Alternate Electoral Maps II

[Tex Arkana]

How did you go about calculating this? Did you do a calculation for each state, or did you adjust the national demographics somehow? (and if so - by universal swing, or percentile reduction?)

National percentile reduction.

 

[Caprice]

??? (R): 49.11%, 305 EVs
??? (D): 48.03%, 233 EVs
??? (L): 1.29%
??? (G): 0.38%

So I put this together. Any guesses?

 

[Tex Arkana]

??? (R): 49.11%, 305 EVs
??? (D): 48.03%, 233 EVs
??? (L): 1.29%
??? (G): 0.38%

So I put this together. Any guesses?

Sanders must be the Democratic nominee since Vermont is D>70%.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Sanders must be the Democratic nominee since Vermont is D>70%.

Can't be, Colorado went Republican.

 

[Tex Arkana]

Can't be, Colorado went Republican.

I can't see any Democrat other than Sanders losing the national popular vote but still getting over 70% in Vermont though.

 

[Caprice]

Sanders must be the Democratic nominee since Vermont is D>70%.

More specifically, Vermont is D>80%. Massachusetts and Hawaii are D>70%.

Not Sanders, though. Here's the previous election, for comparison:

??? (R): 51.23%, 317 EVs
??? (D): 45.53%, 221 EVs
??? (L): 1.22%
??? (G): .32%

 

[Tex Arkana]

More specifically, Vermont is D>80%. Massachusetts and Hawaii are D>70%.

Not Sanders, though. Here's the previous election, for comparison:

??? (R): 51.23%, 317 EVs
??? (D): 45.53%, 221 EVs
??? (L): 1.22%
??? (G): .32%

I'm stumped. I don't see how a Democrat can get over 70% in Hawaii and Massachusetts and over 80% in Vermont while losing the national popular vote and the electoral college. I would think that the GOP candidate would have to be a far-right nutjob, but then they wouldn't be winning the election as a whole so I'm truly stumped here.

 

[wilcoxchar]

More specifically, Vermont is D>80%. Massachusetts and Hawaii are D>70%.

Not Sanders, though. Here's the previous election, for comparison:

??? (R): 51.23%, 317 EVs
??? (D): 45.53%, 221 EVs
??? (L): 1.22%
??? (G): .32%

Wait, the Democrats winning NE-2 but losing Iowa? Just how.

 

[Tex Arkana]

Wait, the Democrats winning NE-2 but losing Iowa? Just how.

Tbh, the state results are realistic and could be from virtually any modern Presidential election, but the margins are what's throwing me off.

 

[Caprice]

I'm stumped. I don't see how a Democrat can get over 70% in Hawaii and Massachusetts and over 80% in Vermont while losing the national popular vote and the electoral college. I would think that the GOP candidate would have to be a far-right nutjob, but then they wouldn't be winning the election as a whole so I'm truly stumped here.

The reason for Vermont and Massachusetts being so blue is that the Republican ticket didn't make the ballot in Vermont and large parts of Massachusetts.

 

[Tex Arkana]

The reason for Vermont and Massachusetts being so blue is that the Republican ticket didn't make the ballot in Vermont and large parts of Massachusetts.

Why, exactly?

 

[Caprice]

Why, exactly?

In the case of Vermont, it was because the Democrats and Republicans had the same nominee.

 

[Tex Arkana]

In the case of Vermont, it was because the Democrats and Republicans had the same nominee.

Now I'm really confused. Is Phil Scott involved here somehow?

 

[Caprice]

Now I'm really confused. Is Phil Scott involved here somehow?

Not that I'm aware.

 

[jonnguy2016]

Wait, the Democrats winning NE-2 but losing Iowa? Just how.

Could have happened IOTL. Trump won NE-2 by 2.24% and Iowa by 9.41%

 

[Tex Arkana]

Not that I'm aware.

I give up then. Hopefully someone smarter than I can figure this one out.

 

[Osk]

I believe that an atheist could achieve a good result (especially among the liberal electorate), but not an antitheist - a person who actively fights against religion.

I've heard of atheists finding God to win elections, but I've never heard of a Godly man losing faith to win an election. Atheism is like the unspoken political taboo. Just look at the stats, about 25% of the population is irreligious or Athiest, but 0% of Congress considers itself irreligious or atheist.

We are the most excluded minority...

Anyway, Harris being antitheist only makes it worse

 

[Turquoise Blue]

I would think that the GOP candidate would have to be a far-right nutjob, but then they wouldn't be winning the election as a whole so I'm truly stumped here.

Um... Have you noticed OTL?

 

[Heliogabalus]

0% of Congress considers itself irreligious or atheist.

Kyrsten Sinema. So... 0.187%

Atheism is like the unspoken political taboo

The problem is that there's been no openly atheist major candidate, so we have no idea how the public would react. It could sink them immediately, or it could be like Bernie Sander's socialism - something that the media makes a big deal about, but doesn't seem to have a great effect on voters. Though, someone like Sam Harris, who is not only an antitheist, but has no elected experience and is best known as one for the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, has no chance of winning the primaries, let along the general.

 

[Thomas Johnson]

Kyrsten Sinema. So... 0.187%

The problem is that there's been no openly atheist major candidate, so we have no idea how the public would react. It could sink them immediately, or it could be like Bernie Sander's socialism - something that the media makes a big deal about, but doesn't seem to have a great effect on voters. Though, someone like Sam Harris, who is not only an antitheist, but has no elected experience and is best known as one for the Four Horsemen of New Atheism, has no chance of winning the primaries, let along the general.

Both of them are incredibly unpopular.