Alternate US States
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:07:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  Alternate US States
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 23
Author Topic: Alternate US States  (Read 154404 times)
Enderman
Jack Enderman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,380
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: July 23, 2014, 02:28:06 PM »

YES!
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: July 23, 2014, 04:29:52 PM »
« Edited: July 24, 2014, 09:47:34 AM by Scottish Robb Stark »

Now, some more details on New England! Smiley

- 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.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: July 23, 2014, 05:47:12 PM »
« Edited: July 24, 2014, 09:48:27 AM by Scottish Robb Stark »

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.
Logged
RR1997
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: July 23, 2014, 05:51:12 PM »

This is great. Please continue.
Logged
OAM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: July 23, 2014, 06:58:33 PM »

It's time for a ticker-tape parade for this thread I think!
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: July 24, 2014, 09:39:35 AM »
« Edited: September 27, 2014, 04:18:13 AM by Antonio V »

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. Tongue

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%. Tongue 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. Tongue

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!
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: July 24, 2014, 10:00:22 AM »

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...
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,461
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: July 24, 2014, 10:13:43 AM »

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.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: July 24, 2014, 11:13:06 AM »

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. Smiley
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: July 24, 2014, 11:53:47 AM »

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.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,461
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: July 24, 2014, 12:15:57 PM »

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.

I don't think there was a lot of space even then. You might be able to put one in Central Park or  put it where they wanted to have their 2012 Olympic Stadium (Jets would have taken over after the Olympics) which was going to be built over the rail lines coming into the city.


Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: July 24, 2014, 01:46:10 PM »

Sure, that would work fine. Wink
Logged
Peeperkorn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,987
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 0.65, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: July 24, 2014, 08:14:12 PM »

Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: July 25, 2014, 05:37:43 PM »

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. Tongue
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: July 26, 2014, 07:53:51 AM »

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.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: July 26, 2014, 08:27:49 AM »

Again, if anyone has some insight in local Adirondack politics, I'd be grateful. Smiley
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: July 27, 2014, 04:15:22 PM »
« Edited: July 29, 2014, 04:16:13 PM by Scottish Robb Stark »

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.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: July 27, 2014, 05:29:01 PM »

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?
Logged
OAM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: July 27, 2014, 08:04:47 PM »

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.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: July 28, 2014, 03:33:50 AM »

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. Tongue
Logged
OAM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: July 29, 2014, 04:58:55 AM »

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. Tongue

It's coming from someone who's a fellow political scientist too Tongue
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: July 29, 2014, 11:35:31 AM »
« Edited: July 29, 2014, 01:40:07 PM by Scottish Robb Stark »

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. Tongue

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.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,665
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: July 29, 2014, 12:36:42 PM »

So glad to see this back, and I'm digging the new layout Smiley
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: August 02, 2014, 09:00:12 AM »

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!
Logged
OAM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: August 04, 2014, 01:45:52 AM »

Wow, AY is one crazy state!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 23  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.122 seconds with 12 queries.