Post random maps here

[bagelman]

A more competitive 1984:

[bagelman]

Based on some silly scenario I found on another forum.

[bagelman]

1896:

244-203 victory for Bryan

1916:

328-203 R win

1920:

509-22 Democrat win. MS and SC, giving 19 EV to the Democrats, denied ballot access to the Republicans.

[bagelman]

1928:

493-38 DEM win

1932:

397-134 GOP win

[bagelman]

296-242

[bagelman]

R-ME and R-FL vs. D-UT and D-TX

In this alt universe, social security and healthcare is the major issue of the election and the Republicans are the ones who support it as opposed to the democrats who run on using such a large portion of the federal budget on other issues. Also the mormons are overwhelmingly Democratic and mormons are very powerful within the Democrats. Mormons are less prevalent in Idaho however.

[bagelman]

^Isn't that states by average age?

Yep!

Here's another alternative universe:

Safe R
Strong R
Competitive
Strong D
Safe D
 

[bagelman]

An election between the Nationalist and Social Democratic parties in a polarized US with an interesting population distribution. This US is a federation of federations; while states still send individual senators and congressmen to DC and vote separately in elections, major aspects of state government is shared between groups of states. These federations are:

Northeastern: MA+CT+RI+NH+VT+ME, capital Manchester, NH.

Atlantic: NY+PA+NJ+MD+DE, capital New York, NY

Virginian: VA+WV, capital Arlington, VA

Carolingian: NC+SC, capital Raleigh, NC

Southeastern: FL+GA+AL+MS, capital Tallahassee, FL

Midsouthern: LA+AR+TX+OK+NM, capital Houston, TX

Kansan: KS+MO, capital Kansas City, KS

Southwestern: CA+NV+AZ, capital Reno, NV

Mountain: CO+UT, capital Salt Lake City, UT

Great Lakes: OH+IN+MI+IL+WI, capital Cincinnati, OH

Upper Southern: KS+TN, capital Louisville, KY

Northwestern: MN+IA+ND+SD+NE+MT+WY+ID+OR+WA, capital Moscow, ID

Alaska and Hawaii are not part of any federation.

A major issue in this election is the annexation of Canada. The Nationalists want to just take it, while the Social Dems want to take it on Canadian terms. Canada's economy is tanking under the mismanagement of incompetent leadership and most pundits on both sides of the border, excluding ones paid for by the Canadian government, believe annexation is coming soon.

Based on this.

[bagelman]

The liberal party's biggest landslide in modern history, even managing to win Oklahoma.

It's better than the 332-206 result as a result of different population distribution, but still fairly unimpressive compared to the Republican's best landslide from both OTL and ATL.

[bagelman]

R-ID/R-TX defeats D-MA/D-VT 289-249

Primary issue at hand in this election is education and how it should be regulated and provided (or not) at the federal level, state level, local level, and even individual level.. The western GOP ticket favored less regulations and more choice for both local governments and families, while the New Englander Democratic ticket wanted free public college and a strong common curriculum for all public schools nationwide created by the federal government.

Some notes about this alt US:

*The Gov. of Utah had a plan, in the event of a dem. win, to create a education plan that would have used clever trickery to teach Mormon tenets in public schools without technically violating the separation of church and state.
*MI and IL voted to the right of WI.
*Ohio is considered a transition state rather than the eastern part of the midwest. It retains swing state status as in our world, but there is a more pronounced east/west divide and little of a north/south one. Toledo for exampled has more in common with Cincinnati than Cleveland.
*CA was the big swing state in this election. While the Bay Area went all in for the Democrats, it wasn't enough to counter Orange County, the Inland Empire, and high turnout of Mormons and rural people. Latino turnout in LA wasn't high enough to compensate, and some CA Latinos actually supported the GOP in anglophone dominated neighborhoods where Spanish speakers attending public school were liable to be in tiny minorities.
*PR and Guam both voted GOP.

[bagelman]

317-215-3-3, President H. Clinton

[bagelman]

(Republican) Donald Trump: 260 (36.46%)

(Democrat) Hillary Clinton: 206 (34.69%)

(Independent) Bernie Sanders: 41 (15.78%)

(United Conservatives/Independent) Mitt Romney: 28 (10.98%)

The black vote in the primaries leads me to believe that Clinton wins DC with at least two thirds of the vote.

[bagelman]

Left wing civil-rights Democratic ticket wins against a state's rights GOP ticket and a Libertarian ticket with a moderate stance of civil rights and a further right wing economic policy than the GOP.

The Carolinas and FL were easily winnable for the dems, but the Democrats chose a hardline stance on civil rights (which will be vindicated by mainstream historians as an important move forward). There was plenty of campaigning by all three sides in the 'four corners' and in ID & WY.

AL, MS, TN, AR, and LA all have statewide voting policies that are regressive. GA and FL allow county governments to have regressive voting policies. Libertarians oppose the former policies almost as fervently as the Democrats but are more tolerant of the latter, with one congressmen from GA supporting the idea of separate black counties where blacks are allowed to segregate whites out of the county and send black congressmen to DC to represent their interests separate but equal with their southern white counterparts.

SECOND PLACE WINNER:

[bagelman]

(long post)

I like it! The analogues are very fitting.

 I could see Donald Trump disrupting things in 2012 though, running as a populist independent alternative. Many of his voters may be from the long-orhpaned conservative wing of the Democratic parties, which may cause future historians to say that President Reed could have won another term without him.

[bagelman]

2024: Beginnings of a realignment

J. Castro took up the mantle for the Democratic nomination after President and wins because of thin margins in Florida and Texas.

Above is a typical prediction made in 2024. Texas and Pennsylvania would be surprises for this forecaster. Despite leaning Texas towards the GOP, the Republicans are still underestimated in this map.

2028: Realignment disguised as landslide.

President Castro's bulging of the economy would be legendary after the recession of 2027, and loses to a charismatic Republican from Kentucky holding evolved Trump-like positions of moderate economics and nationalism. 

2028 pre-election map:

An historic landslide was already projected for the Republican party, and yet predictions still managed to  underestimate them somewhat. Most kept MD and NY as Strong Dem if not Safe Dem with OR, WA, NJ, RI, CT, MA as all winnable for the Democrats. The above map showed the most accurate prediction with NV, MD, and NY as the swing states.

-------

2036: Realignment complete

Prediction map for general election:

After being left in the wilderness for twenty years, a successful Republican president put them back in for another eight. The Democrats can prevent a third term of Republican control of the White House, but they face an uphill battle as they need to win the majority of the swing states. Recent polls show them winning in Louisiana and Rhode Island but they'll need those two + FL + two out of three of the remaining swing states, as well as GA+WA which are already leaning towards them, in order to win in 2036.

[bagelman]

1980 - pretty much the same

Reagan/Kemp 481

Carter/Mondale 57

1984 Democratic Primaries

Gary Hart (CO)

Larry MacDonald (GA)

Walter Mondale (MN)

Jesse Jackson (IL)


1984 General Election

Reagan / Kemp 535

Hart 3

1988 election

MacDonald 282

Kemp 256

[bagelman]

286-244, 8 too close to call. The Democrats have won the 2008 election.

[bagelman]

Another alt universe map, swing states and competitive states in gray, R-SD/R-NY vs. D-DE/D-NV.

[bagelman]

D-MA / D-FL 425 vs. R-AR / R-IN 113. An alternate 2016 in which a socially liberal democrat who won in '12 and is very popular and respected by large segments of society faced off against a family values George W. Bush esque Republican who is blind to the President's popularity along with many other things. This is the last stand of the GWB socially conservative Evangelical big government wing of the Republicans in this world ; in 2020 the mainstream Republican party would be small government social moderates who are still able to beat down the growing nativist and economic nationalist political insurgency.

[bagelman]

Is that you, Perot?

[bagelman]

The Democratic Party, a socially traditional, pro-welfare, anti-racism party against the socially liberal and economically libertarian American National Party. This map shows the safe or safe enough states in contrast to the competitive states during election season.

The states of this alt USA has evolved differently with Catholic farmers across the great plains, Utopian movements popular with turn of the century northwestern settlers, Boston being the protestant working city in which money is everything, and St. Louis socialists struggling against St. Paul capitalists. There's still a Dixie, and there are still eastern Europeans in Great Lakes area cities. There are also Eastern Europeans in Alaska, as the brutal Russian Tsar Alexander the Bloodthirsty would deport "disloyal" ethnic groups from Poland or the Baltics and deport them all the way to the other side of the Empire, a practice thankfully relatively short lived.

The two parties are pretty even with each other.

Results of the largest ANP landslide in history, back in 1972.

[bagelman]

Based on this, which is an improved version of a post I made here, which was inspired by someone here asking for a silly scenario in which Zinn goes up against Reagan '84 and Bush '88.


Hard Left Turn into a Wall

1968

[GOP] Richard Nixon (CA) 288 EV

[DEM] Robert Kennedy (NY) 173 EV

[AIP] George Wallace (AL) 77 EV

1972

[GOP] President Richard Nixon (CA) 377 EV

[DEM] Hubert Humphrey (MN) 161 EV

1976

[DEM] Henry Jackson (WA) 321 EV

[GOP] Bob Dole (KS) 217 EV

Scoop Jackson was nominated as a last minute compromise to prevent the toxic '68 AIP candidate George Wallace from winning the nomination. As part of this compromise, Robert Byrd, a former senator, was made Jackson's running mate. Dull Dole was expected to win on the coattails of the Nixon presidency, until the "Watergate Surprise" in which it was revealed Nixon interfered in the '72 election and the HHH campaign to win. Dole collapsed in the polls as a result, giving Jackson an unexpected decisive victory. Jackson died in January 1978, leaving Byrd in office...

1980

[GOP] Ronald Reagan (CA) 491 EV

[DEM] George McGovern (SD) 25 EV

[DEM] President Robert Byrd (WV) 22 EV

1984

[GOP] President Ronald Reagan (CA) 522 EV

[DEM] Howard Zinn (NY) 16 EV

[TDM] Geraldine Ferraro (NY) 0 EV

Staunch liberal Howard Zinn became the Democratic nominee, as the sacrificial lamb to be slaughtered by an adored President Reagan. Zinn became very popular with the Democratic base.

The original nominee for the True Democrat party was Ted Kennedy, but he was murdered by an anti-Catholic assassin from Northern Ireland.

1988

[GOP] George Bush (TX) 535 EV

[DEM] Howard Zinn (NY) 3 EV

[TDM] Lyndon LaRouche (VA) 0 EV

Howard Zinn ran again, at first doing better than '84, but then revealed himself to be a socialist. George Bush went ballistic and the whole country went into a red scare. By November, ads were running in Washington DC for Vice President Bush. The resulting landslide was bigger than 1936.

Why did the Democratic party bosses allow Zinn to run again? Many of them had jumped ship to the True Democrat party in '84, which before the assassination of Ted Kennedy was a serious outfit inspired by President Bryd's defiance of the liberal wing of the party. Establishment Democrats were scattered during Reagan's second term, some joining the GOP, some staying with the True Dems, and the few remaining in the main Democratic party approved of Zinn, viewing Bush as weaker than Reagan, Zinn as a principled Democrat and not the socialist he really was, and being too weak to stop his movement.

The "True Democrat" party was hijacked by LaRouche and his movement. LaRouche would run as the nominee for every election up to 2004.

[bagelman]

1992

[GOP] President George Bush (TX) 387 EV

[REF] Ross Perot (TX) 138 EV

[DEM] Jesse Jackson (DC) 13 EV

1996

[REF] Ross Perot (TX) 305 EV

[GOP] John Danforth (MO) 233 EV

2000

[GOP] William Clinton (AR) 395 EV

[REF] President Ross Perot (TX) 121 EV

[DEM] Ralph Nader (CT) 22 EV

2004

[REF] Jerry Brown (CA) 274 EV

[GOP] President William Clinton (AR) 261 EV

[DEM] Ralph Nader (CT) 3 EV


2008

[REF] President Jerry Brown (CA) 298 EV

[GOP] George W. Bush (TX) 237 EV

[DEM] Dennis Kucinich (OH) 3 EV

[bagelman]

Hindsight is 20/20: What a perfect prediction map would've looked like

Confidence EV: 231-197
Tossup EV: 110

[bagelman]

Based on a comment on AAD, someone said that the only thing that truly mattered this election was the record breaking margins in NYC and San Fran. So I moved NYC to PA and SF to MI. Trump still wins.