Between Two Majorities | The Cordray Administration

[PoliticalShelter]

Taking a preliminary look at California, it seems that it would have large swathes of narrowly republican suburbs in a duel with the less populous but staunchly democratic Los Angeles, with San Diego County and San Francisco deciding the winner. Lean D, but barely so.

I don't see San Francisco ever becoming a swing area, the Bay Area as a whole is actually one of the most economically left wing areas in the state and was one of the strongest places for OWS. Unless San Franisico undergoes even more rapid gentrification I don't see the city being anything but safe D.

Overall I'm somewhat doubtful that California will be that competitive in the future, unless the Hispanic population gets much more affluent during that time or some kind of water crisis pushes up utility rates and forces the poorest residents to leave the state.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Taking a preliminary look at California, it seems that it would have large swathes of narrowly republican suburbs in a duel with the less populous but staunchly democratic Los Angeles, with San Diego County and San Francisco deciding the winner. Lean D, but barely so.

I don't see San Francisco ever becoming a swing area, the Bay Area as a whole is actually one of the most economically left wing areas in the state and was one of the strongest places for OWS. Unless San Franisico undergoes even more rapid gentrification I don't see the city being anything but safe D.

Overall I'm somewhat doubtful that California will be that competitive in the future, unless the Hispanic population gets much more affluent during that time or some kind of water crisis pushes up utility rates and forces the poorest residents to leave the state.

I'm probably going to shift San Diego to safe d and San Francisco to likely. But I do see the Bay Area shifting right on economic issues and the GOP shifting left on social issues. Since white+Asians are a majority of it, it should by all rights be likely r, and trending that way. Only it's historical status keeps San Francisco from breaking dem ranks.

Checking PPP and income again, I have a suspicion that we're underestimating dems in Montana... Lean R seems about right for the state,but it seems a lot poorer than the rest of the interior plains and mountain west. I'm not sure what to do with it...

Looking at county data, I'm not so sure about that. It seems poor, but it scores well on other outcomes and is very libertarian.

[GlobeSoc]

Here is v3



I'm going to take a break from this until the afternoon. I'll be around to answer questions and take feedback, tho

Taking a preliminary look at California, it seems that it would have large swathes of narrowly republican suburbs in a duel with the less populous but staunchly democratic Los Angeles, with San Diego County and San Francisco deciding the winner. Lean D, but barely so.

I don't see San Francisco ever becoming a swing area, the Bay Area as a whole is actually one of the most economically left wing areas in the state and was one of the strongest places for OWS. Unless San Franisico undergoes even more rapid gentrification I don't see the city being anything but safe D.

Overall I'm somewhat doubtful that California will be that competitive in the future, unless the Hispanic population gets much more affluent during that time or some kind of water crisis pushes up utility rates and forces the poorest residents to leave the state.

I'm probably going to shift San Diego to safe d and San Francisco to likely. But I do see the Bay Area shifting right on economic issues and the GOP shifting left on social issues. Since white+Asians are a majority of it, it should by all rights be likely r, and trending that way. Only it's historical status keeps San Francisco from breaking dem ranks.

Checking PPP and income again, I have a suspicion that we're underestimating dems in Montana... Lean R seems about right for the state,but it seems a lot poorer than the rest of the interior plains and mountain west. I'm not sure what to do with it...

Looking at county data, I'm not so sure about that. It seems poor, but it scores well on other outcomes and is very libertarian.

I suspected that, but the question I'm having is will that stick? Maybe, but maybe not...

[_]

Ima make a guess for the Collars, All of them excluding Lake will be Likely R, Lake Lean R, and Cook County Likely D.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Here is v3



I'm going to take a break from this until the afternoon. I'll be around to answer questions and take feedback, tho

Taking a preliminary look at California, it seems that it would have large swathes of narrowly republican suburbs in a duel with the less populous but staunchly democratic Los Angeles, with San Diego County and San Francisco deciding the winner. Lean D, but barely so.

I don't see San Francisco ever becoming a swing area, the Bay Area as a whole is actually one of the most economically left wing areas in the state and was one of the strongest places for OWS. Unless San Franisico undergoes even more rapid gentrification I don't see the city being anything but safe D.

Overall I'm somewhat doubtful that California will be that competitive in the future, unless the Hispanic population gets much more affluent during that time or some kind of water crisis pushes up utility rates and forces the poorest residents to leave the state.

I'm probably going to shift San Diego to safe d and San Francisco to likely. But I do see the Bay Area shifting right on economic issues and the GOP shifting left on social issues. Since white+Asians are a majority of it, it should by all rights be likely r, and trending that way. Only it's historical status keeps San Francisco from breaking dem ranks.

Checking PPP and income again, I have a suspicion that we're underestimating dems in Montana... Lean R seems about right for the state,but it seems a lot poorer than the rest of the interior plains and mountain west. I'm not sure what to do with it...

Looking at county data, I'm not so sure about that. It seems poor, but it scores well on other outcomes and is very libertarian.

I suspected that, but the question I'm having is will that stick? Maybe, but maybe not...

Why do you have Maricopa as lean/likely D? It seems like it'd become more republican than the rest of the state.

[GlobeSoc]

Ima make a guess for the Collars, All of them excluding Lake will be Likely R, Lake Lean R, and Cook County Likely D.

That's my guess too. Minorities save the cook county dems from running highly competitive races, but the margin gets smaller, whilst the more affluent(and more white) collar counties make the Chicago metro as a whole somewhat competitive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is more republican than the state as a whole. I'll probably shift it to lean D from likely tho.

[PoliticalShelter]

Good maps so far!

Personally I think you should factor in how much income inequality there is in each state, and adjust it so more equal and wealthy states should be more republican than wealthy states that have higher levels of inequality.



So I would have wealthy states like New Hampshire and Minnesota swing much further to the republicans than wealthy states like Massachusetts and Connecticut that are much more unequal.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

That works with the PPP income stuff. The most republican state is probably Utah, the most democratic New York (or PR).
EDIT: 50 state democratic landslide:

[GlobeSoc]

I'll start working on the map again after 5.

[GlobeSoc]

About to drop an adjusted map. Also adding Idaho.

[GlobeSoc]

My rule with Idaho was that every county was safe R until proven otherwise. Some northern counties are likely r thanks to PPP effects, and some southern counties are likely/lean r thanks to hispanics. Blaine is one county which I might reclassify in a later version.

In my revision, I shifted California a bit to the left, and changed a few other areas too.

[GlobeSoc]

Not sure if I'll post an update to my map tonight, but if I do it will add New Mexico and Texas. Texas has so many counties...

Edit: I'm not sure what to do with Colorado. It seems like it would be a tossup state or even lean R based on my data, but the theory says that it would be lean D as part of the sunbelt anchor right? This baffles me...

[Technocracy Timmy]

Not sure if I'll post an update to my map tonight, but if I do it will add New Mexico and Texas. Texas has so many counties...

Edit: I'm not sure what to do with Colorado. It seems like it would be a tossup state or even lean R based on my data, but the theory says that it would be lean D as part of the sunbelt anchor right? This baffles me...

Yay!

I think Colorado would only be lean D because the electoral map in a Democratic alignment is lean D. Since your map is assuming it's a PV tie (I think, right?) then it's at least a tossup.  

[GlobeSoc]

Not sure if I'll post an update to my map tonight, but if I do it will add New Mexico and Texas. Texas has so many counties...

Edit: I'm not sure what to do with Colorado. It seems like it would be a tossup state or even lean R based on my data, but the theory says that it would be lean D as part of the sunbelt anchor right? This baffles me...

Yay!

I think Colorado would only be lean D because the electoral map in a Democratic alignment is lean D. Since your map is assuming it's a PV tie (I think, right?) then it's at least a tossup.  

It might not be at first, but I'll adjust some counties to be more d or r to make it so.

Not going to spoil anything, but while Texas is on track to being Lean D, the map I'm getting is somewhat weird...

[GlobeSoc]

[The Govanah Jake]

Texas - I assume those west Texas county's are do to Tejano's Hispanics in the Western part of the part becoming a majority in mainly of those county's and voting on economic issues combined with non Hispanic residents correct? Also if there is such a trend of Hispanics towards the Democratic Party in Texas then wouldn't Brewster County which is already 43.8% Hispanic and close on the national level be democratic like the surrounding county's. Same thing to a lesser extent towards Jeff Davis County. Also if the Republicans are the secular civil libertarian, fiscally moderate to conservative party they are set up to be then why would they win Fort Bend County but loss Tarrant County. I understand Fort Bend is alot more wealthier and i assume demographics vote alot more on fiscal issues then social issues but wouldn't the republicans who obviously aren't winning Hispanics in that state win a relatively whiter (Both would be Minority-Majority though) county like Tarrant which is also a Suburban county like Fort Bent which the republicans seem to do better in here before Fort Bent with its more diverse population. For Republicans to win back Fort Bent then they would have to become the Party mentioned in this timeline so how in that process would they lose Tarrant. Is it the Correct opinion that due to Tarrant being poorer (relative), they would vote more on economic interests and appeal to a populist liberal Democratic Party?

California - Interesting we have here. We have a Democratic central valley (Which was the Democratic base in the state before 1980) versus a more republican bay area and republicans gains from 2016 in SoCal along with continued republican control of Northern California and take over of the coastal county's by Ventura County. This is basically no more or less a return to Pre-Reagan Californian politics. This could easily be mistaken (Minus the north) for a 1940s-1970s election map of a race in the state. As economic issues prevail and social issues are irrelevant this is what a natural California county map would look like in imao if the republicans became secular and non-Trumpian. The Central Valley is propelled by Poor and Middle Class Hispanics who by that time will be a majority and Non Hispanics who became like FDR democrats and are attracted to a Populist message. Meanwhile in the Bay Area, even though it is left wing economically still, its less so and the republicans are more so economically and so that with a secular image makes the bay area competitive and returns to pre Reagan voting habits.. The southern part of the state doesn't fully come back to the republicans due to Hispanics but they make gains regaining San Bernardino and Orange as shown. I think that's a fair map for a party system like this

Oregon - Whats with the sudden rightward shift of Portland. Even if the Republicans become Secular and Moderate economically, i fail to see how that versus a populist democratic party would win the city and county. I suppose it would be a return to Pre-1960 Portland when the County went Republican.

Washington - King County would be the main issue for this one. Though this might be easier to explain with big republican gains in the city and suburbs of Seattle and also King County is more Republican Friendly and last voted republican in 1988 so theirs that. But the question above stands. Also Island County Imao would probably vote for this Republican Party. Besides that i see economic issues rule again as Hispanics are finally majority's in many western county's of the state and form a coalition with poor whites to create victory's along with the coastal county's which are mostly working class of the white version.


Excited to see the county maps of the South though!

[_]

CO should probably end up being Tossup to Tilt D imo, though it will probably be trending R.

[GlobeSoc]

Texas - I assume those west Texas county's are do to Tejano's Hispanics in the Western part of the part becoming a majority in mainly of those county's and voting on economic issues combined with non Hispanic residents correct? Also if there is such a trend of Hispanics towards the Democratic Party in Texas then wouldn't Brewster County which is already 43.8% Hispanic and close on the national level be democratic like the surrounding county's. Same thing to a lesser extent towards Jeff Davis County. Also if the Republicans are the secular civil libertarian, fiscally moderate to conservative party they are set up to be then why would they win Fort Bend County but loss Tarrant County. I understand Fort Bend is alot more wealthier and i assume demographics vote alot more on fiscal issues then social issues but wouldn't the republicans who obviously aren't winning Hispanics in that state win a relatively whiter (Both would be Minority-Majority though) county like Tarrant which is also a Suburban county like Fort Bent which the republicans seem to do better in here before Fort Bent with its more diverse population. For Republicans to win back Fort Bent then they would have to become the Party mentioned in this timeline so how in that process would they lose Tarrant. Is it the Correct opinion that due to Tarrant being poorer (relative), they would vote more on economic interests and appeal to a populist liberal Democratic Party?

California - Interesting we have here. We have a Democratic central valley (Which was the Democratic base in the state before 1980) versus a more republican bay area and republicans gains from 2016 in SoCal along with continued republican control of Northern California and take over of the coastal county's by Ventura County. This is basically no more or less a return to Pre-Reagan Californian politics. This could easily be mistaken (Minus the north) for a 1940s-1970s election map of a race in the state. As economic issues prevail and social issues are irrelevant this is what a natural California county map would look like in imao if the republicans became secular and non-Trumpian. The Central Valley is propelled by Poor and Middle Class Hispanics who by that time will be a majority and Non Hispanics who became like FDR democrats and are attracted to a Populist message. Meanwhile in the Bay Area, even though it is left wing economically still, its less so and the republicans are more so economically and so that with a secular image makes the bay area competitive and returns to pre Reagan voting habits.. The southern part of the state doesn't fully come back to the republicans due to Hispanics but they make gains regaining San Bernardino and Orange as shown. I think that's a fair map for a party system like this

Oregon - Whats with the sudden rightward shift of Portland. Even if the Republicans become Secular and Moderate economically, i fail to see how that versus a populist democratic party would win the city and county. I suppose it would be a return to Pre-1960 Portland when the County went Republican.

Washington - King County would be the main issue for this one. Though this might be easier to explain with big republican gains in the city and suburbs of Seattle and also King County is more Republican Friendly and last voted republican in 1988 so theirs that. But the question above stands. Also Island County Imao would probably vote for this Republican Party. Besides that i see economic issues rule again as Hispanics are finally majority's in many western county's of the state and form a coalition with poor whites to create victory's along with the coastal county's which are mostly working class of the white version.


Excited to see the county maps of the South though!

On Fort Bend, I actually initially had it at lean r, I don't know why it was likely r.

North Texas appears to have a very strong(but not perfect) correlation between hispanics and lower PPP. Many whiter areas have PPP's similar to the interior plains. While I was initially going to make the Tejanos less democratic than average, that correlation, combined with high inequality made me decide that the rural hispanics trended democratic. I was already going to have those counties swing to the democrats based on increased hispanic turnout, I just added the existing hispanic electorate swinging dem. In summary, racial polarization increases in West/North Texas, to the benefit of the democrats.

Washington and Oregon, I was just too cautious in Hispanic gains for dems in the east and overly aggressive for republican urban gains in the west. I'm probably going to shift some counties around. It shouldn't shift the states too much, as any democratic gains in the new map are still more than cancelled out by the rest of these state's. King I kept as Republican because it has a higher PPP than Portland and some asians(about 15% of the county) that can be swung republican, perhaps even more than the county whites.

I also added Wyoming. Next I'll do Montana and Colorado.

[The Govanah Jake]

Texas - I assume those west Texas county's are do to Tejano's Hispanics in the Western part of the part becoming a majority in mainly of those county's and voting on economic issues combined with non Hispanic residents correct? Also if there is such a trend of Hispanics towards the Democratic Party in Texas then wouldn't Brewster County which is already 43.8% Hispanic and close on the national level be democratic like the surrounding county's. Same thing to a lesser extent towards Jeff Davis County. Also if the Republicans are the secular civil libertarian, fiscally moderate to conservative party they are set up to be then why would they win Fort Bend County but loss Tarrant County. I understand Fort Bend is alot more wealthier and i assume demographics vote alot more on fiscal issues then social issues but wouldn't the republicans who obviously aren't winning Hispanics in that state win a relatively whiter (Both would be Minority-Majority though) county like Tarrant which is also a Suburban county like Fort Bent which the republicans seem to do better in here before Fort Bent with its more diverse population. For Republicans to win back Fort Bent then they would have to become the Party mentioned in this timeline so how in that process would they lose Tarrant. Is it the Correct opinion that due to Tarrant being poorer (relative), they would vote more on economic interests and appeal to a populist liberal Democratic Party?

California - Interesting we have here. We have a Democratic central valley (Which was the Democratic base in the state before 1980) versus a more republican bay area and republicans gains from 2016 in SoCal along with continued republican control of Northern California and take over of the coastal county's by Ventura County. This is basically no more or less a return to Pre-Reagan Californian politics. This could easily be mistaken (Minus the north) for a 1940s-1970s election map of a race in the state. As economic issues prevail and social issues are irrelevant this is what a natural California county map would look like in imao if the republicans became secular and non-Trumpian. The Central Valley is propelled by Poor and Middle Class Hispanics who by that time will be a majority and Non Hispanics who became like FDR democrats and are attracted to a Populist message. Meanwhile in the Bay Area, even though it is left wing economically still, its less so and the republicans are more so economically and so that with a secular image makes the bay area competitive and returns to pre Reagan voting habits.. The southern part of the state doesn't fully come back to the republicans due to Hispanics but they make gains regaining San Bernardino and Orange as shown. I think that's a fair map for a party system like this

Oregon - Whats with the sudden rightward shift of Portland. Even if the Republicans become Secular and Moderate economically, i fail to see how that versus a populist democratic party would win the city and county. I suppose it would be a return to Pre-1960 Portland when the County went Republican.

Washington - King County would be the main issue for this one. Though this might be easier to explain with big republican gains in the city and suburbs of Seattle and also King County is more Republican Friendly and last voted republican in 1988 so theirs that. But the question above stands. Also Island County Imao would probably vote for this Republican Party. Besides that i see economic issues rule again as Hispanics are finally majority's in many western county's of the state and form a coalition with poor whites to create victory's along with the coastal county's which are mostly working class of the white version.


Excited to see the county maps of the South though!

On Fort Bend, I actually initially had it at lean r, I don't know why it was likely r.

North Texas appears to have a very strong(but not perfect) correlation between hispanics and lower PPP. Many whiter areas have PPP's similar to the interior plains. While I was initially going to make the Tejanos less democratic than average, that correlation, combined with high inequality made me decide that the rural hispanics trended democratic. I was already going to have those counties swing to the democrats based on increased hispanic turnout, I just added the existing hispanic electorate swinging dem. In summary, racial polarization increases in West/North Texas, to the benefit of the democrats.

Washington and Oregon, I was just too cautious in Hispanic gains for dems in the east and overly aggressive for republican urban gains in the west. I'm probably going to shift some counties around. It shouldn't shift the states too much, as any democratic gains in the new map are still more than cancelled out by the rest of these state's. King I kept as Republican because it has a higher PPP than Portland and some asians(about 15% of the county) that can be swung republican, perhaps even more than the county whites.

I also added Wyoming. Next I'll do Montana and Colorado.

That doesn't answer Tarrant at all though and also doesn't too regarding Brewster and Jeff Davis Counties. Is it because Tarrant is a little less wealthy(but still not poor) so poorer Hispanics and minority white populations vote democrat and because of this the county goes democratic and is the opposite in Fort Bend with richer hispanics and whites of course voting Republican? Would this mean the Hispanic vote is split Wealthier versus poorer with the middle I guess a battleground? And if that is the case why would a suburb like tarrant which isn't exactly horrible economically vote democratic

For Washington I could see you on King County. I guess a pre Reagan type of party the republicans act like ideology wise in this timeline would be a good fit for the county like it was pre 1980. However this time it's more diverse with a Asian coalition behind it which would likely be more then 20% of the county population by post realignment times and probally much more then that. But Seattle which is still economically progressive would hold a bigger problem to that then before. Also if Seattle is still majority white then how would the Republican Party try to make plays in the city if its white population is still still liberal (for Pete sake elected a actual socialist to council).

Also it seems from observation that resort county's swing republican.

[GlobeSoc]

Texas - I assume those west Texas county's are do to Tejano's Hispanics in the Western part of the part becoming a majority in mainly of those county's and voting on economic issues combined with non Hispanic residents correct? Also if there is such a trend of Hispanics towards the Democratic Party in Texas then wouldn't Brewster County which is already 43.8% Hispanic and close on the national level be democratic like the surrounding county's. Same thing to a lesser extent towards Jeff Davis County. Also if the Republicans are the secular civil libertarian, fiscally moderate to conservative party they are set up to be then why would they win Fort Bend County but loss Tarrant County. I understand Fort Bend is alot more wealthier and i assume demographics vote alot more on fiscal issues then social issues but wouldn't the republicans who obviously aren't winning Hispanics in that state win a relatively whiter (Both would be Minority-Majority though) county like Tarrant which is also a Suburban county like Fort Bent which the republicans seem to do better in here before Fort Bent with its more diverse population. For Republicans to win back Fort Bent then they would have to become the Party mentioned in this timeline so how in that process would they lose Tarrant. Is it the Correct opinion that due to Tarrant being poorer (relative), they would vote more on economic interests and appeal to a populist liberal Democratic Party?

California - Interesting we have here. We have a Democratic central valley (Which was the Democratic base in the state before 1980) versus a more republican bay area and republicans gains from 2016 in SoCal along with continued republican control of Northern California and take over of the coastal county's by Ventura County. This is basically no more or less a return to Pre-Reagan Californian politics. This could easily be mistaken (Minus the north) for a 1940s-1970s election map of a race in the state. As economic issues prevail and social issues are irrelevant this is what a natural California county map would look like in imao if the republicans became secular and non-Trumpian. The Central Valley is propelled by Poor and Middle Class Hispanics who by that time will be a majority and Non Hispanics who became like FDR democrats and are attracted to a Populist message. Meanwhile in the Bay Area, even though it is left wing economically still, its less so and the republicans are more so economically and so that with a secular image makes the bay area competitive and returns to pre Reagan voting habits.. The southern part of the state doesn't fully come back to the republicans due to Hispanics but they make gains regaining San Bernardino and Orange as shown. I think that's a fair map for a party system like this

Oregon - Whats with the sudden rightward shift of Portland. Even if the Republicans become Secular and Moderate economically, i fail to see how that versus a populist democratic party would win the city and county. I suppose it would be a return to Pre-1960 Portland when the County went Republican.

Washington - King County would be the main issue for this one. Though this might be easier to explain with big republican gains in the city and suburbs of Seattle and also King County is more Republican Friendly and last voted republican in 1988 so theirs that. But the question above stands. Also Island County Imao would probably vote for this Republican Party. Besides that i see economic issues rule again as Hispanics are finally majority's in many western county's of the state and form a coalition with poor whites to create victory's along with the coastal county's which are mostly working class of the white version.


Excited to see the county maps of the South though!

On Fort Bend, I actually initially had it at lean r, I don't know why it was likely r.

North Texas appears to have a very strong(but not perfect) correlation between hispanics and lower PPP. Many whiter areas have PPP's similar to the interior plains. While I was initially going to make the Tejanos less democratic than average, that correlation, combined with high inequality made me decide that the rural hispanics trended democratic. I was already going to have those counties swing to the democrats based on increased hispanic turnout, I just added the existing hispanic electorate swinging dem. In summary, racial polarization increases in West/North Texas, to the benefit of the democrats.

Washington and Oregon, I was just too cautious in Hispanic gains for dems in the east and overly aggressive for republican urban gains in the west. I'm probably going to shift some counties around. It shouldn't shift the states too much, as any democratic gains in the new map are still more than cancelled out by the rest of these state's. King I kept as Republican because it has a higher PPP than Portland and some asians(about 15% of the county) that can be swung republican, perhaps even more than the county whites.

I also added Wyoming. Next I'll do Montana and Colorado.

That doesn't answer Tarrant at all though and also doesn't too regarding Brewster and Jeff Davis Counties. Is it because Tarrant is a little less wealthy(but still not poor) so poorer Hispanics and minority white populations vote democrat and because of this the county goes democratic and is the opposite in Fort Bend with richer hispanics and whites of course voting Republican? Would this mean the Hispanic vote is split Wealthier versus poorer with the middle I guess a battleground? And if that is the case why would a suburb like tarrant which isn't exactly horrible economically vote democratic

For Washington I could see you on King County. I guess a pre Reagan type of party the republicans act like ideology wise in this timeline would be a good fit for the county like it was pre 1980. However this time it's more diverse with a Asian coalition behind it which would likely be more then 20% of the county population by post realignment times and probally much more then that. But Seattle which is still economically progressive would hold a bigger problem to that then before. Also if Seattle is still majority white then how would the Republican Party try to make plays in the city if its white population is still still liberal (for Pete sake elected a actual socialist to council).

Also it seems from observation that resort county's swing republican.

I was mostly focused on the west coast in that revision- In the below revision, I shifted both Jeff Davis and Brewster left, to Lean R and Lean D respectively. Tarrant is because I expected it to be majority-minority by then, even when excluding asians. Adams county in Colorado goes dem for similar reasons. I initially colored in Fort Bend Lean D, but it was so wealthy and the asian count was so high that I decided against having that in the release.

Eh, resort counties will have a disproportionate amount of people who "should" vote GOP but don't. In general, the sort of white, wealthy, already dem, quasi-rural and rural county that 'resort county' entails will have a slower transition to GOP stronghold status than their suburban and urban counterparts, and that will be reflected most strongly in Vermont, western New Hampshire, western Colorado and western Massachusetts being lean-likely dem from being currently likely-safe dem.

Feel free to contest these points, but that's my take.

[GlobeSoc]

Also, added Colorado:



Ignore the random safe counties in Montana

[_]

What would CO's PVI be?

[GlobeSoc]

What would CO's PVI be?

Somewhere between D+1 and R+3 seems about right.

[The Govanah Jake]

Texas - I assume those west Texas county's are do to Tejano's Hispanics in the Western part of the part becoming a majority in mainly of those county's and voting on economic issues combined with non Hispanic residents correct? Also if there is such a trend of Hispanics towards the Democratic Party in Texas then wouldn't Brewster County which is already 43.8% Hispanic and close on the national level be democratic like the surrounding county's. Same thing to a lesser extent towards Jeff Davis County. Also if the Republicans are the secular civil libertarian, fiscally moderate to conservative party they are set up to be then why would they win Fort Bend County but loss Tarrant County. I understand Fort Bend is alot more wealthier and i assume demographics vote alot more on fiscal issues then social issues but wouldn't the republicans who obviously aren't winning Hispanics in that state win a relatively whiter (Both would be Minority-Majority though) county like Tarrant which is also a Suburban county like Fort Bent which the republicans seem to do better in here before Fort Bent with its more diverse population. For Republicans to win back Fort Bent then they would have to become the Party mentioned in this timeline so how in that process would they lose Tarrant. Is it the Correct opinion that due to Tarrant being poorer (relative), they would vote more on economic interests and appeal to a populist liberal Democratic Party?

California - Interesting we have here. We have a Democratic central valley (Which was the Democratic base in the state before 1980) versus a more republican bay area and republicans gains from 2016 in SoCal along with continued republican control of Northern California and take over of the coastal county's by Ventura County. This is basically no more or less a return to Pre-Reagan Californian politics. This could easily be mistaken (Minus the north) for a 1940s-1970s election map of a race in the state. As economic issues prevail and social issues are irrelevant this is what a natural California county map would look like in imao if the republicans became secular and non-Trumpian. The Central Valley is propelled by Poor and Middle Class Hispanics who by that time will be a majority and Non Hispanics who became like FDR democrats and are attracted to a Populist message. Meanwhile in the Bay Area, even though it is left wing economically still, its less so and the republicans are more so economically and so that with a secular image makes the bay area competitive and returns to pre Reagan voting habits.. The southern part of the state doesn't fully come back to the republicans due to Hispanics but they make gains regaining San Bernardino and Orange as shown. I think that's a fair map for a party system like this

Oregon - Whats with the sudden rightward shift of Portland. Even if the Republicans become Secular and Moderate economically, i fail to see how that versus a populist democratic party would win the city and county. I suppose it would be a return to Pre-1960 Portland when the County went Republican.

Washington - King County would be the main issue for this one. Though this might be easier to explain with big republican gains in the city and suburbs of Seattle and also King County is more Republican Friendly and last voted republican in 1988 so theirs that. But the question above stands. Also Island County Imao would probably vote for this Republican Party. Besides that i see economic issues rule again as Hispanics are finally majority's in many western county's of the state and form a coalition with poor whites to create victory's along with the coastal county's which are mostly working class of the white version.


Excited to see the county maps of the South though!

On Fort Bend, I actually initially had it at lean r, I don't know why it was likely r.

North Texas appears to have a very strong(but not perfect) correlation between hispanics and lower PPP. Many whiter areas have PPP's similar to the interior plains. While I was initially going to make the Tejanos less democratic than average, that correlation, combined with high inequality made me decide that the rural hispanics trended democratic. I was already going to have those counties swing to the democrats based on increased hispanic turnout, I just added the existing hispanic electorate swinging dem. In summary, racial polarization increases in West/North Texas, to the benefit of the democrats.

Washington and Oregon, I was just too cautious in Hispanic gains for dems in the east and overly aggressive for republican urban gains in the west. I'm probably going to shift some counties around. It shouldn't shift the states too much, as any democratic gains in the new map are still more than cancelled out by the rest of these state's. King I kept as Republican because it has a higher PPP than Portland and some asians(about 15% of the county) that can be swung republican, perhaps even more than the county whites.

I also added Wyoming. Next I'll do Montana and Colorado.

That doesn't answer Tarrant at all though and also doesn't too regarding Brewster and Jeff Davis Counties. Is it because Tarrant is a little less wealthy(but still not poor) so poorer Hispanics and minority white populations vote democrat and because of this the county goes democratic and is the opposite in Fort Bend with richer hispanics and whites of course voting Republican? Would this mean the Hispanic vote is split Wealthier versus poorer with the middle I guess a battleground? And if that is the case why would a suburb like tarrant which isn't exactly horrible economically vote democratic

For Washington I could see you on King County. I guess a pre Reagan type of party the republicans act like ideology wise in this timeline would be a good fit for the county like it was pre 1980. However this time it's more diverse with a Asian coalition behind it which would likely be more then 20% of the county population by post realignment times and probally much more then that. But Seattle which is still economically progressive would hold a bigger problem to that then before. Also if Seattle is still majority white then how would the Republican Party try to make plays in the city if its white population is still still liberal (for Pete sake elected a actual socialist to council).

Also it seems from observation that resort county's swing republican.

I was mostly focused on the west coast in that revision- In the below revision, I shifted both Jeff Davis and Brewster left, to Lean R and Lean D respectively. Tarrant is because I expected it to be majority-minority by then, even when excluding asians. Adams county in Colorado goes dem for similar reasons. I initially colored in Fort Bend Lean D, but it was so wealthy and the asian count was so high that I decided against having that in the release.

Eh, resort counties will have a disproportionate amount of people who "should" vote GOP but don't. In general, the sort of white, wealthy, already dem, quasi-rural and rural county that 'resort county' entails will have a slower transition to GOP stronghold status than their suburban and urban counterparts, and that will be reflected most strongly in Vermont, western New Hampshire, western Colorado and western Massachusetts being lean-likely dem from being currently likely-safe dem.

Feel free to contest these points, but that's my take.

1. Isn't Tarrant already only 46% Non Hispanic. I don't know if that's including white Hispanics or not but if its only 46% now then it will probably be even lower as minority population grows. It will probably be Minority Majority but Non Hispanic White Plurality.

2. Yep. Places like Vermont you should expect to be strongly Republican but its not. It was from 1856 to 1992 but a influx of white liberals from neighboring states and social conservatives taking over the republican party ended that. What you see in these sort of county's like the ones you listed plus Grant County in Utah, Alpine in California, and the one in each of Idaho and Wyoming (Teton) is areas were its overwhelmingly white and wealthy however vote strong democrat (except fro Grant) due to outside migration of white liberals and progressives to the area due to the ski resorts which makes the democrats more likely to win it.

BTW nice maps your making here.

[ltomlinson31]

My knowledge of a lot of these individual American counties is pretty poor, but New Mexico looks really Safe D, right? And looks like it could be one the most Democratic states in the country in this realignment. And Arizona is obviously Democratic given that Maricopa has flipped, but what would the PVI look like? Also interesting to see counties in Northern Texas flip, given that it's arguably the most Republican area of the country right now (with the 13th CD being R+33

Really cool maps, by the way. I'm especially looking forward to seeing the South and Northeast.