Valley and Victorville are high-growth exurban communities. Victorville is heavily Hispanic, so it has a logical left-wing lean but Hesperia and Apple Valley are solidly right-wing. For the most part, the small towns of Yucca Valley, Twentynine Palms or Needles, as well as the bulk of the desert and mountains of eastern SB County are heavily right-wing, with a strong FN vote.

San Bernardino County is perfect ground for the FN, but it is doubtful it could prosper as much as it could because the not-too-affluent high-growth exurbs are basically heavily Hispanic, and those people wouldn't vote FN in a million years.

Next: Riverside County, San Diego and Imperial County


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 27, 2012, 01:00:36 PM
Comments?

SD and Imperial should be up tonight. I'll move to Oregon this weekend.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 27, 2012, 07:55:05 PM
Nobody gives a sh**t, but okay.


Southern California

Riverside County: Inland Empire

As in San Bernardino County, voting would be pretty racially polarized. The lower middle-class and blue collar Hispanic suburbs/communities of Corona, Rubidoux, Moreno Valley, Perris, Lake Elsinore and most of Riverside would be solidly left-leaning areas. The University of California campus in Riverside's Eastside would provide a more liberal electorate, but overall it would be a rather conservative Hispanic PS vote which would predominate. The election map in its details would resemble, as it does irl, a racial map. Likewise in the San Jacinto Valley.

Norco is an interesting very white and pretty affluent community squeezed between two Hispanic areas, including low-income Corona to the south. It would be solidly UMP. The UMP would also find strength in the exurban communities, largely white and high-growth middle-class, lining I-15 (Temecula, Murrieta, Wildomar). The FN would also poll well.

Riverside County: Coachella Valley

The Coachella Valley in Riverside County includes formerly agricultural areas transformed into high-growth peri-urban communities or retirement communities. Originally places like Palm Springs, Palm Desert or La Quinta were overwhelmingly white conservative retirement communities, filled with pretty well-off right-leaning retirees. However, the region around Palm Springs has seen pretty solid growth with a sizable Hispanic presence.

Palm Springs would have shifted to the left in recent years after having been a RPR stronghold for a long time. There is a very large gay and lesbian community and the city has otherwise attracted more liberal young professionals. Palm Springs might yet have voted for Sarkozy in 2007, but there would have been a strong shift leftwards. The Greens would have done well in 2009.

Palm Desert and La Quinta remain whiter and more affluent, and the conservative retiree bloc is more political powerful. These communities would still lean solidly to the right.

The southern reach of the Coachella Valley near the Salton Sea has remained a predominantly agricultural region, entailing a large population of Hispanic farm workers. Indio, Coachella, Mecca and all the places surrounding the Salton Sea are very, very heavily Hispanic areas and while turnout is low in these parts, those who do vote would vote heavily PS.

Nobody lives in the desert east of the Coachella Valley, but those who do seem to be right-wing. Except around Blythe, which seems to be an Hispanic agricultural community.

San Diego: City of San Diego

San Diego County's Hispanic population - surprisingly small given its proximity to Mexico - lives concentrated along the Mexican border with Tijuana, the coastal neighborhoods of Chula Vista and National City. These places are largely low-income, blue-collar communities, and Chula Vista is boring suburb. Hispanic communities now extend to Lemon Grove and central San Diego neighborhoods such as Barrio Logan, Grant Hill, Ridgeview-Webster, City Heights, Encanto or East San Diego. The poorer neighborhoods, in San Ysidro, Chula Vista, or SE San Diego would be solidly PS. But Lemon Grove, eastern Chula Vista and parts of La Presa and Spring Valley are relatively well-off Hispanic middle-class communities, and would tend to be less solidly PS and would have a larger UMP presence.

The city's downtown core, largely white, and the neighborhoods of Hillcrest, Normal Heights, Mission Hills and Mission Valley (also white and middle-class) are artsy neighborhoods with a predominantly young, educated professional population. Hillcrest has a large gay community, which extends into the other neighborhoods as well, while Normal Heights is a bobo neighborhood. These neighborhoods are very liberal, and would be solidly left-wing especially in recent years. The PS, while strong, would face competition from the Greens and MoDem.

Coronado, on the opposite side of the bay, is a white neighborhood driven by the military (North Island Naval Complex) and has a good number of veterans. It would be a pretty solidly right-wing area. Nearby, on Point Loma, the affluent neighborhood of La Playa, Roseville-Fleetridge and Loma Portal would be right-leaning or at least swing-voting. These are fairly affluent white neighborhoods, though not necessarily deeply conservative.

Ocean Beach is a tad poorer, quite a bit younger and is a bit of a hippie beachfront community.  Pacific Beach and Mission Beach, opposite Ocean Beach (across Mission Bay, which includes SeaWorld), are rather similar. They attract surfers, yuppies and college students. Like downtown neighborhoods, similarly young and liberal, these three areas would be solidly left-wing especially in recent years. The PS, while strong, would face competition from the Greens and MoDem.

Clairemont and the sub-neighborhoods of Linda Vista, Bay Park and Bay Ho are older white suburban neighborhoods though the median age is not particularly old. The University of San Diego in Clairemont surely contributes to the younger liberal population, but overall Clairemont's areas would be a swing-voting area which would be closely disputed.

La Jolla is a very affluent neighborhood, with very high property prices. Further north, it is also home to UCSD, which likely conditions the neighborhood's politics and demographics considerably. La Jolla peninsula proper seems very affluent, and besides a few more artsy spots it would probably be a solidly right-wing area though with a liberal slant. The area around UCSD is younger and obviously more liberal, so there is no question that it would be PS-Green stronghold.

Serra Mesa, Kearny Mesa and Mission Trails seem like fairly non-descript white middle-class suburbs, with defense likely a major employer for residents here. Serra Mesa does seem a bit less affluent, so it might be more left-wing, but this would probably be boring swing territory between UMP and PS with little third party presence.

Miramar is a military base, and its residents are military so pretty right-wing. Mira Mesa has a large Asian (Filipino and Vietnamese) population, working in defense-related industries. It might be more left-wing by cause of Asian presence, but my guess is that the area would be a fairly right-leaning area.

Incorporated exurban areas like Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Peñasquitos or the San Pasqual Valley are largely white and very affluent. Besides a few random precincts, this seems like a UMP stronghold.

San Diego inner suburbs

La Mesa and El Cajon are suburban and white, but seem to be slightly less affluent and professional than their neighbors. Downtown El Cajon seems quite lower middle-class, actually. They would be fairly swing voting places, with a narrow PS lean.

Besides those two places, San Diego's eastern suburbs are pretty much all hilly, white, affluent and professional. The high-tech and defense industry are main employers, and these places have remained pretty affluent because of that diversified economy. Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Winter Gardens, Lakeside and Santee would be UMP strongholds.

Further north, Poway is a pretty affluent white exurb with a more rural feel, but politically it would be a UMP stronghold as well. All the places further inland are not very populated, but being largely white, rural and not too badly off, it would be UMP stronghold as well.

TBC.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 28, 2012, 04:39:27 AM
I'm still following this, but it's hard for me to catch up with all the stuff you write. :P It's still fascinating.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 28, 2012, 02:47:02 PM
Southern California

Northern San Diego County

North of San Diego, the beachfront communities of Del Mar, Solana Beach and Encinitas are affluent upper middle-class communities and popular tourist destination and surf spots. Perhaps proximity to the sea and concern for pollution partly explains why these communities are some of the most socially liberal areas outside of the city San Diego. Wealth would indicate a UMP lean, but very pronounced social liberalism and environmentalism would probably make these places more left-leaning (PS, Green). Carlsbad is similarly affluent, but is more suburban, a larger employment center and perhaps a bigger tourist desination (Legoland). It would be slightly more divided in its politics.

Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos and Escondido are fairly lower middle-class suburbs or communities, driven both by the defense industry and other smaller service jobs. They also all have heavily Hispanic downtown cores, which would be the most left-wing areas in those places. Otherwise, the white outskirts in all cases are far more affluent and conservative. Oceanside still has a coastal liberalism to it in white neighborhoods, but Escondido is very conservative. Nearby Poway, a semi-rural exurb of San Diego, driven by defense, is very conservative as well.

The rest of the county is otherwise high-growth white affluent exurbs or rurban places. Predictably very conservative, a UMP stronghold.

Imperial County

Located in the Imperial Valley, a major irrigated agricultural area located south of the Salton Sea (Coachella Valley) and basically between the New River and the Alamo River. This irrigated agricultural valley is shared with Mexico, so the Imperial Valley has long been influenced by Mexico and has attracted a huge Mexican population for pretty obvious reasons. Imperial County, heavily dependent on irrigated crops, is also extremely poor and has huge unemployment rates.

Turnout is horrible, but the heavily Hispanic communities of El Centro, Brawley, Calexico, Calipatria and Westmorland would be PS strongholds, enough to make Imperial a PS stronghold. It is doubtful that the social conservatism of Hispanics could affect that considerably, but this is still California's most socially conservative county or close to it. Christine Boutin's socially conservative and economically moderate/'humanist' campaign in 2002 might have carried a special appeal in Imperial in 2002.

I'll summarize CA as a whole in my next post.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on January 28, 2012, 03:23:42 PM
I give a sh**t. I find this concept fascinating.

I don't really know what else to say, though. California hasn't had any surprises.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Jackson on January 28, 2012, 03:31:33 PM
I think this is pretty fascinating, but I have no other comments due to not overly disagreeing with you over the various partisan strongholds. Can't wait to see the Pacific Northwest!


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 28, 2012, 05:14:39 PM
California

In 1974, California would have voted solidly for Giscard, buoyed by big margins in the Bay Area's wealthier counties (Marin, San Mateo), a decent showing in the inner Bay Area and Alameda, strong performances in coastal and alpine areas, a landslide in the OC and San Diego, and decent showings elsewhere in SoCal. Mitterrand would have been limited to ancestrally Socialist-leaning areas in the Central Valley and timber counties in coastal and inland NoCal, in addition to PCF strongholds in Alameda, Contra Costa and SF. In 1981, it is likely that Giscard would have repeated his feat.

A distinct shift to the left would have begun in 1995, with strong results for Jospin in the runoff in the Bay Area, LA's growing Hispanic suburbs and throughout coastal California. Chirac would still have won, in part thanks to holding on to decent enough results in the Bay Area's wealthiest communities and a strong Asian vote for Chirac, especially in the OC.

In 2007, Royal would likely have won the state on a coalition resembling that of California Democrats: SoCal's multicultural areas, coastal liberalism and the Bay Area. In large part, especially in NoCal, her victory would come on the heels of strong vote transfers from Bayrou, fresh from a very strong performance in California in the first round. Nicolas Sarkozy was a bad candidate for the affluent liberal suburbanites, of which there are tons of in California, especially in NoCal. He certainly would do better in Marin and San Mateo than real-life Republicans, but he would have lost both counties by pretty decisive margins. Sarkozy would have done better in SoCal, where he was really the perfect candidate for middle-class white exurbanites in high-growth exurbia. Similar to PACA, Le Pen's 2007 result in California would be down considerably from his 2002 result, which would likely have been the strongest in years for the FN. The FN vote would evaporate from the OC, Inland Empire and Bakersfield. But the UMP's weakness in SoCal would be because of the growing Hispanic population, a demographic which Sarkozy would have had little appeal to at all.

The 2007 results in this scenario are a bit tough to work out, but something like 52-53% for Royal seems fair.

Given that the last cantonal and regional elections were fought in leftie landslide years, California's local government at a departmental and regional level would be solidly left-wing. The general council depends a lot on how the cantons would be worked out and how bad the rural over-representation would be. The PS would probably have gained control of California in 2004, further solidifying control in 2008 and 2011 - a year in which the FN would have returned to its former prominence. In the 2010 regionals and 2011 cantonals, the UMP would have been limited to inland rural areas of NoCal, the whiter parts of the Central Valley and the wealthier white parts of SoCal. The FN, on the other hand, would have done so well in SoCal that in 2011 it might have gained a few cantons in Kern County or the Inland Empire.

At the municipal level, California's largest cities would pretty much all lean to the PS. Los Angeles would certainly have been a PS stronghold for years at a municipal level, and internal divisions might be based more on ethnicity than anything else. San Francisco would have been governed by the PCF until the 1970s or so, but nowadays its local politics would be dominated by the PS. The Greens, unlike in LA, can certainly afford to mount a direct challenge to the PS in SF, and would have done so. It is likely that the 2014 municipal elections in SF would feature an epic showdown between PS and Greens. San Diego would be the most closely fought of the main municipal races, and would probably have been governed by the RPR between 1983 and 2008, being gained by the PS in a not-so-close race in that left-wing year. San Jose would be a PS stronghold at a municipal level.

Municipal politics in Fresno and Bakersfield would be heavily racial-based, and the results would depend on municipal boundaries and which areas they include or exclude. Still, Bakersfield would pretty certainly be the largest city governed by the UMP in California, though the FN would have gotten into the runoff in 1995 and maybe 2001. Sacramento, by its current boundaries, would be reliably left-leaning at a local level. Long Beach would see some close races, while Oakland would be a PS stronghold after having been the Red Belt's buckle until 1989 if not 1995.

2007

(
)

1995*

(
)

* Oklahoma revised, I have going to Chirac narrowly in 1995.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on January 29, 2012, 06:23:30 AM
I really didn't expect it going to Royal in 2007, but your analysis seems very convincing. ;) Once you've finished the State-by-State analysis, I expect to see more maps of past elections and party strength ! :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 29, 2012, 02:59:23 PM
Sometime soon, I will go through all your posts about California and add my comments. Broadly agree with everything, of course.

I really didn't expect it going to Royal in 2007, but your analysis seems very convincing.

Not every state can vote for Sarkozy, at least not in an election as close as 2007. Remember that California gave more than 60% to Obama in 2008.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 29, 2012, 07:40:27 PM
Here's a really short teaser of Oregon, because I'm too lazy/busy to do more for now.

Oregon

Oregon's politics in the past few years have been heavily influenced by the environmental movement, which has played a significant role in shifting voting patterns in many parts of the state, and has been able to "take control" of one political party, thereby affecting its electoral base significantly. In this scenario, the PS would likely not have been "taken over" by the  environmental movement or at least not entirely.

Southern Oregon

Coastal Southern Oregon is timber country, especially Coos County. The timber industry has long been the dominant economic activity in this region, but it has been in a period of decline for a good number of years and the region's economic makeup has changed quite a bit. Curry County, especially the coast around Port Orford, has seen an influx of pretty wealthy and relatively liberal Californian retirees. Curry and Coos have both been touched by an industry which is very powerful along the coast: tourism. Basically, the coastal regions of both counties (and parts of Douglas County) are tourist-oriented, while the inland areas are still relatively dependent on timber. Coos County especially has remained something of a unionized working-class lumber county, but quite conservative on social issues and very much opposed to the state's powerful environmental movement.

Coos would have been a PS stronghold, but Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be a fairly good candidate for Coos County's more conservative working-class, even if unionized. Coos is not too badly off and certainly not a decrepit working-class ghetto, so there would be no sizable FN vote. Coastal regions of Coos County are now more tourist-oriented, so they would vote PS, but for different reasons than Coquille and the inland lumber parts. Curry and Douglas, as well as inland Josephine County (Grants Pass) have a strong timber industry, but workers are not unionized, meaning that they would have a more pronounced right-wing Gaullist tradition. The influx of wealthy Californians in Curry and tourism around Grants Pass would have further helped the UMP's cause.

Even further inland is polarized Jackson County. Its main town, Medford, is actually a very right-wing town, but the other main town, Ashland, hosts a liberal arts college (SOU) and a Shakespeare festival, so it is predictably a hippie town. Medford would be UMP stronghold, as would the bulk of rural areas, but Ashland would be a left-wing stronghold comparable to Berkeley, SF or Seattle. The Greens would obviously fare very well in Ashland, as would the PS in presidential elections.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on January 31, 2012, 11:47:49 AM
Oregon

Willamette Valley

Eugene is an ultra-liberal college town (University of Oregon) with all that entails in terms of student and faculty. The uni has pretty much made it into an all around academia type of place, in contrast to next-door Springfield which is a far more conservative blue-collar working-class community historically dependent on the timber industry. Suburban communities are small but seem to be growing.

Politically, Eugene would be a left-wing stronghold with a huge Green vote. Springfield would traditionally have been the most PS-leaning of the two but a candidate like Sarkozy would have enjoyed a certain appeal in a place like Springfield. The rest of Lane County includes old working-class mill towns like Oakridge, former mill towns transitioning into suburbia and along the coast Florence is an affluent retiree/tourist resort. The UMP would have made headway in rural Lane County in recent years, especially in places like Junction City.

Slightly northwest of Eugene is Corvallis, another liberal college town (OSU). OSU used to be a fairly conservative campus by campus standards, but it is very much a liberal stronghold today. The added presence of a high-tech and biotech industry likely helps make Corvallis even more liberal. Its voting habits would be largely identical to that of Eugene. Outside Corvallis, the PS would find support in older mill towns like Philomath but also newfound support in rather affluent Corvallis suburbs. Sarkozy would have done well in places like Adair City or Alsea, in addition to the UMP's traditional base around affluent conservative suburban West Albany.

West Albany lays across from Albany, a pretty blue-collar town with a big manufacturing base and a non-unionized service industry. The rest of Linn is conservative working-class timber country. These workers do not seem to be unionized, meaning that there would be a more right-wing slant in local politics compared to counties such as Coos or rural Lane. The PS would have a base, largely in Albany I think, but Sarkozy would have performed well in 2007.

Along the coast, both Lincoln and Tillamook Counties have been influenced by the rise of the tourism industry, which adds to a blue-collar base in rural Lincoln and a strong dairy industry in rural Tillamook. The tourism industry has brought service jobs, fairly affluent seaside residents and its share of hippies. Lincoln is the most tourism-driven county, while Tillamook remains slightly more dependent on its dairy industry. Lincoln would be a PS stronghold and tourism would ultimately not change much to that. Tillamook would be more hesitant in its voting patterns, being a key swing county.

The state capital of Salem is to the right of most large cities in Oregon, but the public sector (stare government) is the largest local employer. While its surroundings, including largely Hispanic Woodburn, would lean to the right, Salem would have a small PS lean.

Polk and Yamhill Counties are two agricultural and/or timber-dependent counties in the Upper Willamette Valley. Despite Monmouth in Polk County being a college town, its campus is pretty conservative. Yamhill County increasingly attracts Portland metro area commuters. Viticulture is an important industry in Yamhill and Polk counties. A mix of exurbanization and the wine industry would make these two counties UMP strongholds.

Way up north at the mouth of the Columbia River is Clatsop County, a reliably Socialist stronghold. Astoria is an old working-class community (harbour with fishing, shipbuilding, canneries; nearby lumbering) but its harbour has since gone into a post-industrial tailspin which it has struggled to recover from. Astoria and other Pacific coast communities such as Cannon Beach or Seaside have found a solution in tourism, and Cannon Beach is a particularly affluent resort community. The environmental movement is strong in Clatsop County. Astoria has a large and historically politically influential Finnish community, which would likely have made the place a PCF stronghold until not too long ago. At any rate, with the exception of Warrenton, Astoria and Clatsop County would be a PS heartland.

Columbia is a major timber-producing county, leading to a blue-collar population which might have been politically influenced by a local Scandinavian (largely Finnish) population in places like Clatskanie. It does not seem to have been influenced much by exurban growth in the Portland metro area. Unionized, blue-collar and historically left-leaning, Columbia would be a PS stronghold.

Metro Portland

Portland would be the PS' home base in Oregon. Similar to Seattle, it is only slightly less affluent and liberal than Seattle. There is a strong blue-collar tradition in Portland, concentrated around the Port, but it is a largely white professional city today. It has been successful in attracting high-tech industries and other white-collar employers.

The city's old industrial hinterland west side has seen major urban renewal with the typical transformation into condos, lofts or artsy places attracting fairly upwardly-mobile yuppies. The Pearl District is the best example of such transformation. The west side also includes Portland State University. This would be a PS stronghold, with a strong Green vote.

Eastern Portland (on the east side of the river) has a more working-class tradition. There remains some old gentrified inner-city neighborhoods (King, Woodlawn) home to the bulk of Oregon's black community, next door to affluent Alameda-Irvington or gay areas near Sabin. The old working-class King has seen gentrification with a hippie community around Alberta Arts District, while Alameda-Irvington attract affluent young professionals. The PS would been very strong in working-class King and Woodlawn, but would face Green competition around Alameda-Irvington.

Northern Portland is a more residential lower middle-class/historically blue-collar neighborhood. There is a college campus (University of Portland) and the Port of Portland is in the working-class and ethnically diverse St. Johns area. Southeast Portland was also a fairly working-class neighborhood, but the Sunnyside/Hawthorne-Belmont has seen gentrification, becoming Portland's Haight-Ashbury. The other areas in the Southeast are fairly middle-class urban residential areas. The bobo places would have a strong Green vote, while the rest of the city would be fairly non-descript PS strongholds.

Further west, Gresham seems to be a middle-class suburb with a blue-collar tradition. I don't know much about it, but it would appear to be a politically divided though historically PS-leaning place where Sarkozy would have done particularly well in 2007.

Portland's suburbs include some fairly blue-collar areas. Milwaukie, just south of Portland, has historically been a working-class area, though currently experiencing urban renewal. South along the Willamette, Oregon City is also a town with a strong working-class (paper mills/lumber industry) tradition. Both would likely form the PS' base, but outside Oregon City and Milwaukie, the rest of Clackamas County is either rural or middle-class conservative suburbia. Some of this middle-class suburbia has a blue-collar past, and appear to be areas where Sarkozy would have done well in 2007.

Lake Oswego is an affluent suburb of Portland located on the west bank of the Willamette. Politically, this is likely an area which would have shifted to the left in recent years. The shift to the left would have been quite heavy in the Silicon Forest region around Beaverton and Hillsboro, both of which have attracted high-tech companies or tech giants such as IBM. Places such as Cedar Mills and West Haven-Sylvan are very affluent suburban communities. The high-tech industry has attracted the kind of people who would likely prefer the PS over Sarkozy's UMP. More rural communities lying on the outskirts of all this would still lean UMP.

Central Oregon

This is a region east of the Cascades, but whose politics are not identical to those of eastern Oregon. Hood River especially is quite unlike eastern Oregon, the city of Hood River itself is basically full of rich Portlanders, young professionals and hippies who all like to windsurf. There is a high-tech industry in Hood River, whose working-class past is basically history. Nearby Wasco County is home to those who can't afford either Portland or Hood River. It is a working-class place (there's a big dam on the river and a smelter near The Dalles), but apparently Google has moved there. Hood River would be left-wing, with a strong Green vote.

Deschutes County is Bend, which is a very fast-growing inland community which has attracted tourists but also tons of wealthy Californian retirees. Its politics are moderated by tourism, which entails a more left-wing base with tourism workers, but retirees from California would seem to be enough to make Bend and Deschutes a UMP base. Jefferson County has also seen an increase in tourism.



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 01, 2012, 09:33:05 PM
No comments on Oregon? The rest should be up tomorrow.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Jackson on February 01, 2012, 10:23:54 PM
I can't imagine what you have planned for Eastern Oregon will be all that interesting compared to the rest of the state, unless you intend to turn it into a CPNT stronghold.

Great work on the rest of the state btw.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: greenforest32 on February 02, 2012, 12:55:23 AM
I give a sh**t. I find this concept fascinating.

I don't really know what else to say, though. California Oregon hasn't had any surprises.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on February 03, 2012, 09:55:03 AM
Oregon

Eastern Oregon

Fairly clearly, the bulk of this region would be UMP strongholds. The Columbia Plateau region in northeastern Oregon has an economy based on wheat, hydroelectricity and a limited timber industry. Wilderness tourism and hunting is also important. The SFIO or PCF would have been strong in northeastern counties such as Wallowa back when timber was still important. Pendleton is a regional trade center, while La Grande in Union County is a college town (EOU). This would be a UMP region, with a sizable CPNT vote perhaps boosted by the unpopularity of federal land ownership and state environmental regulations.

The arid land of the High Desert and Harney Basin are cattle-grazing and livestock ranching countries. Malheur County, which serves as the hub of the High Desert and is closely connected with Idaho, has a large Basque population. This would be the most solidly right-wing region in Oregon and perhaps the whole Pacific NW.

Conclusions on Oregon

Oregon would have been a PS-leaning state for quite some time. Giscard could have carried it narrowly in 1974, but it would probably would have voted for Mitterrand in 1981, 1988 and for Jospin in 1995. The Willamette Valley and southwestern Oregon's unionized timber counties would be the base of the PS. However, the local PS would have to deal with a very powerful Green Party in the state, which could have won up to 20%+ of the vote in 2009 by 'stealing' traditional urban middle-class PS voters in the Portland Metro and in some coastal counties or the uni counties.

At the municipal level, Portland would be a PS stronghold and that for quite some time, although it may have elected PCF mayors in the 1950s. Eugene would also be a PS town, but the Greens would be in a position to elect one of their own. Salem would be more closely fought between UMP and PS, with the PS winning out in 2008.

(
)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 03, 2012, 10:08:34 AM
Great updates. :)


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on February 03, 2012, 02:42:07 PM


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on September 03, 2012, 04:14:49 AM
Great piece of work overall, Green Mountain Hashemite. You've inspired me to do a similar work, except using UK political parties instead of French ones.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on September 04, 2012, 02:50:48 PM
OK, so I might get back to doing this, time permitting.

Washington

Seattle

Seattle has a working-class past but a far more white-collar present, which makes it a rather interesting city. It would probably be a PS stronghold these days, but the right could have controlled the city's town hall for a good number of years prior to 1977. There was also a pretty active left-wing union movement during its shipbuilding days, which would likely have resulted in the PCF being the largest left-wing party until the 60s.

As I've gotten into the habit of doing, I'll run through the neighborhoods (in general) in a north-south fashion, so here goes.

North Seattle is a white and fairly middle-class residential area. Large swathes of it appear to be non-descript urban middle-class areas, with the areas lining Lake Washington or Puget Sound being slightly more affluent. It would most likely be more or less solidly PS, though with a UMP which can poll far better than actual Republicans do. In the southeast, along Lake Washington, the neighborhoods of Windemere, Laurelhurst and Hawthorne Hills are some of the most affluent places in Seattle. They are liberal, but I would think that they would have a traditional inclination to the right, and while Sarkozy might have won in those neighborhoods in 2007, Bayrou would have performed extremely well in the first round.

A bit west of these affluent strongholds, the neighborhood of Ravenna and the whole University District is younger, less affluent and considerably more left-wing, influenced by the faculty and students of the University of Washington. Alongside neighboring Wallingford, Green Lake and especially Fremont - which are artsy counterculture hip areas - this whole area would be solidly left-wing with a very strong Green vote in most years, and a PS vote for President. Fremont has been called a soviet republic by some, and while it wouldn't vote PCF, it might have had a strong vote for Besancenot in 2002 in 2007. Ballard, which historically had a large Scandinavian population, seems to be similarly hip and liberal. It would likewise be a left-wing stronghold.

On the other said of those bays separating the two parts of Seattle, we encounter Magnolia, an upper middle-class neighborhood which would presumably be more or less safely PS, with a decent UMP core vote. Separated by working-class PS stronghold Interbay, Queen Anne is a similarly affluent middle-class neighborhood, though slightly less affluent and more inner-city artsy liberal in Lower Queen Anne. It would vote like Magnolia.

In the downtown core, Capitol Hill would be the city's top bobo left stronghold. It has a large gay population, complementing a general artsy/bobo kind of place. Usually a Green stronghold, it would vote PS in presidential and perhaps legislative elections. Cascade and Lake Union are slightly less artsy, but would be generally quite similar.

Montlake and especially Broadmoor and Madison Park are extremely affluent areas, Broadmoor is even a gated affluent community. Broadmoor would be a UMP stronghold, while Montlake and Madison Park would still lean UMP though with a much stronger centrist vote, expressed through a strong result for Bayrou in 2007. Along Lake Washington, Denny-Blaine and Leschi are also affluent neighborhoods, though the PS would be stronger.

The downtown core has a mix of lower-income areas, higher-income spots and artsy places. Belltown and the waterfront are pretty boboish neighborhoods, though the waterfront is much more of a gentrified and growingly affluent area with condos. Given the labour radicalism of longshoremen, the waterfront's docks would likely have been hotbeds of social agitation when they were still booming. The UMP might have pockets of support in some affluent spots, but there would be a strong bobo PS and Green vote overall.

The Central District area has historically been the heart of Seattle's black community, and historically a low-income inner-city area. But it has seen a decline in its black population, gentrification and the replacement of low-income blacks with middle-class bobo young professionals. Madrona has seen similar shifts. PS strongholds in the past, they would still be very left-wing, but with a stronger Green presence than in the past.

Seattle's South End is more ethnically diverse, less affluent and historically far more working-class.

The Rainier Valley is an ethnically diverse area, with a large Asian (Filipino, Chinese) and black population mixed in with a few working-class whites and an increasingly large presence of young professionals, in areas such as Columbia City. Generally working-class or lower middle-class, it is not very affluent and crime has been a problem. Politically, the area would be a PS stronghold, but with a strong Green vote in places such as Columbia City.

Along the lakeshore, Rainier Beach is a fairly low-income working-class area with a large black and Asian population, as is Dunlap. Seward Park is whiter and wealthier. Like the Rainier Valley, the PS would be very much in dominance here.

Beacon Hill is the centre of Seattle's Asian population, largely Filipino or Chinese. While more liberal than other Asian areas, it is still a fairly lower middle-class area. The PS would dominate the political field in Beacon Hill, likewise in the city's Chinatown/International District closer to downtown.

The old Industrial District has seen gentrification in parts (SoDo is an artsy neighborhood), while other industrial and working-class neighborhoods such as Georgetown or South Park have remained fairly lower middle-class. The PS would be dominant. Delridge is a similar story, largely white (with black or Hispanic pockets) and a residential lower middle-class area.

West Seattle, along Puget Sound, is whiter and wealthier. Alki, Seaview and North Admiral are pretty affluent upper middle-class residential neighborhoods. The UMP would likely retain significant strength, but there would be a strong centrist vote and an ever-increasing PS vote.

Seattle-King County Suburbs

Bellevue is King County's main suburb. It is a booming upper middle-class financial and retail hub with a large base of tech companies, driven by Microsoft which is based in next-door Redmond. It also has a sizable foreign-born and Asian community. It is socially liberal but more moderate on fiscal issues, meaning that it would traditionally have been a right-wing base (not stronghold, though) but Royal would likely have performed very well (as would Bayrou). The tech aspect and the Asian community would make it less right-wing than its affluence would indicate. The UMP would have done pretty awfully in Bellevue since 2008. The adjacent very affluent city of Medina would be a UMP stronghold, while I guess Mercer Island would be like Bellevue.

Going towards Renton, Newcastle is an old mining community but now is an upper middle-class suburban community, leaning UMP. Renton, however, has a far more blue-collar population and far poorer than surrounding communities. It also has a significant black population, shared with next-door low-income suburban Skyway-Bryn Mawr. Boeing is by far the largest employer, giving Renton a big base of blue-collar aviation workers. It would be a PS stronghold.

Burien is a leafy middle-class suburban community and seems to be fairly liberal and professional in its population makeup. I don't know what else to say besides that it would be a swing voting community, likely going for Royal in 2007 and solidifying its left-wing leanings since then. Normandy Park is more affluent, and would probably lean to the right.

SeaTac and Tukwila are less affluent and less suburban. SeaTac includes the airport, the corporate headquarters for Alaska Air Group. Boeing is a major employer in both communities. Tukwila especially has struggled with poverty and urban decline in the past. Both would be reliably left-wing, PS-voting regions. I would wager Kent, further south, but a commercial and manufacturing hub for the likes of Boeing, would also be left-leaning most of the time, with a small FN base and not insignificant UMP presence.

Des Moines is a middle-class suburb, and would lean PS. Auburn seems to a fairly middle-class residential suburban community, though there are both pockets of deprivation and more affluent exurban type planned communities. Federal Way provides much employment with timber giant Weyerhaeuser, which is based there. Federal Way is also, in general, more affluent than either Auburn or Kent. The PS would dominate in Auburn and Federal Way, but the UMP would retain more of a presence in Federal Way. The FN would have a small presence in Auburn and Federal Way.

The outskirts of places like Renton, Kent or Auburn (Covington, Cascade-Fairwood, East Hill-Meridian) are pretty much affluent high-growth kinda-exurban developments, I suspect most of them would lean slightly to the right, but could have voted PS in 2012. The FN would be somewhat relevant, but would not poll very strongly. Rural southeastern King County would be UMP territory.

The Snoqualmie Valley in King County is an old working-class (timber) area which has been transformed into affluent suburbia or touristy country with a share of hippies. Strongly PS in the past, it would still be reliably left-wing but with a solid base for parties such as the Greens or Bayrou.

Getting back into actual suburbia, the very affluent communities of Sammamish and Issaquah would be swing voting areas, with the UMP retaining the advantage in Sammamish but the PS likely a bit stronger in Issaquah. Suburban high-tech capital Redmond would lean - and trend - to the left, with a fairly strong centrist and Green presence. I would wager that highly educated middle-class suburbs such as Shoreline, Lake Forest Park, Kirkland, Kenmore, Woodinville and Kingsgate would lean to the left as well, increasingly so in recent years.



Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Hash on September 04, 2012, 04:11:12 PM
Washington

(remnants of) Puget Sound

Tacoma is an old working-class city with a long history of labour activism. Tacoma's harbour and the longshoremen  who worked there (known for their radical politics) were once the heart of the city's economy, but it has since declined somewhat. Tacoma has steered clear of urban blight and decline and managed gentrification well, but there remains large low-income and/or minority populations in part of southern and eastern Tacoma. Tacoma would have been a PCF/PS stronghold for years and years, and the PS would still remain the dominant party, especially in lower-income areas, but it would also poll well in gentrified middle-class north Tacoma. The PCF, however, would hardly be a factor, after having been dominant in the 1950s. The UMP might have a solid presence in affluent northeast Tacoma. While the FN would have been strong in 1984, 1986 and even 1988; it would no longer be a factor in 2012.

The rest of Pierce County would likely lean to the right, with the UMP performing strongest around the military bases and in the middle-class exurbia to the east of Tacoma (including Puyallup, Edgewood). The PS would be strong in the lower income parts of Lakewood and Parkland, and it would be gaining strength in University Park.

The state capital, Olympia, has a large public sector population in addition to a vibrant cultural scene and a generally socially liberal middle-class feel. The PS would be, naturally, very strong in Olympia but the Greens would likely have beaten them out quite badly in 2009 and it would always be at risk from a very strong Bayrou-like candidate (Bayrou would have polled very well in 2007).

Shifting north to Snohomish County, the PS' main base there would be Everett - Boeing city - and a fairly blue-collar city though not a very deprived one. The PS would be very strong in lower-income and ethnically diverse areas along Highway 99 from the county line, into Lynnwood and southern Everett. It would also be strong in downtown Everett. The more affluent - in some cases very affluent - communities along the waterfront (Edmonds, Mukilteo) are professional middle-class suburbs and would be swing voting communities, though I would think the PS would have gained a lot in recent years and would now have the upper hand in Edmonds and come very close to the UMP in Mukilteo.

North Creek, Mill Creek and especially Cathcart are similarly affluent middle-class professional suburbs located inland. The UMP would be strong here, but definitely not immune to PS gains in recent years, gains produced in part by Seattle sprawl.

Marysville is a fairly exurban place north of Everett, it seems to be very sprawly and stuff. It would seem to be a place where the PS would be strong, but I wouldn't count out the UMP. Besides that in Snohomish County, there seems to be hippies in the mountains (in old working-class towns) who would vote PS, the rez in Tulalip (strongly PS) and sprawl which would probably go UMP.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: morgieb on September 05, 2012, 06:38:07 AM
One question, what would the 2012 French election look like if it was relayed in the US?


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 05, 2012, 11:06:09 AM
Sometime soon, I will go through all your posts about California and add my comments. Broadly agree with everything, of course.

Ah, crap.


Title: Re: US with French parties
Post by: homelycooking on September 05, 2012, 11:51:45 AM
My contribution to the thread:

()

Hartland in general is probably a FN/CPNT marginal, LOL.