Alternate Electoral Maps II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Although I like Ojeda, I don't think he would energize the D base at all. while his policy positions are for the most part perfectly progressive, the fact that he's pro-coal and voted for Trump in 2016 (even though he sincerely regretted it later) is probably going to hurt more than it helps. while he would make big gains with the WWC, minority and millennial turnout would probably be abysmal... that's not to say he couldn't win though, especially if Trump's approval rating doesn't get any better between now and 2020.
HE'd be a good veep candidate.
 
There is only one important question - who can flip the white working class back?
Appealing to the urban liberals wouldn't make much sense. Firstly, urban liberals will vote for any Democrat (even for the Manchin/JBE ticket) because they hate Trump so much. Also, very few of them live in a swing state. Low democratic turnout in NYC wouldn't hurt Democrats, they will win these 29 electors anyway (same with any other urban coastal blue state), so I don't understand why are all of you so concerned about safe liberal Democratic base not liking Ojeda too much.
It’s not like the base is going to vote for Trump, but they’re not necessarily going to turn out for every candidate and that does matter in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. - OTL kind of proved that! (though YMMV)

And I’m not saying the Democratic base wouldn’t rally behind Ojeda if he somehow got the nomination, but they have much better and much less risky candidates then a guy who voted for Trump and has very little actual political experience. Like, I’d get it if he was the only possible candidate who could win back the white working class (which, again, I think the midterms showed isn’t even *entirely* necessary), but I just don’t get it when people like Sanders, Biden, Brown, Ryan, etc. all exist, have all shown an ability to appeal to them, are likely to run, and are *infinitely* safer national candidates than Ojeda.
 
There is only one important question - who can flip the white working class back?
Appealing to the urban liberals wouldn't make much sense. Firstly, urban liberals will vote for any Democrat (even for the Manchin/JBE ticket) because they hate Trump so much. Also, very few of them live in a swing state. Low democratic turnout in NYC wouldn't hurt Democrats, they will win these 29 electors anyway (same with any other urban coastal blue state), so I don't understand why are all of you so concerned about safe liberal Democratic base not liking Ojeda too much.
*cough* Milwaukee *cough*
 
It’s not like the base is going to vote for Trump, but they’re not necessarily going to turn out for every candidate and that does matter in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. - OTL kind of proved that! (though YMMV)

And I’m not saying the Democratic base wouldn’t rally behind Ojeda if he somehow got the nomination, but they have much better and much less risky candidates then a guy who voted for Trump and has very little actual political experience. Like, I’d get it if he was the only possible candidate who could win back the white working class (which, again, I think the midterms showed isn’t even *entirely* necessary), but I just don’t get it when people like Sanders, Biden, Brown, Ryan, etc. all exist, have all shown an ability to appeal to them, are likely to run, and are *infinitely* safer national candidates than Ojeda.
Brown’s senate seat is WAY to valuable to give up... we have very little margin for error to win back the senate even if it’s just 50/50 plus VP. If we take ME,CO which is almost assured and lost AL which only gets us to 48. With AZ which I think we’ll win if where winning the election we get to 49 then we need one more seat maybe GA, NC, IA, maaaaaybe MT if Bullock is the candidate maaaaybe AK... KY is probably fools gold but KS might be worth it to at lest win an extra house seat
 
It’s not like the base is going to vote for Trump, but they’re not necessarily going to turn out for every candidate and that does matter in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. - OTL kind of proved that! (though YMMV)

And I’m not saying the Democratic base wouldn’t rally behind Ojeda if he somehow got the nomination, but they have much better and much less risky candidates then a guy who voted for Trump and has very little actual political experience. Like, I’d get it if he was the only possible candidate who could win back the white working class (which, again, I think the midterms showed isn’t even *entirely* necessary), but I just don’t get it when people like Sanders, Biden, Brown, Ryan, etc. all exist, have all shown an ability to appeal to them, are likely to run, and are *infinitely* safer national candidates than Ojeda.
I agree that Sanders and Brown would be great candidates too (Sanders' age would be an issue, but he would still win). I don't know much about Ryan while Biden is probably the most overrated candidate (age, he can't offer anything new...).
Anyway, I am not saying that Ojeda is the only good candidate, I just think that he is one of the best. Brown would be equally good IMO.
 
Out of the Potential Democratic Candidates in 2020, who is second after Biden in time spent in traditional pre-presidency positions (VP, Congress, Cabinet, Governor)?
 
I really don't understand why people think a guy whose political experience consists of a single term in a state senate and a failed run for Congress would be an asset to a national ticket (and before anyone brings up Trump's lack of experience, look where that's got us). Like, I get that he's from a state that Trump carried in 2016 and his brand of left-wing populism is kind of en vogue at the moment, but there are infinitely better candidates in that mould (Tim Ryan, Sherrod Brown...)

Edit: Not to mention the fact that nominating a guy who’s open about having voted for Trump in 2016, no matter how much he’s come out against him since then, is no doubt going to irritate a lot of the Democratic base.
I’d disagree with this, because at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter who the Dems nominate, because whoever they do will secure almost the entire Democratic base on the grounds of being no trump.


Do I want a progressive? Yes, but I will likely vote for whoever the nominee is. The only exception I can see is Gabbard, in which case I will likely vote Green/S&L, but as stated before, I’m not even a Democrat, and therefore am not a good sample to use for the argument that the Dems won’t vote for whoever they nominate.
 
I’d disagree with this, because at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter who the Dems nominate, because whoever they do will secure almost the entire Democratic base on the grounds of being no trump.


Do I want a progressive? Yes, but I will likely vote for whoever the nominee is. The only exception I can see is Gabbard, in which case I will likely vote Green/S&L, but as stated before, I’m not even a Democrat, and therefore am not a good sample to use for the argument that the Dems won’t vote for whoever they nominate.
Just to be clear I agree that most of the Democratic base will vote for whoever the party nominates. My point is more a) even the smallest amount of liberals/progressives staying home can have a big impact (look no further than 2016), and b) you need more than just the base to win an election, you still have to be able to appeal to swing-voters who aren’t necessarily Democrats but don’t particularly like Trump, the nominee will have a big impact on how this latter group votes, and I imagine most of them would be equally wary of a guy who, again, only has the state senate on his political resume. In an Ojeda vs. Trump race I just imagine many of them not voting at all.

I just think that Ojeda would make these risks far more likely and is just a weird choice when there are other much safer candidates who are ideologically like him.
 
I've made a few 2020 maps
Again,
shades = probability of winning; not margins

View attachment 432083

View attachment 432084

View attachment 432085

All three democratic candidates are more-less populist and anti-establishment and I think they would easily flip the rust belt and win the election. Ojeda would be the strongest IMO.
Establishment democrats would do much worse.

This thread is not for current politics.

Everyone needs to shut up about this or I'm going to lock it.
 
UK parliamentary election 2017.png

the UK if it had an electoral system similar to Japan, and still had Ireland.

The parties in Ireland are:
Center: the spiritual successor to the Irish Parliamentary Party. As its name suggests, it is smack-dab in the center. Everything they do is for winning votes. They are responsible for Westminster governments giving huge amounts of largesse to Ireland over the decades, propping up both Labour and Conservative governments over the years. It is vaguely autonomist, and includes within its ranks both hardline unionists and hardline separatists/nationalists.
Unionist: compared to Center, it is more right-wing, classical liberal, and pro-business (aka Ireland Tories). Its Dublin Region seats vote for it fairly reliably but are still rather marginal, and are vulnerable to tactical voting from other parties. The Unionist party, as its name suggests, is most distinguished by its rock-solid unionism.
Irish Labour: the main left-wing political force on the unionist side. It has been on the decline in recent years due to scandals, and relative inability to win young voters.
Democratic Unionist Party: the voice of hardline Protestants in Ulster who still feel unhappy about Home Rule including Ulster within the Irish Parliament. They only stand in Ulster-based constituencies. They are allies of the Unionists, "loyalists", who represent an even more hardline unionist constituency. They frequently move in concert with the Unionists to lock out Sinn Fein.
Sinn Fein: the nationalist/separatist party, the only notable party supportive of Irish independence. Their advocacy resulted in a referendum being called on the question in 2014, but the result was 65%-35%, a landslide for the status quo wider than polls suggested. It has won over left-leaning young voters due to Labour being seen as stale. Nonetheless they regularly pile up wasted votes that do not translate into seats, due to Unionist maneuvering. The clear majority of their votes come from Ulster, though they've became the main left force in portions of rural Ireland.
Alliance: a liberal party aligned with the Liberal Democrats. They only stand in Ulster-based seats. They take no position whatsoever on the unionist vs nationalist/separatist debate, and advocate equitable and fair treatment for all. They regularly win PR block seats, but rarely win any constituency seats.

The 2017 GE was called by Conservative PM Theresa May because "Britain needed certainty, stability and strong leadership following the EU referendum*". Going into the election, the Conservatives had a minority government with confidence and supply from the Unionist party. She hoped to win a majority. But instead, after a bad campaign, the Tories backslided in seat count, while still remaining ahead of Labour. In the end, she was able to muster a Commons majority by getting unconditional support from the Unionists (again) and conditional support from Center. This was enough for 243 seats, just enough for a majority. Press speculation has since been rife of Center potentially pulling its support for May's government, but in reality, the island is getting huge sums of money from Westminster, and the withdrawal agreement negotiations have shown a very clear Center influence. Many people on the island of Great Britain perceive May to be allowing Center to control her government.

*=Brexit referendum goes 53.2-46.8% ITTL due to Ireland voting more solidly in favor of Brexit than England and Wales. Center, Irish Labour, and the DUP were supportive of Brexit; and the Sinn Fein, Unionist, and Alliance parties were opposed.
 
upload_2019-1-14_10-19-47.png

Electoral map of Kerguelen, based upon : http://www.reliefs.ch/landkarten-fiktion/staedte/kerguelen.jpg
Each constituency has around 25000 people.
Politicla parties.
  1. Mouvement liberal progressif(yellow) a centrist liberal party, 16 (+1) seats
  2. Parti socialiste du gauche (red) a social democratic party, 14 seats
  3. Parti Republicain Kerguelaise (blue): Conservative, republican party 9 seats
Spatial analysis: The Republican did bad in the urban centers of Courbet and Baty, their bastions remain the rural constituencies. The socialists won in Baty and Valdivia, and the capital remains mostly held by the liberal progressives, yet socialists managed to win a couple of neighbourhoods. Political commentators also describe a cleavage between the conservative north and the liberal south
The extra constituency is for those voting at embassies and consulates, it is reserved for the diaspora.
 
upload_2019-1-14_10-32-37.png

The next election.
A new party emerged, the Parti de la Liberté (bright yellow, being libertarian.)
The results:
  1. Parti socialiste de gauche 13 (+1)seats
  2. Parti Republicain Kerguelaise 11 seats
  3. Parti de la liberté 8 seats
  4. Mouvement liberal progressif 7 seats
The liberal progressives got divided into two parties, those who put more emphasis on individual rights split away to form the Parti de la Liberté (Freedom party). The splintering of the party, as well as being previously the ruling party (together with the socialists) caused their decline. In the new elections , the socialists and the liberal progressives form a new coalition government, yet now it is the socialists who lead the government.
 
Interesting. What motivated the French to colonize the Kerguelen Islands so heavily ITTL?

Didn't think of the backstory there actually. It could be some sort of war at home (WW1 or two), or the French government settles here exiles from former colonies....
Peut-être, but the political climate would be different,it starts off as a penal colony and resupply station
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top