Post Random US Election County Maps Here

[Calthrina950]

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. As regards to foreign policy, Dickenson calls for withdrawing from the UN, for ending federal foreign aid, bombing Iran and North Korea, for a military resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, and for other dangerous policies. 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 and foreign 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, MD, 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.

[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.

[Calthrina950]

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.

[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%.

[Calthrina950]

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.

[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.

[Calthrina950]

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 problem I'm having is trying to raise the percentage in Oklahoma County to greater than 60%, while keeping more or less the same county map. But I can, using Inhofe's victory map from 2008, give the Democratic candidate Tulsa. I think that should work.

[Calthrina950]

Here is the third revised Holland map, with changes in Oklahoma:



Also here: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/File:United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2020_(with_percentages).png.

[Metalhead123]

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

[bagelman]

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:

snip

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

Yes, I have a comment: This is the same idea of a map you've made over and over and over again for countless times. You've been at this for two or maybe three years now. It's not a bad map but you've played out the idea like nuts.

[Calthrina950]

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:

snip

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

Yes, I have a comment: This is the same idea of a map you've made over and over and over again for countless times. You've been at this for two or maybe three years now. It's not a bad map but you've played out the idea like nuts.

This isn't the Rutherford scenario: it is another one, which I developed more recently. I've actually developed this one far beyond the previous scenario I've had, and I've made continual revisions, as I've tried to make this map more realistic.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

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:

snip

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

Yes, I have a comment: This is the same idea of a map you've made over and over and over again for countless times. You've been at this for two or maybe three years now. It's not a bad map but you've played out the idea like nuts.

This isn't the Rutherford scenario: it is another one, which I developed more recently. I've actually developed this one far beyond the previous scenario I've had, and I've made continual revisions, as I've tried to make this map more realistic.

It is still the same scenario of "Democratic incumbent president wins massive landslide against unpopular republican." They all look practically identical, and are essentially spam at this point.

[Calthrina950]

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:

snip

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

Yes, I have a comment: This is the same idea of a map you've made over and over and over again for countless times. You've been at this for two or maybe three years now. It's not a bad map but you've played out the idea like nuts.

This isn't the Rutherford scenario: it is another one, which I developed more recently. I've actually developed this one far beyond the previous scenario I've had, and I've made continual revisions, as I've tried to make this map more realistic.

It is still the same scenario of "Democratic incumbent president wins massive landslide against unpopular republican." They all look practically identical, and are essentially spam at this point.

Spam? Isn't this supposed to be a board where you get to post your maps? Why is is that every time I post something, someone on the Internet has a problem with it? If you don't like it, then why comment on it? Why should I waste my time when other people are only going to denigrate my work?

[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!??

[Metalhead123]

Panhandlelandia Part II
The election results of Florida's panhandle from 1980 to 1996

1980


James Carter: 48.70%
Ronald Reagan: 48.30%
Other: 3.00%

1984


Ronald Reagan: 67.47%
Walter Mondale: 32.51%
Other: 0.02%

1988


George Bush: 64.54%
Michael Dukakis: 34.41%
Other: 1.05%

1992


George Bush: 42.10%
William Clinton: 35.20%
H. Ross Perot: 22.30%
Other: 0.40%

1996


Robert Dole: 44.84%
William Clinton: 41.73%
H. Ross Perot: 12.81%
Other: 0.62%

Part III coming soon

[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.

[Sir Mohamed]

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!??

Ups, that was my bad. I misread the thread title for some reason. Deleted/moved.

[Metalhead123]

Guess what this is.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Guess what this is.

Tied West Virginia from the 2016 election results?

[Metalhead123]

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%

[Calthrina950]

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%

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

[Metalhead123]

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?

[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.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

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.

Only 5 counties are R>60% here, and Clinton must be getting big margins out of Monongalia, Jefferson, and Kanawha - the most populous counties in the state.

[CookieDamage]