Post Random US Election County Maps Here

[The Govanah Jake]

COUNTY MAPS

[The Govanah Jake]

Trump !

[The Govanah Jake]

Bentsen beats president Du Pont (1992)



State results: (in no particular order)

AL: 44.38% D/ 44.15% R/ 10.85% I
MS:45.27% D/ 44.18% R/ 8.72% I
SC:43.88% D/ 44.02% R/ 11.55% I
GA:44.47% D/ 41.88% R/ 13.34% I
FL: 39.00% D/ 40.89% R/ 19.82% I
LA:46.58% D/ 39.97% R/  11.81% I
AR:50.71%D/ 37.98% R/  10.43% I
TN:47.08%D/ 42.43% R/  10.09% I
KY:43.55%D/ 42.34% R/  13.66%I
WV:45.91%D/ 37.89%R/   15.92%I
TX:41.08%D/ 36.56%R/  22.01%I
OK:36.02%D/ 40.65%R/  23.01%I
NJ:41.45%D/ 42.08%R/  15.61%I
ME:34.77%D/ 32.39%R/ 32.44%I
NV:34.86%D/ 37.39%R/ 26.19%I
IN:36.79%D/ 42.91%R/ 19.77%I
OH:38.68%D / 39.85%R/ 20.98%I
NC:42.65%D/ 43.44%R/ 13.7% I
VA:38.09%D/ 47.47%R/ 13.63%I
DC:83.14%D/ 10.6% R/    4.25%I
MD:51.8% D/ 33.62%R/ 14.18%I
DE:38.51%D/ 40.31%R/  20.44%I
PA:43.65%D/ 37.63%R/ 18.2%I
NY:47.23%D/ 36.38%R/ 15.75%I
CT:42.21%D/ 35.78%R/ 21.58%I
RI:48.04%D/ 28.02%R/ 23.16%I
MA:45.04:D/ 31.53%R/ 22.8%I
VT:43.11%D/ 33.42%R/ 22.78% I
NH:36.36%D/ 40.14%R/ 22.56% I
IL: 47.58%D/ 35.34%R/ 16.64% I
MO:41.57%D/ 36.42%R/ 21.69% I
IA: 40.79%D/ 39.77%R/ 18.71% I
KS:31.24%D/ 41.38%R/ 26.99% I
NM:45.9%D/  37.34%R/ 16.12% I
AZ: 34.02%D/ 40.97%R/ 23.79% I
CA: 43.01%D/ 35.61%R/ 20.63% I
CO: 37.63%D/ 38.37%R/ 23.32% I
NE: 24.4% D/ 51.58%R/ 23.63% I
UT: 18.65%D/ 46.36%R/ 30.34% I
WY: 30.97%D/ 42.55%R/ 25.55% I
SD: 34.14%D/ 43.66%R/ 21.8% I
ND: 29.68%D/ 46.72%R/ 23.07% I
HI: 50.09% D/ 34.7% R/ 14.22% I
AK: 27.79%D/ 41.96% R/ 28.43% I
OR: 39.98%D/ 35.03% R/ 24.21% I
WA: 40.9% D/ 34.46% R/ 23.68% I
ID: 25.92% D/ 44.53% R/ 27.04% I
MT:34.13% D/ 38.62% R/ 26.11% I
MN: 40.98%D/ 34.35%R/ 23.96% I
WI: 39.13%D/ 38.78% R/ 21.51% I
MI: 41.27% D/ 38.88% R/ 19.3% I

You don't happen to have any blank version of that map do you?

[The Govanah Jake]

About my prediction of the race I made about a week ago. Right now i'd change it to a 51/52-45/46% victory but too lazy to change it..

[The Govanah Jake]

cut

How did you make these?

https://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/map_gen.php

Wait, how did you get the county generator to work?

[The Govanah Jake]

cut

How did you make these?

https://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/map_gen.php

Wait, how did you get the county generator to work?

Just go to this link
https://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/map_gen.php

I know about the link; i'm saying the generator does not work. No map appears

[The Govanah Jake]

Damn. That's one big landslide. I can't even tell if those deep south states went republican or not

[The Govanah Jake]

Damn. That's one big landslide. I can't even tell if those deep south states went republican or not

Seems like all of them except Alabama.

At first glance though i do think the Republicans narrowly won it out in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and possibly Louisiana. This all depends however on the margins and the turnout.

[The Govanah Jake]

I think it's possible Tennessee goes D; CD 5, 8, and 9 definitely are won by [Democratic Candidate], with 2 and 3 being close. The strong performance in the outer suburbs of the metro areas is probably enough to flip the state.

Williamson County voted to the right of the state in 2016, and it's voting D here.

It's actually somewhat possible that only Idaho and Wyoming go R here, depending on the margins.

Though the glaring outlier of Oklahoma shows. If the Republican keeps at least respectable margins in the rural areas and the democrat wins the urban and suburban countys by what i expect (plurality at worst, 60-70% in there best) then i have no reason to believe it would go democrat. The same map by popular vote percentage could tell us all the outcomes of these states though as you suggested with the margins, along with turnout per county.

[The Govanah Jake]

The year is 1988. the month is August. the day is Monday. the time is exactly 2:25 PM. the weather is nice and sunny in San Diego. George H.W Bush is campaigning when he suddenly pulls out a gun and shoots a man in the crowd - that man's name? William J. Rutherford. After this, his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, wins in the largest landslide since the uncontested elections of George Washington, winning 70% of the Popular Vote to Bush's 20%, with 10% going to third parties.

R U T H E R F O R D

[The Govanah Jake]

Frankie Jr.

[The Govanah Jake]

LBJ does 10% better in 1964. This only flips Arizona and Georgia, but on the county level it flips well over 100 counties.

That makes 19 states all Counties won for LBJ.

ME/NH/VT/MA/RI/CT/NY/NJ/DE/MD/OH/WI/MN/CO/NM/NV/OR/HI/AK

Ironically, that's the exact same number of states that Nixon won every county in in 1972.

I have a question for you. I saw the thread on the other board, with speculation about how Roy Moore might have done in a nationwide race. I would be interested in knowing what a county map of that would have looked like?

Well i have a feeling if he can lose Alabama as a Republican then the county map would look like a blow out version of say 2008, which itself was already a decisive democratic victory

[The Govanah Jake]

Senator Hillary Clinton(D-NY)/Senator Joe Biden(D-DE): 274 (49.6%)

President George W. Bush(R-TX)/Vice President Richard Cheney (R-WY): 264 (49.2%)

Gov. Willard Mitt Romney(R-MA)/Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison(R-TX): 339 (51.4%)

President Hillary Clinton(D-NY)/Vice President Joe Biden(D-DE): 199 (46.5%)

Pres. Willard Mitt Romney(R-MA)/Vice Pres. Kay Bailey Hutchison(R-TX): 390 (52.9%)

Sen. Evan Bayh(D-IN)/Sen. Ron Wyden: (D-OR): 148 (41.7%)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich(G-OH)/Dr. Jill Stein(G-MA): 0 (1.3%)

Gov. Barack Obama(D-IL)/Sen. Sherrod Brown(D-OH): 347 (52.1%)

Sen. Rick Santorum(R-PA/Gov. Jeb Bush(R-FL): 191 (45.7%)

Where be da county's?

[The Govanah Jake]

For some actual county maps now:

1936 California massacre:



1860 New York



And some other maps i have on my hard drive:

1998 New York Senate, No Schumer



And this:

[The Govanah Jake]

Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders in west virginia

Donald Trump 55.77%
Bernie Sanders 44.23%
This is only counting ballots in the primaries

Looks very similar to Reagan's win in the state in 1984. I also think this could have been the actual result in a Sanders vs Cruz election, but probably not Sanders vs Trump.

I doubt this could every happen with Trump. I doubt Sanders could get 44% against almost any republican with the exception of minor candidates like Pataki, or perhaps Bush.

[The Govanah Jake]

Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders in west virginia

Donald Trump 55.77%
Bernie Sanders 44.23%
This is only counting ballots in the primaries

Looks very similar to Reagan's win in the state in 1984. I also think this could have been the actual result in a Sanders vs Cruz election, but probably not Sanders vs Trump.

I doubt this could every happen with Trump. I doubt Sanders could get 44% against almost any republican with the exception of minor candidates like Pataki, or perhaps Bush.

I think Sanders could have got 44% against Cruz - if he, for some inexplicable reason, decided to campaign in the state and contest it.

I mean if he actually campaigned in the state then yes. Though if the "culture wars" are dominant in that election, like with most recent elections, then it could drag him below 40% still.

[The Govanah Jake]

This is a map of the votes for 3rd party candidates, write ins, independents, none of these candidates, etc. for the 2002 gubernatorial elections. Note that there were no votes for other in Connecticut and Rhode Island so they arent on the map

Yea. Go Independence Party's!

[The Govanah Jake]

Is Holland the new Rutherford?

[The Govanah Jake]

Here is a revised version of my Holland county map. I went back and changed many states to make them more reflective of the results, and to make the map "cleaner". I'm also posting this to help bump the thread back up. Comments and questions are greatly appreciated:



Also here if you cannot see it: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/File:United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2020_(with_percentages).png.

So... what causes Holland to perform such a clear sweep over Dickenson.

[The Govanah Jake]

Here is a revised version of my Holland county map. I went back and changed many states to make them more reflective of the results, and to make the map "cleaner". I'm also posting this to help bump the thread back up. Comments and questions are greatly appreciated:



Also here if you cannot see it: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/File:United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2020_(with_percentages).png.

So... what causes Holland to perform such a clear sweep over Dickenson.

Dickenson, as I explained on the Alternate History board, is basically the worst Republican nominee possible, with a combination of Trump-like behavior and statements, Ron Paul/Barry Goldwater-like views on healthcare and entitlements, and extreme neoconservative views on foreign policy. During the campaign (this scenario, mind you, is set in an alternate timeline, where Obama does not become President, Democrats benefit from the 2010 crisis, things go differently in the 90s, etc.), he calls for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the EPA, and a slew of other federal agencies; for cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, for making Social Security voluntary, and for eliminating entitlement programs (such as CHIP, Food Stamps, etc.); and for the elimination of farm subsidies and farm payments, federal protections for national monuments, federal inoculation programs, and federal grants to cities and states.

He makes very inflammatory comments about race and culture (i.e. calling Hispanics wetbacks, deriding homosexuals, referring to blacks and Asians as "browns and yellows", and making a series of anti-Semitic remarks). He also defends the Confederate flag and fails to denounce white nationalists, etc. So, as you can see, he does basically everything possible to shoot himself in the foot, upsetting just about every group, from college graduates, suburbanites, and minorities (for his views on social policy) to working-class and rural voters (for his views on economic policy). Holland, on the other hand, is a "centrist" Democrat, akin to someone like Jones or John Bel Edwards, and is thus able to combine moderate social views with strongly populist economic ones.

Dickenson receives basically no support from the Republican establishment, and actually derides a number of Republicans (similar to what Trump did). Consequently, he loses 49 states in a landslide, bar his home state of Mississippi, and that is very close. Holland gets over 80% in HI, over 70% in CA, MA, RI, VT, and IL, and over 60% in every remaining state in the Northeast and Midwest (except for Indiana), in some states of the Coastal South, in FL, TX, NV, CO, NM, and in the Pacific Northwest, as well as Alaska.

Oh well that explains it then. Also i'm surprised (on the map) that Dickenson would lose Oklahoma. The map itself looks like that of the 1980s and 1990s in which Democratic dominated the southeast of the state. In fact it looks closest to 1976. However with Dickenson holding Tulsa on the map, and holding some of the Oklahoma City suburb county's, margins just from the Southeast (not very heavily populated) and Oklahoma City in my opinion would not be enough and he doesn't seem to be winning those on here by heavy margins. I would say the map shows a slight Dickenson win 51-47% or something similar.
Also i'm surprised Dickenson would win many of the Nebraskan and Kansan county's but lose hard core republican county's in Texas like in King county. I see thats a basic copy of the 1964 map and 2016 electoral politics is not like 1964 anymore.

[The Govanah Jake]

Here is a revised version of my Holland county map. I went back and changed many states to make them more reflective of the results, and to make the map "cleaner". I'm also posting this to help bump the thread back up. Comments and questions are greatly appreciated:



Also here if you cannot see it: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/File:United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2020_(with_percentages).png.

So... what causes Holland to perform such a clear sweep over Dickenson.

Dickenson, as I explained on the Alternate History board, is basically the worst Republican nominee possible, with a combination of Trump-like behavior and statements, Ron Paul/Barry Goldwater-like views on healthcare and entitlements, and extreme neoconservative views on foreign policy. During the campaign (this scenario, mind you, is set in an alternate timeline, where Obama does not become President, Democrats benefit from the 2010 crisis, things go differently in the 90s, etc.), he calls for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the EPA, and a slew of other federal agencies; for cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, for making Social Security voluntary, and for eliminating entitlement programs (such as CHIP, Food Stamps, etc.); and for the elimination of farm subsidies and farm payments, federal protections for national monuments, federal inoculation programs, and federal grants to cities and states.

He makes very inflammatory comments about race and culture (i.e. calling Hispanics wetbacks, deriding homosexuals, referring to blacks and Asians as "browns and yellows", and making a series of anti-Semitic remarks). He also defends the Confederate flag and fails to denounce white nationalists, etc. So, as you can see, he does basically everything possible to shoot himself in the foot, upsetting just about every group, from college graduates, suburbanites, and minorities (for his views on social policy) to working-class and rural voters (for his views on economic policy). Holland, on the other hand, is a "centrist" Democrat, akin to someone like Jones or John Bel Edwards, and is thus able to combine moderate social views with strongly populist economic ones.

Dickenson receives basically no support from the Republican establishment, and actually derides a number of Republicans (similar to what Trump did). Consequently, he loses 49 states in a landslide, bar his home state of Mississippi, and that is very close. Holland gets over 80% in HI, over 70% in CA, MA, RI, VT, and IL, and over 60% in every remaining state in the Northeast and Midwest (except for Indiana), in some states of the Coastal South, in FL, TX, NV, CO, NM, and in the Pacific Northwest, as well as Alaska.

Oh well that explains it then. Also i'm surprised (on the map) that Dickenson would lose Oklahoma. The map itself looks like that of the 1980s and 1990s in which Democratic dominated the southeast of the state. In fact it looks closest to 1976. However with Dickenson holding Tulsa on the map, and holding some of the Oklahoma City suburb county's, margins just from the Southeast (not very heavily populated) and Oklahoma City in my opinion would not be enough and he doesn't seem to be winning those on here by heavy margins. I would say the map shows a slight Dickenson win 51-47% or something similar.
Also i'm surprised Dickenson would win many of the Nebraskan and Kansan county's but lose hard core republican county's in Texas like in King county. I see thats a basic copy of the 1964 map and 2016 electoral politics is not like 1964 anymore.

Well, as I alluded to in my post above, this is from an alternate timeline. Texas is Holland's home state, and in this timeline, it remains a swing to lean-Democratic state. I used Lloyd Bentsen's Senate map from 1988 for Texas, but changed the percentages (to the best of my ability), to reflect Holland's 69% win there. I am also aware about King County, Texas, and that it was the most heavily Republican county in the country back in 2008 and 2012. Here, though, it is more of a swing to Democratic county. As for Oklahoma, I used this map (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=40&year=2010&f=0&off=11&elect=0), from 2010, in which a Republican won the State Auditor's race by about eleven points. I changed the percentages (again guessing), to reflect a narrow (51-49%) Democratic victory. Holland wins Oklahoma City ~57-43%, while Dickenson carries Tulsa ~52-47%; I thought that, with Holland's margin in Oklahoma County being in double-digit territory, with him winning Cleveland County, the state's third most populous county, ~53-47%, and with Dickenson's winning margin in Tulsa County not being as wide, a narrow Democratic victory would result. However, what do you think would be a reasonable map for Oklahoma, with the same (or more) counties, but with a narrow 2-pt. Democratic victory?

As for Kansas and Nebraska, I used, for the first, Sebelius's gubernatorial map from 2006, and for the latter, Bob Kerrey's senatorial map from 1988. Again, I modified percentages accordingly (Holland gets ~56% of the vote in both states, as I lay out in my main article for this scenario). Kansas and Nebraska are still Republican states in this scenario, and the map reflects that.

Well just trying to win with the modern democratic party, the county's won here are fine in Oklahoma. But i would assume the margins in the more populated county's would be much larger. Oklahoma City in my opinion should be over 60%. Meanwhile Tulsa is a must win too for the Democrat by at least 50-55%.

[The Govanah Jake]

Here is a revised version of my Holland county map. I went back and changed many states to make them more reflective of the results, and to make the map "cleaner". I'm also posting this to help bump the thread back up. Comments and questions are greatly appreciated:



Also here if you cannot see it: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/File:United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2020_(with_percentages).png.

So... what causes Holland to perform such a clear sweep over Dickenson.

Dickenson, as I explained on the Alternate History board, is basically the worst Republican nominee possible, with a combination of Trump-like behavior and statements, Ron Paul/Barry Goldwater-like views on healthcare and entitlements, and extreme neoconservative views on foreign policy. During the campaign (this scenario, mind you, is set in an alternate timeline, where Obama does not become President, Democrats benefit from the 2010 crisis, things go differently in the 90s, etc.), he calls for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the EPA, and a slew of other federal agencies; for cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, for making Social Security voluntary, and for eliminating entitlement programs (such as CHIP, Food Stamps, etc.); and for the elimination of farm subsidies and farm payments, federal protections for national monuments, federal inoculation programs, and federal grants to cities and states.

He makes very inflammatory comments about race and culture (i.e. calling Hispanics wetbacks, deriding homosexuals, referring to blacks and Asians as "browns and yellows", and making a series of anti-Semitic remarks). He also defends the Confederate flag and fails to denounce white nationalists, etc. So, as you can see, he does basically everything possible to shoot himself in the foot, upsetting just about every group, from college graduates, suburbanites, and minorities (for his views on social policy) to working-class and rural voters (for his views on economic policy). Holland, on the other hand, is a "centrist" Democrat, akin to someone like Jones or John Bel Edwards, and is thus able to combine moderate social views with strongly populist economic ones.

Dickenson receives basically no support from the Republican establishment, and actually derides a number of Republicans (similar to what Trump did). Consequently, he loses 49 states in a landslide, bar his home state of Mississippi, and that is very close. Holland gets over 80% in HI, over 70% in CA, MA, RI, VT, and IL, and over 60% in every remaining state in the Northeast and Midwest (except for Indiana), in some states of the Coastal South, in FL, TX, NV, CO, NM, and in the Pacific Northwest, as well as Alaska.

Oh well that explains it then. Also i'm surprised (on the map) that Dickenson would lose Oklahoma. The map itself looks like that of the 1980s and 1990s in which Democratic dominated the southeast of the state. In fact it looks closest to 1976. However with Dickenson holding Tulsa on the map, and holding some of the Oklahoma City suburb county's, margins just from the Southeast (not very heavily populated) and Oklahoma City in my opinion would not be enough and he doesn't seem to be winning those on here by heavy margins. I would say the map shows a slight Dickenson win 51-47% or something similar.
Also i'm surprised Dickenson would win many of the Nebraskan and Kansan county's but lose hard core republican county's in Texas like in King county. I see thats a basic copy of the 1964 map and 2016 electoral politics is not like 1964 anymore.

Well, as I alluded to in my post above, this is from an alternate timeline. Texas is Holland's home state, and in this timeline, it remains a swing to lean-Democratic state. I used Lloyd Bentsen's Senate map from 1988 for Texas, but changed the percentages (to the best of my ability), to reflect Holland's 69% win there. I am also aware about King County, Texas, and that it was the most heavily Republican county in the country back in 2008 and 2012. Here, though, it is more of a swing to Democratic county. As for Oklahoma, I used this map (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=40&year=2010&f=0&off=11&elect=0), from 2010, in which a Republican won the State Auditor's race by about eleven points. I changed the percentages (again guessing), to reflect a narrow (51-49%) Democratic victory. Holland wins Oklahoma City ~57-43%, while Dickenson carries Tulsa ~52-47%; I thought that, with Holland's margin in Oklahoma County being in double-digit territory, with him winning Cleveland County, the state's third most populous county, ~53-47%, and with Dickenson's winning margin in Tulsa County not being as wide, a narrow Democratic victory would result. However, what do you think would be a reasonable map for Oklahoma, with the same (or more) counties, but with a narrow 2-pt. Democratic victory?

As for Kansas and Nebraska, I used, for the first, Sebelius's gubernatorial map from 2006, and for the latter, Bob Kerrey's senatorial map from 1988. Again, I modified percentages accordingly (Holland gets ~56% of the vote in both states, as I lay out in my main article for this scenario). Kansas and Nebraska are still Republican states in this scenario, and the map reflects that.

Well just trying to win with the modern democratic party, the county's won here are fine in Oklahoma. But i would assume the margins in the more populated county's would be much larger. Oklahoma City in my opinion should be over 60%. Meanwhile Tulsa is a must win too for the Democrat by at least 50-55%.

Let me clarify this. You say that for my scenario, the Oklahoma map would be fine, but that within the modern context, a Democrat would have to win OC and Tulsa by wide margins? Should I change the Oklahoma map here, or leave it as it is.

Well this is set in 2020 right, a clearly modern setting. I would change the coloring to raise the margins in the higher population county's to more favorable democratic numbers (IE 60% plus in Oklahoma City), while giving the Democrats a solid victory in Tulsa.

[The Govanah Jake]

DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN (in the EC): 2 point swing towards Dewey

✓ Governor Thomas Dewey (R-NY)/Governor Earl Warren (R-CA): 287 EVs.; 47.1%
President Harry S. Truman (D-MO/Senator Alben Barklay (D-KY): 206 EVs.; 47.6%
Governor Strom Thurmond (I-SC)/Governor Fielding Wright (I-MI)/ 38 EVs.; 2.4%

Where be the county's!??

[The Govanah Jake]

Panhandlelandia Part I
The election results of Florida's panhandle from 1960 to 1976

1960


John Kennedy: 66.11%
Richard Nixon: 33.89%

1964


Barry Goldwater: 60.13%
Lyndon Johnson: 39.87%

1968


George Wallace: 64.68%
Hubert Humphrey: 19.99%
Richard Nixon: 15.33%

1972


Richard Nixon: 80.14%
George McGovern: 19.62%
Other: 0.24%

1976


James Carter: 58.48%
Gerald Ford: 39.96%
Other: 1.56%

Part II coming soon

Those drastic swings though.

[The Govanah Jake]

Guess what this is.

Tied West Virginia from the 2016 election results?

ur close. Its actually a democrat victory with a margin of 0.32%

its simple. I increased Hillary's percent of the vote by 21% and decreased Trump's percent of the vote by 21%

How would a Democratic victory be possible with such a map?

I would of thought a 2-8% Republican victory or more. No way a Democrat wins this unless winning by much bigger margins in the county's they already won.