Alternate US States

[bobloblaw]

Sorry for the long absence! I'm getting really busy these days. Anyway, while I have some time, let's move on to...

Illinois

What would Illinois look like without Chicagoland? Certainly nothing like the image that we tend to have this State IRL. The level of demographic, economic, political and cultural hegemony that Chicago exerts over downstate IL rivals that of NYC over upstate NY. We can pretty sure that our Illinoisans would welcome this split as a liberation. In a nutshell, the new Illinois is a sparsely populated (ranking just below Kentucky) but relatively vast State. It remains quite diverse, with several mid-sized cities like Springfield, Peoria or Champaign, and both major industrial and rural areas (including regions that would fit well in the South). How would such a State have voted throughout the past half-century?

IL Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


To no one's surprise, Illinois has historically tended to favor Republicans, at least at the Presidential level. It only rarely went Democratic, and generally in exceptional circumstances like LBJ's landslide or Obama's favorite-son effect in 2008 (would it have crossed Chicago's borders in such a scenario? this remains unclear). Clinton seems to be the only Democrat to have done genuinely well in the State, sweeping it by 10 points in 1992. The contrast with Obama, who only narrowly carried IL in 2008 and was severely distanced by Romney four years later, is quite striking. On the whole, Democrats seem to be on the decline when compared to their performances in the 1990s - although if you look at the bigger picture, Democrats were already doing pretty bad in Kennedy's days. It's also interesting to note that, since 1984, Illinois has displayed an uncanny similarity with Missouri in its voting patterns. Over this period, the two States' margins differed by no more than 2 points in every election except 2008. Thus, just like Missouri, Illinois seems to have a peculiar blend of Southern and Midwestern identities.

At the same time, Illinois (like most other States seen so far) has undergone some significant shifts in its internal geography, as this 1960-2012 comparison highlights (Republicans wins by 10 and 8 points, respectively):



The trend seems quite clear: southern Illinois (especially southeastern Illinois) has moved sharply to the right, with most of its counties giving Romney results over 60%. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to have gained in the northern half of the State, most notably along the border with Iowa. Clearly southern IL has been caught in the same dynamic as the rest of the South, the long-term collapse of Democratic support. Meanwhile, Northern Illinois, just like neighboring Iowa and Wisconsin, went from likely R to lean D after the 1980s. Still, being deprived of Chicago's influence, Democrats will generally face an uphill battle in Illinois.

Capital: Springfield remains the obvious choice.

Governor: Bill Brady would have no trouble getting elected here.

Senators: Dick Durbin (class 2) and Mark Kirk (class 3). The funny thing is that, while Illinois would keep the same Senators as IRL, their electoral positions would be essentially flipped: Durbin is probably facing a very close race for his reelection this year, while Kirk was swept to office in 2010 and has a decent shot at winning again in 2016 (his biggest fear should be a conservative primary challenge).

Representatives: Easily holding the trifecta after 2010, the Republicans would have several options to go with. As Muon has demonstrated, it is possible to draw a gerrymander that perfectly dilutes Democratic strength throughout the State, resulting in six districts with lean-R to likely-R ratings. That said, I'm not sure Republican would be ready to take such a big risk (all 6 districts voted for Romney in 2012, but for Obama in 2008). Maybe they'd choose instead to work a Democratic vote sink packing together East St. Louis, Springfield and Peoria, so as to keep 5 seats safe? I'm not sure, but for lack of an alternative proposal I'll stick with Muon's. So 6R-0D.

While I really apprecaite all your work, the problem is it is static. It doesnt take into account that in Illinois, especially, there is an anti-Chicago backlash among down state voters. Obviously in 2010, Alexi Gianolious would not have been the Dem nominee for IL senate. And BTW neither would Kirk. Durbin would likely not be Senator either, despite being from Springfield. Or else he'd be a different Durbin than he is today. More like Claire McCaskill

[bobloblaw]

See this is why Pacific is the best state in this nation, barely gave the So Cal embarrassments a chance, and had this state it's way instead of Del Sur stupidity, Kennedy would have remained the victor...Humphrey may have won the presidency, and Ford wouldn't have won all the Left Coast!

BEST DAMN STATE EVER! NO REGRESSIVE OBSTURCTIONISM!


...~sighs~ This means the greatest embarrassment is the last, the state that robbed the actual California of being a Kennedy-Humphrey-Carter-Dukakis state all of whom lost by absurdly narrow margins which California (okay okay California drank the HW juice as well) and Pacifica would've have given

The state that fostered Nixon, the state with the worst weather and tackiest cities.

Yours is a post the best describes progressives: Utopia can be achieved if only all opposition is removed. This is the heart of leftism, progessivism etc. "The prefection of man is possible with the right people in control" A well educated, well cultured bureaucracy to plan the lives of the serfs to achieve the "prefect society" Nudge is a word used by the likes of Cass Sunstein.