Post Random US Election County Maps Here

[Calthrina950]

I am posting here the county map which I devised for one of my scenarios: an alternate 2020 presidential election, with a popular Democratic incumbent winning reelection against his Republican challenger:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/novelas/images/4/45/United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county%2C_2020_%28with_percentages%29.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1024?cb=20171130024417

The closest states in this election (those decided by less than 10%) are Mississippi, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

[Calthrina950]

Another map I created, this time using Atlas colors for the Democrats and the Republicans (red for the Democrats, blue for Republicans). It's another Rutherford map, but a different scenario, set in some alternate timeline. 44 states + D.C. are won by the Democrats; 6 by the Republicans. Which ones would those be?:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/novelas/images/e/e9/United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county_%28inverse%29%2C_2016.png/revision/latest?cb=20171208195350

[Calthrina950]

Another map I created, this time using Atlas colors for the Democrats and the Republicans (red for the Democrats, blue for Republicans). It's another Rutherford map, but a different scenario, set in some alternate timeline. 44 states + D.C. are won by the Democrats; 6 by the Republicans. Which ones would those be?:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/novelas/images/e/e9/United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county_%28inverse%29%2C_2016.png/revision/latest?cb=20171208195350

My guess is that at least OK, WY, and WV vote Republican.

Probably also KY, UT, ID.

Maybe instead TN, AL, NE.

You are correct, for the most part. Oklahoma, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama are the six Republican states here. Idaho and Utah go Democratic, but are within single digits.

[Calthrina950]

Just a 50 state Democratic landslide using 2012 as a starting point. I didn't have a particular scenario in mind for this.

This is somewhat off topic, but not really. I notice that you were kicked by the moderator, CalBear, again, on AlternateHistory.com for posting the satirical Rutherford map. He really had little patience or tolerance for what I found to be a humorous take on my character. If I were you, I would try to tread more carefully over there.

[Calthrina950]

Just a 50 state Democratic landslide using 2012 as a starting point. I didn't have a particular scenario in mind for this.

This is somewhat off topic, but not really. I notice that you were kicked by the moderator, CalBear, again, on AlternateHistory.com for posting the satirical Rutherford map. He really had little patience or tolerance for what I found to be a humorous take on my character. If I were you, I would try to tread more carefully over there.

They kick people like it's going out of style over there. I've gotten banned twice in the past six months.

You are right about that. I've seen all of the posts and complaints made by people online about how harsh the moderation is there.

[Calthrina950]

2017 Alabama Senate Special Election (Prediction)


Doug Jones (D) 50.67%
Roy Moore (R) 49.33%

My Prediction V.S the actual results


Actual Results



49.5% Jones
48.8% Moore

]

How did you manage to get the county generator working? Is there any way I could create maps similar to these?

[Calthrina950]

2017 Alabama Senate Special Election (Prediction)


Doug Jones (D) 50.67%
Roy Moore (R) 49.33%

My Prediction V.S the actual results


Actual Results



49.5% Jones
48.8% Moore

How did you manage to get the county generator working? Is there any way I could create maps similar to these?

He might've done that in MS Paint or something.

Photoshop actually

Where do you get the county map template that you used?

[Calthrina950]

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

That makes 19 states all Counties won for LBJ.

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

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

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

[Calthrina950]

What does this represent?

[Calthrina950]

Here's another one. I took the Goldwater 2016 map from this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=255434.0), giving to the Democrat all Goldwater counties won by Clinton, as well as most of the Johnson counties from 1964 (except for some in Arizona, Illinois, and California that I swapped). And I came up with this map:



The only states that I know for sure would flip from Republican to Democratic would be Arizona and Georgia. What about the other Deep South states? I think Mississippi and Alabama would still be Republican, but Louisiana and South Carolina are ambiguous. And what would the congressional district map look like? Which ones would be Republican, and which ones Democratic?

[Calthrina950]

WARNING: non atlas colors




I increased Obama's 2008 margin of victory in the popular vote from 7.26% to 12.26%.

Am I correct in saying that Georgia, Montana, and Missouri would flip to Obama here? And that Texas, South Carolina, etc. would be closer?

[Calthrina950]

Here's another county map. I created a map of the 2016 presidential election in the "Holland Universe", the map of the 2020 Democratic landslide in an alternate timeline, which I had posted earlier. Holland faced Mitt Romney the first time around, and beat him in a much closer election, though it was still a decent victory (larger than either of Obama's). Based upon this map, which states would be Democratic and which ones Republican? Which states would be close? (I'm actually trying to genuinely figure out the answers to these questions):

Also here: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/File:United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2016_(Holland_Version).png

[Calthrina950]

Here's another county map. I created a map of the 2016 presidential election in the "Holland Universe", the map of the 2020 Democratic landslide in an alternate timeline, which I had posted earlier. Holland faced Mitt Romney the first time around, and beat him in a much closer election, though it was still a decent victory (larger than either of Obama's). Based upon this map, which states would be Democratic and which ones Republican? Which states would be close? (I'm actually trying to genuinely figure out the answers to these questions):

Also here: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/File:United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2016_(Holland_Version).png

Holland 417
Trump 121

I think it looks like this? Maybe

You are correct, for the most part. Tex Arkana had posted a map on AlternateHistory.com, in response to this same scenario I posed. However, there are some differences. For one, South Carolina would be a narrow Democratic victory, and New Mexico, of course, would be Democratic. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Virginia, New Jersey, and New Hampshire would have Democratic winning percentages in the mid to upper fifties, not above 60%. Idaho would probably be over 60% Republican. Besides those, you would be correct.

[Calthrina950]

Here's another map, which I originally posted on Alternate History. Along with the explanation:

 This map is of the United States Senatorial elections in 2020, within the "Holland Universe". Holland (as you can guess, if you compare with this county map: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/File:United_States_presidential_election_by_county,_2020.png, posted here earlier), outperforms a number of the Democratic candidates, some by significant margins (Montana, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Iowa, Oregon, and North Carolina being good examples), and others less so. Democrats win Senate seats in Alaska, Colorado, Montana, Georgia, North Carolina, and Maine, and nearly unseat Republican incumbents in Iowa, South Carolina, Nebraska, and Kentucky. Mike Enzi runs unopposed in Wyoming, and so does Jack Reed in Rhode Island. Gary Peters in Michigan, Ed Markey in Massachusetts, Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, Cory Booker in New Jersey, and Tom Carper in Delaware sweep every county in their states (as did Holland in all except for Michigan). In Texas, the Democratic incumbent is Beto O'Rourke, who wins with ~56% of the vote.



Also here if you cannot see it: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/File:United_States_Senatorial_election_results_by_county,_2020.png.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Calthrina950]

What would the electoral map look like here?

[Calthrina950]

guess

Comrade Sanders unites the disenfranchised Iowan proletariat under red?

It is actually based off of a real election, and not arbitrary at all.

Iowa 2016 Presidential, but swing 30 pts for Clinton.

correct

It's amazing to think that's a double digit Democratic win.

]

I think this shows how few counties the Democrats need, compared to the Republicans, to win. That's something which has been true for decades, but has intensified in recent years due to polarization.