US with French parties

[Hash]

Missouri

St. Louis and suburbs

St. Louis would obviously be a Socialist stronghold, for reasons I don't need to explain. I know that there are some white areas within the city itself that are quite racist, and they would likely provide the FN with an important base in the city. In 1997, for example, I would predict that the FN would be quite a bit ahead of the RPR-UDF (and the PS far ahead).

The north-ish suburbs of St. Louis in St. Charles County would be solidly UMP, as would most white-collar suburbs. More blue collar areas along the river, with an old manufacturing base, would be safe-ish areas for the PS.

Central Missouri, Mid-Missouri and the Boot heel

The rural stretch of central Missouri would be like much of the old south: old PS areas, with 'yellow dog Socialists' slowly declining in favour of UMP (growth of white-collar suburbia) and the MPF (growth in rural formerly PS areas). I suppose the UMP would do well in the (predominantly German) wine-growing areas of the Missouri Rhineland, though it would have been a PS area in the past.

The Lead Belt would be an old conservative PS area, with a high FN vote and declining UMP vote. The boot heel of Missouri would be a Dixiecrat PS area and all that entails (for more info, refer to past posts on the Deep South).

The city of Columbia would be PS, though the type of city with a high Green vote and lost by the PS in 2009 to the Greenies. Jefferson City would probably be UMP.

Kansas City and surroundings

Kansas City itself would be strongly Socialist, with the strongest PS support in black and old blue-collar areas while the UMP or Greens would find more support with white, middle-class white-collar employees. The affluent suburbs would be UMP, though older not-as-big suburbia would be traditionally PS with a very strong FN (and in 2007, a big UMP. Some reminds me of the not-so-affluent suburbs of Lyon).

Rural areas in western Missouri would be like the rest of small-town Missouri, old Dixiecrat PS areas.

Ozarks

Like in Arkansas, the old Republican Ozarks would be a UMP stronghold, with the MPF also strong. It would obviously be unlike the other rural Dixiecrat areas in the rest of the state.

Overall Missouri would be one of those southern-like PS states which shifted slowly to the UMP-MPF, and one where Sarkozy's populist and blue-collar appeal in 2007 would have worked well (other such states include parts of PA, TN, IN, parts of IA, AR and the Deep South). In 2010, of course, the UMP would be polling at Moselle-levels.

To give an idea of what Chirac's 1995 victory would look like

Jospin does better in the Rust Belt, Deep South; Chirac does better in moderate rural areas, Gaullist Dakotas, wealthy moderate suburbs in NoVA and Maryland, upstate NY, New England, Catholic areas (Louisiana esp.). Map might be a tad too generous to Jospin, though, but I might (or might not) have cool stuff planned for the Plains and Pacific.

[Hash]

Nebraska

On the whole, Nebraska would be solidly UMP, for rather obvious reasons. However, I suppose that farm issues in various years could allow some PS strength, and the agricultural discontent with Sarkozy would likely mean a high DLR protest vote in 2009. The MPF would be rather weak, because it would be outside its base and doesn't fit with the MPF's image here of 'southern Baptist redneck party'.

Omaha would have old pockets of PS strength, but would be generally UMP (50-53% Sarkozy in 2007, about) though it would likely have a PS mayor and a quasi-full slate of PS general councillors. Lincoln would be traditionally PS, with a high Green vote and a strong UMP. The PS would also have traditional strength in some 'ethnic' areas (Saline County) and Native areas (Thurston County).

Rural areas would now be uniformly UMP, though in the distant past, there would have been more variation and local PS candidates could cause some variation as well.


Kansas

Kansas would be similar to Nebraska in overall political leanings with a few differences, including a stronger PS.

Kansas City proper, which is blue-collar, rather poor and working-class, would be a PS stronghold; though obviously Johnson County would be solidly UMP. Lawrence, KS (Douglas County) would also lean PS, with a very high Green vote and fast declining UMP vote (especially with Sarko). There are some old mining areas of sorts (Crawford County, which voted Obama, voted Debs in 1912) and I would assume the PS would poll strongly there, especially in the past (PCF would pull a respectable share, much lower now). There'd be some sort of PS base in Wichita as well.

The Plains would be like the Plains in Nebraska are; solidly UMP. Sarkozy would have won the state easily in 2007, but I think he'd fall just short of 60% (due to poor results in Kansas City, Lawrence, though he'd do well in the [very] old mining areas).

and...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Hash]

One thing which is kind of interesting is if the French politicians are transported as well... and where they'd fit in.

Basically my (awfully wrong, most likely) hunches are:

Sarkozy (Neuilly) > those awfully wealthy places in NJ with NYC commuters (NYC would probably be like Paris, with wealthy rightie exurbia and inner Red Belt suburbia in NJ and parts of Long Island). I don't think NoVA would fit in well with Neuilly, not enough old established bouregois wealth
Royal (ruralish areas south of Niort, some old leftie strength) > ?
Bayrou (moutains of Bearn east of Pau) > Aroostook County or Coos County(?)
Le Pen (wherever he can win) > FN strongholds with Cuban voters in Miami, obviously
Besancenot (Paris) > inner New York City or somewhere, and postman in those obnoxiously wealthy places in CT. Obviously the NPA would be an even *bigger* joke in the US than in France
Buffet (Red Belt, PCF machine bases) > Newark or other undesirable NJ places
Voynet (Montreuil) > Bergen County, NJ (?) or Red Beltish areas in NJ
Bové (Aveyron, Millau) > I have a really hard time figuring out where some rural syndicalist type like Asterix would fit in.
Aubry (Lille) > Some place like Boston, MA or Lowell, MA
Gaudin (Marseille) > Miami
Freche (Montpellier) > I can't think right now of any places in the US which are seaside resorts full of fascists, old people who hate browns and idiots. He would, however, fit right in the quasi-entirety of the Deep South and Appalachia
Delanoë (Paris) > One would assume NYC is the new Paris, and Chirac could have been mayor of NYC before (though it would be harder for him to win in NYC than in Paris)
Méhaignerie (Vitré) > Rural Catholic areas in New England, Méhaignerie sure ain't no Cajun
Fabius (industrial Rouennais suburbs) > The damn Potomac has no industrial areas on its shoreline, does it?
Cohn-Bendit (wherever he feels like setting up camp) > as Fab said early on, Canadian-American citizen living in Vermont or le Plateau/NDG in Montreal

It's harder to think of places for Fillon, Hamon (he'd probably fit in with some corrupt PS machine somewhere), Duflot

and ahem,
Besson > Oklahoma or Idaho panhandle (sorry, cheap shot, couldn't resist)

[Hash]

Shouldn't Aubry be somewhere in the Rust Belt ? I'm thinking to MI or PA.

The Lille area is historically based on textiles, so Lowell or some other Industrial Revolution town in MA fits better. She's not from the coalfields.

[Hash]

The syndicalism doesn't quite fit, but I'm thinking the most plausible location for Bové is Vermont or western Mass, where you get left-wing politics mixed in with a love of pre-industrial farming.

Vermont would work best, since it's more mountainous, but the hippie-green aspect of Vermont isn't really like the Larzac, but then, it's hard to find a syndicalist mountainous anti-globalization locale in the US, but then it doesn't matter since Bove is only 1% in France and likely much less in the US.

Next up is Oklahoma, where I have some fun surprises planned.

[Hash]

Next up is Oklahoma, where I have some fun surprises planned.

We'll, I guess we will have a result similar to west virginia : a very conservative State which you'll give to the PS because of its populism.

'Populism' (which is a word I hate) doesn't explain WV nor will it explain Oklahoma. There's some demographic factors, economic trends and socio-economic factors which explain it better than anything else.

[Hash]

but don't forget the importance of political views.

You bring up a good point which I don't think I addressed sufficiently: in rl, the Republicans obviously won many poor white (Southerners) over by exploiting social conservatism and wedge issues, partly a result of the Southern Strategy and partly because of the influence of the evangelical movement. In a setup where the US has a French system (the basis of which is a US where the word 'socialist' is not a swear word people run away from, more the equivalent of what Americans stupidly call 'populism'), the major parties would be much less likely to shamelessly exploit wedge social issues. The UMP as a whole wouldn't, though a candidate Sarkozy might to cozy up with the MPF electorate in the South (though he'd already appeal to them with simple populist rhetoric). The MPF would be the only major party to use such rhetoric (the FN *might* do so as well) and it would have worked to some extent, but really, far less voters would have been bought to vote on social issues rather than economic issues.

[Hash]

I wanted to try the US with Brazilian parties (but that wouldn't work, now would it?) or France with US parties.

[Hash]

Oklahoma

Oklahoma would undeniably have been a PS stronghold until the 80s or 90s, to be done in by a number of factors, including socio-economic factors (growing importance of oil industry and declining mining industry), conservative issues (social or otherwise) and working-class voters voting FN starting in 1984 or so.

"Little Dixie" would have a PS stronghold for a long time (the PCF might even have done half-decently, especially in the 70s-80s when some factions used a very right-wing tone on immigrants) and would largely remain so today (irl, it voted reliably Democratic, with a few exceptions, until 2000 or so). Royal would have done poorer than Jospin and Sarkozy would have done better than Chirac (by far) for the usual reasons. Obviously, the FN would have done quite well here in the past and again in 2010.

The other rural-Plains type areas and oil boom areas would be strongly UMP, the latter especially so. The MPF would remain a major player, especially in rural areas, though Sarkozy would have done them in by 2007. Oklahoma City and Tulsa would now be reliably UMP (at least at the national level).

Sarkozy would have won in 2007 narrowly, 52-48 or something, due in large part to his working-class rhetoric which would have so appealed in the Deep South and Appalachia. In 2010, however, you'd see a massive FN vote (similar to Moselle) out of discontent with a Sarkozy judged to be elitist, establishment and pro-rich - and the PS would also hold the General Council since 2004 (after presumably losing it in 1992, they could even have regained it by 1998/2001).

[Hash]

What about fishers in Louisiana ?
Couldn't Bové make some good results here ?
Of course, this is not mountainous, but, still...

Seeing those types on Thalassa on Sunday: certainly not. They don't seem at all like green-antiglobalization type, and if they are of the latter stock, they'd vote FN or MPF.

And, as for your 1995 map, what about OK ?
I'm not sure at all Jospin would have won it. Mitterrand 1988 would have been the last one, I think.

Chirac did not have the same appeal to the type of poor white working-class voters that Sarkozy had (and which would have ultimately carried him over the top in 2007). While 1995 would be quite close, Jospin would've won it, like he won Meurthe-et-Moselle (though there is obviously no comparison between the two)

[Hash]

Might Bové be more at ease in Puerto Rico ?
I just try again !

Yup, perhaps so. He'd catch the PIP vote perhaps

I'd do Puerto Rico as well, but I don't know enough about electoral sociology there (especially in rural areas)...

[Hash]

Texas

Texas would have been, generally, a Dixiecrat PS state up until the 1970s or so but would since have grown far more right-wing and the PS would remain much weaker than in other Deep South states. Generally, the Dixiecrat base would have been in East Texas with old lingering right-wing presence in German Hill County and West Texas. Prior to the RPR, I don't know which form this non-Dixiecrat otl Republican vote would take, probably the CNI in the 50s and various righties or Radicals pre-war. In a way, I could see the Radicals doing very well in those otl GOP bastions. Just a hunch.

East Texas

Nowadays, very much right-wing UMP/MPF region, even down to the local level perhaps. The oil boom, natural gas exploitations and petrochemical growth in the region in replacement of old Deep South-type ranching and agriculture as well as suburban growth in places like Montgomery County would partly explain the right's strength on practically all levels. Generally, suburbs and oil-dependent regions would be strongly UMP while older cattle/agricultural regions would be more MPF (and the PS would still do decent-ish). The PS would poll well in Beaumont, a coastal petrochemical town but would struggle elsewhere, especially at the national level with candidates like Royal.

As elsewhere in the Deep South, the UMP's base would be in suburbs like those in Montgomery, Collin, Denton, Kaufman Counties.

Dallas

Inner-city Dallas (see, roughly, TX-30), which is heavily black-Hispanic and rather blue-collar, would be strongly PS. Hispanic areas in Cockrell Hill and south Irving, roughly the southern end of TX-32, would remain strongly PS as well but the exclusive "Park Cities" suburbs as well as Plano and Frisco would be strongly UMP with MPF strength. I'm not an expert on Texas, but I doubt these rich folks would provide a strong FN vote though I suspect they may share some of the party's ideas.

Roughly, inner city of Dallas, Fort Worth and parts of Arlington would be PS; the rest (aka, suburbia) would largely be UMP.

Houston and Galveston

Shifting south to the other big city in eastern Texas, Houston, patterns are relatively similar. As mentioned earlier, suburban Houston - of the type found in exclusive white suburbia like Montgomery County - is uber-UMP. However, places in the Golden Triangle (Beaumont-Port Arthur) which may be wrongly counted as suburbia, would be far more competitive. Wealthy suburbs in western and southeastern Harris County would also be predictably UMP, you know the stuff.

Inner-city Houston, which is very non-white and especially non-English in parts would, of course, be strongly PS. No flicker of a doubt that Hispanics would be brought into the PS machine rather than the Christian democratic UDF however Catholic they may be. The young professional-artsy white liberal type in downtown Houston would also be PS but not so solidly; certainly Green nowadays and maybe UMP in the pre-Sarkozy populism days (1993, 2002 obviously). I suppose that since parts of Houston's Hispanic areas have a lot of people who don't speak English or aren't US citizens, the FN could catch the non-liberal white vote in those parts and could be the second party in TX-29.

Galveston itself would likely be PS, but the rest of the white oil-dependent Gulf Coast region would be strongly UMP.

Edwards Plateau and Austin

Straddling the middle of the division between Deep South East Texas and more 'outback' West Texas, the Plateau region would be almost universally on the right these days but back in the days where the east vs. west divide was important (it could be even more pronounced in this system, though then again, the PS would have a huge machine in Texas in the good ol' days, so no). These sparsely populated rural areas would be UMP areas these days with a good MPF vote, and quickly fading remnants of an old Socialist era in the past.

Austin, goes without saying, is a random island of progressivism in the middle of conservative heartland. Although the city is gerrymandered in a way similar to La Roche or Bourg-en-Bresse in France is, the downtown core of the city and especially around the uni would be strongly left-wing. That means PS in presidential ballots, but very strongly Green (35% or so) in other ballots. Might have a few Green state reps depending on the districts even. Minority-populated areas slightly east of the downtown core would be more strongly PS. Wealthier white suburbs of Austin in Travis County proper and Williamson/Hays counties would be more strongly UMP. Exurbia much more so than older suburbs closer to Austin. The UMP might have polled well (better than the GOP) in the 70s and 90s, but their rapid descent since 2004 would be particularly violent.

Almost directly west of Austin is the German Hill Country, which has always been a progressive anti-slavery German Catholic enclave (and a weird deep GOP enclave even in Dixiecrat days). As mentioned earlier, I think the Radicals would have done well here in their pre-war heyday. It would be UMP today, though a streak of dissension from the populist-MPF cuddling of Sarkozy wouldn't shock me (maybe a high DLR protest vote? Villepiniste ground in 2012?)

West Texas, Llano Estacado and the Panhandle

This is ranching county (with some oil) and the real west. Sparsely populated, vast outback desert land, and parochial-type feeling in the small counties. Therefore, conservative. Very much so.

"Cities" like Lubbock, Abilene, Wichita Falls and Amarillo would all remain strongly right-wing and the cantonal level would still be largely right-wing. I say 'right-wing' because I think the MPF would be very strong in these rural, isolated areas with ranching and all that. Kind of similar, in some weird way, to Villiers' home base in Vendee (the most conservative small-town, isolated, parochial area historically; no ranching of course but big properties). The UMP might be strong in cities and oil-driven areas, the MPF might be strong in rural areas and ranching country.

There was actually a Democratic rump at the 'base' of the Panhandle (in 2008, McCain's best areas in the country) until 2000 (!) in counties which were more in the East Texas-feel of things with no big ranches and their new ideas. The PS could have a small base there until the 90s (likely evaporated by the 1992 cantonals).

There are a good number of Hispanics and surprisingly many Hispanic-majority counties in this area; but they're largely older and disconnected with recent Mexican immigrants (and wealthier) and they're also quite evangelical (aka, there are fewer Catholics than Hispanics). They vote Republican (even in 2008) and I would assume they'd vote UMP (the evangelical few might vote UMP, the Catholic ones might have voted UDF until 2002) by a large margin.

I don't think the FN vote would be big, this region seems fairly libertarian in regards to government and doesn't have the "forgotten places" feel that those FN-heavy white rural areas in Champagne have. Gaullism though, like in the other Plains state, would play well and these would have been big de Gaulle areas back in '65 (when presumably Mitterrand would have swept east Texas and the RGV).

Rio Grande Valley, South Texas and the Trans-Pecos

This is the Hispanic country of Texas, and traditionally these Hispanics remain poor, recent immigrants and thus vote differently than those in west Texas. The problem in figuring out how they vote here is that while they're poor, a lot have not integrated the American mixing pot as much as those in urban areas and have traditional conservative 'populist' values. What we've seen thus far in this analysis are urban Hispanic voters, also poor, but loyal PS voters in Socialist-dominated big cities - them voting UDF thus makes no sense. I assume, personally, and I'm probably wrong, that Hispanics in these poor and non-urbanized might be slightly more likely to vote for the right (after all, Bush did very well with Texan Hispanics in 2004) and probably the UDF. In places like Starr County, Hidalgo County; I could see a UDF tailored to Hispanic needs and voters do very well in the not-so-distant past and Sarkozy would have done well too (though I have a hard time seeing the UMP poll well consistently). I still think there'd be a fairly important PS vote though, and one which is also increasing over time.

At any rate, actually, since this a region more and more influenced by Mexico, a party machine in the style of the Mexican PRI would have a nice little breeding ground here. Question is if it would be a UDF machine, a PS machine or some other type of machine. Locally, I think DVD-DVG type candidates would own the land, obviously.

San Antonio, majority Hispanic, though, being urban, would be a PS stronghold. I would suppose other Hispanic border towns such as Brownsville, McAllen and obviously El Paso would be big PS areas too.

I assume we'd see a large-ish white anti-Hispanic FN vote in border areas, especially in 2002 and maybe again in 2010.

Overall, Texas would be one of Sarkozy's best states in 2007, and the best result for the Texan right in a long time (not that they'd have 'bad' results often). Why? Big appeal with rural Hispanics (like Bush in 2004), big appeal in those old Dixiecrat PS rural areas (Royal is as bad of a candidate for those area as Obama/Kerry were), traditional populistic-Gaullist appeal and rhetoric, good results in suburbs. Breaks the 60 line, something Chirac wouldn't have come close to doing in '95. Though in 2010, you'd be seeing a big FN vote in Texas and some good results for the PS again. While an interesting state to look at, the 1965 election, I think, would be really interesting to look at.

So, folks, NM or MT next?

[Hash]

I will likely get scolded by people who know far more about the state than I do, but here's my pathetic attempt.

New Mexico

Northeast and Northwest

First thing to talk about are the Hispanic counties, which gave me the most trouble. In northern New Mexico, these Hispanic areas are not Mexican, meaning that they were settled hundreds of years ago by people who might be better known as Spaniards and not as Mexicans. They're largely poor, and, with a few exceptions, heavily Catholic (especially in San Miguel and Guadelupe Counties). Similarly to rural poor Rio Grande Valley Hispanics in Texas, I don't consider it a stretch to see these areas being dominated until not too long ago by a "slightly" corrupt UDF machine, one which holds a doctorate in making dead people vote. Given the recent history of the UDF, it would be eroding as the Socialists get organized here and benefit from discontent with the new UDF. Though I still figure Bayrou would have done well here in 2007, definitely one of his best areas. You would have a lot of dvd/dvg independents at the cantonal level with a few remaining MoDem councillors spread out here and there. Prior to the 60s or so, these areas would likely see political machines led by various centrist and right-wing outfits.

The Navajos and natives who do vote would be strongly PS presumably. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see them voting for other parties on the basis of candidates and all that. But Sarkozy would be a bad candidate in those areas, presumably.

I don't know as much as I'd like to know about Santa Fe and Taos, but they would most likely be growingly Socialist while probably dominated by the non-UDF right in the not so distant past. Santa Fe seems to be a wealthy well-educated liberal town, which means that the Greens would be doing well and likewise in Taos.

The UMP would have pockets of strength in the northeastern counties which are part of Little Texas and have a large evangelical population, and they would also do well in the Farmington area which is natural gas country and is largely white. As well as in Los Alamos, which is full of military scientists of some sort.

Central

Albuquerque is an interesting place, and would be one of the most right-leaning major cities in the country. The PS would be strong in poor Hispanic areas in South Valley and Southeast Heights, as well as some more recent strength in more social liberal/yuppie areas such as Los Ranchos, downtown and near the uni; where the Greens would probably be outpolling the PS nowadays. The UMP would be strong in white wealthy areas such as North Albuquerque Acres and Northeast Heights, as well as in areas with a strong military place. Overall, it's a high-growth place with a big military and tech sector which means that it'd have been strongly UMP but less so nowadays.

White rural areas are UMP etc, Hispanic areas are either UDF or recently PS.

South and Little Texas

As briefly mentioned above, Little Texas would now be strongly UMP/MPF and similar to parts of West Texas described before-hand. The Hispanic (Mexican) turnout would be low, which would give the right big margins in most elections. You could see some white anti-Mexican voting for the FN, especially in key years such as 2002 or 2010. However, similarly to the Deep South, these areas would have been strongly PS until the 1960s/1970s, and would have formed the SFIO's base in the state for a long time. While the rest of the state would have been voting MRP or something. You could still see 'Dixiecrat' type PS general councillors at the local level.

The area surrounding the Bootheel and Las Cruces, which are Mexican (Hispanic) areas would be getting more PS presumably as more Mexicans start voting and they would likely vote for the PS given that they'd be more recent immigrants than that UDF-leaning Spanish.

NM is hard to pin down in 2007, because you can think rather easily of areas where Sarkozy would do better than your usual right-winger (Little Texas, Farmington, white rural areas, military-dependent places) and places where Royal would do better than your usual left-winger (Las Cruces, Santa Fe, Taos, downtown Albuquerque and likely the UDF-leaning Spanish vote), but I'll put it down at a 53-47 or something Sarkozy win.

[Hash]

Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

actually, it would be less Socialist than it is Democratic irl (at least since 1960) because of the political affiliation of the Spanish vote. Giscard, por ejemplo, would have won it in 1981 (though Mitterrand would presumably have won it rather easily in 1988) and Chirac would have won it in 1995.

[Hash]

the West Side of Albuquerque would vote in this system - since you mentioned every other part of Bernalillo County, I was left curious.

poor "suburban" Hispanic, right? Presumably increasingly solidly PS with some old UDF machine being killed off.

[Hash]

Very interesting one. I'd agree that Sarkozy would have barely won the state in 2007, even though by a close margin (which would make NM a perfect swing state).

actually, it would be less Socialist than it is Democratic irl (at least since 1960) because of the political affiliation of the Spanish vote. Giscard, por ejemplo, would have won it in 1981 (though Mitterrand would presumably have won it rather easily in 1988) and Chirac would have won it in 1995.

Indeed, you're right. Though considering the State's trends and Sarkozy's lack of appeal there, I think he could have performed less well there than nationwide.

Re-read my last line(s). I can agree with you that he'd have performed less well there within certain demographics than is usual for the New Mexican Right, but at the same time I can point out demographics in NM where he'd have performed better than is usual. It's a really tricky thing, but, on the whole, I agree with you that, given the weight of Spanish Hispanics in the electorate (and the fact that Sarkozy would underperform there), the state would be trending to the left.

Did that make any sense? No. Sorry, I have like 600 other things in my head right now.

[Hash]

oy, this is hard. Be kind.

Colorado

Denver and suburbia

Denver would be a rather solidly Socialist area. Obviously, the PS would dominate at all levels in Hispanic (and black) neighborhoods. In the whiter liberal areas, the PS would be doing better and better as the UMP's strength with mid-income white urbanites erodes fast thanks to the likes of Sarkozy et al. However, the UMP or more likely the Greens would do well with these voters in other elections (presumably they'd vote more PS in presidential elections).

Denver's suburbs would have been largely UMP/RPR not so long ago, but would now be swing areas overall albeit with a slight UMP lean. There might be exceptions in older, more blue-collar type suburbs (which are not too affluent) which might have a PS lean going back a while. Exurbia would still be solidly UMP, though.

Eastern Plains

A UMP stronghold, overall, with a strong MPF and possibly FN vote from time to time. Would vote very similarly to, say, the adjacent parts of Kansas.

Front Range and San Luis Valley

So, this is a big regions. As mentioned above, Denver exurbs are UMP. Colorado Springs is UMP as well, as are most of the other small white counties.

Pueblo, with its Hispanic working-class tradition, would be an old PS stronghold though it might have weakened in recent years with a strengthening of the FN vote, and, from time to time, of the UMP vote.

The San Luis Valley area, generally speaking, is of Hispanic stock but like in northern New Mexico, of Spanish descent and not of Mexican descent. I figure my predictions for Spanish-descent Hispanics in New Mexico - an old ancestrally UDF demographic (with a corrupt UDF machine) which would have trended towards the PS in recent years. Though turnout here might be quite low.

Western Slope (Rockies, Boulder, ski bunnies)

So, this is the tricky part. Ski resorts in Europe, France in particular, are extremely solidly right-wing areas with few other parties doing well there. In the US and Canada, they're far less right-wing and instead have a strong (in the US, very strong) lean towards the local "left" despite high incomes and so forth. I don't know every single reason for this, but to my knowledge skiing in the US/Canada is a far more widespread, popular activity for many and resorts bring a lot of young types over (and presumably the jobs pay well). In France, it's a traditional bourgeois/rich folk's activity. Thus, it's harder to figure out how the ski resorts like Aspen, Telluride and so forth would vote in the US. I'll go forth to humiliate myself now. I would predict an old right-wing/centre-right voting block in those areas but which would be eroding very quickly (again thanks to Sarkozy) and translating into a more left-wing lean, with the PS doing better and better and the Greens doing extremely well in the ski counties. However, a lot of the counties here also had a big mining history which died right around the time skiing became popular, so one could presume the right-wing lean I predict is only around since the 70s and before that the areas were more left-wing with a working-class PS/PCF vote. Non-skiing areas would be right-wing except in areas with an old mining tradition in which case an ancestral PS vote might be dying out.

Boulder would probably be voting Green/PS these days, though the UMP would have done well in a not so distant past.

The FN and MPF would get some of their worst results in the ski bunny areas, unless there are old white snobby bourgeois there which I doubt.

Overall

Presuming my analysis is right, which I doubt, Colorado would have one of the strongest trends from right to left since the 70s (Giscard would have won like 60% in 1974). The "bobo" phenomenon, with the "boboisation" of the PS electorate would play a big role, as would the UMP's shift from traditional European centre-right to a more populist form of conservatism with Sarkozy. In 2007, a narrow 51-49 or so Sarkozy win.

[Hash]

Wyoming

A solidly right-leaning state since at least the Fifth Republic's beginnings and probably before that too. I don't think the UMP's contemporary bases in Wyoming merit much explanation. Nowadays, the PS/left would be strong basically only in Teton County (Jackson Hole), though my question mark about ski resort voting patterns comes up here too. It would do well in Laramie as well. Amusingly, both of these areas seem much more favourable for the Greens now than for the PS, so I suppose the Greens would have easily outpolled the PS in 2009 and maybe even 2010. Sweetwater County (and other mining counties) would have been the PS' strongholds up until the late 80s when Teton and Laramie would be voting for the right. In recent years, the PS might still have underlying traditional strength 'round those parts but overall it would now lean slightly towards the right though probably with a strong FN. On that topic; presumably Chirac would've done poorly in WY in 2002, with a big protest vote for Le Pen (an "Alsatian-style" FN vote) and Madelin would have done quite well as well.

Given how the "Alsatian-style" FN vote in 2007 went, Sarkozy would have done extremely well in 2007 picking up both 2002-era FN voters and traditional PS working-class votes (like all 7 of them). Otoh, he would have done worse than usual in Jackson Hole and Laramie.

Given the "rural discontent" in France right now, one would suppose an isolated state like WY would have swung badly against the UMP in 2010, with the FN's vote perking upwards. In which case PS gains at the cantonal level in 2008/2011 would not be very surprising.

[Hash]

Remember this?

Montana

Montana is an interesting state. It has a strong anti-establishment streak which would manifest itself through random voting patterns at times, which could be as diverse and nonsensical as a strong Le Pen in 2002, a strong Bayrou in 2007 and perhaps an early base for the RPR in the 70s against Giscard.

This might be one of the PS' strongest states in the Rocky Mountain west. It would poll very strongly in the large Indian rez all over the state. More recently, it would have gained strength in Missoula and Helena, though the Greens would poll 25-35% on a regular basis (since 2009) in Missoula and a bit less in Helena. Again, the question mark over ski resorts come up, but I assume Gallatin County would lean PS/Greens nowadays with a strong moderate UMP vote.

Butte-Anaconda, the silver mining and very unionized (and slightly politically bizarre) area of Montana would be interesting. I assume it would lean heavily PS with a decent PCF vote, though I wouldn't exclude a strong MRP vote in the 50s given the strong Irish population here and potentially a weird Gaullist-type tradition (of left-wing stock) in the past and other bizarre things. And also, a strong Green vote and very weak FN vote which is slightly bizarre for an industrial mining area. Other isolated mining areas like Mineral County would maintain a PS tradition.

The eastern stretch of the state would be solidly UMP, in that they're ranching/oil areas (again with the exceptions of the rez being strongly PS).

In the past, the UMP tradition here would have been of moderate stock (presumably the east would have been a stronghold of Fourth Republic 'moderates', aka right-wingers) and with the exception of Irish Catholic areas, Montana would probably have been a Radical stronghold for most of the Third Republic with strong Radical barons. The anti-establishment streak might manifest itself with early implantation of socialism in Butte-Anaconda, early radicalism (right around statehood) which refuses to die and later through a surprisingly strong FN vote in some parts (presumably the eastern ranching areas), a strong Bayrou in 2007 and then a strong EELV (and DLR) in 2009/2010. Also, Madelin and DL would have been strong in Montana when they were around.

While Sarkozy would have won the state with roughly 51-53% of the vote, he would be very unpopular here right now.

oooh, God, Mormons...

[Hash]

Idaho

Shockingly, Idaho would be a right-wing stronghold with the left's major bases having shifted somwhat in the past 20 years and with the right facing a strong challenge from the FN.

The first issue which needs some figuring out are Mormons. The common stereotype is that the Mormons flock like sheep to the candidate endorsed by the LDS Church, but I don't entirely believe that's true. At any rate, true or not, Mormons are a bit of a headache. They're not all that batsh**t insane on social issues, and they don't like Baptists much (and vice versa, obviamente) so more likely than not MPF is not a real possibility except maybe outside of islands of radical conservative Mormonism and even then. This leaves the modern mainstream right, the UMP, as the real choice and it's not all that bad of a possibility. Certainly the LDS leadership would see more advantages in siding with the larger right (UMP) than the sidekick right (MPF) and there is a right-wing social conservative base within the UMP which could be enlarged with Mormons. Given how well Schmitz the Nazi and Bo Gritz the loonie-toon did in some of the most redneck radical Mormon areas, there'd be a base for the FN and alternatively for fringe outfits led by far-right conspiracy theorists wearing tin foil hats. I suspect Carl Lang's recent outfit might have done best in Idaho. Still, overall, the Mormon areas would more likely than not be solidly UMP with a decently strong but not very strong MPF and FN presence.

The ski bunnies of the Sun Valley would have been solidly right-wing into the early 90s, when they'd presumably have voted Balladur in 1995 before evolving towards the bobo left since 2002 or so. Royal might have won Blaine County, but she'd certainly not do as well there as otl Dems (that's the general rule for ski resorts in this scenario). The Greens would obviously be strong there. The same for Teton County (the Idahoan parts of Yellowstone National Park's resort area, near Jackson Hole) though the evolution there would be more recent and drastic.

Boise itself would probably be Socialist, in an intensely right-wing area. Moscow would have shifted quite a bit to the left, with the PS winning it in 2007 and the Greens winning it solidly in 2009 and 2010.

The panhandle, which was known for having some neo-Nazi hangouts in the recent past, more importantly has a working-class mining (and logging, iirc) tradition which makes for it being a solidly PS (and PCF) area in the past. The FN would poll very strongly in these isolated white working-class locales, with the PS' base in these areas declining rapidly. Sarkozy would have won, but the PS would dominate at the local level in these areas if only because all recent local and regional elections were held during the peak of the left's popularity.

Sarkozy would have done pretty well for a right-winger, obviously breaking 60% with a good first round appeal to Mormons and taking a lot of Le Pen votes in the working-class areas of the panhandle.

Utah

The above comments on Mormons apply here and they apply to the quasi-entirety of the state. Provo and BYU seem to be some deeply conservative militantly LDS areas, so some MPF presence is possible but I doubt a Baptist-dominated MPF would ever do well anywhere in Deseret. So perhaps some smaller, perhaps local, conservative third party. The FN and other small far-right loonies would have a small base in rural Mormon Utah, as in Idaho.

The PS and Greens would do well in downtown SLC and in places near the university in SLC, and more recently would do well with Park City liberals and in the touristy spot of Moab. The same comments applied to touristy spots and ski bunny areas applies here, yeah.

Historically, and still kind of today, the PS would be based in mining areas such as Carbon and Tooele Counties. Tooele would probably have fallen off somewhat for them, but Carbon's larger ethnic (Greek) mining tradition would mean that the PS would still do decently out there. Native turnout is generally awful, but the PS wins those who do bother to turn out.

Sarkozy wins, does poorly in resort places and better in working-class areas like Carbon.

[Hash]

Arizona

Arizona is largely a right-wing stronghold, and one of the FN's best state in the region. It would have voted solidl

Phoenix is too much an awful sprawling horror in the middle of arid wasteland to describe uniformly. The downtown core and the south of the the city (eg, Hispanic areas) would be the PS' strongholds (along with a few rez areas). Affluent, high-growth white suburbs and exurbs like Scottsdale, Glendale, Gilbert, Peoria, Surprise as well as Paradise Valley would be rock-solid UMP. The more liberal and uni town of Tempe would have a more 'bobo' lean, translating into more recent PS and Green votes despite being RPR in the past. Obviously, Mormon tradition communities in Maricopa would be solidly UMP.

Rural white areas would be solidly UMP. Flagstaff and the touristy-artsy town of Sedona are educated and liberal areas would have a 'bobo' lean which would nowadays mean PS/Green votes (Sedona would now be solidly Green). Tucson's Hispanic south would be solidly PS, while I suppose the rest of the city would be swingy with a PS lean, one which is more pronounced in whatever downtown parts are white liberal bobo/uni areas (I don't know Tucson, obviously). The suburbs would be solidly UMP.

Outside of those areas, the PS would find support in Hispanic communities (where turnout and generally voter registration is terribly low) such as Nogales and parts of Yuma. The white parts of Yuma filled with olds would be solidly UMP. Navajo Nation and the Hopi areas would be solidly PS areas (when the natives turn out), though it would be fun to see if there emerges some sort of difference between Navajo and Hopi voting patterns given the rivalry between the two. Finally, copper mining areas in Clifton (Greenlee County) would've been the PS' earliest base in the state though it would be in decline these days though probably still sorta reliably PS outside of Sarkozy's win there in 2007.

As mentioned in the introduction, the FN would be very strong in Arizona with a strong white anti-immigration/anti-Hispanic vote especially concentrated in border counties such as Yuma. The hillbilly Minutemen type loonies would vote FN (or maybe that 'Identitaires' outfit). Presumably the FN would be the second largest party (behind the PS) in heavily Hispanic border areas. Though the Le Pens would carpetbag their asses to Florida to get elected, maybe Marine would've attempted to establish a presence in Yuma or some place in 2004 (like she did in IdF).

Polygamous/incestuous FLDS Mormon communities such as Colorado City would probably vote heavily for some fringe far-right outfit or the FN. I'd think the UMP is too moderate for them and they probably wouldn't like UMPers like Georges Fenech

Sarkozy would have won roughly 55-56% of the vote in Arizona and that would be the right's normal ceiling in a normal contested presidential race. The state would have also been solidly conservative in the past.

[Hash]

Fab suggested I do this way back when in this thread, so I've kind of done it. Party strength maps by state...

I've started with the FN:



A few comments. This is all relative to the party's overall standing, of course. 'Stronghold' for the PCF won't have the same meaning as 'stronghold' for the UMP. As for this map in particular:

-I might have overestimated a tad the FN in AZ, but I think there's lot of high-growth not super-affluent exurbs here which are perfect breeding ground for the FN
-NY might be better as 'moderate' rather than 'strong', but strong is fine enough
-TX is probably on the upper edge of moderate
-I might have overestimated the FN in general in ID, MO, PA, NM in general; and maybe a bit underestimated in MN, the Plains, MD, CO and WV; but I don't know

[Hash]

As for Arizona, I'd have personally seen it voting for Sarkozy above 60% (this is the kind of State where PS should underperform democrats), but that seems fine anyways.

Too many Hispanics, natives and bobo types there. Brewer didn't even get 55% in 2010 and McCain won 58% against a semi-serious opponent. 55-56% to Sarkozy is being kind, actually.

[Hash]

The Greens' map:



I'm generally happy with it, except maybe the west which is a bit tougher to do.

[Hash]

As for Arizona, I'd have personally seen it voting for Sarkozy above 60% (this is the kind of State where PS should underperform democrats), but that seems fine anyways.

Too many Hispanics, natives and bobo types there. Brewer didn't even get 55% in 2010 and McCain won 58% against a semi-serious opponent. 55-56% to Sarkozy is being kind, actually.

Well, Brewer is even more insane than Sarkozy and McCain was particularly weak in this cycle. I think 55% could fit for Sarkozy in a tied election, but remember that he won by 53% nationwide, so 55% would become 52%.

I stand by what I said. There are too many Latinos, natives and bobos out there for the right to break 60% in a contested presidential election.