Rhad
Banned
First guess was close. It's white turnout at 0 and every other group shifts 31 points republican.
Alternate Electoral Maps
- Thread starter Tayya
- Start date
- Status
Jcw3
Banned
50% popular vote split, but a Democratic victory in the electoral college. The electoral college is nonsense.
Yep. It's interesting even compared to 2012 because while the House map there was similar to the presidential map, there were more states that went the other way (Obama/Republican states: Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada; Romney/Democratic states: North Carolina) IIRC.
This map is from an future history scenario I created. Can anyone guess how these results could be achieved?
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
2020, Trump's safest states and Nebraska is a third party that presumably split the Republican vote.This map is from an future history scenario I created. Can anyone guess how these results could be achieved?
Nice try, but no. This scenario is a bit farther down the road. Moreover, Nebraska's electoral votes are split between Democrat and Republican; Democrats win the state, and two of the three district votes.
Why would such a map be produced? What type of candidate, and what type of conditions, would lead to a landslide of such proportions?
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
Okay, that could have been clearer.
I wouldn't know, you're the one who made the map after all.
But at a stab, I'd assume that the Democrats have some kind of ultra-charisma candidate from a working class background who can appeal to both the liberal urban and conservative rural, whilst the Republicans run someone who has little appeal beyond the areas that vote Republican the most strong. Who could be such a candidate is a different question all together.
The point that I was making was that I wanted for others to guess (as you just did) why the map came out the way it did. The questions were my way of gauging your responses. You thought I was unsure...
But you are correct. This is basically set about thirty or so years from now, with the Democratic President being a social moderate, foreign policy hardliner, and economic populist who manages to make the appeal to both liberals and conservatives alike. Moreover, he does possess great charisma and speaking ability, while his Republican opponent is another Barry Goldwater or Alf Landon.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
I didn't think you were unsure, but- nevermind, is the Democrat that Missouri guy, Jason Kander, and the Republican someone along the lines of Marco Rubio or Tom Cotton?
Actually, I had created fictional candidates for this scenario. But you could say that they resemble Kander and Cotton, yes.
Also, a county map of the scenario:
Also here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Election_Results_by_County,_2044.png
Wait, you really posted this on wikipedia? Can I get the page link?Actually, I had created fictional candidates for this scenario. But you could say that they resemble Kander and Cotton, yes.
Also, a county map of the scenario:
Also here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Election_Results_by_County,_2044.png
I posted it on my Wikipedia sandbox (which hopefully, should be okay). The page link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Empire_of_History/sandbox
I would maybe transfer it to here, if I could.
What are the parties' ideologies? Can you post a presidents list?
I haven't devised the list yet. And I can tell you about ideologies later.
Okay. Also why did he win in such a landslide? How good was the president, or, how bad was his opponent?
Actually, here is a list now:
42. 1993-2001: Bill Clinton (D-Arkansas)
43. 2001-2009: George W. Bush (R-Texas)
44. 2009-2017: Barack H. Obama (D-Illinois)
45. 2017-2021: Donald J. Trump (R-New York)
46. 2021-2029: Kristen Gilibrand (D-New York)
47. 2029-2033: Julian Castro (D-Texas)
48. 2033-2041: Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
49. 2041-2049: William B. Johannson (D-Colorado)
As regards to ideologies, the two parties did undergo changes in the thirty years following Trump's victory in 2016. The Democrats, under the influence of such individuals as Tim Ryan, Kristen Gilibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Cory Booker, and others, sought to refashion themselves back into their old image as "the party for the working class". They became economic populists, completely rejecting free trade; adopting a more protectionist stance for American industry; extending greater support to agriculture, and to the concerns of both rural and urban voters; and developed a united message that could appeal to women, minorities, and working-class whites in equal measure. In other words, they toned down the social rhetoric, abandoning some of the more extreme positions on the Second Amendment, religious freedom protections, and the like. Moreover, Democrats became more hardline on foreign policy efforts, supporting military strength but still opposing unnecessary and fruitless intervention in foreign conflicts of no benefit to the United States. Thus, by 2044, Democrats were economic populists, foreign policy hardliners, and social moderates.
Republicans, on the other hand, went on a downward spiral, beginning with Trump's election. Trump's Presidency, as many had feared, was an absolute disaster. He revealed his ignorance of both foreign and domestic policy; his administration was plagued with conflicts of interest, with financial, corruption, and sex scandals, and with constant accusations of his ties and his favoritism towards Russia. Republican plans to repeal Obamacare backfired; Trump's wall project dragged on, and was never brought to completion; and his tax cuts did little to alleviate the situation of the working class, the inequality in trade, or the lagging economic growth. Trump also failed to pass protective tariffs, and Republicans refused to support all of his infrastructure and social policies. His Supreme Court appointments were riddled with controversy, and heavily contested by Democrats. This was compounded with foreign policy disasters in the European Union, the Middle East, and with China. Putin's Russia became yet more emboldened. And NATO was weakened by Trump's threats, his bombastic moves, and his inability to give full support to America's allies.
Following his defeat by Gilibrand in 2020 (yet another New Yorker!), Democrats built themselves back up. They regained control of the Senate in the same year, and finally took back the House in 2024. They held control of the two chambers until 2032, when Republicans rode into the White House with Rubio of Florida as their standard-bearer. Republicans did become more socially moderate over the course of time, especially over the course of twelve years of Democratic control of the White House; by 2044, they had accepted gay marriage, transgender rights, and abortion, although they always remained more socially conservative then the Democrats, preferring that the government leave itself out of the business of "rights regulation". They remained attached to tax cuts, to school vouchers, and to military expansionism, although they were also more supportive of progressive trade deals, of reducing student debt, and of infrastructure, as well as energy, reform. The two parties compromised on immigration and on gun rights, but Republicans still held tougher views on both issues.
Now, as to your questions: The reason why Johannson won reelection in a landslide was due to: the strength of the American economy, America's landing on Mars (which inspired much patriotic fervor), and foreign policy successes in Cuba, the European Union, and South America. Beauregard was an idiot. He was not liked by the people in his own state (Louisiana), due to his mishandling of the state budget and his reluctance to compromise; he was dogged by allegations of sexual misconduct and of ethical misbehavior; and he had a habit (like Goldwater in '64) of making insensitive, off-handed comments (i.e., "draining the Bering Straits", "rooting out the enclaves of gimmie-dats", "cutting off the Arctic wastelands", or "sending the rowdy vaqueros home", comments which cost him with environmentalists, African-Americans, Hispanics, and poorer, rural voters). He was colorless, he had very unpopular views on education, foreign policy, and space policy, and inspired little enthusiasm among the Republican base (similar to McCain or Romney).
Last edited:
2000: Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (D) def. George Bush/Dick Cheney (R)
The premise is a slightly altered 2000, where Gore gains just a few votes in an unexpected place: New Hampshire. Florida doesn't matter, and Gore wins with a similar popular vote edge to OTL.
Gore's term is harder than expected. His plans to reduce the deficit are blown off course with the Dotcom bubble crashing, and instead he gives slight tax breaks to Americans, aimed towards the middle class. Everything's blown off course further with 9/11, and though he keeps his head on straight in the invasion of Afghanistan, he fails to endear himself to the American people and his popularity is mediocre at best.
2004: John McCain/John Kasich (R) def. Al Gore/Joe Lieberman (D)
Republicans choose a hawk to deal with terror, and a moderate to beat Gore, and it works. Kasich is chosen by McCain as a bone to conservatives, and they win a respectable victory. The occupation of Afghanistan continues with McCain trying to root out terror any way he can. Domestically the economy does fairly well and grows, allowing a reduction of the deficit along with some further tax cuts. There are worrying signs in the economy, but everything seems to be doing fine.
2008: John McCain/John Kasich (R) def. Bill Richardson/Joe Biden (D)
Bill Richardson barely loses to McCain, despite getting the exact same election map Al Gore got in 2000, due to some shifts in electoral votes. The House and Senate are split, with Democrats controlling the latter and Republicans the former. Then in 2009, all hell breaks loose with the economy crashing. Republicans react somewhat, but not nearly enough as far as Democrats and eventually the public at large are concerned. In 2010, Republicans lose massively in Congress, and McCain is forced to deal with an uncooperative and from the Republican standpoint radical Congress. He gives the banks a bailout, and then refuses to support infrastructure and jobs spending towards everyday Americans.
2012: Barack Obama/Brian Schweitzer (D) def. John Kasich/Jim Gilmore (R)
Relative newcomer Obama surprisingly defeats all Dem challengers, then crushes McCain to become the first Democratic President. He creates a giant stimulus with huge majorities in Congress, and passes a lot of liberal legislation including a boost to minimum wage- but a healthcare bill is delayed. In 2014, Democratic majorities are reduced but not taken away as the economy recovers.
2016: Barack Obama/Brian Schweitzer (D) def. Marco Rubio/Scott Brown
Obama wins a comfortable re-election against radical Conservative Rubio. What happens next is all up in the air, but Democratic majorities are very narrow, despite the popularity of Obama. It's very likely the Republicans will take the House in 2018, and Democratic Dreams of National Healthcare are falling apart.
Hey, I saw your wiki page and it's great. One bit of advice though; don't use OTL politicians for the infobox, like find pics of "generic politician" or something.
- Status