US with French parties

[Sibboleth]

I keep meaning to comment in more detail. But really, this is an excellent thread. What's fun about projects like this is that they are an excellent excuse to comment on a range of issues relating to political sociology in a way that's easier for people who aren't academics and/or nerds to follow. I'll probably have another go at doing this with Britisher parties soon-ish. Hmm... might be amusing to flip things round as well.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

Next up is Oklahoma, where I have some fun surprises planned.

We'll, I guess we will have a result similar to west virginia : a very conservative State which you'll give to the PS because of its populism.

'Populism' (which is a word I hate) doesn't explain WV nor will it explain Oklahoma. There's some demographic factors, economic trends and socio-economic factors which explain it better than anything else.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Next up is Oklahoma, where I have some fun surprises planned.

We'll, I guess we will have a result similar to west virginia : a very conservative State which you'll give to the PS because of its populism.

'Populism' (which is a word I hate) doesn't explain WV nor will it explain Oklahoma. There's some demographic factors, economic trends and socio-economic factors which explain it better than anything else.

Of course I hate this word too.
However, in this case I meant that it's a state with some latent left-wing rhetoric on economic issues, but combined with a solid conservatism on social issues resulting in huge republican margins. Of course the explanation must be socio-economical, but don't forget the importance of political views.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

but don't forget the importance of political views.

You bring up a good point which I don't think I addressed sufficiently: in rl, the Republicans obviously won many poor white (Southerners) over by exploiting social conservatism and wedge issues, partly a result of the Southern Strategy and partly because of the influence of the evangelical movement. In a setup where the US has a French system (the basis of which is a US where the word 'socialist' is not a swear word people run away from, more the equivalent of what Americans stupidly call 'populism'), the major parties would be much less likely to shamelessly exploit wedge social issues. The UMP as a whole wouldn't, though a candidate Sarkozy might to cozy up with the MPF electorate in the South (though he'd already appeal to them with simple populist rhetoric). The MPF would be the only major party to use such rhetoric (the FN *might* do so as well) and it would have worked to some extent, but really, far less voters would have been bought to vote on social issues rather than economic issues.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

but don't forget the importance of political views.

You bring up a good point which I don't think I addressed sufficiently: in rl, the Republicans obviously won many poor white (Southerners) over by exploiting social conservatism and wedge issues, partly a result of the Southern Strategy and partly because of the influence of the evangelical movement. In a setup where the US has a French system (the basis of which is a US where the word 'socialist' is not a swear word people run away from, more the equivalent of what Americans stupidly call 'populism'), the major parties would be much less likely to shamelessly exploit wedge social issues. The UMP as a whole wouldn't, though a candidate Sarkozy might to cozy up with the MPF electorate in the South (though he'd already appeal to them with simple populist rhetoric). The MPF would be the only major party to use such rhetoric (the FN *might* do so as well) and it would have worked to some extent, but really, far less voters would have been bought to vote on social issues rather than economic issues.

Yes, it seems pretty right. Though of course, I think the French situation is trending towards a more and more "Americanish" right, with a growing expoitation of minor thematics in order to avoid difficulties about things that really matter. Of course these issues are not the same in France as in the US (immigration and criminality would replace social conservatism and religion). But anyways, if you translate this situation in America, I think States like WV or OK would be the typical places solidly trending right in 2007, and even more in 2012. Of course, such recent trend wouldn't be enough for sarkozy to carry them, but IMO he wouldn't poll bad.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Hmm... might be amusing to flip things round as well.

Indeed. Preferably this would be someplace I'm somewhat familiar with.

Hashemite, any chance you could do Canada with American parties sometime?

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

I wanted to try the US with Brazilian parties (but that wouldn't work, now would it?) or France with US parties.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

Oklahoma

Oklahoma would undeniably have been a PS stronghold until the 80s or 90s, to be done in by a number of factors, including socio-economic factors (growing importance of oil industry and declining mining industry), conservative issues (social or otherwise) and working-class voters voting FN starting in 1984 or so.

"Little Dixie" would have a PS stronghold for a long time (the PCF might even have done half-decently, especially in the 70s-80s when some factions used a very right-wing tone on immigrants) and would largely remain so today (irl, it voted reliably Democratic, with a few exceptions, until 2000 or so). Royal would have done poorer than Jospin and Sarkozy would have done better than Chirac (by far) for the usual reasons. Obviously, the FN would have done quite well here in the past and again in 2010.

The other rural-Plains type areas and oil boom areas would be strongly UMP, the latter especially so. The MPF would remain a major player, especially in rural areas, though Sarkozy would have done them in by 2007. Oklahoma City and Tulsa would now be reliably UMP (at least at the national level).

Sarkozy would have won in 2007 narrowly, 52-48 or something, due in large part to his working-class rhetoric which would have so appealed in the Deep South and Appalachia. In 2010, however, you'd see a massive FN vote (similar to Moselle) out of discontent with a Sarkozy judged to be elitist, establishment and pro-rich - and the PS would also hold the General Council since 2004 (after presumably losing it in 1992, they could even have regained it by 1998/2001).

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Seems totally right.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

BTW, please do France with US Parties ! It would be great, especially if you include the little parties which are irrelevant there but could weigh a lot in France (Greens and maybe Libertarians, not to forget people like Perot).

[big bad fab]

The syndicalism doesn't quite fit, but I'm thinking the most plausible location for Bové is Vermont or western Mass, where you get left-wing politics mixed in with a love of pre-industrial farming.

Vermont would work best, since it's more mountainous, but the hippie-green aspect of Vermont isn't really like the Larzac, but then, it's hard to find a syndicalist mountainous anti-globalization locale in the US, but then it doesn't matter since Bove is only 1% in France and likely much less in the US.

What about fishers in Louisiana ?
Couldn't Bové make some good results here ?
Of course, this is not mountainous, but, still...

[big bad fab]

One thing which is kind of interesting is if the French politicians are transported as well... and where they'd fit in.

Basically my (awfully wrong, most likely) hunches are:

Sarkozy (Neuilly) > those awfully wealthy places in NJ with NYC commuters (NYC would probably be like Paris, with wealthy rightie exurbia and inner Red Belt suburbia in NJ and parts of Long Island). I don't think NoVA would fit in well with Neuilly, not enough old established bouregois wealth
Royal (ruralish areas south of Niort, some old leftie strength) > ?
Bayrou (moutains of Bearn east of Pau) > Aroostook County or Coos County(?)
Le Pen (wherever he can win) > FN strongholds with Cuban voters in Miami, obviously
Besancenot (Paris) > inner New York City or somewhere, and postman in those obnoxiously wealthy places in CT. Obviously the NPA would be an even *bigger* joke in the US than in France
Buffet (Red Belt, PCF machine bases) > Newark or other undesirable NJ places
Voynet (Montreuil) > Bergen County, NJ (?) or Red Beltish areas in NJ
Bové (Aveyron, Millau) > I have a really hard time figuring out where some rural syndicalist type like Asterix would fit in.
Aubry (Lille) > Some place like Boston, MA or Lowell, MA
Gaudin (Marseille) > Miami
Freche (Montpellier) > I can't think right now of any places in the US which are seaside resorts full of fascists, old people who hate browns and idiots. He would, however, fit right in the quasi-entirety of the Deep South and Appalachia
Delanoë (Paris) > One would assume NYC is the new Paris, and Chirac could have been mayor of NYC before (though it would be harder for him to win in NYC than in Paris)
Méhaignerie (Vitré) > Rural Catholic areas in New England, Méhaignerie sure ain't no Cajun
Fabius (industrial Rouennais suburbs) > The damn Potomac has no industrial areas on its shoreline, does it?
Cohn-Bendit (wherever he feels like setting up camp) > as Fab said early on, Canadian-American citizen living in Vermont or le Plateau/NDG in Montreal

It's harder to think of places for Fillon, Hamon (he'd probably fit in with some corrupt PS machine somewhere), Duflot

and ahem,
Besson > Oklahoma or Idaho panhandle (sorry, cheap shot, couldn't resist)

Royal > in some far-away suburbs of the Triangle in NC ?
Just a try...

Fillon > somewhere in rural Minnesota, not far away from Minneapolis-St Paul (odd to compare it with Le Mans, I know )

Hamon hasn't even a base in France, so, in the US...

And Bové, I've already proposed fishing towns in Louisiana...

[big bad fab]

I love your Missouri (especially the Rhineland and the Ozarks, for different reasons ).

NE and KS are without surprise.

The North-West, including Idaho and Alaska, will be fascinating.

And, as for your 1995 map, what about OK ?
I'm not sure at all Jospin would have won it. Mitterrand 1988 would have been the last one, I think.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

What about fishers in Louisiana ?
Couldn't Bové make some good results here ?
Of course, this is not mountainous, but, still...

Seeing those types on Thalassa on Sunday: certainly not. They don't seem at all like green-antiglobalization type, and if they are of the latter stock, they'd vote FN or MPF.

And, as for your 1995 map, what about OK ?
I'm not sure at all Jospin would have won it. Mitterrand 1988 would have been the last one, I think.

Chirac did not have the same appeal to the type of poor white working-class voters that Sarkozy had (and which would have ultimately carried him over the top in 2007). While 1995 would be quite close, Jospin would've won it, like he won Meurthe-et-Moselle (though there is obviously no comparison between the two)

[big bad fab]

What about fishers in Louisiana ?
Couldn't Bové make some good results here ?
Of course, this is not mountainous, but, still...

Seeing those types on Thalassa on Sunday: certainly not. They don't seem at all like green-antiglobalization type, and if they are of the latter stock, they'd vote FN or MPF.

And, as for your 1995 map, what about OK ?
I'm not sure at all Jospin would have won it. Mitterrand 1988 would have been the last one, I think.

Chirac did not have the same appeal to the type of poor white working-class voters that Sarkozy had (and which would have ultimately carried him over the top in 2007). While 1995 would be quite close, Jospin would've won it, like he won Meurthe-et-Moselle (though there is obviously no comparison between the two)

You're right on both things.
Even though I think Bové isn't really deeply green... but that's another debate

Might Bové be more at ease in Puerto Rico ?
I just try again !

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

Might Bové be more at ease in Puerto Rico ?
I just try again !

Yup, perhaps so. He'd catch the PIP vote perhaps

I'd do Puerto Rico as well, but I don't know enough about electoral sociology there (especially in rural areas)...

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Bump.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Bump.

Seconded. It's time for Texas.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Bump.

Seconded. It's time for Texas.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

Texas

Texas would have been, generally, a Dixiecrat PS state up until the 1970s or so but would since have grown far more right-wing and the PS would remain much weaker than in other Deep South states. Generally, the Dixiecrat base would have been in East Texas with old lingering right-wing presence in German Hill County and West Texas. Prior to the RPR, I don't know which form this non-Dixiecrat otl Republican vote would take, probably the CNI in the 50s and various righties or Radicals pre-war. In a way, I could see the Radicals doing very well in those otl GOP bastions. Just a hunch.

East Texas

Nowadays, very much right-wing UMP/MPF region, even down to the local level perhaps. The oil boom, natural gas exploitations and petrochemical growth in the region in replacement of old Deep South-type ranching and agriculture as well as suburban growth in places like Montgomery County would partly explain the right's strength on practically all levels. Generally, suburbs and oil-dependent regions would be strongly UMP while older cattle/agricultural regions would be more MPF (and the PS would still do decent-ish). The PS would poll well in Beaumont, a coastal petrochemical town but would struggle elsewhere, especially at the national level with candidates like Royal.

As elsewhere in the Deep South, the UMP's base would be in suburbs like those in Montgomery, Collin, Denton, Kaufman Counties.

Dallas

Inner-city Dallas (see, roughly, TX-30), which is heavily black-Hispanic and rather blue-collar, would be strongly PS. Hispanic areas in Cockrell Hill and south Irving, roughly the southern end of TX-32, would remain strongly PS as well but the exclusive "Park Cities" suburbs as well as Plano and Frisco would be strongly UMP with MPF strength. I'm not an expert on Texas, but I doubt these rich folks would provide a strong FN vote though I suspect they may share some of the party's ideas.

Roughly, inner city of Dallas, Fort Worth and parts of Arlington would be PS; the rest (aka, suburbia) would largely be UMP.

Houston and Galveston

Shifting south to the other big city in eastern Texas, Houston, patterns are relatively similar. As mentioned earlier, suburban Houston - of the type found in exclusive white suburbia like Montgomery County - is uber-UMP. However, places in the Golden Triangle (Beaumont-Port Arthur) which may be wrongly counted as suburbia, would be far more competitive. Wealthy suburbs in western and southeastern Harris County would also be predictably UMP, you know the stuff.

Inner-city Houston, which is very non-white and especially non-English in parts would, of course, be strongly PS. No flicker of a doubt that Hispanics would be brought into the PS machine rather than the Christian democratic UDF however Catholic they may be. The young professional-artsy white liberal type in downtown Houston would also be PS but not so solidly; certainly Green nowadays and maybe UMP in the pre-Sarkozy populism days (1993, 2002 obviously). I suppose that since parts of Houston's Hispanic areas have a lot of people who don't speak English or aren't US citizens, the FN could catch the non-liberal white vote in those parts and could be the second party in TX-29.

Galveston itself would likely be PS, but the rest of the white oil-dependent Gulf Coast region would be strongly UMP.

Edwards Plateau and Austin

Straddling the middle of the division between Deep South East Texas and more 'outback' West Texas, the Plateau region would be almost universally on the right these days but back in the days where the east vs. west divide was important (it could be even more pronounced in this system, though then again, the PS would have a huge machine in Texas in the good ol' days, so no). These sparsely populated rural areas would be UMP areas these days with a good MPF vote, and quickly fading remnants of an old Socialist era in the past.

Austin, goes without saying, is a random island of progressivism in the middle of conservative heartland. Although the city is gerrymandered in a way similar to La Roche or Bourg-en-Bresse in France is, the downtown core of the city and especially around the uni would be strongly left-wing. That means PS in presidential ballots, but very strongly Green (35% or so) in other ballots. Might have a few Green state reps depending on the districts even. Minority-populated areas slightly east of the downtown core would be more strongly PS. Wealthier white suburbs of Austin in Travis County proper and Williamson/Hays counties would be more strongly UMP. Exurbia much more so than older suburbs closer to Austin. The UMP might have polled well (better than the GOP) in the 70s and 90s, but their rapid descent since 2004 would be particularly violent.

Almost directly west of Austin is the German Hill Country, which has always been a progressive anti-slavery German Catholic enclave (and a weird deep GOP enclave even in Dixiecrat days). As mentioned earlier, I think the Radicals would have done well here in their pre-war heyday. It would be UMP today, though a streak of dissension from the populist-MPF cuddling of Sarkozy wouldn't shock me (maybe a high DLR protest vote? Villepiniste ground in 2012?)

West Texas, Llano Estacado and the Panhandle

This is ranching county (with some oil) and the real west. Sparsely populated, vast outback desert land, and parochial-type feeling in the small counties. Therefore, conservative. Very much so.

"Cities" like Lubbock, Abilene, Wichita Falls and Amarillo would all remain strongly right-wing and the cantonal level would still be largely right-wing. I say 'right-wing' because I think the MPF would be very strong in these rural, isolated areas with ranching and all that. Kind of similar, in some weird way, to Villiers' home base in Vendee (the most conservative small-town, isolated, parochial area historically; no ranching of course but big properties). The UMP might be strong in cities and oil-driven areas, the MPF might be strong in rural areas and ranching country.

There was actually a Democratic rump at the 'base' of the Panhandle (in 2008, McCain's best areas in the country) until 2000 (!) in counties which were more in the East Texas-feel of things with no big ranches and their new ideas. The PS could have a small base there until the 90s (likely evaporated by the 1992 cantonals).

There are a good number of Hispanics and surprisingly many Hispanic-majority counties in this area; but they're largely older and disconnected with recent Mexican immigrants (and wealthier) and they're also quite evangelical (aka, there are fewer Catholics than Hispanics). They vote Republican (even in 2008) and I would assume they'd vote UMP (the evangelical few might vote UMP, the Catholic ones might have voted UDF until 2002) by a large margin.

I don't think the FN vote would be big, this region seems fairly libertarian in regards to government and doesn't have the "forgotten places" feel that those FN-heavy white rural areas in Champagne have. Gaullism though, like in the other Plains state, would play well and these would have been big de Gaulle areas back in '65 (when presumably Mitterrand would have swept east Texas and the RGV).

Rio Grande Valley, South Texas and the Trans-Pecos

This is the Hispanic country of Texas, and traditionally these Hispanics remain poor, recent immigrants and thus vote differently than those in west Texas. The problem in figuring out how they vote here is that while they're poor, a lot have not integrated the American mixing pot as much as those in urban areas and have traditional conservative 'populist' values. What we've seen thus far in this analysis are urban Hispanic voters, also poor, but loyal PS voters in Socialist-dominated big cities - them voting UDF thus makes no sense. I assume, personally, and I'm probably wrong, that Hispanics in these poor and non-urbanized might be slightly more likely to vote for the right (after all, Bush did very well with Texan Hispanics in 2004) and probably the UDF. In places like Starr County, Hidalgo County; I could see a UDF tailored to Hispanic needs and voters do very well in the not-so-distant past and Sarkozy would have done well too (though I have a hard time seeing the UMP poll well consistently). I still think there'd be a fairly important PS vote though, and one which is also increasing over time.

At any rate, actually, since this a region more and more influenced by Mexico, a party machine in the style of the Mexican PRI would have a nice little breeding ground here. Question is if it would be a UDF machine, a PS machine or some other type of machine. Locally, I think DVD-DVG type candidates would own the land, obviously.

San Antonio, majority Hispanic, though, being urban, would be a PS stronghold. I would suppose other Hispanic border towns such as Brownsville, McAllen and obviously El Paso would be big PS areas too.

I assume we'd see a large-ish white anti-Hispanic FN vote in border areas, especially in 2002 and maybe again in 2010.

Overall, Texas would be one of Sarkozy's best states in 2007, and the best result for the Texan right in a long time (not that they'd have 'bad' results often). Why? Big appeal with rural Hispanics (like Bush in 2004), big appeal in those old Dixiecrat PS rural areas (Royal is as bad of a candidate for those area as Obama/Kerry were), traditional populistic-Gaullist appeal and rhetoric, good results in suburbs. Breaks the 60 line, something Chirac wouldn't have come close to doing in '95. Though in 2010, you'd be seeing a big FN vote in Texas and some good results for the PS again. While an interesting state to look at, the 1965 election, I think, would be really interesting to look at.



So, folks, NM or MT next?

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I know very little about French politics, but this is very fascinating, with quite a few unexpected results.

I vote that you should do New Mexico next. It's a very diverse state and should have some interesting results.

[big bad fab]

Why not NM ?

I really agree with your note on Radicals in those otl GOP bastions.

In TX, I'm trying to see if a local PS leader would fit and probably Delebarre would be fine: populist, productivist, from a polluted city...

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Yeah, NM loosk very interesting.

[WMS]

*ahem* I know NM is a weird state to figure out, but it's time for a bump anyway, because I'm interested in what you have to say about us.

[PASOK Leader Hashemite]

I will likely get scolded by people who know far more about the state than I do, but here's my pathetic attempt.

New Mexico

Northeast and Northwest

First thing to talk about are the Hispanic counties, which gave me the most trouble. In northern New Mexico, these Hispanic areas are not Mexican, meaning that they were settled hundreds of years ago by people who might be better known as Spaniards and not as Mexicans. They're largely poor, and, with a few exceptions, heavily Catholic (especially in San Miguel and Guadelupe Counties). Similarly to rural poor Rio Grande Valley Hispanics in Texas, I don't consider it a stretch to see these areas being dominated until not too long ago by a "slightly" corrupt UDF machine, one which holds a doctorate in making dead people vote. Given the recent history of the UDF, it would be eroding as the Socialists get organized here and benefit from discontent with the new UDF. Though I still figure Bayrou would have done well here in 2007, definitely one of his best areas. You would have a lot of dvd/dvg independents at the cantonal level with a few remaining MoDem councillors spread out here and there. Prior to the 60s or so, these areas would likely see political machines led by various centrist and right-wing outfits.

The Navajos and natives who do vote would be strongly PS presumably. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see them voting for other parties on the basis of candidates and all that. But Sarkozy would be a bad candidate in those areas, presumably.

I don't know as much as I'd like to know about Santa Fe and Taos, but they would most likely be growingly Socialist while probably dominated by the non-UDF right in the not so distant past. Santa Fe seems to be a wealthy well-educated liberal town, which means that the Greens would be doing well and likewise in Taos.

The UMP would have pockets of strength in the northeastern counties which are part of Little Texas and have a large evangelical population, and they would also do well in the Farmington area which is natural gas country and is largely white. As well as in Los Alamos, which is full of military scientists of some sort.

Central

Albuquerque is an interesting place, and would be one of the most right-leaning major cities in the country. The PS would be strong in poor Hispanic areas in South Valley and Southeast Heights, as well as some more recent strength in more social liberal/yuppie areas such as Los Ranchos, downtown and near the uni; where the Greens would probably be outpolling the PS nowadays. The UMP would be strong in white wealthy areas such as North Albuquerque Acres and Northeast Heights, as well as in areas with a strong military place. Overall, it's a high-growth place with a big military and tech sector which means that it'd have been strongly UMP but less so nowadays.

White rural areas are UMP etc, Hispanic areas are either UDF or recently PS.

South and Little Texas

As briefly mentioned above, Little Texas would now be strongly UMP/MPF and similar to parts of West Texas described before-hand. The Hispanic (Mexican) turnout would be low, which would give the right big margins in most elections. You could see some white anti-Mexican voting for the FN, especially in key years such as 2002 or 2010. However, similarly to the Deep South, these areas would have been strongly PS until the 1960s/1970s, and would have formed the SFIO's base in the state for a long time. While the rest of the state would have been voting MRP or something. You could still see 'Dixiecrat' type PS general councillors at the local level.

The area surrounding the Bootheel and Las Cruces, which are Mexican (Hispanic) areas would be getting more PS presumably as more Mexicans start voting and they would likely vote for the PS given that they'd be more recent immigrants than that UDF-leaning Spanish.

NM is hard to pin down in 2007, because you can think rather easily of areas where Sarkozy would do better than your usual right-winger (Little Texas, Farmington, white rural areas, military-dependent places) and places where Royal would do better than your usual left-winger (Las Cruces, Santa Fe, Taos, downtown Albuquerque and likely the UDF-leaning Spanish vote), but I'll put it down at a 53-47 or something Sarkozy win.