Talk Elections

Very rough calculations done for fun, by 'resetting' African-American population distribution to 1860 levels. A few simplifying caveats: I didn't account for population changes changing EVs, assumed that all AAs vote Democratic, and that AAs turned out at the same level as the general population. I hope to do a more precise version sometime in the future.

In all these maps, 30% = closer than 5%, 40% = closer than 10%.

2008:

()

375/163

Closest states:

PA: R+0.47%
NJ: D+1.11%
MO: R+1.63%
MI: D+2.23%
MT: R+2.93%

2012:

()

353/200

Closest states:

DE: R+0.32%
WI: D+0.87%
CO: D+1.08%
IL: D+1.99%
TX: D+2.30%

2016:

()

303/235

Closest states:

MS: R+0.13%
NJ: R+0.47%
CO: D+0.63%
NH: R+0.85%
ME: D+2.19%
EDIT:

Here's my PVI calculation, based only on 2012 and 2016. Sorry to pagestretch, but I couldn't figure out how to do spoilers.

 Wyoming: R+26
 Oklahoma: R+24
 Utah: R+21
 West Virginia: R+21
 Idaho: R+19
 North Dakota: R+17
 Kansas: R+16
 Nebraska: R+16
 South Dakota: R+15
 Indiana: R+14
 Alaska: R+12
 Montana: R+11
 Missouri: R+10
 Arkansas: R+9
 Kentucky: R+9
 Ohio: R+9
 Tennessee: R+9
 Arizona: R+7
 Michigan: R+7
 Pennsylvania: R+6
 Alabama: R+5
 Delaware: R+4
 Iowa: R+4
 Louisiana: R+4
 Nevada: R+4
 Wisconsin: R+3
 Minnesota: R+2
 Colorado: R+1
 New Hampshire: R+1
 New Jersey: R+1
 Illinois: EVEN
 Mississippi: EVEN
 Connecticut: D+1
 Georgia: D+2
 New Mexico: D+2
 Texas: D+2
 Maine: R+3
 Maryland: D+3
 North Carolina: D+3
 New York: D+4
 Oregon: D+4
 Washington: D+5
 Rhode Island: D+6
 South Carolina: D+7
 Virginia: D+7
 Massachusetts: D+8
 California: D+9
 Florida: D+13
 Vermont: D+15
 Hawaii: D+16
 District of Columbia: D+43

EDIT: more done here:

This is fantastic data! Thanks for posting this! I never knew that Trump wouldn't be president if blacks stayed clustered in the South and the Great Migration never occurred, but it makes perfect sense!

The GOP hold on the South is very tenuous beneath the surface and it depends on the fact that Whites outnumber blacks by just enough so that their 75% with whites can outnumber 90% D blacks.

Narrow the composition gaps and the map changes drastically.

MS was majority black before the Great Migration, so, if no blacks left the South for some reason, it would almost certainly have been a Clinton state in 2016.

Of course, this would require some fantastical events that not only keep black voters in place in the South but nonetheless result in the same late-20th and 21st-century political and other events happening (e.g., would Barack Obama have come anywhere near the Presidency if Michelle Robinson [Obama] was born, grew up and lived in Alabama and they never met as a result?)

You're right - what my model did was directly adjust vote counts by the % difference in population, so what I think happened is black MS turnout was low enough in 2016 such that the greater population was just barely not enough. Clearly this would not be the case were they the majority.

But the purpose of this was not to make a realistic timeline in any way, just to visualize the population movement.

Here's a thread from 2011 about this. (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=132061.0)

No Great Migration also likely means no Northern Cities racial backlash among working/middle-class whites.

It likely means no President Nixon.

Yep.

Fascinating maps, Karpatsky. The idea of Mississippi as an even-PVI state if its black population were higher is actually for some reason a lot easier for me to wrap my head around than the idea of Illinois as an even-PVI state if its black population were lower.

It may also mean no major civil rights bills, at least in the 1960s, since the growing power of non-disenfranchised Northern blacks was a major part of what pushed Northern politicians to back the civil rights movement.

It also likely means that the Democrats don't embrace Civil Rights either, as blacks are not forming part of the urban coalition in the Northern states either.

Maybe/maybe not. It depends greatly upon why the Great Migration didn't happen. Is it because the North proves much more hostile to Negroes moving north or is it because Southern Whites force their Negroes to stay or most unlikely of all, is it because conditions for colored people are more advanced than they were in reality?

It’s nitpicking, but large numbers of AAs in New York, Massachusetts, and Florida are from the Caribbean, not the U.S. South.

Also fair. I don't know how I would isolate them though. Besides, the only state where I imagine those populations would make a difference is NJ.

Great work! One question, however:

Changes to population numbers would also change the number of electoral college votes for some states. Is there any way to estimate the effect this would have on these maps?

Yeah, I just didn't from the start. This is what I get just by changing the state populations by the proportional % of black population difference:

()

Which is about what you'd expect, minus KY, which appears to be a marginal case. I didn't check, but I don't think this changes any of the above results.

I could see the GOP taking a more active role in civil rights legislation, especially voting rights, as it would help the party break into the South.

Northern whites would be much more Liberal and European like, without the racial polarization.

This would in turn harden the core of Democratic support in the South as urban+black belt white, which would flee to their own white flight communities.

Republicans would then make gains among the upcountry whites. So basically the dynamic we see growing in the south with non-college whites being Republican, college whites democratic, but with African-Americans flipped.

This sorta is what happened in 1928, though blacks couldn't vote obviously.

Like they are in Iowa and rural MI?  Keep in mind the places in the north with large black populations like Chicago and Detriot have fairly liberal white populations.  Racial polarization in the midwest isn't like the south

Another interesting map would be US without 1965 immigration act+ enforcing immigration laws at the southern border.

Without the 1965 Immigration Act almost all those Latin Americans wanting to immigrate here could.

Before the act, quotas capped immigration from countries corresponding to their percent of the US population.  Latinos were under 5% so Latino immigration couldn't exceed that by more than 3%, per the quota law.  3rd world immigration was capped to maintain the demographics.

Yawn. another right-winger implying illegal immigrants regularly vote in elections when there's no evidence to back this up.

You do realise the 1965 Immigration Act drastically changed the racial makeup of the United States due by and large to legal immigration, right?

It wasn't that way back in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. Urban ethnic whites joined forces with high end Republican suburbia to give Nixon his victories in key industrial states like MI, ILL, OH and also CA. The same thing happened in 1980 with Reagan, added by Anderson peeling off liberals in those cities as well.

Certain segments yes, but the irony is who would be their vehicle for advancement? Blacks in the south keep the Democrats glued to their race conscious base, which makes them the party of high end Southerners. Meanwhile Republicans would remain the party of Northern Business interests. So both parties would be more moderate and open to government intervention, it is unlikely that it would be a massive shift to the left barring a collapse for one of the parties or the supplanting of one of them by the Progressives at some point.

I wasn't just talking about illegals.  The '65 act let in legal immigrants mostly from Latin America and Asia, populations which vote Dem 2:1.  Also, while illegals technically aren't allowed to vote (California lacks voter ID requirements so there is likely at least some illegal voting there), but the kids the illegals have on US soil are automatically citizens and they can vote.  Illegal immigration does have political implications in the long run, just delayed.  If Latino immigration remained capped at around 5% of all immigration and laws against illegal immigration were actually enforced, the Southwest would look nothing like it does today politically.  CA, AZ, NV, and TX would all vote more conservative and have lower populations.  

The quotas before 1965 didn't apply to countries in the Americas. Now there were certain other formalities that had to observed, but most of those now crossing our southern border now would be able to do so if the pre-1965 law were still in force. Those from "the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Canal Zone, and the independent republics of Central and South America" were non-quota immigrants by section 4(c) of the Immigration Act of 1924.

Of course I do?

He said ..."enforcing immigration laws at the Southern border", implying that illegal immigrants are being allowed into the country and voting.

Do you know what birthright citizenship is?

You imply we had open borders with Mexico before 1965, heard of operation wetback?  We did deport illegals from latin america before.  But to be clear, I support strict limits on immigration from low development, high crime, high birthrate countries like mexico.

I sincerely hope for your sake that you don't have any Irish ancestry. After all, the Know Nothings wanted strict limits from low development, high crime, high birthrate countries like Ireland.  But I digress.

I never said the borders were completely open. Immigrants from elsewhere in the Americas were supposed to complete certain formalities that the Mexican government put roadblocks on because they didn't want major emmigration. (There were times when Mexican crops rotted in the fields for lack of labor to harvest them.) The Bracero program was initially an arrangement to get the Mexican government to allow Mexicans to come north on a seasonal basis that allowed for crops on both sides of the border to be harvested in a timely fashion and freed up U.S. manpower to be used in the war effort.

Now it's true that some Mexicans didn't bother with the formalities and others overstayed their time in the Bracero program. It's also the case that the Bracero program was continued at least a decade longer than it should have. However, it's also true that the vast majority of Central American asylum seekers would be admitable as ordinary immigrants if the pre-1965 law were in place.

I never said I support the Know Nothing Party restrictions.  I just am not sure why we need to turn more red states blue, CA, NV, NM, CO, and AZ are enough.  Not all of those are blue but they're headed that way.  Also in that time there wasn't a need to restrict mexican immigration because they weren't coming in such numbers where they'd become a majority in any states.  But now we need restriction.  One problem I have with the current immigration debate is that letting in millions of legal immigrants per year is treated as non-negotiable.  It's perfectly reasonable to say 320 million people is enough, especially with automation on the horizon.

Here's the data for 2020:



340/198

Closest states:

DE: D+0.02%
MS: D+1.16%
NJ: D+1.47%
IL: D+2.11%
MN: D+2.55

Flips from '16: MS, MN, NJ, DE, NH

Macomb was one of the few counties to vote for Humphrey in 1968 in MI giving him the victory there.

Macomb has a truly bizarre and unique voting history. I believe it is the only Humphrey ‘68-Bush ‘92-Gore ‘00 county in the entire country.

Why is MS so close?  Wasn't it solidly majority black before the migration?

It was. I think that's an artifact of lower AA turnout in reality, which likely wouldn't be the case in this alternate world.

or AA turnout would be even lower, due to measures taken by the state government.  I'm not sure the VRA would've passed with as stringent of rules as it had in otl, since blacks wouldn't be part of the northern Dem coalition.  Not saying Jim Crow would still be in place, but we can't assume legislation would be exactly the same.  Also, Southern whites would likely be even more red, without the great migration, racial polarization would be even greater.  The opposite is true in the north.  Whites in states like IL and MI would be bluer, but not necessarily by lot.

Also why would TX be blue?  It had a far lower population pre migration, would the black share really be very high with all the white transplants?