AU Presidential Elections with Maps

FUCK.

They're actually the same red as the red states, they just look pink 'cos they're small.

Oh, and in honour of the occasion, here's a consolation prize for the conservatives of the board:
I could potentially see this electoral map with McCain running a different campaign, but such a different campaign would not have picked Palin for VP.

So how does this happen with Palin as VP?
 
The economic crisis does not happen or is delayed till after teh election. If Bush had followed the Paulson suggestion of the Early Summer 2008 this might have happened. Much of the stress with Palin was caused by the economic crisis.

Much of this election was fought over only 2 groups, White 'Professional Men' and White suburban women. The exit polls from last night show as much. It was Obamas gains in these groups that allowed him to capture suburban counties in key states like Virginia, Colorado and so forth. You wont hear too much aobut it due to the media environment but it is in the numbers. For example where I live, Arapahoe Couty Colorado is a suburban county with 99% white population with alot of professionals and undecided women. 4/6 Women on my block went for Obama due to the economic crisis who had been leaning McCain. In the county as a whole Obama won by 30,000 votes and made up around 45,000 from 2004. Two other counties in Colorado went likewise for Obama Adams, and Jefferson which were both heavily suburban. Anyway Obama ability to win or come 'close' in these suburban counties is what put him over the top. Honestly his new voters didnt pan out like the O team expected.
 
Last edited:
1996 after a second Bush term. Economic crisis causes 'sea' change election

Clinton/Gephart-Blue

Dole/Forbes-Red

McCainGore.PNG
 
The economic crisis does not happen or is delayed till after teh election. If Bush had followed the Paulson suggestion of the Early Summer 2008 this might have happened. Much of the stress with Palin was caused by the economic crisis.

Much of this election was fought over only 2 groups, White 'Professional Men' and White suburban women. The exit polls from last night show as much. It was Obamas gains in these groups that allowed him to capture suburban counties in key states like Virginia, Colorado and so forth. You wont hear too much aobut it due to the media environment but it is in the numbers. For example where I live, Arapahoe Couty Colorado is a suburban county with 99% white population with alot of professionals and undecided women. 4/6 Women on my block went for Obama due to the economic crisis who had been leaning McCain. In the county as a whole Obama won by 30,000 votes and made up around 45,000 from 2004. Two other counties in Colorado went likewise for Obama Adams, and Jefferson which were both heavily suburban. Anyway Obama ability to win or come 'close' in these suburban counties is what put him over the top. Honestly his new voters didnt pan out like the O team expected.
I can believe some of that. Park County--where I live--only went for McCain by a margin of about 800 votes, and this is essentially White County, USA.

On the other hand, I believe you're underestimating Palin's inability to be anything other than someone who is entirely unequipped to deal with politics on a national stage. That had nothing to do with the economy. The economic issues helped a little, but it wasn't the deciding factor in that sense as you state.

And I don't think it was avoidable by June 2008 either. By then the damage had been done. Avoiding it would require a much earlier POD, back in late 2006 or so.
 
I can believe some of that. Park County--where I live--only went for McCain by a margin of about 800 votes, and this is essentially White County, USA.

On the other hand, I believe you're underestimating Palin's inability to be anything other than someone who is entirely unequipped to deal with politics on a national stage. That had nothing to do with the economy. The economic issues helped a little, but it wasn't the deciding factor in that sense as you state.

And I don't think it was avoidable by June 2008 either. By then the damage had been done. Avoiding it would require a much earlier POD, back in late 2006 or so.


What if the Republicans tried harder to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they were in control of congress? Things wouldn't be so bad right now if they prevented the Subprime crisis. Also, What if Bush made increasing domestic drilling a key goal after the 2004 election?
 
I forgot to add in D.C which would more than likely go democrats so it would change the total to

Obama/Biden: 123
Bloomberg/Lieberman: 288
Huckabee/Pawlenty: 122
If DC votes for Obama, so does Maryland. Montgomery and Prince George's Counties are all but guaranteed to go vote the same way as DC, and Baltimore is similarly Democratic, and has a large African American population that further inclines it to lean Obama.

I'm also dubious about Bloomberg winning Virginia. Being in the DC orbit, Northern Virginia is likely to vote Obama. Bloomberg has a better chance in the south eastern regions of the state, but both Obama and Bloomberg are going to go over like a lead balloon in the western regions. The split vote probably sends the state into Huckabee's column.

The fundamental problem is that Bloomberg's support is likely to be strongest in urban centers, which is also the traditional stronghold of the Democratic Party. Neither is particularly appealing to the more rural areas of the country, and they will likely wind up supporting Huckabee by default. In all likelihood, no candidate winds up with 270 electoral votes. Obama finishes ahead of Bloomberg, but loses the election to Huckabee.
 
California has voted Democrat nearly every time since WWII. (1984 was an exception.)
Err, not really, no. After WWII and before Bill Clinton, the only times California awarded its electoral votes to the Democratic candidate was Truman in 1948 and during LBJ's rout against Goldwater in 1964. It helps that during seven of these elections there was a Republican on the ticket, of course (Nixon in 1952, 56, 60, 68, and 72, and Reagan in 1980 and 84), but even the California-free tickets of Ford/Dole and Bush/Quayle won the state.

Honestly, most of the recent Democratic strongholds during presidential elections have only been reliably Democratic since 1992 or so. Even putting aside Reagan's landslide in 1984, no state can claim to have voted for the Democrat in every election since World War II. Minnesota and New York are the closest candidates, but even they've not been 100% reliable. Only Washington, D.C. has never voted for the Republican since WWII, but they didn't vote in presidential elections until 1964. Hawaii has voted for the Democrat in every election since 1960, excluding Reagan in 1984.

The same can said about the Republicans only if you include Goldwater's loss in 1964. Excluding that year, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas have voted for the Republican every time. Indiana has in every instance except 2008, and Virginia in every instance except 1948 and 2008.
 
Here's another one: if Clinton had got the Democratic nomination this year --

Why do the Democrats get Minnesota -- where Pawlenty's from -- and not Wisconsin?

EDIT: Also, Iowa hates McCain. He's anti-ethanol subsidies, and kinda prickly -- whereas the mayor of Des Moines is actually a jug of corn syrup, and Iowans will invite you into their homes and take care of you for years.
 
Why do the Democrats get Minnesota -- where Pawlenty's from -- and not Wisconsin?

EDIT: Also, Iowa hates McCain. He's anti-ethanol subsidies, and kinda prickly -- whereas the mayor of Des Moines is actually a jug of corn syrup, and Iowans will invite you into their homes and take care of you for years.
Truth is I found some website that had approval ratings for Clinton and McCain side-by-side for each state, and I just filled in each state with red or blue accordingly. Apparently Clinton is less popular than McCain in Iowa.

(Also, I considered making Minnesota red but I figured that since 1. Pawlenty's re-election was a rather narrow one, 2. Minnesota tends to lean left, and 3. This is after 8 years of the Bush Administration, Pawlenty being from Minnesota wouldn't be enough to make it turn Republican. And I also figured that people would be primarily voting for the top of the ticket anyhow -- it was Palin's incompetence that really made people realise that McCain could die in office & his VP pick could be President: if it was someone competent like Pawlenty then it wouldn't get as much attention or coverage.)
 
Truth is I found some website that had approval ratings for Clinton and McCain side-by-side for each state, and I just filled in each state with red or blue accordingly.

Which is a very bad idea from a realism point of view, since primary season state polls are completely wild - at one point back then Obama was leading in Alaska, (!) with the polls also once showing a very tight race in Texas, (!!) I seem to recall. Once things settled down, the state polls settled down.

I mean, Kentucky will vote for Hillary when hell freezes over. It's probably one of the most Conservative states in the US and Obama lost it by about sixteen points.

Also, Clark? I hope that's not Wesley Clark. Although I suppose it depends on what your POD is.
 
Last edited:
What if the Republicans tried harder to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when they were in control of congress? Things wouldn't be so bad right now if they prevented the Subprime crisis. Also, What if Bush made increasing domestic drilling a key goal after the 2004 election?

Bush and company have never exactly been big on government regulation of the type needed to do this. Yes, they could have, but it is hard to see why (almost nobody saw the collapse coming the way it did). I also fail do see what domestic drilling as an issue in 2004 would do to improve McCain's election chances.
 
If people had increased domestic drilling four years ago, the price of oil would have come down helped the economy some. Of course it would not have done anything to keep the housing bubble from bursting but bringing down the coast of gas would of had a positive effect on the economy.
 
A race for the House, 134-113-83.

I'm not sure what happened. (By the way, ignore the borders outside of the US.)

elec.PNG
 
A race for the House, 134-113-83.

I'm not sure what happened. (By the way, ignore the borders outside of the US.)

Good job, although I would kind of like to see the candidates involved.

The electoral math here is interesting as well. In otl, for example, Florida never hit 10 electoral votes until 1952. The population densities seem to be a bit higher than in otl, on average. Any idea what the POD was here?
 
Good job, although I would kind of like to see the candidates involved.

The electoral math here is interesting as well. In otl, for example, Florida never hit 10 electoral votes until 1952. The population densities seem to be a bit higher than in otl, on average. Any idea what the POD was here?

No Louisiana Purchase since the US only goes up to the Mississippi.
 
No Louisiana Purchase since the US only goes up to the Mississippi.

The problem with this is the US has cuba and the bahamas, which rather implies taking them from another power.

Maybe ITTL east of mississippi is not yet states or something.

Come to think of it, the Louisiana POD is probably one of the best ideas.
 

sprite

Donor
Monthly Donor
Davis I made up ( I couldn't really think of anyone to put as a candidate on the communist party that wouldn't make a bizillion people mad.)

Johnson refers to Gary Johnson who in OTL was the Republican governor of New Mexico.

I might actually post the background information that i came up with to make this map in a time line. Its still pretty rough right now though:)

I assumed Davis would be Angela Davis :), she'd make a bizillion people mad, but as you said this is a very different America.
 
Top