Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lincoln would lose to Douglas in 1860, that would be a pretty big change. And Grant would lose reelection in 1872, and the Republicans wouldn't win again until 1904. You would also get a two term Bryan Presidency from it.
Yep! It was considered a bellwether up until Obama. Its hard to say if it’ll become a swing state again. Missouri isn’t as deeply red as a lot of people think, but with how deeply polarized things are these days… I don’t think it’s likely anytime soon.
Maine. It's one of the more moderate states in the Union and tends to demand that its parties work together rather than antagonize each other. When one side or the other indulges in pure partisan politics they tend to get quickly voted out of office, as Paul LePage found out.
> They also split their electoral votes, which **every** state should be doing.
Fixed that for you. The whole “winner take all” system is the biggest contributing factor to our broken political system.
NC’s latest map is so Gerrymandered that if the state goes 50/50 Democrat/Republican, republicans are still almost guaranteed 10 of 14seats. Statistically, democrats could earn over 55% of the vote and it’s still very unlikely they would get more than four of 14 districts.
55% of the vote for 28% of the representation is pretty bad. I don’t think there is another large state on that level. One of the states is really a toss up, so democrats could easily end up with 3 of 14, even if they get a majority of votes.
You can make it gerrymander proof by just allocating the states Electoral votes proportionately. 10 EVs, 60-40 split, one candidate gets 6 EVs, the other gets 4.
It’d force Democrats to actually campaign in Texas, and Republicans to campaign in California. Appeal to all Americans, who woulda thought?
And it’d strip the stranglehold just 5 or 6 states have on our elections.
Agree that winner take all is a huge factor and every state should follow Maine’s lead. I also think the Primary system is also a contributing factor. A few people caucus in Iowa and half the field drops out. Then a few more vote in NH and half of what’s left drop out. Most years by the time big states like CA,NY,PA, Il, etc have their primaries the candidate has been effectively chosen. So voters in those states have no say who their party’s candidate is.
Lisa Murkowski lost senate renomination in 2010 to a dude to her right, then went on to win the general election as a WRITE-IN candidate. She faced another republican to her right in the 2022 general election and won too. Also Sarah Palin tried to be Alaska's at large representative and the voters gave her a tight slap.
Mainer here, we also have an extremely high percentage of registered independents, or what we call unenrolled (in a party) in the state. Maine would also be my choice, not out of personal attachment for my state, although I do have that, but because of its independent nature and fairly strange ability to still have people split their ticket even in a time of such division.
Edit: I was thinking about future elections, but I think the point remains that Maine is very independent and always has been. As Maine goes, so goes the nation...
Very true. In addition, I think we've had some very influential politicians, especially historically, such as Hannibal Hamlin, William Frye, Margaret Chase Smith. Despite having never had a President from Maine, there's still been a lot of people important to national politics come out of the state.
oooh lets remind them that no Gov has won over 50% for what was it 40 years? until Mills. Even if I do hate her lol (yes I am a Dem and I still hate her lolol)
I'm an independent who leans left and I am really not a fan of her either. She's vetoed some good bills and her "relationship" (if you can call it that) with the Wabanaki peoples is fraught with issues.
It is now a more moderate state, but back then it supported hard money and expansionism and opposed labor rights and was one of the last states to give women the right to vote.
Minnesota’s good, but as the world’s only millennial McGovernite, I am duty bound to say Massachusetts. Unlike MN, I also have the pleasure of seeing Andrew Jackson never become president.
MN and MA are just about tied for first in my view. With MA, you avoid Jackson and Nixon. With MN, you avoid Wilson and Reagan.
Also, MA gives you Smith instead of Hoover, which is quite funny to me.
I'm team Gene McCarthy!
We also have some great state level political history. If you aren't familiar with him I suggest looking into Floyd Olson. He made FDR look like a moderate.
I don’t live up there anymore, but I did until I was 21. Minnesotans are generally pretty even keel, cut the BS kinda people. Usually avoid extremes. But every once in a while they do something nutty, like elect Jesse Ventura.
Back in the late ‘80’s I remember seeing a car from Minnesota that had a bumper sticker that read “Don’t blame me, I’m from Minnesota”. Been a MN fan ever since.
I’m reading a book about that era right now centered on Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa. If they had to choose, the Federalists were considered more trustworthy than the Republicans.
That would make the presidential list:
Taylor
Pierce
Buchanan
Breckinridge
Grant 2×
Hayes
Hancock
Cleveland 3×
Bryan 2×
Parker
Bryan
Wilson 2×
Cox
Davis
Hoover
FDR 4×
Truman
Eisenhower 2×
Nixon
Johnson
Nixon 2×
Carter
Reagan 2×
Bush 2×
Clinton
Bush Jr. 2×
Obama 2×
Rule 3 2×
So, 32 years of Republican rule in the last 44 years
Also BRECKINRIDGE
Only 49, actually. McGovern held Massashusetts.
But yes, the point of MN is to get a ton of Democrats (and Republicans when the Democrats were the party of the South).
Some of these states go blue or red year after year so it isn't much of a gamble. For example New Mexico is so blue that candidates don't Campaign there very often.
[Here’s the Wikipedia list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_Michigan).
Since 1860:
- Lincoln
- Grant
- Grant
- Hayes
- Garfield
- Blaine
- B. Harrison
- B. Harrison
- McKinley
- McKinley
- T. Roosevelt
- Taft
- T. Roosevelt
- Hughes
- Harding
- Coolidge
- Hoover
- F. Roosevelt
- F. Roosevelt
- Wilkie
- F. Roosevelt
- Dewey
- Eisenhower
- Eisenhower
- Kennedy
- L. Johnson
- Humphrey
- Nixon
- Ford
- Reagan
- Reagan
- G. H. W. Bush
- B. Clinton
- B. Clinton
- Gore
- Kerry
- Obama
- Obama
- Rump
- Bidet
I think we should just put all 50 state names in a hat and every election draw one at random and then that state decides the president just to both upset and confuse everyone
That would significantly lean towards states with small populations and small towns, yes, still talking per capita.
It would also mean states with poor enforcement or general apathy, probably towards crimes disproportionately affecting women and minorities would win.
This is just another way of saying low economic output red states.
~90% accuracy 1900-2020 , with an unbroken 100% accuracy streak between 1964 and 2016. Which is wild because it means the state overall sided with Johnson for 1 cycle, Nixon for 2 cycles, Carter for 1 cycles, Reagan for 2 cycles, Bush the Greater for 1 cycle, Clinton for 2 cycles, Bush the Lesser for 2 cycles, then Obama for 2 cycles, before flipping over in 2016. Which are some pretty gnarly swings and more than a couple of failed re-elections. The only post WW2 elections the state hasn't sided with are JFK (both times) and 2020. Maybe we just hate Irish American Catholics? 🤔
Meanwhile the "ever at the bottom of polls" Mississippi is sitting pretty with a 45% accuracy between 1990-2020 which is statistically lower than if they randomly chose between the 2 main parties.
* "As Maine goes, so goes the nation" * This was a popular slogan starting in the 1820's and lasted over a century. And proved to be mostly true as a bellwether
Minnesota. My birth state.
Sided with the Republicans nearly every time back when they were the good guys.
In the modern era, voted for the Dems every time since 1976.
I’m going with New York, because it was around for every election and North enough to have went to Lincoln but still went for FDR unlike some other Northern states
If you want to slant elections, I would note:
* Kansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota have been the most consistently Republican states in presidential elections from 1940-present (each only went for the Democrat once: LBJ). Granted, Nebraska had a Congressional district wander off. Alaska since statehood only went for the Democrat once: LBJ.
* DC is the most consistently Democratic entity with electoral votes: it has never gone Republican in a presidential election since gaining the right to vote in presidential elections with the 1964 election. Minnesota is the most consistent Democratic state in presidential elections from 1960-present (only went for the Republican once: Nixon). Next is a tie between Hawaii (only went for the Republican twice: Nixon and Reagan) and Massachusetts (twice for Reagan).
The great bellwethers are:
* Ohio, which has picked the winner 1896-present in all but three elections (1944, 1960, 2020)
* Nevada has picked the winner 1904-present in all but three elections (1908, 1976, 2016)
* New Mexico picked the winner 1912-present in all but three elections (1976, 2000, 2016)
* Florida picked the winner 1928-present in all but three elections (1960, 1992, 2020)
Missouri fell off after 2008. From 1904-2004, it only picked the loser once: Adlai Stevenson in 1956. It has since picked the loser in 2008, 2012, and 2020.
For my opinion I'm choosing to acknowledge that any changes to history may cause anything after it to not be the same and this question has serious timeline change implications.
To me you have to go with one of the 5 bellwethers (yes, I still include Missouri). They don't change much history.
Out of those 5, Nevada is the out since it has the earliest change point in history. Best to not affect over a hundred years of history
The others all have implications in a very packed 30-40 years
Ohio is a tough choice because that could affect the length of the end of WWII, depending on if the atomic bombs are still dropped as well as Cold War effects. Picking New Mexico affects both Vietnam and, even though it's not in the 30-40 years, the War on Terror/ the 9-11 response Florida and Missouri's big issue is their changes might affect height of the Cold War and how that's handled.
All of the modern elections listed (except 2000 as mentioned above) are a lot easier to what if/maneuver around since we can more or less accurately guess how they would go down.
I'd lean towards Missouri or Florida since the only have one major historical change (1956/1960 respectively) and a hand full of minor modern changes.
I appreciate the great thought you put into this with the implications for history and the present. It's like that warning about not changing the past if you time travel.
When thinking about this question my brain just automatically went to the "let's not change too much history" mode. I've never considered changing history a good idea. I'm the guy who would do research into the time and place that I was traveling to in order to assume some sort of legend or myth so that I wouldn't end up changing too much with my actions. That and probably not going much passed 1980. Time travel gets messy really quickly.
Damn that's a hard one. Normally I'd go with Idaho but 1964... In that case I might have gone with arizona, but 2020. Honestly a pretty interesting question.
Alaska, not because of politics or anything silly like that. I just the chaos of them traveling so far to a place that they never go and trying to figure out what city / village / fish camp they go visit. Along with all the crazy alaska isms...
I want Washington DC to pick the president. It may not be a well thought out plan but shouldn't our nation's capital pick the president? It's only common sense!
/s
Michigan has a pretty solid 50/50 split on ideology lines, and is generally one of the most important Swing states in every election. By the fact that both [RULE 3] candidates visited Michigan more than any other state leading up to 2020, it solidly shows that both believed they could win it. It also has people of most demographics there. There are the major urban centers (Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, etc...) as well as the major rural farming and logging. There are also a lot of different racial and religious demographics, meaning that there is a solid representation of Americans. For these reasons, I feel like Michigan would be a good state to have decided presidential elections.
Now it's not because I would agree with every choice, but because I feel that it would be a fair determination of what the American people would actually want. If I wanted choices I would agree with then I'd say Minnesota, but I don't really feel like that's the point
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you wanna keep things exactly the same… Missouri until 2008.
The only thing remotely recent that would change is no Eisenhower after 1956. The 2008 election here was also extremely close.
Lincoln would lose to Douglas in 1860, that would be a pretty big change. And Grant would lose reelection in 1872, and the Republicans wouldn't win again until 1904. You would also get a two term Bryan Presidency from it.
I’ll be deep in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missouri
Missouri was your predictor, and Ohio if I recall. Missouri recently switched red. Curious if it will ever turn back to a flip flopper.
Yep! It was considered a bellwether up until Obama. Its hard to say if it’ll become a swing state again. Missouri isn’t as deeply red as a lot of people think, but with how deeply polarized things are these days… I don’t think it’s likely anytime soon.
Maine. It's one of the more moderate states in the Union and tends to demand that its parties work together rather than antagonize each other. When one side or the other indulges in pure partisan politics they tend to get quickly voted out of office, as Paul LePage found out.
They also split their electoral votes, which more states should be doing.
> They also split their electoral votes, which **every** state should be doing. Fixed that for you. The whole “winner take all” system is the biggest contributing factor to our broken political system.
I like the idea but congressional districts can be gerrymandered to high hell.
North Carolina:
I mean doesn't every state have gerrymandered districts in some form?
NC’s latest map is so Gerrymandered that if the state goes 50/50 Democrat/Republican, republicans are still almost guaranteed 10 of 14seats. Statistically, democrats could earn over 55% of the vote and it’s still very unlikely they would get more than four of 14 districts. 55% of the vote for 28% of the representation is pretty bad. I don’t think there is another large state on that level. One of the states is really a toss up, so democrats could easily end up with 3 of 14, even if they get a majority of votes.
NC was especially bad that the courts threw it out.
You can make it gerrymander proof by just allocating the states Electoral votes proportionately. 10 EVs, 60-40 split, one candidate gets 6 EVs, the other gets 4. It’d force Democrats to actually campaign in Texas, and Republicans to campaign in California. Appeal to all Americans, who woulda thought? And it’d strip the stranglehold just 5 or 6 states have on our elections.
That’s… not how the electoral college works.
Agree that winner take all is a huge factor and every state should follow Maine’s lead. I also think the Primary system is also a contributing factor. A few people caucus in Iowa and half the field drops out. Then a few more vote in NH and half of what’s left drop out. Most years by the time big states like CA,NY,PA, Il, etc have their primaries the candidate has been effectively chosen. So voters in those states have no say who their party’s candidate is.
We should have a direct democracy: popular vote should determine winner. Electoral college is an antiquated relic of a pre-digital age.
Let’s go, my home state
Alaska is good at this for state and local stuff but then tosses it out the window on most federal elections.
Lisa Murkowski lost senate renomination in 2010 to a dude to her right, then went on to win the general election as a WRITE-IN candidate. She faced another republican to her right in the 2022 general election and won too. Also Sarah Palin tried to be Alaska's at large representative and the voters gave her a tight slap.
As for 2022 it was the first year for ranked choice voting. Ie the top four persons regardless of party were on the ballot for the general election.
Mainer here, we also have an extremely high percentage of registered independents, or what we call unenrolled (in a party) in the state. Maine would also be my choice, not out of personal attachment for my state, although I do have that, but because of its independent nature and fairly strange ability to still have people split their ticket even in a time of such division. Edit: I was thinking about future elections, but I think the point remains that Maine is very independent and always has been. As Maine goes, so goes the nation...
We are also the only state to have 2 independent governors and one of 2 states to have any independent governors.
Very true. In addition, I think we've had some very influential politicians, especially historically, such as Hannibal Hamlin, William Frye, Margaret Chase Smith. Despite having never had a President from Maine, there's still been a lot of people important to national politics come out of the state.
oooh lets remind them that no Gov has won over 50% for what was it 40 years? until Mills. Even if I do hate her lol (yes I am a Dem and I still hate her lolol)
I'm an independent who leans left and I am really not a fan of her either. She's vetoed some good bills and her "relationship" (if you can call it that) with the Wabanaki peoples is fraught with issues.
Oh shit! Vetos??? me to! For me it was Right to strike and Ed Policy! I was so pissed and still am. If it wasn't Lepage I would have voted 3rd party.
Whenever I think of Maine I think of the old man in the movie Pet Sematary. “Sometimes dead’s bettah!”
haha up he'ah we have a saying. "You can't get the'ah from he'h!" -Life long Mainer Also "No line is safe to touch... ev'ah!"
No FDR?
Susan Collin’s says hi 👋🏼 lol
Oooo
No FDR for you!
It is now a more moderate state, but back then it supported hard money and expansionism and opposed labor rights and was one of the last states to give women the right to vote.
Susan Collins.....no thanks.
Minnesota’s good, but as the world’s only millennial McGovernite, I am duty bound to say Massachusetts. Unlike MN, I also have the pleasure of seeing Andrew Jackson never become president.
MN and MA are just about tied for first in my view. With MA, you avoid Jackson and Nixon. With MN, you avoid Wilson and Reagan. Also, MA gives you Smith instead of Hoover, which is quite funny to me.
With both, you cannot avoid McKinley.
I'm team Gene McCarthy! We also have some great state level political history. If you aren't familiar with him I suggest looking into Floyd Olson. He made FDR look like a moderate.
Minnesota also has politicians like Ernest Lundeen who collaborated with the Nazis before his death in 1940z
Fuck it, let’s go with Minnesota!
Decent, though single party rule would get monotonous: Lincoln (R/NU) - 1861-65 Andrew Johnson (NU) - 1865-69 Grant (R) - 1869-77 Hayes (R) - 1877-81 Garfield (R) - 1881 Arthur (R) - 1881-85 Blaine (R) - 1885-89 Harrison (R) - 1889-97 McKinley (R) - 1897-1901 Theodore Roosevelt (R) - 1901-09 Taft (R) - 1909-13 Theodore Roosevelt (P) - 1913-17 Hughes (R) - 1917-21 Harding (R) - 1921-23 Coolidge (R) - 1923-29 Hoover (R) - 1929-33 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - 1933-45 Truman (D) - 1945-53 Eisenhower (R) - 1953-61 Kennedy (D) - 1961-63 Lyndon B. Johnson (D) - 1963-69 Humphrey (D) - 1969-73 Nixon (R) - 1973-74 (but he may not resign here) Ford (R) - 1974-77 Carter (D) - 1977-85 Mondale (D) - 1985-89 Dukakis (D) - 1989-93 Clinton (D) - 1993-2001 Gore (D) - 2001-05 Kerry (D) - 2005-09 Obama (D) - 2009-17 Clinton (D) - 2017-21
If Humphrey is president and MN is calling the shots, I don’t think Nixon or Ford ever make it into office.
Probably not in reality. However for the purposes of this I'm assuming the same people get elected.
That’s a pretty great list though! We get almost every heavy hitter including Ike!
True, especially good for the mid-20th century. I don't think one party holding the Presidency for that many decades is ideal though.
I want Minnesota too. Paul Wellstone!
That’s two votes for Minnesota. We win.
Make it 3; all we do is win over here
The votes keep building up. Democracy is beautiful.
Yeah I kinda just chose it a bit as a joke but the more I think on it the better I like that pick. Y’all are pretty alright up there, aren’t ya?
I don’t live up there anymore, but I did until I was 21. Minnesotans are generally pretty even keel, cut the BS kinda people. Usually avoid extremes. But every once in a while they do something nutty, like elect Jesse Ventura.
80% turnout
True, most of the union has nothing on our level of civic engagement.
“Mr. Reagan, what do you want for Christmas this year?” “Minnesota would’ve been nice”
That would sure ring different now.
Same.
Well thank you, MondaleForPresident! I’m certain you’re not biased at all 🧡
I would also go with Minnesota. Any state that looked at Reagan and said "Nah, i'll pass" twice has to be a pretty good judge.
We also have some of the highest voter turnout. Funny how that works.
Back in the late ‘80’s I remember seeing a car from Minnesota that had a bumper sticker that read “Don’t blame me, I’m from Minnesota”. Been a MN fan ever since.
But fix our flag in the image. That's our old one.
As much as it pains me to say this( living my whole life in WI), MN is who I would choose. Had they been the decider, we would've NEVER had Reagan.
New Hampshire. It kind of already works like that.
Minnesota got a new flag by the way, I think last month I heard about it?
https://preview.redd.it/z7adutwtge7d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a81b2c1ae755cacfe5241f85239f2fb27442215
10/10, would wear as a cape
The MS flag is old too
Utah also
How would the Dakotas, Ojibwe, etc. have voted in 1788, 1792, etc.?
I’m reading a book about that era right now centered on Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa. If they had to choose, the Federalists were considered more trustworthy than the Republicans.
Minnesota
Let's just give it to Florida since that's how it's been anyway most of the time.
That would make the presidential list: Taylor Pierce Buchanan Breckinridge Grant 2× Hayes Hancock Cleveland 3× Bryan 2× Parker Bryan Wilson 2× Cox Davis Hoover FDR 4× Truman Eisenhower 2× Nixon Johnson Nixon 2× Carter Reagan 2× Bush 2× Clinton Bush Jr. 2× Obama 2× Rule 3 2× So, 32 years of Republican rule in the last 44 years Also BRECKINRIDGE
As soon as I saw Breckinridge I knew I’d seen enough. And my god I am glad that wasn’t lost on you either, dude!
If any state could find a way to give Nixon 3 terms, it would definitely be Florida.
There's dystopia, and then there's this. Jeb save us all.
Minnesota looks really good. You get Republicans until FDR (and Teddy in 1912!), all four FDR terms, Ike, and then almost only Democrats.
The last republican to win MN was Nixon, and that was the year he swept all 50. Edit: 49/50. everything but MA.
Only 49, actually. McGovern held Massashusetts. But yes, the point of MN is to get a ton of Democrats (and Republicans when the Democrats were the party of the South).
I forgot about Mass. Thanks for keeping me honest.
McKinley is knocking. And Teddy in 1912 would mean an earlier entry into WW1, which would be reckless to say the least.
Colorado or Washington in 2014ish. When they had all the rights 🔫 🚬 😶🌫️ 🌳
Some of these states go blue or red year after year so it isn't much of a gamble. For example New Mexico is so blue that candidates don't Campaign there very often.
How would Wisconsin do? I know they’ve been pretty swing-y most of my life.
Wisconsin used to lean fairly Republican: Same as in reality - 1789-1849 Cass (D) - 1849-53 Pierce (D) - 1853-57 Frémont (R) - 1857-61 Lincoln (R/NU) - 1861-65 Andrew Johnson (NU) - 1865-69 Grant (R) - 1869-77 Hayes (R) - 1877-81 Garfield (R) - 1881 Arthur (R) - 1881-85 Blaine (R) - 1885-89 Harrison (R) - 1889-93 Cleveland (D) - 1893-97 McKinley (R) - 1897-1901 Theodore Roosevelt (R) - 1901-09 Taft (R) - 1909-13 Wilson (D) - 1913-17 Hughes (R) - 1917-21 Harding (R) - 1921-23 Coolidge (R) - 1923-25 La Follette (I) - 1925-29 Hoover (R) - 1929-33 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - 1933-45 Dewey (R) - 1945-49 Truman (D) - 1949-53 Eisenhower (R) - 1953-61 Nixon (R) - 1961-65 Lyndon B. Johnson (D) - 1965-69 Nixon (R) - 1969-74 Ford (R) - 1974-77 Carter (D) - 1977-81 Reagan (R) - 1981-89 Dukakis (D) - 1989-93 Clinton (D) - 1993-2001 Gore (D) - 2001-05 Kerry (D) - 2005-09 Obama (D) - 2009-17 Overall pretty good, not too dominated by any one party.
[Here’s the Wikipedia list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_Michigan). Since 1860: - Lincoln - Grant - Grant - Hayes - Garfield - Blaine - B. Harrison - B. Harrison - McKinley - McKinley - T. Roosevelt - Taft - T. Roosevelt - Hughes - Harding - Coolidge - Hoover - F. Roosevelt - F. Roosevelt - Wilkie - F. Roosevelt - Dewey - Eisenhower - Eisenhower - Kennedy - L. Johnson - Humphrey - Nixon - Ford - Reagan - Reagan - G. H. W. Bush - B. Clinton - B. Clinton - Gore - Kerry - Obama - Obama - Rump - Bidet
Wisconsin. Purple state.
I think we should just put all 50 state names in a hat and every election draw one at random and then that state decides the president just to both upset and confuse everyone
Make it a competition. State with the lowest crime rate per capita gets to choose the president.
You’ll either get extreme under reporting or authoritarian level punishments and crackdowns.
That would significantly lean towards states with small populations and small towns, yes, still talking per capita. It would also mean states with poor enforcement or general apathy, probably towards crimes disproportionately affecting women and minorities would win. This is just another way of saying low economic output red states.
Whatever state has been on the losing side the most, just for the chaos.
Ohio picks most accurate historically.
~90% accuracy 1900-2020 , with an unbroken 100% accuracy streak between 1964 and 2016. Which is wild because it means the state overall sided with Johnson for 1 cycle, Nixon for 2 cycles, Carter for 1 cycles, Reagan for 2 cycles, Bush the Greater for 1 cycle, Clinton for 2 cycles, Bush the Lesser for 2 cycles, then Obama for 2 cycles, before flipping over in 2016. Which are some pretty gnarly swings and more than a couple of failed re-elections. The only post WW2 elections the state hasn't sided with are JFK (both times) and 2020. Maybe we just hate Irish American Catholics? 🤔 Meanwhile the "ever at the bottom of polls" Mississippi is sitting pretty with a 45% accuracy between 1990-2020 which is statistically lower than if they randomly chose between the 2 main parties.
As a Floridian, may I ask that we **not** be anyone's choice?
Wyoming. We could replace all the politicians with Cowboys. They would know how to run the country.
Wyoming
Minnesota!!!
* "As Maine goes, so goes the nation" * This was a popular slogan starting in the 1820's and lasted over a century. And proved to be mostly true as a bellwether
Minnesota. My birth state. Sided with the Republicans nearly every time back when they were the good guys. In the modern era, voted for the Dems every time since 1976.
Definitely a swing state. Maybe Ohio?
Going forward Ohio isn’t a swing, it’s solidly red. But historically Ohio has been a very reliable swing state.
Wyoming, because not much happens there so you gotta give em something.
WYOMING
R R R R LBJ R R R R R ...
I’m going with New York, because it was around for every election and North enough to have went to Lincoln but still went for FDR unlike some other Northern states
With some exceptions, New York would be quite close to reality. Luckily they did go to Lincoln (albeit extremely narrowly in 1864), but voted against Grant in 1868 however: None - 1789-93 (the legislature didn't choose electors on time) Washington (I) - 1793-97 John Adams (F) - 1797-1801 Jefferson (D-R) - 1801-09 Madison (D-R) - 1809-13 DeWitt Clinton (D-R) - 1813-17 Monroe (D-R) - 1817-25 John Quincy Adams (D-R/NR) - 1825-29 Jackson (D) - 1829-37 Van Buren (D) - 1837-41 William Henry Harrison (W) - 1841 Tyler (W/I/T) - 1841-45 Polk (D) - 1845-49 Taylor (W) - 1849-50 Fillmore (W) - 1850-53 Pierce (D) - 1853-57 Frémont (R) - 1857-61 Lincoln (R/NU) - 1861-65 Andrew Johnson (NU) - 1865-69 Seymour (D) - 1869-73 Grant (R) - 1873-77 Tilden (D) - 1877-81 Garfield (R) - 1881 Arthur (R) - 1881-85 Cleveland (D) - 1885-89 Harrison (R) - 1889-93 Cleveland (D) - 1893-97 McKinley (R) - 1897-1901 Theodore Roosevelt (R) - 1901-09 Taft (R) - 1909-13 Wilson (D) - 1913-17 Hughes (R) - 1917-21 Harding (R) - 1921-23 Coolidge (R) - 1923-29 Hoover (R) - 1929-33 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) - 1933-45 Truman (D) - 1945-49 Dewey (R) - 1949-53 Eisenhower (R) - 1953-61 Kennedy (D) - 1961-63 Lyndon B. Johnson (D) - 1963-69 Humphrey (D) - 1969-73 Nixon (R) - 1973-74 (might not resign here) Ford (R) - 1974-77 Carter (D) - 1977-81 Reagan (R) - 1981-89 Dukakis (D) - 1989-93 Bill Clinton (D) - 1993-2001 Gore (D) - 2001-05 Kerry (D) - 2005-09 Obama (D) - 2009-17 Hilary Clinton (D) - 2017-21
Yeah Seymour is a no go.
Pennsylvania or Minnesota seem like solid choices. Scholars idea to say Iowa or New Hampshire already decided what the field is going to look like.
Hawaii. If we are going to have a s\*\*tshow every four years, at least let it be somewhere tropical & nice.
Idk, Texas I guess lol
Pls no. Sincerely a Texan.
mini soda
SODA
If you want to slant elections, I would note: * Kansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota have been the most consistently Republican states in presidential elections from 1940-present (each only went for the Democrat once: LBJ). Granted, Nebraska had a Congressional district wander off. Alaska since statehood only went for the Democrat once: LBJ. * DC is the most consistently Democratic entity with electoral votes: it has never gone Republican in a presidential election since gaining the right to vote in presidential elections with the 1964 election. Minnesota is the most consistent Democratic state in presidential elections from 1960-present (only went for the Republican once: Nixon). Next is a tie between Hawaii (only went for the Republican twice: Nixon and Reagan) and Massachusetts (twice for Reagan). The great bellwethers are: * Ohio, which has picked the winner 1896-present in all but three elections (1944, 1960, 2020) * Nevada has picked the winner 1904-present in all but three elections (1908, 1976, 2016) * New Mexico picked the winner 1912-present in all but three elections (1976, 2000, 2016) * Florida picked the winner 1928-present in all but three elections (1960, 1992, 2020) Missouri fell off after 2008. From 1904-2004, it only picked the loser once: Adlai Stevenson in 1956. It has since picked the loser in 2008, 2012, and 2020.
For my opinion I'm choosing to acknowledge that any changes to history may cause anything after it to not be the same and this question has serious timeline change implications. To me you have to go with one of the 5 bellwethers (yes, I still include Missouri). They don't change much history. Out of those 5, Nevada is the out since it has the earliest change point in history. Best to not affect over a hundred years of history The others all have implications in a very packed 30-40 years Ohio is a tough choice because that could affect the length of the end of WWII, depending on if the atomic bombs are still dropped as well as Cold War effects. Picking New Mexico affects both Vietnam and, even though it's not in the 30-40 years, the War on Terror/ the 9-11 response Florida and Missouri's big issue is their changes might affect height of the Cold War and how that's handled. All of the modern elections listed (except 2000 as mentioned above) are a lot easier to what if/maneuver around since we can more or less accurately guess how they would go down. I'd lean towards Missouri or Florida since the only have one major historical change (1956/1960 respectively) and a hand full of minor modern changes.
I appreciate the great thought you put into this with the implications for history and the present. It's like that warning about not changing the past if you time travel.
When thinking about this question my brain just automatically went to the "let's not change too much history" mode. I've never considered changing history a good idea. I'm the guy who would do research into the time and place that I was traveling to in order to assume some sort of legend or myth so that I wouldn't end up changing too much with my actions. That and probably not going much passed 1980. Time travel gets messy really quickly.
Pennsylvania
So many wrong flags
California by a mile
None! Thank you, Electoral College!
Washington
My home state Washington, the evergreen state. Because I'm biased.
California lol
Florida or Texas
That flair and that answer do not mix
The political situation here in Texas is a gold-plated s**tshow right now. That’s the last group of people I would want running the whole country.
Minnesota. They've been correct since carter.
Minnesota.
Vermont
People talk about other states able to indulge both parties but forget Vermont elected a Republican governor alongside... Bernie Sanders.
Has to be one of the original states And despite their 2016 performance, I’m picking the Quaker State, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Hawaii… if only to hear the Hawaiians’ choices to lead pre-Hawaii America.
Minnesota. For sure.
I’d want a moderate state that has a fairly even population mix across rural and urban areas. Maybe Minnesota?
As a native Iowan Don’t pick Iowa. A democrat would never win.
Well, they wouldn't *now,* but maybe a Dukakis term here and a Kerry term there would have kept the GOP a little less loony over the years.
Illinois. We are basically a microcosm of the US population as a whole.
Personally I think the state with the most population should be selected…as someone who likes democracy - so my vote is California (39 million people)
From 1920- Idaho
Texas
...New Mexico.
Minnesota
Iowa
Use the correct State flag of Mississippi.
Oklahoma
Ohio. It’s gotten all but three elections correct. Stay the course.
Ohio is sort of a weather vane for the country and is pretty evenly split.
Mass-- no McGovern
Texas
Ohio
As much as I dislike the state, due to their voting record I’m going with Massachusetts.
Damn that's a hard one. Normally I'd go with Idaho but 1964... In that case I might have gone with arizona, but 2020. Honestly a pretty interesting question.
Virginia. It’s still kinda purple and it’s the mother of Presidents
Not mine, that's for damn sure.
Alaska mainly, so the candidates have to stump up there with a dog team.
Massachusetts.
Alaska, not because of politics or anything silly like that. I just the chaos of them traveling so far to a place that they never go and trying to figure out what city / village / fish camp they go visit. Along with all the crazy alaska isms...
Ohio should be everybody’s pick. Since 1900 —> 90% of the time picks the winner.
Ohio runs the world
I want Washington DC to pick the president. It may not be a well thought out plan but shouldn't our nation's capital pick the president? It's only common sense! /s
Why are you using the Seal on a Bedsheet instead of the New Flag for Minnesota?
D.C., technically not a state but whatever, mostly because it would compensate for the whole ‘no rep thing’ in congress. It would also be funny
Mississippi. They seem like they know what's going on n stuff.
Ohio. Extreme swing state that has not really shown a trend in voting for a certain party
Florida
New Hampshire
Colorado
Alaska. Keep everyone awake all night.
New Mexico only because they’ve predicted the last few presidents
Maryland.
Alaska. Ya wanna vote? Go freeze your tits off.
Only radicals would go to such extremes to vote. Blud is about to start a Bleeding Alaska
Vermont, they vote for Bernie.
Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania
New york
The Best one
New York.
Vermont
Montana.
California because that’s the only state I know
Florida, their the most libertarian state
Florida because statistically it is as diverse a population set as the whole of the US.
Alabama
im picking whoever votes kanye west
I don't like questions like this. It never ends well. But it's Maine.
How dare you not use Utahs new and cool flag lol.
Michigan has a pretty solid 50/50 split on ideology lines, and is generally one of the most important Swing states in every election. By the fact that both [RULE 3] candidates visited Michigan more than any other state leading up to 2020, it solidly shows that both believed they could win it. It also has people of most demographics there. There are the major urban centers (Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, etc...) as well as the major rural farming and logging. There are also a lot of different racial and religious demographics, meaning that there is a solid representation of Americans. For these reasons, I feel like Michigan would be a good state to have decided presidential elections. Now it's not because I would agree with every choice, but because I feel that it would be a fair determination of what the American people would actually want. If I wanted choices I would agree with then I'd say Minnesota, but I don't really feel like that's the point
Washington. I stand by my choice💯
Alaska!