Alternate US States

[Antonio the Sixth]

I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.

You're right, that's something worth thinking about. Otherwise, why not giving it to Maryland along with DC ?

You could incorporate it into DC and make DC it's own state as well. Maryland doesn't need it.

Isn't DC basically part of the metro area that also includes Baltimore and all ? Reuniting them makes sense IMO.

The makes sense, but I feel like they should all be reunited as their own entity. I don't think it should all go to Maryland.

The only difference is the name of the State.

[Antonio the Sixth]

does anyone here know how to make maps. I want to make a map of a state called Wabash (couldn't think of a better name). It includes the following CDs: OH 4, OH 8, IN 3-9, IL 15, IL 19, IL 12, MO 4, MO 7, MO 8, KS 1, KS 2, KS 4, and NE 3.

You have to use paint.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can give you Washington, if you want. 

Nah, I swear I will finish this project, some day.

I really enjoy it, but it's just too time-consuming for me to restart it now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I know I should continue this some day... Unfortunately there are many other projects I'm working on right now, and I don't have much free time. I doubt anything will come before this summer, at best.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh God I really must finish this! I hate myself for abandoning this project.

I promise I'll do my best to restart this, but University starts again on Jan 19 and I fear the time is too short for me to work out all I want to do.

Among other things, I'm dissatisfied with my Oregon/Washington divide, and I also would like to review a few States like Florida and Texas. And I don't like how the Dakotas and Nebraska are all merged together. There should be a better way to work all this out. Any advise on this domain is very welcome.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, geez guys, it's been over 4 years since I last updated this! Well, if there is someone who hasn't lost patience yet, I'm glad to announce that this is back! I'm determined to cover all the new States that I've created, and I don't know how much time that's gonna take, but we'll get there.

And what's more, I've now found a system that will allow me to cover results for past elections far more easily than I ever could have hoped. So, we're gonna see how these States voted from 1960 to 2012 in each Presidential election, and I'll also try to guess other stuff like congressional or local politics.

So, to cover all this, the best way to go is to start over. Let's begin with...

New England

As I've already said, NE is a merger of the 3 States in the country's northwestern corner (VT, NH and ME). Nowadays, with Vermont being an overwhelmingly democratic State and New Hampshire a tilt-D swing State, the end result ends up very similar to Maine. New England, thus, is a State where Democrats win by a margin roughly 10 percentage points above the national one.

NE Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


NE's political evolution doesn't deserve much commentary, since it reflects the already well-known story of the region. Traditionally a solid Republican State, it experienced a democratic realignment that began with LBJ's 1964 landslide, came to fruition with Clinton's 1992 victory and still showed signs of consolidation in the first decade of the 21st century. Interestingly, Humphrey actually prevailed there in 1968 despite losing both VT and NH, thanks to his excellent performance in Maine (which can be attributed to Ed Muskie's favorite son status). Reagan held extremely solid margins there, and Dubya came surprisingly close in 2000, but since then the gap between the two parties has widened so significantly that the State probably wouldn't be competitive anytime soon. Also to note, third parties generally tend to do well (although not nearly as well as in RL Maine), with Perot garnering over a quarter of the vote in 1992.

Comparison between the net PVI of the old and new States:


Until the 1980s, Maine was actually the most Democratic of the 3 States, and thus NE's margin generally being drawn down by NH and VT. Starting in the 1980s however, the current hierarchy began to consolidate, with NH the most Republican State, VT the most Democratic one, and ME in between. Republican candidates did extremely well in NH in the 1980s, allowing the new State to remain solidly into the Republican column until 1992. Since then however, with NH becoming a swing State and Vermont giving Dems increasingly lopsided victories, the State's margin has moved up, to the point that it is now basically identical to Maine's.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Now, some more details on New England!

- Capital: I think Concord (NH's capital IOTL) would be the most sensible choice, being located more centrally in the State.

- Governor: I could see Maggie Hassan with that job. I could easily see a Republican or an Independent occupy the governorship at some earlier point, as has happened in all three States.

- Senators: Partick Leahy (class 1) and Susan Collins (class 2) seem like a fair mix for such a State. Kelly Ayotte and Bernie Sanders are both too radical for that State.

- Representatives: I can't see much of a difference in the seat composition than in OTL. There probably would be a slightly larger western seat covering the bulk of VT, and 2 seats respectively where NH and Maine used to be. Since he wouldn't become Senator, Bernie Sanders would probably still represent his old seat in the House. Thus, the partisan makeup would probably be 4D-1I or 3D-1R-1I, depending on how districts around NH are drawn.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Massachusetts

Not much to see there. MA and RI have always been basically twin States, so merging them doesn't produce any notable outcome. RI is generally (though not always) a tad more Democratic than MA, but not significantly so.

MA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Since 1856, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have voted for different Presidential candidates only twice: 1972, when MA was McGovern's only State, and 1980, when RI was one of the few States that stayed loyal to Carter while Reagan narrowly prevailed in MA. In both cases, the merger benefits Democrats. This means the only time the new Massachusetts has ever voted Republican was in 1984, when Reagan beat Mondale by about 3 points. Since 1996, the State's results are extremely constant, giving the Democratic candidate slightly over 60% each time.

BTW, apologies for the truncated 1964 results. For the record, LBJ won a whopping 76.9% that year.

In PVI terms, Massachusetts has been above or slightly under D+20 in every election since 1996. It used to be higher, around D+30, in the sixties, but then dropped to D+10/15 from 1976 to 1992.

Capital: Still Boston

Governor: Still Deval Patrick

Senators: Still Elizabeth Warren (class 1) and Ed Markey (class 2) - let's not kid ourselves, Rhode Island would have very little influence.

Representatives: Again, no difference. It would still be an all-Dem delegation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

New York

Making up about 2/3 of its original population, this diminished New York State retains within its border the city that makes it famous, as well as Long Island and the five counties of its close northern suburbs. To no one's surprise, it is a one-party Democratic State, giving Democratic presidential candidates extremely lopsided margins. In fact, this is probably the most overwhelmingly Democratic State in modern elections (Obama's home State of Hawaii gave him only slightly higher margins).

NY Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


However, it must be noted that New York has not always been quite so democratic. While Democrats have always performed better there than nationwide, for a long time the State remained vulnerable to Republican waves. Traditionally,New York used to be an extremely polarized State: the four man boroughs were Democratic countries, while Long Island, Staten Island, and the Northern suburbs leaned strongly toward the Republican Party. Most of the time, the densely populated inner NYC (it makes up about 60% of the State's population, but only a slim majority of the votes cast, due to poor turnout) easily outweighed the Republican periphery. However, in the 1980s, Reagan's overwhelming popularity in suburban New York allowed him to win the State twice. I was actually pretty amazed when I realized that: I even double-checked my excel formula to make sure I hadn't made any mistake, but no, he really did carry a State that now gives 70% of its vote to Obama.

Here's the 1984 county map, to give you an idea.



That year, Reagan defeated Mondale by a razor-thin 0.2 points, 49.9% to 49.7%. In this map you can see what happened. Mondale carried the four borough. Mondale carried Manhattan by 45 points, the Bronx by 34, Brooklyn by 23, and the Queens by a paltry 7. Meanwhile, Reagan distanced Mondale by 30 points in Staten Island, 28 points in Long Island, by 20 points in the two inner suburban counties of Westchester and Rockland, and by 36 points in the two northernmost counties of Dutchess and Orange. In short, New York State in the 1980s was split in two: an uber-Democratic urban core, and a just as strongly Republican suburban ring.

What has changed since, accounting for the State's massive Democratic trend, are mostly the suburbs, which are now solidly in the Democratic column. In 2012 for example, Obama did better than nationwide in every county except Putnam (Romney's only victory), Staten Island, and Long Island's Suffolk County. The four borough have also fallen even further into Democratic hands, to the point that Romney couldn't break 20% in any of them. In short, chopping of Upstate NY doesn't change much in presidential politics. From a State that has maybe 0.1% of voting Republican anytime soon, we get a State where this chance is maybe 0.001%. The remaining now is: what about Upstate, or, as it's called in this scenario, the State of Adirondack? Are there enough Democrats there to keep it in line, or did this split Result in a Republican gain of about 10-15 Electoral Votes?

Capital: It would be just wrong to have it be anywhere else than in NYC. Probably the Statehouse should be located in Manhattan, considering its historical centrality.

Governor: Andrew Cuomo could still easily take the spot, but he'd probably face a sizable opposition on his left and a solidly Democratic State Legislature would thwart the most right-wing aspects of his agenda.

Senators: Charlie Rangel (class 1) and Chuck Schumer (class 3) - if this State can't have at least one African-American in its statewide elected offices, I don't know which one can.

Representatives: With Democrats in total control of the State Legislature, they could probably easily pull a gerrymander and take all the State's seats for themselves. That said, I'm not sure they would do it. Regardless, even under the current bipartisan map they already control all but two seats in that area, so things wouldn't change much. According to Traininthedistance, it's possible for Democrat to limits Republicans to a single seats, so let's go for 17D-1R!

[Antonio the Sixth]

THIS IS FREAKING AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just read all the seven pages in one go, this is just freaking amazing.... PLEASE FEED US MORE OF YOUR DIVINE BRILLIANCE, ANTONIO! This is just the ultimate Nerd-gasm...

Well, wow! It's nice to see that my work elicits such... passion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Capital: It would be just wrong to have it be anywhere else than in NYC. Probably the Statehouse should be located in Manhattan, considering its historical centrality.

I don't know where were they'd have enough room to build statehouse on the island, unless they took over City Hall.

Let's say that in this scenario, the new State map would have been enacted somewhere in the late 1950s (so that it first comes into effect with the 1960 election). Would there have been room left in Manhattan at that time? Otherwise, I guess it could be in the Bronx.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sure, that would work fine.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Adirondack

What remains of the old New York State when you take out NYC and the areas most directly connected to it forms the State of Adirondack. This State would take up most of the OTL State's area, yet only about a third of its population. Unsurprisingly, its political evolution bears very little resemblance to that of its counterpart. Adirondack is a small-town State where old-style Republicanism fared decently. IRL, its Republican preferences throughout the 20th century were frustrated by a very Democratic NYC area. With this new division, Adirondack's peculiarity is finally free to make itself heard.

AD Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


As this chart shows, AD was once a somewhat Republican-leaning State. In fact, from 1960 to 1988, it only voted Democratic once (in LBJ's 1964 landslide). Kennedy, and even more glaringly Carter in 1976, both failed to carry it. However, this past Republican lean is stronger than it seems, and most of the time AD's results matched the national pattern pretty closely. Similarly to our New England State, it was the home of rural moderates who appreciated the Old Republican Party (which a candidate like Gerald Ford, who massively overperformed in AD, perfectly embodied) but were repelled by the party's conservative turn. In 1980, the State actually saw a swing toward Carter - and a rather strong one at that, mirroring that of OTL Vermont - with Reagan running 8 points below Ford's score. And 12 years later, following Clinton's victory, AD has realigned itself into a Democratic-leaning State. The lean isn't solid (Bush came one point short of defeating Kerry in 2004, and Obama's 2008 performance was fairly mediocre), but it is consistent. It has widened even more in 2012, with Obama doing almost as well against Romney as he did against McCain (he lost 0.02 points, to be precise). In short, while it can't be counted safely in the Democratic column, Adirondack pretty clearly leans left. Mid-sized cities like Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester and Albany, as well as a rural Northeast that increasingly resembles Vermont, outweigh the rural regions that have remained loyal to the national GOP. On the other hand, in State politics, Republicans may very well have retained some strength, or even hold a slight advantage over the Democrats.

Capital: The easiest solution is obviously to keep Albany. However, in the State's new geography, Albany would be seriously off-center, being so far to the east. This could anger Western Adirondack, who would hold a significantly bigger clout than they to in the OTL New York State. As a result, maybe Syracuse could be a compromise choice. Utica would fit even better, but it might be a bit small. What do you guys think?

Governor: If it held its gubernatorial election in 2010, it's quite likely that a Republican would have won the position. But who? The Republican bench is so weak that I can't think of anyone with a serious Gubernatorial profile. Carl Paladino? He's a Tea Party nut, so probably not the right fit. Maybe Harry J. Wilson, the guy who nearly won the Comptroller General race? It's really hard to say, but there must be someone.

Senators: Kirsten Gillibrand (class 2) is an easy choice, and for a republican let's say Tom Reed (class 3) since he is the most senior upstate Republican congressman. But really, it's anyone's guess.

Representatives: Now the key question becomes who holds the State legislature. Considering that the OTL NY Senate is still somehow in GOP hands, it's probably a safe bet to say the Adirondack Senate is a Republican lock. But what about the State Assembly? My guess it that it would have been swept by the 2010 wave as well, thus ensuring a Republican trifecta and allowing for a gerrymander. I'm too lazy to experiment with DRA, but my guess would be that they could be able to make up a 6R-3D map, though I might be exaggerating things a bit.

I'd greatly appreciate any correction/contribution, if someone has better knowledge of local politics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

PVI comparison of the two new States (and the old one)

Unsurprisingly, New York was significantly more Democratic than Adirondack in all but one election (the highly atypical 1964). It's pretty clear that the NYC area has been the dominating political force in the old New York State, allowing it to remain in safe Democratic territory. While new New York was a solidly Democratic State in every year except 1980, and became an absolute stronghold from 1996 onward, Adirondack was solidly Republican until 1980, zig-zagged a lot between the two parties, and finally found a lasting alignment on the Democratic side after 1996.

It's also funny to not that, from 1972 to 1992, NY and AD have always trended in the opposite direction and alternated their trends each year: Carter marginally improved over McGovern in New York 1976 (an interesting phenomenon, since all the OTL States that trended D in 1976 were Southern or Border States) while getting destroyed in Adirondack. The AD saw the aforementioned swing against Reagan while NY flirted with the GOP in 1980, then Mondale improved in NY while doing poorly in AD, then Dukakis did the opposide, and under Clinton the trend reversed itself again. Yet, in the long run, both States have moved significantly toward the Democrats.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Again, if anyone has some insight in local Adirondack politics, I'd be grateful.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pennsylvania

The split in Pennsylvania follows the most natural and historically significant fault line of the State's geography: that is, East vs. West, or in other words, Philly vs. Pittsburgh. The Philadelphia-centered State, covering the most populous and earliest-settled area, should logically get to keep its original name. Over the covered period, this new Pennsylvania would be a reliably Democratic State, continuously giving large victories to the party's Presidential candidates ever since 1992. This democratic lean can easily be explained by the demographic weight of the solidly progressive Philadelphia metropolitan area.

PA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Since 1960, Pennsylvania has always remained closer to the Democratic Party than the nation as a whole, at least at the Presidential level. It went for the Republican Party only 4 times: once in Nixon's 1972 landslide, and in the three elections of the Reagan-Bush era. In close elections, Democrats like Kennedy, Humphrey and Carter carried it with narrow but decisive margins. And in the years that followed Clinton's success, the State seems to have decisively aligned itself with the Democratic party. Even George W. Bush, in his 2004 victory, lost the State to John Kerry by a whopping 9 points. Four years later, Obama distanced McCain by nearly 20 points there. These healthy democratic margins (although still not quite in landslide territory) clearly indicate that the Philadelphia area has been moving left over the past few decades. Back in the late 1980s, a candidate like George Bush Sr. (who in general did very well in urban areas thanks to his law-and-order stance) could surpass his Democratic opponent by over 7 points, meaning that the State was a pretty good national bellwether.

The key shift that propelled this trend seems to have occurred in the Philly suburbs (similarly to how the shift in NYC suburbs turned a solid-D state into a one-party-D State). If you compare the 1960 election to the 2004 one for example, the bulk of Democratic improvement seems to have come from Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, Bucks and Lehigh counties (though Philadelphia itself also went from 68-32 Kennedy to 80-19 Kerry). This allowed Kerry to double Kennedy's margin of victory, from 4.5 to 9 points:



Regardless of its causes, this Democratic trend is rather interesting, because it tells a rather different story than the one you get when you look at OTL Pennsylvania, which was always only a slightly D-leaning Swing State. This implies that the trend in the Pittsburgh-centered Allegheny has gone in the opposite direction, as we shall soon see.

Capital: The OTL capital of Harrisburg is located in this State, but it would probably be a poor choice considering its location on the western edge. Philadelphia is probably too big and putting the capital there would piss off too many people. So let's go with Allentown: it's big enough but not too big, and probably located very close to the State's center of gravity, close to Philly but not too much. It should work fine.

Governor: Corbett won the election by a mere 859 votes (0.04 points) in 2010. Considering that the OTL race was never close, it's likely that under more favorable circumstances the DNC would have allocated more money, concentrated more GOTV efforts and attempted to field a stronger candidate. With that in mind, I'd guess that Bob Casey Jr. could be occupying the Governor's Mansion right now (he's always wanted to be the governor).

Senators: Allyson Schwartz (class 1) and Joe Sestak (class 3)

Representatives: PA would almost certainly have 11 seats under the 2010 apportionment. Considering the natural gerrymander created by Democratic strength in big cities, it's very likely that Republicans would control at least one of the two houses of the State Legislature, and quite possibly both. That said, they probably couldn't pull a gerrymander quite as nasty as IRL with a Democrat in the Governor's Mansion. I would guess that the tally after 2012 would be something like 6D-5R.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Or maybe Casey should be the Governor and Schwartz the Senator? Seeing that it's the job he always wanted, and that Schwartz is already a representative, it might make more sense. Also, voters might be more tolerant of ideological divergence with their Governors than with Senators. What do you guys think?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've talked to someone from Upstate NY about this, and they are likewise just as clueless about who would step up for the new state's leaders, from either party really.

Oh wow, I guess that says a lot about the degree of political alienation that the Upstate suffers from the NYC metro.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Allegheny

James Carville once described OTL Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between". Well, this new Allegheny State takes up the Pittsburgh part, but also most of Alabama. It covers about two thirds of the area of OTL Pennsylvania, but makes up less than 40% of its population. Allegheny thus combines together the typically "Rust Belt" (once "Manufacturing Belt") area of western PA, along with the rural, conservative and sparsely populated heartland. The end result is a State that nowadays votes solidly for Republican candidate, but whose electoral history over the past 50 years has been rather rocky and interesting.

AY Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Allegheny's vote has many times defied easy interpretation, providing a good deal of very close contests. Up until the 1990s, the State often seemed to be torn between the industrial Pittsburgh area in the southwest (home to the typical working-class component of the New Deal coalition) and the rural counties in the eastern half of the State, which have always been overwhelmingly Republican. Which of the two prevailed often depended on the ability of each candidate to mobilize support among their respective constituencies. For example, Nixon narrowly won AY against Kennedy in 1960 (potentially a game-changer in that razor-thin race), but lost it to the laborite-populist Humphrey eight years later. Surprisingly enough, Carter only won the State by a hair in 1976 (with a margin lower than nationwide).

However, throughout the 1980s, Allegheny valiantly resisted the Republican wave that swept the country. Yes, Reagan carried it both times, but always by close margins. In 1984, it actually was one of Mondale's strongest States, which he came within 2 points of winning (closer than any OTL Reagan State). Four years later, Dukakis distanced Bush by almost 5 points, becoming the only Democrat besides LBJ who ever won an absolute majority of AY's vote. Clearly, the workers of Pittsburgh and around were up in arms against Reaganomics - and if the term "Reagan Democrat" means anything, it certainly shouldn't be used to describe these voters.

The tide really began to turn in the mid-1990s. Clinton had won Allegheny by over 10 points in 1992, but came close to losing the State to Dole four years later. Since 2000, the State has consistently voted for Republicans at the Presidential level, trending right at every election. Even Obama, after a slight improvement in 2008, got utterly trounced in 2012, doing worse than Kerry. Overall, Allegheny's PVI went from D+16 to R+14 between 1984 and the most recent election. This massive Republican trend is almost comparable to that of West Virginia, another State where Democrats have experienced a sustained and inexorable collapse. This goes to show that there really is an "Appalachia" region with cultural and political similarities, having experienced a common Republican trend.



Comparing 1984 and 2008 (respectively a 2-point and 4-point Republican win, thus fairly comparable) allows us to see that the shift has come entirely from the once-industrial southwestern corner of the State. Counties like Beaver, Fayette, Greene and Washington, which gave Mondale more than 59% of their vote, all voted for McCain. Westmoreland county went from giving 52% of its vote to Mondale to voting for McCain by 58%. Pittsburgh's Allegheny county, meanwhile, saw a meager 2-point swing toward Obama. In absolute terms, Obama managed to partially make up with that loss by doing better in the "Alabama" part of the State, where he managed to keep the Republican margins to 25-30 points instead of 35-40. But overall, even these improvements remain subpar compared to the national swing (from R+18 to D+7). One of the few counties where Democrats saw genuine gains over that period was Centre county, home to Penn State.

Capital: After Pittsburgh (too big, too western) and Erie (definitely too northwestern), Altoona would be the State's third most populous city, so it could be a fair choice. It's probably located somewhat to the east of the State's center of gravity, but it wouldn't be the first time a capital's choice is skewed in favor of sparsely populated areas. There is Johnstown a few miles west if you prefer, but it's really small (20K inhabitants).

Governor: Tom Corbett was born in Philly, but he's done most of his career in western PA. Considering that he won Allegheny by a 23-points landslide in 2010, it's easy to see him in the Governor's Mansion in this scenario. He might even stand a fair chance to be reelected.

Senators: Rick Santorum (class 1) and Ron Klink (class 2). Without a strong challenger like Casey, Santorum could probably have survived 2006. On the other hand, the 2008 wave would likely be strong enough to sweep that year's Senatorial election.

Representatives: There's no doubt the GOP would control the State legislature after 2010. Holding the trifecta, they could act as they did IRL and gerrymander the CD map into a 6R-1D breakdown. As IRL they'd just leave one Democratic vote sink in and around Pittsburgh, as I don't think there is any way to avoid it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

PVI comparison (old PA / new PA / AY)

Another way to look at what I've said about the two States and their political evolution. As you can see, Pennsylvania's divide is real: PA and AY in this scenario have moved very differently through time, and the overall evolution in PA's political leaning (or lack thereof) is only the result of a weighted average between these two diverging tendencies.

Early on, from 1960 to 1976, the two States moved in a relatively similar way, with PA generally a couple points more democratic than AY. From 1980 to 1992, Allegheny became solid Democratic territory, giving the party better results than Pennsylvania. Its Democratic alignment peaked in 1984 and (to a lesser extent) 1988, when the State was 16 and 12 points above the national margin. Instead, PA was basically a bellwether in 1980 and 1988.

However, this trend completely reversed over the next decade. PA started trending Democrat after 1988, a trend that accentuated throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Meanwhile, Democrats saw a sharp drop in AY over the 1992 and 1996 election cycles. In 1996, PA was again the most democratic of the two States, with AY becoming more Republican than the country as a whole (which caused OTL PA itself to become a national bellwether).

Since 2004, Pennsylvania seems to have stabilized itself as a D+11/12 State, and in 2012 it (marginally) trended Republican for the first time in 20 years. Allegheny, on the other hand, has drifter father and farther away from the Democrats. After remaining a Republican-leaning, but competitive State for three successive electoral cycles, it has moved into solid-R territory during the Obama elections (again, showing similarity with WV and other Appalachian States).


Maryland coming next!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Maryland

There, I simply merged the neighboring Delaware and DC into Maryland, adding about 1.5 million to the State's population. This, as you can imagine, doesn't change much to the State's political outlook. However, the overwhelmingly democratic DC would push the State somewhat to the left of OTL Maryland, with significant consequences.

MD Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Indeed, this new Maryland becomes one of the most consistently Democratic States of the past half-century, voting Republican only once (Nixon's 1972 landslide) since 1960. Both times, the narrow Republican victories of 1984 and 1988 are canceled by DC's heavy Democratic margins (even as Delaware alone would have brought the State further toward the GOP). The most striking result is that, under this scenario, Mondale actually won more than one State. He carried MD by 0.4 points, more than the 0.2 point margin he had in Minnesota! Clearly, even a numerically small constituency like DC can make a major difference if it's sufficiently overwhelming in its support for one party.

Comparing the new and old States' relative PVI brings further perspective (DC is omitted because its PVI fluctuates between 50 and 80, and thus would skew the graph too much):



As you can see, the "new" Maryland remains always about 5 points more democratic than its RL counterpart. Delaware's political leanings, generally a bit more Republican than MD's, have almost no influence. On the other hand, DC's impact is significant, turning an already solid-D State into stronghold territory. Since DC residents began to vote in 1964, this new Maryland has always been at least 7 points more Democratic than the nation. The only time when OTL Maryland displayed a slight Republican lean IRL, namely 1972, saw McGovern lose by only 16 points in this scenario. Starting in the 2000s, Maryland's PVI has been at or above 20 points, making it rock-solid Democratic country.

Capital: I'd say Annapolis still works fine.

Governor: Still Martin O'Malley

Senators: Tom Carper (class 1) and Barbara Mikulski (class 3) - I'll be nice and give poor little Delaware a Senator

Representatives: With the State Legislature solidly in Democratic hands, the party would have no trouble creating a gerrymander like the OTL one, and getting a 9D-1R delegation. They might even take all 10 seats for them in if they play their cards right with New Castle County, but I can't know that for sure. Regardless, giving congressional representation to DC would net the Democrats one more seat.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow, AY is one crazy state!

Indeed! This Pennsylvania split was my favorite part of the scenario so far (though California seems very promising as well). I think that's at least one case where I was able to draw States that represent entirely different constituencies.

Anyway, North and South Florida are coming next!

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really like this series, but I have to imagine that if Delaware was forced to pick what state they wanted to join, they'd pick Pennsylvania. They were essentially a part of Pennsylvania between  1682-1704 and culturally they are more connected. Sports loyalties almost automatically shift from the Orioles/Ravens to the Phillies/Eagles when you cross the state border. It wouldn't look as pretty, but it would make more sense culturally.

Really? I had no idea. You're right that it may be a fairer solution for Delaware citizens, but there's the problem of population (new PA is still pretty big) and geography. I've always hated the shape of the DE/MD border.

[Antonio the Sixth]

North Florida

Dividing Florida was a tricky job, and I can't say I'm fully satisfied with the result. The soundest solution would have been to make NF start at the level of Marion and Putnam counties, leaving the big metropolitan areas of Orlando and Tampa out of it. However, such a State would have less than a quarter of FL's original population - leaving the Southern one way too big. As a result, I included the Orlando metropolitan area to NF, thus obscuring a bit the characteristic nature of "real" Northern Florida. Nonetheless, the main picture remains: NF is the smaller of the two States, and, since 1984, always the most Republican of the two.

NF Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


More so that OTL FL, North Florida's political evolution displays some decisively Southern traits. In 1960, it was an ultimate swing State, with Nixon prevailing by a mere 800 votes thanks to his huge margins in the Orlando region. To show just how much things have changed since, Kennedy actually swept the Florida panhandle. In 1964 and 1968, it joined its neighboring Deep Southern States in supporting first Goldwater, then Wallace. I was forced to cut Nixon's 1972 results on the chart, but he won a whopping 76% of the vote. In 1976, Carter managed to resurrect Democratic strength in the Panhandle and to keep Ford's margin down in the Orlando region, winning the State by 7 points. He remains, to this day, the only Democrat to win this State in the past half-century. Over the next 3 elections, the State experienced a massive Republican trend, to the point that it gave over 65% of its votes to Bush Sr. Since then, it has somewhat moved back to the Democrats, but it remains solidly in the Republican column (its PVI from 1992 to 2012 has fluctuated between R+11 and R+15).

However, as I said before, this general overview of the State mixes together two very different political movements. The story of the Florida panhandle (even when understood in a broad sense, to include the Jacksonville area and the northern edge of the peninsula) is that of many other Deep South States, ie one of realignment from a solidly democratic land to an overwhelmingly republican territory, going through all the well-known mood swings from 1964 through 1980. The Orlando area, meanwhile, has experienced a prolonged Democratic trend. Once the most republican region of OTL Florida (Orlando's Orange County gave Nixon 71% of the vote in 1960!), it is now roughly as Democratic as the Tampa Bay area. The superposition of these two opposite trends was particularly striking in 2000:



In relative terms, Gore significantly improved over Clinton's 1996 performance throughout the Orlando area (especially in Orange County) and more marginally in Tallahassee. Meanwhile, most of the panhandle moved in the opposite direction. It is still unclear which of the two regions is prevailing over the other, and the State hasn't moved much either way since 1992. However, were the Orlando area to continue moving leftward and increasingly resemble other overwhelmingly democratic urban areas, NF could eventually become more competitive. In the past few elections, the State has been just a couple points more Republican than Georgia. Still, it's hard to see it voting Democratic anytime soon.

Capital: Although it's located north and west of the State's main population centers, Tallahassee should work fine, considering that it's the capital of OTL Florida.

Governor: Bill McCollum would have won easily in 2010 and would probably be headed to a comfortable reelection (Rick Scott lives in South Florida).

Senators: Bill Nelson (class 1) and Jeff Miller (class 3) - I initially wanted two Republicans, but the GOP bench in this State is so incredibly (and surprisingly) weak that I really don't see how a candidate as strong as Bill Nelson could possibly lose when running for an open seat in a year like 2006 or 2012.

Representatives: In 2010, Republicans would hold supermajorities in both houses and would have no trouble pushing through a shameless gerrymander. Still, I guess they can't do much worse than IRL, so we'd still end up with a 9R-2D map. Or is there a way to crack Grayson's seat in the Orlando area as well? If so, feel free to correct me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really like this series, but I have to imagine that if Delaware was forced to pick what state they wanted to join, they'd pick Pennsylvania. They were essentially a part of Pennsylvania between  1682-1704 and culturally they are more connected. Sports loyalties almost automatically shift from the Orioles/Ravens to the Phillies/Eagles when you cross the state border. It wouldn't look as pretty, but it would make more sense culturally.

Really? I had no idea. You're right that it may be a fairer solution for Delaware citizens, but there's the problem of population (new PA is still pretty big) and geography. I've always hated the shape of the DE/MD border.

Yeah the entire area is a mess and there are bunch of wiki articles on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-Mile_Circle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedge_(border)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpeninsular_Line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason-Dixon_line

Also kinda surprised you didn't give the entire Delmarva Peninsula to Maryland.

Haha yeah, Delaware is one complicated little prick of a State.

And yeah, I could have added the two VA counties in the peninsula to Maryland, but my intent when redrawing State borders was more with correcting glaring population disparities and trying to form more homogeneous communities of interest than anything else, so I tried to keep the changes as minimal as possible.