Alternate Electoral Maps III

Here's another Democratic landslide county map. who can guess who the candidates are, what year it takes place in, and what the state map looks like?

KvgG4mk.png
I would guess it’s 1996, Bill Clinton/Al Gore vs John Danforth/Orrin Hatch vs Ross Perot/moderate Republican

Clinton wins a majority of the popular vote and Perot comes close to taking 20%
 
I would guess it’s 1996, Bill Clinton/Al Gore vs John Danforth/Orrin Hatch vs Ross Perot/moderate Republican

Clinton wins a majority of the popular vote and Perot comes close to taking 20%
Don't think Perot's on the ticket, and even if he is, there's no way he got anything close to 20%. I don't see any counties where a candidate won with less than 40%, or any where a third-party candidate won. Keep in mind, 20% is around what Perot got in 92, and this is the map that resulted.
 
An often overlooked fact about the 1992 presidential election is that the polls massively overestimated Clinton and massively underestimated Perot. The final Gallup poll that year had Clinton at 49%, Bush at 37%, and Perot at 14%. In reality, Clinton only won 43% of the vote, while Perot won almost 19%. If that final poll had been right, Clinton's already massive victory would turn into the largest landslide of any Democrat since LBJ.

genusmap.php.png

Clinton/Gore (D): 471 EVs, 48.69%
Bush/Quayle (R): 67 EVs, 36.77%
Perot/Stockdale (I): 0 EVs, 13.91%
Other candidates: 0 EVs, 0.63%

I calculated state-by-state results by calculating a new national popular vote that roughly matched the poll, then calculated new state totals by taking the number of votes the candidates got in each state and multiplying them by the percentage of the candidate's votes they got in that state. Personally, I think it's more realistic than a uniform swing

Notably, Clinton wins Kansas by only 218 votes, and loses Wyoming by only 745.
 
Last edited:
I guess somewhat relevant given the previous posts above...

Here's maps from this wikibox post, an alternate 1996 election where Clinton faces off against Buchanan

1996.png


(53% of the vote and 504 electoral votes to Clinton, 37% and 34 to Buchanan)

House 1996 D-39, D. 51.97, R. 44.4 (D. 244, R. 189, I. 2).jpg


(52% and +39 for a total of 244 seats for the Dems, 44.4% and -40 for a total of 189 for the GOP, plus two independents, with one each caucusing with each party)

1996 senate D-6 (D53 R47).jpg


(+6 for a total of 53 for the Democrats, -6 for a total of 47 Republicans)
 
I think that there should be separate threads for US and non-US electoral maps; I'm sick of all the US electoral maps on this thread drowning out the others. Anyone on board?
 
O9XXB



Suppose this was the Alt-2020 Presidential Election results. What do you think the POD would be, and what do you think the parties' coalitions would look like?

Edit: also assume that the "close states" list on Wikipedia includes something like 20-25 states won by under 10% for either party, and that there's a recent Politico article published ITTL titled The Republicans' Hispanic Mirage.
 
Last edited:
O9XXB



Suppose this was the Alt-2020 Presidential Election results. What do you think the POD would be, and what do you think the parties' coalitions would look like?

Edit: also assume that the "close states" list on Wikipedia includes something like 20-25 states won by under 10% for either party, and that there's a recent Politico article published ITTL titled The Republicans' Hispanic Mirage.
Guessing that the Dems are doing way better with minority voters (and probably a lot better with white southerners as well; that's pretty much the only way they'd be able to win LA/MS due to how high racial polarization is there). Also, it appears that Dems' decline with WWC voters doesn't seem to have happened, with WV staying blue. Dems are defo doing worse with white college-educated voters, with several mid-Atlantic/New England states that are safe blue IOTL being red. The only thing that confuses me is red Minnesota; it's pretty much always been Democratic-leaning since the New Deal, to my knowledge 1952 has been the only election since the 30s that MN voted more R than the nation.
 
Guessing that the Dems are doing way better with minority voters (and probably a lot better with white southerners as well; that's pretty much the only way they'd be able to win LA/MS due to how high racial polarization is there). Also, it appears that Dems' decline with WWC voters doesn't seem to have happened, with WV staying blue. Dems are defo doing worse with white college-educated voters, with several mid-Atlantic/New England states that are safe blue IOTL being red. The only thing that confuses me is red Minnesota; it's pretty much always been Democratic-leaning since the New Deal, to my knowledge 1952 has been the only election since the 30s that MN voted more R than the nation.
Basically. My idea is that Bobby Kennedy survives the attempt on his life in 1968, Ed Muskie is the Democratic nominee in 1972, and then Kennedy wins in 1976. He navigates the late '70s well enough to get reelected and then Fred Harris, his VP, gets elected in 1984. With no Reagan or Carter and a different 1970s the Christian Right never takes over the GOP and so poor white Southerners stay Democratic, turning the South into a swing region where elections are seldom decided by more than ten points.

Harris loses to Jack Kemp in 1988, and Kemp's administration becomes a sort of ersatz of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Amnesty and NAFTA both happen under Kemp, and so Democrats have an easier time opposing both, keeping the working class in the tent. Kemp vetoes am alt-DOMA on federalism grounds which leads the Christian Right to believe that having influence in both parties is better than trying to control one (eventually this means they have influence in neither, but that's northern here nor there.)

ITTL Palo Alto and Orange County are both solid red, while the Iron Range and West Virginia remain solid blue. Both parties have a socially liberal faction and a socially conservative faction. Under a Hispanic Republican president from Texas the GOP believes that Hispanics are moving towards them, which prompts that president to propose a path to citizenship bill which the Democrats filibuster. As he leaves office, Texas, California, and New Mexico all swing back to the Democrats and many South Texas and California Hispanic voters cite immigration as a reason why they voted Democratic (the usual argument that just because someone is Hispanic doesn't mean they're friendly to illegal immigration.)

All in all the Republicans are dominated by a Paul Ryan-esque ideology while the Democrats as a whole remain populist and blue collar.
 
Tried to guess state margins for that map.
1625711173696.png

2024 Presidential Election (nationwide margin is D+.9%)
States within 5%, by margin
Nevada: D+3.22%
Michigan: D+3.21%
Louisiana: D+3.18%
South Carolina: D+2.51%
Florida: D+2.34%
North Carolina: D+2.22%
Rhode Island: D+1.65%
Texas: D+1.32% (Tipping point)
Massachusetts: D+1.16%
Washington: D+0.84%
Maine's 2nd District: D+0.79%
New Mexico: D+0.58%
Maine: D+0.56%
Ohio: D+0.52%
Oregon: D+0.47%
Pennsylvania: D+0.47%
Maine's 1st Congressional District: D+0.36%
Vermont: D+0.33%
Connecticut: R+0.27%
Delaware: R+0.46%
Wisconsin: R+1.17%
Alabama: R+1.28%
Virginia: R+1.47%
New Jersey: R+1.62%
Minnesota: R+2.95%
Maryland: R+3.37%
Iowa: R+3.53%
Arizona: R+4.06%
New Hampshire: R+4.73%
 
Basically. My idea is that Bobby Kennedy survives the attempt on his life in 1968, Ed Muskie is the Democratic nominee in 1972, and then Kennedy wins in 1976. He navigates the late '70s well enough to get reelected and then Fred Harris, his VP, gets elected in 1984. With no Reagan or Carter and a different 1970s the Christian Right never takes over the GOP and so poor white Southerners stay Democratic, turning the South into a swing region where elections are seldom decided by more than ten points.

Harris loses to Jack Kemp in 1988, and Kemp's administration becomes a sort of ersatz of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Amnesty and NAFTA both happen under Kemp, and so Democrats have an easier time opposing both, keeping the working class in the tent. Kemp vetoes am alt-DOMA on federalism grounds which leads the Christian Right to believe that having influence in both parties is better than trying to control one (eventually this means they have influence in neither, but that's northern here nor there.)

ITTL Palo Alto and Orange County are both solid red, while the Iron Range and West Virginia remain solid blue. Both parties have a socially liberal faction and a socially conservative faction. Under a Hispanic Republican president from Texas the GOP believes that Hispanics are moving towards them, which prompts that president to propose a path to citizenship bill which the Democrats filibuster. As he leaves office, Texas, California, and New Mexico all swing back to the Democrats and many South Texas and California Hispanic voters cite immigration as a reason why they voted Democratic (the usual argument that just because someone is Hispanic doesn't mean they're friendly to illegal immigration.)

All in all the Republicans are dominated by a Paul Ryan-esque ideology while the Democrats as a whole remain populist and blue collar.
Why'd Muskie get the Democratic nomination in '72? Nixon not pull his dirty tricks? Also, is there any chance we could get the results by state? I think I wanna make a county map of this
 
Last edited:
Tried to guess state margins for that map.
View attachment 664822
2024 Presidential Election (nationwide margin is D+.9%)
States within 5%, by margin
Nevada: D+3.22%
Michigan: D+3.21%
Louisiana: D+3.18%
South Carolina: D+2.51%
Florida: D+2.34%
North Carolina: D+2.22%
Rhode Island: D+1.65%
Texas: D+1.32% (Tipping point)
Massachusetts: D+1.16%
Washington: D+0.84%
Maine's 2nd District: D+0.79%
New Mexico: D+0.58%
Maine: D+0.56%
Ohio: D+0.52%
Oregon: D+0.47%
Pennsylvania: D+0.47%
Maine's 1st Congressional District: D+0.36%
Vermont: D+0.33%
Connecticut: R+0.27%
Delaware: R+0.46%
Wisconsin: R+1.17%
Alabama: R+1.28%
Virginia: R+1.47%
New Jersey: R+1.62%
Minnesota: R+2.95%
Maryland: R+3.37%
Iowa: R+3.53%
Arizona: R+4.06%
New Hampshire: R+4.73%

Not too far off - basically I started with Cook's 2020 swingometer and then swapped the percentages for white, no college degree and white with a college degree (that is, W w/o college voting 54% Democratic, W w/ college voting 69% Republican.) Then I set the Hispanic vote to 61% Democratic (which is the Republicans' second-best showing among hispanics, from 1992 and 2004. The only candidate with better numbers was Reagan in 1980 with 46%.) Then I set the Asian-American vote to 54% Republican, which was their best showing among Asian-Americans (in 1992 or 1988 - I can't remember which.)

Then I swapped a couple states, giving the Democrats a better showing in the South because ITTL fewer southern state-level Democratic parties would have collapsed, and did the same for New England because ITTL New England Republicans would still be a strong brand even at the federal level. As for Minnesota and Iowa, let's say that teh republican candidate was a technocratic Paul Ryan Republican from Minnesota, and Iowa was very narrow.

TTL I'm gonna say the outgoing president was a technocratic conservative of Hispanic descent and his reelection was the Republicans first election winning a majority of Hispanics, but then they attempted another amnesty bill and that cost them votes in South Texas and among union members in California and Nevada (Cesar Chavez was opposed to illegal immigration, remember.) Let's also say that his environmental policies alienated a lot of people in Texas and Louisiana because, while the environment is a bipartisan issue ITTL, the rather technocratic Ayn Randian GOP views lost jobs among oil workers and coal miner to be collateral damage.

What I'm imagining is a world where, among other things, the Christian Right attempts to have influence over both parties rather than control over one, where Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum would probably be Democrats while Pete Buttigieg and might be a moderate Republican. DOMA is passed bipartisanly (over President Kemp's veto) and it gets repealed on a bipartisan basis.

Why'd Muskie get the Democratic nomination in '72? Nixon not pull his dirty tricks? Also, is there any chance we could get the results by state? I think I wanna make a county map of this
Let's say for the sake of argument that what terrified Nixon was the idea of Bobby Kennedy jumping into the race and so he focused most of his dirty tricks on preemptively attacking him. Bobby sits out 1972 and runs in 1976 on the back of Watergate, running for reelection in 1980 with Medicare for All as his signature accomplishment.

Not sure about the states, though.
 
Since I saw someone say they wanted more non-US maps, here's the 1940 UK election from this TL I've been doing in the Wikiboxes thread.
*
1626018767089.png

Held on the 19th July 1940, this election saw Labour, now led by the trade unionist and adamant anti-fascist Ernest Bevin, oppose the National Government led by Conservative Prime Minister Lord Halifax, which was seeking a fourth term in power. Halifax had called the election in order to try and secure a mandate for his plan to seek a truce with the Axis powers, and demoted figures within the National Government who opposed this plan, such as Winston Churchill and Clement Davies (both of whom sought and won re-election as independent candidates, though Churchill would rejoin the Conservatives after Halifax left the leadership).

Bevin, who had convinced the pacifist party leader Clement Attlee to stand down from the leadership and was running in the extremely safe East End seat of Bow & Bromley (which he was selected for following the death of Attlee's predecessor as party leader, George Lansbury), attacked Halifax as a coward and a traitor (though Halifax had no intention of making peace with the Axis and simply thought Britain could not win if it continued the war, which most Britons disagreed with). While Halifax had hoped that the wartime climate would make 1940 a 'khaki election', the common public nickname for the election was the 'coalition election', as the National Government (still comprised of the Tories, the National Liberals and the by-now moribund National Labour) was opposed by the looser but still clearly-defined 'National Coalition', led by Bevin's Labour with the implicit alliance of Sir Archibald Sinclair's Liberals and the Independent Labour and Independent Progressive parties. The two coalitions were quite clearly dominated by the Tories and Labour, but some scholars have argued the arrangement hurt the parties allied with the Tories and helped those aligned with Labour.

The result ultimately saw the 'National Coalition' take 340 seats to 273 for the National Government, but 314 of them came from Labour, making it the first ever Labour majority in Parliament; the party also won the popular vote for the first time in its history. However, once he became Prime Minister, Bevin immediately offered to extend the 'National Coalition' to include any Tories who were willing to abandon the truce plan, which was ultimately the choice of the vast majority of the parliamentary party. This election marked the end of the National Government after nine years, and the beginning of fifteen years of Labour leading the British government.
 
Last edited:
1626020964466.png


The 1945 election stands out as a historic high point for the Labour Party. For the first of only two times in its history it took an absolute majority of the popular vote, and 458 seats, giving it a majority of 276. As one might expect, a number of dramatic factors caused this dramatic landslide.

Obviously, the biggest was Prime Minister Ernest Bevin’s enormous popularity and political capital after Britain’s victory in the Second World War two months before the election- even with nothing else it’s difficult to imagine a war leader losing an election in a scenario like Bevin had. But making it even more easy for Labour was the prominence in the public consciousness for the past two years of the Beveridge Report. Despite coming from a Liberal MP, its advocacy of Keynesian economics to create a demand-side economy, strong welfare state and minimal unemployment was vastly popular with the public after the disaster of the Great Depression, and Bevin and his party were wholeheartedly eager to implement it.

That leads onto the other problem his opponents faced- the Tories were badly divided over the report, or at least how to make its provisions happen. In order to distance themselves from the appeasement of Chamberlain and the truce of Halifax, they’d invited Winston Churchill back into the party and made him their new leader in 1940, and while he was as skilled a wartime propagandist as any, now that Britain was entering peace his hardline conservatism was brought into sharp focus. His campaign aggressively opposed what he perceived as the authoritarian underpinnings of a welfare state, and he claimed Labour would have to fall back on ‘some sort of Gestapo’ to implement it, a remark often considered as in particularly bad taste.

Further benefitting Labour was that Bevin was helping them enjoy a newfound legitimacy even among anti-Communists. Bevin had steadfastly fought communist agitation in the unions prior to becoming party leader, and at the Yalta Conference he had quite clearly sided with Roosevelt over Stalin, reassuring the public he would take a hard line against any far-left agitation on the continent. Ironically, the 1945 election was quite a good one for those to Labour’s left as well as the party itself, as the Independent Labour Party took three Glaswegian seats, seats won by the Independent Progressives in 1940 and the Common Wealth Party-held seat of Chelmsford remained loyal, and the CPGB and Independent Progressives took two each. The centrist and right-wing parties were thoroughly battered- the Tories took their fewest seats in history and recorded their worst voteshare since 1832, the Liberals fell to just twelve seats (including losing their leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, to Labour) and the Liberal Nationals only won ten, contributing to their absorption by the Tories during the following Parliament.

On a more dubious note, Labour also did particularly well out of the way constituency boundaries had been redrawn for the first time since 1918. Every constituency twice the permitted maximum size was split into multiple seats, but undersized seats (like the ones in London and other inner cities where the Luftwaffe had performed particularly violent slum clearance) were left the same until 1950. To take a particularly drastic example, the Labour-inclined seat of Romford formed one seat in 1940, and was split into Barking, Dagenham, Hornchurch and Romford for 1945, all of which voted strongly for Labour, while the three seats comprising the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark (the population of which was just over half what it had been in 1931 by 1951) were kept intact. Some more Conservative-inclined figures (including Churchill in his memoirs) speculated that a Labour defeat would have been impossible on the 1945 boundaries.

In any case, Bevin won the biggest landslide Labour had ever seen or, as of this writing, ever has. The most admired wartime leader Britain had ever seen would have to prove he could lead the country just as ably during peacetime.
 
View attachment 665541

The 1945 election stands out as a historic high point for the Labour Party. For the first of only two times in its history it took an absolute majority of the popular vote, and 458 seats, giving it a majority of 276. As one might expect, a number of dramatic factors caused this dramatic landslide.

Obviously, the biggest was Prime Minister Ernest Bevin’s enormous popularity and political capital after Britain’s victory in the Second World War two months before the election- even with nothing else it’s difficult to imagine a war leader losing an election in a scenario like Bevin had. But making it even more easy for Labour was the prominence in the public consciousness for the past two years of the Beveridge Report. Despite coming from a Liberal MP, its advocacy of Keynesian economics to create a demand-side economy, strong welfare state and minimal unemployment was vastly popular with the public after the disaster of the Great Depression, and Bevin and his party were wholeheartedly eager to implement it.

That leads onto the other problem his opponents faced- the Tories were badly divided over the report, or at least how to make its provisions happen. In order to distance themselves from the appeasement of Chamberlain and the truce of Halifax, they’d invited Winston Churchill back into the party and made him their new leader in 1940, and while he was as skilled a wartime propagandist as any, now that Britain was entering peace his hardline conservatism was brought into sharp focus. His campaign aggressively opposed what he perceived as the authoritarian underpinnings of a welfare state, and he claimed Labour would have to fall back on ‘some sort of Gestapo’ to implement it, a remark often considered as in particularly bad taste.

Further benefitting Labour was that Bevin was helping them enjoy a newfound legitimacy even among anti-Communists. Bevin had steadfastly fought communist agitation in the unions prior to becoming party leader, and at the Yalta Conference he had quite clearly sided with Roosevelt over Stalin, reassuring the public he would take a hard line against any far-left agitation on the continent. Ironically, the 1945 election was quite a good one for those to Labour’s left as well as the party itself, as the Independent Labour Party took three Glaswegian seats, seats won by the Independent Progressives in 1940 and the Common Wealth Party-held seat of Chelmsford remained loyal, and the CPGB and Independent Progressives took two each. The centrist and right-wing parties were thoroughly battered- the Tories took their fewest seats in history and recorded their worst voteshare since 1832, the Liberals fell to just twelve seats (including losing their leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, to Labour) and the Liberal Nationals only won ten, contributing to their absorption by the Tories during the following Parliament.

On a more dubious note, Labour also did particularly well out of the way constituency boundaries had been redrawn for the first time since 1918. Every constituency twice the permitted maximum size was split into multiple seats, but undersized seats (like the ones in London and other inner cities where the Luftwaffe had performed particularly violent slum clearance) were left the same until 1950. To take a particularly drastic example, the Labour-inclined seat of Romford formed one seat in 1940, and was split into Barking, Dagenham, Hornchurch and Romford for 1945, all of which voted strongly for Labour, while the three seats comprising the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark (the population of which was just over half what it had been in 1931 by 1951) were kept intact. Some more Conservative-inclined figures (including Churchill in his memoirs) speculated that a Labour defeat would have been impossible on the 1945 boundaries.

In any case, Bevin won the biggest landslide Labour had ever seen or, as of this writing, ever has. The most admired wartime leader Britain had ever seen would have to prove he could lead the country just as ably during peacetime.
The Labour support base there is *very* different to irl.
 
The Labour support base there is *very* different to irl.
It's actually based on a mostly uniform swing in Labour's favour from the 1945 election- if this was a majority map you'd see most of the places that you'd expect to be safely Tory are fairly marginal here. (I might do one at some point if I can find the time.)
 
It's actually based on a mostly uniform swing in Labour's favour from the 1945 election- if this was a majority map you'd see most of the places that you'd expect to be safely Tory are fairly marginal here. (I might do one at some point if I can find the time.)
This map really displays the Labour strength in the East of England in the time period.
 
2034 EU Presidential Election.png

Under pressure from European populists, in 2031 the EU instituted reforms such that the President of the European Commission was popularly elected, with the top two candidates going to a runoff if no candidate received a majority in the first round. To win in the runoff, a candidate must win a majority of the vote and member states that contain a majority of seats in the EU Parliament. If a split verdict results, the President is selected by majority vote of the EU Parliament. It was widely expected that the inaugural contest in 2034 would be between incumbent President Paulo Rangel (EPP-PT), and candidate of the right Thierry Mariani (ECR-FR), but Marc Botenga managed to barely defeat Rangel in the first round for second place, leading to a controversial runoff. Botenga's support for marxism made him heavily unpopular in the nations of the former Warsaw Pact, many of which he lost by overwhelming margins, and Mariani's victory in his home nation of France put him over the top, even as he lost most of the EU's liberal east.
 
Top