US with French parties

[Antonio the Sixth]

Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

[Hash]

Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

actually, it would be less Socialist than it is Democratic irl (at least since 1960) because of the political affiliation of the Spanish vote. Giscard, por ejemplo, would have won it in 1981 (though Mitterrand would presumably have won it rather easily in 1988) and Chirac would have won it in 1995.

[WMS]

I thought it was a pretty good analysis, although I wonder how, in your view, the West Side of Albuquerque would vote in this system - since you mentioned every other part of Bernalillo County, I was left curious.

And yes, the Greens do quite well in Santa Fe and Taos IRL, so good call there.

[Hash]

the West Side of Albuquerque would vote in this system - since you mentioned every other part of Bernalillo County, I was left curious.

poor "suburban" Hispanic, right? Presumably increasingly solidly PS with some old UDF machine being killed off.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

actually, it would be less Socialist than it is Democratic irl (at least since 1960) because of the political affiliation of the Spanish vote. Giscard, por ejemplo, would have won it in 1981 (though Mitterrand would presumably have won it rather easily in 1988) and Chirac would have won it in 1995.

Indeed, you're right. Though considering the State's trends and Sarkozy's lack of appeal there, I think he could have performed less well there than nationwide.

[Hash]

Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

actually, it would be less Socialist than it is Democratic irl (at least since 1960) because of the political affiliation of the Spanish vote. Giscard, por ejemplo, would have won it in 1981 (though Mitterrand would presumably have won it rather easily in 1988) and Chirac would have won it in 1995.

Indeed, you're right. Though considering the State's trends and Sarkozy's lack of appeal there, I think he could have performed less well there than nationwide.

Re-read my last line(s). I can agree with you that he'd have performed less well there within certain demographics than is usual for the New Mexican Right, but at the same time I can point out demographics in NM where he'd have performed better than is usual. It's a really tricky thing, but, on the whole, I agree with you that, given the weight of Spanish Hispanics in the electorate (and the fact that Sarkozy would underperform there), the state would be trending to the left.

Did that make any sense? No. Sorry, I have like 600 other things in my head right now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

poor "suburban" Hispanic, right?

Certainly not. It's a fast-growing area (bulk of housing built post-1990 IIRC) with a population that has relatively high incomes (median hh income for most census tracts in the 45-50 and 50-75 brackets) but working class backgrounds. Whiter than the Albuquerque average, though pretty diverse.

[Napoleon]

bump please!

[Antonio the Sixth]

bump please!

^^

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

bump please!

^^

[Hash]

oy, this is hard. Be kind.

Colorado

Denver and suburbia

Denver would be a rather solidly Socialist area. Obviously, the PS would dominate at all levels in Hispanic (and black) neighborhoods. In the whiter liberal areas, the PS would be doing better and better as the UMP's strength with mid-income white urbanites erodes fast thanks to the likes of Sarkozy et al. However, the UMP or more likely the Greens would do well with these voters in other elections (presumably they'd vote more PS in presidential elections).

Denver's suburbs would have been largely UMP/RPR not so long ago, but would now be swing areas overall albeit with a slight UMP lean. There might be exceptions in older, more blue-collar type suburbs (which are not too affluent) which might have a PS lean going back a while. Exurbia would still be solidly UMP, though.

Eastern Plains

A UMP stronghold, overall, with a strong MPF and possibly FN vote from time to time. Would vote very similarly to, say, the adjacent parts of Kansas.

Front Range and San Luis Valley

So, this is a big regions. As mentioned above, Denver exurbs are UMP. Colorado Springs is UMP as well, as are most of the other small white counties.

Pueblo, with its Hispanic working-class tradition, would be an old PS stronghold though it might have weakened in recent years with a strengthening of the FN vote, and, from time to time, of the UMP vote.

The San Luis Valley area, generally speaking, is of Hispanic stock but like in northern New Mexico, of Spanish descent and not of Mexican descent. I figure my predictions for Spanish-descent Hispanics in New Mexico - an old ancestrally UDF demographic (with a corrupt UDF machine) which would have trended towards the PS in recent years. Though turnout here might be quite low.

Western Slope (Rockies, Boulder, ski bunnies)

So, this is the tricky part. Ski resorts in Europe, France in particular, are extremely solidly right-wing areas with few other parties doing well there. In the US and Canada, they're far less right-wing and instead have a strong (in the US, very strong) lean towards the local "left" despite high incomes and so forth. I don't know every single reason for this, but to my knowledge skiing in the US/Canada is a far more widespread, popular activity for many and resorts bring a lot of young types over (and presumably the jobs pay well). In France, it's a traditional bourgeois/rich folk's activity. Thus, it's harder to figure out how the ski resorts like Aspen, Telluride and so forth would vote in the US. I'll go forth to humiliate myself now. I would predict an old right-wing/centre-right voting block in those areas but which would be eroding very quickly (again thanks to Sarkozy) and translating into a more left-wing lean, with the PS doing better and better and the Greens doing extremely well in the ski counties. However, a lot of the counties here also had a big mining history which died right around the time skiing became popular, so one could presume the right-wing lean I predict is only around since the 70s and before that the areas were more left-wing with a working-class PS/PCF vote. Non-skiing areas would be right-wing except in areas with an old mining tradition in which case an ancestral PS vote might be dying out.

Boulder would probably be voting Green/PS these days, though the UMP would have done well in a not so distant past.

The FN and MPF would get some of their worst results in the ski bunny areas, unless there are old white snobby bourgeois there which I doubt.

Overall

Presuming my analysis is right, which I doubt, Colorado would have one of the strongest trends from right to left since the 70s (Giscard would have won like 60% in 1974). The "bobo" phenomenon, with the "boboisation" of the PS electorate would play a big role, as would the UMP's shift from traditional European centre-right to a more populist form of conservatism with Sarkozy. In 2007, a narrow 51-49 or so Sarkozy win.

[Hash]

Wyoming

A solidly right-leaning state since at least the Fifth Republic's beginnings and probably before that too. I don't think the UMP's contemporary bases in Wyoming merit much explanation. Nowadays, the PS/left would be strong basically only in Teton County (Jackson Hole), though my question mark about ski resort voting patterns comes up here too. It would do well in Laramie as well. Amusingly, both of these areas seem much more favourable for the Greens now than for the PS, so I suppose the Greens would have easily outpolled the PS in 2009 and maybe even 2010. Sweetwater County (and other mining counties) would have been the PS' strongholds up until the late 80s when Teton and Laramie would be voting for the right. In recent years, the PS might still have underlying traditional strength 'round those parts but overall it would now lean slightly towards the right though probably with a strong FN. On that topic; presumably Chirac would've done poorly in WY in 2002, with a big protest vote for Le Pen (an "Alsatian-style" FN vote) and Madelin would have done quite well as well.

Given how the "Alsatian-style" FN vote in 2007 went, Sarkozy would have done extremely well in 2007 picking up both 2002-era FN voters and traditional PS working-class votes (like all 7 of them). Otoh, he would have done worse than usual in Jackson Hole and Laramie.

Given the "rural discontent" in France right now, one would suppose an isolated state like WY would have swung badly against the UMP in 2010, with the FN's vote perking upwards. In which case PS gains at the cantonal level in 2008/2011 would not be very surprising.

[tpfkaw]

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nice to see this restarted.

I really long for the West Coast now...

[Hash]

Remember this?

Montana

Montana is an interesting state. It has a strong anti-establishment streak which would manifest itself through random voting patterns at times, which could be as diverse and nonsensical as a strong Le Pen in 2002, a strong Bayrou in 2007 and perhaps an early base for the RPR in the 70s against Giscard.

This might be one of the PS' strongest states in the Rocky Mountain west. It would poll very strongly in the large Indian rez all over the state. More recently, it would have gained strength in Missoula and Helena, though the Greens would poll 25-35% on a regular basis (since 2009) in Missoula and a bit less in Helena. Again, the question mark over ski resorts come up, but I assume Gallatin County would lean PS/Greens nowadays with a strong moderate UMP vote.

Butte-Anaconda, the silver mining and very unionized (and slightly politically bizarre) area of Montana would be interesting. I assume it would lean heavily PS with a decent PCF vote, though I wouldn't exclude a strong MRP vote in the 50s given the strong Irish population here and potentially a weird Gaullist-type tradition (of left-wing stock) in the past and other bizarre things. And also, a strong Green vote and very weak FN vote which is slightly bizarre for an industrial mining area. Other isolated mining areas like Mineral County would maintain a PS tradition.

The eastern stretch of the state would be solidly UMP, in that they're ranching/oil areas (again with the exceptions of the rez being strongly PS).

In the past, the UMP tradition here would have been of moderate stock (presumably the east would have been a stronghold of Fourth Republic 'moderates', aka right-wingers) and with the exception of Irish Catholic areas, Montana would probably have been a Radical stronghold for most of the Third Republic with strong Radical barons. The anti-establishment streak might manifest itself with early implantation of socialism in Butte-Anaconda, early radicalism (right around statehood) which refuses to die and later through a surprisingly strong FN vote in some parts (presumably the eastern ranching areas), a strong Bayrou in 2007 and then a strong EELV (and DLR) in 2009/2010. Also, Madelin and DL would have been strong in Montana when they were around.

While Sarkozy would have won the state with roughly 51-53% of the vote, he would be very unpopular here right now.

oooh, God, Mormons...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

God, I need to do U.S. with Polish parties.

[Hash]

Idaho

Shockingly, Idaho would be a right-wing stronghold with the left's major bases having shifted somwhat in the past 20 years and with the right facing a strong challenge from the FN.

The first issue which needs some figuring out are Mormons. The common stereotype is that the Mormons flock like sheep to the candidate endorsed by the LDS Church, but I don't entirely believe that's true. At any rate, true or not, Mormons are a bit of a headache. They're not all that batsh**t insane on social issues, and they don't like Baptists much (and vice versa, obviamente) so more likely than not MPF is not a real possibility except maybe outside of islands of radical conservative Mormonism and even then. This leaves the modern mainstream right, the UMP, as the real choice and it's not all that bad of a possibility. Certainly the LDS leadership would see more advantages in siding with the larger right (UMP) than the sidekick right (MPF) and there is a right-wing social conservative base within the UMP which could be enlarged with Mormons. Given how well Schmitz the Nazi and Bo Gritz the loonie-toon did in some of the most redneck radical Mormon areas, there'd be a base for the FN and alternatively for fringe outfits led by far-right conspiracy theorists wearing tin foil hats. I suspect Carl Lang's recent outfit might have done best in Idaho. Still, overall, the Mormon areas would more likely than not be solidly UMP with a decently strong but not very strong MPF and FN presence.

The ski bunnies of the Sun Valley would have been solidly right-wing into the early 90s, when they'd presumably have voted Balladur in 1995 before evolving towards the bobo left since 2002 or so. Royal might have won Blaine County, but she'd certainly not do as well there as otl Dems (that's the general rule for ski resorts in this scenario). The Greens would obviously be strong there. The same for Teton County (the Idahoan parts of Yellowstone National Park's resort area, near Jackson Hole) though the evolution there would be more recent and drastic.

Boise itself would probably be Socialist, in an intensely right-wing area. Moscow would have shifted quite a bit to the left, with the PS winning it in 2007 and the Greens winning it solidly in 2009 and 2010.

The panhandle, which was known for having some neo-Nazi hangouts in the recent past, more importantly has a working-class mining (and logging, iirc) tradition which makes for it being a solidly PS (and PCF) area in the past. The FN would poll very strongly in these isolated white working-class locales, with the PS' base in these areas declining rapidly. Sarkozy would have won, but the PS would dominate at the local level in these areas if only because all recent local and regional elections were held during the peak of the left's popularity.

Sarkozy would have done pretty well for a right-winger, obviously breaking 60% with a good first round appeal to Mormons and taking a lot of Le Pen votes in the working-class areas of the panhandle.

Utah

The above comments on Mormons apply here and they apply to the quasi-entirety of the state. Provo and BYU seem to be some deeply conservative militantly LDS areas, so some MPF presence is possible but I doubt a Baptist-dominated MPF would ever do well anywhere in Deseret. So perhaps some smaller, perhaps local, conservative third party. The FN and other small far-right loonies would have a small base in rural Mormon Utah, as in Idaho.

The PS and Greens would do well in downtown SLC and in places near the university in SLC, and more recently would do well with Park City liberals and in the touristy spot of Moab. The same comments applied to touristy spots and ski bunny areas applies here, yeah.

Historically, and still kind of today, the PS would be based in mining areas such as Carbon and Tooele Counties. Tooele would probably have fallen off somewhat for them, but Carbon's larger ethnic (Greek) mining tradition would mean that the PS would still do decently out there. Native turnout is generally awful, but the PS wins those who do bother to turn out.

Sarkozy wins, does poorly in resort places and better in working-class areas like Carbon.

[big bad fab]

Mormons in the UMP seems good: after all, Boutin and the PCD are still inside the UMP .
I guess that would "perfectly" fit with the differences between MPF and PCD in RL.


And I like your Radical Montana, imagining Herriot or Queuille in these landscapes .

BTW, wouldn't Clemenceau have been at ease in Montana ?

Maybe even JJSS would have tried to make it its political base !


Eager to see if there will be a difference between north and south of Pacific Coast.
And if there will be surprises in Nevada vs California (the other way round between red & blue ?).
After all, this is 2007...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Very interesting as always ?

For the remaining States, I'm guessing socialists would win OR, WA and HI, Sarkozy would carry AZ in a landslide, NV easily and CA narrowly. AK is a mistery for me.

[big bad fab]

For the remaining States, I'm guessing socialists would win OR, WA and HI, Sarkozy would carry AZ in a landslide, NV easily and CA narrowly. AK is a mistery for me.

Yep, but... not so sure for NV .

AK is safe for Sarkozy. Maybe a sort of rural Jura, or even rural Savoie, with ski boon playing th role of oil .

[Hash]

Arizona

Arizona is largely a right-wing stronghold, and one of the FN's best state in the region. It would have voted solidl

Phoenix is too much an awful sprawling horror in the middle of arid wasteland to describe uniformly. The downtown core and the south of the the city (eg, Hispanic areas) would be the PS' strongholds (along with a few rez areas). Affluent, high-growth white suburbs and exurbs like Scottsdale, Glendale, Gilbert, Peoria, Surprise as well as Paradise Valley would be rock-solid UMP. The more liberal and uni town of Tempe would have a more 'bobo' lean, translating into more recent PS and Green votes despite being RPR in the past. Obviously, Mormon tradition communities in Maricopa would be solidly UMP.

Rural white areas would be solidly UMP. Flagstaff and the touristy-artsy town of Sedona are educated and liberal areas would have a 'bobo' lean which would nowadays mean PS/Green votes (Sedona would now be solidly Green). Tucson's Hispanic south would be solidly PS, while I suppose the rest of the city would be swingy with a PS lean, one which is more pronounced in whatever downtown parts are white liberal bobo/uni areas (I don't know Tucson, obviously). The suburbs would be solidly UMP.

Outside of those areas, the PS would find support in Hispanic communities (where turnout and generally voter registration is terribly low) such as Nogales and parts of Yuma. The white parts of Yuma filled with olds would be solidly UMP. Navajo Nation and the Hopi areas would be solidly PS areas (when the natives turn out), though it would be fun to see if there emerges some sort of difference between Navajo and Hopi voting patterns given the rivalry between the two. Finally, copper mining areas in Clifton (Greenlee County) would've been the PS' earliest base in the state though it would be in decline these days though probably still sorta reliably PS outside of Sarkozy's win there in 2007.

As mentioned in the introduction, the FN would be very strong in Arizona with a strong white anti-immigration/anti-Hispanic vote especially concentrated in border counties such as Yuma. The hillbilly Minutemen type loonies would vote FN (or maybe that 'Identitaires' outfit). Presumably the FN would be the second largest party (behind the PS) in heavily Hispanic border areas. Though the Le Pens would carpetbag their asses to Florida to get elected, maybe Marine would've attempted to establish a presence in Yuma or some place in 2004 (like she did in IdF).

Polygamous/incestuous FLDS Mormon communities such as Colorado City would probably vote heavily for some fringe far-right outfit or the FN. I'd think the UMP is too moderate for them and they probably wouldn't like UMPers like Georges Fenech

Sarkozy would have won roughly 55-56% of the vote in Arizona and that would be the right's normal ceiling in a normal contested presidential race. The state would have also been solidly conservative in the past.

[Hash]

Fab suggested I do this way back when in this thread, so I've kind of done it. Party strength maps by state...

I've started with the FN:



A few comments. This is all relative to the party's overall standing, of course. 'Stronghold' for the PCF won't have the same meaning as 'stronghold' for the UMP. As for this map in particular:

-I might have overestimated a tad the FN in AZ, but I think there's lot of high-growth not super-affluent exurbs here which are perfect breeding ground for the FN
-NY might be better as 'moderate' rather than 'strong', but strong is fine enough
-TX is probably on the upper edge of moderate
-I might have overestimated the FN in general in ID, MO, PA, NM in general; and maybe a bit underestimated in MN, the Plains, MD, CO and WV; but I don't know

[big bad fab]

Arizona
I'd think the UMP is too moderate for them and they probably wouldn't like UMPers like Georges Fenech

YEAH !!


And great map on the FN: each time you look at a state because you think it's not entirely accurate, you think a bit and find it's OK in fact.

A map very vaguely reminiscent of Hillary's primaries map .

AK and NV will be very interesting for the FN.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Great map Hash ! I long forward seeing those of PS, UMP, Greens, and the more the merrier !

As for Arizona, I'd have personally seen it voting for Sarkozy above 60% (this is the kind of State where PS should underperform democrats), but that seems fine anyways.

[Hash]

As for Arizona, I'd have personally seen it voting for Sarkozy above 60% (this is the kind of State where PS should underperform democrats), but that seems fine anyways.

Too many Hispanics, natives and bobo types there. Brewer didn't even get 55% in 2010 and McCain won 58% against a semi-serious opponent. 55-56% to Sarkozy is being kind, actually.