Alternate US States

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oregon

Despite its name, this scenario's Oregon is basically Idaho + the Western portion of Oregon and Washington. That's a little confusing, but I though it would be a shame to keep a name as meaningless as "Idaho" while losing the historically significant "Oregon". And considering that this State covers most of the land that used to be America's portion of Oregon Country, I think the name is pretty fitting. Anyway, Oregon would be a large - not as large as Lincoln, but still - sparsely populated and rural State. Under this arrangement, rural conservatives living east of the Cascade Range would finally be free from the political alienation they suffer IRL in the liberal-leaning OR and WA. Actually, they might even feel that their new State is a bit too conservative for their tastes.

OR Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


On Dave's maps, Oregon would always be a deep-blue State. Republican Presidential candidates perform even better there than in neighboring Lincoln, regularly winning over 60% of the vote. This was one of LBJ's weakest States, giving him less than 55% (a performance comparable to Utah's). And apart from him, no Democrat has ever come close to carrying the State's 6 or 7 Electoral Votes. Since 1968, and excluding election where Perot spoiled a large number of Republican votes, Republicans have always won an absolute majority and distanced their Democratic opponents by at least 15 points. Clearly, Idaho's influence would be significant, although in a "lighter and softer" version. Oregon wouldn't be the Republican fortress that Idaho is: in 2012 for example, Romney "only" won it by 23 points, instead of 32 in IRL Idaho. The areas in the Western part of the State would have a significant moderating influence and make the State's politics less lopsided. Nonetheless, Democrats would have a very hard time winning any statewide election in the modern era.

Capital: It would be possible to keep Boise, although it becomes a little southern for the State's new demographic center. Spokane could be an alternative, though it has the opposite problem.

Governor: Butch Otter - oddly enough, I can't find anyone else with a gubernatorial profile.

Senators: Jim Risch (class 2) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (class 3)

Representatives: It would be pretty interesting to see how the districts would be drawn if they could cross the ID/OR/WA border. But barring an upset, the most likely result is still 5R-0D.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oops, you're right, my bad. Hood River is actually in Washington. I had no idea Walden lived there, I thought he was a true westerner. I guess he can be replaced by Jim Risch then.

And yeah, I guess Eastern Washington has a lot in common with Northern Idaho and that they would form tbe State's most distinctive area.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Washington

After getting rid of their conservative hinterland, the only thing left of OTL Oregon and Washington is a long but thin strip of land along the northern-Pacific coast, which forms this scenario's State of Washington. Almost entirely covered by the Portland and Seattle metropolitan areas, this State would obviously be much more urbanized and densely populated than its eastern neighbor - with a population comparable to New Jersey's. And accordingly, it would be even more Democratic and liberal-leaning.

WA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Even then, it turns out that this new Washington would have supported the exact same candidates as... OTL Washington. Over the last 14 Presidential election, the winner was always the same: even Kennedy in 1960 and Carter in 1976, who lost OR and WA by fairly narrow margin IRL, would still be unable to carry this State. And it's only with Dukakis in 1988 that Washington began its uninterrupted Democratic voting streak. Until the 1980s, it seems that the Western and Eastern portions of the two States didn't differ that much in their partisan leanings, so removing the latter didn't significantly alter the balance of power. When the coastal region began trending D, this trend was powerful enough to swing the two RL States to the Democratic column despite the opposite shift in the inland region.

Thus, it turns out that this change did nothing but strengthen Democrats where they were already strong enough. This certainly could help Democrats feel more comfortable in Statewide races: for example, Republicans probably wouldn't stand a chance to win a Senate seat there, even in 2010 with a moderate candidate. Also, Gore, who came veeery close to losing Oregon in 2000, would sweep Washington by almost 10 points in this scenario. Finally, Democrats wouldn't be bothered by Republican obstruction in the State Legislature, as they would probably maintain their grip on both houses in any circumstance. On the other hand, the combination of losing the Western areas and merging the two States together would cost a total of 5 Electoral Votes to Democratic Presidential candidates. Not that good of a deal overall, even if it would give Obama the symbolic satisfaction of breaking the 60% line in 2008.

Capital: Vancouver would work well (so would Portland, though).

Governor: Jay Inslee

Senators: Ron Wyden (class 1) and Patty Murray (class 3)

Representatives: Even if a few renegade Democrats decided to switch sides and prop up the Republicans, they almost certainly wouldn't be able to flip control of any house of Washington's State Legislature. Democrats would thus hold the balance of power for redistricting. They probably wouldn't be able to get a full D delegation, but an 11D-1R split seems fairly logical.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, now there's only Nevada and the Californias left! How should I go about with them? I was guessing Pacific/California/CS, or Pacific/CS/California. Which of them are you guys most interested in, so that I keep it for last?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would save CS for last, considering it's the largest of your states, but I'm fine with whatever you decide to do.

Seems fair! Let's do this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yay this is back! And great as ever!
Washington easily is my favourite new state - combining all the good things of OTL Washington and Oregon, while leaving out the bad things

You might want to revise your judgment after you see Pacific.

[Antonio the Sixth]

PVI evolution of RL Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and this scenario's Oregon and Washington:



As you can see, the new Washington is didn't diverge much from RL OR/WA until very recently. It was actually more Republican than Washington in 1968, and than Oregon in 1972 and 76. It's only after 2000 or even 2004 that you see a gap really emerging, as the western coastal region really turns into a Democratic stronghold. And even then, it only moves Washington toward the Dems by about 5 points.

This scenario's Oregon is regularly 7 to 10 points less Republican than OTL Idaho (with the exception of 1960, interestingly).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nevada

So, what to say about Nevada?... Well, nothing. It's basically RL Nevada, with the three Californian Sierra Nevada counties added for good measure. Even in 2010, these counties total less than 35,000 inhabitants - so their influence would be close to nil.

NV Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Indeed, Nevada is still pretty much the same, voting for the same Presidential candidate by the same magnitude. You can see that on the percentages chart above, but the PVI chart really makes it obvious.



Until 1976, the mountain counties did manage to shift the State's PVI by about half a percentage point. But since then their effect has become imperceptible - either because these counties have trended D or because the Las Vegas demographic boom has made them increasingly irrelevant. Regardless, the bottom line is "nothing to see here".

Capital: Still Carson City (as silly as that may be)

Governor: Still Brian Sandoval

Senators: Still Dean Heller (class 1) and Harry Reid (class 3)

Representatives: Still 2D-2R.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For the Californias unfortunately you'll have to wait about a week or so. But it will be worth the wait, I promise!

[Antonio the Sixth]

WAIT DID New-Washington ANNEX BC (Vancouver)
I think you meant Seattle. Or Olympia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver,_Washington

I was surprised too when I found out.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pacific

Next time you hear someone say that the West Coast is the land of hippy ultra-leftish liberalism, you can answer one simple thing: that they're right. Pacific, the State that spans across the coastal areas of Northern and Central California (from Santa Barbara to Eureka) is not just "very Democratic". It is, by all measures, the most Democratic State in the nation. The Bay Area would dominate this State, both demographically (with 75% of the population) and culturally. Relaxed lifestyles, progressive values and Democratic dominance would go hand in hand in this leftist utopia.

PC Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


As it turns out, my graph itself (which I capped to 70% for the sake of uniformity) can't even account for how Democratic Pacific has become. Pacific had always been Dem-leaning, with Kennedy, Humphrey and Carter all winning it quite decisively. However, its unstoppable march to the left really began in the 1980s. Mondale already came within a few decimals of defeating Reagan there in 1984. Four years later, Dukakis swept the State by 14 points despite his major defeat nationwide. Clinton managed to win absolute majorities despite Perot's presence, then Al Gore broke the 60% barrier despite Nader, then Kerry racked up more than two-thirds of the statewide vote... All this culminating with Obama winning 71.6% and 70.6% in 2008 and 2012, respectively. This is actually better than what he got in Hawaii, meaning that Pacific would be today the most Democratic State in the nation. The trend, over the last 16 years, has been of over 20 points (and over the last 32, nearly 40).



How does this Democratic dominance reflect in geography? As the 2012 map shows, the epicenter is clearly located in the Bay Area: above all San Francisco, and secondarily the counties of Alameda, Santa Cruz and Marin (all places where Obama distanced Romney by 50 points or more). This would be the State's dominant area, dictating the agenda and setting the standards for political competition. By contrast, if you move North and South of the Bay, you begin finding areas that are more balanced politically. Obama did not break 59% in Santa Barbara and Lake, failed to win a majority in San Luis Obispo county, and even fell behind in two counties of the State's northern tip (Trinity and Del Norte). These areas North and South of the Bay, which are more "classically" Californian and value some degree of moderation, would probably feel pretty alienated from the State's institutions.

Capital: Any choice other than San Francisco would be a travesty.

Governor: Jerry Brown's aura would smile and never frown.

Senators: Kamala Harris (class 1) and Barbara Boxer (class 2) - I could see Feinstein being pushed out for being too old and conservative, and eventually retire in 2012.

Representatives: It would be a 13D-0R delegation, no doubt.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yay this is back! And great as ever!
Washington easily is my favourite new state - combining all the good things of OTL Washington and Oregon, while leaving out the bad things

You might want to revise your judgment after you see Pacific.

So?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Before even factoring in politics, Pacific was my least favorite of the California states*. Now I have even more reason to make it my least favorite.

*(although considering my opinion of California in general, that still puts pretty high up on the list. )

What is your favorite new State, btw? I'm curious.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I get the weather stuff, but having Florida and Arizona among your favorites and Minnesota and Wisconsin among your least favorites is almost a sacrilege.

[Antonio the Sixth]

More interesting facts about Pacific! The last time it voted Republican in a statewide election was actually... 2006, where Schwartzy won 47.04% against 46.67% for Angelides. Bustamante won it easily in 2003 (where it also voted against the recall with around 60%). If you want to see it vote Republican again, you have to go back as far as 1986, for Deukmejian's landslide reelection. However, the last non-incumbent Republican to win the State was Reagan in 1966. In Senate elections, you'd have to go back to 1962 to find a Republican prevailing (specifically, Thomas Kuchel, who even won San Francisco by 10 points). Those who came closest were S.I. Hayakawa in 1976, who lost by 2.59 points, and Pete Wilson, who came within 2.13 points of Jerry Brown in 1982.

[Antonio the Sixth]

California

Like for Illinois, land area and the location of the State capital prevailed over demographics in deciding which of the three States carved out of California would keep the original name. Indeed, California is smallest of them, keeping only slightly over 7 million inhabitants of the original State's 37. Consisting of the counties of the Central Valley and non-coastal Northern California, CA is the most rural and conservative of the three States. The inhabitants of these regions, who have grown increasingly alienated by RL CA's leftward turn, would surely welcome such a split as a liberation. It's worth noting, incidentally, that since the 1970s this is also the fastest growing of the three Californias. Without it, California's share of the national population would actually have declined in 2000 and 2010. Clearly, this region has been less affected than the southern and coastal areas by housing inflation and overpopulation, and still has a lot of room to grow.

CA Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Politically, everyone has probably already guessed that this California is significantly more friendly to Republicans. However, this actually hasn't always been the case. In the 1960s and 1970s, California actually had a clear Democratic lean. Kennedy won a higher percentage there than in friggin' Pacific, and both Humphrey and Carter also carried it. Even Nixon's 1972 performance was pretty pathetic for someone who swept the country in a landslide, a paltry 53% (though he was helped by Schmitz taking over 3%). Like in many other States that saw a Republican trend, 1980 marked the turning point. Since then, Democratic Presidential candidates have carried California only twice - both times by a hair. Clinton narrowly edged out Bush in 1992, winning the State with only 39% of the vote. However, this proved to be a mere fluke, as Dole handily defeated him four years later (this pattern mirrors other Western States like Colorado and OTL Montana, where the Perot vote seems to have critically hurt Bush). The 2000s appear to have been the peak of California's rightward shift, as Dubya trounced both Gore and Kerry by double-digit margins. However, in a surprising turn of events, the State might now have begun to move back to the Democrats. In 2008, Obama narrowly beat McCain 49.2/48.5, and four years later Romney prevailed by an even closer margin (California was in fact the closest State in 2012!). Of course, it's worth reminding that CA's newfound competitiveness occurred in the context of two Democratic victories. Just like North Carolina (or OTL Florida and Ohio), this State is likely to come into play only if the Democrat has a slight edge in the campaign, and being close there should be a cause of worry for Republicans. Still, a Democratic trend is ongoing and it might eventually succeed in turning California Atlas-red.

What has changed between old, pre-1980 California and today's California? A comparison between 1976 and 2008 - two narrow Democratic wins - can help figure that out:



Carter's 2-point win in 1976 translated into a rather uniform map, without stark patterns of conflict. He swept most of the San Joaquin Valley except its conservative southern tip around Bakersfield, the Sacramento area, a good chunk of the mountainous eastern counties, and even part of Northern California. Seeing this map, it actually quite surprising he didn't win the State by more. By contrast, Obama's 2008 strength is concentrated in a western strip of counties along the border with Pacific, from Yolo to Fresno. While Carter actually did all but one of these counties, Obama racked up huge margins there: 36 points in Yolo county (against 12 for Carter), 19 in Sacramento (against 8 ), 11 in San Joaquin (against -2). These three counties formed the core of Obama's strength, supplying him with a surplus of almost 154,000 votes (he won by 17,000). Their movements toward the Democrats might have something to do with "spillover" from the Bay Area, as those counties become increasingly integrated to the West Coast megalopolis. In the Southern part of the State, Democratic strength also has a lot to do with Latino population growth. By 2010, Merced, Fresno, Madera, Kings and Tulare counties all had over 45% Hispanics in their VAP, which bodes pretty well for the Democrats' future. Meanwhile, the Northern tip of the State (an area that would probably fit better in a hypothetical State with southern Oregon than in this State) swung hard toward Republicans, with McCain often breaking 60%. California is thus bound to become increasingly polarized between two very different socio-demographic realities.

Capital: Still Sacramento

Governor: Tom McClintock, I guess?

Senators: It's a hard one, seeing how politically marginal this region is in OTL California... Let's say, Bill Jones (class 1) and Kevin McCarthy (class 3). I've been pretty nice to Democrats in purple States so far, so let's even it out.

Representatives: It's impossible to infer who would control the State Legislature from OTL results, considering that the area forming this State has barely a dozen districts in the State Assembly. However, actual results indicate that geography might favor the Democrats here, with Republicans winning big in a couple districts in the North, East and South while Democrats take most districts by narrow margins. So I'm going to assume a split control, preventing Republicans from enacting a gerrymander. Therefore, I'll keep the current balance of 6R-4D.

[Antonio the Sixth]

While I really apprecaite all your work, the problem is it is static. It doesnt take into account that in Illinois, especially, there is an anti-Chicago backlash among down state voters. Obviously in 2010, Alexi Gianolious would not have been the Dem nominee for IL senate. And BTW neither would Kirk. Durbin would likely not be Senator either, despite being from Springfield. Or else he'd be a different Durbin than he is today. More like Claire McCaskill

Well, that's one of the limits of my scenario, I can't predict counterfactuals. Of course the political culture of Illinois would be totally different if it didn't include Chicagoland, and this could have really huge repercussions on election results. It's even doubtful that Obama would have carried it in 2008 in such circumstances (even though it would be surprising to see him benefit from a large "home state effect" in downstate IL). Still, I don't see why my picks are necessary wrong. Politicians adapt to the conditions they are in, so while Durbin would probably have slightly different views he'd still be able to win statewide elections.

And yes, Northern California > Southern California (normal). Still, I find it really fascinating to see how each of the three States had their own unique political trajectories. And CS will be interesting in that regard too, I promise!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tune in tomorrow for the final State!

[Antonio the Sixth]

See this is why Pacific is the best state in this nation, barely gave the So Cal embarrassments a chance, and had this state it's way instead of Del Sur stupidity, Kennedy would have remained the victor...Humphrey may have won the presidency, and Ford wouldn't have won all the Left Coast!

BEST DAMN STATE EVER! NO REGRESSIVE OBSTURCTIONISM!


...~sighs~ This means the greatest embarrassment is the last, the state that robbed the actual California of being a Kennedy-Humphrey-Carter-Dukakis state all of whom lost by absurdly narrow margins which California (okay okay California drank the HW juice as well) and Pacifica would've have given

The state that fostered Nixon, the state with the worst weather and tackiest cities.

Yours is a post the best describes progressives: Utopia can be achieved if only all opposition is removed. This is the heart of leftism, progessivism etc. "The prefection of man is possible with the right people in control" A well educated, well cultured bureaucracy to plan the lives of the serfs to achieve the "prefect society" Nudge is a word used by the likes of Cass Sunstein.

It's a thread about splitting up States, could you keep your deranged political nonsense out of it? Thanks.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.

I certainly wouldn't call your post "deranged nonsense", but yeah, I guess that this little exchange teaches us that it's best to tone down excessively partisan comments (though I absolutely agree with your feeling).

And summer is, comparatively speaking, the worst season in San Francisco. San Francisco falls are the best.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I s'pose this goes for me as well and that's fair enough, got a bit carried away on that part.

I'm not recanting where weather's concerned, SF Summers are by far the best Summers.

I certainly wouldn't call your post "deranged nonsense", but yeah, I guess that this little exchange teaches us that it's best to tone down excessively partisan comments (though I absolutely agree with your feeling).

And summer is, comparatively speaking, the worst season in San Francisco. San Francisco falls are the best.

Given I just lived through that, I'm going to have to say:...What's the difference  XD?

Not much (though August has a lot of fog and wind, which go away in September and the next months), but for a summer, the weather isn't all that impressive, while for fall, it's amazing. Going out wearing only a T-shirt in November is a rather thrilling experience for someone used of Paris' weather.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And now, ladies and gentlemen... five years, four months and six days after the start of this thread... it is my pleasure to introduce you to our 51st and final State!

California del Sur

Like the RL State it is carved from, California del Sur has the distinction of being - by far - the most populous State in the country. With 21 million inhabitants enumerated in the 2010 census, it is still bigger than any RL State besides California and Texas. Compared to OTL CA, its rise to the forefront is delayed by a decade: while IRL, CA passed NY in 1970, this scenario's New York remained the biggest State until the 1980 census. Still, the trend is largely comparable, and although CS's demographic growth has slowed down since 1990, its status remains unchallenged. Aside from that, CS is a densely populated and largely urban State. Although it contains some vast deserted areas in the East (the "Inland Empire"), the coast hosts the gigantic megalopolis built around Los Angeles and San Diego. This is the land of sprawling cities, hot weather, and, obviously, Latino politics. Making up 38.6% of the VAP (compared to 22.6% in Pacific and 30.5% in California), Hispanics would play a major role in the State's political life.

CS Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Politically, this is probably the most significant Democratic conquest of the current realignment. Before 1992, CS had never supported a Democrat aside from LBJ. Since 1992, however, the Democratic Presidential candidate has always carried it. The realignment is undeniable. Back in the days California del Sur used to be a pretty conservative State. In 1964, it was one of Goldwater's best States outside of the South (he did better there than in Indiana, for example). Favorite sons Nixon and Reagan had no trouble prevailing there. The first, while he struggled a bit against Kennedy, distanced Humphrey by 8 points and broke 50% despite Wallace's presence. As for Reagan, he trounced Carter by 22 points in 1980, and four years later he became the only candidate to break 60% in the State.

Although the importance of 1992 is often exaggerated in the political evolution, it really was a pivotal moment for California Del Sur. With Bush's percentage dropping by more than 20 points, the State went from a solid Republican margin to a solid Democratic one without any transition. The trend continued in the following years. CS reelected Clinton with an absolute majority, then saw Gore prevail by the exact same margin over Bush. 2004 marked a step backwards, with Bush taking an honorable 47% and proving that the State could still be somewhat competitive. However, in the Obama years, CS is beginning to look like a Democratic stronghold. It remains less Democratic than OTL California - even in 2008, Obama couldn't get above 60% - but still enough to keep the State outside of the competition. Maybe Romney could have tried campaigning there, but it's hard to see him gain more than a couple points.

While CS is probably gone for the GOP at the Presidential level, its statewide politics would be pretty interesting to follow. The State retains some notable conservative tendencies: it went 55% in favor of Prop 8, only 52% in favor of Prop 30, and back in 1994 it gave a whopping 62.5% to Prop 187. It also gave Schwarzenegger a landslide in 2003 and 2006. The main factor of the Democrats' strength would obviously be Hispanics, but their leanings at the local level might vary. The right kind of Republican could still prevail in Senatorial or Gubernatorial races. Its legislatures are probably safely in Democratic hands, though.

There's not need for fancy maps to describe CS's geography, I think you can all guess it pretty easily. Los Angeles County is the base of Democratic strength, and without it the State would actually be fairly competitive - if not GOP-leaning. In all Presidential elections since 1960, LA County has been more Democratic than the State as a whole. And, a testimony of its impact, in all elections since 1980, all the other counties (except the heavily Hispanic Imperial) have been more Republican than the State as a whole. In 2012, it cast 45% of the State's total vote. The only real base of support left to Republicans is Orange County. San Diego County, once solidly Republican (it gave Bush over 60% in 1988), has seen a massive Democratic trend. The remaining three counties are still relatively marginal, but are also trending Democratic. Thus, it wouldn't be surprising to see a Democrat eventually surpass Reagan's 1984 peak (provided they win nationally).

Capital: Riverside

Governor: I feel creative... and since the race was in 2010, let's say Steve Cooley

Senators: Antonio Villaraigosa (class 2) and Loretta Sanchez (class 3)

Representatives: I can only assume that the political climate around redistricting would be similar than in OTL California, with a nonpartisan redistricting commission being enacted through popular initiative. As a result, we can keep the original tally of 21D-9R.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks!

Anyone else has comments on this final State? I thought it would be a bigger deal for people.

BTW, since I brought it up in this last post, here are all the States where Hispanics make up more than 20% of the VAP. With these modifications, their number has jumped from 6 to 10:
- Rio Grande: 53.4% !!!
- New Mexico: 42.3%
- California del Sur: 38.6%
- California: 30.5%
- South Florida: 27.7%
- Texas: 25.6%
- Arizona: 25.0%
- Jefferson: 24.3%
- Pacific: 22.6%
- Nevada: 22.3%

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks, everybody!

More importantly though, what's the graph of the three and the real California look like?

You thought I could forget such an important piece of the project? Here it is!



As you can see, it started off with the two northern States leaning Democrat while CS leaned Republican. 1972 seems to have been a rather anomalous year, with McGovern doing comparatively very well in all of California (he even kept Nixon below his national margin in his native State of California del Sur!). Democrats began losing ground in California right after that: in 1976, it was the perfect bellwhether, and in subsequent elections it had a slight GOP lean (becoming, after 1992, the most Republican of the three States). Meanwhile, both PC and CS began their Democratic trend in 1984. Their movement over the 1980-2012 was comparable, but since PC started off as a Democratic and CS as Republican they remain very different. CS realigned to the Democrats in 1992, and saw a few ebbs and flows in the following years, but in 2008 and 2012 saw a pronounced Democratic trend. Pacific, meanwhile, saw a 19-point trend over the span of two elections (1996-2004) going from safe D to one-party State levels. Finally, California slipped further to the right in the late 1990s and early 2000s, peaking at R+14 in 2004, but by 2012 it has moved back to Swing State territory in 2012.

[Antonio the Sixth]

BTW, would it possible to see the full election maps for 1960-2012? I'm particularity interested to see if the 2000 and 1960 results. No need to rush it of course, I'm just curious.

...and yes, that's exactly what I had in mind next! I'm gonna run through all Presidential elections from 1960 to 2012, similarly to what I did for the States. Brace yourselves!