Alternate Electoral Maps II
- Thread starter Aaaaasima
- Start date
- Status
47.2% Democrat
46.9% Republican
5.9% Third Parties (Mostly Constitution, Green, and Libertarian)
If a candidates home state is an actual swing state like Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, or Iowa that could really make the difference especially if there a decently popular govonor, like Jeb or Marco would have won Florida no matter what. But I just don't see a state like Louisiana going for even their own govonor ... I mean if it was that easy every candidate ticket would be a mix of senators or govonors from Florida and Ohio ...
If a candidate is really popular in their home state, they can still win it even if it's normally solidly for the opposite party. for instance, John Bel Edwards' approval rating in LA far surpasses Trump, and if he campaigned the way he's governed the state, I don't see why he wouldn't win it in a Presidential election.
Alternate 2004 Canadian election (with no PC/Alliance merger) with the worst outcome imaginable. (See Write-up/infobox here)
Bad Company
Banned
I have to take issue with some of your candidates.
Why? What does he bring? He's pretty much an unknown quality outside of Vermont, and getting up there in age to boot.
Why of all the capable women, she's the only one thrown around by some? Aside from her troublesome foreign policy views (praising Assad comes to mind), her views on LGBT rights are questionable at best. She also strikes me as an opportunist - endorsing Bernie doesn't make you a progressive.
What? It's almost as if this is a "who's who" of progressive purist types. Hasn't she also tried to excuse Trump on Russia, not to mention floating herself as a possible Green VP candidate in 2016? Aside from all that, being a former state senator is hardly a good enough qualification to be president.
Again, why? He was a campaign manager, and not a particularly great one. What does he bring to the table?
I'm beginning to think that you're of the impression that running some Midwestern populist type, no matter who it is, is a silver bullet, which is taking the lessons of 2016 in an extreme opposition. If you're looking for a Minnesotan, why not Klobuchar or Walz?
A man of such skill and popularity that the left can't stand him (Bernie being one), who's out of step on a variety of liberal issues, and who's base is nothing more than Chicago machine types. Pass.
Interesting idea, but he is pro-life and pro-gun. Those are perfectly acceptable positions in Louisiana, but could be an issue nationwide.
Same problems as Edwards, not to mention being pro-coal.
Ran an utterly listless presidential campaign, and was quasi (though not fully) partial to Trump. Appeals to no one aside from Dixiecrats.
All in all, this list seems like it's made up primarily of people who could be vaguely considered populist or anti-establishment, but not really any substantive reason why you chose them. Nina Turner and Dan Lipinski don't belong on a presidential ticket, and I doubt such a ticket (or many of the other potential tickets) would be particularly good ideas.
Okay,
Peter Welch - I was looking for a younger Bernie because Bernie would be the best candidate if he was younger.
Tulsi Gabbard - let's face the facts. Western-style democracy is not possible in the Middle East. It is a different culture. Toppling authoritarian regimes can only make things worse (proven in Iraq and Libya). It leads to chaos and islamism. As for LGBT issues, I don't know what are you talking about. She never supported any type of anti-gay laws. She opposed same-sex marriage (a legitimate position) 10-15 years ago, when most Americans opposed it.
Turner and Weaver - I agree, those are a little bit problematic, but still better than most mainstream politicians.
Lipinski, Edwards, Manchin and Webb - They could appeal to many Republican voters. Also, we need a balanced ticket in order to appeal to the working class.
"populist or anti-establishment" - EXACTLY! Democrats lost because they became too technocratic and because they didn't listen to ordinary people. This is what they must learn from 2016.
I am not a big fan of Cenk Uygur, but he is absolutely right here:
Last edited:
I got bored so I made a Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown and Moon Landrieu 1992 ticket, I don't know why or how but Brown wins in a landslide by winning the latino, blue collar, woman, and african american vote against Bush/Quayle
And no I don't know why colorado looks weird
And no I don't know why colorado looks weird
Bad Company
Banned
Welch really isn't someone I'd consider to be Bernie's heir apparent. They're both from Vermont, but Welch is pretty much a straight-up progressive to Bernie's self-styled socialism.
You can recognize the political realities in the Middle East without outright praising murderous dictators.
As for LGBT rights, she was involved in her father's intensely homophobic group years back. We're not talking about typical Democratic opposition to gay marriage, either. We're talking about rapid homophobia. I'm certainly willing to concede that she may have evolved on the issue, but I harbor my suspicions about that, because.....
Opportunism. Sure, most politicians are, but she's not even particularly good at it. Would anyone even be talking about her had she not endorsed Bernie? I would say no.
For God's sake, Trump considered her for a Cabinet position, and this isn't a Manchin/Heitkamp case where he was trying to open up their seats and make it easier for Republicans to win them. She's not called the right's favorite Democrat for nothing. She's a lot like Dennis Kucinich in many respects.
Again, how so? Being defined as vaguely anti-establishment doesn't magically make you a good candidate. And you're still not telling me how being a former state senator or campaign manager are enough qualification for being president.
Edwards and Manchin could, but they'd still have to navigate the potential of turning off regular Democrats. I'm quite partial to Edwards, but I'd be concerned about such drawbacks with him on the ticket.
Webb is mostly a standard New Dem. He could appeal to Republicans, but he has even less appeal to Democrats than Edwards and Manchin.
As I've said, Lipinski is popular with no one who's not part of the Chicago machine. He's actually similar to Cuomo - a dynasty politician not particularly liked outside of their respective machines, while the progressive base passionately hates them.
If you want someone who appeals to the working class, then why not Sherrod Brown? Pair him with someone like Harris and I think it would be an inspired ticket.
Ascribing 2016's outcome to one thing is attempting to paint a black and white canvas that leaves no room for discussion. This can be debated, but this really isn't the place for it.
People constantly talk about how the Democrats have no bench, and then they proceed to add a bunch of qualifiers.
Can't be from the coasts (unless we like them).
Can't be someone who could be considered establishment.
Can't be someone who says one word about social issues.
Can't be someone who's not a populist.
So on and so on. After 2004, plenty of people were saying the same things, and if the Democrats nominated anyone to the left of Phil Bredesen, then they'd be extinct in short order. Obama? Please, he'd be lucky to win D.C.
There are a variety of candidates who have potential, and rejecting all of them because they might be establishment or aren't populist just sounds so counterproductive.
TYT's problem is that they're not interested in electing progressives and effecting policy, so much as they're interested in bashing Democrats because they're insufficiently pure. As for Uguyr, I can't take anything he says seriously.
My problem with Sherrod Brown is that he has a terrible speaking voice, and talking is a very important part of being elected. I’m not saying it’s impossible for him to advance to higher office, but it certainly doesn’t help him. Now someone I think has a great speaking voice is Jay Inslee, and he has a decent record and has stood up to trump a couple times, though he is up there in age; he’d be 70 right after he’d be inaugurated
Bad Company
Banned
Tis true, Brown may not be the most dynamic speaker. But he does have a record of winning in a swing state as a progressive, so I think he'd help bring back some of the rust belters who flirted with Trump. He doesn't need to outshine the top of the ticket, he just needs to reassure those in the Midwest.
No way would Brown lose West Virginia and Missouri while winning the Dakotas and Indiana.
1992
At first, Gramm's Presidency went fairly well. He managed to pass numerous tax cuts, and in doing so exposed a massive split between conservative Southern Democrats who supported them, and liberal Democrats from the rest of the country who by and large opposed them. This divide embarrassed the party significantly, as did the accelerating collapse of the Soviet Union, allowing Gramm to develop a very good image with regards to foreign policy. As a result of this, the Republicans held onto Congress with slightly more seats in the House and Senate in 1990.
In the second half of his term, however, things started to go badly wrong for Gramm. In early 1991, reports came out that he had tried to veto the D'Amato Amendment of the Iraq International Law Compliance Act of 1990; effectively, he had tried to lift sanctions on arms trade and financial assistance to Iraq because he felt they were more of a detriment to US businesses and farms than to Iraq, around a week before Saddam invaded Kuwait and the Gulf War occurred. This proved a major embarrassment to Gramm and tarnished his credibility as a foreign policy mogul, with Democrats of all stripes expressing outrage that the President could put business concerns before protecting innocent lives.
This popular view of Gramm as 'the President of Business' was exacerbated by his enthusiasm for the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. While Democrats were split on the issue of whether the agreement was a good idea, with some seeing it as a natural extension of globalization which could be humanely carried out, Crane's and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's shared alacrity to sign the deal quickly aroused suspicion from left-leaning politicians and voters. Furthermore, the waning economy in the early 1990s made voters skeptical of a trade deal seen as beneficial to economic elites first and consumers second.
In turn, NAFTA became the defining debate of the Democratic primaries in 1992. Leading the charge in support of the agreement was Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas, who quickly lost momentum due to his minimal government approach. Other senior figures included liberal standard-bearer Governor Mario Cuomo of New York and the more moderate Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, but the figure to take the most support, achieve the position most appealing to the bulk of the party and ultimately win the nomination was Governor Jerry Brown of California, a stalwart politician who was consistently opposed to NAFTA, but made it clear his problems with it were on the basis of worker's rights protections. His acceptance speech, where he described his fears of a 'race to the bottom' under NAFTA, captured the concerns of millions of Americans with misgivings about free trade, and his choice of running mate, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, further emphasized his commitment to the provisions of workers, as Harkin was a figure with strong labor union support and spoke of plans to ensure child labor laws were tightened.
The debates further solidified voter cynicism towards the President. In the first debate at Washington University in St Louis, Gramm made a rather rambling appeal to voters to reconsider NAFTA, trying to explain that the agreement would have no real impact on prices and would lead to economic growth. In response, Brown calmly declared, 'Mr President, there's no point in prices staying solid if they're being kept at a level consumers can't afford,' a response which earned him a round of applause.
In effect, that moment was a microcosm of sorts of the entire election.
Brown/Harkin (Democratic): 349 EVs, 52.7%
Gramm/Rudman (Republican): 188 EVs, 46.7%
The result was a decisive win for Brown, although his Electoral College performance was a surprise to some; Gramm held up surprisingly well in the South, while several states which had typically been very Republican (most notably Alaska, Kansas and Wyoming) supported Brown thanks to the NAFTA issue, and the presence of Harkin allowed a dramatic pro-Democrat swing in Iowa. Down ballot, the Democrats managed to retake both the House and Senate (picking off numerous 1986 freshmen in the latter), the first time all three elected offices flipped in a single election since 1952.
Brown could claim a substantial mandate for his policies- or at least, he thought he could. However, his electoral mandate did not change the fact he was leading a significantly divided party, and while he could throw a wrench in the plan while it came to NAFTA, it was unclear how much he could really do to stop it.
(Sorry I haven't updated this in a while, I've had some rather nasty family issues going on lately.)
Just a few of the more inspired realignment scenarios I've though of.
Interesting. What are these scenarios? (especially that third one with the third party around DC)
I honestly didn't think out the first two scenarios, but the third one is a three way race between a popular Utah Democrat with a running mate from Texas and a Republican ticket from Minnesota and Nevada. The green represents the DMASP (DC Metro Area Statehood Party).
Why would Virginia and anywhere outside of DC vote for that? I know for a fact most people in Virginia don’t give two cares about DC statehood
What you did here is combine everyone who didn't vote for Clinton or Bush with Clinton, not just Perot. I'm actually working on my own county map for this but with only Clinton + Perot combined and with shaded margins. In my map Bush picks up some counties with a narrow plurality compared to yours because Perot's votes weren't enough to get Clinton to a plurality when you count other third parties.Here's a new scenario (originally posted on US Election Atlas). This is a state map of the 1992 election, if all of the Bill Clinton + Ross Perot votes were combined together. That is, the 19% of American voters who went for Perot that year join with the 43% of voters who picked Clinton, consolidating under one uniform Democratic ticket. I kept Clinton as the Democratic nominee, just for the time being. As one would guess, it would be a major Democratic landslide:
Governor William Jefferson Clinton (D-AR)/Senator Albert Gore, Jr. (D-TN)-61.92%-530 EV
President George H.W. Bush (R-TX)/Senator Danforth Quayle (R-IN)-37.45%-8 EV
And here is a corresponding county map which I created:
Some interesting statistics that I would like to point out:Again, this was derived only from combining the raw numbers, and was done out of interest. Would any one mind figuring out how many counties Bush wins here? And pointing out any potential mistakes that I might need to correct?
- Clinton would receive more than 60% of the vote in 27 states. Among the most surprising of these would be Arizona, Kansas, and Montana. Interestingly enough, Clinton would fail to break 60% in three other notable states-Florida, Texas, and New Jersey-with the last being the most puzzling. The former two, however, are not in hindsight, given that both Florida and Texas were (and continue to be), Republican-leaning states in 1992, that they were held by Bush narrowly that year in OTL, and that Bush's adoptive home state is Texas. Nevertheless, Clinton would win both states with ~59% of the vote, and New Jersey with the same share. He would win Dan Quayle's home state of Indiana with ~57%.
- Clinton receives greater than 70% of the vote in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Ronald Reagan's weakest state wins in 1984, and almost cracks 90% in the District of Columbia.
- Clinton would receive ~64% of the vote in his home state of Arkansas, but only 57% in Al Gore's home state of Tennessee.
- He would win every county in 16 states, three short of Richard Nixon's county-sweep record in 1972. New York, however, would not be one of them: Bush holds Hamilton County.
- Mississippi would be the closest state in the election, going for Bush by just 0.19%, and with him earning 49.68% of the vote. It would be about as close as Minnesota was in 1984. Minnesota itself goes 67% Democratic in this scenario.
The compiled results table for this scenario is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Empire_of_History/sandbox/6.
- Status