Alternate US States

[Prince of Salem]

This format is great! I beg for more!

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I definitely approve of the format, and am looking forward to the next elections! No rush Antonio, you've done a great job on this series!

[Mr. Smith]

I definitely approve of the format, and am looking forward to the next elections! No rush Antonio, you've done a great job on this series!

[Antonio the Sixth]

1968



Richard Nixon: 258 (-44)
Hubert Humphrey: 228 (+37)
George Wallace: 52 (+7)

This time, redrawing the States might actually have changed the entire course of US history. In the chaotic and bitterly fought 1968 election, Richard Nixon would fall 12 votes short of a victory in the Electoral College, instead of the 301-vote majority he got IRL (302 without a NC faithless elector). Nixon's huge structural advantage, built by sweeping all the decisive States by narrow margins, is significantly shrunk when many such States get split. The most important changes is the Chicago/Illinois split: instead of Nixon grabbing a full 26 EVs, Humphrey narrowly snatches Chicago's 19 by a narrow 1.5 points margin. The same goes for Erie/Ohio and for the Californias, of which Humphrey won two out of three. Nixon partly makes up for it with Adirondack and Jefferson, but still emerges as a net loser. Furthermore, Nixon also loses the 7 EV from Vermont and NH - as Muskie's Maine is enough to carry New England for Humphrey - the 3 from Delaware, and another 7 due to the Lincoln merger. The icing on the cake is North Florida, which gives 40.8% of its votes for Wallace, against only 33.5% for Nixon - allowing the former to break 52 EVs.

The election's outcome would thus be completely different from what happened IRL. With no electoral majority, the election would go to the House, where Democrats hold a majority. Who would prevail in such a scenario? It's really hard to say. It's hard to see many Democrats voting for Nixon, but they would also be wary of going against the popular vote. A lot would also depend on Wallace's attitude. If he chooses to stay in the race, there could be enduring dreadlock. Otherwise, he could choose to throw his weight on Nixon's camp to send a message against Democrats. Many Southern Democratic representatives could follow him and vote Nixon, giving him a majority. Still, there is an outside chance that we end up with President Humphrey, and thus with a very different 1969-1973 political evolution. (BTW, note that, among the 5 States that gave Humphrey an absolute majority, there is, once again, Rio Grande. Pretty amazing.).

Here's the PVI map:


Nixon: 277 (-37)
Humphrey: 261 (+37)

As you know, the PVI map doesn't take into account Third Party candidates like Wallace, so this map is a bit artificial. Wallace States are assigned to the candidate who came in second (except for Arkansas, where Nixon beat Humphrey under his national margin). Anyway, as you can see, Humphrey wins more close races than Nixon: NE, PA, AY, CH, TX, WA and CA all go to him by under 5 points. Nixon does the same in AD, NJ, WI, MO and AK. In a tied race overall (and without Wallace) Nixon would still prevail, but the margin becomes much more reasonable. Humphrey's strongholds are those, already mentioned, that gave him over 50%, including RG. Nixon's area of strength is still in the inner West and lower Midwest, with a peak in Nebraska.

Finally, here is the swing/trend map:


The swing map looks like a mirror image of 1964, with the Deep South moving back to the Democrats while the rest of the country swinging toward the GOP. The only State that doesn't swing in the opposite way is North Florida, which goes to the right both times. The trend map too shows a largely reverse pattern: the Old Confederacy, but also Chicago, Arizona and CS, trend Democratic, while almost everywhere else in the country (especially the Midwest and Northeast) Republicans gain ground. Indeed, overall the 1968 map looks a lot like 1960. Major differences among split States include NY (with Adirondack trending much more to the right), FL (the North trending more Democratic than the South), TX (with a hierarchy opposite to 1964), and IL (Chicago goes Dem, Illinois right).

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Massachusetts (PVI +31.12)
- Most Republican: Nebraska (PVI -27.31)
- Closest: California (margin +0.44)
- Bellwether: Arkansas (PVI +0.02)
              - excluding the Wallace States: Missouri (PVI -0.43)
- Tipping point: Missouri (PVI -0.43)
              - tipping point for a Nixon majority: New England (PVI +1.74), after California
              - tipping point for an Humphrey majority: Wisconsin (PVI -2.61), after MO, NJ, and AK
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Mississippi (trend +107.06)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Adirondack (trend -18.58)
- Most Stable (absolute): North Florida (swing -1.24)
- Most Stable (relative): Pacific (trend +0.03)

[Gass3268]

I think with this result you end up with four years of Nixon.

After looking at the 1968 county results and the partisan make up of the House, I think Nixon (with Wallace's blessing) wins 28-23.



The Vice Presidential race would be much more interesting as I think Johnson and Humphrey would have a lot more pull in Senate and might be able to get Edmund Muskie through the Senate. Imagine how much fun 4 years of Nixon having a Democratic VP would be!

[Antonio the Sixth]

That seems pretty realistic, yeah. Conservative Democrats from Wallace districts would certainly have a hard time going for Humphrey.

[Gass3268]

That seems pretty realistic, yeah. Conservative Democrats from Wallace districts would certainly have a hard time going for Humphrey.

I think Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee could be close calls and they would probably determine the election. Wallace had little strength in Oklahoma, so I think Humphrey gets that state. Also I could see Humphrey would get the support of Congressmen in the Upper South Union-frendily states of Kentucky and Missouri. Also Colorado had a huge Democratic Congressional delegation and I don't see the Wallace politics coming into play. Also Nixon is lucky that Republicans had congressional majorities in Michigan and Minnesota in '68.     

[Maxwell]

I really like how creative you got with this. This is really great Antonio.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Amazing as always Antonio, to think 1968 would have been so different... makes you wonder how it would have affected future third-party candidacies in this TL.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm so glad you guys like it!

That seems pretty realistic, yeah. Conservative Democrats from Wallace districts would certainly have a hard time going for Humphrey.

I think Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee could be close calls and they would probably determine the election. Wallace had little strength in Oklahoma, so I think Humphrey gets that state. Also I could see Humphrey would get the support of Congressmen in the Upper South Union-frendily states of Kentucky and Missouri. Also Colorado had a huge Democratic Congressional delegation and I don't see the Wallace politics coming into play. Also Nixon is lucky that Republicans had congressional majorities in Michigan and Minnesota in '68.     

Wow, you seem to know a lot about congressional politics in the 1960s! I see no reason to contradict you on this, except maybe that Jefferson could go for Nixon due to him winning the State comfortably (then again, the same is true for Colorado). Anyways, thanks a lot for your contribution!

[Antonio the Sixth]

1972



Richard Nixon: 522 (+1)
George McGovern: 16 (-1)

Just like in 1964, the sheer lopsidedness of the popular vote means that a redrawing of State borders would change little to nothing to the Electoral College's results. McGovern ends up doing even worse than IRL, losing one EV to a total of 16. He takes Rhode Island's two House-based Electors due to the merger with Massachusetts, but loses the three from DC, which get drowned out into Maryland. Apart from that, nothing is changed. However, McGovern's impressive performance in Pacific is worth mentioning: coming within a mere 3 points of Nixon, he managed to keep him below the 50% line. Clearly, that State's liberal bent was already emerging by the 1970s.

PVI map:


Nixon: 286 (+21)
McGovern: 252 (-21)

For the first time, the State modifications result in flipping a structural advantage in the Electoral College. While IRL, McGovern would have won a tied race with uniform national swing, in this scenario Nixon manages to preserve his edge and win a clear majority of Electors. The main reason for this is Ohio: 1972 is one of the 3 elections when that State actually had a slight Democratic lean instead of a slight Republican one, but splitting it means that the bulk of its Electoral Votes remains solidly in the Republican column. Nixon further benefits from snatching Adirondack and Illinois to McGovern, although the latter can mitigate the losses with Rio Grande and Maryland (which had a Rep PVI IRL).

Otherwise, this map is an interesting mix of old and new. On the one hand, you see the modern Democratic coalition, made up of the Coasts and Lakes areas, emerging, and the South consolidating as a Republican stronghold (even West Virginia falls for Nixon!). On the other hand, McGovern is still notably weak in the Northeast, losing New England and barely taking Pennsylvania, while doing far better than modern Republicans in the rural Midwest and Mountains region. Clearly McGovern's rural populist appeal played a role in this election, especially in his home State of Lincoln. On the other hand, Nixon, as conservative as he was, still appealed to moderate Northeasterners better than any Republican from Reagan on.

Swing/trend map:


With South Dakota being fused into Lincoln, the swing map becomes entirely blue, erasing McGovern's home State effect. Apart from that, McGovern improves quite strikingly over Humphrey throughout the Midwest and West, while losing ground in the South and Northeast. The impact of Wallace's votes flowing to Nixon is visible in the South, where the improvement is striking. On the other hand, the upper Midwest+Lincoln is an area where McGovern's appeal really worked. In terms of State divides, the only one which presents any interest is PA. This scenario's Pennsylvania thus becomes the only Northeastern State trending Democrat. Also note that MA now trends Republican, due to the inclusion of Rhode Island.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Massachusetts (PVI +29.92)
- Most Republican: Mississippi (PVI -35.42)
- Closest: Pacific (margin -2.64)
- Bellwether: Alaska (PVI -0.36)
- Tipping point: Illinois (PVI -1.42) and Missouri (PVI -1.44) together, after AK and NM
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Iowa (trend +17.51)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Mississippi (trend -45.62)
- Most Stable (absolute): Iowa (swing -4.94)
- Most Stable (relative): Kentucky (trend -0.01)

[Antonio the Sixth]

1976



James Carter: 306 (+9)
Gerald Ford: 232 (-9)

As it turns out, Carter manages to expand his electoral map a bit. He even manages to break Ford's complete domination over the western half of the country by carrying Pacific and California. His victory would seem a less embarrassingly close, though still not particularly impressive considering his early lead in the polls. Carter benefits particularly from the splits in California (which, as mentioned, allows him to carry 2 of the 3 States) and in Illinois (with a mere 1500-vote lead over Ford, he manages to take Chicago's 19 electoral votes). These gains are partly counterbalanced by Ford's victories in Adirondack, Jefferson and Ohio, but Ford's narrow defeat in Allegheny and the disadvantage accumulated by New England and Lincoln's mergers eventually tip the balance in Carter's favor. These changes also have the side-effect of altering the balance of States won without an absolute majority, while IRL, Carter won 3 of them and Ford 7, now Carter wins 6 and Ford 4. Interestingly, their overall number is unchanged, indicating that the State splits have created as many close States as they have destroyed.

PVI map:


Ford: 291 (+7)
Carter: 247 (-7)

Indeed, the PVI map shows how many States narrowly won by Carter would switch to Ford if a uniform swing brought the national popular vote to a tie. It is the flip side of Carter's expanded victory: Ford already had a slight structural advantage IRL, and these alterations of the electoral maps slightly increase it. This time, Ford benefits from the PA split by taking Allegheny, limits the damage in the West by taking California, and actually gains a little with the IL split. Thus, we end up with as many as 11 States with a slight Republican lean. Just like IRL, this election remains one of the least polarized of recent history, with a impressive number of States very close to the median.

Swing/trend map:


Not much is changed here, in what is largely a North vs South divide (where the upper limits of South encompass Kansas, Missouri and Maryland). Southerners fall in love with Carter, while the rest of the country (while still moving away from the GOP) is more lukewarm toward him. Still, we end up with a second exception to this near-perfect pattern (the first being Hawaii). Indeed, New York actually ends up trending Democrat. I was really surprised to find this out, especially because this is unique to the NYC-centric State and other very urban States like Chicago or Pennsylvania moved in the opposite direction (OK, it's only a 1-point trend, but still). Maybe Nixon overperformed in the NY area in 1972? Or maybe there's something about Carter that New Yorkers really like? Or something happened to the area in between these two elections? I have no idea, but it's pretty interesting. Apart from that, there's no big surprise. Worth pointing out that Pacific ends up being the second most R-trending State. Clearly West Coast liberals really loved McGovern but weren't much thrilled by Carter.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Georgia (PVI +31.72)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -30.85)
- Closest: Chicago (margin +0.05)
- Bellwether: California (PVI -0.11)
- Tipping point: Wisconsin (PVI -0.52), after CA and MS
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Georgia (trend +58.96)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Alaska (trend -23.95)
- Most Stable (absolute): Alaska (swing +1.26)
- Most Stable (relative): Indiana (trend -0.34)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry it took so much time. I'm getting too busy for the usual biweekly update, so I think I'm going to cover one election per week from now on. Hope you guys don't mind.


Anyway, let's move on to...

1980



Ronald Reagan: 477 (-12)
James Carter: 61 (+12)

Carter manages to lose a little better than IRL, thanks entirely to the MA/RI merger. While IRL Reagan prevailed by less than 4000 votes, the addition of strongly Democratic Rhode Island is enough to hand the State to Carter. This gives him an additional 12 EVs, which is all he gains. The Maryland merger, while it increases the amount of red territory on the map, is electorally neutral, because of the loss of DC's two Senate-based EVs. None of the splits is helpful for Carter either. He comes close, but still can't crack Erie, Chicago or even friggin' New York! Clearly there was more than bad luck in his landslide electoral defeat despite a not to heavy PV loss. It seems that Reagan had a significant appeal in urban States, and, with Anderson's help, managed to flip even the most solidly Democratic ones.

PVI map:


Carter: 324 (+27)
Reagan: 214 (-27)

Well, it's really a shame Carter didn't tie the Popular Vote, because he would have scored one of the most impressive victories a candidate in his position could hope for. Actually, I'm pretty sure this is the most lopsided PVI map we will see in the entire series. Carter did better than nationally in most of the country's regions: in the South of course, but also in the Northeast, most of the Midwest and the Pacific coast. Reagan's weakness is the gigantic margins he pulls in the interior West and Plains States, which puts him at a deficit in the rest of the country. While this was already true IRL, the redrawing makes it worse by adding Erie, Rio Grande, Pacific and Washington to Carter's column. Reagan could only counteract this with Illinois and the New England merger (IRL, VT and ME had a Democratic PVI), which don't amount to much. Thus, we end up with a lot of Democratic States in the 5-10 range, just enough to fall for Reagan's 10-point win. Had the election been just a couple points closer, the electoral map would have looked a lot more balanced.

In terms of individual States, the divide between CS and PC is quite interesting, showing that Reagan's home State appeal was mostly in the South. Also, it's worth noting that 1980 marks the date when Texas definitely flips Atlas blue, while Rio Grande still resists to the Republican advance. In the Northeast, Allegheny becomes more Democratic than Pennsylvania, a status that will endure until the mid 1990s.

Swing/trend map:


Well, Adirondack does really stick out on those maps. Not only is it the only State to swing left, but it did so rather clearly, by almost 7 points. While the entire country was turning its back on Carter, Adirondack seemed to suddenly warm up to him. Of course, Carter still won a lower percentage in 1980 than he did in 1976 (he went from 44% to 42.5%), and Anderson certainly took more votes away from Reagan than from Carter. Still, Anderson alone doesn't explain this swing. He only won 8.5% in Adirondack, about as much as in Minnesota and much less than in some States that trended R, like Massachusetts. There must have been something about Reagan that really did not go well with Upstate New Yorkers.

More generally, it's interesting to see that many States created from splits drift in opposite direction. While Adirondack sees this massive movement to the Democrats, NY decisively trends Republican. Allegheny moves to the left, and Pennsylvania to the right. Chicago goes massively toward the Dems, Illinois to the GOP. Pacific toward Carter, the rest of California strongly toward Reagan. Clearly 1980 was a point when the political geography began to shift quite dramatically. However, these shifts aren't always consistent: if the R trend in NY and PA seems to indicate Republican growth in large metropolises, why the exact opposite happens in Chicago? California, on the other hand, is not very surprising. Lefty-hippies in the Bay Area had never been fond of Reagan to begin with, and it makes sense that they would rally around Carter to contrast him. Additionally, Jefferson is pulled more strongly toward Reagan than the rest of Texas due to its western bent, and, more surprisingly, South Florida sees a much stronger Republican trend than its northern neighbor.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Georgia (PVI +24.55)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -42.46)
- Closest: Tennessee (margin -0.29)
- Bellwether: Connecticut (PVI +0.11)
- Tipping point: Michigan (PVI +3.14!!!), after CT, PA, WA and MO
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Adirondack (trend +18.52)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Nevada (trend -18.90)
- Most Stable (absolute): Hawaii (swing -0.63)
- Most Stable (relative): Iowa (trend +0.11)

[Peeperkorn]

Great work Tony! One of the best threads ever.

[Vosem]

Yeah -- I haven't commented here in a while, but I'm still reading, and this is fantastic.

[YaBoyNY]

Not much is changed here, in what is largely a North vs South divide (where the upper limits of South encompass Kansas, Missouri and Maryland). Southerners fall in love with Carter, while the rest of the country (while still moving away from the GOP) is more lukewarm toward him. Still, we end up with a second exception to this near-perfect pattern (the first being Hawaii). Indeed, New York actually ends up trending Democrat. I was really surprised to find this out, especially because this is unique to the NYC-centric State and other very urban States like Chicago or Pennsylvania moved in the opposite direction (OK, it's only a 1-point trend, but still). Maybe Nixon overperformed in the NY area in 1972? Or maybe there's something about Carter that New Yorkers really like? Or something happened to the area in between these two elections? I have no idea, but it's pretty interesting. Apart from that, there's no big surprise. Worth pointing out that Pacific ends up being the second most R-trending State. Clearly West Coast liberals really loved McGovern but weren't much thrilled by Carter.

Ford did a lot worse in NYC especially than he could of due to his initial refusal to grant a federal bailout to NYC, which was doing really badly in the 70's. He did eventually relent, but he performed a lot worse than he could have because of that initial refusal.

All great work, by the way. Excellent timeline.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not much is changed here, in what is largely a North vs South divide (where the upper limits of South encompass Kansas, Missouri and Maryland). Southerners fall in love with Carter, while the rest of the country (while still moving away from the GOP) is more lukewarm toward him. Still, we end up with a second exception to this near-perfect pattern (the first being Hawaii). Indeed, New York actually ends up trending Democrat. I was really surprised to find this out, especially because this is unique to the NYC-centric State and other very urban States like Chicago or Pennsylvania moved in the opposite direction (OK, it's only a 1-point trend, but still). Maybe Nixon overperformed in the NY area in 1972? Or maybe there's something about Carter that New Yorkers really like? Or something happened to the area in between these two elections? I have no idea, but it's pretty interesting. Apart from that, there's no big surprise. Worth pointing out that Pacific ends up being the second most R-trending State. Clearly West Coast liberals really loved McGovern but weren't much thrilled by Carter.

Ford did a lot worse in NYC especially than he could of due to his initial refusal to grant a federal bailout to NYC, which was doing really badly in the 70's. He did eventually relent, but he performed a lot worse than he could have because of that initial refusal.

Thanks a lot for the explanation, it makes sense then. I was really curious about this trend.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1984



Ronald Reagan: 516 (-9)
Walter Mondale: 22 (+9)

Unlike RL, Reagan wouldn't be able to surpass Nixon's 1972 landslide in the Electoral College and set the record for post-Great Depression elections. Indeed, with the inclusion of DC, Maryland flips red on the Atlas map and actually becomes Mondale's best State, thus allowing him to break the "only one State" curse. While this must have been a slight consolation for Mondale, he would nonetheless suffer from bad luck, seeing New York and Pacific slip away from him by a meager 0.2 and 0.4 percentage points. Had he done just a little bit better, he could have claimed a full 60 electoral votes - only one less than Carter four years ago! Still, it's amazing that such a landslide election would end up with 4 States being so competitive. Who knows how things would have turned out with both candidates campaigning heavily in those States. On the other hand, the California split also allows Reagan to break 60% in his home State of CS.

PVI map:


Reagan: 335 (+29)
Mondale: 203 (-29)

Though Reagan was suffering from a huge Electoral College disadvantage in 1980, in 1984 he was instead heavily favored by the Electoral math. In rough numbers, this is one of the largest structural advantages in modern history (though this doesn't mean the advantage makes a huge difference - this depends on the PVI of the tipping-point State). Just like in 1980, the imbalance was already there in the original map, but the State shifts make it much worse. The New York and California splits are the big reason for this, with the latter adding a full 37 EVs to Reagan's column. Mondale regains a bit from Rio Grande and Erie, but it makes little difference in the big picture. As this map shows, a sh*tload of States end up with a slight Republican lean (12 of them to be exact), mostly thanks to the South's slipping away from the Democrats now that Carter is out of the ticket. Meanwhile, TN, IL and RG are the only States with a Democratic PVI under 5 points. Mondale is pretty strong in a lot of States, including the close 4 already mentioned but also Allegheny, Erie, Massachusetts and Iowa. Reagan's strongholds, meanwhile, are mostly sparsely populated Western States.

Swing/trend map:


It's interesting to see that so many States actually swung toward Mondale. IRL, these were mostly Western States where Carter had been obliterated in 1980. Here, we see that that a whole bunch of States of all kinds, from NY to AY and IL. I don't really see a pattern here: you have a city-State, a heavily industrial Rust Belt State, and a pretty rural Southern-Midwest one. Of course, this doesn't mean Reagan actually lost ground in these States, in all likelihood it only means that the Anderson voters broke out in Mondale's favor. Still, it's interesting to see in what States this happened. I would guess the workers from Pittsburgh were really fired up about Reagan's supply-side policies, and New Yorkers got also hurt badly by the crisis like other big cities (although Chicago swung toward Reagan almost like the nation). Go figure.

In overall trend numbers, contrasts between split States are fairly rare. You have New York, where, once again, the pattern is reversed from the previous year: NY becomes more Democratic and Adirondack more Republican. Meanwhile, Erie trends D and Ohio trends R, also a reversal from 1980 (probably reflecting Erie's working-class bent vs Ohio's more Appalachian feel). The two Floridas both trend toward the GOP, but SF only by an absolutely trivial margin. Keep that in mind for the next election.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Maryland (PVI +18.63)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -31.61)
- Closest: Minnesota (margin +0.18)
- Bellwether: Illinois (PVI +0.14)
- Tipping point: Georgia (PVI -2.17) and New Mexico (PVI -2.26) together, after MI, AD, CA and MO
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Pacific (trend +14.54)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Georgia (trend -26.72)
- Most Stable (absolute): Erie (swing -0.88)
- Most Stable (relative): South Florida (trend -0.08)

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Excellent as usual, and as you said, Pacific and New York would have been fun to observe the campaigning in ITTL.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1988



George Bush: 389 (-37)
Michael Dukakis: 149 (+37)

This election produces a pretty big shift in the Electoral College, comparable to 1968. Bush's victory now looks much less lopsided on the electoral map, and more in line with what one would expect considering his PV margin of victory. He does a little better than Clinton in OTL 1996 EV-wise, while running slightly behind PV-wise. Thus, this map is much more helpful than the actual one for the sake of identifying Dukakis' areas of strength. The most striking of them is a chunk of States spanning from the mid-Atlantic (Maryland) to the Lakes (Erie), where Dukakis did impressively well in historical perspective. For example, he is the only Democrat in this period to carry Allegheny while losing (rather heavily) Pennsylvania. His performance in the urban Northeast is rather mediocre by contrast: he only wins the historical Democratic strongholds of NY and MA. The rural northern Midwest remains one of his strongest areas, like in IRL - and once again, the contrast is striking with the urban State of Chicago (which, by narrowly voting for Bush, takes away 1988's peculiarity as an election where all States were won with an absolute majority). Dukakis also unsurprisingly adds Pacific to his column (which actually is his best State nationwide), forming a strip of red on the West Coast that spans from Santa Barbara to Seattle. Finally, Rio Grande also throws its support behind its favorite son Lloyd Bentsen and his running mate. All these gains are what allow Dukakis to come close to 150 EVs, a far more honorable loss than IRL. The only split that works to Bush's advantage is New York, and he also regains some lost ground through the chopping off of Eastern OR/WA. Bush breaks 60% in a rather disparate set of States, located in the southern Midwest, the Southeast, and the Plains area.

PVI map:


Bush: 308 (+22)
Dukakis: 230 (-22)

However, the structural electoral dynamic follows almost exactly the same scheme as 1984. Only five States, representing 49 EVs, switched sides between the two elections: Tennessee from D to R; CT, AD, MO and NM in the opposite direction. This reduces the disadvantage under which both Democratic candidates had to compete in these years a bit, but such disadvantage remains larger than IRL (Dukakis could have counted on 252 EVs in a tied race in OTL 1988). The main culprit is, once again California. IRL, Pacific's emerging status as a Dem stronghold was enough to carry the rest of the State along. With this map, he remains an underdog to carry the 37 EVs held together by CA and CS. The two other splits that are significant in this map both work to Dukakis' advantage, handing him Rio Grande and Erie. However, and less visibly, the mergers actually do a lot of damage to his Electoral College position. IRL, the States of VT, SD and MT all had a Democratic PVI that year, meaning that Dukakis would have won nearly half of the EVs from New England and Lincoln - both of which now lean R. The end result is still a map that works to Bush's advantage.

Swing/trend map:


What's really striking in these maps is how much the urban centers - especially those that form the core of the Democratic party arguably since its foundation - disliked Dukakis (or at least liked him less than Mondale). New York, Chicago, Pennsylvania (Philly), Maryland (Baltimore/Washington) all trended Republican, the latter two by more than 5 points. Clearly Bush's campaign portraying Dukakis as "soft on crime" played a big role in this movement. At a time when concern about law and order was at its historical peak, crime-ridden big cities clearly expressed their repudiation of Dukakis' anti-death penalty stances. At the same time, rural States saw big swings to the Democratic side. This rural/urban divide appears rather clearly in the New York and Illinois divides, and manifests itself fully in the Plain States. The only anomalous case is California, which trends toward Bush while its coastal neighbors PC and CS move to the left - clearly a reflection of the emerging new divide in California. Finally, it's rather hilarious to see South Florida trending R by an infinitesimal amount for the second time in a row.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +21.77)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -26.44)
- Closest: Chicago (margin -0.21)
- Bellwether: Colorado (PVI -0.05)
- Tipping point: Louisiana (PVI -2.48), after CO, MI and CA
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Oklahoma (trend +10.80)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Tennessee (trend -10.56)
- Most Stable (absolute): Tennessee (swing -0.07)
- Most Stable (relative): South Florida (trend -0,06)

[Cranberry]

I can't wait to see a Democratic win again

Seriously though, this is some amazing stuff you're doing here! Bravo!

[Mr. Smith]

I can't wait to see a Democratic win again

Seriously though, this is some amazing stuff you're doing here! Bravo!

[Antonio the Sixth]

1992



William Clinton: 381 (+11)
George Bush: 157 (-11)

Still no Perot State. Not that it's surprising, obviously. Perot actually loses his best State IRL, Maine, and doesn't really come as close anywhere else. He still does very well (over 25%) in Jefferson, Oregon and New England. In traditional D/R terms, Clinton increases its Electoral Vote count somewhat, making his victory nearly as wide as Bush's four years before (ITTL, I mean). The change isn't huge, but it's still worth 11 EVs. Rio Grande and South Florida are the main States where Clinton gains, though these gains are somewhat offset by the Ohio split. Also notable is the fact that Clinton end up winning an absolute majority in five different States, totaling 73 EVs (IRL, Arkansas is the only State where he only got more than 50%). The other four largely foreshadow complete Democratic domination in the years to come: New York, Maryland, Chicago and Pacific. On the other hand, poor H. W. Bush is still far from carrying even a single State with an absolute majority. Clinton is below 40% in only two States, instead of 4 IRL (frustratingly enough, he gets 40.03% in Adirondack).

PVI map:


Bush: 276 (+1)
Clinton: 262 (-1)

Despite the loss, Republicans have the satisfaction of drawing a net benefit from the Electoral College for the third time in a row. This advantage, however, is much more marginal and easy to offset with a mere 7 or 8 EVs. It is also virtually unchanged from the RL one, indicating that the redrawing of State boundaries did not really hurt the Democrats in these conditions. What has changed from 1984-1988. The answer is easy: California del Sur, with its 32-EV bloc, finally flipped. Now a lean-D State, it makes the California split much less problematic for the Dems. In overall terms, California and Adirondack brought 24 EVs to the GOP, 21 of which are regained by the Democrats with Erie and Rio Grande. Add to that the handful EV lost by Republicans with the Lincoln and New England mergers (which drowns Rep-leaning NH with Dem-leaning VT and ME) and you get an EV result that's roughly identical to the real one. Apart from that, it's interesting to see that Pacific is once again the only State with a Democratic PVI over 20.

Swing/trend map:


These maps give us a vivid glimpse of some electoral trends that were hard to visualize in the original ones. For example, look at how the northern Appalachian area (AD-AY-ER-WV) stands out with a very stark Republican trend while the neighboring States all move toward the Democrats. Clearly, the Democratic collapse in Appalachia has begun earlier than we usually think, and even a Southern Populist like Clinton had begun underperforming in these white working-class areas. Meanwhile, we see Democratic improvements in the coastal Northeast (although this compensates for Dukakis' poor performance four years before), in most of the South (though not in Texas), the lower Midwest (with a stark ER/OH contrast) and the greater Southwest. That last one is quite interesting, especially as we see that the trend even extends to Jefferson (though by a trivial margin). The trend is particularly strong in Nevada, but also in California del Sur, for which 1992 can legitimately be called a realigning election. Apart from the ones already cited, Republican trends are concentrated in the Plains and the Northwest. As IRL, Iowa is the epicenter, returning to normalcy after Dukakis' insanely strong performance there. Lincoln, Oregon, Colorado and Washington all follow the same movement, as does California, which Clinton just barely won, and which has been getting further and further away from the Democrats over the past decade.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +22.57)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -24.27)
- Closest: California (margin +0.48)
- Bellwether: Iowa (PVI +0.45)
- Tipping point: Tennessee (PVI -0.91)
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Arkansas (trend +18.61)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Iowa (trend -17.50)
- Most Stable (absolute): Wisconsin (swing +1.30)
- Most Stable (relative): Jefferson (trend +0.04)

[NeverAgain]

Poor Perot, the Northeast unites to take away the American Billionaire Dream.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm sorry guys, I think I'll have to take a break from this for a while. I'm very busy with my studies right now, and this is only going to get worse and worse over the next two months. I'll probably take a break from the entire forum eventually. I promise I'll complete the election series as soon as things get better (and after this is done I have a couple other stuff planned to keep this thread going), but it's gonna have to wait.