AT-200 Elections + history + outline
althistoryw :: AT
Page 1 of 1
AT-200 Elections + history + outline
by Admin Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:51 pm
Historical Background
For this timeline, we will assume that the Presidency was abolished sometime during the 1830s by John Quincy Adams, and that the Democrats=Conservatives/Tories and Liberals=Republicans (the trade issue is tough, but there is no other way around it). The system will be loosely based off the UK in that regard and in regard of a few of the major parties today, but history of the world, Americas political climate, and current events today will be dramatically different in ways you cannot imagine.
Current political parties
Labor =Left-wing Social Democratic party, formed in the mid 1910s as a combo of LaFolletes Progressive Party, Farmer-Labor, and the Socialist Party (the latter had grown extremely powerful, coming in second in the four or five way election of 1914). They first won government in 1919 under Upton Sinclair, only to be voted out for the Tories under John Nancy Garner in 1924. They got back in power in the 30s however, under Huey Long.
In this TL, you don't have a third-way movement among Social-Democratic parties (the Liberals will play that role), so Labors base is generally the same as it was in 1912 as in 2012. There would obviously be some changes, but nothing like OTL.
Overall, the Labor vote includes.
1.Working-class and blue collar voters. Union members, of which consists of 33% of the American workforce today (much higher in the past, though the decline of Unions today is not a decline, more like membership remains stagnant since the 90s). You would also have large amount of Co-operatives formed, and still in function today and dominant in the economy of many parts of the country, mostly the Upper-Midwest but also parts of Appalachia. Co-Operative Party would form this role, and obviously be merged with the Labor Party
2.Mining (and former mining) areas.
3.Minority voters, especially Hispanics (with some exceptions, Cubans vote Conservative). Blacks would vote Labor in most of the North and in parts of the South (you would get a black belt regionalist party in some rural parts though).
4.Left-wing professionals. You would obviously have some-kind of Fabian Socialism, located especially in wealthy parts of Massachusetts.
5.Urban areas/big cities
Labor would obviously poll absolute shit in wealthy suburbs, and suburbs in general with exceptions of blue collar and or working class ones.
Conservatives=Basically the Democrats in this scenario from there origins, and would be the party of the American right throughout its history. Tories main rival historically was the Liberals, who were located in the North, and the Tories in the south, then post 1910s it would obviously become Labor. There would be a consensus in the 1960s-1970s around Americas near socialist economic system of nationalization, until much of it was privatized by Conservative PM Phillis Schafley (again, not to the extent of Thatcher, but pretty harsh, though this system would have at least 1945 Britian levels of economic regulation pre-80s).
voter base
1.Wealthy Suburbs across the country.
2.Oil areas. With the exception of Alaska, which has a totally different history (wlll be explained later).
3.Business owners and Small Business. You would have some business interests support Labor do to being aligned with industrial or green interests, and some Liberal-Dem ones (read in the tech center) but overall, obviously a heavily Conservative voting block. Obviously financial sector is heavily Torie.
4.Religious voters/The Christian Right. Would be heavily Torie, though you would get a tradition of Christian Socialism, so you would have much more Socially Conservative/Fiscally Leftist types voting Labor, but overall the moral majority formed in the 1970s-1980s is obviously Torie. You would have three primary groups making up the Torie base.
-Fiscal/Business Conservatives
-Military Conservatives (The Soviets are still around in this TL, so should be self-explained)
-Religious Right
-And a fouth faction, still evident which centers around National Conservatism. Largely nationalist and socially Conservative, this faction would be concerned with defending Americas cultural values and limiting immigration.
-You would still have a heavily protectionist economy, which would be a huge debate, with the Tories favoring free-trade for there rural farming base.
5.Rural farming areas = of which, would almost all be Conservative with the exception of some along the Mississippi river and some with historical ties to the Liberal Party.
Overall the Conservatives do best in the following
-Wealthy Suburbs
-Rural Areas
-Traditional Torie stronghold of the South.
Liberal Democrats = Merger of the old Liberal Party, and the Social Democratic Alliance (SDA) the latter being lead by Gary Hart. They consisted of old school-Liberal party members and disaffected Labor members. Initially of course, then it broanded out to include many affluent suburbanites. They would usually poll about 20% depending on the year.
There primary vote includes
-Rural areas with historical ties to the Liberal Party.
-Affluent Suburbanites, who tend to have Liberal leanings but would never vote for Labor out of Stigma. Same goes with ones in the other direction for the Conservatives.
-They do quite well with Asian American voters.
Other Parties
You would have a somewhat recently formed Right-Wing Nationalist party, which would draw primarley from Ex-Torie Middle-Class voters, but also from some Labor voters (Largely in the South) and voters opposed to immigration.
This could play in with the huge debate in America over the NAEU (North American European Union) formed as a alliance against the Soviets. You would have large elements of the Left opposing this, viewing it as a Capitalist/Corporate and Imperialist alliance, but also obviously the Right-Wing. . This party is likely not as extreme (or, in the views of some, pretends not to be) as a Fascist Party formed in the South and West (though, there would be two separate ones formed). They would poll best in former NF areas.
You would have state/local parties to. For example, large parts of the Black-Belt excluding urban areas would vote for a Black Regionalist party. You would have a local Far-Right party in the South, which does best w/Whites in the Black Belt.
Alaska and Hawaii would have completely different systems with there own parties, which would form coalitions with one of the Major Parties.
You obviously have a bunch of minor parties. So a Communist, Libertarian, Green, Fascist, Troll, and other parties. These parties would prollay have various local strength in local county councils at times.
Somemore State Nationalist Parties would include Sepereatist ones. So a Texas National Party, a Cascadia National Party (first is Right-Wing, second is Left-Wing). Also some local Independent parties functioning at Various state-levels.
For this timeline, we will assume that the Presidency was abolished sometime during the 1830s by John Quincy Adams, and that the Democrats=Conservatives/Tories and Liberals=Republicans (the trade issue is tough, but there is no other way around it). The system will be loosely based off the UK in that regard and in regard of a few of the major parties today, but history of the world, Americas political climate, and current events today will be dramatically different in ways you cannot imagine.
Current political parties
Labor =Left-wing Social Democratic party, formed in the mid 1910s as a combo of LaFolletes Progressive Party, Farmer-Labor, and the Socialist Party (the latter had grown extremely powerful, coming in second in the four or five way election of 1914). They first won government in 1919 under Upton Sinclair, only to be voted out for the Tories under John Nancy Garner in 1924. They got back in power in the 30s however, under Huey Long.
In this TL, you don't have a third-way movement among Social-Democratic parties (the Liberals will play that role), so Labors base is generally the same as it was in 1912 as in 2012. There would obviously be some changes, but nothing like OTL.
Overall, the Labor vote includes.
1.Working-class and blue collar voters. Union members, of which consists of 33% of the American workforce today (much higher in the past, though the decline of Unions today is not a decline, more like membership remains stagnant since the 90s). You would also have large amount of Co-operatives formed, and still in function today and dominant in the economy of many parts of the country, mostly the Upper-Midwest but also parts of Appalachia. Co-Operative Party would form this role, and obviously be merged with the Labor Party
2.Mining (and former mining) areas.
3.Minority voters, especially Hispanics (with some exceptions, Cubans vote Conservative). Blacks would vote Labor in most of the North and in parts of the South (you would get a black belt regionalist party in some rural parts though).
4.Left-wing professionals. You would obviously have some-kind of Fabian Socialism, located especially in wealthy parts of Massachusetts.
5.Urban areas/big cities
Labor would obviously poll absolute shit in wealthy suburbs, and suburbs in general with exceptions of blue collar and or working class ones.
Conservatives=Basically the Democrats in this scenario from there origins, and would be the party of the American right throughout its history. Tories main rival historically was the Liberals, who were located in the North, and the Tories in the south, then post 1910s it would obviously become Labor. There would be a consensus in the 1960s-1970s around Americas near socialist economic system of nationalization, until much of it was privatized by Conservative PM Phillis Schafley (again, not to the extent of Thatcher, but pretty harsh, though this system would have at least 1945 Britian levels of economic regulation pre-80s).
voter base
1.Wealthy Suburbs across the country.
2.Oil areas. With the exception of Alaska, which has a totally different history (wlll be explained later).
3.Business owners and Small Business. You would have some business interests support Labor do to being aligned with industrial or green interests, and some Liberal-Dem ones (read in the tech center) but overall, obviously a heavily Conservative voting block. Obviously financial sector is heavily Torie.
4.Religious voters/The Christian Right. Would be heavily Torie, though you would get a tradition of Christian Socialism, so you would have much more Socially Conservative/Fiscally Leftist types voting Labor, but overall the moral majority formed in the 1970s-1980s is obviously Torie. You would have three primary groups making up the Torie base.
-Fiscal/Business Conservatives
-Military Conservatives (The Soviets are still around in this TL, so should be self-explained)
-Religious Right
-And a fouth faction, still evident which centers around National Conservatism. Largely nationalist and socially Conservative, this faction would be concerned with defending Americas cultural values and limiting immigration.
-You would still have a heavily protectionist economy, which would be a huge debate, with the Tories favoring free-trade for there rural farming base.
5.Rural farming areas = of which, would almost all be Conservative with the exception of some along the Mississippi river and some with historical ties to the Liberal Party.
Overall the Conservatives do best in the following
-Wealthy Suburbs
-Rural Areas
-Traditional Torie stronghold of the South.
Liberal Democrats = Merger of the old Liberal Party, and the Social Democratic Alliance (SDA) the latter being lead by Gary Hart. They consisted of old school-Liberal party members and disaffected Labor members. Initially of course, then it broanded out to include many affluent suburbanites. They would usually poll about 20% depending on the year.
There primary vote includes
-Rural areas with historical ties to the Liberal Party.
-Affluent Suburbanites, who tend to have Liberal leanings but would never vote for Labor out of Stigma. Same goes with ones in the other direction for the Conservatives.
-They do quite well with Asian American voters.
Other Parties
You would have a somewhat recently formed Right-Wing Nationalist party, which would draw primarley from Ex-Torie Middle-Class voters, but also from some Labor voters (Largely in the South) and voters opposed to immigration.
This could play in with the huge debate in America over the NAEU (North American European Union) formed as a alliance against the Soviets. You would have large elements of the Left opposing this, viewing it as a Capitalist/Corporate and Imperialist alliance, but also obviously the Right-Wing. . This party is likely not as extreme (or, in the views of some, pretends not to be) as a Fascist Party formed in the South and West (though, there would be two separate ones formed). They would poll best in former NF areas.
You would have state/local parties to. For example, large parts of the Black-Belt excluding urban areas would vote for a Black Regionalist party. You would have a local Far-Right party in the South, which does best w/Whites in the Black Belt.
Alaska and Hawaii would have completely different systems with there own parties, which would form coalitions with one of the Major Parties.
You obviously have a bunch of minor parties. So a Communist, Libertarian, Green, Fascist, Troll, and other parties. These parties would prollay have various local strength in local county councils at times.
Somemore State Nationalist Parties would include Sepereatist ones. So a Texas National Party, a Cascadia National Party (first is Right-Wing, second is Left-Wing). Also some local Independent parties functioning at Various state-levels.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 35
Join date : 2016-12-22 -
The South
by Admin Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:07 pm
The South
Would be a single-Party Tory region for the most part, with the Liberals winning in whatever Republican areas exist and areas were Blacks could vote until the 1910s. Labor would establish a base among former Populist-areas and some Working-Class White areas (Northern Louisiana). The textile strike of 1934 would go WAY further and result in forming much hate among the Southern Working-Classes towards the Torie establishment.
During the 1950s-1960s, you would have a Far-Right Party formed and lead by George Wallace. This party known as the National Front would include Conservatives who thought the Tories were not Segregationist enough and some Working Class/Poor Whites who voted Labor, fearful of civil rights legislation.In the elections of 1961, 1965, 1970, and 1974 this party (lead by Wallace everytime) would win Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and maybe Georgia or Tennessee once or twice. The Conservatives would hold on to South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia in each election.
During the 70s, the Sun-Belt sprawl and development of White Collar/Business Suburbs would come to dominate the Conservatives voter base, and the development of the New-Right. The Conservatives would also, in 1979 under leadrship of Phillis Schafley win back most of the National Front voters in the South, with remaining ones voting for some-kind of lingering Far-Right Party.
State by State Breakdown
North Carolina = Torie every year, except Labor won here in 1935 and came very close in 1997. Tories held this state throughout the 60s-70s largely on the back of the Durham/Raliegh Suburbs.
-Costal NC = Torie stronghold, NF would poll well here during 60s-70 tho.
-Upper NW NC = Labor stronghold, high Black population.
-Durham and Orange = both are Labor strongholds, esp Durham. High Lib-Dem vote in Orange.
-Durham Suburbs = Nash, Wake, and Alamance are all Torie strongholds (with a good Lib-Dem vote), and have been for over 100 years.
-Southern NC = Black areas vote Labor, Natives vote Conservative due to tradition. Brunswick and Columbus are Conservative strongholds, as is New Hanover, though New Hanover would have a strong Labor vote with Labor winning it in 1997. This area would have gone NF in the 60s-70s.
-South-Central = Charlotte is a Labor stronghold, suburbs have voted Torie, since, well forever.
-Western NC = gets interesting here. Buncombe and Watuga would vote Labor (though, historically Liberal) as would Madison, Jackson, and Yancey. This along with Black areas and Durham, would be Labors best area of the state. Lib-Dems poll very well in the three western parts of the state due to a Liberal voting tradition, if it still exists.
South Carolina = Has voted Conservative every year since the 1830s, and every-year since the Parties inception. Perfect example of the "Torie aristocracy". Labors vote is primarly in black areas, and whatever White Liberal areas exist and historical textile areas, Lib-Dems poll fourth to whatever Right-Wing Nationalist party exists here. Tories would hold this state even in 1997 and during the rise of the NF in the 60s/70s. Conservatives pretty much do well in the entire state, especially the costal areas such as Horry County and Charleston.
Georgia = would have voted Torie every year with the exceptions of 1997 and MAYBE 1935 (Labors two landslides). Would have voted National Front in 1966 or 1970, but besides that has been a Torie stronghold.
-SW Georgia = Black areas vote Labor, and White ones vote Torie. Labor would never have polled well here besides with Black voters, and in the 60s-70s you would see this area voting national front. A right-wing nationalist party would do very well here now-adays.
-SE/South Georgia = Same as SW Georgia, except Savannah votes Labor. The wealthy areas off the coast would have voted Torie since the parties inception.
-Central Georgia = same as the above pretty much. Lib-Dems poll nothing in the following three regions, coming in fifth. You would see a black regionalist party, but they poll only about 10%.
-NW Georgia = votes Torie, but would have voted Labor during the 30s, maybe early 40s, and 1997. Would have been a NF-Torie battleground in the 1960s-1970s. Huey Long would win this area for Labor during the 30s. Now-a days votes Torie, with a strong Right-Wing Nationalist vote, which could make this area a Torie/Right-Wing Nationalist battleground.
-NE Georgia = long-time Torie stronghold, and would hold for the Tories even during 1935, 1960s-1970s, and 1997 (largely due to party machines). would be a stronghold of Working-Class Torie voting. you would see some Lib-Dem in parts of this area however, or at least vastly more then surrounding parts of rural Georgia due to traditional Unionist areas. Lib-Dems poll quite well in Pickens (though, the county votes Torie), and Fannin County remains the one Lib-Dem voting county in the state (Clarke County MIGHT vote Lib-Dem occasionally).
-Atlanta = De-Kalb, Clayton, and Fulton are Labor-strongholds, and Labors best parts of the state. Labor not only dominates with Urban Working Class Blacks, but also does very well with Urban Whites here. Lib-Dems would get some support from Middle-Upper Class Whites/Blacks, and Tories from Wealthy Whites. Might see some Green vote here, or at least more then a vast majority of other parts of the South.
-Atlanta Suburbs = Gwinett, Cobb, Forsyth, and surrounding counties would be the definition of Torie strongholds, with the Conservatives always breaking 60%, and during good years 70%, and in 1983 they would break 80%. Labor does not exist in these areas, and fails often to break 10% only doing well in what run-down Minority Suburbs exist. Lib-Dems would be the second largest party, though they would not particularity well here, almost always falling under 20%. Tories would have broke 60% here even during 1997, though they would perform hilariously bad in comparison to previous results with the Lib-Dems breaking 20%.
Alabama = Is a Torie state, and would vote Torie, in recent times with a Right-Wing Nationalist party challenging strongly here or even winning. Historically a Torie state, but during 1935 flipped to Labor, and has had a history different from its neighbors Mississippi and Georgia in that it has had a large Labor movement historically and would have had a large Socialist vote. Labor wins this state in 1935, and throughout the 40s, and maybe early 50s, but then it switches back to Torie in the late 50s (though, just barley in 1958), before voting National Front from 1962-1976 in which Alabama Governor George Wallace would lead the party. The state has voted Torie since the NF collapse, with the exception of MAYBE 1997 and recently may vote for a right-wing nationalist/populist party nationally (so maybe in 2010 or 2015, not sure on that though).
So voting history
2001-present:Tory, but maybe a Right-wing National Party (have not figured out the name yet) in if not 2010, then 2015.
1997:Conservative, but Labor would nearly win the state. Would be the last time Labor ever could seriously challenge the Tories for anything here.
1987-1992:Large Tory wins
1983:Again, large Conservative win
1979:The Conservatives sweep the state
would vote National Front every year from 1966-1974. In this timeline, Big Jim Folsom holds out much longer as a national figure, so it's possible Labor holds on in Northern Alabama. The Conservatives are limited in this period to only winning in the Birmingham suburbs, so Shelby and St. Clair counties and Baldwin/Mobile counties. Labor would win Macon, and a few other Black-belt counties (Labor has held Macon since 1935) + maybe some North Alabama ones, with the NF sweeping everything else quite handily.
1965:National Front
1961:Labor (Labor barley pulled off a win here, largely on the back of Northern Alabama hill country)
1955:Conservative (though barley)
1947-1951:Labor (Under the era of Big Jim Folsom, the state would vote Labor for 16 straight years)
1943:Labor
1939:Labor
1935:Labor
Pre-1935 (Conservative every year, Populists nearly win the state in the 1880s both locally and nationally but fall short)
For region breakdown, Conservatives have held most of the Birmingham suburbs for over 100 years, Black-Belt would vote for a regionalist Black party with a few exceptions, with Urban Blacks voting Labor. Area South of the Black-Belt would be Tory, and Baldwin/Mobile Tory strongholds. Birmingham itself is a Labor stronghold, with surronding parts of the county voting Tory. You would obviously have a Fascist and or Segregationist party doing quite well in the Black-belt with Whites (would differ from a Right-Wing Nationalist Party). You might see some legacy voting for Labor in Northern Alabama. Lib-Dems poll total shit here, maybe they make some inroads with Black-Urban Upper-class voters (Working-Class Urban Blacks are Hard-Labor), and they would poll well in Winston County, maybe even win it, depending on how much historical voting in Liberal areas pools over into there overall vote.
Mississippi = Torie throughout its history. Would vote NF from 1962-1976, and Torie every year since then with possible exceptions of the last 2 elections in voting for a Right-Wing Nationalist Party. Though, I doubt that happens, simply because Mississippi would have such a powerful Torie machine that no other party can challenge the Conservatives, so with the exception of the NF era, MS has never not voted Torie. Do to a high regionalist Black Delta vote, Labor does shit here usually coming in fourth and has never had a serious presence or done well in Mississippi.
Region strength
-NE Mississippi = unlike Northern Alabama, would not have had a historical Labor voting base, and would have voted Tory every year except for perhaps during the NF era (there would be county hold-outs though).
-NW Mississippi = Black areas would vote for a regionalist party, and De-Soto and the wealthy suburbs have been Tory strongholds forever, even during the 60s-70s.
-South Mississippi = Proabably the part of Mississippi were you would see something of a Labor vote historically, due to poor share-croppers. Though, doubtful this materilezs into anything other then maybe 1-2 county wins in 1935. Would have voted NF in 60s-70s, all Tory besides that.
-Eastern Mississippi = the black areas here involve mining and logging, so they would vote Labor rather then a regionalist party. White areas vote Tory, but >80% NF in the 60s-70s.
-Mississippi Delta = you have a regionalist black party, then a far-right fascist party. Labor is regulated to fourth, Lib-Dems don't exist (well, they wouldint in ANY part of Mississippi). Madison County holds for the Tories though, throughout its history.
Louisiana = Most interesting Southern state to do, and would have a very interesting political history. Would be Conservative until the 1910s, with a high Socialist vote, and later Labor vote, unusual for a Southern state, especially in the Conservative heartland. Labor failed to carry this state in 1918 under the leadership and victory of Upton Sinclair, and the state would vote Conservative until 1935, when Louisiana Governor and the most well known Labor PM Huey Long won the prime ministership. Louisiana Whites would largely vote Labor, even as Labor ceased to exist among most said voters in the 50s. However, Louisiana would vote Labor in 1961 for John F. Kennedy, the only deep South state to do so, and although Louisiana voted National Front throughout the 60s-70s, it still gave Labor its best results in the Deep South. Louisiana would return to the Tories after Phyllis Schlafly moved the party to the Right and disposed of Centrist Tory leader Richard M. Nixon under the banner of the New Right, and the Tories would regain control over most of the state (with some exceptions), and the state would vote Conservative throughout the 80s and into the 90s. However, Louisiana returned to Labor in 1997, 2001, and 2005, only to return to voting Conservative in 2010 and 2015. Now, it remains largely a Conservative state, due to Tory dominance in most of rural Louisiana, the Orleans suburbs such as St. Tammany and St. Bernard. Still, the legacy of Huey Long remains in the state, with a handful of Pariashes still voting Labor, and some electing Labor MPs, in areas unlike similar areas in the South in which Labor has long been whipped out in (or, quite often never even existed in).
Suburbs of Orleans = Hard-Line Tory, and have voted that way since the Tories inception (some, such as St. Bernard flipped to the NF however during the 60s-70s). You would see counties like Placquiemnes voting Tory pretty much everytime. The Suburbs of Orleans are the Tories best part of the state, with St. Tammany Parish being there best. Tories often break 80% in St. Tammany, which allows them a solid grip on the state as a whole.
Orleans = Would be Tory until really the 70s. Anti-Long sentiment among the Orleans power structure would lead to the city being a Conservative stronghold among its White residents, however a large Black population and eventual voting of Blacks would flip the city to Labors column, were it has been ever since.
Central Louisiana = area outside of Cajun Country, Terrebone area, so lets say South-Central. Would be Tory, then NF, then Tory for its history. Maybe in the 30s it goes Labor due to Long being on the ballot. The Black counties such as Iberville would vote Labor, and East-Baton Rouge and so fourth. Unlike AL/MS, there would be no regionalist Black Party, or if there is it would be quite small.
Cajun Country = Would be pretty solid Tory until the 30s, when it flips for Long. Then tend to be a Labor-leaning area to this day, especially in 1961 when John F. Kennedy won the state largely off high turnout/vote here. Would vote NF, however at least in 1970 and 1974, then flip to the Tories during the 80s. However, Cajun country would find itself back at home with Labor starting in 1997, and since then is a Labor-leaning area (so, similar to 1988 OTL election is how Cajun country usually votes).
Northern Louisiana = Voted Conservative, but quickly became a Socialist stronghold in the late 1890s. The Socialist party would do quite well in Louisiana (far better then any other Southern state) largely due to Northern Louisiana, the area around Winn Parish, quickly becoming a Socialist stronghold. Although the Socialists never won the state due to the Conservatives lock on the south-eastern part of the state and Orleans political machine/suburbs, they would come to dominate Central-Northern Louisiana politics for quite sometime. In the election of 1914, Eugene Debs polled 73% of the vote in Winn Parish, and several nearby parishes broke 50% for the socialists, such as Grant, LaSalle, Franklin, and West Carroll. This pattern remained consistent, even after the Socialists failed to make gains among most of the Southern White Working class under Upton Sinclair. In 1935, Labor leader Huey Long, native of Winn Parish, who drew his strength from Northern Louisiana in every single one of his runs, was elected Prime Minister. Long had pulled shocking wins against the Tory establishment in 1928 in his victory for Louisiana Governor, and his ascendency to Prime Minister and passage of the radical leftist Share Our Wealth Agenda, continued to make Northern Louisiana a Labor stronghold. The area would, however move away from Labor during the 60s-70s, when George Wallace and the National Front won nearly every Parish (with some exceptions, such as Winn Parish), and throughout the 80s and 90s in which the Tories would come to dominate this area to this day. You would also see a large Right-Wing Nationalist voter here.
Arkansas = Conservative, but Socialists might pick up a few wins early on, and it def flips to Labor in 1935 and throughout the 40s/early 50s. Then flips back to Conservatives, votes NF 1966, 1970, and 1974, before flipping back to the Conservatives in 1979. Would vote Labor in 1997, then flip back Tory every year since then, unless they vote for a Right-Wing Nationalist Party in recent elections (very possible).
Tennessee = Suburbs of Nashville would be Tory throughout there history, same with many of the rural counties in Western TN. Labor would however flip this state in 1935, and you would see a large Labor vote in areas controlled by the TN Valley Authority. Would stay with the Tories likely during the NF rise, maybe Labor picks it up one year do to vote splitting and strength with Working Class Whites/Blacks around Nashville, but not sure, and could vote NF in one of those years. Since 1979, all Tory, except for in 1997, and Tories have won it in 2001, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Lib-Dems would do best here of any Southern state (besides Florida) and do well in Eastern Tennessee depending, again, on how much of historical Liberal voting still exists in those areas, and maybe parts of Nashville.
Florida = Overall a Tory stronghold. Labor has won this state three times 1997, 1935, and maybe in 1942. Besides, that has voted Tory every-year with the exceptions of reconstruction. Minorities are more Conservative here then most areas, and Cubans are heavily Conservative voting. You also have the Suburbs of Dade such as Collier anchoring the Conservative vote, and Tampa suburbs/area likely vote Conservative. Maybe Orlando votes Labor, Aluchua does. Best Lib-Dem areas would be Palm Beach and Broward, which I am still not certain who they vote for. Labor would do well with the states Older Jewish voters (with historical ties to the party), Blacks, and Puerto Ricans, but not much else.
South Florida = Miami-Dade is I guess overall a slightly Labor leaning county. Palm Beach/Broward vote Conservative until the 90s, in which Lib-Dems carry one of them. Monroe remains a Labor leaning county, rest is Conservative especially Collier. Overall, a Conservative voting area.
Florida Panhandle = Conservative, but a Right-Wing Nationalist party would make inroads in some of the rural areas. Pensacola is a Tory stronghold, and Escambia has voted Tory pretty much every year. Labor would have done well in the panhandle at one time, but that time has long since passed. Leon and Gasden, however vote Labor (the first due to Youth, second do to large black population). NF would win in the panhandle during 60s-70s, but lose the state due to the high Tory vote in the suburbs.
Jacksonville area = Solid Conservative, not much more to say.
Tampa Area = Conservative, would have been Labor at one time though.
Orlando Area = Labor prollay wins Orange County, rest is Tory.
Polk Area = Labor did well here at one time, now heavily Tory.
Would be a single-Party Tory region for the most part, with the Liberals winning in whatever Republican areas exist and areas were Blacks could vote until the 1910s. Labor would establish a base among former Populist-areas and some Working-Class White areas (Northern Louisiana). The textile strike of 1934 would go WAY further and result in forming much hate among the Southern Working-Classes towards the Torie establishment.
During the 1950s-1960s, you would have a Far-Right Party formed and lead by George Wallace. This party known as the National Front would include Conservatives who thought the Tories were not Segregationist enough and some Working Class/Poor Whites who voted Labor, fearful of civil rights legislation.In the elections of 1961, 1965, 1970, and 1974 this party (lead by Wallace everytime) would win Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and maybe Georgia or Tennessee once or twice. The Conservatives would hold on to South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia in each election.
During the 70s, the Sun-Belt sprawl and development of White Collar/Business Suburbs would come to dominate the Conservatives voter base, and the development of the New-Right. The Conservatives would also, in 1979 under leadrship of Phillis Schafley win back most of the National Front voters in the South, with remaining ones voting for some-kind of lingering Far-Right Party.
State by State Breakdown
North Carolina = Torie every year, except Labor won here in 1935 and came very close in 1997. Tories held this state throughout the 60s-70s largely on the back of the Durham/Raliegh Suburbs.
-Costal NC = Torie stronghold, NF would poll well here during 60s-70 tho.
-Upper NW NC = Labor stronghold, high Black population.
-Durham and Orange = both are Labor strongholds, esp Durham. High Lib-Dem vote in Orange.
-Durham Suburbs = Nash, Wake, and Alamance are all Torie strongholds (with a good Lib-Dem vote), and have been for over 100 years.
-Southern NC = Black areas vote Labor, Natives vote Conservative due to tradition. Brunswick and Columbus are Conservative strongholds, as is New Hanover, though New Hanover would have a strong Labor vote with Labor winning it in 1997. This area would have gone NF in the 60s-70s.
-South-Central = Charlotte is a Labor stronghold, suburbs have voted Torie, since, well forever.
-Western NC = gets interesting here. Buncombe and Watuga would vote Labor (though, historically Liberal) as would Madison, Jackson, and Yancey. This along with Black areas and Durham, would be Labors best area of the state. Lib-Dems poll very well in the three western parts of the state due to a Liberal voting tradition, if it still exists.
South Carolina = Has voted Conservative every year since the 1830s, and every-year since the Parties inception. Perfect example of the "Torie aristocracy". Labors vote is primarly in black areas, and whatever White Liberal areas exist and historical textile areas, Lib-Dems poll fourth to whatever Right-Wing Nationalist party exists here. Tories would hold this state even in 1997 and during the rise of the NF in the 60s/70s. Conservatives pretty much do well in the entire state, especially the costal areas such as Horry County and Charleston.
Georgia = would have voted Torie every year with the exceptions of 1997 and MAYBE 1935 (Labors two landslides). Would have voted National Front in 1966 or 1970, but besides that has been a Torie stronghold.
-SW Georgia = Black areas vote Labor, and White ones vote Torie. Labor would never have polled well here besides with Black voters, and in the 60s-70s you would see this area voting national front. A right-wing nationalist party would do very well here now-adays.
-SE/South Georgia = Same as SW Georgia, except Savannah votes Labor. The wealthy areas off the coast would have voted Torie since the parties inception.
-Central Georgia = same as the above pretty much. Lib-Dems poll nothing in the following three regions, coming in fifth. You would see a black regionalist party, but they poll only about 10%.
-NW Georgia = votes Torie, but would have voted Labor during the 30s, maybe early 40s, and 1997. Would have been a NF-Torie battleground in the 1960s-1970s. Huey Long would win this area for Labor during the 30s. Now-a days votes Torie, with a strong Right-Wing Nationalist vote, which could make this area a Torie/Right-Wing Nationalist battleground.
-NE Georgia = long-time Torie stronghold, and would hold for the Tories even during 1935, 1960s-1970s, and 1997 (largely due to party machines). would be a stronghold of Working-Class Torie voting. you would see some Lib-Dem in parts of this area however, or at least vastly more then surrounding parts of rural Georgia due to traditional Unionist areas. Lib-Dems poll quite well in Pickens (though, the county votes Torie), and Fannin County remains the one Lib-Dem voting county in the state (Clarke County MIGHT vote Lib-Dem occasionally).
-Atlanta = De-Kalb, Clayton, and Fulton are Labor-strongholds, and Labors best parts of the state. Labor not only dominates with Urban Working Class Blacks, but also does very well with Urban Whites here. Lib-Dems would get some support from Middle-Upper Class Whites/Blacks, and Tories from Wealthy Whites. Might see some Green vote here, or at least more then a vast majority of other parts of the South.
-Atlanta Suburbs = Gwinett, Cobb, Forsyth, and surrounding counties would be the definition of Torie strongholds, with the Conservatives always breaking 60%, and during good years 70%, and in 1983 they would break 80%. Labor does not exist in these areas, and fails often to break 10% only doing well in what run-down Minority Suburbs exist. Lib-Dems would be the second largest party, though they would not particularity well here, almost always falling under 20%. Tories would have broke 60% here even during 1997, though they would perform hilariously bad in comparison to previous results with the Lib-Dems breaking 20%.
Alabama = Is a Torie state, and would vote Torie, in recent times with a Right-Wing Nationalist party challenging strongly here or even winning. Historically a Torie state, but during 1935 flipped to Labor, and has had a history different from its neighbors Mississippi and Georgia in that it has had a large Labor movement historically and would have had a large Socialist vote. Labor wins this state in 1935, and throughout the 40s, and maybe early 50s, but then it switches back to Torie in the late 50s (though, just barley in 1958), before voting National Front from 1962-1976 in which Alabama Governor George Wallace would lead the party. The state has voted Torie since the NF collapse, with the exception of MAYBE 1997 and recently may vote for a right-wing nationalist/populist party nationally (so maybe in 2010 or 2015, not sure on that though).
So voting history
2001-present:Tory, but maybe a Right-wing National Party (have not figured out the name yet) in if not 2010, then 2015.
1997:Conservative, but Labor would nearly win the state. Would be the last time Labor ever could seriously challenge the Tories for anything here.
1987-1992:Large Tory wins
1983:Again, large Conservative win
1979:The Conservatives sweep the state
would vote National Front every year from 1966-1974. In this timeline, Big Jim Folsom holds out much longer as a national figure, so it's possible Labor holds on in Northern Alabama. The Conservatives are limited in this period to only winning in the Birmingham suburbs, so Shelby and St. Clair counties and Baldwin/Mobile counties. Labor would win Macon, and a few other Black-belt counties (Labor has held Macon since 1935) + maybe some North Alabama ones, with the NF sweeping everything else quite handily.
1965:National Front
1961:Labor (Labor barley pulled off a win here, largely on the back of Northern Alabama hill country)
1955:Conservative (though barley)
1947-1951:Labor (Under the era of Big Jim Folsom, the state would vote Labor for 16 straight years)
1943:Labor
1939:Labor
1935:Labor
Pre-1935 (Conservative every year, Populists nearly win the state in the 1880s both locally and nationally but fall short)
For region breakdown, Conservatives have held most of the Birmingham suburbs for over 100 years, Black-Belt would vote for a regionalist Black party with a few exceptions, with Urban Blacks voting Labor. Area South of the Black-Belt would be Tory, and Baldwin/Mobile Tory strongholds. Birmingham itself is a Labor stronghold, with surronding parts of the county voting Tory. You would obviously have a Fascist and or Segregationist party doing quite well in the Black-belt with Whites (would differ from a Right-Wing Nationalist Party). You might see some legacy voting for Labor in Northern Alabama. Lib-Dems poll total shit here, maybe they make some inroads with Black-Urban Upper-class voters (Working-Class Urban Blacks are Hard-Labor), and they would poll well in Winston County, maybe even win it, depending on how much historical voting in Liberal areas pools over into there overall vote.
Mississippi = Torie throughout its history. Would vote NF from 1962-1976, and Torie every year since then with possible exceptions of the last 2 elections in voting for a Right-Wing Nationalist Party. Though, I doubt that happens, simply because Mississippi would have such a powerful Torie machine that no other party can challenge the Conservatives, so with the exception of the NF era, MS has never not voted Torie. Do to a high regionalist Black Delta vote, Labor does shit here usually coming in fourth and has never had a serious presence or done well in Mississippi.
Region strength
-NE Mississippi = unlike Northern Alabama, would not have had a historical Labor voting base, and would have voted Tory every year except for perhaps during the NF era (there would be county hold-outs though).
-NW Mississippi = Black areas would vote for a regionalist party, and De-Soto and the wealthy suburbs have been Tory strongholds forever, even during the 60s-70s.
-South Mississippi = Proabably the part of Mississippi were you would see something of a Labor vote historically, due to poor share-croppers. Though, doubtful this materilezs into anything other then maybe 1-2 county wins in 1935. Would have voted NF in 60s-70s, all Tory besides that.
-Eastern Mississippi = the black areas here involve mining and logging, so they would vote Labor rather then a regionalist party. White areas vote Tory, but >80% NF in the 60s-70s.
-Mississippi Delta = you have a regionalist black party, then a far-right fascist party. Labor is regulated to fourth, Lib-Dems don't exist (well, they wouldint in ANY part of Mississippi). Madison County holds for the Tories though, throughout its history.
Louisiana = Most interesting Southern state to do, and would have a very interesting political history. Would be Conservative until the 1910s, with a high Socialist vote, and later Labor vote, unusual for a Southern state, especially in the Conservative heartland. Labor failed to carry this state in 1918 under the leadership and victory of Upton Sinclair, and the state would vote Conservative until 1935, when Louisiana Governor and the most well known Labor PM Huey Long won the prime ministership. Louisiana Whites would largely vote Labor, even as Labor ceased to exist among most said voters in the 50s. However, Louisiana would vote Labor in 1961 for John F. Kennedy, the only deep South state to do so, and although Louisiana voted National Front throughout the 60s-70s, it still gave Labor its best results in the Deep South. Louisiana would return to the Tories after Phyllis Schlafly moved the party to the Right and disposed of Centrist Tory leader Richard M. Nixon under the banner of the New Right, and the Tories would regain control over most of the state (with some exceptions), and the state would vote Conservative throughout the 80s and into the 90s. However, Louisiana returned to Labor in 1997, 2001, and 2005, only to return to voting Conservative in 2010 and 2015. Now, it remains largely a Conservative state, due to Tory dominance in most of rural Louisiana, the Orleans suburbs such as St. Tammany and St. Bernard. Still, the legacy of Huey Long remains in the state, with a handful of Pariashes still voting Labor, and some electing Labor MPs, in areas unlike similar areas in the South in which Labor has long been whipped out in (or, quite often never even existed in).
Suburbs of Orleans = Hard-Line Tory, and have voted that way since the Tories inception (some, such as St. Bernard flipped to the NF however during the 60s-70s). You would see counties like Placquiemnes voting Tory pretty much everytime. The Suburbs of Orleans are the Tories best part of the state, with St. Tammany Parish being there best. Tories often break 80% in St. Tammany, which allows them a solid grip on the state as a whole.
Orleans = Would be Tory until really the 70s. Anti-Long sentiment among the Orleans power structure would lead to the city being a Conservative stronghold among its White residents, however a large Black population and eventual voting of Blacks would flip the city to Labors column, were it has been ever since.
Central Louisiana = area outside of Cajun Country, Terrebone area, so lets say South-Central. Would be Tory, then NF, then Tory for its history. Maybe in the 30s it goes Labor due to Long being on the ballot. The Black counties such as Iberville would vote Labor, and East-Baton Rouge and so fourth. Unlike AL/MS, there would be no regionalist Black Party, or if there is it would be quite small.
Cajun Country = Would be pretty solid Tory until the 30s, when it flips for Long. Then tend to be a Labor-leaning area to this day, especially in 1961 when John F. Kennedy won the state largely off high turnout/vote here. Would vote NF, however at least in 1970 and 1974, then flip to the Tories during the 80s. However, Cajun country would find itself back at home with Labor starting in 1997, and since then is a Labor-leaning area (so, similar to 1988 OTL election is how Cajun country usually votes).
Northern Louisiana = Voted Conservative, but quickly became a Socialist stronghold in the late 1890s. The Socialist party would do quite well in Louisiana (far better then any other Southern state) largely due to Northern Louisiana, the area around Winn Parish, quickly becoming a Socialist stronghold. Although the Socialists never won the state due to the Conservatives lock on the south-eastern part of the state and Orleans political machine/suburbs, they would come to dominate Central-Northern Louisiana politics for quite sometime. In the election of 1914, Eugene Debs polled 73% of the vote in Winn Parish, and several nearby parishes broke 50% for the socialists, such as Grant, LaSalle, Franklin, and West Carroll. This pattern remained consistent, even after the Socialists failed to make gains among most of the Southern White Working class under Upton Sinclair. In 1935, Labor leader Huey Long, native of Winn Parish, who drew his strength from Northern Louisiana in every single one of his runs, was elected Prime Minister. Long had pulled shocking wins against the Tory establishment in 1928 in his victory for Louisiana Governor, and his ascendency to Prime Minister and passage of the radical leftist Share Our Wealth Agenda, continued to make Northern Louisiana a Labor stronghold. The area would, however move away from Labor during the 60s-70s, when George Wallace and the National Front won nearly every Parish (with some exceptions, such as Winn Parish), and throughout the 80s and 90s in which the Tories would come to dominate this area to this day. You would also see a large Right-Wing Nationalist voter here.
Arkansas = Conservative, but Socialists might pick up a few wins early on, and it def flips to Labor in 1935 and throughout the 40s/early 50s. Then flips back to Conservatives, votes NF 1966, 1970, and 1974, before flipping back to the Conservatives in 1979. Would vote Labor in 1997, then flip back Tory every year since then, unless they vote for a Right-Wing Nationalist Party in recent elections (very possible).
Tennessee = Suburbs of Nashville would be Tory throughout there history, same with many of the rural counties in Western TN. Labor would however flip this state in 1935, and you would see a large Labor vote in areas controlled by the TN Valley Authority. Would stay with the Tories likely during the NF rise, maybe Labor picks it up one year do to vote splitting and strength with Working Class Whites/Blacks around Nashville, but not sure, and could vote NF in one of those years. Since 1979, all Tory, except for in 1997, and Tories have won it in 2001, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Lib-Dems would do best here of any Southern state (besides Florida) and do well in Eastern Tennessee depending, again, on how much of historical Liberal voting still exists in those areas, and maybe parts of Nashville.
Florida = Overall a Tory stronghold. Labor has won this state three times 1997, 1935, and maybe in 1942. Besides, that has voted Tory every-year with the exceptions of reconstruction. Minorities are more Conservative here then most areas, and Cubans are heavily Conservative voting. You also have the Suburbs of Dade such as Collier anchoring the Conservative vote, and Tampa suburbs/area likely vote Conservative. Maybe Orlando votes Labor, Aluchua does. Best Lib-Dem areas would be Palm Beach and Broward, which I am still not certain who they vote for. Labor would do well with the states Older Jewish voters (with historical ties to the party), Blacks, and Puerto Ricans, but not much else.
South Florida = Miami-Dade is I guess overall a slightly Labor leaning county. Palm Beach/Broward vote Conservative until the 90s, in which Lib-Dems carry one of them. Monroe remains a Labor leaning county, rest is Conservative especially Collier. Overall, a Conservative voting area.
Florida Panhandle = Conservative, but a Right-Wing Nationalist party would make inroads in some of the rural areas. Pensacola is a Tory stronghold, and Escambia has voted Tory pretty much every year. Labor would have done well in the panhandle at one time, but that time has long since passed. Leon and Gasden, however vote Labor (the first due to Youth, second do to large black population). NF would win in the panhandle during 60s-70s, but lose the state due to the high Tory vote in the suburbs.
Jacksonville area = Solid Conservative, not much more to say.
Tampa Area = Conservative, would have been Labor at one time though.
Orlando Area = Labor prollay wins Orange County, rest is Tory.
Polk Area = Labor did well here at one time, now heavily Tory.
Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:46 pm; edited 9 times in total
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 35
Join date : 2016-12-22 -
Border States
by Admin Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:27 pm
District of Columbia = Labor every year since it started voting in 1955. Not really much else to explain here.
Maryland = Swing state, historically votes for the winning candidate. Labor wins in the Urban areas such as Baltimore, Lib-Dem in the bed-room communities of Washington DC (though, Prince George goes Labor), and might win in some of the western counties due to historical voting. The South-shore votes heavily Torie, with a high NF vote during the 60s-70s, and Baltimore County votes Tory, along with wealthy counties such as Fredrick being heavily Torie. Overall, this state would be swing (any of the three parties could win it), but usually vote for the Lib-Dems due to polling well in DC bedroom suburbs and Western Maryland.
Delaware = Overall would be Conservative, Lib-Dem could win here though. South Delaware (Kent/Sussex) would vote Tory, but I could see some LibDem historical voting in Sussex. New Castle is Lib-Dem. Really don't see Labor doing to well in the home state of the Credit Card companies, maybe high Black vote could give them the occasional win.
How Deleware would roughly vote
2010-2015:Conservative
2005:Lib-Dem
1997-2001:Labor
1966-1992:all Conservative
Missouri = the ultimate swing state, has voted for the winning party every year since 1916. Best guess is Conservative does best in rural areas and the White-Collar Suburbs of St. Louis (such as St. Louis county, which is a Tory stronghold) and Labor does best in St. Louis (Labor stronghold), KC/Jackson County, and working-class suburbs such as Jefferson or St. Geneve.
Kentucky = Very interesting state. Would be Tory up until 1935 (with the occasional Liberal win), and after that would generally be a Labor-leaning swing state depending on the year. Conservatives do best in some of the rural areas along Grayson County, The Cincinnati Suburbs (of Campbell, Kenton, and Boone) in which they absolutely dominate in and the suburbs of Lexington/Lousiville (Jessimine County area is hard-Torie), and South-Central KY. Labor does best in Western Kentucky (area around Henderson County), Western Kentucky (which would be a hard-line Labor stronghold for the most part, with area like Knott and Floyd giving > 70% to Labor everytime), and the Urban areas such as Lexington or Louisville.
Eastern Kentucky = would be Tory up until the 20s, in which it would start to move towards Labor, then switch fully to Labor with a few exceptions to this day. Lib-Dems might win thoise three counties above the Labor stronghold of Pike which include Martin, Johnson, and Lawerence do to historical voting. Not sure though. Mining areas=Labor, and non-mining=Conservative or Lib-Dem, really depends on traditional voting patterns for the latter.
Western Kentucky = Labor-leaning overall, Henderson is Labor, so are some of the boot-legg counties which started voting Socialist early, much of the rural areas are Tory though, and have been since the Torys inception.
Suburbs of Lexington/Louisville = Hard-core Conservative. Vote Tory every-year. Oldham would be the personification of this, so would Campbell/Kenton/Boone.
Urban Areas = all Labor. Have been since the 30s.
Rural areas outside of Hancock = Tory, and have voted that way for quite sometime. This is the area which dips slightly into South-Central KY.
South-Central Kentucky = Votes Conservative overall since the Liberals collapse, Labor polls shit here, and Lib-Dems are the main opposition, but the area is solidly Tory overall. However, you might see some counties still voting Lib-Dem purely out of a legacy vote.
So to to summarize Kentucky up...
-Urban Areas/Big Cities + Mining Counties (East KY) + Minority Areas = Solid Labor
-Wealthy/Middle-Class White Collar Suburbs + Rural Areas = Solid Conservative
-Lib-Dem areas, if they exist, would be historically Unionist/Republican ones.
Overall voting history of Kentucky
2010-2015:Not sure actually. I would say Labor in 2015, maybe Conservative in 2010.
1997-2005:Labor
1992:Labor, due to a massive backlash in coal country against Phyllis Schlafly closing down many of the coal mines and cracking down hard on the coal miners strike of 1985. Scranton MP and Labor Leader Joe Biden was able to hit this issue home, winning Kentucky.
1987:Conservative, but high turnout in Coal Country made this state closer then expected.
1983:Conservative, big win for the Tories, with Labor basically only carrying counties in eastern KY.
1979:Conservative
West Virginia = A Labor stronghold, and would be Labors 5th best state in the nation with only DC, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Minnesota (in that specific order) being stronger for Labor. Would have started out as a Liberal start during the civil war era, then switched to Tories post-reconstruction, then back to the Liberals with the exception of 1922-1923 (which it voted Labor), and then in 1935 become a solid Labor state voting Labor every year with the exception of 1983 in which the Tories won it do to a vote split between the SDP-Labor.
-NW WV = Area around Wheeling/Monogolia/Marion, would be a Hard-Labor stronghold, with the exception of 1983. Would have also voted Socialist during the 1900s, so has voted Labor/Socialist since basically the start of the 20th century. Star City would be a bedrock of American Socialism, and Monogolia having voted Labor every year since the parties creation.
-Western Strip = The western strip of counties around Wood county would vote Torie, but would have a decent Lib-Dem vote due to historical reasons.
-WV Panhandle = The areas near Maryland vote Torie, some of the outer-rural parts such as Randolph vote Labor. Lib-Dems might win in Grant County due to historical reasons,
-Central WV = Labor stronghold. Areas around Kanawaha, again Labor strongholds. Kanawha has voted Labor every year since 1935, with the exception of 1983 due to vote splitting.
-South WV = The coalfields of Southern WV are a Hard-Labor stronghold, heavily unionized, and one of Labors best regions in the country, with Labor always breaking 60% here, even 70% often. Labor wins >70% in McDowell nearly every year, and this area has been held by Labor every year since 1935. Lib-Dems poll basically nothing here, never reaching double digits. Even in 1983 this area went solid Labor well over 50%.
Virginia = Would have voted Conservative every year since the parties inception in 1834. Labor would come close to flipping this state twice, in the landslide elections of *1997 and 1935, however would be unable to.
* = in 1997 large chance VA flips, for now it stays Torie.
-Virginia Beach = votes Torie, and has voted Torie every year with the exception of 1997 in which Labor won it.
-Rural Northern Virginia = the counties surrounding NoVA have been Conservative every year since the parties inception.
-Tidewater/Cheapsakake Bay = Again, all Torie for 100+ years, except for Black parts which vote Labor.
-Richimond Area = suburbs are hard-Torie, but Richimond itself is Labor.
-NoVA = historically a Torie stronghold, but differs a bit now. The Liberal Democrats would have good strength here, FairFax would be a Torie-Lib-Dem battleground (depends on the year), Prince William/Loundon are swing, and Arlington/Alexandria would be Lib-Dem or Labor.
-Central-VA = again, all Torie except for some of the Liberal parts/college towns would vote Labor such as Albemarle.
-SW VA = Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, and other mining areas are Hard-Labor, and have been voting Labor since the 30s. Montgomery County is Labor due to VA Tech, and Lib-Dems do well in parts of SW VA with a historical Liberal voting history (so historical Republican vote, pre-1930s).
-Southern VA = Torie stronghold, however might have gone NF during 60s-70s (actually, prollay does)
Maryland = Swing state, historically votes for the winning candidate. Labor wins in the Urban areas such as Baltimore, Lib-Dem in the bed-room communities of Washington DC (though, Prince George goes Labor), and might win in some of the western counties due to historical voting. The South-shore votes heavily Torie, with a high NF vote during the 60s-70s, and Baltimore County votes Tory, along with wealthy counties such as Fredrick being heavily Torie. Overall, this state would be swing (any of the three parties could win it), but usually vote for the Lib-Dems due to polling well in DC bedroom suburbs and Western Maryland.
Delaware = Overall would be Conservative, Lib-Dem could win here though. South Delaware (Kent/Sussex) would vote Tory, but I could see some LibDem historical voting in Sussex. New Castle is Lib-Dem. Really don't see Labor doing to well in the home state of the Credit Card companies, maybe high Black vote could give them the occasional win.
How Deleware would roughly vote
2010-2015:Conservative
2005:Lib-Dem
1997-2001:Labor
1966-1992:all Conservative
Missouri = the ultimate swing state, has voted for the winning party every year since 1916. Best guess is Conservative does best in rural areas and the White-Collar Suburbs of St. Louis (such as St. Louis county, which is a Tory stronghold) and Labor does best in St. Louis (Labor stronghold), KC/Jackson County, and working-class suburbs such as Jefferson or St. Geneve.
Kentucky = Very interesting state. Would be Tory up until 1935 (with the occasional Liberal win), and after that would generally be a Labor-leaning swing state depending on the year. Conservatives do best in some of the rural areas along Grayson County, The Cincinnati Suburbs (of Campbell, Kenton, and Boone) in which they absolutely dominate in and the suburbs of Lexington/Lousiville (Jessimine County area is hard-Torie), and South-Central KY. Labor does best in Western Kentucky (area around Henderson County), Western Kentucky (which would be a hard-line Labor stronghold for the most part, with area like Knott and Floyd giving > 70% to Labor everytime), and the Urban areas such as Lexington or Louisville.
Eastern Kentucky = would be Tory up until the 20s, in which it would start to move towards Labor, then switch fully to Labor with a few exceptions to this day. Lib-Dems might win thoise three counties above the Labor stronghold of Pike which include Martin, Johnson, and Lawerence do to historical voting. Not sure though. Mining areas=Labor, and non-mining=Conservative or Lib-Dem, really depends on traditional voting patterns for the latter.
Western Kentucky = Labor-leaning overall, Henderson is Labor, so are some of the boot-legg counties which started voting Socialist early, much of the rural areas are Tory though, and have been since the Torys inception.
Suburbs of Lexington/Louisville = Hard-core Conservative. Vote Tory every-year. Oldham would be the personification of this, so would Campbell/Kenton/Boone.
Urban Areas = all Labor. Have been since the 30s.
Rural areas outside of Hancock = Tory, and have voted that way for quite sometime. This is the area which dips slightly into South-Central KY.
South-Central Kentucky = Votes Conservative overall since the Liberals collapse, Labor polls shit here, and Lib-Dems are the main opposition, but the area is solidly Tory overall. However, you might see some counties still voting Lib-Dem purely out of a legacy vote.
So to to summarize Kentucky up...
-Urban Areas/Big Cities + Mining Counties (East KY) + Minority Areas = Solid Labor
-Wealthy/Middle-Class White Collar Suburbs + Rural Areas = Solid Conservative
-Lib-Dem areas, if they exist, would be historically Unionist/Republican ones.
Overall voting history of Kentucky
2010-2015:Not sure actually. I would say Labor in 2015, maybe Conservative in 2010.
1997-2005:Labor
1992:Labor, due to a massive backlash in coal country against Phyllis Schlafly closing down many of the coal mines and cracking down hard on the coal miners strike of 1985. Scranton MP and Labor Leader Joe Biden was able to hit this issue home, winning Kentucky.
1987:Conservative, but high turnout in Coal Country made this state closer then expected.
1983:Conservative, big win for the Tories, with Labor basically only carrying counties in eastern KY.
1979:Conservative
West Virginia = A Labor stronghold, and would be Labors 5th best state in the nation with only DC, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Minnesota (in that specific order) being stronger for Labor. Would have started out as a Liberal start during the civil war era, then switched to Tories post-reconstruction, then back to the Liberals with the exception of 1922-1923 (which it voted Labor), and then in 1935 become a solid Labor state voting Labor every year with the exception of 1983 in which the Tories won it do to a vote split between the SDP-Labor.
-NW WV = Area around Wheeling/Monogolia/Marion, would be a Hard-Labor stronghold, with the exception of 1983. Would have also voted Socialist during the 1900s, so has voted Labor/Socialist since basically the start of the 20th century. Star City would be a bedrock of American Socialism, and Monogolia having voted Labor every year since the parties creation.
-Western Strip = The western strip of counties around Wood county would vote Torie, but would have a decent Lib-Dem vote due to historical reasons.
-WV Panhandle = The areas near Maryland vote Torie, some of the outer-rural parts such as Randolph vote Labor. Lib-Dems might win in Grant County due to historical reasons,
-Central WV = Labor stronghold. Areas around Kanawaha, again Labor strongholds. Kanawha has voted Labor every year since 1935, with the exception of 1983 due to vote splitting.
-South WV = The coalfields of Southern WV are a Hard-Labor stronghold, heavily unionized, and one of Labors best regions in the country, with Labor always breaking 60% here, even 70% often. Labor wins >70% in McDowell nearly every year, and this area has been held by Labor every year since 1935. Lib-Dems poll basically nothing here, never reaching double digits. Even in 1983 this area went solid Labor well over 50%.
Virginia = Would have voted Conservative every year since the parties inception in 1834. Labor would come close to flipping this state twice, in the landslide elections of *1997 and 1935, however would be unable to.
* = in 1997 large chance VA flips, for now it stays Torie.
-Virginia Beach = votes Torie, and has voted Torie every year with the exception of 1997 in which Labor won it.
-Rural Northern Virginia = the counties surrounding NoVA have been Conservative every year since the parties inception.
-Tidewater/Cheapsakake Bay = Again, all Torie for 100+ years, except for Black parts which vote Labor.
-Richimond Area = suburbs are hard-Torie, but Richimond itself is Labor.
-NoVA = historically a Torie stronghold, but differs a bit now. The Liberal Democrats would have good strength here, FairFax would be a Torie-Lib-Dem battleground (depends on the year), Prince William/Loundon are swing, and Arlington/Alexandria would be Lib-Dem or Labor.
-Central-VA = again, all Torie except for some of the Liberal parts/college towns would vote Labor such as Albemarle.
-SW VA = Buchanan, Dickenson, Lee, and other mining areas are Hard-Labor, and have been voting Labor since the 30s. Montgomery County is Labor due to VA Tech, and Lib-Dems do well in parts of SW VA with a historical Liberal voting history (so historical Republican vote, pre-1930s).
-Southern VA = Torie stronghold, however might have gone NF during 60s-70s (actually, prollay does)
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 35
Join date : 2016-12-22 -
North-East
by Admin Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:16 pm
The North-East
Maine = Tough state to do. My guess is it comes down to Lib-Dem Vs Labor, with the Tories winning only in some of the wealthy towns off the coast. Proabably votes all Liberal until 1997, maybe in 1983 the Conservatives win it, but thats really it. Then in 1997 Labor picks it up, and it remains a swing state between the two parties. Lib-Dem might win his state in 2005 or 2010, but Labor picks it up in 2015. The rural part of Maine is generally a swing area, with no alligence to one particular party. You would see alot of Independents elected, and Portland is solid Labor with a high-Lib Dem vote. So Labor does best in Portland, Androscoggin/Cumberland, Waldo, etc with Lib-Dems doing best in costal more wealthy areas.
Voting history
2015:Labor
2010:Lib-Dem or Labor (prollay the first)
2005:again, same as above
1997-2001:Labor
Before 1997:all Lib-Dem/Liberal, expect maybe 1974 Labor picks it up. Conservative or Liberal-SDP Alliance win here in 1983, with Labor def coming in third.
Vermont = Originally a Liberal, and by extension Lib-Dems, really until 1997. Labor might pick up this state in 1992, though my guess is Lib-Dems still hold it. Lib-Dems do best in some of the Southern Vermont counties with a high traditional Republican vote, and you would see a high Green vote there to. Labor does best in the north, around Chittenden, with Burlington being a Labor stronghold. The NE King-Dom is a Labor/Lib-Dem swing area, usually would prollay vote Lib-Dem out of historical ties, but could be won by Labor with the right candidate. Overall, the Conservatives are pretty much in the same position here Labor is/has been historically in SC/MS.
Voting history
1997 (present):Labor
1992:Lib Dem or Labor, prollay Lib Dem
1987:Liberal-SDP Alliance
1983:Liberal-SDP Alliance
1979:Liberal
All Liberal throughout the 60s/70s
1965:Liberal
1962:Liberal
New Hampshire = No clue who actually wins the state, but it would be a toss between all three parties. Labor does best in the college/liberal counties such as Grafton and in the working-class county of Coos. Lib-Dems best in the rural traditionally Republican counties, and Tories in the wealthy Boston suburbs. This would be the Tories best state in New England, and one they can often win.
Voting history
2015:Conservative
2010:Lib-Dem
2005:Lib-Dem
2001:Lib-Dem or Labor
1997:Labor, maybe Lib-Dem
1979-1992:Conservative
1974:Going to say Conservative, Liberal has a shot tho
1970:Liberal
1965:Liberal
1962:Labor
Massachusetts = Labor every year since 1935 once again. 1983 would be the closest the Conservatives get here, and a pathetic showing by Labor. Conservatives don't get much support in Mass, only in the border towns near NH. Boston is a hard-Labor stronghold, with some Green votes here and there and some Lib-Dems with the Tories reduced to fourth. Rest of the state is entirley Labor, with the Lib-Dems picking up wealthy islands like Nantucket or Dukes. Many of the wealthy areas such as Worecaster would vote Labor everytime, do to a history of Champagne Socialism, and Massachusetts would be the perfect state to contain that.
Voting history
Post 1935:All Labor everytime
1935:Labor
1931:Liberal
Rhode Island = Labor every year since 1935, pretty much every town votes for Labor. Tories have never had a presence in this state, and Lib-Dems are the main opposition party, winning in wealthy towns such as Burlington. In providence, Labor breaks 70% everytime.
Connecticut = Overall, could go to either of the three parties. Labor does best in Windham and Hatford, Lib-Dems best in areas with traditional Unionist voting patterns such as Tolland, New London, and Middlesex, and the Conservatives win in the wealthy suburban county of Fairfield and also Litchfield (tho, those 5 towns in the NE part of Lichfield are hard-Labor).
Voting history of CT would look something like
2015:Conservative or Lib-Dem
2010:Lib-Dem
2005:Lib-Dem
2001:Labor
1997:Labor
1974-1997:Conservative
1970:Labor
1965:Labor
1962:Labor or Lib-Dem
New York = Overall, strongly Labor. Would only vote Torie in landslides.
New York City = New York City would be a Labor voting city, every borough Labor dominates in, with the exception of Staten Island which goes heavily for the Tories. Labor even wins here in 1983 easily, although the margin would be pathetic compared to previous years
-Manhattan = Overall heavily Labor. Upper-West Side, Greenwhich Village, and Harlem are all strongly Labor voting. Lib-Dems do better in some of the wealthier parts, but there would be one Conservative inner-urban stronghold: Upper-East Side (which would vote Tory almost everytime, Lib-Dem second, and Labor third). You would also see a high Green vote.
-Bronx = Hard-Labor, and there best borough. Pretty much all Labor, even wealthier parts like Riverdale. Tories would get some White-Ethnic Italians to vote for them out in Pelham Parkway.
-Queens = Labor overall, Conservatives win the Hasidic areas (actually, depends on who pays them the most) but I guess they would be registered Labor. Lib-Dem does well in flushing and some of the Asian areas, also in some of the more wealthy areas.
Brooklyn = heavily Labor, besides Southern Brooklyn which votes Tory.
-Staten Island = Besides the North-Shore, all Tory. Labor would win Staten Island in 1997 though, maybe even 2001.
NYC Suburbs = Heavily Torie. Westchester, Rockland, Suffolk, and Nassau are all Torie strongholds with Labor doing quite badly. Labor would do well in some of the rural Western parts of Suffolk, but get smashed finishing a distant third in the eastern part ie areas like Amityville, Bay-Shore, etc. Labors best areas in the suburbs would be Hispanic/Black/Irish ones, some Jewish. Conservatives dominate with Italians, and Eastern Europeans. However, in 1997 the Conservatives would be SMASHED in the NYC suburbs, let alone NY State (they finish third in the latter, and come in second to the Lib-Dems in the first), after this the entire NY State Conservative machine largely centered around the suburbs is in peaces. With the machine smashed, Lib-Dems take over as the main party here until 2010 (when the Tories regain control). During the 1997-2005 period, a Far-Right Fascist party would emerge, and from the broken down Conservative machine do quite well in certain parts of the suburbs. Example, Yonkers, even parts of the Outer-Boroughs.
Upstate NY = Albany, Niagara, Monroe, Erie, and Onondaga are all Labor strongholds, the industrial urban cities voting hard-Labor for quite some-time. Labor also wins the counties near Vermont (though, Lib-Dems do quite well here, do to historical voting), with the Conservatives winning in wealthy areas and better-off rural ones. The area of NY near PA, in the west, would likely vote Lib-Dem do to Liberal legacy voting.
New Jersey = Overall, is a swing state with a Tory lean due to the wealthy suburbs voting heavily Conservative and the rural/suburban NW (think Sussex County/Hunterdone, which Tories have held onto since Civil War). Labor vote is mostly concentrated in Urban areas: Trenton, Newark, Camden, and some of the Liberal suburbs like Montclair. In the wealthy suburbs such as Ocean or Mnmouth, Labor finishes third with the Lib-Dems serving as the main opposition. So, overall the Suburban and Rural areas vote Conservative and the Urban ones Labor.
Voting history
2015:Conservative
2010:Conservative
2005:Labor, maybe Lib-Dem
1997-2001:Labor
1979-1992:Conservative
1974:Conservative
1970:Conservative
1965:Labor
1962:Labor
Pennsylvania = Overall, would be a strongly Labor state, only voting Torie in landslides (as goes for New York). Labor strongholds include Allegheny, SW PA (Coalfields), Scranton area, and Philly. Conservative strongholds include the Philly Suburbs, Pennsyltuckey (stretch of counties from Somerset to Lancaster, and the middle of PA rural areas), and most of the states Rural areas + Wealthy suburbs. Lib-Dems do best in traditionally unionist areas and some affluent liberal suburbs.
North-West = Erie is a Labor stronghold, and votes Labor every-time (1983 would be an exception due to vote splitting). Mercer also votes Labor, however the regions rural areas from Venango up vote Tory.
North-Central = Labor does poorly here, besides Elk County, which generally leans Labor. Centre is a tossup for any of the three parties, Union/Snyder/North-Humberland/Columbia are all Tory strongholds and have been since the civil war. The Upper T counties (North counties near NY) would vote Lib-Dem due to historical reasons, having voted Liberal since the civil-war.
North-East = Carbon, Luzerne, and Lackawana would all vote strongly Labor. Rest of the area votes Tory.
South-Central=solid Tory, has been so for quite a while and that historical pattern persists.
South-West = Labor stronghold, especially Allegheny, Pittsburg, and the mining counties. Pittsburg would one of Labors best regions in the country, hard to see Labor ever losing and they break 80% often. Some of the Conservative Pittsburg suburbs vote Tory.
South-East = Lancaster would originally be a Liberal voting county, but switched to the Tories some-point during the 30s. Philly suburbs are all Tory, with Labor doing poorly, often coming in third. Labor does well in Berks, with the city of reading being solidly Labor due to a long history of Socialism, and win in the White, Brown, and Black working class areas of the suburbs. Liberals do well in some of the liberal affluent parts, but overall the suburbs all vote Conservative, expect for sometimes Berks. Chester is a Conservative stronghold. Philadelphia is obviously a hard-core Labor stronghold, with Labor often breaking 80%.
Maine = Tough state to do. My guess is it comes down to Lib-Dem Vs Labor, with the Tories winning only in some of the wealthy towns off the coast. Proabably votes all Liberal until 1997, maybe in 1983 the Conservatives win it, but thats really it. Then in 1997 Labor picks it up, and it remains a swing state between the two parties. Lib-Dem might win his state in 2005 or 2010, but Labor picks it up in 2015. The rural part of Maine is generally a swing area, with no alligence to one particular party. You would see alot of Independents elected, and Portland is solid Labor with a high-Lib Dem vote. So Labor does best in Portland, Androscoggin/Cumberland, Waldo, etc with Lib-Dems doing best in costal more wealthy areas.
Voting history
2015:Labor
2010:Lib-Dem or Labor (prollay the first)
2005:again, same as above
1997-2001:Labor
Before 1997:all Lib-Dem/Liberal, expect maybe 1974 Labor picks it up. Conservative or Liberal-SDP Alliance win here in 1983, with Labor def coming in third.
Vermont = Originally a Liberal, and by extension Lib-Dems, really until 1997. Labor might pick up this state in 1992, though my guess is Lib-Dems still hold it. Lib-Dems do best in some of the Southern Vermont counties with a high traditional Republican vote, and you would see a high Green vote there to. Labor does best in the north, around Chittenden, with Burlington being a Labor stronghold. The NE King-Dom is a Labor/Lib-Dem swing area, usually would prollay vote Lib-Dem out of historical ties, but could be won by Labor with the right candidate. Overall, the Conservatives are pretty much in the same position here Labor is/has been historically in SC/MS.
Voting history
1997 (present):Labor
1992:Lib Dem or Labor, prollay Lib Dem
1987:Liberal-SDP Alliance
1983:Liberal-SDP Alliance
1979:Liberal
All Liberal throughout the 60s/70s
1965:Liberal
1962:Liberal
New Hampshire = No clue who actually wins the state, but it would be a toss between all three parties. Labor does best in the college/liberal counties such as Grafton and in the working-class county of Coos. Lib-Dems best in the rural traditionally Republican counties, and Tories in the wealthy Boston suburbs. This would be the Tories best state in New England, and one they can often win.
Voting history
2015:Conservative
2010:Lib-Dem
2005:Lib-Dem
2001:Lib-Dem or Labor
1997:Labor, maybe Lib-Dem
1979-1992:Conservative
1974:Going to say Conservative, Liberal has a shot tho
1970:Liberal
1965:Liberal
1962:Labor
Massachusetts = Labor every year since 1935 once again. 1983 would be the closest the Conservatives get here, and a pathetic showing by Labor. Conservatives don't get much support in Mass, only in the border towns near NH. Boston is a hard-Labor stronghold, with some Green votes here and there and some Lib-Dems with the Tories reduced to fourth. Rest of the state is entirley Labor, with the Lib-Dems picking up wealthy islands like Nantucket or Dukes. Many of the wealthy areas such as Worecaster would vote Labor everytime, do to a history of Champagne Socialism, and Massachusetts would be the perfect state to contain that.
Voting history
Post 1935:All Labor everytime
1935:Labor
1931:Liberal
Rhode Island = Labor every year since 1935, pretty much every town votes for Labor. Tories have never had a presence in this state, and Lib-Dems are the main opposition party, winning in wealthy towns such as Burlington. In providence, Labor breaks 70% everytime.
Connecticut = Overall, could go to either of the three parties. Labor does best in Windham and Hatford, Lib-Dems best in areas with traditional Unionist voting patterns such as Tolland, New London, and Middlesex, and the Conservatives win in the wealthy suburban county of Fairfield and also Litchfield (tho, those 5 towns in the NE part of Lichfield are hard-Labor).
Voting history of CT would look something like
2015:Conservative or Lib-Dem
2010:Lib-Dem
2005:Lib-Dem
2001:Labor
1997:Labor
1974-1997:Conservative
1970:Labor
1965:Labor
1962:Labor or Lib-Dem
New York = Overall, strongly Labor. Would only vote Torie in landslides.
New York City = New York City would be a Labor voting city, every borough Labor dominates in, with the exception of Staten Island which goes heavily for the Tories. Labor even wins here in 1983 easily, although the margin would be pathetic compared to previous years
-Manhattan = Overall heavily Labor. Upper-West Side, Greenwhich Village, and Harlem are all strongly Labor voting. Lib-Dems do better in some of the wealthier parts, but there would be one Conservative inner-urban stronghold: Upper-East Side (which would vote Tory almost everytime, Lib-Dem second, and Labor third). You would also see a high Green vote.
-Bronx = Hard-Labor, and there best borough. Pretty much all Labor, even wealthier parts like Riverdale. Tories would get some White-Ethnic Italians to vote for them out in Pelham Parkway.
-Queens = Labor overall, Conservatives win the Hasidic areas (actually, depends on who pays them the most) but I guess they would be registered Labor. Lib-Dem does well in flushing and some of the Asian areas, also in some of the more wealthy areas.
Brooklyn = heavily Labor, besides Southern Brooklyn which votes Tory.
-Staten Island = Besides the North-Shore, all Tory. Labor would win Staten Island in 1997 though, maybe even 2001.
NYC Suburbs = Heavily Torie. Westchester, Rockland, Suffolk, and Nassau are all Torie strongholds with Labor doing quite badly. Labor would do well in some of the rural Western parts of Suffolk, but get smashed finishing a distant third in the eastern part ie areas like Amityville, Bay-Shore, etc. Labors best areas in the suburbs would be Hispanic/Black/Irish ones, some Jewish. Conservatives dominate with Italians, and Eastern Europeans. However, in 1997 the Conservatives would be SMASHED in the NYC suburbs, let alone NY State (they finish third in the latter, and come in second to the Lib-Dems in the first), after this the entire NY State Conservative machine largely centered around the suburbs is in peaces. With the machine smashed, Lib-Dems take over as the main party here until 2010 (when the Tories regain control). During the 1997-2005 period, a Far-Right Fascist party would emerge, and from the broken down Conservative machine do quite well in certain parts of the suburbs. Example, Yonkers, even parts of the Outer-Boroughs.
Upstate NY = Albany, Niagara, Monroe, Erie, and Onondaga are all Labor strongholds, the industrial urban cities voting hard-Labor for quite some-time. Labor also wins the counties near Vermont (though, Lib-Dems do quite well here, do to historical voting), with the Conservatives winning in wealthy areas and better-off rural ones. The area of NY near PA, in the west, would likely vote Lib-Dem do to Liberal legacy voting.
New Jersey = Overall, is a swing state with a Tory lean due to the wealthy suburbs voting heavily Conservative and the rural/suburban NW (think Sussex County/Hunterdone, which Tories have held onto since Civil War). Labor vote is mostly concentrated in Urban areas: Trenton, Newark, Camden, and some of the Liberal suburbs like Montclair. In the wealthy suburbs such as Ocean or Mnmouth, Labor finishes third with the Lib-Dems serving as the main opposition. So, overall the Suburban and Rural areas vote Conservative and the Urban ones Labor.
Voting history
2015:Conservative
2010:Conservative
2005:Labor, maybe Lib-Dem
1997-2001:Labor
1979-1992:Conservative
1974:Conservative
1970:Conservative
1965:Labor
1962:Labor
Pennsylvania = Overall, would be a strongly Labor state, only voting Torie in landslides (as goes for New York). Labor strongholds include Allegheny, SW PA (Coalfields), Scranton area, and Philly. Conservative strongholds include the Philly Suburbs, Pennsyltuckey (stretch of counties from Somerset to Lancaster, and the middle of PA rural areas), and most of the states Rural areas + Wealthy suburbs. Lib-Dems do best in traditionally unionist areas and some affluent liberal suburbs.
North-West = Erie is a Labor stronghold, and votes Labor every-time (1983 would be an exception due to vote splitting). Mercer also votes Labor, however the regions rural areas from Venango up vote Tory.
North-Central = Labor does poorly here, besides Elk County, which generally leans Labor. Centre is a tossup for any of the three parties, Union/Snyder/North-Humberland/Columbia are all Tory strongholds and have been since the civil war. The Upper T counties (North counties near NY) would vote Lib-Dem due to historical reasons, having voted Liberal since the civil-war.
North-East = Carbon, Luzerne, and Lackawana would all vote strongly Labor. Rest of the area votes Tory.
South-Central=solid Tory, has been so for quite a while and that historical pattern persists.
South-West = Labor stronghold, especially Allegheny, Pittsburg, and the mining counties. Pittsburg would one of Labors best regions in the country, hard to see Labor ever losing and they break 80% often. Some of the Conservative Pittsburg suburbs vote Tory.
South-East = Lancaster would originally be a Liberal voting county, but switched to the Tories some-point during the 30s. Philly suburbs are all Tory, with Labor doing poorly, often coming in third. Labor does well in Berks, with the city of reading being solidly Labor due to a long history of Socialism, and win in the White, Brown, and Black working class areas of the suburbs. Liberals do well in some of the liberal affluent parts, but overall the suburbs all vote Conservative, expect for sometimes Berks. Chester is a Conservative stronghold. Philadelphia is obviously a hard-core Labor stronghold, with Labor often breaking 80%.
Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:11 pm; edited 3 times in total
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 35
Join date : 2016-12-22 -
Sun-Belt
by Admin Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:49 pm
Sun-Belt
Oklahoma = Would have been the Socialists best state in the country until the party transformed into Labor, and would have been one of Labors best throughout the 20s, 30s, and 40s. Oklahoma would first vote Conservative in 1955, and never look back, with the exception of 1997 in which Labor won it one final time.
Region breakdown
South-East = Nicknamed "Red Little Dixie" for its long history of Socialism, this area still remains heavily Labor having voted Labor every year expect for 1983.
North-East = Historically Labor, but now Conservative. Tulsa has voted Tory nearly every year, though initially it was a Liberal city.
South-Central = Southern part votes Labor, rest Torie. Oklahoma City is a Torie stronghold, it would come close to flipping in 1997 though.
South-West = Again, mostly Torie.
North Central/East = Same as above, though a few Labor counties remain.
Panhandle = Is and has been a Tory stronghold since the states inception, and nothing has changed here. Tories always break 70% in the Oklahoma Panhandle.
Arizona = Has voted Torie every year since the 50s, 1997 is the best bet for a Labor victory. Historically would be a strong Socialist state, and then Labor, voting for Socialist/Labor every year until 1951, when it would flip to the Tories due to the growth of Sun-Belt Suburbia. Labor does well with Hispanics and any remaining mining towns, Greenlee county would be a Labor stronghold voting Labor every year since its creation. Conservatives absolutely dominate in Maricopa, winning by over 15 points usually every time. In the Western part of the state, you might get some kind of Right-Wing Nationalist or Fascist party doing quite well, Cocoinco County would likely be Labor or Lib-Dem.
New Mexico = Tossup state, could go either way, a slight Labor lean overall. Labor does best in the Northern part of the state and with Hispanics/White Leftists/Artist/Hippy types the latter of which dominate in Santa Fe and Taos. Tories dominate in the Southern Part of the state near Texas, running up the margins there. Lib-Dems would do well in areas such as Bernaillo, were they might even get an MP elected, and in Las Cruces.
NM Voting History
2015:Labor
2010:Conservative
1997-2005:Labor, Lib-Dem win in 2005 is possible
1979-1992:Conservative
1966-1974:Conservative
1961:Labor
Texas = The Lone Star State has been historically controlled by Oil/Business elites, and with the exception of 1935 and almost 1997 has voted Torie every-time.
South-Texas = Historically Tory, before flipping to Labor in 1935. Has remained heavily Labor since then.
Gulf Coast = Houston and surronding Suburbs have voted Tory since the parties inception.
Piney Woods (Texarkana Area) = Van Zandit and surronding counties would have historically been Socialist and then Labor strongholds, and Labor polls quite well here in comparison to most of Texas. Labor might win a seat here occasionalley around Newton.
Hill Country = Areas west of Mid-Land, hard-core Tory, always has been.
Western Texas = El Paso is a Labor stronghold, but besides that mostly Tory. You would have a Texas National Party winning a few seats here.
DFWA = all Torie, all the time. Even Dallas votes Tory. Tarrant and surrounding suburbs have been Tory since there inception.
Panhandle = Areas from King/Swisher/Foard to Ochiltree. Labor wins a bunch of counties around Foard, but the area near Oklahoma is entirely Tory.
Oklahoma = Would have been the Socialists best state in the country until the party transformed into Labor, and would have been one of Labors best throughout the 20s, 30s, and 40s. Oklahoma would first vote Conservative in 1955, and never look back, with the exception of 1997 in which Labor won it one final time.
Region breakdown
South-East = Nicknamed "Red Little Dixie" for its long history of Socialism, this area still remains heavily Labor having voted Labor every year expect for 1983.
North-East = Historically Labor, but now Conservative. Tulsa has voted Tory nearly every year, though initially it was a Liberal city.
South-Central = Southern part votes Labor, rest Torie. Oklahoma City is a Torie stronghold, it would come close to flipping in 1997 though.
South-West = Again, mostly Torie.
North Central/East = Same as above, though a few Labor counties remain.
Panhandle = Is and has been a Tory stronghold since the states inception, and nothing has changed here. Tories always break 70% in the Oklahoma Panhandle.
Arizona = Has voted Torie every year since the 50s, 1997 is the best bet for a Labor victory. Historically would be a strong Socialist state, and then Labor, voting for Socialist/Labor every year until 1951, when it would flip to the Tories due to the growth of Sun-Belt Suburbia. Labor does well with Hispanics and any remaining mining towns, Greenlee county would be a Labor stronghold voting Labor every year since its creation. Conservatives absolutely dominate in Maricopa, winning by over 15 points usually every time. In the Western part of the state, you might get some kind of Right-Wing Nationalist or Fascist party doing quite well, Cocoinco County would likely be Labor or Lib-Dem.
New Mexico = Tossup state, could go either way, a slight Labor lean overall. Labor does best in the Northern part of the state and with Hispanics/White Leftists/Artist/Hippy types the latter of which dominate in Santa Fe and Taos. Tories dominate in the Southern Part of the state near Texas, running up the margins there. Lib-Dems would do well in areas such as Bernaillo, were they might even get an MP elected, and in Las Cruces.
NM Voting History
2015:Labor
2010:Conservative
1997-2005:Labor, Lib-Dem win in 2005 is possible
1979-1992:Conservative
1966-1974:Conservative
1961:Labor
Texas = The Lone Star State has been historically controlled by Oil/Business elites, and with the exception of 1935 and almost 1997 has voted Torie every-time.
South-Texas = Historically Tory, before flipping to Labor in 1935. Has remained heavily Labor since then.
Gulf Coast = Houston and surronding Suburbs have voted Tory since the parties inception.
Piney Woods (Texarkana Area) = Van Zandit and surronding counties would have historically been Socialist and then Labor strongholds, and Labor polls quite well here in comparison to most of Texas. Labor might win a seat here occasionalley around Newton.
Hill Country = Areas west of Mid-Land, hard-core Tory, always has been.
Western Texas = El Paso is a Labor stronghold, but besides that mostly Tory. You would have a Texas National Party winning a few seats here.
DFWA = all Torie, all the time. Even Dallas votes Tory. Tarrant and surrounding suburbs have been Tory since there inception.
Panhandle = Areas from King/Swisher/Foard to Ochiltree. Labor wins a bunch of counties around Foard, but the area near Oklahoma is entirely Tory.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 35
Join date : 2016-12-22 -
Some Dates of past elections
by Admin Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:03 pm
1962:Labor
1959:Conservative
1955:Conservative
1951:Conservative
1945:Labor
1941:Labor
1935:Labor
1959:Conservative
1955:Conservative
1951:Conservative
1945:Labor
1941:Labor
1935:Labor
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 35
Join date : 2016-12-22 -
1951 Election
by Admin Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:26 am
1951 General Election
After PM Huey Longs death in 1947, Long-time Labor man and Secretary of Home Departement Norman Thomas took over the Prime Ministership. However, this was only temporary, Wisconsin Robert LaFollete Jr a year later would replace Thomas as PM. LaFollete signaled very early on he had no desire to contest the next election in 1951, so a leadership election was held in 1949.
Several candidates emerged for Labor, each representing different wings of the Party. The Parties Centrist wing was represented by Harry Truman of Missouri, Secretary of Commerce. Another more Left-Wing faction represented by Oregon Senator Wayne Morse. However a new candidate emerged, East Harlam MP Vito Marcoantonio. Marcoantonio was a dedicated Socialist, representing the farthest Left-wing of the party. It came as a shock when Antonio defeated both Morse and Truman in the ALP primaries, and he was quickly endorsed by LaFollete Jr, Walter Reuther, Idaho Senator Glen H. Taylor, Adam Clayton Powell, and other members of the parties left-wing. Antonio had formerly had ties to the Communist Party, though since the early 40s he had since denounced Communism, stating his opposition to the horrors of both "Free-Market Capitalism and Totalitarian Communism" instead calling for a "Humane Democratic Socialism". Antonio was ahead of his time on civil rights, strongly supporting civil rights legislation and calling Jim Crow a "evil disgrace".
Many on the Right-Wing of the ALP warned against nominating Antonio, such as Estes Kefauver and George Meaney. Kefauver warned that a Antonio nomination would lead to a total collapse of the Labor vote in the South and key swing states. Under Huey Long, Labor had made massive gains for the first time in history in the South, controlling the parliamentary delegations in Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Alabama. Labor also held 6 of Texases 23 seats, 3 of Floridas 8, 4 of Arkansas 9, 4 of Georgias 12, and 3 in North Carolina and Virginia. Labor had even won a seat in South Carolina in the previous election, something that was unheard of for the time, largely due to Longs influence. The only state in the south were Labor did not hold a single seat was Mississippi.
The nomination of Antonio, warned Franklin MP Carl Elliot, would stop all gains made by Labor in Dixie, and return the Party to its previous levels of only picking off a handful of seats in Dixies outer-rim (such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana) or worse. Labor needed to hold as many seats in Dixie as possible as the Conservatives had made inroads in the West in the previous election, nearly winning several Western states which they had never before even came close in, and taking control of Southern California. All of this had seemed impossible a few years ago, but it had become clear that the former Labor stronghold was changing. The emergence of Sun-Belt suburbia, and massive increases in population were creating a very favorable climate for the Tories. New Conservative leaders had emerged west of the Mississippi, one of them William F. Knowland.
The Conservative leadership election of 1949 featured three candidates, each representing specific regions. Ohio Senator Robert Taft, long time Conservative stalwart and Isolationist, a strong opponent of Huey Longs Share our Wealth policies and a notable rival who had feuded with long throughout his reign. Next was Georgia Senator Richard Russell, leader of the parties South-Traditionalist Aristocracy win. And finally, William F. Knowland the recently elected Senator from California.
Knowland was part of the "New Generation of Tories", Conservative, opposed to Labors Socialism and organized Labor, but also able to convey traditional Toryism outside of the South and into the traditionally Socialist west. Knowlands win in the CA Senate election of 1946 was shocking, California, the home state of first Labor PM Upton Sinclair had always been a Labor and Socialist state. However, Knowlands win singled the sign of new trends, a movement towards Conservatism.
Knowland represented the parties growing base in the West, Russell the parties base in the South, and Taft the parties base in the Mid-West. Taft however had little to no chance, both Russell and Knowland were firecley interventionist and hawkish, supporting a strong military against Communism and crushing the Soviets with every force imaginable. Taft also was opposed to segregation, Russell passionetly in favor, and Knowland neutral on. Above all, the Mid-West had largely become a Labor region due to the mass unionization of workers, creation of thousands of co-operative workplaces, and nationalized steel industry all of which pushed the region farther away from the Tories. In fact, it seemed likely that Taft would not win re-election, much less be sent to Washington.
Knowland pulled off a victory in the Tories convention that year, Russell second, and Taft a distant third. Russell threw his support behind Knowland, calling for a unified Conservative party to "destroy the socialistic and communistic menaces which have thrived under the failed regime authoritarian reign of Huey Long" who Russell labeled a tyrant and villain.
Knowland and the Tories had expected to run against Truman, which they believed could put there mission of flipping the West on hold, and even in-danger them in parts of the South. However, in Antonio, Knowland found the perfect opponent.
In January of 1950, Knowland launched his campaign in Riverside wasting no time in his attacks. Labeling Antonio as a radical communist who wanted to "destroy our private enterprise system" and "hand our country over to the Soviets", "let the criminals and gangsters run lose" (a play on his ethnic background?)? Kowland brought up the worst sterotypes of Labor voters, one being a White ethnic voter in the North-East, usually Catholic, and often sterotyped as dumb and a drunk. The other a dumb miner or steel worker unable to cope with the existing changes and economy of America, and the final sterotype being an elitist upper-middle class scholar, who constantley talked about the goodness of Socialism from an ivory tower.
Knowland focused on the West, campaigning heavily in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Oklahoma. He let his surrogates such as Richard Russell, Allan Shivers, Fielding L. Wright and Strom Thurmond do the talking. Blasting Antonio as a "radical communist and nigger loving traitor", it became clear that Labor was heading for a massive defeat across dixie. Antonio attemped to campaign in the South, but was greeted by hordes of angry Southerners protesting against him. Eventually, due to the begging of Labor MPs, Antonio completely abandoned the South sometime in late 1950.
Realizing that the South was a lost cause, and then realizing how far behind he was in the South-West, Antonio spent the last three months of the campaign desperatley campaigning in the Mid-West were he remained very popular with the average Labor voter/union member. Hoping that Labor machines would be able to save him in traditional strongholds such as Oklahoma.
The results were worse then could be imagined for Labor. Labor lost every seat in the South besides a handful in Louisiana (only kept due to the strength of Huey Longs machine), 3 in Alabama, and one in Florida. Labor lost all but one seat in Texas, and for the first time in history lost Oklahoma (something thought impossible just a few months before), Arizona (same thing), Nevada, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. All of which had been solid Labor states. The Labor machine in the South was completely and utterly destroyed, something that would take years to rebuild, and the Conservatives (with the exceptions of a few long-held Liberal seats) took complete control of the South with the exceptions of Alabama, Louisiana, and Missouri. The only positive thing that could be said about this election for Labor was gains in the Mid-West. Robert Taft had lost re-election, and Labor picked up several additional seats in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. However, Knowland overperformed winning Illinois and Indiana (both states which were said to go to Labor).
William F. Knowland (Conservative) 47.75%
Vito Marcantonio (Labor) 36.47%
Earl Warren (Liberal) 12.21%
Other 3.51%
After PM Huey Longs death in 1947, Long-time Labor man and Secretary of Home Departement Norman Thomas took over the Prime Ministership. However, this was only temporary, Wisconsin Robert LaFollete Jr a year later would replace Thomas as PM. LaFollete signaled very early on he had no desire to contest the next election in 1951, so a leadership election was held in 1949.
Several candidates emerged for Labor, each representing different wings of the Party. The Parties Centrist wing was represented by Harry Truman of Missouri, Secretary of Commerce. Another more Left-Wing faction represented by Oregon Senator Wayne Morse. However a new candidate emerged, East Harlam MP Vito Marcoantonio. Marcoantonio was a dedicated Socialist, representing the farthest Left-wing of the party. It came as a shock when Antonio defeated both Morse and Truman in the ALP primaries, and he was quickly endorsed by LaFollete Jr, Walter Reuther, Idaho Senator Glen H. Taylor, Adam Clayton Powell, and other members of the parties left-wing. Antonio had formerly had ties to the Communist Party, though since the early 40s he had since denounced Communism, stating his opposition to the horrors of both "Free-Market Capitalism and Totalitarian Communism" instead calling for a "Humane Democratic Socialism". Antonio was ahead of his time on civil rights, strongly supporting civil rights legislation and calling Jim Crow a "evil disgrace".
Many on the Right-Wing of the ALP warned against nominating Antonio, such as Estes Kefauver and George Meaney. Kefauver warned that a Antonio nomination would lead to a total collapse of the Labor vote in the South and key swing states. Under Huey Long, Labor had made massive gains for the first time in history in the South, controlling the parliamentary delegations in Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Alabama. Labor also held 6 of Texases 23 seats, 3 of Floridas 8, 4 of Arkansas 9, 4 of Georgias 12, and 3 in North Carolina and Virginia. Labor had even won a seat in South Carolina in the previous election, something that was unheard of for the time, largely due to Longs influence. The only state in the south were Labor did not hold a single seat was Mississippi.
The nomination of Antonio, warned Franklin MP Carl Elliot, would stop all gains made by Labor in Dixie, and return the Party to its previous levels of only picking off a handful of seats in Dixies outer-rim (such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana) or worse. Labor needed to hold as many seats in Dixie as possible as the Conservatives had made inroads in the West in the previous election, nearly winning several Western states which they had never before even came close in, and taking control of Southern California. All of this had seemed impossible a few years ago, but it had become clear that the former Labor stronghold was changing. The emergence of Sun-Belt suburbia, and massive increases in population were creating a very favorable climate for the Tories. New Conservative leaders had emerged west of the Mississippi, one of them William F. Knowland.
The Conservative leadership election of 1949 featured three candidates, each representing specific regions. Ohio Senator Robert Taft, long time Conservative stalwart and Isolationist, a strong opponent of Huey Longs Share our Wealth policies and a notable rival who had feuded with long throughout his reign. Next was Georgia Senator Richard Russell, leader of the parties South-Traditionalist Aristocracy win. And finally, William F. Knowland the recently elected Senator from California.
Knowland was part of the "New Generation of Tories", Conservative, opposed to Labors Socialism and organized Labor, but also able to convey traditional Toryism outside of the South and into the traditionally Socialist west. Knowlands win in the CA Senate election of 1946 was shocking, California, the home state of first Labor PM Upton Sinclair had always been a Labor and Socialist state. However, Knowlands win singled the sign of new trends, a movement towards Conservatism.
Knowland represented the parties growing base in the West, Russell the parties base in the South, and Taft the parties base in the Mid-West. Taft however had little to no chance, both Russell and Knowland were firecley interventionist and hawkish, supporting a strong military against Communism and crushing the Soviets with every force imaginable. Taft also was opposed to segregation, Russell passionetly in favor, and Knowland neutral on. Above all, the Mid-West had largely become a Labor region due to the mass unionization of workers, creation of thousands of co-operative workplaces, and nationalized steel industry all of which pushed the region farther away from the Tories. In fact, it seemed likely that Taft would not win re-election, much less be sent to Washington.
Knowland pulled off a victory in the Tories convention that year, Russell second, and Taft a distant third. Russell threw his support behind Knowland, calling for a unified Conservative party to "destroy the socialistic and communistic menaces which have thrived under the failed regime authoritarian reign of Huey Long" who Russell labeled a tyrant and villain.
Knowland and the Tories had expected to run against Truman, which they believed could put there mission of flipping the West on hold, and even in-danger them in parts of the South. However, in Antonio, Knowland found the perfect opponent.
In January of 1950, Knowland launched his campaign in Riverside wasting no time in his attacks. Labeling Antonio as a radical communist who wanted to "destroy our private enterprise system" and "hand our country over to the Soviets", "let the criminals and gangsters run lose" (a play on his ethnic background?)? Kowland brought up the worst sterotypes of Labor voters, one being a White ethnic voter in the North-East, usually Catholic, and often sterotyped as dumb and a drunk. The other a dumb miner or steel worker unable to cope with the existing changes and economy of America, and the final sterotype being an elitist upper-middle class scholar, who constantley talked about the goodness of Socialism from an ivory tower.
Knowland focused on the West, campaigning heavily in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Oklahoma. He let his surrogates such as Richard Russell, Allan Shivers, Fielding L. Wright and Strom Thurmond do the talking. Blasting Antonio as a "radical communist and nigger loving traitor", it became clear that Labor was heading for a massive defeat across dixie. Antonio attemped to campaign in the South, but was greeted by hordes of angry Southerners protesting against him. Eventually, due to the begging of Labor MPs, Antonio completely abandoned the South sometime in late 1950.
Realizing that the South was a lost cause, and then realizing how far behind he was in the South-West, Antonio spent the last three months of the campaign desperatley campaigning in the Mid-West were he remained very popular with the average Labor voter/union member. Hoping that Labor machines would be able to save him in traditional strongholds such as Oklahoma.
The results were worse then could be imagined for Labor. Labor lost every seat in the South besides a handful in Louisiana (only kept due to the strength of Huey Longs machine), 3 in Alabama, and one in Florida. Labor lost all but one seat in Texas, and for the first time in history lost Oklahoma (something thought impossible just a few months before), Arizona (same thing), Nevada, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. All of which had been solid Labor states. The Labor machine in the South was completely and utterly destroyed, something that would take years to rebuild, and the Conservatives (with the exceptions of a few long-held Liberal seats) took complete control of the South with the exceptions of Alabama, Louisiana, and Missouri. The only positive thing that could be said about this election for Labor was gains in the Mid-West. Robert Taft had lost re-election, and Labor picked up several additional seats in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. However, Knowland overperformed winning Illinois and Indiana (both states which were said to go to Labor).
William F. Knowland (Conservative) 47.75%
Vito Marcantonio (Labor) 36.47%
Earl Warren (Liberal) 12.21%
Other 3.51%
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 35
Join date : 2016-12-22 -
Similar topics» AT-865 Elections
» AT-1000 Elections
» Changing the history of George Wallace, Ryan de Graffenried, Hubert Humphrey, James E. Folsom, and John Patterson, and William F. Buckley
» AT-1000 Elections
» Changing the history of George Wallace, Ryan de Graffenried, Hubert Humphrey, James E. Folsom, and John Patterson, and William F. Buckley
althistoryw :: AT
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum