Realistic West Wing Presidential Elections 2002 and 2006

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I was recently looking at Presidential maps from the 2002 and 2006 Presidential Elections on the West Wing, and I was thinking to myself, Jed Bartlet winning North Dakota? That can't be right. Or Matt Santos winning South Carolina? I'll post both election maps, and I'd like for you to post 'realistic' outcomes for the 2002 and 2006 West Wing Presidential Elections. Thanks Rockefeller Republican.

2002 Presidential Election:

Jed Bartlet/John Hoynes (D) 423 EV
Robert Ritchie/Jeff Heston (R) 115 EV

*Note: EV totals are the ones from the West Wing

2006 Presidential Election:

Matt Santos/Leo McGarry (D) 272 EV
Arnold Vinick/Ray Sullivian (R) 266 EV

[Hash]

Never watched West Wing, but for 2006, I'd put CA, IA, VT, ME, and perhaps OH to the Dems. TX, NV, SC, CO (possibly) and possibly AZ and NM to the Reps.

Map later. Heading off to class.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Here's what I (Rockefeller Republican) think about both 2002 and 2006 West Wing presidential scenarios:

2002:

Bartlet/Hoynes (from 423 EV to 379 EV)
Ritchie/Heston (from 115 EV to 159 EV)

2006:

Vinick/Sullivian (from 266 EV to 297 EV)
Santos/McGarry (from 272 EV to 241 EV)

Any thoughts?

[Reignman]

Santos won Texas and thus the election, right?

[True Democrat]

Santos won Texas and thus the election, right?

It actually came down to Oregon and Nevada, and he won both to win the election.

[Sensei]

2002-  413- 125. Bartlet for America, Ritchie for everyone else

2006- 351- 187 for Vinick

[True Democrat]

2002-  413- 125. Bartlet for America, Ritchie for everyone else

Ritchie won Florida and Georgia.  They said that in the show.

[Sensei]

But my map is what i consider a "realistic outcome"

[The Duke]

Bartlet v. Ritchie

Vinick v. Santos

[TommyC1776]

2006:

Vinick/Sullivian (from 266 EV to 297 EV)
Santos/McGarry (from 272 EV to 241 EV)

Any thoughts?

That looks like the Wilson vs. Hughes election in 1916.  woops I mean, switched it would look like it.  kinda.

[AndrewTX]

I still could never understand how Santos, a Congressman from Houston, was able to carry Texas, when Hoynes, a Texas Senator, wasn't.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I admit that i haven't watched the show regularly for years, but it seems to me that the America of the West Wing as a good deal more liberal than the America of reality, and the political dynamics (ie which states swing which way and why) are quite different as well.

[Reignman]

FGS I don't even watch the show and I know this much:

2006: TEXAS FOR DEMOCRAT AND CALIFORNIA FOR REPUBLICAN AND THE DEMOCRAT WON

[12th Doctor]

FGS I don't even watch the show and I know this much:

2006: TEXAS FOR DEMOCRAT AND CALIFORNIA FOR REPUBLICAN AND THE DEMOCRAT WON

That's because Vinick was from California and Santos was from Texas, both barely went to their favorite sons.  I think Santos only won Texas by 52%-48% or something like that, and Vinick only won California by about 50,000 votes.

[12th Doctor]

Here's what I (Rockefeller Republican) think about both 2002 and 2006 West Wing presidential scenarios:

2002:

Bartlet/Hoynes (from 423 EV to 379 EV)
Ritchie/Heston (from 115 EV to 159 EV)

2006:

Vinick/Sullivian (from 266 EV to 297 EV)
Santos/McGarry (from 272 EV to 241 EV)

Any thoughts?

Values voters acctually foudn Santos more appealing than Vinick... South Carolina voted on economic isses, as did Missouri... its not unreasonable to think that South Carolina would go for Santos, the way that the election was set up on the show.

[The Duke]

Values voters acctually foudn Santos more appealing than Vinick... South Carolina voted on economic isses, as did Missouri... its not unreasonable to think that South Carolina would go for Santos, the way that the election was set up on the show.

It was completely unreasonable to have North Carolina, Arkansas, and Virginia go for Vinick but have South Carolina go for Santos.  And it was unreasonable for Texas to go for Santos.

But none of that was as ridiculous as Iowa going for VInick when there was a whole episode in season six dedicated to the ethanol issue and how Vinick could never win the Iowa caucus because of his opposition to the thanol tax credit.

[AndrewTX]

FGS I don't even watch the show and I know this much:

2006: TEXAS FOR DEMOCRAT AND CALIFORNIA FOR REPUBLICAN AND THE DEMOCRAT WON

That's because Vinick was from California and Santos was from Texas, both barely went to their favorite sons.  I think Santos only won Texas by 52%-48% or something like that, and Vinick only won California by about 50,000 votes.

Right, but atleast Vinick was a Senator from the state of California, thus making it possible for him to carry it. I still find it hard to believe that Texas would vote for a Houston Congressman. The whole election just didn't make sense.

[anvi]

I know I'm way late to this party, but I wanted to comment anyway.

I agree with the general sentiment in this discussion that the election scenario for Vinick-Santos was totally screwed up.  I haven't learned yet how to display electoral maps on this site, but if it's possible to put together a close, much more realistic winning scenario for Santos, it plays out like this:  First of all, give Vinick Missouri and South Carolina and give Santos Florida and Iowa.  Now, go ahead and let Vinick carry New England by really slim margins, and let him also, by about 1%, win Minnesota, where moderate Republicans do well.  In the south and West, Vinick wins Texas and narrowly Colorado, and certainly Arizona, with Santos taking New Mexico and Nevada.  That makes the election come down to California, and because of the nuclear plant accident and a strong Hispanic voter turnout, Santos takes it by a few percent and wins the electoral college 275-263.   There might be a few kinks, but it's a lot more plausible a Santos win than what was put up there.  What were the writers on in the last season?  Oh well, certainly nothing more powerful than they were on during the Zoey-kidnapping nonsense. 

[RosettaStoned]

The West Wing's electoral maps are so ridiculous.

[anvi]

The West Wing's electoral maps are so ridiculous.

They were.  It's wierd; for the relative realism of the political issues and how they play out in White House vs. Congress fights, at least in the first few seasons, the writers really didn't consult anybody who knew anything about electoral results.  I'm also pretty skeptical that Bartlet could have won states like Tenessee, Arkansas and Louisiana even with John Hoynes' help, not to mention the Dakotas, against Ritchie.  Strange stuff.

[defe07]

I challenge anyone to make a West Wing Presidential Election 2010 map plus West Wing Congressional and Governor maps for 2002, 2004 and 2006.

[anvi]

Who would be Santos' 2010 opponent?  I presume not Vinick again because he would prsumably still be at State.  Would it be Haffley, the former President Walkin who filled in for Bartlet during the Zoey kidnapping, or Russell, former Republican congressman and majority leader in the Senate?  Man, I'm a nerd.

[Meeker]

By the way, if anyone was interested, West Wing complete seasons are on-sale at Best Buy for only $19.99 (or at least they are here).

[anvi]

Here is Santos-Hafley 2010

Hafley was a Congressman from Washington on the show, and though Santos is barely able to keep Washington, Hafley carries Oregon and also barely swings Colorado.

Santos 286
Hafley 252

[defe07]

Here is Santos-Hafley 2010

Hafley was a Congressman from Washington on the show, and though Santos is barely able to keep Washington, Hafley carries Oregon and also barely swings Colorado.

Santos 286
Hafley 252

There you go, anvishiki! You forgot the [.