Alternate Electoral Maps II

Status
Not open for further replies.
none, I made them up.

Imagine an extremely annoyingly pro-Socialist/Soviet radical hippie pacifist professor from Berkeley versus the most racist authoritarian militaristic and dispicable man (who is likely a member of the KKK) in Alabama.
George Wallace?
 
Here's another addition to the Rutherford Scenario. I've created a map showing my best guesses as to how the white vote by county would go in this scenario:

1024

For reference, here's the original white vote by state map that I posted:
1024
As I established previously, Rutherford wins the white vote in 39 states and D.C., carrying it in every non-Southern state except for Arizona, and in the Southern states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia (the South here including the former Confederate States, the Border States bar Missouri, and Oklahoma). As the county map makes clear (especially when compared to the actual results by county map: https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/novelas/images/e/ed/United_States_presidential_election_results_by_county,_2016_(plain).png/revision/latest?cb=20181010050544), Rutherford would not have won Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee without nonwhite voters. He would have suffered landslide losses in Alabama and Mississippi, while several other states (i.e. Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma) would have been closer. The map, however, also displays the vast difference between Southern and Northern whites in this election. Leach wins Southern whites 53-47%, while Rutherford carries Northern whites 60-40%. He wins whites 64-36% in the Northeast, 59-41% in the Midwest, and 57-43% in the West.

Non-white voters handed Rutherford some major counties (i.e. Staten Island and Queens in New York; Essex in New Jersey; Lancaster and Dauphin in Pennsylvania; Hamilton in Ohio; DuPage and Kendall in Illinois; Waukesha in Wisconsin; Bexar, Dallas, Fort Bend, and El Paso in Texas; Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino in California; Prince William and Virginia Beach in Virginia; Charleston and Richland in South Carolina; Orange, Osceola, Seminole, St. Lucie, and Manatee in Florida; Caddo and Jefferson in Louisiana; Fulton, Cobb, Chatham, and Richmond in Georgia; Hinds in Mississippi; Washoe in Nevada; Fayette in Kentucky; Sedgwick and Wyandotte in Kansas; Douglas in Nebraska; Oklahoma and Canadian in Oklahoma; Shelby in Tennessee; etc.) and pushed him over the 60% mark in California, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Overall, I think this map is relatively plausible. In some states, the county map is exactly the same, and Rutherford wins whites in every county in New England, Delaware, Alaska, and Hawaii. As always, comments are welcome.
Rutherford's share of the white vote would have to be a lot higher in New Jersey, Maryland, the great lakes states and California to win the white vote in that many counties, unless urban and rural areas are voting very similarly in all of those states, which sounds highly implausible for states like Illinois.

And what's going on in Queens and Essex Counties? New York and New Jersey have many other counties where the white vote is/was more Republican.
 
Speaking of George Lincoln Rockwell, what do you guys think the map would have been if he had somehow replaced Barry Goldwater as the GOP nominee in 1964? Obviously he would have lost much worse than Goldwater nationally, but I'm mostly curious about how well he would have held up in the South.
 
Rutherford's share of the white vote would have to be a lot higher in New Jersey, Maryland, the great lakes states and California to win the white vote in that many counties, unless urban and rural areas are voting very similarly in all of those states, which sounds highly implausible for states like Illinois.

And what's going on in Queens and Essex Counties? New York and New Jersey have many other counties where the white vote is/was more Republican.
As he's stated before, these results occurred in an alternate timeline, so the results obviously don't align with modern political trends and things like that.
 
Speaking of George Lincoln Rockwell, what do you guys think the map would have been if he had somehow replaced Barry Goldwater as the GOP nominee in 1964? Obviously he would have lost much worse than Goldwater nationally, but I'm mostly curious about how well he would have held up in the South.
Maybe just Alabama or Mississippi or both. But I don’t think he would win anything else.
 
Rutherford's share of the white vote would have to be a lot higher in New Jersey, Maryland, the great lakes states and California to win the white vote in that many counties, unless urban and rural areas are voting very similarly in all of those states, which sounds highly implausible for states like Illinois.

And what's going on in Queens and Essex Counties? New York and New Jersey have many other counties where the white vote is/was more Republican.
As I stated in the post, this map is a rough "guess-estimate" of how the white vote by county would go. I can give you a few explanations for some of these results. Rutherford gets over 60% of the vote in all of the Great Lakes States except for Indiana, and over 60% of the white vote in Minnesota, Iowa, and Michigan, with ~57% in Illinois, ~59% in Ohio, and a shade under 60% in Wisconsin. Rural counties are far more flexible and not as heavily Republican as they are in OTL. Moreover, many of these rural counties, as I'm sure you know, are heavily white (>80% or 90%); that includes most of the rural counties in those above-mentioned states. Thus, it would be impossible for Rutherford to win them without carrying whites. The reverse of course is true in much of the South, where minority voters (blacks throughout the former Confederate States, particularly those of the Deep South; Hispanics in Texas and Florida) comprise ~10, 20, 30, or even 40% of the population in many of the rural counties. A landslide margin among them, combined with getting ~20-40% of whites, would be enough to win many of those counties, and that is what happens here.

As for New Jersey and Maryland, many of the smaller counties, again, have a higher white share of their population than the big metropolitan centers, and it wouldn't be possible for a Rutherford victory in them unless he was carrying whites. Essex County, New Jersey, has a heavy minority presence, and Leach, to the best of my reckoning, only narrowly wins whites there. It's the only New Jersey county where he does so. As for New York, Queens whites are more Republican in TTL (and in OTL), compared to whites in Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. Only Staten Island whites are more Republican. Leach would narrowly win whites in Queens, but the borough would go 66% Democratic as a whole because of the huge minority population. Whites in Staten Island would definitely be Republican here, as Rutherford only wins it by ~9%. Queens, in OTL, used to be one of the few reliably Republican boroughs in New York City-Eisenhower and Nixon both won it, and Reagan got over 40% there, as did Ford and the elder Bush, and most other Republicans from the 1940s to the early 1990s.

As for California, many of those northern rural counties are heavily white, much more so than the ones on the coast and in Southern California, and thus, it's plausible to assume that the white vote goes Democratic. Rutherford obtains 7% more of the California white vote than Hillary Clinton did, but it's more evenly spread throughout the state. The Bay Area is not as heavily Democratic as in OTL, and Inland California is far more Democratic. California's alignment is basically similar to what it was from the 1930s through the 1990s, with Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the inland rural areas being reliably Democratic, with the rest of the Bay Area a swing region and Southern California, generally a Republican-leaning region or stronghold.

I hope this clears some things up, but please let me know if there's anything else I should address.

@TimTurner, do you think this is a plausible explanation? Also, @Tex Arkana, did you see my earlier question about the maps?
 
Last edited:
Speaking of George Lincoln Rockwell, what do you guys think the map would have been if he had somehow replaced Barry Goldwater as the GOP nominee in 1964? Obviously he would have lost much worse than Goldwater nationally, but I'm mostly curious about how well he would have held up in the South.
Well with the memory of WW II still very fresh in peoples mind I can imagine he would have lost 75-80 to 25-20.
 
Ideally you would first find a blank map of the US that is essentially the same as the base they use for Wikipedia maps. Here's a good one you can use. If you intend to put it in a wikibox then you should fill in the background with the same color as the background of the wikibox, which you can do by using the eyedropper tool to copy the color then filling it in with the bucket tool. You can modify the strength of the tool (there's a slider at the top) to change how much it fills in with the color. However, you'll likely have to go in and manually fill in some of the gaps between states that the tool can't fill in in only one click.

Then you could download the font they use for Wikipedia maps (it's PrimaSansBT just so you know). Download a Wikipedia electoral map to get the right colors for Dems and Reps and fill in each state with the color you want depending on the result for each you have using the bucket tool. You may have to modify the strength of the tool to make sure it fills in just the area you want and no more or less. There's a bunch of small islands in that one map so you should make sure you fill them all in and have them the same color as the state they are a part of. At this point I usually resize the electoral map to roughly the same size as I would need to put it into a wikibox, you'd have to use one as reference for this. It's usually about 350 pixels wide, give or take, and you should make sure you use the resize tool for this as it keeps the map from getting blurry. You could always copy and paste it into the wikibox at this point to make sure it's the right size before you start putting in the electoral votes, the key, and other stuff.

Then fill in the electoral vote numbers for each state, trying to get the size of the font and the location of the numbers roughly the same as they are for Wikipedia style maps (the map will be bigger than on a Wikipedia wikibox so it'll have to be a rough estimate). You may have to expand the canvas to the right to accommodate the EVs for Massachusetts as they are off the map itself, as are all of the electoral vote numbers for most of New England states as well as the smaller Mid-Atlantic ones. Of course, referencing a Wikipedia map would be helpful at this point.

You will also have to make a key for the candidates. They are just a grey square outline filled in with the color of the party with the name of the candidate next to it in the PrimaSansBT font. You can use a Wikipedia map for reference as to the rough size and location of the box. The size of the candidate's names are usually about the same as the colored portion of the box so you can tweak the font size until you get it right. If you want that extra touch of realism, you could also add in the little "i" at the bottom corner of Wikipedia electoral maps in wikiboxes, which is a simple matter of copying and pasting it using the selection tool, right clicking and clicking on "copy" and then pasting it onto the map. Usually the Democrat is on top, followed by the Republican and any third party candidates that have won a state.

Then all you'll need to do is add it to the wikibox by selecting it all, doing the same process as you would to copy and paste anything else, and then trying to cover up the existing map with it. Hopefully you'll have gotten it to be the right size by this point and it'll just cover up the old map seamlessly. If not you'll have to resize it from the original image and then copy and paste it back into the wikibox.

And there you go, you should have a nice looking wikimap in your wikibox!
 
Well with the memory of WW II still very fresh in peoples mind I can imagine he would have lost 75-80 to 25-20.

Even with that margin, do you think he could have still won Alabama and Mississippi, or at least the latter? it's interesting because I'm unsure if MS and AL voters' opposition to civil rights would be stronger or weaker than their opposition to literal Nazism.
 
@Temeraire, I'm not sure if you saw my prior question. What are your thoughts about the maps? Any comments about the ticket-splitting or the differences between the presidential, Senatorial, and Gubernatorial races?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top