Alternate US States

[Antonio the Sixth]

With all these tweaks, I'm surprised you didn't add the Florida panhandle to Alabama.

I guess you're right, that would actually have made more sense. For aesthetic reasons I'd have to split it between Alabama and Georgia, and that would still leave us with enough population for two States. Though probably not so in the 1960s, when Florida as a whole was only an average sized State.

[Antonio the Sixth]

With all these tweaks, I'm surprised you didn't add the Florida panhandle to Alabama.

I guess you're right, that would actually have made more sense. For aesthetic reasons I'd have to split it between Alabama and Georgia, and that would still leave us with enough population for two States. Though probably not so in the 1960s, when Florida as a whole was only an average sized State.

I was only thinking of the part west of the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola Rivers.  (The Chattahoochee forms the southern half of the current Alabama-Georgia border.)  If you move the Tallahassee area into another state, Georgia would make more sense than Alabama, but I see no pressing reason to make Georgia a bicoastal state.

Isn't the area East of those rivers, but still North of the peninsula, still pretty similar culturally and politically to the western tip? I would be a tad annoyed to leave the former in Florida while I give the latter to Alabama. Though you're right that Georgia is already too populous a State to deserve additional land.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So is Ohio the Northern half, or the Southern half?

Erie is the northern State (obviously ) so Ohio is the southern one.

I'll try to post Erie's profile by tomorrow, anyway.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Note: classes have started again, so I will not be able to maintain the level of activity I used to have during the summer break. I fully intend to keep on with the State profiles until I've covered the entire new US maps, but it will be at a slower pace - something like one State per week. Also, my presentations will be more succinct. Hope you guys are OK with that.

Erie

Centered around the heavily industrial areas of Cleveland, Akron and Toledo along the eponymous lake, Erie is the quintessential Rust Belt State. Once the nation's industrial heartland, it has suffered a massive economic collapse and population decline over the last four decades. However, contrary to neighboring Allegheny, this State's political leanings haven't changed much in response to the depression. From the 1960s to these days, Erie was and remains a markedly Democratic State.

ER Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Erie's Democratic lean may not be as overwhelming as that of Massachusetts, Maryland or New York, but goes clearly beyond the "swing State" mark. The only Republican candidates who managed to prevail here were Nixon in 1972, and Reagan both times - and never by a margin of more than 10 points. The extent of the Democratic advantage hasn't varied much, generally comprised between 9 and 15 points (if anything, the State has experienced a slight Democratic trend over the long run). In the New Deal era, a heavily unionized white industrial working class was the key of Democratic supremacy in the State. Today, losses among this category have been more than compensated by the overwhelming Democratic vote of African-Americans, particularly in Cleveland. This partisan setting is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Capital: There's really no choice besides Cleveland.

Governor: Lee Fisher

Senators: Tim Ryan (class 2) and Sherrod Brown (class 3) - many thanks to the poster Dubya for his very fitting suggestions.

Representatives: Even after 2010, my numbers indicate that Democrats should retain control of the State legislature, and thus be able to enact their gerrymander. Thanks to Fuzzybigfoot and Muon we know for sure that they would be able to get a 6D-1R map.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Since you took Indiana's access to Lake Michigan and gave it all to Chicago, any plans to compensate Indiana for that loss?

Surely Jesus will provide.

I was asking Antoino V

I'm not really interested in taking the realism of this scenario that far, tbh. Assume what you wish on "compensation" etc.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ohio

What is left of Ohio when we chop off the industrial shore is, unsurprisingly, a safely Republican State. This more rural and somewhat southern-influenced State is our newest addition to the already large "never voted Democrat except in 1964" club. Demographically, it is the biggest of the two, and its population decline hasn't been as catastrophic as Erie's (though still quite pronounced).

OH Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


There is not much to say about OH's political evolution, since (in net terms) the State can hardly be said to have "evolved" at all. Essentially, this state appears like a mirror image of Erie, having a Republican advantage comparable to the latter's Democratic advantage. This advantage never really reaches stronghold levels (good years have the GOP around +15) but also never really becomes competitive (around R+8 at its lowest). The only possibly significant shift might be an increase in Republican strength in the 1980s, which has more or less held until now.

However, county map comparisons across time (below you can see 1976 and 2012, both of which saw GOP wins of similar magnitudes) reveal that Ohio's internal geography has shifted somewhat.



The story of this geographic shift is one with which we are becoming quite familiar: rural areas (some historically favorable to Democrats, like southeastern Appalachian Ohio, as well as some already GOP leaning ones in the western part of the State) trending decisively toward the GOP, while urban cores (in this case, Columbus' Franklin County, Cincinnati's Hamilton County, and Athens' eponymous county) become increasingly dominated by Democrats. It's quite interesting that, in this particular case, the two trends have roughly canceled out each other, while in so many other States the cities (like in PA) or the country (like in TX) have clearly won the battle.

Capital: Columbus still fits perfectly.

Governor: John Kasich crushed Ted Strickland in this part of the State in 2010, and is probably headed to a landslide reelection.

Senators: Mike DeWine (class 1) and Rob Portman (class 3) - once again, courtesy to Dubya for these picks.

Representatives: Once again thanks to Muon, we now know that Republicans, with their obvious supermajorities in the State Legislature, would be able to craft the perfect gerrymander and get a 10R-0D map (with every district having a PVI above R+9 in 2008).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Population growth and a 2012-style Dem trend in Columbus would definitely not be sufficient to make Ohio competitive in the foreseeable future, though. It would take a massive shift in its suburbs (which, so far, have remained overwhelmingly Republican) to make a difference at the State level. And even then, it would probably need to be supplemented by other areas like the Cincinnati metro. I don't see that happening, sadly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry, it's been a busy week with all these elections, and I got the flu yesterday, so I didn't have time to come up with a full State update. I will try to post Indiana in a couple days (though I must warn you that it's pretty boring).

In the meantime, here's the Erie / Ohio PVI comparison chart:

[Antonio the Sixth]

We'll it's been an entire year since my second bump (in December it will be two years) so far I think that with about five pages of updates, this is one of my favorite threads on the forum. Keep up the good work Antonio!

Well, in this year there have been 10 months of complete oblivion. I really can't believe it took me 4 damn years to restart this thing!

Still, I'm also pretty happy with the result! I really appreciate all the compliments and appreciation this thread has received. This seems to be one of the few things I've ever done on the forum that has attracted a significant following, so I really need to prioritize it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Indiana

I have taken away Indiana's northwestern corner, the area around Gary (which, as JCL angrily pointed out, gave it access to Lake Michigan) due to its connection with Chicagoland. As you can imagine, removing one of the few Democratic bases of support in an already solid-GOP State didn't exactly stimulate competitiveness. And so, our "never voted Democrat except in 1964" club grows even bigger.

IN Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Unsurprisingly, Obama's historic win in 2008 does not survive this amputation, as McCain instead even managed to crack 50%. Otherwise, the pattern is pretty much the same as IRL: that of a consistently Republican State which Democrats can only hope to capture in LBJesque landslides. Over the observed time span, this new Indiana is consistently 2 to 4 points more Republican than its OTL counterpart:



The result is that only twice (1984 and the still impressive 2008) the Democrats managed to come within 10 points of the national margin. The State's movements remain roughly the same, with a slight Democratic uptick in the 1970s followed by a massive Republican shift from 1984 to 2004 (that shift is a bit more pronounced in the new State than IRL, indicating that the Gary area began to diverge even more strongly from the rest of the State). Overall, any Democratic candidate would say "meh, nothing to see there" and not even bother campaigning there.

Capital: Still Indianapolis

Governor: Still Mike Pence

Senators: Joe Donnelly (class 1) and Dan Coats (class 3) - Donnelly still won, though by a mere 2 points.

Representatives: Indiana would lose a Representative, and it would obviously be the Gary-based one held by a Democrat. The State government wouldn't change much, since Republicans already have full control of the Legislature. Interestingly though, the actual Indiana map doesn't look much gerrymandered - with a nice square-looking Democratic seat around Indianapolis. I would assume they keep this arrangement and thus create a 7R-1D delegation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Chicago and Illinois are next! They're gonna be a lot more interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Chicago

The other City-State of this scenario, Chicago encompasses the eponymous city's entire metropolitan area (that is, the Chicago-Naperville CSA as defined by the Census Bureau). This means it is mostly carved out of Illinois' Northeastern corner, but also takes a few counties away from Indiana (as we have seen) and Wisconsin's Kenosha County. The resulting State has about as many inhabitants as Georgia, and more than twice as many as those that are left in Illinois. Thus, despite its name, this State can't be reduced to its core city, as it include a large ring of populous suburbs whose political leanings have been somewhat different.

CH Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Unsurprisingly, modern Chicago is utterly dominated by Democrats, giving Obama over two-thirds of its votes in 2008. Since 1992, no Republican has come even somewhat close to winning it. However, while a Democratic preference can be found as far back as 1960 (where Richard Daley no doubt helped Kennedy distance Nixon by 7 points), it was nowhere near as lopsided as it is these days. Nixon and Reagan both carried CH easily in their landslide reelections, and several times in those decades, the State's vote was very hotly contested. In 1976, Carter squeaked in by a trivial 0.05 points margin; four years later, Reagan beat him by 0.94 points; and in 1988, Bush edged Dukakis by 0.21 points.

Clearly, there was a time when Republicans had a sizable constituency in Chicago State. And as you can imagine, this base was located in the city's suburbs and exurbs. While Cook County's demographic weigh tended to win the State for Democrats, if Republicans managed to keep the margin there close enough, they could rack up the votes in the suburbs and stand a chance to sweep the State. Their most recent presidential win, in 1988, illustrates this strategy pretty well:



Although 2 of the State's 3.2 million votes were cast in Cook County, which Dukakis carried by 12 points, Republicans managed to make up for that loss with their massive success in the outer rings of the metropolitan area. They took more than 60% (and sometimes more than 70%) in 9 of the State's 16 counties, including the populous DuPage, Kane, and Lake (OTL IL) counties. Even though Dukakis actually won two other counties (OTL IN's Lake County and Kenosha County) he still failed to carry what clearly is a must-win State for the Democrats. What happened since 1992 is that Democrats brought their Cook County edge up to 11 (or rather, up to about 50 points) while making the suburbs actually competitive (with Obama winning all but 2 counties in 2008). Thus, just like New York, Chicago provides a striking illustration of the rise of Democratic dominance in large metropolitan areas over the past 3 decades.

Capital: I'll let you guess this one.

Governor: Pat Quinn was reelected by a narrow but decisive margin in 2010, and he's probably favored for reelection this year.

Senators: Bobby Rush (class 1) and Lisa Madigan (class 2)

Representatives: Obviously Democrats control the State Legislature, and would thus be able to mess around with the districts map as they please. How far could they reach while complying with VRA? I'm not really sure. My guess would be a 12D-2R map, with two Republicans being packed in safer versions of IL-6 and IL-14. That would definitely require some balls, though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah... no.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry for the long absence! I'm getting really busy these days. Anyway, while I have some time, let's move on to...

Illinois

What would Illinois look like without Chicagoland? Certainly nothing like the image that we tend to have this State IRL. The level of demographic, economic, political and cultural hegemony that Chicago exerts over downstate IL rivals that of NYC over upstate NY. We can pretty sure that our Illinoisans would welcome this split as a liberation. In a nutshell, the new Illinois is a sparsely populated (ranking just below Kentucky) but relatively vast State. It remains quite diverse, with several mid-sized cities like Springfield, Peoria or Champaign, and both major industrial and rural areas (including regions that would fit well in the South). How would such a State have voted throughout the past half-century?

IL Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


To no one's surprise, Illinois has historically tended to favor Republicans, at least at the Presidential level. It only rarely went Democratic, and generally in exceptional circumstances like LBJ's landslide or Obama's favorite-son effect in 2008 (would it have crossed Chicago's borders in such a scenario? this remains unclear). Clinton seems to be the only Democrat to have done genuinely well in the State, sweeping it by 10 points in 1992. The contrast with Obama, who only narrowly carried IL in 2008 and was severely distanced by Romney four years later, is quite striking. On the whole, Democrats seem to be on the decline when compared to their performances in the 1990s - although if you look at the bigger picture, Democrats were already doing pretty bad in Kennedy's days. It's also interesting to note that, since 1984, Illinois has displayed an uncanny similarity with Missouri in its voting patterns. Over this period, the two States' margins differed by no more than 2 points in every election except 2008. Thus, just like Missouri, Illinois seems to have a peculiar blend of Southern and Midwestern identities.

At the same time, Illinois (like most other States seen so far) has undergone some significant shifts in its internal geography, as this 1960-2012 comparison highlights (Republicans wins by 10 and 8 points, respectively):



The trend seems quite clear: southern Illinois (especially southeastern Illinois) has moved sharply to the right, with most of its counties giving Romney results over 60%. Meanwhile, Democrats seem to have gained in the northern half of the State, most notably along the border with Iowa. Clearly southern IL has been caught in the same dynamic as the rest of the South, the long-term collapse of Democratic support. Meanwhile, Northern Illinois, just like neighboring Iowa and Wisconsin, went from likely R to lean D after the 1980s. Still, being deprived of Chicago's influence, Democrats will generally face an uphill battle in Illinois.

Capital: Springfield remains the obvious choice.

Governor: Bill Brady would have no trouble getting elected here.

Senators: Dick Durbin (class 2) and Mark Kirk (class 3). The funny thing is that, while Illinois would keep the same Senators as IRL, their electoral positions would be essentially flipped: Durbin is probably facing a very close race for his reelection this year, while Kirk was swept to office in 2010 and has a decent shot at winning again in 2016 (his biggest fear should be a conservative primary challenge).

Representatives: Easily holding the trifecta after 2010, the Republicans would have several options to go with. As Muon has demonstrated, it is possible to draw a gerrymander that perfectly dilutes Democratic strength throughout the State, resulting in six districts with lean-R to likely-R ratings. That said, I'm not sure Republican would be ready to take such a big risk (all 6 districts voted for Romney in 2012, but for Obama in 2008). Maybe they'd choose instead to work a Democratic vote sink packing together East St. Louis, Springfield and Peoria, so as to keep 5 seats safe? I'm not sure, but for lack of an alternative proposal I'll stick with Muon's. So 6R-0D.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just a heads up that Mark Kirk lives in Highland Park in Lake County, which means he'd be in the Chicago state.

Yeah I know, but he was born in Champaign and lived in downstate IL up till college (he transferred to Cornell afterwards). If he wanted to seek a political career, he'd be quite a fool to move to Chicago State, where his opportunities would be extremely limited. I'd say he'd be most likely to stay in his native State. But anyway, if it wasn't Kirk, it could have been Patrick Hughes instead.

[Antonio the Sixth]

PVI comparison

As the previous two posts had already shown, Illinois and Chicago have very little in common in terms of their political evolution. Unsurprisingly, Chicago has always been the most Democratic of the two States since at least the 1960s, but this is not the most interesting aspect of the above chart. What's really striking is how differently the two States have evolved over time.

Chicago displays the familiar pattern that we have already seen in many Northeastern States: a Dem-leaning State that moves more and more towards the democrats throughout the 90s and 2000s, reaching stronghold territory. It seems crazy today, but in two instances Chicago was actually more favorable to Republican candidates than the country as a whole (in 1964, it reacted with limited enthusiasm to the LBJ wave, and in 1976 Carter only eked out a win there). Those two years were particular, but it's only after 1992 that Chicago could be safely counted in the Democratic  column. In the early 2000s, it reached landslide territory, and doesn't seem to be coming back anytime soon.

For Illinois, instead, the picture is much less clear. From the beginning of the period, the State was clearly in the Republican column, although the strength of this leaning varied significantly. But interestingly, Democrats seemed to actually gain ground during the 1980s and even moved Illinois to lean-D in 1988 and 1992. However, this trend reversed itself after 1992, and, with the exception of a slight uptick under Obama in 2008, Democrats have done worse in every election since. In 2012, Romney overperformed by 12 points there, the best result for a Republican candidate over the entire period.

As a result, OTL Illinois' mythical 32 years of uninterrupted Democratic trend from 1976 to 2008 seems to be nothing more than an illusion resulting from the combining of these two very different evolutions. If you're looking for a starting point in Democratic growth in Chicago, 1988 is the way to go, not 1976 (in relative terms, Dukakis lost ground compared to 1984). Meanwhile, the Republican drift of Illinois clearly started after 1992 (which followed the Democratic gains of 1980-1992). All this resulted in a considerable drift: in 1988, Chicago was only 4 points more Democratic than Illinois; in 2012, this gap was of 36 points. Clearly, OTL Illinois is increasingly suffering from split personality.



I'll try to wrap up the two snoozefests that are Michigan and Wisconsin by the end of this week, so that we can move on to more interesting States in the West.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Michigan

With barely 300,000 inhabitants (less than half a Congressional District), Michigan's Upper Peninsula never left much of a mark in Michigan politics. As a result, the State wouldn't look much different without it.

MI Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


As you can see, no Presidential winner has changed, and even the magnitude of their victory has remained almost identical. There really isn't much to see here. The PVI curves of old and new Michigan are also nearly identical.



In the last two decades, removing the UP has brought a benefit to Democrats of less than half a point (although funnily enough, this is enough to change the sign of MI's 1996-2000 trend, from R to D). In the past however, the UP was actually a bit more Democratic than the rest of the State (most notably in 1984 and 1988), meaning that this change would have weakened the Dem's position. Still, we're talking of really minimal changes.

Capital: Still Lansing

Governor: Still Rick Snyder, still facing a close reelection contest.

Senators: Still Debbie Stabenow (class 1) and Carl Levin (class 2)

Representatives: The Republicans' control over the State Legislature would also remain virtually unchanged, meaning that the gerrymander would still be there. Michigan would keep its 14 Congressional Districts as well, which means that CDs would be somewhat smaller in population. In terms of party split, it probably also stays the same at 9R-5D.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Now for Wisconsin right?

Yeah, Wisconsin's next (though not much more interesting than Michigan).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wisconsin

Since Wisconsin is smaller, the transfer of the Upper Peninsula has a somewhat more significant impact on it than it had on Michigan (it would represent about 5% of the new State's population). Still, WI's political outlook under this scenario is generally unchanged.

WI Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


Actually, adding the UP did make a difference in the State's Presidential vote once: in 2000, Bush would have edged Gore by a narrow 0.16 points margin (Gore won by 0.22 points IRL). This Republican gain could make a huge difference in the bitterly-fought 2000 election, although the Florida split more than makes up for it in Gore's favor. Also to note, Kerry's 2004 win manages to survive, but it's reduced from 0.38 points to a razor-thin 0.02 points (ie, less than 500 votes) lead. These are significant results due to Wisconsin's status as a key battleground State in the early 2000s, but in numerical terms, the shifts remain trivially small. The PVI chart puts things in perspective:



As you can see, at no point did the new State differ significantly from the old by more than half a point or so. Before 2000, it's even hard to tell which party benefited from the change, though in recent times it seems to have helped Republicans - for what little it's worth.

Capital: Still Madison

Governor: Still Scott Walker

Senators: Still Tammy Baldwin (class 1) and Ron Johnson (class 3)

Representatives: The UP is not big enough to earn Wisconsin an additional CD in the current census (it would have brought its delegation from 2002 to 2012 to 9 seats, though). With Republicans still controlling the legislature, the makeup of WI's delegation probably would remain 5R-3D (the UP is neither big nor Republican enough to give the GOP the opportunity to dilute Democrats further).

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, I'm planning to move on to Lincoln (the big northwestern State) in a week or so, then do Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and end this in beauty with the Californias. Does that work for you guys?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Cool! Just be warned that I'm getting very busy these days, and that I can't guarantee a weekly update as I usually did - but I won't let you guys down, I promise!

[Antonio the Sixth]

And since I'm back, this is back too! You can expect an update tomorrow.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lincoln

This would be a really large State, with a land area over a million square kilometers (1.5 times as much as OTL Texas!). I'm a bit annoyed to have created such a monster, and I realize it's not exactly optimal for governance. That said, the only alternative would be merging Nebraska and the Dakotas, which wouldn't be much better. So, there you have it: Lincoln, a quite homogeneously rural and conservative State lost in the northernmost section of the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains.

LN Presidential election results, 1960-2012:


As you probably would have guessed, this is Republican country. The only Democrat to prevail there over the past half-century was, as is often the case, good ol' Lyndon. Despite this general picture, the Republican margin has fluctuated a lot. On the one hand, Clinton came within 4 points of carrying the State in 1992 - helped by a strong Perot showing. On the opposite side however, Dubya distanced his opponents by over 25 points in both his elections. In raw percentage terms, the best Democratic performance after 1964 was Jimmy Carter's in 1976, followed by Dukakis'. An odd combination that goes to show how helpless today's national Democrats tend to be in the State.



The PVI chart indicates that Lincoln's political leanings bear more resemblance to the Dakotas than to either Montana or Wyoming - with the former being generally the most Democratic of the four States, and the latter being far more Republican. Especially since 2000, Wyoming stands out as the most politically distant of the bunch, and its small size would make it a politically marginalized area. Regardless, Lincoln would be solidly grounded in the Republican camp. The only Democratic candidate to ever do better there than nationwide was favorite son George McGovern in 1972. Apart from that year and 1988 (when Dukakis could have carried it had he won by a clear margin), Republicans could always rely about the State staying on their column.

With that said, things could be very different in non-presidential elections. Democrats have continuously held at least 4 of the 8 Senate seats in the original States from 1986 to 2014, and regularly held House seats and gubernatorial offices. Even today, a likable, populist-leaning Democrat with solid local roots (see Brian Schweitzer, Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin or Heidi Heitkamp) could very well prevail in Lincoln. Of course, retail politics would be quite difficult in a 1-million-km² State, but still, we could often see pretty competitive races there.

Capital: The most logical choice would be Billings, being the only decent-sized city located near the State's population center.

Governor: Matt Mead seems a pretty good fit for the State.

Senators: Jon Tester (class 1) and John Thune (class 2)

Representatives: The Legislature would be in Republican hands, but I doubt they would choose to enact a gerrymander (I assume it's the kind of place where political culture might not be as completely rotten as it is in most of the country). Population numbers seem to indicate that there would be two districts corresponding roughly to the Dakotas (with the SD one a bit smaller and the ND one larger), a district covering Wyoming and a significant chunk of Montana, and one covering roughly 3/4 of Montana. Depending how that last one is drawn, it might actually be a fairly competitive seat. Still, it's most likely that the State would end up 4R-0D

Note: for the sake of consistency, I will keep listing elective offices as they would have been prior to the 2014 election. I'll turn on post-2014 changes once I'm done with everything else.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes it's back! And if the Premier of my state (Western Australia) can manage governing an area 2.5x the size of Lincoln, I'm sure the Governor of Lincoln would manage OK . On another note, as you mentioned, downstate elections would be interesting to watch here, and 1992 with Lincoln as an actual state could be interesting too - Perot could have campaigned harder, and won the state (or handed it to Clinton).

Not sure if there was room for Perot to grow above what he got. And anyway, if he absolutely wanted to carry a State, Nevada would be his best opportunity in this scenario (and Maine IRL).

BTW, reposting that regions map I made if anyone is interested:

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've been following this and it's been really interesting, and it's probably a little late to be asking about this, but why keep New Jersey whole? North Jersey and South Jersey are heavily integrated into the NYC and Philly metro areas and are fairly similar demographically and electorally.

Really good work though! Hope to see this continue.

The main reason is that New Jersey is fine in terms of population, neither too big nor too small, and that splitting it between NY and PA (as I understand you'd want to) would create two very large States. Besides, I don't think North and South Jersey are as culturally different as, say, North and South Florida.