I'm not exactly a fan of him, but if there's going to be a Republican President in 2020 he'd certainly be one of the better options... although in the extremely unlikely event that he successfully primaried Trump, he'd probably lose the general election in a landslide with Trump running as a third party.
Alternate Electoral Maps II
- Thread starter Aaaaasima
- Start date
- Status
This is it! Originally, when I was creating this map, I had the idea that Illinois was a narrow Republican victory, but this actually works better. And your guesses about the state margins are correct. You forgot Wisconsin however, but you are correct in saying that it is a narrow Democratic victory. You also forgot Iowa, which is a Republican landslide. What kinds of coalitions do you think produced these results?My guess as for the individual state margins:
It is something similar to that. Of course, there are differences from the New Deal Coalition, as the results in the South and in certain other states (i.e. Vermont) make plain. What would be your guesses as to why these various races turned out the way they did?
I'd say a combination of popular and unpopular incumbents as well as a more populist democratic party
Zachary VIII
Banned
William McKinley/Garret Hobart (Republican), 324 EV, 48% PV
William Jennings Bryan/Arthur Seawall (Democratic), 48 EV, 33% PV
Grover Cleveland/William Lyne Wilson (National Democrat), 75 EV, 16% PV
The latter part is especially true. I read a scenario on US Election Atlas (called "Between The Majorities"), which postulates that the Democrats return to their populist roots sometime in the near future. This scenario, of course, is based in an alternate 2016, but it's one in which the premises of BTM basically hold true. Democrats are much stronger here on the downballot level than in reality, and were able to successfully craft a coalition of working-class whites and minorities throughout much of the country. In other words, they created a New Deal coalition that is adapted to modern conditions. Republicans, on their part, are stronger among college-educated and suburbanite voters than in our timeline, and have a socially moderate, fiscally conservative platform (similar to those of Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller). They do comparatively better with minority voters, especially Asians and Hispanics. That helps to explain the results in such states as Illinois, California, Pennsylvania, and New York.
Last edited:
I wasn't sure about South Dakota, but when I compared it to other close election results there, a close GOP win made the most sense to me.
I found a map of a close South Dakota race from 1962, when George McGovern won his first term in the Senate, and used that as my template for that state's results in this scenario.
Wouldn't it be better if you included the coastal Connecticut counties instead of Hartford County?
1980 Primaries from Jus' Doin' My Job
Would this be plausible?
I see. I tried to use the RCP and FiveThirtyEight demographic calculators to get an idea of how the major demographic groups would vote. I had already determined that Rutherford won ~62-37%. I put these numbers into the calculators. Going by them, and keeping in mind that the party coalitions in this scenario resemble those of the 1960s-90s period, Rutherford wins something like 57% of non-college educated whites and 52% of college-educated whites, along with 94% of blacks, 72% of Hispanics, and 69% of Asians. Minority groups, as I explained elsewhere, are majority Democratic, but somewhat less so then they would be in our timeline because of the Republican Party's moderate stances on social issues (akin to the Rockefeller Republicans or the Northern Republicans of the 1960s). College-educated whites, like they were in 1964, are more Republican than non-college educated whites. Do these numbers seem reasonable? And also, based upon the county maps, what would be your guess as to the white vote by state? Alabama and Mississippi are the only states won by Leach, and obviously, whites in those states go Republican.
Those do seem reasonable. I'd guess that he wins the white vote in every state he wins except for maybe Idaho and Virginia.
My first map on here, just a map I feel like would capture the best Trump could realistically do without winning the popular vote. Just giving him Minnesota and New Hampshire. Nothing too big. If he won the popular vote by just a hair, add in Nevada and Maine, if he wins by a big margin, I would give him Colorado and Virginia and if he somehow managed to get a majority (50.1% or higher) I would give him Oregon and New Mexico as well
Remember, the vote in the house is by state. iOTL, the 1916 House was in the following position. The outgoing house had 25R Majorities, 22D Majorities and 3 split, the incoming house had 24 had Republican Majorities, 22 had Democratic (and allied) majorities, and 2 split.
- Status