Chicago is part of Wisconsin

[King of Kensington]

Let's say the Illinois-Wisconsin boundary is 50 miles southward and Chicago ends up in Wisconsin. How does this change the course of history? 

https://www.wpr.org/chicago-wisconsin-how-windy-city-almost-ended-badger-state

[Schiff for Senate]

Not significantly. Excluding Chicago as part of Illinois would make Illinois a right-leaning state (somewhat like Indiana but less populated, with probably around 6 congressional districts, with 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat, and possibly more leftward leaning since moving Chicago to Wisconsin would also make Lake County, Indiana, Republican, thereby making Indiana more conservative). On the other hand, Wisconsin would likely have 19-20 congressional districts rather than 8, and would also be as Democratic-leaning as New York, since even without Chicago it is a swing state. Adding Chicago would result in 4-5 Republican seats and the rest Democratic. It would keep things the same in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, it would favour Republicans - currently there is already 1 Democratic Senator from Wisconsin (Tammy Baldwin); adding Chicago would mean Wisconsin has 2 Democratic senators (a gain of 1), but it would also mean likely losing both of Illinois' senate seats, thereby giving Republicans 1 more seat in the Senate than they have now, and therefore giving Republicans control of the Senate (and depriving Democrats of that key national trifecta).

 Historically speaking, Illinois was a swing state, and Wisconsin was a Republican state. Moving the city of Chicago to Wisconsin would switch this, making Illinois red and Wisconsin purple or blue leaning. This would likely not change any presidential election outcomes, though it could possibly change individual state results. In 2008, Barack Obama very narrowly carried Indiana (an otherwise red state), largely because he came from next-door Illinois. Moving Chicago to Wisconsin would make Barack Obama a Wisconsinite and possibly cost him Indiana, not that this would impact the overall outcome, as Obama would win in a landslide. Abraham Lincoln is the only other president from Illinois, and moving Chicago to Wisconsin would make him a resident of Wisconsin. This would very possibly impact the national results in 1860 - Abraham Lincoln narrowly carried Illinois over follow Illinoisan Stephen Douglas. Making Lincoln a Wisconsinite would cost him Illinois. But it would likely not cost him Indiana or Ohio - both of which voted Republican more convincingly (9% in IN and 8% in OH). Removing Illinois's 11 electoral votes from Lincoln's total of 180 would allow him to retain a majority of electoral votes (only 152 required in 1860).

   I can't think of any other instances in which it would have a significant historical impact, or any at all in which it would swing the entire presidential election or balance of Congress.

[Alben Barkley]

Wisconsin becomes a Safe D state with more electoral votes, Illinois a swing/purple state with fewer electoral votes.

Basically they just flip in their current positions.

Illinois would not be as right-leaning as Indiana by the way. Bill Clinton and Obama at least would have won it even without Chicago. Too lazy to calculate exactly how it would have broken down in other recent elections, but unlike Indiana it at least would have been close.

[King of Kensington]

Would there have been a Senator Joe McCarthy?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One knock on effect of a more butternut Illinois is that it's far less likely that Abraham Lincoln rises to prominence and the presidency.

[Schiff for Senate]

Wisconsin becomes a Safe D state with more electoral votes, Illinois a swing/purple state with fewer electoral votes.

Basically they just flip in their current positions.

Illinois would not be as right-leaning as Indiana by the way. Bill Clinton and Obama at least would have won it even without Chicago. Too lazy to calculate exactly how it would have broken down in other recent elections, but unlike Indiana it at least would have been close.

Maybe not quite as conservative as IN, but still pretty conservative as of 2020. If you look at the 2020 election results in IL but remove the counties of Jo Daviess; Stephenson; Winnebago;  Boone; McHenry; Lake; Carroll; Ogle; DeKalb; Kane; Cook; and DuPage, you get a state that went for Trump by a lot - giving him 57.52% of the two-way vote share. IN would be more conservative, but not by that much more.

[GregTheGreat657]

Here is how WI (with Chicago and Northern Illinois) would vote in presidential elections


2004: Kerry + 12.25%
2008: Obama + 27.16%
2012: Obama + 19.91%
2016: Clinton + 20.47%
2020: Biden + 19.36%


Now, here is how Illinois would voted (minus Chicago and Northern Illinois)


2004: Bush + 9.77%
2008: Obama + 4.14%
2012: Romney + 7.06%
2016: Trump + 17.18%
2020: Trump + 15.08%

[Schiff for Senate]

Not significantly. Excluding Chicago as part of Illinois would make Illinois a right-leaning state (somewhat like Indiana but less populated, with probably around 6 congressional districts, with 5 Republicans and 1 Democrat, and possibly more leftward leaning since moving Chicago to Wisconsin would also make Lake County, Indiana, Republican, thereby making Indiana more conservative). On the other hand, Wisconsin would likely have 19-20 congressional districts rather than 8, and would also be as Democratic-leaning as New York, since even without Chicago it is a swing state. Adding Chicago would result in 4-5 Republican seats and the rest Democratic. It would keep things the same in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, it would favour Republicans - currently there is already 1 Democratic Senator from Wisconsin (Tammy Baldwin); adding Chicago would mean Wisconsin has 2 Democratic senators (a gain of 1), but it would also mean likely losing both of Illinois' senate seats, thereby giving Republicans 1 more seat in the Senate than they have now, and therefore giving Republicans control of the Senate (and depriving Democrats of that key national trifecta).

 Historically speaking, Illinois was a swing state, and Wisconsin was a Republican state. Moving the city of Chicago to Wisconsin would switch this, making Illinois red and Wisconsin purple or blue leaning. This would likely not change any presidential election outcomes, though it could possibly change individual state results. In 2008, Barack Obama very narrowly carried Indiana (an otherwise red state), largely because he came from next-door Illinois. Moving Chicago to Wisconsin would make Barack Obama a Wisconsinite and possibly cost him Indiana, not that this would impact the overall outcome, as Obama would win in a landslide. Abraham Lincoln is the only other president from Illinois, and moving Chicago to Wisconsin would make him a resident of Wisconsin. This would very possibly impact the national results in 1860 - Abraham Lincoln narrowly carried Illinois over follow Illinoisan Stephen Douglas. Making Lincoln a Wisconsinite would cost him Illinois. But it would likely not cost him Indiana or Ohio - both of which voted Republican more convincingly (9% in IN and 8% in OH). Removing Illinois's 11 electoral votes from Lincoln's total of 180 would allow him to retain a majority of electoral votes (only 152 required in 1860).

   I can't think of any other instances in which it would have a significant historical impact, or any at all in which it would swing the entire presidential election or balance of Congress.

CORRECTION: I need to update this; I just remembered that Lincoln was from Springfield, not Chicago, which would mean that even with Chicago in Wiscosnin he's still be an IL native. However, IL without Chicago would be much more socioeconomically, culturally and geographically similar to the south, and therefore more Douglas-leaning than it was in real life.  Lincoln would still lose his 1858 senate bid to Douglas, but probably by more. Lincoln was only a US Representative, a position he would have most likely still won. It was really his dazzling performance at debates during the 1858 senate election that propelled him to national recognition, something he probably would've still achieved (though he'd probably be less aggressively against the expansion of slavery for political expedience - for all of Lincoln's politics being romanticized, he tailored his message during his campaign for the Senate to make it more moderate in Southern Illinois and more loudly antislavery in Northern Illinois). Given that IL is now more southern, proslavery and Democratic-leaning, it's very possible that Lincoln loses IL (which he won narrowly). I still think he would win IN and OH, however, and he would therefore still likely obtain the requisite electoral votes (a majority) to win the presidency.

[Gass3268]

It's possible if this happened that the future state of Minnesota gets more of what is now Northwest Wisconsin, including Wisconsin's access to Lake Superior and like the Eau Claire/Chippewa Falls area. Milwaukee is probably does not grow to be as large of a city as it became. Madison probably still becomes the state capital as it is even more so in the middle of the state's population.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's possible if this happened that the future state of Minnesota gets more of what is now Northwest Wisconsin, including Wisconsin's access to Lake Superior and like the Eau Claire/Chippewa Falls area. Milwaukee is probably does not grow to be as large of a city as it became. Madison probably still becomes the state capital as it is even more so in the middle of the state's population.

Unlikely. As it was, the South was unhappy that the State of Wisconsin didn't include all of the Territory of Wisconsin because that meant that there would be more than five free States formed from the Northwest Territory. While concerns over the size of Wisconsin did result in the portion of Wisconsin Territory west of the St. Croix river being detached (and remaining an organized territory for less than a year until it was merged into the newly established Minnesota Territory) from the State of Wisconsin, detaching even more would have made it possible for a sixth State to have been made entirely out the remainder of the Northwest Territory.

While that theoretically could have resulted in both Saint Anthony (aka Minneapolis) and Saint Paul becoming the State capitals of Minnesota and Saint Croix respectively (each named after their primary river), North-South tensions would have kept that from ever happening.