Alternate US States

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

Well, I'm quite disappointed to see there is absoutely no comment about the new states themselves, their politics and if they fit with what you expected. IMO, Midwest is a quite interesting region regarding the State borders modifications...

Part of the problem there is that you've essentially gerrymandered the state boundaries, so there are very few surprises. Everything is going as expected.

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

Well, I'm quite disappointed to see there is absoutely no comment about the new states themselves, their politics and if they fit with what you expected. IMO, Midwest is a quite interesting region regarding the State borders modifications...

Part of the problem there is that you've essentially gerrymandered the state boundaries, so there are very few surprises. Everything is going as expected.

Gerrymandered ?
Every State change is based on intra-state regions, at least taking into account the State's size. If what you meant is that the new states created are more politically characterized, fair enough, but how to avoid it ? If you had to split NY in two States, wouldn't you do one State with NYC metro and the other with the upstate ? If you choose to split a state in a way which will make two new similar states, then you'd have to gerrymander.
And BTW, I perfectly know it's possible to give a kind of prediction of how the State will go. however, you can only make an aproximative prediction. You can imagine if a stae will be safe dem/rep or if he'll be close, but not precisely how much it will be dem/rep, if it will be more or less democratic than the national margin, etc. For example, I expected Allegheny to be far closer, and Indiana to remain democrat. And even now, would you be able to say precisely if Obama will win California above the national margin ? If Rio Grande will be a democratic stronghold, or just a dem-leaning State ? If you do, then you are far better than me.

To bgwah : you are right indeed, and I will try to correct this as soon as possible, as I realized that it was quite unfair. However, as I saw there, there is also a "central Washington" located between my separation line and yours. The reason why I chose to let central Washington to WA is because I didn't want to make it too small, and to make BS too big in terms of population. Anyways, I now think it is possible to find an arangement about this line. I'll start to work on it later.

And now, let's come back to another State.

Chicago

Corresponding to the biggest extension of Chicago Metropolitan area, CH would obviously be dominated by its homonymous city (and of course capital). This domination would play a determinating role in the State's politics, as the votes coming from Cook County represented half of its total votes in 2008. As a result, CH is an overwhelmingly democratic State, and would have been safe since decades. The 2008 results are pretty similar to those of NY (which isn't surprising considering their demographical similarity), though slightly closer.

CH county map :


Barack Obama : 2,720,995 (66.93%) => 16 EVs
John McCain : 1,296,268 (31.88%)
Others : 48,186 (1.19%)


LNPI : +27.78 => dem stronghold.
Obviously, and all the more that "home State effect" would play even better there, Obama would carry Chicago by an overwhelming margin, getting more than two thirds of the total vote. And obviously again, Cook county would make it impossible for any Republican to carry this State. Just immagine : in a situation of tie in the State, McCain would've carried every single county except Cook, and would be below 60% only in Cook, Will, DeKalb, Lake (IL), LaPorte, Lake (IN) and Kenosha counties. Despite that, Obama would still carry Cook county with 58.69% of the votes. The big question now is how the remaining part of Illinois will vote (perhaps you know that, Vazdul ), in order to determine which party will actually benefit to the split. Indeed, the inclusion of Chicago in Illinois IRL had secured it for democrats, and the separation with the rest of Illinois, while creating this democratic stronghold, may at last give "true" Illinois to the republicans.

Perhaps the use of the word "gerrymandered" was a bit harsh, but:

1. You yourself have admitted to taking politics into consideration when determining where to draw the state boundaries, and
2. Like it or not, the new states that have resulted from your divisions are much more polarized than their RL counterparts.

Allegheny was not a very big surprise for me- it is a traditionally Democratic state that recently has seen rapid shifts toward the GOP, similarly to West Virginia.

Likewise, Indiana was no shocker either. RL Indiana voted for Obama only narrowly, and only because of his huge margins in the Chicago Metro area. Take that area out, and you're left with a very Republican state indeed.

I will admit that the most interesting states are yet to come, particularly Rio Grande, Nevada, and California. It looks as though Rio Grande might have enough of Republican central Texas to make things interesting. You've given Nevada some of California's most Republican areas, which could mean a competetive state becomes a Republican-leaning state. California looks fairly Republican to me, but I still think the results will be pretty interesting.

As for my prediction for the remainder of Illinois (since you called me out on it ), I predict that Obama carried it, but that this result is an anomaly caused by a combination of the Favorite Son Factor and a favorable year for Democrats. In most elections, Illinois would be classed as Likely Republican.

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

As I said above, "gerrymandering" was probably not the best choice of words. I was merely trying to get the point across that the states are more polarized, and for that reason there haven't been any real surprises thus far. I also agree with you that political polarization is rather unavoidable when using your other criteria for dividing the states.

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

These new states would also completely change the dynamics of Presidential campaigning. For example, with Illinois being a Republican-leaning state where Obama has a regional advantage, both parties would undoubtedly campaign harder to try to win the state. The true effect of TTL's Illinois' status as a swing state in 2008 and the resulting change of campaign strategy is difficult to determine, but it is entirely feasible for this version of Illinois to be a McCain state.

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

2004 results for Wisconsin:

John Kerry (D): 1,521,285
George W. Bush (R): 1,520,809
Others: 30,430

2000 results for Wisconsin:
George W. Bush (R): 1,278,644
Al Gore (D): 1,274,349
Others: 120,720

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

I disagree with you about the lack of consequences for the alteration of Michigan and Wisconsin. Wisconsin, already a battleground state in close elections, becomes an even greater battlefield with the addition of the Upper Peninsula, with one more electoral vote at stake to boot. In case you didn't notice, that's a 476 vote margin for Kerry in 2004, and a swing to Bush in 2000.

Michigan, on the other hand, is a Democratic-leaning battleground state that becomes slightly more Democratic with the removal of the Upper Peninsula.

There are also consequences for Congressional races. With these boundaries, Bart Stupak likely represents the new district in Wisconsin, but Michigan still has the same number of districts as in RL. It's likely that Stupak's district would be replaced with a significantly more Republican district in Northern Michigan.

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

I edited the above post to include "others" votes for Wisconsin in 2000 and 2004.

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

I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

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

I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

What... Bush carried Chicago ?!? How comes ?

Chicago suburbs used to be very Republican, and even Cook county wasn't as overwhelmingly Democratic as it is today. The only counties in Chicago that Dukakis carried were Cook (55.77%), Kenosha (57.72%), and the Lake in Indiana (56.55%), while suburban counties such as DuPage hovered around 70% for Bush.

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

I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

What... Bush carried Chicago ?!? How comes ?

Chicago suburbs used to be very Republican, and even Cook county wasn't as overwhelmingly Democratic as it is today. The only counties in Chicago that Dukakis carried were Cook (55.77%), Kenosha (57.72%), and the Lake in Indiana (56.55%), while suburban counties such as DuPage hovered around 70% for Bush.

But the weird thing is that Illinois was quite close at the time (it went to Bush by only 2 points), so if Dukakis is so poor in Chicago, it means he'd poll quite well in the new Illinois. He probably would have lost by a margin inferior to Bush's national margin, which means Alternate Illinois was more democratic in 1988 than in 2008... Very weird.

I'll look into that later tonight, when I have more time.

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

1988 Results for Illinois:

George H. W. Bush (R): 857,894 (51.92%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 785,424 (47.54%)
Others: 8,939 (0.54%)

Interestingly, much of Dukakis's strength in Illinois comes from rural counties in southern and western Illinois where Obama fared rather poorly, while Obama outperformed Dukakis in more urban counties (such as Sangamon and Peoria) and in northwestern Illinois.

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

1976 Results for Chicago:
Jimmy Carter (D): 1,640,808 (49.08%)
Gerald Ford (R): 1,639,294 (49.03%)
Others: 63,234 (1.89%)

As with Dukakis in 1988, the only counties won by Carter were Cook, Kenosha, and the Lake in Indiana. Ford's margins in the Chicago suburbs were weaker than Bush's in '88, so Carter still managed to carry the state.

1976 Results for Illinois:
Gerald Ford (R): 893,523 (51.44%)
Jimmy Carter (D): 818,979 (47.14%)
Others: 24,666 (1.42%)

As with Dukakis in 1988, Carter was strongest in rural counties in the south and was weakest in the northwest.

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

1964 Results for North Florida:
Barry Goldwater (R) 417,826 (53.30%)
Lyndon Johnson (D) 366,155 (46.70%)
Others: 0 (0.00%)

1964 Results for South Florida:
Lyndon Johnson (D) 582,385 (54.40%)
Barry Goldwater (R) 488,115 (45.60%)
Others: 0 (0.00%)

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

1968 Results for North Florida:
George Wallace (Amer. Ind.): 371,558 (40.77%)
Richard Nixon (R): 305,560 (33.53%)
Hubert Humphrey (D): 234,204 (25.70%)
Others: 0 (0.00%)

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

Updates? This is honestly my favourite thread on Atlas

Yeah, update please. This weird TL is very, very interesting

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

2004 Results for South Florida:

John Kerry: 2,233,425 (51.20%)
George W. Bush: 2,090,817 (47.93%)
Others: 38,302 (0.87%)

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

1960 Results for North Florida:

Richard Nixon: 306,997 (50.07%)
John F. Kennedy: 306,197(49.93%)

1960 Results for South Florida:
Richard Nixon: 488,479 (52.47%)
John F. Kennedy: 442,503 (47.53%)

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

I remember this project, and I really want to see it completed.

In the meantime, however:

1912 Presidential Election Results, Chicago:
Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive): 220,255 (39.42%)
Woodrow Wilson (D): 168,009 (30.07%)
William Taft (R): 106,342 (19.03%)
Others: 64,162 (11.48%)

1912 Presidential Election Results, Allegheny:
Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive): 191,110 (37.70%)
Woodrow Wilson (D): 157,638 (31.09%)
William Taft (R): 91,904 (18.13%)
Others: 66,329 (13.08%)

1912 Presidential Election Results, Pennsylvania:
Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive): 251,246 (35.56%)
Woodrow Wilson (D): 237,999 (33.69%)
William Taft (R): 180,031 (25.48%)
Others: 37,261 (5.27%)

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

I've decided to calculate the (unofficial) 2012 results for all of the states featured so far. Hopefully this will inspire Antonio to complete this project...

New England
Barack Obama (D): 966,510 (56.16%)
Mitt Romney (R): 713,047 (41.43%)
Others: 41,426 (2.41%)
LNPI: +12.00 (from +10.57 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 1.43)

Massachusetts:
Barack Obama (D): 2,179,819 (61.00%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,334,458 (37.34%)
Others: 59,340 (1.66%)
LNPI: +20.93 (from +18.81 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 2.12)

New York:
Barack Obama (D): 2,573,302 (68.45%) (that's a swing to Obama)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,146,460 (30.49%)
Others: 39,845 (1.06%)
LNPI: +35.23 (from +29.88 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 5.35)

Adirondack:
Barack Obama (D): 1,302,524 (53.62%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,080,177 (44.46%)
Others: 46,674 (1.92%)
LNPI: +6.43 (from +2.34 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 4.09)

Pennsylvania:
Barack Obama (D): 1,951,932 (56.96%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,434,427 (41.86%)
Others: 40,309 (1.18%)
LNPI: +12.37 (from +12.04 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 0.33)

Allegheny:
Mitt Romney (R): 1,160,747 (54.63%)
Barack Obama (D): 935,289 (44.02%)
Others: 28,606 (1.35%)
LNPI: -13.34 (from -11.23 in 2008, a Republican trend of 2.11)

Maryland:
Barack Obama (D): 2,012,238 (63.23%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,106,497 (34.77%)
Others: 63,799 (2.00%)
LNPI: +25.73 (from +22.98 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 2.75)

Erie:
Barack Obama (D): 1,287,331 (58.07%)
Mitt Romney (R): 899,420 (40.57%)
Others: 30,086 (1.36%)
LNPI: +14.77 (from +12.52 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 2.25)

Ohio:
Mitt Romney (R): 1,684,162 (53.75%)
Barack Obama (D): 1,403,510 (44.79%)
Others: 45,631 (1.46%)
LNPI: -11.69 (from -13.58 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 1.89)

Indiana:
Mitt Romney (R): 1,280,249 (56.55%)
Barack Obama (D): 938,560 (41.46%)
Others: 45,004 (1.99%)
LNPI: -17.82 (from -9.57 in 2008, a Republican trend of 9.57)

Chicago:
Barack Obama (D): 2,413,084 (63.47%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,333,766 (35.08%)
Others: 55,068 (1.45%)
LNPI: +25.66 (from +27.78 in 2008, a Republican trend of 2.12)

Illinois:
Mitt Romney (R): 937,729 (53.02%)
Barack Obama (D): 795,124 (44.95%)
Others: 35,869 (2.03%)
LNPI: -10.80 (from -4.01 in 2008, a Republican trend of 6.79)

Wisconsin:
Barack Obama (D): 1,637,600 (52.49%)
Mitt Romney (R): 1,447,178 (46.39%)
Others: 34,944 (1.12%)
LNPI: +3.37 (from +6.13 in 2008, a Republican trend of 2.76)

Michigan:
Barack Obama (D): 2,491,528 (54.51%)
Mitt Romney (R): 2,037,766 (44.58%)
Others: 41,364 (0.90%)
LNPI: +7.20 (from +9.52 in 2008, a Republican trend of 2.32)

North Florida:
Mitt Romney (R): 2,005,166 (54.45%)
Barack Obama (D): 1,640,531 (44.55%)
Others: 36,767 (1.00%)
LNPI: -12.63 (from -14.34 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 1.71)

South Florida:
Barack Obama (D): 2,595,501 (54.20%)
Mitt Romney (R): 2,157,008 (45.04%)
Others: 36,115 (0.75%)
LNPI: +6.43 (from +3.22 in 2008, a Democratic trend of 3.21)