If your country was the 51st state?

[Hnv1]

A British mate and I were arguing who deserves the derogatory term the 51st state more. Now that doesn't matter now, but it could be a fun game to see how your country would act if it were the 51st state*

Israel would be an ultimate swing state. 16 EVs (probably), with the Arab and the centre-left going hard D (and even parts of the right), and the rest going R.

Due to heavy gerrymandering the districts favour R, so right now it would be 8-6 or 9-5 R over D. battleground districts would be Central Jerusalem, Southern Tel Aviv Metro, Northern Haifa metro. the rest would be really consistent seats.
I could see the senators divided between each party

On the presidential level a swing state almost always, with close margins. this is how I predict we would have voted post-war:
Truman\Wallace, Eisenhower (razor-thin margin), Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ (landslide), Humphrey (razor-thin margin), Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Dukakis (razor-thin margin), Clinton, Clinton (landslide), Gore, Bush, Obama, Romney, Clinton, Trump (landslide)


* this counterfactual is of course ridiculous as being the 51st state changes the political balance inside and the political sphere that was shaped by the specific history of the country. So it can't be imagined as more than a lighthearted game.

[Former President tack50]

Ok so if Spain was suddenly a US state it would be the biggest in population and 3rd biggest in terms of the economy (behind CA, TX and NY).

However, Spain would also be the poorest state, slightly behind even Mississippi. It would also have the biggest unemployment rate and it would not even be close.

Politically, Spain would be Safe D, ranging somewhere between 65-35 to 75-25 for Democrats. If you however adapt the parties to be more palatable to a Spanish audience, it would be a country that is a tossup; though a lot depends on how Catalan/Basque nationalists vote. However I will assume they side with the left of centre party and therefore  Spain would still be very likely left. However the right would have a very high floor, just with a very low ceiling too.

Ironically Spain would be a very elastic place too as the country is not as polarized as the US. No 80% R or 80% D counties.

Spain would be entitled to a ton of Electoral votes too, probably something like 60 EVs? Still safe Biden in 2020.

In the Senate, Spain would have elected 2 Democrats. Although Spain might have elected a "RINO" of sorts in 2012 back when our left was 100% discredited.


As for the House, I actually drew a hypothetical "Spain as a US state" map not too far ago! Though I did use Spanish parties for it. It also has some high deviations as I priorized keeping autonomous communities whole.

In any case, here is the map (not pictured are the 3 Canary Islands seats):

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1F18ykvWXvJ3ouQ5LI1KIQya0pjRMc_5r&usp=sharing



And here is the full list of seats:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

A Coruña: Left
Santiago de Compostela: Tossup, tilt right
Vigo y Pontevedra: Left
Lugo y Ourense: Right

Asturias: Left

Cantabria: Right

Ávila, Salamanca, Zamora y El Bierzo: Right
Valladolid, Segovia y Soria: Right
León, Palencia y Burgos: Right

La Rioja: Right

Bilbao: Nationalist
Guipúzcoa: Nationalist
Álava-Encartaciones: Tossup, tilt left

Navarra: Left

Zaragoza: Right
Aragon: Right

Girona: Nationalist
Lleida: Nationalist
Tarragona: Nationalist
Penedés: Nationalist
Anoia-Vallés Occidental Nord: Tossup, tilt nationalist
Barcelona Nord - Vallés Occidental Sud: Tossup, tilt nationalist
Baix Llobregat: Left
Barcelona Centre: Nationalist
Barcelona Nord: Left
Badalona - Maresme Oest: Left

Menorca - Pla de Mallorca: Left
Palma de Mallorca e Ibiza: Left

Castellón: Tossup, tilt left
Norta Noroeste: Left
Valencia: Right
Ribera del Turia: Left
Marina de Alicante: Left
Alicante: Right
Elche y Torrevieja: Right

Alcobendas y Alcalá de Henares: Right
Guadarrama: Right
Cuenca del Henares: Left
Getafe, Leganés y Fuenlabrada: Left
Móstoles y Alcorcón: Tossup, tilt right
Madrid Southeast: Left
Madrid Southwest: Left
Madrid Centre: Right
Madrid North: Right
Madrid East: Right

Toledo: Right
Ciudad Real y Albacete: Right
Guadalajara y Cuenca: Right

Cáceres y Mérida: Right
Badajoz: Right

Murcia: Right
Cartagena: Right

Huelva-Sierra Oeste: Left
Aljarafe: Left
Sevilla: Left
Lower Guadalquivir: Left
Cádiz: Left
Córdoba: Right
Jaén: Right
Campo de Gibraltar - Costa del Sol: Right
Málaga: Right
Sierra de Málaga - Costa Tropical: Right
Granada: Right
Almería: Right

Gran Canaria East: Left
Tenerife South: Left
Rest of the Canaries: Left

Total numbers would be:

24 Left seats
2 Tilt left seats
30 Right seats
2 Tilt right seats
7 nationalist seats
2 Tilt nationalist seats

[CumbrianLefty]

Of course the UK would vote Democrat by a landslide in *this* election and FWIW the polling has confirmed as much. Indeed, this would also be true were we split into our 4 consitituent "parts" statewise (little doubt that "even" NI would go heavily Biden, and England would be scarcely less emphatic than Scotland)

How we might vote if the GOP offering was more in their "traditional" mainstream (leaving aside the question of when, if ever, that might again happen) is maybe a more interesting question however.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Australia, assuming the parties stayed as they are, would likely be solid D, Queensland and Western Australia would be the best Republican states.

If the party platforms were re-aligned to the Australian political spectrum, here's how Australian states and territories would vote:

New South Wales  (13 EV) - Swing state, would have 1 D and 1 R Senator, and gone for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and Obama in 2008 and 2012. Narrowly goes for Clinton in 2016 despite Trump doing well outside Greater Sydney.

Victoria (11 EV) - Historically a Republican stronghold, Victoria would be a bit like New England, having heavily trended Democratic since the Clinton era. Bush would have come close in 2004, especially in rural areas in the east and west, plus the eastern suburbs in Melbourne, but Clinton would have won here comfortably in 2016. Probably elects 2 D Senators.

Queensland (9 EV) - Republican stronghold, would have last voted Democratic in 1964 or 1976. Republicans would hold both Senate seats here now, especially after improving in the rural north of the state. Democrats do well in suburban Brisbane, but not much else.

Western Australia (6 EV) - Another Republican stronghold, Democrats do well in a fair chunk of Perth, and in the Kimberley in the state's north, but Democrats would have struggled here at the Presidential level since the 1980s. Probably 2 R Senators here too, although the Democrats could win one in a good year for them here.

South Australia (5 EV) - Another swing state, more Democrat leaning, and went for Clinton in 2016, probably goes for Gore in 2000 too. Adelaide has generally been more of a Labor city than Perth. Most likely 1 D and 1 R Senator.

Tasmania (3 EV) - In Australian politics, Tasmania tends to beat to its own drum, having been solidly Liberal in the 1980s when Labor held office federally, and vice versa when John Howard was PM. An American Tasmania would have been the best state for Nader in 2000, throwing it to Bush, and while Kerry narrowly wins here in 2004, Trump does so too in 2016. Most likely 1 D and 1 R in the Senate.

Australian Capital Territory (3 EV) - Mega-solid Democratic, they'd hold both Senate seats, but the Republicans still do better than in DC.

Northern Territory (3 EV) - Quite split actually, the NT as it's often abbreviated to has a large Aboriginal population, but as recent territorial elections show, they're not necessarily a solid-D voting bloc. Would probably vote with the winner in most elections (and would have been the site of a recount in 2016). 1 D and 1 R Senator.

At the state/territory level, the parties would be a lot more competitive (WA and QLD, the latter in particular have a recent tradition of electing the opposite party to who's in federally)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

If Italy suddenly became the 51st state:

- we would be by far the most populated state.
- we would have the second highest GDP after California.
- we would have 80 EVs or so.
- we would be a Safe D state in the current times, but not as much as other Western European nations. I think Trump would have a ceiling of around 40% this election.
- If I have to guess, the most D House district would be the one in Firenze and suburbs, while the most R House district would be one of the two Veneto districts not containing any principal cities.
- the proportion of Catholics in the United States would jump from slightly more than 20% to slightly less than 30%.

[parochial boy]

There are sort of two ways of answering this - If you just gave everyone in Switzerland a vote in the USA, as things are, it would be 90% Dem.

If you assume that it was integrated into US political culture and soceity, but that people here otherwise still had the same political outlook then it might have historically been a Republican leaning swing state, but these days would be safe Democrat and trending leftwards rapidly. It's too international, urban, well educated and environmentalist for the Republicans and attitudes have changed significantly in recent years. Even beyond that, Trump's personality is a particularly bad fit with Swiss culture as, um, discretion is highly values.

You might still find  Republicans winning in Ticino, Ostschweiz and primitive Switzerland. Depending on how far you want to stretch your imagination

[vileplume]

Of course the UK would vote Democrat by a landslide in *this* election and FWIW the polling has confirmed as much. Indeed, this would also be true were we split into our 4 consitituent "parts" statewise (little doubt that "even" NI would go heavily Biden, and England would be scarcely less emphatic than Scotland)

How we might vote if the GOP offering was more in their "traditional" mainstream (leaving aside the question of when, if ever, that might again happen) is maybe a more interesting question however.

It's doubtful Britain would be much better for the GOP with a more generic candidate unless said person was of the Charlie Baker mould but of course such a person would never be able to win a Republican primary. The issues that animate the GOP base nowadays are the kind of things that would play really badly with the British electorate (including the majority Tory voters). For example:

-Britain is extremely secular, more so than even the likes of Vermont. The GOPs pandering to evangelical voters and religious moralising would go down like a lead balloon over here.
-The British public is extremely anti-guns. The GOPs obsession with allowing weapons of war on the streets would cost them many votes.
-The British public doesn't really care about the wedge social issues (abortion, gay rights, trans rights etc.) that the GOP has used to win elections over the past several decades, provided they don't perceive them to be affecting them directly. Whilst the Tories obviously contain a faction of people who do tend to agree with this social outlook, the party as a whole is smart enough not to make these a major feature of their campaigns as it would be a sure-fire losing strategy.

The exception to all of these would be xenophobic dog whistling, though the GOP has gone far beyond dog whistling at this point and are opening shouting it from the rooftops. This would probably be too far for the British electorate.

Honestly I think Trump 2016 may have put in the best performance in Britain of any GOP nominee since H.W. in 1988 (or possibly 1992). This is because he would have likely made inroads into some of the white working class, lower middle class secular communities in places like the Midlands just how he did in the New England, upstate New York, south Jersey etc. He would indeed be heading for an utterly horrible landslide defeat in 2020 though.

A more interesting question though would be what the US political map would look like with British Parties (I imagine there is a thread for this somewhere). I'm pretty sure Johnson would have absolutely annihilated Corbyn, quite possibly nearing a 50 state sweep (yes even including the likes of California and New York) as Corbyn's politics and personality would be a uniquely terrible fit for the USA. I'm sure a more 'typical' Labour politician such as Miliband or Starmer would be much more competitive though, and I suspect they would perform better in ex-industrial areas than the Dems currently do but worse in suburbs.

[Red Velvet]

Completely impossible to compare, guess it would depend on the theme of the election. If they voted based on economy then Democrats. If they voted based on social/cultural stuff then Republicans.

I have a very hard time imagining Brazilian left supporting the Democratic Party as it is today though. There would probably happen a realignment since in US things are so divided by urban cities vs rural towns. So maybe...

Brazilian right from big cities that voted Bolsonaro for the economy because they disliked the left or just based on an “anti-corruption” narrative = Would vote for Democrats/Biden

Brazilian right that voted Bolsonaro based on moral or religious values = Would vote Republican/Trump

Brazilian right that voted Bolsonaro because of simple and populist communication = Would vote Republican/Trump

Brazilian center = Would vote for Democrats/Biden

Brazilian left from urban centers that voted Haddad/Ciro because they see Bolsonaro as a dangerous fascist who will destroy democracy = Would vote for Democrats/Biden

Brazilian left that voted Haddad/Ciro because they hate Bolsonaro economic agenda against the poor = Would vote independent/Write-in Bernie since they would hate both Republicans and Democrats

Non-Ideological Brazilians who voted Haddad because they loved Lula but now are becoming familiar with Bolsonaro and the “tell it like it is” to the media and general populist behavior = Would vote Republican/Trump