For the matter, it's still possible to make a fair house map with these numbers. This is actually more pro-Dem than the current House map...
Alternate Electoral Maps II
- Thread starter Aaaaasima
- Start date
- Status
Despite a radically different convention, I'd say Senator Ed Muskie would still be the most likely to get the nomination. So him.
My idea of an RFK victory map in 1968 would be this minus Texas (LBJ hated Bobby) and Arkansas (racist Dixiecrats would have narrowly made the state go for Wallace most likely) but with RFK winning California and Missouri.Ripples of Hope: A Robert F. Kennedy Victory Map
Speaking of 1968, here's Wallace doing slightly better (Wallace +5%, Nixon and Humphrey -5% each). Nixon wins the bare minimum 270 electoral votes and avoids the election going to the House.
Richard M. Nixon (R-CA)/Spiro Agnew (R-MD) 270 electoral votes, 38.42% popular vote
Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN)/Edmund Muskie (D-ME) 191 electoral votes, 37.72% popular vote
George Wallace (AI-AL)/Curtis LeMay (AI-CA) 77 electoral votes, 18.53%
Richard M. Nixon (R-CA)/Spiro Agnew (R-MD) 270 electoral votes, 38.42% popular vote
Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN)/Edmund Muskie (D-ME) 191 electoral votes, 37.72% popular vote
George Wallace (AI-AL)/Curtis LeMay (AI-CA) 77 electoral votes, 18.53%
1934 U.S. Federal Elections
Presidential First Round
Oscar S. De Priest (F-WA)/John Q. Tilson (F-CT) 43.9%
George W. Norris (W-PT)/Earl Long (W-WF) 37.1%
William Aberhart (CP-WD)/Henry D. Phillips (CP-VA) 17.9%
Other 1.1%
Presidential Second Round
Oscar S. De Priest (FP-WA)/John W. Tilson (FP-CT) 54.75%
George W. Norris (WP-PT)/Earl Long (WP-WF) 45.25%
Presidential First Round
Oscar S. De Priest (F-WA)/John Q. Tilson (F-CT) 43.9%
George W. Norris (W-PT)/Earl Long (W-WF) 37.1%
William Aberhart (CP-WD)/Henry D. Phillips (CP-VA) 17.9%
Other 1.1%
Presidential Second Round
Oscar S. De Priest (FP-WA)/John W. Tilson (FP-CT) 54.75%
George W. Norris (WP-PT)/Earl Long (WP-WF) 45.25%
Oscar De Priest elected President
House of Representatives
Federalist Party - 291 seats
Workers Party - 169 seats
Christian Peoples Party - 80 seats
United Soqualist Party - 15 seats
New Africana Party - 9 seats
Truth & Light Party - 3 seats
Native Caucus - 2 seats
American Party - 1 seat
Federalist Party - 291 seats
Workers Party - 169 seats
Christian Peoples Party - 80 seats
United Soqualist Party - 15 seats
New Africana Party - 9 seats
Truth & Light Party - 3 seats
Native Caucus - 2 seats
American Party - 1 seat
2016 election:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ectoral-maps-ii.417468/page-260#post-17094848
Ever since the Solidarity & Justice party won yet another mandate in the elections in July 2008, the economy was troubled. Things at first were going fairly well - the recession (if you could call it that at the time) was mild, and the government used mild amounts of deficit spending to keep the economy growing, managing to maintain surpluses. But in June 2009, it snowballed, with the run on Goldman Sachs. The government was forced to buy out the bank, and the same process had to be repeated on some other financial institutions. However, the biggest troubles were yet to come. A bubble in rural land valuations finally popped as a result of the downturn, leading to many rural farming cooperatives going insolvent. Center, not wanting to fail its voters, arm-twisted S&J into buying them out as well. All these buyouts cost the government money, and the government gave up on running a balanced budget. The difficulties presented by the economy forced the government to enact some tax increases. One of these was a hike on tax on gasoline, conceived by the Prime Minister himself. This was part of a basket of tax policy changes designed to keep the deficit low enough that it could be closed by the end of the government's mandate in 2013.
These changes grew increasingly unpopular and the 2010 budget barely passed both Houses. In the 2010 state-level elections, the two government parties were punished, with a massive swing recorded against them. On Election Day 2010 (November 1), the government was approved by only 27% of voters, and disapproved by 68%. SJ-led governments in Minnesota, Michigan, and even West Virginia were voted out. Bill Lipinski, in the aftermath of the results, resigned as Prime Minister, Solidarity leader, and MP, effective immediately (his son Dan would succeed him in his seat). Deputy SJ leader, Allison Lundergan Grimes, succeeded him in Acting capacity; she was only 31 (soon to be 32) at the time. She immediately made a series of moves designed to restore public trust. She reduced the salary she was paid along with those of her entire Cabinet. She also embarked on a reshuffle, replacing the disliked Treasury Minister, Mina Hill (SJ-Salt Lake Central), with Heidi Heitkamp (SJ-Fargo). This, along with other moves, helped give her positive job approvals, and when the leadership election came along on April 2011, no one dared challenged her; she was elected permanent leader by default.
The worst had passed, but now the question remained - what to do now? Opposition Leader John Kasich called for an across-the-board tax cut, while PD leader Bernie Sanders called for a hike in public spending above and beyond what Grimes was already doing. In the end, Grimes decided to put some minor austerity measures in the 2011 budget, but ring-fenced healthcare, education, and some other areas. She also hiked tax rates on the rich, and made up for that by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. She also reduced university tuition fees, but for Sanders, that wasn't enough - he wanted "free college for all but the already privileged rich". He added that a promise to ditch tuition fees altogether would be in the PD platform for the next general election (this is a promise that would come back to haunt them).
In 2012, a coal operator, Peabody Coal, the nation's largest, entered Chapter 11. The Government then intervened, buying many of the companies' shares to keep it afloat, and subsidized the coal industry in general. John Kasich, in PMQs, called this "nanny statism", and said that Grimes "had not enough good ideas, and ideas that were not good enough". He reiterated his call for a fresh general election. Sanders, meanwhile, criticized Grimes' decision as "coddling an industry that needs to evolve". She fired back, "do you represent a constituency with many coal miners? Because I do. And every time I return to my home district, I see jobless workseekers struggling, looking for a job, trying to look after their families. I want to fight for these people and I make sure that industries that provide reliable employment for them can continue to operate. I think everyone in this country deserves a chance at a job." Kasich accused her of "not acting in the national interest", but Grimes was judged to have won the day, in the opinion of the media.
As conditions improved throughout 2012, the government, though generally unpopular, proved to be adroit at navigating the currents. Kasich, however, had been doing a speaking tour, a series of lectures, throughout the country. He accused the government of incompetence, talked about the deficit, and introduced himself to voters in all 52 states, from Alaska to Puerto Rico to Maine to Kansas. Kasich, being a good orator, generally was quite persuasive, and his narratives would be increasingly hard to dislodge. Grimes, though also charismatic, was unable to counter them fully; she was too busy running the country, and none of her deputies were able to fully neuter Kasich's skills in swaying the public. As the election creeped closer and closer, polling still did not improve enough for the Grimes to feel comfortable calling an early election; the last long-lasting polling lead for the government had been in March 2011, and before that, February 2009. Center, for that matter, disliked the idea of an early election even more; they feared an adverse result, and wanted to have sure power for as long as possible.
Superstorm Sandy soon entered picture. Hitting the country in late October 2012, it devastated the East Coast, and shock turned into anger, as residents suffered in the aftermath. The building boom in Columbia's housing market, which lasted more than a decade before ending in a crash landing in early 2009, was also blamed; many people had not been able to recuperate their investments in their homes before they were damaged or destroyed by the storm. To add insult to the injury, they still owed mortgage payments, even after the home was destroyed. Insurance companies weaseled their way out of paying much, thanks to legal-ese buried deep within insurance product contracts. Kasich blamed the government for all this, and while the government took actions to help those affected, a sense of betrayal remained. Solidarity would pay dearly for this at the general election.
There was also intermittent blackouts in some parts of the country during much of December, right during winter; this also weighed on Solidarity's popularity among the general public.
The 2013 budget continued the theme of past years - incremental improvements. It returned a surplus, a very narrow one, but still a surplus. It had sweeteners for poor people - an increased EITC, a noteworthy increase in healthcare funding, an augmenting of unemployment benefits. It cut the gas tax, but only slightly. It was most noteworthy for a big cut in the rates of tax poor people were to pay on their income, as well as a big increase in the budget of the CSA (Columbian Space Agency). It was speculated that this was designed to woo voters in Florida; but the government cast it as preparation for the future.
Kasich opposed the budget thanks to its lack of across-the-board tax cuts, which he had long been advocating for. His view won support among suburbanites. While city voters liked the 2013 budget's investments in local fast transit, suburbanites, who were generally more well-off than the nation-at-large, thought this budget to be the culmination of five years of a government that catered to, and helped, only the urban poor and rural people. Kasich gained from this resentment. He presented himself as a tribune of everyone who opposed "Solidarity's class war-oriented politics". While this message looked neutral and class-unifying, it was in fact neither. It was a calculated effort to corral the support of the middle and upper classes, the people who were long the large chunk of Unity's base, and bedrock of any Unity-led government.
The government's five-year-term expired on July 6, 2013. Grimes was thus obliged to set the date of the next general election: August 4. This set up a relatively short campaign, which largely continued the way that the unofficial pre-campaign had.
Kasich's slogan was "Unity and Justice", a riff on the name of the party he was running against. He accused Solidarity of dividing the country, having misplaced priorities, culpability in union scandals, and incompetence. He campaigned with locally popular surrogates in New York City, Miami, and other cities. He promised to "treat everyone with dignity, regardless of class and social status". He recounted life with his father, who had been a mailman. He won widespread popularity for his pledge to run a government that would "Make Columbia Work For Columbians". He pledged tax cuts across-the-board, better healthcare, balanced budgets, reforms in education, and the scrapping of unnecessary regulations. People flocked to his campaign stops, and mobbed him at rallies, and he was confident of winning the election.
The Progressive Democrats ran a campaign centering on their leader, Bernard Sanders. Their slogan was "Progress". The PDs promised an end to the mild austerity pushed by Solidarity and Justice, but their manifesto was focused especially on social matters. It promised a "revolutionary reaffirming of a women's right to choose", pushed for Netherlands-style euthanasia laws, and accused the Solidarity and Justice government of "living in the 19th century". It repeated Unity's call for across-the-board tax cuts, but with the caveat that it should not come at the cost of quality of services. It spoke of a need for a "popular revolution", that "would increase freedom for all". The PD party pledged to ditch tuition fees and institute government-funded free college.
Solidarity and Justice campaigned on its record in government, but the youngest prime minister in Columbian history had some difficulty selling more of the same to voters. Campaigning on the slogan "A Country That Works For Everyone", Grimes talked of her experiences with working-class people, hoping to connect with lower-income voters (which were the party's bedrock). She sought to turn the party's long tenure in government into an advantage. She did respectably in lower-income communities, but elsewhere, she hit a big roadblock - the skepticism towards her and her party that run deep among more well-off voters. There was a sense among party officials that the election was going to be tough to win in any event; privately, Grimes felt that she needed to, first and foremost, save the furniture and keep the party within striking distance of winning government in the next election, if it was the case that this election was indeed unwinnable.
Center, much like Solidarity, had been in government for a long time, and sought to use that to its advantage. Its manifesto detailed many of the things it had done, and asked voters to return them to government, so that they could deliver more.
Two televised campaigns were held. The first was held on July 22, and was seen as a draw, with Grimes getting a small edge. In the second debate, on August 2, was seen as key to the election outcome. It again was largely fought to a draw, though Grimes' talk of her days as a little girl growing up in Applachian hill country raised her standing among rural voters. Sanders, however, stole the show, and PD was thus the biggest winner of the debates.
In the end, Solidarity lost the election, but it pulled a respectable performance. Despite the Solidarity-led government's longevity, it lost re-election by a surprisingly small margin. Center also held its own. Both won more in seats than they would have proportionally by votes. Solidarity held on to its base vote and held most of its seats, though in many cases the margins were too small for comfort. Solidarity and Justice won northern Appalachia, and won the most seats in the Midwest despite all the headwinds it faced. Its very efficient vote was able to ensure that despite its vote melting away in many rural areas, it held on better than anticipated. Unity won 5.28% more of the vote in the Midwest, but that translated into not having the most seats in any of the Midwest states bordering the Great Lakes. Center was in a similar boat; it survived, and did well given the circumstances.
The Unity Party won over a third of the votes, and a belt of states running from Maine to California had Unity as the most-voted party. It won each of the 4 regions, and won in the Northeast by 15%. It crushed its opponents in New England, winning the most seats and votes everywhere but Vermont and Rhode Island. It also won over 200 seats, putting it in the pole position for any new government. However, its vote was very inefficient. Its vote margin was generally built not off flipping former safe seats for their opponents, but rather running up the margin in the suburbs. The problem for Unity was two-fold. One, it was prone to getting big margins in suburban seats before it could flip rural seats, because the type of voter prone to voting tactically for Unity (in order to boot out Solidarity) was disproportionately likely to reside in the suburbs. Two, the rural vote was generally owned by Center, putting a natural limit on how well Unity could do. Kasich was the suburban candidate; he did relatively poorly in the truly big cities, and in rural areas.
The PDs had a good night, and they dominated in the Pacific Northwest. They defeated the Minister of Indian Affairs, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who lost her seat by 11%. They toppled the Minister of Higher Education, Kayla Harrow, who lost by 16%. They, however, had the most inefficient vote of all the four parties, in part because of their respectable performance in rural areas. Here, their stand against austerity sold well; they picked off a part of the Center vote, but not nearly enough to win most rural seats. They hoped to lead a government with Center serving as coalition partner; but the arithmetic made this impossible.
The only non-Unity-led government possible was PD-SJ-Center. Though this would be quite balanced, it would be a non-starter. SJ didn't like PD, and vice versa. The gulf between the two parties on social issues was massive. Solidarity stood opposed to any program that implicitly blamed them for the economic misery the country had undergone. Such a program was something of a must-have for PD. Kasich was sworn in as PM on August 8, in recognition of the fact he would inevitably become Prime Minister. In the end, Unity and PD together worked up a program that had some of both of their priorities. When released, it raised substantial outcry - it went against the rhetoric of both parties on the campaign trail. But it was backed by 310 MPs in the House of Commons. It was this basic reality that would undergird the political atmosphere of the next three years.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ectoral-maps-ii.417468/page-260#post-17094848
Ever since the Solidarity & Justice party won yet another mandate in the elections in July 2008, the economy was troubled. Things at first were going fairly well - the recession (if you could call it that at the time) was mild, and the government used mild amounts of deficit spending to keep the economy growing, managing to maintain surpluses. But in June 2009, it snowballed, with the run on Goldman Sachs. The government was forced to buy out the bank, and the same process had to be repeated on some other financial institutions. However, the biggest troubles were yet to come. A bubble in rural land valuations finally popped as a result of the downturn, leading to many rural farming cooperatives going insolvent. Center, not wanting to fail its voters, arm-twisted S&J into buying them out as well. All these buyouts cost the government money, and the government gave up on running a balanced budget. The difficulties presented by the economy forced the government to enact some tax increases. One of these was a hike on tax on gasoline, conceived by the Prime Minister himself. This was part of a basket of tax policy changes designed to keep the deficit low enough that it could be closed by the end of the government's mandate in 2013.
These changes grew increasingly unpopular and the 2010 budget barely passed both Houses. In the 2010 state-level elections, the two government parties were punished, with a massive swing recorded against them. On Election Day 2010 (November 1), the government was approved by only 27% of voters, and disapproved by 68%. SJ-led governments in Minnesota, Michigan, and even West Virginia were voted out. Bill Lipinski, in the aftermath of the results, resigned as Prime Minister, Solidarity leader, and MP, effective immediately (his son Dan would succeed him in his seat). Deputy SJ leader, Allison Lundergan Grimes, succeeded him in Acting capacity; she was only 31 (soon to be 32) at the time. She immediately made a series of moves designed to restore public trust. She reduced the salary she was paid along with those of her entire Cabinet. She also embarked on a reshuffle, replacing the disliked Treasury Minister, Mina Hill (SJ-Salt Lake Central), with Heidi Heitkamp (SJ-Fargo). This, along with other moves, helped give her positive job approvals, and when the leadership election came along on April 2011, no one dared challenged her; she was elected permanent leader by default.
The worst had passed, but now the question remained - what to do now? Opposition Leader John Kasich called for an across-the-board tax cut, while PD leader Bernie Sanders called for a hike in public spending above and beyond what Grimes was already doing. In the end, Grimes decided to put some minor austerity measures in the 2011 budget, but ring-fenced healthcare, education, and some other areas. She also hiked tax rates on the rich, and made up for that by increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. She also reduced university tuition fees, but for Sanders, that wasn't enough - he wanted "free college for all but the already privileged rich". He added that a promise to ditch tuition fees altogether would be in the PD platform for the next general election (this is a promise that would come back to haunt them).
In 2012, a coal operator, Peabody Coal, the nation's largest, entered Chapter 11. The Government then intervened, buying many of the companies' shares to keep it afloat, and subsidized the coal industry in general. John Kasich, in PMQs, called this "nanny statism", and said that Grimes "had not enough good ideas, and ideas that were not good enough". He reiterated his call for a fresh general election. Sanders, meanwhile, criticized Grimes' decision as "coddling an industry that needs to evolve". She fired back, "do you represent a constituency with many coal miners? Because I do. And every time I return to my home district, I see jobless workseekers struggling, looking for a job, trying to look after their families. I want to fight for these people and I make sure that industries that provide reliable employment for them can continue to operate. I think everyone in this country deserves a chance at a job." Kasich accused her of "not acting in the national interest", but Grimes was judged to have won the day, in the opinion of the media.
As conditions improved throughout 2012, the government, though generally unpopular, proved to be adroit at navigating the currents. Kasich, however, had been doing a speaking tour, a series of lectures, throughout the country. He accused the government of incompetence, talked about the deficit, and introduced himself to voters in all 52 states, from Alaska to Puerto Rico to Maine to Kansas. Kasich, being a good orator, generally was quite persuasive, and his narratives would be increasingly hard to dislodge. Grimes, though also charismatic, was unable to counter them fully; she was too busy running the country, and none of her deputies were able to fully neuter Kasich's skills in swaying the public. As the election creeped closer and closer, polling still did not improve enough for the Grimes to feel comfortable calling an early election; the last long-lasting polling lead for the government had been in March 2011, and before that, February 2009. Center, for that matter, disliked the idea of an early election even more; they feared an adverse result, and wanted to have sure power for as long as possible.
Superstorm Sandy soon entered picture. Hitting the country in late October 2012, it devastated the East Coast, and shock turned into anger, as residents suffered in the aftermath. The building boom in Columbia's housing market, which lasted more than a decade before ending in a crash landing in early 2009, was also blamed; many people had not been able to recuperate their investments in their homes before they were damaged or destroyed by the storm. To add insult to the injury, they still owed mortgage payments, even after the home was destroyed. Insurance companies weaseled their way out of paying much, thanks to legal-ese buried deep within insurance product contracts. Kasich blamed the government for all this, and while the government took actions to help those affected, a sense of betrayal remained. Solidarity would pay dearly for this at the general election.
There was also intermittent blackouts in some parts of the country during much of December, right during winter; this also weighed on Solidarity's popularity among the general public.
The 2013 budget continued the theme of past years - incremental improvements. It returned a surplus, a very narrow one, but still a surplus. It had sweeteners for poor people - an increased EITC, a noteworthy increase in healthcare funding, an augmenting of unemployment benefits. It cut the gas tax, but only slightly. It was most noteworthy for a big cut in the rates of tax poor people were to pay on their income, as well as a big increase in the budget of the CSA (Columbian Space Agency). It was speculated that this was designed to woo voters in Florida; but the government cast it as preparation for the future.
Kasich opposed the budget thanks to its lack of across-the-board tax cuts, which he had long been advocating for. His view won support among suburbanites. While city voters liked the 2013 budget's investments in local fast transit, suburbanites, who were generally more well-off than the nation-at-large, thought this budget to be the culmination of five years of a government that catered to, and helped, only the urban poor and rural people. Kasich gained from this resentment. He presented himself as a tribune of everyone who opposed "Solidarity's class war-oriented politics". While this message looked neutral and class-unifying, it was in fact neither. It was a calculated effort to corral the support of the middle and upper classes, the people who were long the large chunk of Unity's base, and bedrock of any Unity-led government.
The government's five-year-term expired on July 6, 2013. Grimes was thus obliged to set the date of the next general election: August 4. This set up a relatively short campaign, which largely continued the way that the unofficial pre-campaign had.
Kasich's slogan was "Unity and Justice", a riff on the name of the party he was running against. He accused Solidarity of dividing the country, having misplaced priorities, culpability in union scandals, and incompetence. He campaigned with locally popular surrogates in New York City, Miami, and other cities. He promised to "treat everyone with dignity, regardless of class and social status". He recounted life with his father, who had been a mailman. He won widespread popularity for his pledge to run a government that would "Make Columbia Work For Columbians". He pledged tax cuts across-the-board, better healthcare, balanced budgets, reforms in education, and the scrapping of unnecessary regulations. People flocked to his campaign stops, and mobbed him at rallies, and he was confident of winning the election.
The Progressive Democrats ran a campaign centering on their leader, Bernard Sanders. Their slogan was "Progress". The PDs promised an end to the mild austerity pushed by Solidarity and Justice, but their manifesto was focused especially on social matters. It promised a "revolutionary reaffirming of a women's right to choose", pushed for Netherlands-style euthanasia laws, and accused the Solidarity and Justice government of "living in the 19th century". It repeated Unity's call for across-the-board tax cuts, but with the caveat that it should not come at the cost of quality of services. It spoke of a need for a "popular revolution", that "would increase freedom for all". The PD party pledged to ditch tuition fees and institute government-funded free college.
Solidarity and Justice campaigned on its record in government, but the youngest prime minister in Columbian history had some difficulty selling more of the same to voters. Campaigning on the slogan "A Country That Works For Everyone", Grimes talked of her experiences with working-class people, hoping to connect with lower-income voters (which were the party's bedrock). She sought to turn the party's long tenure in government into an advantage. She did respectably in lower-income communities, but elsewhere, she hit a big roadblock - the skepticism towards her and her party that run deep among more well-off voters. There was a sense among party officials that the election was going to be tough to win in any event; privately, Grimes felt that she needed to, first and foremost, save the furniture and keep the party within striking distance of winning government in the next election, if it was the case that this election was indeed unwinnable.
Center, much like Solidarity, had been in government for a long time, and sought to use that to its advantage. Its manifesto detailed many of the things it had done, and asked voters to return them to government, so that they could deliver more.
Two televised campaigns were held. The first was held on July 22, and was seen as a draw, with Grimes getting a small edge. In the second debate, on August 2, was seen as key to the election outcome. It again was largely fought to a draw, though Grimes' talk of her days as a little girl growing up in Applachian hill country raised her standing among rural voters. Sanders, however, stole the show, and PD was thus the biggest winner of the debates.
In the end, Solidarity lost the election, but it pulled a respectable performance. Despite the Solidarity-led government's longevity, it lost re-election by a surprisingly small margin. Center also held its own. Both won more in seats than they would have proportionally by votes. Solidarity held on to its base vote and held most of its seats, though in many cases the margins were too small for comfort. Solidarity and Justice won northern Appalachia, and won the most seats in the Midwest despite all the headwinds it faced. Its very efficient vote was able to ensure that despite its vote melting away in many rural areas, it held on better than anticipated. Unity won 5.28% more of the vote in the Midwest, but that translated into not having the most seats in any of the Midwest states bordering the Great Lakes. Center was in a similar boat; it survived, and did well given the circumstances.
The Unity Party won over a third of the votes, and a belt of states running from Maine to California had Unity as the most-voted party. It won each of the 4 regions, and won in the Northeast by 15%. It crushed its opponents in New England, winning the most seats and votes everywhere but Vermont and Rhode Island. It also won over 200 seats, putting it in the pole position for any new government. However, its vote was very inefficient. Its vote margin was generally built not off flipping former safe seats for their opponents, but rather running up the margin in the suburbs. The problem for Unity was two-fold. One, it was prone to getting big margins in suburban seats before it could flip rural seats, because the type of voter prone to voting tactically for Unity (in order to boot out Solidarity) was disproportionately likely to reside in the suburbs. Two, the rural vote was generally owned by Center, putting a natural limit on how well Unity could do. Kasich was the suburban candidate; he did relatively poorly in the truly big cities, and in rural areas.
The PDs had a good night, and they dominated in the Pacific Northwest. They defeated the Minister of Indian Affairs, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who lost her seat by 11%. They toppled the Minister of Higher Education, Kayla Harrow, who lost by 16%. They, however, had the most inefficient vote of all the four parties, in part because of their respectable performance in rural areas. Here, their stand against austerity sold well; they picked off a part of the Center vote, but not nearly enough to win most rural seats. They hoped to lead a government with Center serving as coalition partner; but the arithmetic made this impossible.
The only non-Unity-led government possible was PD-SJ-Center. Though this would be quite balanced, it would be a non-starter. SJ didn't like PD, and vice versa. The gulf between the two parties on social issues was massive. Solidarity stood opposed to any program that implicitly blamed them for the economic misery the country had undergone. Such a program was something of a must-have for PD. Kasich was sworn in as PM on August 8, in recognition of the fact he would inevitably become Prime Minister. In the end, Unity and PD together worked up a program that had some of both of their priorities. When released, it raised substantial outcry - it went against the rhetoric of both parties on the campaign trail. But it was backed by 310 MPs in the House of Commons. It was this basic reality that would undergird the political atmosphere of the next three years.
Ontario 18 but with all three parties tied in the seat count. Add an independent and/or Green if necessary.
MoralisticCommunist
Banned
I'm really liking what I see out of this series so far and I hope you continue this timeline!
Thanks.
And, ofc, it's interesting how high SJ's floor is outside of a landslide rout. Despite Unity winning a third of the vote, despite Solidarity finishing behind them by a margin of 12 points, despite Solidarity getting only one more seat than Unity in its heartland region, Allison Grimes remains as party leader, and is Leader of Opposition, helming the second-largest-faction in Commons. And she thunders back into the Prime Minister's Office three years later in what in many ways was an accidental election. It's easy to see how she kept her job after the 2013 election. By all accounts the party, on paper, should have fallen below 100 seats. With a particularly bad leader, they might have even gone down a la Ontario Liberals or Queensland Labor, to 30-40 seats.
History is going to remember her as a very lucky woman. But she probably would not have accomplished what she had done without a) Kasich opposing Center instead of working with them, b) Center working with her to take down Kasich, c) Kasich wounding the PDs by going down the route of austerity. Kasich is going to leave a deep legacy, but he was probably doomed to be a one-termer given his decision not to be a incrementalist. And ironically, the party that will reap the awards from what he did is Solidarity, both in short-term, and in long-term. The former because it won them the election, the latter because Kasich did cut the debt (and government expenses) quite deeply, allowing for Solidarity governments to increase spending, continue running surpluses, and atop all of that, continue paying off the debt. Solidarity can take its cake and eat it too. Hopefully Allison gives John K a thank you note.
Last edited:
This is the best Democratic performance in each county between 2000-2016. this is roughly what I think the state map would look like (green are the states I'm not sure about)
The Democrat wins the electoral college 385-93 with 60 electoral votes being what I'd consider too close to call. if I had to guess, I would say Arizona probably goes D due to the rural areas being much closer than they were in 2016, while Texas and Tennessee are a bit trickier for me to call.
The rural areas aren't going to matter as much as Pinal.
https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=29
This is a good blueprint for what a narrow D win might be, even though Maricopa is won by a smaller margin for the GOP this time around, and rural areas are less D.
How does Maine-AL go Republican? Also I'm definitely going to work on the county map for this as well because it should be interesting. I actually think Georgia would be R>60 though if you combine Dubya's performance in the Atlanta suburbs with Trump's performance in rural areas of the state.I think a Republican version of the same map would look like this:
I actually had Maine as Democratic at first, but when I tabulated the counties where Bush 2000 and Trump 2016 did best together, it actually votes Republican around 47-44.
Could you offer any insight on Texas and Tennessee in my scenario? I was thinking maybe the increased margins in Shelby and Davidson counties could make it go D when combined with Gore's margins in the rest of the state but I'm not sure. As for Texas, it seems possible that the three-way combo of Gore's performance in rural white areas, Clinton's performance in the suburbs, and Obama's performance in Hispanic areas in South Texas could lead to a slight D win.
- Status