Alternate US States
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:51:58 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 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 23
Author Topic: Alternate US States  (Read 154635 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #375 on: May 29, 2015, 04:36:53 AM »
« edited: May 29, 2015, 04:39:07 AM by Antonio V »

Alright, let's get back to business! Smiley For those who haven't given up all hope in this thread yet, here's the next election, finally.



1996



William Clinton: 357 (-22)
Robert Dole: 181 (+22)

Despite increasing his margin of victory by three percentage points compared to 1992, Clinton actually ends up with a smaller EV count. To some extent, Dole would manage to salvage the appearance of a respectable showing, winning more than a third of the Electoral College. How did this happen? Florida is the main culprit here: whereas IRL, it was still a Republican-leaning State that flipped from Bush to Clinton in 1996, the split creates a solid R State that remained to the GOP candidate both years, and a genuine swing State that Clinton carried both times. Thus, while this change worked to Clinton's advantage in 1992 (bringing him 16 EV), it cost him North Florida and its 11 EV in 1996. In addition, the California split adds another State that flipped from Clinton to Dole (in addition to Georgia and Colorado). Like many Western States, California indeed trended strongly to the right in this election, to the point of moving outside of Clinton's reach. Finally, the Ohio split continues to work to the benefit of the right, as Dole manages to come ahead there. Clinton's only consolation prize is to carry Rio Grande by an absolute majority, offsetting his losses a bit.

PVI map:


Clinton: 279 (=)
Dole: 259 (=)

For the first time, amazingly enough, the EV breakdown of a hypothetical tied race remains exactly identical to what it was IRL. Clinton and Dole's gains in different areas manage to offset each other perfectly. The latter draws an advantage from the splits in PA and IL, as the States of Allegheny and of Illinois both flip from lean-D to lean-R over the span of four years. These two Republican conquests will consolidate in the following elections, making of 1996 a crucial turning point in the electoral history of these States. On the opposite direction, this election also marks a turning point for South Florida, which, for the first time, becomes more Democratic that the country as a whole, and thus could bring 16 additional EVs to Clinton in the event of a tied race. Just like in 1992, the California split works to the Republicans' advantage, but is partly offset by the Ohio split's pro-Democratic impact. Finally, it is worth pointing out that Clinton underperformed in Oregon IRL. The creation of a unified (and exclusively coastal) Washington State thus grants another handful of EV to Clinton in relative terms. Finally, adding to 1996's status as a "turning point", Rio Grande has a (marginally) Republican PVI for the first time in the observed period. Overall, this means that Clinton would have a slight but significant structural advantage, as Dole would have to carry both Iowa and Wisconsin (with PVIs close to D+2) to win an electoral majority.

Swing/trend map:


The urban Northeast, from Massachusetts to New Jersey, really developed a fondness for Clinton over the course of his first term, trending toward him by more than 10 points. Along with a handful of other States (New England, Adirondack, South Florida, Hawaii), this area is the only one to see a really significant movement toward the Democrats. In this regard, 1996 seems to mark the beginning of the "solid Northeast" for Democrats, with States like MA and NY becoming their rock-ribbed strongholds. To a lesser extent, the Upper Midwest also consolidated its Democratic lean. Meanwhile, Republican gains are more widespread, spanning across most of the South, Lower Midwest, and West (including, somewhat surprisingly, the Pacific States). Dole's native Kansas really stands out, probably also a consequence of Perot's decline. Overall, a dynamic of polarization seems perceptible, with Democratic States becoming more Democratic and Republican States more Republican. Two State splits seem particularly interesting to look at: Pennsylvania and Illinois. In both cases, you have the most urban of the two States (PA and CH) moving to the left, while the more rural or industrial ones (AY and IL) trend strongly toward Dole. It's also worth noting that the Democratic trend is stronger in NY than in AD, and stronger in SF than in NF, and that the Republican trend is stronger in CA than in CS or PC, and weaker in RG than in TX and JF. The modern partisan divide is clearly beginning to emerge.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: New York (PVI +30.87)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -29.59)
- Closest: Nevada (margin +0.65)
- Bellwether: Rio Grande (PVI -0.02)
- Tipping point: Wisconsin (PVI +1.86), after IA
- Strongest Democratic Trend: New Jersey (trend +12.53)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Kansas (trend -16.03)
- Most Stable (absolute): Indiana (swing -0.07)
- Most Stable (relative): Virginia (trend -0.55)
Logged
Enderman
Jack Enderman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,380
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #376 on: May 29, 2015, 05:01:28 AM »

YAY! IT'S BACK AGAIN! Cheesy

Might I add that it still is technically two months, so I guess you could say that you made it by two or three days! Smiley
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #377 on: May 29, 2015, 11:04:42 AM »

YAY! IT'S BACK AGAIN! Cheesy

Might I add that it still is technically two months, so I guess you could say that you made it by two or three days! Smiley

I guess so. Wink

Though the biggest issue is for me to try to wrap this up by September 13, in order to be able to claim that I finished my project in less than six years! Tongue
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #378 on: May 29, 2015, 11:38:34 AM »

2000 is gonna be sick. Excellent stuff.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #379 on: May 29, 2015, 02:32:31 PM »


You have no idea how much. Tongue
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #380 on: June 01, 2015, 12:55:24 PM »

2000



George W. Bush: 285 (+14)
Albert Gore Jr.: 253 (-14)

Ah, poor Al Gore... Even with a massively redrawn Electoral College map - which even erases the nightmarish Florida clusterf**k - he still ends up losing to Dubya despite having received more popular votes. His structural disadvantage indeed goes beyond a fluke provoked by arbitrary State boundaries. In fact, this theoretically "fairer" map significantly damages Gore's position, as he loses 14 EVs compared to OTL. Despite the 16-EV boost that the Florida split brought him (which, alone, would have been enough to put him ahead in the EV count), as well as the 10 EVs brought by Erie, he only ends up with a 253 total. There 26 EVs are offset by the combined 31 gained by Republicans from the splits in Pennsylvania, Illinois and California. The last straw is provided by Wisconsin, which, with the addition of Michigan's UP, flips from a slight Gore edge to a slight Bush one, costing the former another 11 EV. Despite the fact that population inequalities have been significantly reduced under this map, their impact remains strong: out of the 51 new States, Bush won 32 and Gore only 19. This means that, without the Senate-based EVs, Bush would have 221 EVs and Gore 215. Still, at the end of the day, Gore's main problem is that he does very well in a few very populous States in the coastal Northeast and in California, but ends up narrowly losing a large chunk of States in "Middle America". As this experiment shows, it's often hard to correct the biases created by the Electoral College system.

PVI map:


Bush: 297 (-4)
Gore: 241 (+4)

Somewhat surprisingly considering the previous map, this change in State borders slightly corrects the imbalance in the Electoral College's breakdown - although Bush would still win over 55% of it in a tied race. In most cases, the comments that I made for the actual map are also valid for this one (the OH and FL splits benefit Gore, the PA, IL and CA ones benefit Bush). However, the improvement in Gore's results is due to the fact that, this time Wisconsin already had a Republican PVI IRL: as such, the State's 11 EV aren't technically lost for Gore. In addition, RL Oregon also had a Republican PVI. The new OR/WA divide allows Gore to grab 13 EVs to Bush's 6, a much more favorable breakdown. Still, this doesn't mean that the structural deficit of Democrats has been reduced. In fact, the opposite is true. IRL, Gore could count on Florida, with a -0.5 PVI, to be the tipping point. However, with Florida out of the Swing State column, Gore's path to victory becomes significantly longer. He would have to reach out for at least one of five States that are all about 4 points more Republican than the nation (MO, AY, TN, NV and IL) in order to have a shot at the Presidency.

Swing/trend map:


The split even accentuates the very strong divide between the coastal, urban regions - where Gore held his ground compared to Clinton four years before - and the rural South, West and Midwest - where Bush made massive gains compared to Dole. The New York-Washington megalopolis stands out, with trends of over 5 points in favor of Gore. The same is true in Pacific, where Gore did even better than Clinton, and CS, where the Democratic margin of victory is almost exactly the same (0.0009 points smaller, to be precise) over the two elections. On the other hand, the inland Northwest swings massively to the right, as do all three Texas States and several Southern States that Clinton had previously carried. It's also interesting to note how the entire Midwest (with the exception of the most urbanized States) moves in the GOP's direction. In terms of State splits, the most striking difference that emerges is between New York and Adirondack: the former sees a strong Democratic trend, while the latter moves back to the Republican side, mirroring New England. Illinois and Ohio also see a Coast vs. Inland split, with the latter featuring much stronger Republican swings. The same pattern also emerges in California (though all three States trend to the left). Finally, Pennsylvania's D trend is unsurprisingly stronger than Allegheny, whereas Texas' R trend is surprisingly weaker than RG and JF.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: New York (PVI +37.69)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -41.01)
- Closest: New Mexico (margin +0.06)
- Bellwether: Iowa (PVI -0.21)
- Tipping point: Missouri (PVI -3.86), after IA, NM and WI
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Pacific (trend +9.31)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Arkansas (trend -14.38)
- Most Stable (absolute): California del Sur (swing -0.00)
- Most Stable (relative): Erie (trend +0.06)
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #381 on: June 01, 2015, 01:17:47 PM »

This doesn't bode well for Kerry, who will lose NM, Iowa, and probably South Florida too...and just for Wisconsin.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #382 on: June 01, 2015, 02:09:35 PM »

This doesn't bode well for Kerry, who will lose NM, Iowa, and probably South Florida too...and just for Wisconsin.

Well, he surely won't win the 2004 election, if that's what you mean. Wink Still, it's worth noting that, IRL, Kerry's structural position was comparatively stronger than Gore's. Kerry would have won Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Oregon in a tied election, for one (though only the first three will matter).
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #383 on: June 10, 2015, 03:31:02 PM »

Apologies for not getting 2004 done earlier. I had a pretty busy week, catching up with many friends that I probably won't be seeing for a long time. I hope it was worth the wait. Smiley


2004



George W. Bush: 292 (+6)
John Kerry: 246 (-6)

Kerry does a little worse than IRL, but still wins a pretty high EV count for someone who lost the popular vote by 2.5 points. The result would still be considered very close, although there wouldn't be this crazy obsession for Ohio. Compared to 2000, Bush would gain Iowa and New Mexico, but Kerry would still manage to flip a State, carrying Wisconsin by a razor-thin margin. In this election, WI would be the equivalent of New Hampshire, going against the national tide. Overall though, Bush is advantaged by this map for roughly the same reasons as Gore, taking advantage of the splits of Allegheny, Illinois and California. The 29 EVs he gains outweigh the 26 that Kerry gains thanks to Erie and South Florida (the loss of Eastern OR/WA, along with having three solidly Republican Texas States, provides additional gains for Bush). Still, these changes in the States map end up shifting only six EVs, and don't really alter the nature of the election.

PVI map:


Bush: 280 (+26)
Kerry: 258 (-26)

Taken in relative terms, the picture gets a bit more grim for Kerry. What really makes all the difference here is Ohio. Indeed, 2004 was one of the extremely rare instances (the others being 1964 and 1972) where Ohio was more Democratic than the nation as a whole. In such conditions, the new split is really bad for Democrats, who, in this case, lose 11 EVs. Meanwhile Republicans gain 12, which add up to the combined 29 gained from the aforementioned AY, IL and CA, for a total of 41. On their side, all Democrats have to show for themselves is South Florida, which admittedly grants them a much needed 17-EV boost. Still, overall, the structural advantage decisively shifts towards the GOP. While, if the popular vote had been tied IRL, Kerry would have commanded 284 EVs, in this scenario, Bush would have prevailed with 280. In order to reverse this situation, Kerry would have to win Nevada (where he came very close), and either Colorado or Missouri, which are quite far from his reach. Presumably these three States would have seen much more intense campaigning from both candidates in this scenario.

Swing/trend map:


The geography of the 2004 trend doesn't change much. A significant number of States buck the national swing, moving toward the Democrats. Unsurprisingly, these are mostly "yuppie White liberal" States, where Nader had done very well in 2000. The prime examples of this movement are New England, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, and especially Pacific - which, with a whopping 6-point swing toward Kerry, is the strongest Dem-trending State for the second election in a row. In addition, Kerry also improves in most rural Western States where Bush had crushed Gore in 2000 (such as Lincoln, Oregon and Alaska). Bush, on the other hand, significantly improves on his 2000 performance in the NYC area (probably a "9/11 effect") and in the non-coastal South and Appalachia. In terms of State splits, the most impressive contrast is provided by the Californias. On Dave Leip's 2004 trend maps, California seems to have trended D, but this trend is in fact entirely explained by Pacific's massive swing. Meanwhile California and CS actually trended Republican that year. This is a pretty surprising setback for Democrats, especially in California Del Sur, whose Democratic trend since the 1980s seemed very robust. The other notable gap is between the Dem-trending Pennsylvania and the Rep-trending Allegheny, and between the Dem-trending Chicago and the Rep-trending Illinois (although these movements are in line with the long-term dynamics). Finally, the Democratic trend is visibly stronger in Erie than in Ohio, and the Republican one stronger in NF than in SF.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +37.59)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -43.08)
- Closest: Wisconsin (margin +0.02)
- Bellwether: Nevada (PVI -0.28)
- Tipping point: Colorado (PVI -2.21), after NV
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Pacific (trend +9.00)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Alabama (trend -7.76)
- Most Stable (absolute): Chicago (swing -0.10)
- Most Stable (relative): Massachusetts (trend +0.03)
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #384 on: June 10, 2015, 04:46:50 PM »
« Edited: June 10, 2015, 04:50:10 PM by Skill and Chance »

Very interesting.  It seems clear that Obama will flip the tied PV EC advantage as IRL when Colorado and Nevada drift left of the nation.  But he probably loses it after reapportionment and 2012 comes down to even VA (which Obama would still have won PVI wise in a tie, but only by <1000 votes).  This is all pending Rio Grande, of course.  Obama probably wins there.

Edit: Obama does win Rio Grande both times, but by less than he won the nation.  So 2012 still comes down to VA, provided at least 3 net EV shift south/west.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #385 on: June 10, 2015, 05:14:33 PM »

Very interesting.  It seems clear that Obama will flip the tied PV EC advantage as IRL when Colorado and Nevada drift left of the nation.  But he probably loses it after reapportionment and 2012 comes down to even VA (which Obama would still have won PVI wise in a tie, but only by <1000 votes).  This is all pending Rio Grande, of course.  Obama probably wins there.

Edit: Obama does win Rio Grande both times, but by less than he won the nation.  So 2012 still comes down to VA, provided at least 3 net EV shift south/west.

I don't have the exact calculations in mind right now, but I'm pretty sure you're right. The tipping point in 2012 will be Virginia, and RG frustratingly remains slightly more Republican than the nation as a whole.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #386 on: June 15, 2015, 06:47:01 AM »
« Edited: June 15, 2015, 06:49:28 AM by Antonio V »

2008



Barack H. Obama: 331 (-34)
John S. McCain, III: 207 (+34)

The 2008 map really reveals the full extent of the political polarization that characterizes modern US elections. Despite winning the highest share of the popular vote since George Bush in 1988 and defeating McCain by over 7 points, Obama's performance in the Electoral College could only be described as mediocre. He would only win 331 EVs (including Nebraska's CD-based one), 34 less fewer than IRL, and 50 fewer than Clinton did in 1992, even though Clinton's winning margin was nearly 2 points lower. This disappointing result would seriously damage the narrative of an "Obama landslide", and probably reduce his political capital at the beginning of his term. It certainly goes to show how many solid Republican States were carved out of previously competitive ones, limiting the possibility of Democrats to expand their electoral map. Three States stand out as Republican holdouts: Allegheny, Ohio and South Florida, all of which chose McCain by comfortable margins. Together, they account perfectly for the 34 EVs gained by the Republican candidate. On the other hand, Obama's only source of increased electoral strength comes from Rio Grande, which returns to the Democratic fold after the Bush years. Still, the loss of Indiana (due to the amputation of its section of Chicagoland) and the OR/WA border reshuffle finished to offset any potential gain for Democrats. In addition to these setbacks, Obama would also see the map of States where he broke 60% shrink considerably: the split in New York, Illinois and California deprive him of his largest dark-shaded areas on the map. Even more frustratingly, several of the new states (NE, PA, ER) come very close to the 60% mark, but still fall short. His only consolations would come on the West Coast, with Washington reaching that level and Pacific even giving more than 70% of its vote to him.

PVI map:


Obama: 272 (-6)
McCain: 266 (+6)

In the relative PVI maps, Obama still makes significant inroads compared to his two Democratic predecessors. However, these gains are the same as IRL, coming from States that weren't (or were marginally) affected by the changes: namely, Nevada and Colorado. The addition of these two States is enough to shift the balance in favor of Democrats, meaning that, for the first time since 1996, the Democrats would have an advantage in a close race. Still, the advantage is very slight: while IRL, the Democrats could lose Colorado and still tie the Electoral College (making Iowa necessary in the GOP path to 270), now every piece needs to fall into place for the "firewall" to work. Overall, Democrats lose 6 EV. They gain 26 from South Florida and Erie, but lose 29 from Allegheny, Illinois and California. Obama's performance in SF is also underwhelming, making this State more vulnerable to Republican capture than it ever was in the past 16 years. On the other hand, Illinois also moves back to the Democrats, probably because of Obama's extended home State effect. McCain brings the Republican landslide territory to its largest extension, encompassing the entire non-coastal South (even reaching to Texas and Jefferson). On the other hand, the number of GOP-leaning Swing States has been reduced to 3, namely IL, VA and RG.

Swing/trend map:


As IRL, Democrats considerably improved their standing in the West, Midwest, and Southeastern coast, while Republicans continued to make inroads in the rest of the South and most of the Northeast. Republican progress is concentrated in a line that stretches from Allegheny down to Oklahoma, and culminates with Arkansas, which swings by over 10 points in the opposite direction as the country. These former Clinton States, characterized by a very white and relatively poor population, were not a good match for the Obama coalition, and 2008 durably cemented their Status as Republican territory. On the opposite end, Obama made massive gains compared to Kerry throughout the heavily Hispanic Southwest (except for McCain's Arizona). The trends of the three Texas States are particularly revealing: the culturally Southern Texas moves to the right, following its eastern neighbors. Meanwhile, the Plains-conservative Jefferson trends somewhat toward the Democrats, similarly to Kansas. Finally, the heavily Hispanic Rio Grande follows New Mexico as sees a massive shift toward Obama. Pennsylvania see a similarly sharp divide: on the one hand, Allegheny continues its rapid drift toward the GOP, while on the other hand, the heavily urbanized Pennsylvania cements itself as a solid D State. Other States show less dramatic, but still significant divides. As usual, Chicago's movement toward the Dems is stronger than Illinois' (although in both cases a home State effect is clearly at work). California's Democratic trend is the most impressive of the three States, although CS is close behind. Pacific, by contrast, only sees a 0.6 trend. Finally, it's interesting to see that Vermont alone manages to make the entire New England pink on the trend map, despite ME and NH trending toward the GOP.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +38.17)
- Most Republican: Oklahoma (PVI -38.55)
- Closest: Missouri (margin -0.13)
- Bellwether: Rio Grande (PVI -0.92)
- Tipping point: Colorado (PVI +1.69)
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Hawaii (trend +26.79)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Arkansas (trend -19.82)
- Most Stable (absolute): Oklahoma (swing -0.15)
- Most Stable (relative): New England (trend +0.09)
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #387 on: June 15, 2015, 01:47:42 PM »

Comments?
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #388 on: June 16, 2015, 02:25:57 PM »

Interested to see what Obama loses in 2012. I have to imagine Illinois and California will flip to Romney.

Also thinking back on how you made your new states, kinda surprised you didn't create a Washington DC/Capital Region state. It could have consisted of DC, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Charles County, Loudon County, Prince William County, Fairfax County, Arlington County, City of Alexandria, City of Fairfax, City of Manassas, and City of Manassas Junction I know it would have been a massive Democratic vote sink, but it would probably make sense from a COI mindset.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #389 on: June 16, 2015, 02:32:36 PM »

I don't like the idea of having a state solely composed almost entirely of one large metropolitan area. Doesn't seem balanced.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #390 on: June 17, 2015, 03:12:58 AM »
« Edited: June 17, 2015, 08:41:36 AM by Antonio V »

I don't like the idea of having a state solely composed almost entirely of one large metropolitan area. Doesn't seem balanced.

In some cases, like New York and Chicago, it makes sense since they are so big, and every area around them fits easily into another State. However, in DC's case, I agree that would have created more problems than it solved. Maryland and Virginia already have an appropriate population, creating a DC-based State would probably leave both of them underpopulated. Besides, I wanted to keep the total number of States at 51 (so that the Electoral College would be at 538). Otherwise, I would have ended up with 54 or 55 of them.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #391 on: June 22, 2015, 01:40:49 PM »
« Edited: November 12, 2020, 02:00:03 AM by Cosmopolitanism Will Win »

2012



Barack H. Obama: 292 (-40)
Willard Mitt Romney: 246 (+40)

In a strange coincidence, Obama's EV count ends up being exactly the same as George Bush's in 2004. That's obviously a pretty disappointing result, considering that his margin is 1.5 points wider. Once again, the change in the States map massively reduces the extent of Obama's victory, this time making it look genuinely close. Only two States, RG and VA, would need to flip to Romney for him to win an electoral majority. Overall, exactly 40 EVs have gone from the Democratic candidate to the GOP one, seriously curtaining Obama's 332-EV sweep. The "usual suspects" are once again to blame: Allegheny's 9 EVs, Ohio's 12, and North Florida's 13 combine into a severe loss for Obama. In addition, compared to 2008, two more States split from Dem strongholds also end up falling for Romney: Illinois (by a wide margin), and California (narrowly). Combined, these five States bring an additional 54 EVs to the Republican column. Meanwhile, like in 2008, all Obama has to show for himself are Rio Grande's 13 EVs.

PVI map:


Obama: 279 (-6)
Romney: 259 (+6)

As the previous map already hinted, this relative PVI map makes it crystal clear how polarized modern America would become under this alternative State map. While it is already impressively polarized IRL, most remaining Swing States end up getting split into a Democratic and a Republican one, leading to an America that is almost entirely split in two. Republican States are particularly affected by this phenomenon: of the 28 States where Romney did better than average, only two had a GOP advantage of less than 5 points (RG and CA), and just one (NC) had an advantage of 5 to 10 points. The Obama map is slightly less polarized, as several Swing States persist in the Midwest and West. Along with Virginia, these lean-D States allow Obama to keep a slight structural advantage. In a tied race, he would win 279 EVs (instead of 285 IRL). Still, this advantage hinges entirely on Virginia, whose PVI is only 0.01 points to the left of the nation as a whole. For all intents and purposes, the 2012 map is thus effectively neutral, and neither Obama nor Romney were at serious risk of losing in the Electoral College while winning the popular vote. The gains or losses they make with the new map compared to the previous one are exactly the same as 2008 (ER and SF for Obama, AY, IL and CA for Romney).

Swing/trend map:


Nothing particularly surprising catches the eye in this trend map. As IRL, most of the Sun Belt along with the Northeast trends toward Obama, while the Republicans gain ground in the Midwest, Mountain West, and Appalachia. The State splits manage to heighten these trends in some instances: for example, we can see that NY is one of the States that trended the most toward Obama, similarly to neighboring NJ (Sandy probably played a role in these two) and Mississippi. Adirondack, meanwhile, saw a nearly nonexistent swing between the two elections, each time voting by a margin slightly below 10 points. Also, Illinois saw a rightward trend nearly as strong as Indiana, indicating a massive dissatisfaction for Obama throughout the rural Lower Midwest. On the other hand, Chicago's evolution is more stable, in line with other Upper Midwest States like Michigan. Of the three Texas State, one continues to move toward the Democrats, and fortunately for them it's the very swingy (and heavily Hispanic) Rio Grande. Finally, Allegheny's Republican trend is also slightly stronger than Pennsylvania's, though this movement remains relatively slow compared to what we have seen in the previous cycle.

State Data:
- Most Democratic: Pacific (PVI +40.60)
- Most Republican: Utah (PVI -51.74)
- Closest: California (margin -0.62)
- Bellwether: Virginia (PVI +0.01)
- Tipping point: Virginia (PVI +0.01)
- Strongest Democratic Trend: Alaska (trend +10.96)
- Strongest Republican Trend: Utah (trend -16.45)
- Most Stable (absolute): Adirondack (swing -0.02)
- Most Stable (relative): Colorado (trend -0.18)
Logged
rpryor03
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,825
Bahamas


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #392 on: June 22, 2015, 02:05:59 PM »

Very good, Antonio! Just a suggestion, maybe do a 2014 Update with new Governors and Senators to finish it off?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #393 on: June 22, 2015, 03:02:28 PM »

Very good, Antonio! Just a suggestion, maybe do a 2014 Update with new Governors and Senators to finish it off?

Yes, I'm planning to go around with several election cycles for both Senatorial and gubernatorial elections! Stay tuned. Wink
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #394 on: June 24, 2015, 04:47:39 AM »

Before we move on to the other types of elections, here's some compiled data on how the redrawing has affected Presidential elections. First, the evolution of the actual Electoral College makeup:
- 1964: R+7
- 1968: D+37, I+7
- 1972: R+1
- 1976: D+9
- 1980: D+12
- 1984: D+9
- 1988: D+37
- 1992: D+11
- 1996: R+22
- 2000: R+14
- 2004: R+6
- 2008: R+34
- 2012: R+40

And here's the same but in relative PVI terms:
- 1964: R+5
- 1968: D+37
- 1972: R+21
- 1976: R+7
- 1980: D+27
- 1984: R+29
- 1988: R+22
- 1992: R+1
- 1996: No change
- 2000: D+4
- 2004: R+26
- 2008: R+6
- 2012: R+6

Overall, there seems to be a clear advantage for Republicans, especially when considered in relative terms. In absolute terms, it's often the losing side that gains ground, making the EC less lopsided (the only exceptions are 1972, 1976, 1992 and 2004). In terms of the election's actual outcome, there is no actual change except for 1968, where Nixon would fail to secure a majority (but would probably still end up in the White House anyway).

The elections where these changes made a bigger impact were 1968 (44 EVs moved), 2012 (40), 1988 (37) and 2008 (34). In the relative makeup, it's 1968 (37), 1984 (29), 1980 (27), and 2004 (26).
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 #395 on: June 24, 2015, 09:18:11 AM »


Great as always. An orgasm.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #396 on: June 24, 2015, 11:50:41 AM »

Finally, here's the best measure of the structural bias produced by the Electoral College. It's basically the relative PVI of the tipping point State. Under uniform national swing, this number corresponds to the margin by which the opposite party would need to win the popular vote in order to win a majority in the Electoral College. Positive numbers reflect and advantage for the Democratic candidates, negatives one a Republican advantage.



As you can see, in 9 elections out of 14, the changes helped the Republican candidate in a structural sense (the Democrats were favored in 3 elections, and there was no difference whatsoever in 2 of them). Also, in 8 of the 14 elections, the change worsened the structural imbalance in the EC, making it more likely for the PV winner to lose the election.

Overall, I sadly have to conclude that these changes would be a pretty bad deal for American democracy (at least for Presidential elections).
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #397 on: June 24, 2015, 07:40:33 PM »

However, campaigns would have definitely been different, with each party adjusting their platforms and messages accordingly if need be, so it could end up canceling out.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #398 on: June 25, 2015, 06:52:50 AM »

However, campaigns would have definitely been different, with each party adjusting their platforms and messages accordingly if need be, so it could end up canceling out.

Yes, of course. This is an entirely theoretical exercise, and nothing can be predicted with certainty.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #399 on: June 27, 2015, 10:36:34 AM »
« Edited: November 12, 2020, 01:58:46 AM by Cosmopolitanism Will Win »

Now let's move on to Senate stuff...


The 113th Senate (2013-2015)


States that see no change: 22D - 28R

AL - Richard Shelby / Jeff Sessions
AK - Lisa Murkowski / Mark Begich
AZ - John McCain / Jeff Flake
AR - Mark Pryor / John Boozman
CO - Mark Udall / Michael Bennet
CT - Richard Blumenthal / Chris Murphy
GA - Saxby Chambliss / Johnny Isakson
HI - Brian Schatz / Mazie Hirono
IA - Chuck Grassley / Tom Harkin
KS - Pat Roberts / Jerry Moran
KY - Mitch McConnell / Rand Paul
LA - Mary Landrieu / David Vitter
MN - Amy Klobuchar / Al Franken
MS - Thad Cochran / Roger Wicker
MO - Claire McCaskill / Roy Blunt
NB - Mike Johanns / Deb Fischer
NJ - Bob Menendez / Cory Booker
NM - Tom Udall / Martin Heinrich
NC - Richard Burr / Kay Hagan
OK - Jim Inhofe / Tom Coburn
SC - Lindsey Graham / Tim Scott
TN - Lamar Alexander /Bob Corker
UT - Orrin Hatch / Mike Lee
VA - Mark Warner / Tim Kaine
WV - Jay Rockefeller / Joe Manchin


States whose borders have been adjusted: 5D (=) - 5R (=)

Senators still in office:
Jim Risch (R-ID/OR)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Senators losing their seat:
Mike Crapo (R-ID)

New Senators:
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-OR)


Merged States: 8D (-10 or -12) - 2R (-4) - 0I (-2)

Senators still in office:
John Thune (R-SD/LN)
Jon Tester (D-MT/LN)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Tom Carper (D-DE/MD)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Susan Collins (R-ME/NE)
Partick Leahy (D-VT/NE)
Ron Wyden (D-OR/WA)
Patty Murray (D-WA)

Senators losing their seat:
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Angus King (I-ME)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
John Walsh (D-MT)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Cry
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
+ 2 hypothetical Democratic Senators from DC


Split States: 18D (+10) - 14R (+8)

Senators still in office:
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY/AD)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH/ER)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Bill Nelson (D-FL/NF)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA/PC)
John Cornyn (R-TX/RG)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Senators losing their seat:
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA) (in his case, it's just that he chose to become Governor instead)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)

New Senators:
Tom Reed (R-AD)
Rick Santorum (R-AY)
Ron Klink (D-AY)
Bill Jones (R-CA)
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
Loretta Sanchez (D-CS)
Antonio Villaraigosa (D-CS)
Bobby Rush (D-CH)
Lisa Madigan (D-CH)
Tim Ryan (D-ER)
Kay Granger (R-JF)
Greg Abbott (R-JF)
Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
Jeff Miller (R-NF)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Kamala Harris (D-PC)
Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Joe Sestak (D-PA)
Julian Castro (D-RG)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-SF)
Charlie Crist (R-SF)
David Dewhurst (R-TX)


At the end of the day, we get:



Democrats: 53 (-2)
Republicans: 49 (+4)

So overall, it's a pretty sweet deal for Republicans. I might have slightly underestimated the Democrats in my projections (for example, it might be more appropriate to have two Dems in SF), but it seems clear that the map remains generally more favorable to Republicans. The reason is that Democrats do surprisingly well in the small States that have been merged in scenario: they took all the seats in DE, RI, and VT, as well as one in each of NH, ME, ND, SD and MT, leaving only WY to the Republicans. In comparison, the partisan balance of the new States that were created is about even. Overall, Democrats would have had much more trouble holding to the Senate in a neutral year (for example, they probably wouldn't have controlled it after the 2006 midterms).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 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 0.257 seconds with 12 queries.