I don't quite understand the Interior Coast. Progress and Union should cover most of what's northeast of Chicago; all of rural Wisconsin and Minnesota that's there, while bring the Plains to the outer counties of the Twin Cities (but not having been there, I could be wrong on that). Chicago really should be it's own thing.
As a resident of this area, I firmly disagree. While Gary is certainly in the Chicago metro area, it acts far more like Detroit or Cleveland than it does Chicago or Minneapolis.
Also, I'd extend Rocky down further and include New Mexico, and Upper South a bit more into Illinois and Indiana, as well as Kansas and Oklahoma.
Also, why is Vegas part of Texas?
Other than these little nitpicks and Chicago being it's own thing, the map looks good.
As a long time resident of Chicagoland who grew up in the Twin Cities I think the upper Midwest is overthought here. It's probably due to the author's home and a greater sense of subdivision near home than in other regions of the US. Chicagoland is pretty similar to the other Rust Belt metro areas and perhaps extends up to Milwaukee, though many have argued that it can be seen as a unique region anchored by its global city, like NYC. The Progress, Union and Interior coast (less an extended Chicagoland) could then easily be lumped together.
BTW, if a board mod wants to move this to Political Geography, I'm fine with that. There are similar threads on PG&D stretching back to the early Atlas.
