Alternate US States

[Boston Bread]

WAIT DID New-Washington ANNEX BC (Vancouver)
I think you meant Seattle. Or Olympia.

[Antonio the Sixth]

WAIT DID New-Washington ANNEX BC (Vancouver)
I think you meant Seattle. Or Olympia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver,_Washington

I was surprised too when I found out.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pacific

Next time you hear someone say that the West Coast is the land of hippy ultra-leftish liberalism, you can answer one simple thing: that they're right. Pacific, the State that spans across the coastal areas of Northern and Central California (from Santa Barbara to Eureka) is not just "very Democratic". It is, by all measures, the most Democratic State in the nation. The Bay Area would dominate this State, both demographically (with 75% of the population) and culturally. Relaxed lifestyles, progressive values and Democratic dominance would go hand in hand in this leftist utopia.

PC Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


As it turns out, my graph itself (which I capped to 70% for the sake of uniformity) can't even account for how Democratic Pacific has become. Pacific had always been Dem-leaning, with Kennedy, Humphrey and Carter all winning it quite decisively. However, its unstoppable march to the left really began in the 1980s. Mondale already came within a few decimals of defeating Reagan there in 1984. Four years later, Dukakis swept the State by 14 points despite his major defeat nationwide. Clinton managed to win absolute majorities despite Perot's presence, then Al Gore broke the 60% barrier despite Nader, then Kerry racked up more than two-thirds of the statewide vote... All this culminating with Obama winning 71.6% and 70.6% in 2008 and 2012, respectively. This is actually better than what he got in Hawaii, meaning that Pacific would be today the most Democratic State in the nation. The trend, over the last 16 years, has been of over 20 points (and over the last 32, nearly 40).



How does this Democratic dominance reflect in geography? As the 2012 map shows, the epicenter is clearly located in the Bay Area: above all San Francisco, and secondarily the counties of Alameda, Santa Cruz and Marin (all places where Obama distanced Romney by 50 points or more). This would be the State's dominant area, dictating the agenda and setting the standards for political competition. By contrast, if you move North and South of the Bay, you begin finding areas that are more balanced politically. Obama did not break 59% in Santa Barbara and Lake, failed to win a majority in San Luis Obispo county, and even fell behind in two counties of the State's northern tip (Trinity and Del Norte). These areas North and South of the Bay, which are more "classically" Californian and value some degree of moderation, would probably feel pretty alienated from the State's institutions.

Capital: Any choice other than San Francisco would be a travesty.

Governor: Jerry Brown's aura would smile and never frown.

Senators: Kamala Harris (class 1) and Barbara Boxer (class 2) - I could see Feinstein being pushed out for being too old and conservative, and eventually retire in 2012.

Representatives: It would be a 13D-0R delegation, no doubt.

[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.

So?

[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

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

So?

You were right - this state is just.... fabulous! I love it... I absolutely f***ing love it!

[Goldwater]

Before even factoring in politics, Pacific was my least favorite of the California states*. Now I have even more reason to make it my least favorite.

*(although considering my opinion of California in general, that still puts pretty high up on the list. )

[Antonio the Sixth]

Before even factoring in politics, Pacific was my least favorite of the California states*. Now I have even more reason to make it my least favorite.

*(although considering my opinion of California in general, that still puts pretty high up on the list. )

What is your favorite new State, btw? I'm curious.

[Goldwater]

Before even factoring in politics, Pacific was my least favorite of the California states*. Now I have even more reason to make it my least favorite.

*(although considering my opinion of California in general, that still puts pretty high up on the list. )

What is your favorite new State, btw? I'm curious.

I'll go with California del Sur, although there are quite a few states that I like. Here's a map to show what I think of them:



The dark green is my top 10, the lighter green is the 10 just below them, the dark red is my bottom 10, the light red is the 10 just above them, and the 11 states in between are gray. For the sake of comparison, here is the same map using the OTL states:

Basically, a lot of my favorite states (warm and more heavily populated) were split up, while a lot of my least favorite ones (cold and less heavily populated) were merged together.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I get the weather stuff, but having Florida and Arizona among your favorites and Minnesota and Wisconsin among your least favorites is almost a sacrilege.

[Antonio the Sixth]

More interesting facts about Pacific! The last time it voted Republican in a statewide election was actually... 2006, where Schwartzy won 47.04% against 46.67% for Angelides. Bustamante won it easily in 2003 (where it also voted against the recall with around 60%). If you want to see it vote Republican again, you have to go back as far as 1986, for Deukmejian's landslide reelection. However, the last non-incumbent Republican to win the State was Reagan in 1966. In Senate elections, you'd have to go back to 1962 to find a Republican prevailing (specifically, Thomas Kuchel, who even won San Francisco by 10 points). Those who came closest were S.I. Hayakawa in 1976, who lost by 2.59 points, and Pete Wilson, who came within 2.13 points of Jerry Brown in 1982.

[Antonio the Sixth]

California

Like for Illinois, land area and the location of the State capital prevailed over demographics in deciding which of the three States carved out of California would keep the original name. Indeed, California is smallest of them, keeping only slightly over 7 million inhabitants of the original State's 37. Consisting of the counties of the Central Valley and non-coastal Northern California, CA is the most rural and conservative of the three States. The inhabitants of these regions, who have grown increasingly alienated by RL CA's leftward turn, would surely welcome such a split as a liberation. It's worth noting, incidentally, that since the 1970s this is also the fastest growing of the three Californias. Without it, California's share of the national population would actually have declined in 2000 and 2010. Clearly, this region has been less affected than the southern and coastal areas by housing inflation and overpopulation, and still has a lot of room to grow.

CA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Politically, everyone has probably already guessed that this California is significantly more friendly to Republicans. However, this actually hasn't always been the case. In the 1960s and 1970s, California actually had a clear Democratic lean. Kennedy won a higher percentage there than in friggin' Pacific, and both Humphrey and Carter also carried it. Even Nixon's 1972 performance was pretty pathetic for someone who swept the country in a landslide, a paltry 53% (though he was helped by Schmitz taking over 3%). Like in many other States that saw a Republican trend, 1980 marked the turning point. Since then, Democratic Presidential candidates have carried California only twice - both times by a hair. Clinton narrowly edged out Bush in 1992, winning the State with only 39% of the vote. However, this proved to be a mere fluke, as Dole handily defeated him four years later (this pattern mirrors other Western States like Colorado and OTL Montana, where the Perot vote seems to have critically hurt Bush). The 2000s appear to have been the peak of California's rightward shift, as Dubya trounced both Gore and Kerry by double-digit margins. However, in a surprising turn of events, the State might now have begun to move back to the Democrats. In 2008, Obama narrowly beat McCain 49.2/48.5, and four years later Romney prevailed by an even closer margin (California was in fact the closest State in 2012!). Of course, it's worth reminding that CA's newfound competitiveness occurred in the context of two Democratic victories. Just like North Carolina (or OTL Florida and Ohio), this State is likely to come into play only if the Democrat has a slight edge in the campaign, and being close there should be a cause of worry for Republicans. Still, a Democratic trend is ongoing and it might eventually succeed in turning California Atlas-red.

What has changed between old, pre-1980 California and today's California? A comparison between 1976 and 2008 - two narrow Democratic wins - can help figure that out:



Carter's 2-point win in 1976 translated into a rather uniform map, without stark patterns of conflict. He swept most of the San Joaquin Valley except its conservative southern tip around Bakersfield, the Sacramento area, a good chunk of the mountainous eastern counties, and even part of Northern California. Seeing this map, it actually quite surprising he didn't win the State by more. By contrast, Obama's 2008 strength is concentrated in a western strip of counties along the border with Pacific, from Yolo to Fresno. While Carter actually did all but one of these counties, Obama racked up huge margins there: 36 points in Yolo county (against 12 for Carter), 19 in Sacramento (against 8 ), 11 in San Joaquin (against -2). These three counties formed the core of Obama's strength, supplying him with a surplus of almost 154,000 votes (he won by 17,000). Their movements toward the Democrats might have something to do with "spillover" from the Bay Area, as those counties become increasingly integrated to the West Coast megalopolis. In the Southern part of the State, Democratic strength also has a lot to do with Latino population growth. By 2010, Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings and Tulare counties all had over 45% Hispanics in their VAP, which bodes pretty well for the Democrats' future. Meanwhile, the Northern tip of the State (an area that would probably fit better in a hypothetical State with southern Oregon than in this State) swung hard toward Republicans, with McCain often breaking 60%. California is thus bound to become increasingly polarized between two very different socio-demographic realities.

Capital: Still Sacramento

Governor: Tom McClintock, I guess?

Senators: It's a hard one, seeing how politically marginal this region is in OTL California... Let's say, Bill Jones (class 1) and Kevin McCarthy (class 3). I've been pretty nice to Democrats in purple States so far, so let's even it out.

Representatives: It's impossible to infer who would control the State Legislature from OTL results, considering that the area forming this State has barely a dozen districts in the State Assembly. However, actual results indicate that geography might favor the Democrats here, with Republicans winning big in a couple districts in the North, East and South while Democrats take most districts by narrow margins. So I'm going to assume a split control, preventing Republicans from enacting a gerrymander. Therefore, I'll keep the current balance of 6R-4D.

[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

[Boston Bread]

If California was divided like that it would be a swing state that both Romney and Obama would have campaigned in. Given Obama's campaign strength and the turnout boost, California would have gone to Obama by a couple points in an actual election.

And yeah, Pacific is one crazy state! Incredible that a highly populous state would go >70% for one party in a close election, the last time that happened was during the solid south.

[Mr. Smith]

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.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

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

Get out.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

Well, that's one of the limits of my scenario, I can't predict counterfactuals. Of course the political culture of Illinois would be totally different if it didn't include Chicagoland, and this could have really huge repercussions on election results. It's even doubtful that Obama would have carried it in 2008 in such circumstances (even though it would be surprising to see him benefit from a large "home state effect" in downstate IL). Still, I don't see why my picks are necessary wrong. Politicians adapt to the conditions they are in, so while Durbin would probably have slightly different views he'd still be able to win statewide elections.

And yes, Northern California > Southern California (normal). Still, I find it really fascinating to see how each of the three States had their own unique political trajectories. And CS will be interesting in that regard too, I promise!

[Goldwater]

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

Get out.

Nagas=FF

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tune in tomorrow for the final State!

[Mr. Smith]

Biley fascinated.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

It's a thread about splitting up States, could you keep your deranged political nonsense out of it? Thanks.

[Mr. Smith]

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.

It's a thread about splitting up States, could you keep your deranged political nonsense out of it? Thanks.

I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.

I certainly wouldn't call your post "deranged nonsense", but yeah, I guess that this little exchange teaches us that it's best to tone down excessively partisan comments (though I absolutely agree with your feeling).

And summer is, comparatively speaking, the worst season in San Francisco. San Francisco falls are the best.

[Mr. Smith]

I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.

I certainly wouldn't call your post "deranged nonsense", but yeah, I guess that this little exchange teaches us that it's best to tone down excessively partisan comments (though I absolutely agree with your feeling).

And summer is, comparatively speaking, the worst season in San Francisco. San Francisco falls are the best.

Given I just lived through that, I'm going to have to say:...What's the difference  XD?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.

I certainly wouldn't call your post "deranged nonsense", but yeah, I guess that this little exchange teaches us that it's best to tone down excessively partisan comments (though I absolutely agree with your feeling).

And summer is, comparatively speaking, the worst season in San Francisco. San Francisco falls are the best.

Given I just lived through that, I'm going to have to say:...What's the difference  XD?

Not much (though August has a lot of fog and wind, which go away in September and the next months), but for a summer, the weather isn't all that impressive, while for fall, it's amazing. Going out wearing only a T-shirt in November is a rather thrilling experience for someone used of Paris' weather.