Alternate US States

[OAM]

Ah, the tiny tiny type of distinction that political scientists like me would eat up in debate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, I'm planning to move on to Lincoln (the big northwestern State) in a week or so, then do Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and end this in beauty with the Californias. Does that work for you guys?

[Cranberry]

Yes this is brilliant! I am really looking forward to your new Pacific coast states!

[Goldwater]

Sounds good to me. I've been looking forward to seeing the western states!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Cool! Just be warned that I'm getting very busy these days, and that I can't guarantee a weekly update as I usually did - but I won't let you guys down, I promise!

[Antonio the Sixth]

And since I'm back, this is back too! You can expect an update tomorrow.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Excellent! Been loving this project, in particular the detail you go into with each state. Looking forward to the Californias in particular.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lincoln

This would be a really large State, with a land area over a million square kilometers (1.5 times as much as OTL Texas!). I'm a bit annoyed to have created such a monster, and I realize it's not exactly optimal for governance. That said, the only alternative would be merging Nebraska and the Dakotas, which wouldn't be much better. So, there you have it: Lincoln, a quite homogeneously rural and conservative State lost in the northernmost section of the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains.

LN Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


As you probably would have guessed, this is Republican country. The only Democrat to prevail there over the past half-century was, as is often the case, good ol' Lyndon. Despite this general picture, the Republican margin has fluctuated a lot. On the one hand, Clinton came within 4 points of carrying the State in 1992 - helped by a strong Perot showing. On the opposite side however, Dubya distanced his opponents by over 25 points in both his elections. In raw percentage terms, the best Democratic performance after 1964 was Jimmy Carter's in 1976, followed by Dukakis'. An odd combination that goes to show how helpless today's national Democrats tend to be in the State.



The PVI chart indicates that Lincoln's political leanings bear more resemblance to the Dakotas than to either Montana or Wyoming - with the former being generally the most Democratic of the four States, and the latter being far more Republican. Especially since 2000, Wyoming stands out as the most politically distant of the bunch, and its small size would make it a politically marginalized area. Regardless, Lincoln would be solidly grounded in the Republican camp. The only Democratic candidate to ever do better there than nationwide was favorite son George McGovern in 1972. Apart from that year and 1988 (when Dukakis could have carried it had he won by a clear margin), Republicans could always rely about the State staying on their column.

With that said, things could be very different in non-presidential elections. Democrats have continuously held at least 4 of the 8 Senate seats in the original States from 1986 to 2014, and regularly held House seats and gubernatorial offices. Even today, a likable, populist-leaning Democrat with solid local roots (see Brian Schweitzer, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin or Heidi Heitkamp) could very well prevail in Lincoln. Of course, retail politics would be quite difficult in a 1-million-km² State, but still, we could often see pretty competitive races there.

Capital: The most logical choice would be Billings, being the only decent-sized city located near the State's population center.

Governor: Matt Mead seems a pretty good fit for the State.

Senators: Jon Tester (class 1) and John Thune (class 2)

Representatives: The Legislature would be in Republican hands, but I doubt they would choose to enact a gerrymander (I assume it's the kind of place where political culture might not be as completely rotten as it is in most of the country). Population numbers seem to indicate that there would be two districts corresponding roughly to the Dakotas (with the SD one a bit smaller and the ND one larger), a district covering Wyoming and a significant chunk of Montana, and one covering roughly 3/4 of Montana. Depending how that last one is drawn, it might actually be a fairly competitive seat. Still, it's most likely that the State would end up 4R-0D

Note: for the sake of consistency, I will keep listing elective offices as they would have been prior to the 2014 election. I'll turn on post-2014 changes once I'm done with everything else.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Yes it's back! And if the Premier of my state (Western Australia) can manage governing an area 2.5x the size of Lincoln, I'm sure the Governor of Lincoln would manage OK . On another note, as you mentioned, downstate elections would be interesting to watch here, and 1992 with Lincoln as an actual state could be interesting too - Perot could have campaigned harder, and won the state (or handed it to Clinton).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes it's back! And if the Premier of my state (Western Australia) can manage governing an area 2.5x the size of Lincoln, I'm sure the Governor of Lincoln would manage OK . On another note, as you mentioned, downstate elections would be interesting to watch here, and 1992 with Lincoln as an actual state could be interesting too - Perot could have campaigned harder, and won the state (or handed it to Clinton).

Not sure if there was room for Perot to grow above what he got. And anyway, if he absolutely wanted to carry a State, Nevada would be his best opportunity in this scenario (and Maine IRL).

BTW, reposting that regions map I made if anyone is interested:

[pikachu]

I've been following this and it's been really interesting, and it's probably a little late to be asking about this, but why keep New Jersey whole? North Jersey and South Jersey are heavily integrated into the NYC and Philly metro areas and are fairly similar demographically and electorally.

Really good work though! Hope to see this continue.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've been following this and it's been really interesting, and it's probably a little late to be asking about this, but why keep New Jersey whole? North Jersey and South Jersey are heavily integrated into the NYC and Philly metro areas and are fairly similar demographically and electorally.

Really good work though! Hope to see this continue.

The main reason is that New Jersey is fine in terms of population, neither too big nor too small, and that splitting it between NY and PA (as I understand you'd want to) would create two very large States. Besides, I don't think North and South Jersey are as culturally different as, say, North and South Florida.

[hurricanehink]

I've been following this and it's been really interesting, and it's probably a little late to be asking about this, but why keep New Jersey whole? North Jersey and South Jersey are heavily integrated into the NYC and Philly metro areas and are fairly similar demographically and electorally.

Really good work though! Hope to see this continue.

The main reason is that New Jersey is fine in terms of population, neither too big nor too small, and that splitting it between NY and PA (as I understand you'd want to) would create two very large States. Besides, I don't think North and South Jersey are as culturally different as, say, North and South Florida.

Speaking as a Jerseyite, the cultural difference is fairly small, as is the voting pattern. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=192957.msg4178016#msg4178016 I actually made a post on this and found that the two "states" would've voted the same way since '92. Btw, Loving this timeline still, can't wait for California!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oregon

Despite its name, this scenario's Oregon is basically Idaho + the Western portion of Oregon and Washington. That's a little confusing, but I though it would be a shame to keep a name as meaningless as "Idaho" while losing the historically significant "Oregon". And considering that this State covers most of the land that used to be America's portion of Oregon Country, I think the name is pretty fitting. Anyway, Oregon would be a large - not as large as Lincoln, but still - sparsely populated and rural State. Under this arrangement, rural conservatives living east of the Cascade Range would finally be free from the political alienation they suffer IRL in the liberal-leaning OR and WA. Actually, they might even feel that their new State is a bit too conservative for their tastes.

OR Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


On Dave's maps, Oregon would always be a deep-blue State. Republican Presidential candidates perform even better there than in neighboring Lincoln, regularly winning over 60% of the vote. This was one of LBJ's weakest States, giving him less than 55% (a performance comparable to Utah's). And apart from him, no Democrat has ever come close to carrying the State's 6 or 7 Electoral Votes. Since 1968, and excluding election where Perot spoiled a large number of Republican votes, Republicans have always won an absolute majority and distanced their Democratic opponents by at least 15 points. Clearly, Idaho's influence would be significant, although in a "lighter and softer" version. Oregon wouldn't be the Republican fortress that Idaho is: in 2012 for example, Romney "only" won it by 23 points, instead of 32 in IRL Idaho. The areas in the Western part of the State would have a significant moderating influence and make the State's politics less lopsided. Nonetheless, Democrats would have a very hard time winning any statewide election in the modern era.

Capital: It would be possible to keep Boise, although it becomes a little southern for the State's new demographic center. Spokane could be an alternative, though it has the opposite problem.

Governor: Butch Otter - oddly enough, I can't find anyone else with a gubernatorial profile.

Senators: Jim Risch (class 2) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (class 3)

Representatives: It would be pretty interesting to see how the districts would be drawn if they could cross the ID/OR/WA border. But barring an upset, the most likely result is still 5R-0D.

[KingSweden]

Oregon

Despite its name, this scenario's Oregon is basically Idaho + the Western portion of Oregon and Washington. That's a little confusing, but I though it would be a shame to keep a name as meaningless as "Idaho" while losing the historically significant "Oregon". And considering that this State covers most of the land that used to be America's portion of Oregon Country, I think the name is pretty fitting. Anyway, Oregon would be a large - not as large as Lincoln, but still - sparsely populated and rural State. Under this arrangement, rural conservatives living east of the Cascade Range would finally be free from the political alienation they suffer IRL in the liberal-leaning OR and WA. Actually, they might even feel that their new State is a bit too conservative for their tastes.

OR Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


On Dave's maps, Oregon would always be a deep-blue State. Republican Presidential candidates perform even better there than in neighboring Lincoln, regularly winning over 60% of the vote. This was one of LBJ's weakest States, giving him less than 55% (a performance comparable to Utah's). And apart from him, no Democrat has ever come close to carrying the State's 6 or 7 Electoral Votes. Since 1968, and excluding election where Perot spoiled a large number of Republican votes, Republicans have always won an absolute majority and distanced their Democratic opponents by at least 15 points. Clearly, Idaho's influence would be significant, although in a "lighter and softer" version. Oregon wouldn't be the Republican fortress that Idaho is: in 2012 for example, Romney "only" won it by 23 points, instead of 32 in IRL Idaho. The areas in the Western part of the State would have a significant moderating influence and make the State's politics less lopsided. Nonetheless, Democrats would have a very hard time winning any statewide election in the modern era.

Capital: It would be possible to keep Boise, although it becomes a little southern for the State's new demographic center. Spokane could be an alternative, though it has the opposite problem.

Governor: Butch Otter - oddly enough, I can't find anyone else with a gubernatorial profile.

Senators: Greg Walden (class 2) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (class 3) - guess I evened things out by axing both Idaho Senators.

Representatives: It would be pretty interesting to see how the districts would be drawn if they could cross the ID/OR/WA border. But barring an upset, the most likely result is still 5R-0D.

This is my favorite TL on this forum, bar none. A question on your Senators here - would Hood River (where Greg Walden lives) be in Oregon or Washington in this scenario? It's not far from Portland, all things. Eastern Oregon is so very underpopulated compared to WA that Bend is really the only population center on that side of the mountains, but Hood River is more in the mountains than across them.

The interesting political case you'd likely see in a state like this is alienation from North-South, a true Boise-Spokane rivalry with the conservative, heavily-Mormon Boise region pitted against the more moderate Spokane area. Coeur d'Alene would probably be considered part of a larger Spokane metro in this situation, too.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oops, you're right, my bad. Hood River is actually in Washington. I had no idea Walden lived there, I thought he was a true westerner. I guess he can be replaced by Jim Risch then.

And yeah, I guess Eastern Washington has a lot in common with Northern Idaho and that they would form tbe State's most distinctive area.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Washington

After getting rid of their conservative hinterland, the only thing left of OTL Oregon and Washington is a long but thin strip of land along the northern-Pacific coast, which forms this scenario's State of Washington. Almost entirely covered by the Portland and Seattle metropolitan areas, this State would obviously be much more urbanized and densely populated than its eastern neighbor - with a population comparable to New Jersey's. And accordingly, it would be even more Democratic and liberal-leaning.

WA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Even then, it turns out that this new Washington would have supported the exact same candidates as... OTL Washington. Over the last 14 Presidential election, the winner was always the same: even Kennedy in 1960 and Carter in 1976, who lost OR and WA by fairly narrow margin IRL, would still be unable to carry this State. And it's only with Dukakis in 1988 that Washington began its uninterrupted Democratic voting streak. Until the 1980s, it seems that the Western and Eastern portions of the two States didn't differ that much in their partisan leanings, so removing the latter didn't significantly alter the balance of power. When the coastal region began trending D, this trend was powerful enough to swing the two RL States to the Democratic column despite the opposite shift in the inland region.

Thus, it turns out that this change did nothing but strengthen Democrats where they were already strong enough. This certainly could help Democrats feel more comfortable in Statewide races: for example, Republicans probably wouldn't stand a chance to win a Senate seat there, even in 2010 with a moderate candidate. Also, Gore, who came veeery close to losing Oregon in 2000, would sweep Washington by almost 10 points in this scenario. Finally, Democrats wouldn't be bothered by Republican obstruction in the State Legislature, as they would probably maintain their grip on both houses in any circumstance. On the other hand, the combination of losing the Western areas and merging the two States together would cost a total of 5 Electoral Votes to Democratic Presidential candidates. Not that good of a deal overall, even if it would give Obama the symbolic satisfaction of breaking the 60% line in 2008.

Capital: Vancouver would work well (so would Portland, though).

Governor: Jay Inslee

Senators: Ron Wyden (class 1) and Patty Murray (class 3)

Representatives: Even if a few renegade Democrats decided to switch sides and prop up the Republicans, they almost certainly wouldn't be able to flip control of any house of Washington's State Legislature. Democrats would thus hold the balance of power for redistricting. They probably wouldn't be able to get a full D delegation, but an 11D-1R split seems fairly logical.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, now there's only Nevada and the Californias left! How should I go about with them? I was guessing Pacific/California/CS, or Pacific/CS/California. Which of them are you guys most interested in, so that I keep it for last?

[Goldwater]

I would save CS for last, considering it's the largest of your states, but I'm fine with whatever you decide to do.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would save CS for last, considering it's the largest of your states, but I'm fine with whatever you decide to do.

Seems fair! Let's do this.

[Cranberry]

Yay this is back! And great as ever!
Washington easily is my favourite new state - combining all the good things of OTL Washington and Oregon, while leaving out the bad things

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yay this is back! And great as ever!
Washington easily is my favourite new state - combining all the good things of OTL Washington and Oregon, while leaving out the bad things

You might want to revise your judgment after you see Pacific.

[Antonio the Sixth]

PVI evolution of RL Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and this scenario's Oregon and Washington:



As you can see, the new Washington is didn't diverge much from RL OR/WA until very recently. It was actually more Republican than Washington in 1968, and than Oregon in 1972 and 76. It's only after 2000 or even 2004 that you see a gap really emerging, as the western coastal region really turns into a Democratic stronghold. And even then, it only moves Washington toward the Dems by about 5 points.

This scenario's Oregon is regularly 7 to 10 points less Republican than OTL Idaho (with the exception of 1960, interestingly).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nevada

So, what to say about Nevada?... Well, nothing. It's basically RL Nevada, with the three Californian Sierra Nevada counties added for good measure. Even in 2010, these counties total less than 35,000 inhabitants - so their influence would be close to nil.

NV Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Indeed, Nevada is still pretty much the same, voting for the same Presidential candidate by the same magnitude. You can see that on the percentages chart above, but the PVI chart really makes it obvious.



Until 1976, the mountain counties did manage to shift the State's PVI by about half a percentage point. But since then their effect has become imperceptible - either because these counties have trended D or because the Las Vegas demographic boom has made them increasingly irrelevant. Regardless, the bottom line is "nothing to see here".

Capital: Still Carson City (as silly as that may be)

Governor: Still Brian Sandoval

Senators: Still Dean Heller (class 1) and Harry Reid (class 3)

Representatives: Still 2D-2R.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For the Californias unfortunately you'll have to wait about a week or so. But it will be worth the wait, I promise!