Political geography without the Great Migration
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:13:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Political geography without the Great Migration
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Political geography without the Great Migration  (Read 2273 times)
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 28, 2019, 07:19:06 PM »
« edited: January 11, 2021, 02:18:32 PM by Color Revolutionary »

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

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

2008:



375/163

Closest states:

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

2012:



353/200

Closest states:

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

2016:



303/235

Closest states:

MS: R+0.13%
NJ: R+0.47%
CO: D+0.63%
NH: R+0.85%
ME: D+2.19%
EDIT:
Here's the data for 2020:



340/198

Closest states:

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

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

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

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

EDIT: more done here:
Here's some more. I've stopped counting state EVs because I don't feel like digging up population growth statistics by race at the moment, so these are approximations based on OTL numbers. In no case do I believe they affected the outcome.

2004:



315/223

Closest states:
CT: D+0.02%
LA: D+0.1%
NH: D+0.15%
AR: D+0.48%
NC: R+1.04%

2000:


286/252

My earlier comment on Dem EC advantage was based on the 2012/2016 PVI, and evidently isn't true in general, because Gore gets cheated again in this world, by an even larger margin.

Closest states:
MD: R+0.71%
MS: D+0.78%
GA: D+0.91%
NJ: D+1.38%
NC: R+1.43%


1996:



391/147

Closest states:

MI: R+1.0%
MD: R+1.1%
PA: R+1.6%
AZ: R+1.9%
IL: D+2.6%

Fun fact: under this scenario, a 2% universal swing would give Clinton exactly 450 EVs.

1992:



401/137

Basically nothing changes here re:Perot because he was strongest in the whitest states anyhow.

Closest states:

WI: R+0.1%
NH: D+0.3%
CO: D+1.2%
PA: D+1.3%
CT: R+1.3%
Logged
Scottholes 2.0
Wisconsinite
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 905
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2019, 08:51:09 PM »

This is fantastic data! Thanks for posting this! I never knew that Trump wouldn't be president if blacks stayed clustered in the South and the Great Migration never occurred, but it makes perfect sense!
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2019, 01:29:37 AM »

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

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

Narrow the composition gaps and the map changes drastically.
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,282


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2019, 12:59:27 PM »

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

Of course, this would require some fantastical events that not only keep black voters in place in the South but nonetheless result in the same late-20th and 21st-century political and other events happening (e.g., would Barack Obama have come anywhere near the Presidency if Michelle Robinson [Obama] was born, grew up and lived in Alabama and they never met as a result?)
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2019, 02:12:28 PM »

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

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

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

But the purpose of this was not to make a realistic timeline in any way, just to visualize the population movement.
Logged
diptheriadan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,371


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2019, 02:38:33 PM »

Here's a thread from 2011 about this.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2019, 01:20:04 AM »

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

It likely means no President Nixon.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,119
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2019, 07:21:58 AM »

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

It likely means no President Nixon.
Yep.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2019, 11:30:25 AM »

Fascinating maps, Karpatsky. The idea of Mississippi as an even-PVI state if its black population were higher is actually for some reason a lot easier for me to wrap my head around than the idea of Illinois as an even-PVI state if its black population were lower.
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2019, 01:32:05 PM »

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

It may also mean no major civil rights bills, at least in the 1960s, since the growing power of non-disenfranchised Northern blacks was a major part of what pushed Northern politicians to back the civil rights movement.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2019, 02:17:32 PM »

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

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

It also likely means that the Democrats don't embrace Civil Rights either, as blacks are not forming part of the urban coalition in the Northern states either.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2019, 02:22:07 PM »

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

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

Maybe/maybe not. It depends greatly upon why the Great Migration didn't happen. Is it because the North proves much more hostile to Negroes moving north or is it because Southern Whites force their Negroes to stay or most unlikely of all, is it because conditions for colored people are more advanced than they were in reality?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2019, 06:44:03 PM »

It’s nitpicking, but large numbers of AAs in New York, Massachusetts, and Florida are from the Caribbean, not the U.S. South.
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2019, 10:46:25 PM »

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

Also fair. I don't know how I would isolate them though. Besides, the only state where I imagine those populations would make a difference is NJ.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2019, 11:49:11 PM »

Great work! One question, however:

Changes to population numbers would also change the number of electoral college votes for some states. Is there any way to estimate the effect this would have on these maps?
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2019, 10:15:32 PM »
« Edited: March 04, 2019, 10:20:18 PM by Karpatsky »

Great work! One question, however:

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

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



Which is about what you'd expect, minus KY, which appears to be a marginal case. I didn't check, but I don't think this changes any of the above results.
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2019, 10:55:49 PM »

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

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

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

I could see the GOP taking a more active role in civil rights legislation, especially voting rights, as it would help the party break into the South.
Logged
Obama-Biden Democrat
Zyzz
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 05, 2019, 07:43:17 PM »

Northern whites would be much more Liberal and European like, without the racial polarization.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2019, 05:14:02 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

This sorta is what happened in 1928, though blacks couldn't vote obviously.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2019, 06:11:44 PM »

Northern whites would be much more Liberal and European like, without the racial polarization.
Like they are in Iowa and rural MI?  Keep in mind the places in the north with large black populations like Chicago and Detriot have fairly liberal white populations.  Racial polarization in the midwest isn't like the south
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2019, 06:14:29 PM »

Another interesting map would be US without 1965 immigration act+ enforcing immigration laws at the southern border.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 09, 2019, 10:36:30 PM »

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

Without the 1965 Immigration Act almost all those Latin Americans wanting to immigrate here could.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 09, 2019, 11:42:53 PM »

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

Without the 1965 Immigration Act almost all those Latin Americans wanting to immigrate here could.
Before the act, quotas capped immigration from countries corresponding to their percent of the US population.  Latinos were under 5% so Latino immigration couldn't exceed that by more than 3%, per the quota law.  3rd world immigration was capped to maintain the demographics.
Logged
Some of My Best Friends Are Gay
Enlightened_Centrist 420
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,599


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 09, 2019, 11:59:05 PM »

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


Yawn. another right-winger implying illegal immigrants regularly vote in elections when there's no evidence to back this up.
Logged
Big Abraham
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,023
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2019, 12:00:52 AM »

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


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

You do realise the 1965 Immigration Act drastically changed the racial makeup of the United States due by and large to legal immigration, right?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.138 seconds with 13 queries.