The 100 States of America
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:37:29 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  The 100 States of America
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: The 100 States of America  (Read 4864 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 01, 2019, 11:20:19 PM »
« edited: April 11, 2020, 08:34:11 PM by Trends are real, and I f**king hate it »

At last, the time has come.

For my official 50,000th post on this hallowed forum, please enjoy a shameless ripoff, er, I mean, an expansion on the concept of my most popular thread ever, Alternate U.S. States. This, my friends, is...


The 100 States of America


The Basics

So, as this name suggests, this is a project wherein the US is broken into 100 States, instead of the 50 IRL (or the 51 from my earlier project). However, beyond the sheer number of states, the other big difference with the previous project is that I wanted to be more systematic about how I went around carving up states. There are a lot of projects out here that redraw states entirely from scratch, and I really enjoy some of them, but I don't think I'm well-versed enough in county-by-county demographics to trust myself with creating a whole new map. So, instead, I kept the existing state lines (with one exception), and worked off some relatively uniform rules to carve up the large states into smaller ones. Of course, there's still a lot of creative freedom involved in that process, and I'm sure I'll get some pushback on them (in at least one case I'm already willing to plead guilty, tbh). Finally, it also makes sense from a policy standpoint to start from existing state lines and only break things up rather than mixing and matching jurisdiction.

Either way, here is the entire process I followed:
  • Make Puerto Rico a State, and give DC to Maryland.
  • For each state, calculate the geometric mean of its census populations from 1960 to 2010.
  • Use this Mean Population measure as the basis for breaking up states that are big enough to be broken up.
  • Specifically, try to aim for States with a MP between 1/75th and 1/150th of the total MP.
  • However, make an exception when you get down to dense urban areas. Don't split them up unless they get really big.
  • Never split counties (again, just one exception to that).
  • Stop the process when you get to 100 States.

With all these rules in mind, here is what I ended up with:



In this maps, all the States in grey stay as IRL. The rest of the map is colored to make the breaks self-evident. There are a few that might be confusing (and controversial), though, so here are a few clarifications.

First off, no, Massachusetts is not split in three, it's split in two. The South Coast/South Shore region and West-Central Mass are part of a single state that I've made contiguous by stealing a couple of towns away from Norfolk County. Massachusetts was a state where I just couldn't win with the rules I'd set for myself, and I knew immediately as I was making this that it was a bad idea. I've since shown it to Nathan and he's confirmed that it's a terrible idea. If I could go back, I would change it. However, changing it now would be a mess that would force me to redo a lot of work for the whole project. So, with humble apologies to our Masshole posters, I'm going to ask you to bear with me on this one. Hopefully, the rest of the map is decent enough to make up for it.

On another note, yes, Staten Island is part of the Long Island-based State and not the core NYC one. I'm going to defend that one. Staten Island is not real NYC and and does not belong with the Four Boroughs. You can fight me on that.

And finally, if you count the states on this map, you'll find that they add up to 98. That's because Puerto Rico gets broken up into two states. I couldn't find a public domain map of it to show the exact breakdown, but the short version is that the Northern half area from Barceloneta to Rio Grande is its own State, Called San Juan, while everything else remains Puerto Rico proper.

Now, before we get into an overview of all the new states, here's a quick glance at the demographic outlook of this new US map. It shows the population growth of each state from 1960 to 2010:



States colored in yellow/red grew faster than the national average, while those in blue grew more slowly. Already, I think we see some interesting patterns emerge from this map. For example, it's interesting to see that, even though the vast majorities of the Northeast Midwest have been declining relative to the country as a whole, there are some areas within it who are experiencing a robust growth. The least surprising is the Chicago suburbs, which have seen Sun Belt levels of growth since 1960. However, that's also the case of the Twin Cities area (which goes a long way toward explaining why Clinton IRL barely hung on to MN while losing WI and MI), and South Jersey. Conversely, you can see where the demographic slump has been more brutal - most notably the "Rust Belt" area centered around Pittsburgh and stretching East to Western NY, West to Detroit, and South to WV.

On the other hand, this also makes it clearer that the growth of the Sun Belt has been largely concentrated in urban areas. Southern Georgia and Eastern North Carolina have seen anemic population growth even as the Atlanta, Charlotte and Research Triangle areas have boomed. Dallas and Houston have seen growth rates more than double the national average, while the Northwest of the State has experienced relative decline and the rural Eastern portion has barely kept up (which, in turn, explains in part why Democrats have made rapid gains in the State since 2016). Interestingly, though, this pattern is flipped in California, where the only two states that haven't seen such massive growth (although they've still gained) are those centered around San Francisco and Los Angeles. This probably goes to show that those two metropolitan areas have hit a threshold of saturation already a couple decades ago, forcing new arrivals to settle in less densely populated areas.

And on that note, I'll be leaving this project here so I can focus on launching another one for my 50,001st post. But I'll make sure to keep this updated regularly. Any comment/question/criticism is very welcome, as always. The borders of the states are set in stone, but other aspects (such as their names, capitals, officeholders local politics etc) are absolutely fair game to debate. Either way, I'll delve into those in my next update!
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2019, 12:29:33 AM »

I’m glad to see you’ve put such a momentous milestone to such fantastic use! I’ll be following!
Logged
JG
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,146


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2019, 10:28:14 AM »

Sounds very interesting! Can't wait to see you go deeper into each state.
Logged
Anti-Bothsidesism
Somenamelessfool
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 718
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2019, 06:17:49 PM »

Here are a few name ideas:
Forgottonia NE Illinois
Blue Ridge West North Carolina
Jefferson North California
Ozark South Missouri
North Florida guess
Wabash South Indiana
Caddonia Greater Dallas
Alamo Greater San Antonio
Appalachia East Kentucky
Hudson North New Jersey
Piedmont West South Carolina
Allegheny North New York
Niagara West New York
Serrano Greater San Bernardino
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2019, 07:20:53 PM »

You should name North Florida something indigenous sounding. Apalachee perhaps?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2019, 09:51:50 PM »

Some great suggestions, thanks! I had my own ideas of course, but in some cases I think yours might be better.

I had already planned to call the Northern FL state "Apalachicola", after the main river in this area. Does that sound right, Sanchez?

@S2: Jefferson and Niagara were already the names I was planning for those states, so those look good!

I was also going to use "Hudson" and "Allegheny", but for different states. Hudson would be the state right North of NYC, including Westchester and other neighboring counties (although I guess I could call it "Catskill" instead if you think it works better). Allegheny is the Pittsburgh-centered state, I think that one is the best choice. Besides, the East-Upstate state should be called Adirondack IMO.

I'm endorsing Ozark and Alamo, I think those work perfectly for their respective states. I also like the sound of Serrano and Caddonia, but I'll admit I'm not well versed in the cultural backgrounds for those names, so I appreciate more feedback here.

One thing to point out is that I'm trying to be relatively economical in preserving state names whenever there's no good reason to change it. For example, the southern part of Indiana really should inherit the name Indiana since its capital would remain Indianapolis. Similarly, Eastern Kentucky should remain Kentucky since that's where the Kentucky river flows.

Others are a matter of taste, I guess. I was going to call the Western NC state Cherokee, for instance. And "Forgottonia" feels a little too informal and tongue-in-cheek, I prefer names with more historical or geographic significance (I have it as "North Illinois" right now, which of course is not ideal either).
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2019, 07:08:37 PM »
« Edited: October 11, 2019, 12:50:35 PM by Mangez des pommes ! »

All right, time to get this project going for real. I will unfortunately have to keep pacing my updates pretty slowlym but I hope this will be enough to keep you interested. Let's begin with a rundown of the 75 new states. Once this is done, we'll look at election results.


The States

One important thing to note in the statistics shown below. I've kept the "two Senator per State" principle, so to keep the same ratio, I've almost doubled the size of the House to 800 members. This has the added benefit of producing a 1000-member Electoral College, making EV numbers very easy to interpret in the elections to come. For the moment though, just keep it in mind when I give you the number of House seats below.


Massachusetts Adams

This is what's left of the original Massachusetts once we scoop off the Boston area. I've already made it clear that his makes no sense whatsoever, so I'm not going to spend much time on it. Long story short, it's a Likely D State, but not Titanium D like its RL counterpart. The mix of exurbs, postindustrial towns, wealthy coastal areas, and historically progressive rural areas means that various regions in the State are going through very different trends. Interestingly, though, these trends seem to have canceled out in recent elections, as MA is just about as Democratic now as in 2008 (although note that it was a lot more Democratic in the previous 3 elections).

Capital: Worcester, probably.

House Seats (1963): 9
House Seats (2013): 8

VAP Demographics: 85% White

PVI 2008: D+13
PVI 2012: D+13
PVI 2016: D+13

Congressional Representation: Republicans have a decent shot at holding one of the two Senate seats (Scott Brown would probably have survived in 2012, for example, although he wouldn't have had the opportunity to run in a special election to begin with since Ted Kennedy wouldn't have represented the state). In the House, I could see them winning as many as two seats under a fair map, but it's possible that Democrats create an 8-0 gerrymander.

Local Government: The Governor is basically a coin flip. On the one hand, removing the most Democratic part of the state would obviously favor Republicans, but on the other hand, removing Boston might take away a lot of the animus that powers Republican campaigns in the state. The State legislature is probably in safe Democratic hands at the moment, although it might have been competitive earlier in the decade.


Adams Massachusetts

This is the provisional name I'm giving to the Boston-based state. I think it fits well, and in general I've been going for an "if Washington has his own State, then so should a bunch of other historical figures" vibe. The connection here works on multiple levels too, since it could be referring to the two Presidents but also (for the more left-leaning) to Samuel Adams. If you have an alternative name in mind, though, I'd love to hear it. Anyway, this is obviously a safe Democratic State. Obviously far more homogeneous than the previous one, although it still contains some wide variety in terms of economic fate. City vs suburbs might be an important dynamic here, but both would ultimately agree on their choice up-ballot (especially in the post-2016 alignment).

Capital: Boston

House Seats (1963): 13
House Seats (2013): 9

VAP Demographics: 73% White

PVI 2008: D+23
PVI 2012: D+24
PVI 2016: D+36

Congressional Representation: 2 Democratic Senators, 9 Democratic Representatives. Republicans have no hope here.

Local Government: I could sort of see the right kind of Republican mounting a "suburban backlash" type of campaign, appealing to both well-off professionals looking for lower taxes and postindustrial workers feeling alienated from the vibrant Boston area. But it would still be a considerable long shot, and would require everything to work in the Republican's favor. More realistically, Democrats hold the trifecta here, and probably with legislative supermajorities.


Connecticut

Pretty self-explanatory: it's the state the Connecticut River actually flows in, and that retains most of the area of the RL state. It is essentially Connecticut without the influence of the NYC suburbs. For almost all of the period I had, removing that influence makes the state more Democratic. However, this pattern abruptly reversed itself in 2016. There's no telling for sure whether that trend will continue, but so far at least, Democrats still enjoy a comfortable advance at the Presidential level.

Capital: Hartford

House Seats (1963): 5
House Seats (2013): 5

VAP Demographics: 79% White

PVI 2008: D+17
PVI 2012: D+15
PVI 2016: D+9

Congressional Representation: Despite the recent Republican trend, there would have been few opportunities to capitalize at the Congressional level. Going by recent Senate elections, it's overwhelmingly likely that Democrats hold both seats at the moment. A Litchfield-based Congressional District would be highly competitive in a neutral year, but given how easily Jahana Hayes won her race IRL, I doubt 2018 was the right year for Republicans to win it.

Local Government: Lamont actually did win this part of the State last year, albeit by a truly razor-thin margin (probably a point or so). Since removing New Haven might also have the result of lessening some (but obviously not all) of the anti-Big City backlash that's powering Republican politics here, I'd give the advantage to Democrats for the Governorship, although a Republican victory is certainly conceivable. I am pretty confident that Democrats would control both houses of the State Legislature, especially given that they are the institutions that lag the most from national trends.


Gold Coast

Alternative name suggestions are very welcome here. The one I have settled on doesn't fit the State very well - it's a good descriptor for Fairfield County, but doesn't really apply to the New Haven area. It's the best I've got so far, though. Anyway, as I said previously, this state just recently passed Connecticut in the strength of its Democratic leaning. Still, it had already been a Democratic-leaning state for quite some time - at the Presidential level, since 1996. Before then, though, it had been more Republican than the nation in every election since 1968. In other words, this state tells the story of most Northeastern suburbs: historically Republican throughout the Nixon and Reagan years, then flipped to the Democrats Clinton's term. Sociologically, this "Gold Coast" would actually be a land of contrasts, with very wealthy coastal areas on its Western tip but also the downtrodden New Haven area. It is also the most diverse state in all of New England. Needless to say, class and race are probably closely intertwined in this state's politics.

Capital: New Haven

House Seats (1963): 6
House Seats (2013): 5

VAP Demographics: 70% White, 14% Hispanic, 10% Black

PVI 2008: D+13
PVI 2012: D+12
PVI 2016: D+14

Congressional Representation: Once again, I doubt there's any realistic Republican hopes for the Senate here. Murphy and Blumenthal both easily won their races here, even in a difficult year like 2010. Northern Fairfield County seems like a ripe opportunity for Republican House seat. Coastal Fairfield could have been competitive in the past as well, but probably not in 2018. So 4-1 for Democrats seems plausible enough.

Local Government: Lamont won by 5 points here, as did Muhlloy both times (although 2010 was very close). Democratic margins have been steadily increasing here. It would be close, but Democrats are favored for the Governorship. It's possible that heightened class contrasts benefit Republicans at the local level, but the opposite is just as likely, so there isn't much to be said here. The State Legislature might be close, especially if an unpopular Democratic governor is partially offsets the positive headwinds of 2018. So it's conceivable that Republicans hold on to one of the two legislative houses, but it's by no means guaranteed.


Long Island

Once again, not an entirely accurate name, since the state also includes Staten Island, so I'm very willing to take suggestions here. Either way, this is the first genuine swing state we come across, with PVIs with 5 points in the past 4 Presidential elections. Historically, as you no doubt can guess, this was a reliably Republican state. Then, just like New Haven, it saw a major Democratic trend in the Clinton years. Unlike New Haven, though, this trend seems to have reversed itself lately, and especially in 2016. If the 2016 trends were to continue in the future, then Democrats might struggle to stay competitive in the future. However, 2018 has shown signs of Democratic recovery, with several gains at the State legislative level and the flipping of the Staten Island-based Congressional seat. So, here more than anywhere else, 2016 might not be a harbinger of things to come. Also encouraging for Democrats, the state is not as White as I would have expected, with a racial breakdown similar to Gold Coast's.

Capital: I'm at a loss here, because New York's town/village/hamlet system makes it hard to identify what does and doesn't constitute a "city" properly speaking, and population counts are not easily available. My best guess is that it should be somewhere in the Southern side of Nassau County. I guess Hempstead would make the most sense? NY posters, correct me if I'm wrong.

House Seats (1963): 10
House Seats (2013): 8

VAP Demographics: 70% White, 14% Hispanic

PVI 2008: R+1
PVI 2012: D+1
PVI 2016: R+4

Congressional Representation: I've assigned Long Island's Senators to classes 2 and 3, last up in 2014 and 2016 respectively. Given the circumstances of those years, it is fairly plausible that Republicans control both Senate seats at the moment. A reasonably popular Democratic incumbent could have survived one of those years, but that particular scenario is less likely than not. If the Class 2 Senator is a Republican, they might be headed for a tough reelection campaign next year, though. In the House, meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans would enjoy relatively safe seats in different areas of the Island. However, given Rose's victory and the relative underperformances of GOP incumbents out East, I think it's pretty much a given that Democrats currently hold a majority of the House delegation at the moment. 5-3 and 6-2 are the most plausible breakdowns.

Local Government: The Governor's race is more or less unpredictable. If an incumbent was running in 2018 and hadn't done something incredibly unpopular, they were probably easily reelected regardless of party. In an open race, it would be anyone's game. Democrats would benefit from the national environment, while Republicans would have the advantage of stronger local entrenchment. So without making more assumptions, this is a pure tossup. Fascinatingly, Republicans currently hold a majority of NY State Assembly districts in this state (14/26), but a minority of Senate seats (4/11), a strange reversal of historical patterns. Split legislatures is actually a plausible outcome, given that countervailing factors would benefit Democrats (less opportunity for anti-NYC resentment campaigns) and Republicans (historically strong party machine). Ultimately, we can be pretty confident that the state would be under some form of divided government.


New York

Pretty self-explanatory. These are the four real boroughs of NYC, now forming their own City-State. Despite being the smallest state by land area, it still remains to this day the second-largest by population (it use to be the first until Los Angeles passed it in 1970, and will eventually be overtaken by another booming Sun Belt state, but probably not in 2020). Needless to say, this is Titanium Adamantium D ground - in fact, it is quite simply the most Democratic state in this project, with Republicans just barely struggling to take 15% of the vote. And while this Democratic domination is stronger than ever, it's far from new: the last Republican to win the State was Calvin Coolidge in 1924. With one party so thoroughly dominating State politics, you would start seeing more local cleavages come to the forefront, and intense factional fighting in primary contests. These clashes would probably have a strong ethnic component, as NY is also the most diverse state in the country (which isn't the same as being the least White state, mind you). Which coalitions would emerge between ethnic groups is a complex and fascinating question.

Capital: Take a wild guess.

House Seats (1963): 33
House Seats (2013): 20

VAP Demographics: 34% White, 27% Hispanic, 23% Black, 13% Asian

PVI 2008: D+56
PVI 2012: D+64
PVI 2016: D+64

Congressional Representation: 2 Democratic Senators, 20 Democratic Representatives. The only question is the ethnic breakdown of this Congressional delegation. My guess is that White people would still be overrepresented, as that tends to be the case everywhere. African-Americans would be in a strong position to leverage their overwhelming presence in the Democratic electorate, and my guess is that they would demand and obtain one Senate seat. Hispanics and Asians would probably be the main victims of this arrangement, due to the combined effect of their lower rates of citizenship, turnout, and Democratic partisanship. Still, they would have their own districts and would be increasingly taken seriously as their share of the electorate continues growing. And with AOC becoming a national figure, it's quite possible that she would run for statewide office soon.

Local Government: Again, obviously a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in the legislature (a Hawaii Senate-type situation is even possible, although Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn make it less likely). The Governor probably wouldn't be Andrew Cuomo, since despite his support in the city, his politics are better suited to the suburban areas from Westchester city and North.


Hudson

...and here is the state that covers such areas. It spans all the way from inner suburbs like Yonkers, to more distant suburbs, to exurbs, to areas like Ulster County that are barely part of NYC's sphere at all (but are nonetheless culturally connected to the broader area). In other words, it is ground zero for the paradoxical relationship between a city and the areas around it. Historically, this means that Hudson (like LI) was a reliably Republican state until Clinton came along. Unlike LI, though, it hasn't snapped back to the GOP in recent years - on the contrary, its 2016 PVI was the most Democratic to date. We can expect it to be a reliably Democratic state in the years to come.

Capital: Yonkers is the most populous city, but it's too far South and too close to NYC to be acceptable to the majority of residents. There is no obvious choice aside from it, but I think Poughkeepsie would work decently.

House Seats (1963): 7
House Seats (2013): 6

VAP Demographics: 68% White, 16% Hispanic, 11% Black

PVI 2008: D+9
PVI 2012: D+11
PVI 2016: D+12

Congressional Representation: I don't think there's a plausible road for a Republican to win a Senate election in this state at this point, although there might have been one as far back as the mid-2000s. Right-wing suburban politics just don't carry as far as they used to, especially in an increasingly diverse area. On the other hand, under a fair district map, it's possible to see the GOP win a few seats in the Northern part of the State (particularly around Orange County). However, given the national environment in 2018, I can't realistically give them more than one.

Local Government: The Governorship might well have been in Republican hands until recently, but after 2018 it's hard not to see a Democrat taking it. It's conceivable that ancestral Republican strength keeps one or both state legislative houses in Republican hands, but it's also possible 2018 also blew away that ancestral strength. So all told, there's probably a 50/50 chance of a Democratic trifecta.


Adirondack

This state covers the Eastern half of Upstate New York. Another ancestrally Republican region, it began to show signs of competitiveness as early as the 1980s, and for most of the past two decades it was a Democratic-leaning swing state. Even as late as 2012, the state seemed to be slowly shifting to the Likely D column, but 2016 changed everything with an over 10-point Republican trend. Still, Democrats would be foolish to give up on this state (note that its PVI is about the same as IRL Wisconsin or Pennsylvania). The presence of two relatively large urban areas (Albany and Syracuse) provides a floor for Democratic candidates, even if the historically progressive rural areas in the North don't come back to the fold. Delgado and Brindisi's victories in these regions show that the Democratic party is far from dead.

Capital: As mentioned, Albany and Syracuse are by far the largest cities. Unfortunately, they're also both far off-center. My guess is that they'd split the difference and go with Utica. Albany (see discussion below)

House Seats (1963): 12
House Seats (2013): 8

VAP Demographics: 88% White

PVI 2008: D+3
PVI 2012: D+7
PVI 2016: R+4

Congressional Representation: I gave Adirondack classes 1 and 3 for Senate purposes, meaning elections in both 2016 and 2018. It's hard not to see a Republican winning in 2016 unless there was a really strong Democratic incumbent in the seat (itself unlikely given that the previous cycles were 2010 and 2004). In 2018, Democrats should have been able to defend an incumbent and would be very slightly favored in an open race. If Gilibrand is still a Senator in this scenario, this is her seat. In the House, I could see Democrats fighting it off to a tie or even a 5-3 delegation if their candidates are as strong as IRL. On the other hand, a Republican gerrymander could keep them down to 3 seats.

Local Government: If there is a Republican incumbent, I doubt Democrats would be in a position to unseat them unless it was a Scott Walker-tier odious prick. An open race would slightly favor Democrats in this context, but it really depends who the candidates are. The state legislature, on the other hand, is probably solidly in Republican hands. Republican would have won in 2010 and gerrymandered itself into a permanent majority that only a landslide or a realignment could shake.


Niagara

And finally, to complete our tour of what used to be New York State, here is the state that encompasses what we call "Western NY". This is probably the area that most resents sharing a state with NYC, and whose politics in this scenario would be most alien from RL and difficult to predict. At the Presidential level, unlike its Eastern counterpart, Niagara has usually leaned Democratic, owing to the strength of its labor base in the industrial Buffalo area. It voted for Humphrey in 1968 and Carter in 1980 (but fascinatingly, not 1976, making it the only Ford/Carter state in the country). Conversely however, the Republican trend in this state has been more long-term here than in AD. Like other Rust Belt state further West, deindustrialization has hit Democrats hard, and it is harder to see them stage a comeback in the near future. Still, Buffalo and Rochester create a solid enough floor for Democrats to fall back on.

Capital: Rochester

House Seats (1963): 12
House Seats (2013): 7

VAP Demographics: 84% White

PVI 2008: D+1
PVI 2012: D+4
PVI 2016: R+5

Congressional Representation: Niagara elected Senators in 2014 and 2018. The former would be an easy Republican victory under most circumstances. The latter would probably lean Republican in the absence of an incumbent, but a Democratic incumbent is pretty plausible there, and would probably be favored (but far from guaranteed) to hang on. In the House, a Republican gerrymander could probably keep Democrats down to 3 or even 2 seats (probably with some egregious cracking of Ithaca).

Local Government: More or less everything I've said about Adirondack applies here, with Republicans slightly more likely to keep the governorship and Republican legislative majorities potentially even more entrenched.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2019, 01:27:17 AM »
« Edited: October 10, 2019, 02:20:19 AM by Chosen One Giuseppe Conte »

Massachusetts

This is what's left of the original Massachusetts once we scoop off the Boston area.

The Boston-area state should be called Massachusetts because the Massachusett nation lived in what's now the Boston area. Not sure what this state should be called.

Quote
(Scott Brown would probably have survived in 2012, for example, although he wouldn't have had the opportunity to run in a special election to begin with since Ted Kennedy wouldn't have represented the state).

Ted Kennedy could have represented this state since he lived in Cape Cod rather than Boston for much of his life (and indeed died there). I agree that a hypothetical #entrenched Scott Brown probably would have survived 2012 with this electorate, although I definitely don't think he would have survived 2018.

Quote
Local Government: The Governor is basically a coin flip. On the one hand, removing the most Democratic part of the state would obviously favor Republicans, but on the other hand, removing Boston might take away a lot of the animus that powers Republican campaigns in the state.

Statewide Republican campaigns here aren't really anti-Boston; if they were then maybe the Pioneer Valley would vote Republican in statewide campaigns. Charlie Baker has been much more of a shameless handmaiden to the Boston area and its economic interests than any of his opponents. Remember that Gonzalez wanted to debate Baker throughout the state but Baker insisted on debating in Boston and only Boston.

Quote
Capital: Yonkers is the most populous city, but it's too far South and too close to NYC to be acceptable to the majority of residents. There is no obvious choice aside from it, but I think Poughkeepsie would work decently.

Poughkeepsie is a great choice! It has a distinct local identity, some cultural particulars (Vassar College, etc.), and pretty good transport links. Well-chosen.

Quote
Capital: As mentioned, Albany and Syracuse are by far the largest cities. Unfortunately, they're also both far off-center. My guess is that they'd split the difference and go with Utica.

Why? Albany is just as off-center in the actually-existing New York State of which it's been the capital for centuries as it is in this state, albeit not on the east-west axis. And its transport links to the North Country are way better than those of any Central New York city.

Great work for the most part. These are mostly just nitpicks regarding terminology; the rest of what you have so far is fine or better than fine. This was a great project to make your 50,000th post.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2019, 05:39:18 PM »

Thanks! And I do welcome nitpicks. I want to make this project as good as it can be, and any input in that sense is welcome, especially from someone with deep knowledge of the region.


The Boston-area state should be called Massachusetts because the Massachusett nation lived in what's now the Boston area. Not sure what this state should be called.

I see. Oh well, then I guess I'll (at least provisionally) call the other state Adams. It's not as perfect a fit, but still makes more sense that calling "Washington" a place he never set foot in and that wasn't even part of the country he presided over. Tongue


Quote
Ted Kennedy could have represented this state since he lived in Cape Cod rather than Boston for much of his life (and indeed died there). I agree that a hypothetical #entrenched Scott Brown probably would have survived 2012 with this electorate, although I definitely don't think he would have survived 2018.

Oh, interesting! This actually raises some fun questions with regards to the transition from the RL state map to the one in this scenario. My working assumption was that the new States were phased in at the beginning of the 1960s. The most sensible time to do so would be in 1962, when the new decennial apportionment comes into effect. And 1962, of course, is the year Ted Kennedy first ran for Senate. IRL, of course Ted ran for the seat his brother left vacant, but here the seat JFK left vacant would not exist anymore: instead, there would be two different ones for Ted to choose from. Obviously JFK's political base was in Boston, so running in Massachusetts would have been the easy choice for Ted. Adams could be riskier, but precisely for that reason would provide him with a better opportunity to come out of his brother's shadow. So I could see him opting for either. It's fascinating to see how this choice would have political repercussions nearly 50 years later.


Quote
Why? Albany is just as off-center in the actually-existing New York State of which it's been the capital for centuries as it is in this state, albeit not on the east-west axis. And its transport links to the North Country are way better than those of any Central New York city.

The East-West axis is the one I was thinking about, yeah. NY State IRL has most of its population concentrated at Albany's longitude or slightly East of it. In Adirondack, however, population is concentrated on the far East (Albany) and the far West (Syracuse), so that's why I felt that choosing one would be unfair to the other. However, you bring up a really good point regarding transport. People on the Western end of the state would have a pretty straightforward way of getting to Albany, while people in the North Country would have to take a long detour to get to even Utica. I think you're right, transport is the more important criterion. I'll change it to Albany.


Also, to complete the rundown of the states carved out of New York, here's a historical comparison of their PVI:


Of course, NY proper kinda messes up the scale. Tongue
Logged
ctherainbow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 427
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2019, 03:11:35 AM »
« Edited: October 11, 2019, 03:23:53 AM by ctherainbow »

Cool project!   Cheesy   For naming Pennsylvania's divisions, could I suggest Philadelphia for the Philadelphia area, Susquehanna for the area that largely contains the Susquehanna River and encompasses the Lehigh/Wyoming/Susquehanna valleys, Appalachia for the area that's covered by the Appalachian Plateau/Mountains, and Allegheny for the Pittsburgh-area division?

Edit:  I see from reading one of your replies that you already decided on Allegheny!  I feel like if you wanted to retain the name of the original state "Pennsylvania", you could label the north/central PA division with that, as either "Pennsylvania" or "Appalachia" would be appropriate for that area.  I just have a bias against names starting with P, since I think it's an ugly letter.    Angry
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2019, 12:47:57 PM »

Cool project!   Cheesy   For naming Pennsylvania's divisions, could I suggest Philadelphia for the Philadelphia area, Susquehanna for the area that largely contains the Susquehanna River and encompasses the Lehigh/Wyoming/Susquehanna valleys, Appalachia for the area that's covered by the Appalachian Plateau/Mountains, and Allegheny for the Pittsburgh-area division?

Edit:  I see from reading one of your replies that you already decided on Allegheny!  I feel like if you wanted to retain the name of the original state "Pennsylvania", you could label the north/central PA division with that, as either "Pennsylvania" or "Appalachia" would be appropriate for that area.  I just have a bias against names starting with P, since I think it's an ugly letter.    Angry

Yup, Philadelphia, Allegheny and Pennsylvania were the names I had in mind respectively for the Philly-based, Pittsburgh-based, and North-Central states! Smiley Sorry that P is not pleasing to you, but I don't think it shows up too often overall if that helps. Tongue

For the East-Central state, the name I had in mind was Cumberland, but you're right, Susquehanna fits better.
Logged
ctherainbow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 427
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2019, 09:12:03 PM »

Yup, Philadelphia, Allegheny and Pennsylvania were the names I had in mind respectively for the Philly-based, Pittsburgh-based, and North-Central states! Smiley Sorry that P is not pleasing to you, but I don't think it shows up too often overall if that helps. Tongue

For the East-Central state, the name I had in mind was Cumberland, but you're right, Susquehanna fits better.

Great minds think alike?    Tongue

Yeah, Cumberland would fit well if the state was based further south, but since it stretches along the Susquehanna, that's why I thought to suggest it.  I may also be a bit biased, since I'm from Susquehanna County, which sadly would still be in Pennsylvania, and not Susquehanna, after the split.   Cry  Curly
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2019, 10:41:07 PM »

I may also be a bit biased, since I'm from Susquehanna County, which sadly would still be in Pennsylvania, and not Susquehanna, after the split.   Cry  Curly

Well, there's a Delaware County nearby, and it's not in Delaware. Tongue So I guess it's all right.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2019, 12:26:02 PM »

All right, now here's the three Jerseys! I wasn't particularly creative for the names here, but it was hard to resist here. :P Still, as always, suggestions for better names are welcome.


North Jersey

The most populous, most Democratic and most diverse of Jersey states, it is, for all intents and purposes, an extension of New York. It's Eastern corner, where population is concentrated, is as closely connected to the city as Westchester County or Long Island (hell, this would be the State that contains the statue of liberty!). Further West, we find Whiter, wealthier and more exurban areas like Bronz's beloved Morris county, but these areas' voices would easily be drowned by the working-class NYC suburbs. Besides, even those wealthier areas have been trending Democratic lately, as evidenced by the Democrats' House gains. Historically, this State follows the pattern I've described over and over for Northeastern suburban states. It was consistently a GOP-leaning swing state in almost every election from 1968 to 1992 (with far less variation than other states), then sudenly realigned itself to the Democrats in 1996 (even more suddenly than other states). It has stayed there more or less ever since, albeit with some oscillations back and forth, with 2016 marking a new high for Democrats. Democratic party machines would probably be extremely powerful there, and with a just bare White majority in the VAP, ethnic politics would be a key component of them.

Capital: Newark

House Seats (1963): 14
House Seats (2013): 9

VAP Demographics: 54% White, 22% Hispanic, 14% Black

PVI 2008: D+13
PVI 2012: D+20
PVI 2016: D+21

Congressional Representation: No Republican has probably come close to winning a Senate race here since the early 2000s at the very latest. Booker and Menendez would both have a solid hold on their seats (and Menendez wouldn't even face any primary competition like IRL). For the House, I could see Republicans holding as many as 3 seats in previous cycles, but the 2018 tide would have blown them away. At best, if there is a district that encompasses all of Warren and Sussex counties, the Republican there would be the last survivor. But the next round of redistricting should make it easy to crack for enterprising Democratic legislators.

Local Government: Even Jon Friggin' Corzine won reelection fairly comfortably here in 2010 (by 6-7 points), so the Governor's Mansion is probably durably lost to Republicans as well. The same is true for the State legislature, where Democrats probably hold or are close to supermajorities.


Central Jersey

This is the awkward middle brother of the three Jerseys, a state characterized by its intermediate position in almost every respect - from population size to Democratic leaning, from racial breakdown to geographic anchoring. It does, to be honest, make me wonder if there is even a point in this three-way division, or if there really should be only two Jerseys. Still, population rules dictate that there be three, so here there are. Central Jersey strikes me as a mash of disparate constituencies. You have some more ethnically mixed, working-class NYC suburbs in Union County, conservative exurbia in Hunterdon, transitional areas in Somerset and Middlesex, and the typical Jersey Shore mix of wealthy and WWC conservatism in Monmouth. The only identity that is truly unique to Central Jersey, and distinguishes it from both of its neighbors, would be provided by Princeton and its prestigious university. I could see it providing a sort of cultural anchor for the state, but also sparking resentment in the way universities often do. Central Jersey's political evolution is largely the same as North Jersey's, except that its turn to the Democrats since 1996 has been less massive. Republicans can still be somewhat competitive there, even if they face an uphill fight.

Capital: Trenton

House Seats (1963): 8
House Seats (2013): 7

VAP Demographics: 61% White, 15% Hispanic, 11% Black, 11% Asian

PVI 2008: D+7
PVI 2012: D+13
PVI 2016: D+13

Congressional Representation: The state is about as democratic as NJ is IRL, so basing ourselves on recent patterns, we would expect two Democratic Senators. It's possible that a Republican could have won here in 2014 if the Democratic candidate screwed up badly, but even in such a Republican year that would have been a long shot. Pallone probably holds one of the two seats, no idea who holds the other. In the House, the 2018 wave would once again decimate the Republican bench. Chris Smith would definitely survive, of course, and being generous, I could see another Republican hang on in a Hunterdon-based district, but that's it. It's at least 5-2.

Local Government: A Republican might have occupied the Governor's mansion until fairly recently, having capitalized on low turnout in Democratic strongholds and mobilization of conservative White voters at the Southeastern and Northwestern edges of the state. Regardless, they're most likely gone now unless they were a massively popular incumbent in 2017. Similarly, the state legislature is almost certainly under Democratic hands. Off-year elections make it unlikely to have flipped to the GOP during the Obama years, and if it did, I doubt that it would be in a position to durably entrench itself. So Democrats probably hold a trifecta at the moment, though it's a more precarious one than up North.


South Jersey

Now for something slightly different. The Southern third (or fourth, in demographic terms) of New Jersey is probably the most distinctive of the three. It is the only state to be squarely out of NYC's orbit (most of it is in Philly's instead). It is significantly Whiter (and in particular has few of the "immigration-based" groups, Asians and Hispanics), more sparsely populated but, interestingly, also more demographically vibrant (it's one of the few Northeastern states to have grown faster than the nation as a whole). It is also, of course, more conservative. Going back to 1960, it was the only Jersey to vote for Nixon, and in the following elections it was usually the most Republican of the three (1976 being the anomaly, with Carter winning it but losing the other two). Like the others, though, it was swept into the Democratic trend of the Clinton years. However, the Republican comeback here was particularly strong in 2004, and since then SJ increasingly diverged from its neighbors. 2016, of course, marked an acceleration of this process, giving the state a Republican PVI for the first time since 1992 (although Clinton just barely won it).

Capital: Camden

House Seats (1963): 5
House Seats (2013): 6

VAP Demographics: 74% White, 12% Black

PVI 2008: D+3
PVI 2012: D+8
PVI 2016: R+1

Congressional Representation: SJ last elected its Senators in 2016 and 2018. The 2016 race could have gone in any number of ways, but if we assume that the incumbent inherited form 2010 is a Republican, they would probably be favored to win reelection. 2018 would be much more of a slam dunk for Democrats, though, even if we assume that 2016's Republican trend has continued. So it's probably a split delegation, with a sizable chance of two Democrats. Democrats would also have a majority of the House delegation, but probably not more than 4-2 given how close Kim and Van Drew's races were. Democratic gains here are particularly susceptible to be reversed.

Local Government: The governor is also probably a Democrat, especially if we assume that a Republican was elected during the Obama years. Murphy won the state easily, proving that it is far from gone for Democrats. The legislature, however, is more uncertain. It's possible that Democrats' ancestral strength, combined with off-year elections, allowed them to avoid the slaughter of the Obama years, but it's also possible that Republicans would have seized on Obama's troubles (and perhaps the then-governor's popularity) to seize a majority at some point between 2010 and 2015. I'm really not sure which is more likely, so I'm gonna split the difference and assume that each party holds one house, thus ultimately denying Democrats a trifecta.


To wrap this up, here's the full evolution of the Jerseys' respective PVIs since 1960:
Logged
hurricanehink
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 607
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2019, 01:43:26 PM »

Suggestions for state names for three Jerseys

South Jersey: Pinelands (PL) - after the National Wildlife Reserve
Central Jersey: Raritan (RA) - River
North Jersey: Passaic (PS) - River
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2019, 09:21:19 PM »

This looks valid. I don't have a ton to say about it other than I do think all three would have a Democratic trifecta because there's an extremely robust series of local Democratic machines in the Camden and Atlantic City areas.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2019, 09:34:33 PM »

Suggestions for state names for three Jerseys

South Jersey: Pinelands (PL) - after the National Wildlife Reserve
Central Jersey: Raritan (RA) - River
North Jersey: Passaic (PS) - River

Thanks! Duly noted.


This looks valid. I don't have a ton to say about it other than I do think all three would have a Democratic trifecta because there's an extremely robust series of local Democratic machines in the Camden and Atlantic City areas.

Noted as well. It really is impressive how powerful Democratic machines still are in NJ politics. I don't think that's true of any other state (though it is in cities like Chicago).
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2019, 10:07:10 PM »

Not sure if you had ideas yet for the two Wisconsin states, but I'd keep the western one called Wisconsin with Madison remaining as the capital. Winnebago would be a good name for the eastern one and Fond du Lac would be a good central location between the two centers of population in the new state.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2019, 02:12:18 PM »

It really is impressive how powerful Democratic machines still are in NJ politics. I don't think that's true of any other state (though it is in cities like Chicago).

Hawaii, maybe?
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2019, 02:32:33 PM »

Cool concept.

You know what I've always wanted to see? A Holy Roman Empire-style U.S. states, with some big ones, some medium-sized, a number of tiny states, plus weird s**t like enclaves.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2019, 12:34:43 AM »

Not sure if you had ideas yet for the two Wisconsin states, but I'd keep the western one called Wisconsin with Madison remaining as the capital. Winnebago would be a good name for the eastern one and Fond du Lac would be a good central location between the two centers of population in the new state.

I was planning to keep the western part Wisconsin, yeah! It has the state capital and most of the area of the IRL state (though not most of the population), so I thought it made more sense to give it the name. My working name for the eastern state was Door (from the Door peninsula, which is the most recognizable geographic feature), but it always sounded like an awkward name and I'm happy to change it. Winnebago has a nicer ring to it, and (I assume) more cultural significance.


It really is impressive how powerful Democratic machines still are in NJ politics. I don't think that's true of any other state (though it is in cities like Chicago).

Hawaii, maybe?

You're right, yeah. Still, it's a little easier to understand in a small insular state than in one of the 13 colonies which is demographically and culturally fairly similar to its neighbors.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2019, 02:44:19 AM »

Cool concept.

You know what I've always wanted to see? A Holy Roman Empire-style U.S. states, with some big ones, some medium-sized, a number of tiny states, plus weird s**t like enclaves.

I would love to see that too, tbh, but I'm the wrong person to make that happen. My brain is just too Cartesian to conjure up anything resembling that utter pit of madness. Tongue
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2019, 07:55:26 AM »

Cool concept.

You know what I've always wanted to see? A Holy Roman Empire-style U.S. states, with some big ones, some medium-sized, a number of tiny states, plus weird s**t like enclaves.

I would love to see that too, tbh, but I'm the wrong person to make that happen. My brain is just too Cartesian to conjure up anything resembling that utter pit of madness. Tongue

You know what, f**k this, I'll do it.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2019, 02:27:47 AM »

Philadelphia

Here's another large, coastal city-state. Unlike New York, which is big enough to be a pure city-state, this one does extend to the inner ring of suburbs around it. Still, its five counties form a very natural community of interest that's almost always recognized as such in political geography discussions. Like almost all city-states, this one is overwhelmingly Democratic, and has been so for a long time. Only in Carter's two runs and in 1988 did its PVI slip below D+10, and following that date, it trended Democratic in all 4 subsequent elections. Reaching Safe D territory by 2000, it hit a new record in 2016 and could now be called Titanium D. It is still Whiter than many city-states, with the Black population in Philly being somewhat drowned out by the overwhelmingly White suburbs. It's possible that this could cause tension within the Democratic coalition, and even lead to more competitive politics at the local level. But in the current political alignment, it's hard to see Republicans having any success here.

Capital: No points for guessing

House Seats (1963): 16
House Seats (2013): 10

VAP Demographics: 66% White, 21% Black

PVI 2008: D+26
PVI 2012: D+28
PVI 2016: D+30

Congressional Representation: Even with one Senate seat elected in 2014, there's no way Democrats lost a Senate race here. As for the House, given how well Democrats did here in 2018, I think it's clear that they would win at least 9 seats. Fitzpatrick would be able to hold out with his personal vote, probably more comfortably than IRL, but no luck for anyone else.

Local Government: Republicans probably lost any chance of holding the Governor's Mansion here in the early 2000s at the very latest. Even in 2010, Tom Corbett lost the state by 19(!!) points in 2010. The State Legislature is more interesting. After 2016, Democrats won 37 State Assembly seats there and Republicans 27. In 2014, it was an even closer 35-29. After 2018, however, it turned into a 50-14 blowout. This goes to show two things: first, that thanks to Democratic concentration in Philadelphia, it's pretty easy to reduce Democrats' majorities in this state with some gerrymandering; and second, that this gerrymandering blew up in the GOP's face in 2018 as the suburbs trended massively toward the Democrats. Of course, since Democrats clearly held legislative majorities even in 2010, they would not have drawn such a GOP gerrymander, and they they'd probably enjoy comfortable majorities.


Susquehanna

This is the most culturally and demographically diverse of the PA-based states. Stretching Northwest to Southwest along the Susquehanna River, it encompasses the working-class coal mining communities of the Wyoming and Lehigh valleys, the deeply conservative Dutch Country, the outer ring of Philadelphia suburbs, the (IRL) Capital region, and the historically right-wing twin cities of Lancaster and York. All of this adds up to a markedly but not overwhelmingly Republican state. Looking at the past half-century doesn't reveal any clear long-term trend. Between 1968 and 2012, Susquehanna's PVI was always between R+6 and R+13, making it a State where Democrats could hope to win if everything aligned in their favor, but which they shouldn't put their chips on. 2016 was different, dragging the state way further into near-Safe R territory. Clearly T***p's message resonate particularly well among ancestrally Democratic voters in this state. Time will tell whether this trend will maintain itself, but if it does, this is probably not a state Democrats will compete for in the future.

Capital: Harrisburg is pretty far off-center, so I'll move it to Reading (which is also bigger anyway).

House Seats (1963): 11
House Seats (2013): 10

VAP Demographics: 86% White

PVI 2008: R+6
PVI 2012: R+9
PVI 2016: R+17

Congressional Representation: SQ elected its Senators in 2014 and 2018. Normally, I would conclude that both elections would easily return Republican Senators. However, if we assume that native son Bob Casey Jr. won his seat there in 2006 and 2012, he might have been able to hang on by the skin of his teeth like Tester or Manchin. Then again, he could just as well end up like Donnelly or McCaskill, especially since he does have a tendency to underperform. Overall, I think two Republicans is slightly more likely than a split delegation, but both are plausible. The House breakdown could go a number of different ways based on the assumptions we make. Under a fair map, Democrats could actually get to 4 seats fairly easily (3 between the Wyoming and Lehigh valleys, and one around Harrisburg area). A GOP gerrymander could probably crack these Democratic areas, but one that's still calibrated on early 2000s voting patterns probably still leaves at least 2 Democratic seats unscathed. Republicans will probably be far more ruthless in the next round.

Local Government: Even after 2018, the Governor would most likely be a Republican, unless the incumbent there had been an absolute disaster. The GOP is also guaranteed legislative supermajorities. Democrats controlled a paltry 18 out of 60 seats in the Assembly both before and after the 2018 elections, and this number is more likely to go down than up in the future.


Pennsylvania

This is the infamous "Alabama" that James Carville claimed lay between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Obviously, this is an very superficial assessment on multiple levels. This Pennsylvania, for one thing, is one of the Whitest states in the country (it is, in fact, the Whitest of the newly-created states), so there's no analog to the kind of racial cleavage that has dominated Alabama politics since the Civil Rights era. If PA Whites voted like AL Whites, Democrats would not break 20% here. The reality, of course, is that it's a very Republican State, but not that Republican. It has been Republican for the entire period I have data for (only voting Democratic in 1964), and has been getting more Republican lately. Until 2000, it was not comparable to Susquehanna, or even at times more Democratic than SQ. In 1984, it was actually only 4 points more Republican than the nation. Since then, however, it has been trending Republican in every single election, a trend that escalated in 2012 and 2016 and culminated into what can truly by called a Titanium R state. In fact, unlike at the time of Carville's quote, it is now more Republican than Alabama.

Capital: Altoona is a bit off-center, but not as much as Erie, and apart from it it's the only decent-sized city.

House Seats (1963): 9
House Seats (2013): 6

VAP Demographics: 94% White

PVI 2008: R+18
PVI 2012: R+24
PVI 2016: R+37

Congressional Representation: Obviously, no Democrat has had a shot at winning a Senate seat here in several decades. However, a fair House map should give them one district, anchored on Erie County. Such a district would have had a D+9 or so PVI in the Obama years and a R+7 or so PVI in 2016 (which should be enough for a Democrat to win it comfortably in 2018). Given Republicans' trifecta, though, there's nothing stopping them from just cracking Erie County into irrelevance if they so wished.

Local Government: Republican Governor, Republican legislative supermajorities (and rising: the Assembly split was 10-28 in 2010, 8-30 in 2016, and 6-32 in 2018). No surprise here.


Allegheny

And finally, we have the Pittsburgh-centered state. As most of you probably already know, Allegheny provides one of the starkest illustrations of the scale of Democrats' collapse in predominantly White, postindustrial areas. And it's worth nothing that it's very White, far more so that any other state centered around a large metropolitan area (more so even than SQ above). It also holds the dubious honor of being the State with the most anemic demographics: it has fewer inhabitants, in absolute numbers, in 2010 that at any point in the previous five decades.

So, what happened to it politically? Well, it was reliably Democratic from the beginning of the period, but Democrats' true glory day there came in the 1980s, when it surged to become consistently one of their best states. Walter Mondale won it 12 points in 1984, actually improving on Carter's margin. And then Dukakis further improved on it, winning 59% of the vote there. As a side note, this is Exhibit 1 in disproving the myth of "Reagan Democrats" being White blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt: clearly this couldn't be farther from the truth. What is true is that the Republican trend began as soon as the Reagan era started fading from voters' memory. Clinton saw his margin there shrink from 21 to 12 when he ran for reelection, and Democrats after him saw their margins continue to shrink. It went for Obama by a meager 2 points in 2008, before flipping against him four years later.

Will this trend continue? It's interesting to note that Allegheny County has begun trending Democratic in recent years. The counties surrounding it have been driving the Republican trend for the past few cycles, but they might be close to maxed out, while Conor Lamb's recent success shows that Democrats have margins for improvement in Pittsburgh and its affluent suburbs. So I wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats begin to narrow the margin here again, although I doubt they will flip the state back to their column anytime soon without a strong national environment to carry them over the finish line.

Capital: Pittsburgh

House Seats (1963): 13
House Seats (2013): 7

VAP Demographics: 89% White

PVI 2008: R+5
PVI 2012: R+6
PVI 2016: R+9

Congressional Representation: AY elected its Senators in 2014 and 2016. It's hard to Democrats holding on to a seat in either year, unless they had an exceptionally entrenched incumbent running. The House delegation could be anything from 3D-4R to 1D-6R, depending on who drew the maps (more on that later). Assuming that Lamb still ran a strong campaign in one of the districts right outside Pittsburgh, I think we could reasonably give Democrats at least two.

Local Government: This is my biggest surprise so far. Let's proceed in order: first, the Governor. Tom Wolf won AY by 4 points in 2014, which would seem to indicate that the state is far from gone for Democrats at the local level, even in an otherwise abysmal year. Furthermore, his margin jumped to 16 points in 2018, a bigger swing that statewide. Taken together, this means that the right Democrat could either have defeated an unpopular GOP incumbent there in 2014, or been able to succeed one in 2018. Of course, there are also plenty of scenarios where the Republican wins, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a Democratic Governor is more likely than not. The even bigger surprise, however, is the State Legislature. I've counted the seats, and it turns out that, even in their 2010 state legislative wipeout, Democrats still controlled a majority of their PA House districts in this area (I might have made a few mistakes but the results I got was 30D-16R). This changed after the decennial redistricting, of course, but even in the most recent election cycles, Democrats kept doing surprisingly well here. In 2016 and 2018, they controlled 19 seats to the GOP's 22. Since the map is an obvious Republican gerrymander, and since this gerrymander wouldn't exist with Democrats still in control in 2010, this means that Democrats might never have lost power here. We might therefore be looking to a Democratic trifecta in a state that voted for T***p by 7 points, folks. Of course, this is far from guaranteed, and Republicans are more likely than not to control at least one of the three branches. Still, wow. That's some impressive local Democratic resilience, given the circumstances.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2019, 03:27:47 PM »

Here's the full PVI breakdown:


Just look at how overwhelmingly Democratic AY was in the 80s. Shocked
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 0.085 seconds with 11 queries.