US with UK parties

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Well, what would it look like?

Discuss with maps, etc.

[JulioMadrid]

New England + Hawaii = Labour
Rest of Obama states 2008 - NC - IN = LibDem
McCain States + NC + IN = Conservative

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

I think it might be.....



Though I'm not 100% sure there.

[Californian Tony]

Map I did back in 2010 :

Tories : 42%
LibDems : 29%
Labour : 22%
Miscellaneous regionalist (for HI and AK) : 1%
Others (USIP, ANP, etc) : 6%

[afleitch]

It depends on whether the US votes the same way as we do with regards to ideology, platform etc. If so then Labour would be very strong in the south and always win West Virginia for example, while the Conservativse would be winning Oregon, challenging in Connecticut and so on.

[afleitch]

So for example: 2010 GE

[Californian Tony]

So for example: 2010 GE

Why would PA go Tory ? I think it's far more likely to see rural southern States like LA, MI and AL going blue in this scenario.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

A simple explanation, IMO:

Maine: - probably a swing state. I thought that it would be a Tory stronghold as it has been very willing to support moderate Republicans, but other people have said otherwise.

2010: Liberal Democrats
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

New Hampshire: - formerly a Tory stronghold, it would now swing between them and Liberal Democrats. However, the Tory's better ground game (IMO) would mean they'd win a lot of the time.

2010: Conservative
1997: Liberal Democrats
1983: Conservative

Vermont - would probably be like real life. A former Tory stronghold that turned into a Labor/Lib Dem state. Also contains a lot of independents.

2010: Liberal Democrats
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

Massachusetts - would be a Labor stronghold, but one that could vote Liberal Democrats from time to time. Tories wouldn't even get a look in here.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Labor

Rhode Island - see Massachusetts.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Labor

Connecticut - would be a little bit like Maine. The fact that it's so wealthy would probably give the Tories an edge though.

2010: Conservative
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

New York - NYC would be a Labor stronghold, so would upstate areas. Suburbia would keep the Tories in somewhat.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

New Jersey - given it's a wealthy area and basically New York and Philadelphia suburbia, the Tories would win here most of the time.

2010: Conservative
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

Delaware - hard to figure out. Seems like all parties would do OK here. Labor have the edge because of the large minority population in New Castle County, but it's also kinda wealthy.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

Maryland - would lean Labor because of the large minority population in Baltimore and the Washington DC outskirts, the rest of the state would lean Tories.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

Pennsylvania - would be similar to real life - Labor would own in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, but struggle in the rest of the state. But they'd also do well in Appalachia. An interesting state.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

So 2010 atm:

[afleitch]

Good analysis Unlike the US, there has not been a political re-alignment in the UK; places that voted Labour 50 years ago still do today (broadly). The best way to look at the US is imagine that the re-alignment never took place; the Labour party do wel in the south and 'rust belt' states and the Lib Dems do well in some left-liberal urban states and perform well in economically left leaning farming states

Maine:

I'd be broadly with you on that one
1983 - CON
1987 - CON
1992 - CON
1997 - LAB
2001 - LAB
2005 - CON or LIB
2010 - CON

New Hampshire:

Solidly Conservative from 1983 right through to 1992, I think the Conservatives would just hold on in 1997 only to loose it in 2001 to the Lib Dems. It would be a favourable state under Howard's leadership so I see it as a Tory pick up in 2005 and a hold in 2010

Vermont

One where we would have to take into account the genuine changes in the state. 1983 to 1992 Conservative, Labour pick up in 1997, hold with a bigger majority in 2001 only for it to fall to the Lib Dems in 2005. Labour could have picked it up again in 2010 in a tactical anti-Tory vote

Massachusetts

Tories could challenge here on a good year like say 1959. I imagine they would have won this state in a close three-way in 1983, losing it to Labour in 1987 who then hold it. It would have been susceptable to a Lib Dem assault in 2005 however the Catholic vote (which is Labour) cannot be ignored.

Rhode Island

Likewise, Labour right through (probably even in 1983) and not really a Lib Dem target

Connecticut

Conservatives win here in 1983 and 1987, hold on in 1992, loose to Labour until 2010 when I think the Tories would pick it up

New York

Labour probably winning this state every election post 1983

New Jersey

I would have the Tories winning strongly in 1983, 1987 and 1992. Labour win in 1997, 2001 and probably 2005. Either the Tories pick this up in 2010 or fall just short

Delaware

Conservative in 1983, then Labour. Lib Dems could do well here in 2005

Maryland

Solidly Labour

Pennsylvania

Swingy McSwing. Thatcher would be annoyed not to win here in 1979, but would have picked it up in 1983 and 1987 and Major would have held in 1992. Labour win big in 1997, probably bigger in 2001, Tories get a big swing to them in 2005 but Labour hold on. Who wins in 2010 is down to a turnout war.

[afleitch]

I played about with Connecticut.

I used survey data from IPSOS MORI collected during the campaign which they weighted after the election. It's not perfect but it's good. I then used the Dept of Labor stats on employment using their Standard Occupation Classification. I then matched this data to the UK's 'ABC1C2DE' classification system and applied turnout figures. I classified the long term unemployed as 'E' as per procedure. I used the UK's over 65 polling data to deal with the 13.8% of over 65's in Connecticut and applied turnout data. I found the number of full time working age students and applied that to the model (using voting intention for 18-24 year olds)

I got:

Conservative 38.2
Labour 30.4
Lib Dem 22.4

Might expand upon the model

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

DC - very solid Labor. Wouldn't win the area by 90% like they do now, but something like 80% makes sense.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Labor

Virginia - because of the likely vote splitting in NoVA, this seat would lean Conservative, unlike what I originally thought, despite some poorer rural areas voting for pocketbook rather than social issues.

2010: Conservative
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

West Virginia - Labor stronghold. Boring. Probably Labor's safest 'state' in the Union.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Labor

North Carolina - relatively solid Labor state. Conservatives would do decent in more rural areas, but nowhere near as strong as they are now.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

South Carolina - formerly a Labor stronghold, it's become more swingy recently. Would be receptive to the right Labor candidate, similarly to the right Conservative candidate.

2010: Labor
1997: Conservative
1983: Conservative

Georgia - solid Labor state. Conservatives would do reasonable in the rural areas, but generally not good enough to swing the state.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Conservative

Florida - surprisingly, this looks like a Conservative stronghold. The minorities are more conservative than most, old people are conservative, and it's really only the black population and Miami-Dade keeping Labor in it.

2010: Conservative
1997: Conservative
1983: Conservative

Alabama - no idea. Really, it's a lot more culturally conservative than pretty much every other state. This could be a crucial swing state.

2010: Labor
1997: Conservative
1983: Conservative

Mississippi - horrible racial voting means a very high ANP (that's BNP in America) vote and an occasional Tory win due to vote splitting, but it's fundamentally a Labor state.

2010: Labor
1997: Labor
1983: Labor

[Χahar]

I don't see Alabama and Mississippi as being different enough to justify that; certainly Alabama wouldn't vote Tory in 1997 if Mississippi voted Labour in 1983. Bear in mind that both states have voted for the same candidate for President at every election for the last 170 years.

[Sibboleth]

I try this every now and again and (who knows) might try again, randomly. The South is a potential problem area, but there are possible solutions (especially as it isn't as though we have to work out massive backstories).

Of course the result will always look a little hilarious these days, because voting patterns in the U.S are now structured around very different things to the U.K; in the 1980s there would have been much more common ground.

[afleitch]

I try this every now and again and (who knows) might try again, randomly. The South is a potential problem area, but there are possible solutions (especially as it isn't as though we have to work out massive backstories).

Of course the result will always look a little hilarious these days, because voting patterns in the U.S are now structured around very different things to the U.K; in the 1980s there would have been much more common ground.

I was using the IPSOS/MORI 'How Britain Voted' data and applied it to the US. One of the main issues is of course that notions of class are different, but looking at income helped. The problem of course with a national model is that it draws national conclusions.

What you find therefore is that using 2005 data then Labour win a swathe of states while using 2010 data the Tories win nearly all of them. The difference of course is by how much; Labour 'lose' West Virginia by a tad over 1%. Which was suprising but makes sense in the same way that Yorkshire and the Humber voted 'Tory' but the picture was different at the constituency level. As the Lib Dems came third nationally, they always came third in the match-ups.

So sadly I found it not too useful a tool. However income probably is a good indicator as is poverty and employment. Of course the big issue is when you get into rural areas. In the UK farming with regards to labour has changed since the war. In the US there are still rural labour intensive but poor farming areas that continue to vote Democratic at the congressional level who would probably still vote Labour; I can imagine Labour winning in North Dakota at times.

So yeah, the end result would be strange.

[Sibboleth]

I was using the IPSOS/MORI 'How Britain Voted' data and applied it to the US.

That data is pretty suspect except in very general terms, so careful as you go with it.

Which was suprising but makes sense in the same way that Yorkshire and the Humber voted 'Tory' but the picture was different at the constituency level.

Not sure what you mean by this; Labour won the most votes in the Yorkshire & Humber region, though not by a great deal (34.4 against 32.8 ). Or do you mean that the results in the survey went the other way?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Bumping with Alabama and Mississippi as Northern Ireland, 2010.



States' Rights Democratic Party: 27%, 6 seats
Sisi Kwetu: 26.5%, 4 seats
States' Rights Dixie Party: 19.3%, 1 seat
Social Democratic and Labor Party: 16.5%, no seats
Alliance: 6.3%, no seats
Others: 4.4%, no seats

[Peter the Lefty]

The Conservatives would have to be much more right-wing in America than they are in Britain.  Otherwise, they'd be rivaled as the main party of the right wing by UKIP (the BNP would probably do well in the South as well).  And frankly, because socialism is so demonized in the US, I actually think the Lib Dems would probably have a shot of being the main center-left party.  Labour would be a significant third or fourth party with its main bases of support among blue-collar/unionized workers, and in poor areas.  NYC would probably be an Labour stronghold, but with the Lib Dems dominating Manhattan in general.  The Torries would dominate Wall Street, Sutton Place, and Carnegie Hill.  Labour would probably also dominate urban California, Chicago, etc.  The Lib Dems would probably take much of the bourgeois-Dems vote, especially in the suburban northeast (Middlesex county, for example, since Labour's tax policies may rub them in the wrong direction).  The Torries, if they were the way they are in the UK, would dominate a lot of the moderate Republican areas where people like Michael Bloomberg, Charlie Christ, and Arnold Schwarzenegger would gain a big following, but they'd be wiped out by UKIP in a lot of the tea-party heavy areas and the BNP among Southern whites.  You might have an SNP/Plaid equivalent in Hawaii, and maybe in Texas too.  The Greens would probably be most popular in hippie-heavy cities like Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, Burlington, VT, and a lot of the college towns.  Labour would probably be popular in those areas too if it were "Old Labour," but it might loose a lot of its strength in these areas to the Greens and/or Lib Dems in a lot of these areas if it became "New Labour" (including the Iraq War, top-up fees, etc.)  Though making it "New Labour" might give it some more votes in a lot of the otherwise-Lib Dem suburbs that vote Democrat regularly in real life. 

[Zuza]

the BNP would probably do well in the South as well

Isn't BNP too statist and economically interventionist for Southerners (who typically favor laissez-faire capitalism)?

[State Comptroller Atkins]

the BNP would probably do well in the South as well

Isn't BNP too statist and economically interventionist for Southerners (who typically favor laissez-faire capitalism)?

[Peter the Lefty]

Well, I'm sure they'd be slightly more Laissez-faire, but crazy right-wingers hate free trade too.  If you look at the Constiturion Party's website, it says free trade is "being used to foster socialism...".  It's hilarious how pathetically stupid these people are.  But the BNP would probably do the same thing.  I'd say the parties would be led by:
Conservatives-Mitt Romney, with someone more moderate like Charlie Christ or Michael Bloomberg as deputy leader to balance out Romney's very right-wing positions within the party.  Would also include people like Mary Landrieu, Harry Reid, Lincoln Chaffee, Evan Bayh, Mark Begich, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine.  
Labour-Err...Nancy Pelosi, or maybe Elizabeth Warren.  Van Jones would be okay if it weren't New Labour, but with the New Labour "modernizations", Warren might be the most left-wing person who could viably become leader
Lib Dems-Barack Obama, 'cause he's a right-wing sellout just like Clegg, and I guess you could say that in 2008, his ideology seemed to be left-liberal.  Jerry Brown, the Clintons, Al Gore, Dianne Feinstein, and other Dems who aren't blue dogs, but also aren't socialists by any stretch of the imagination.  
USIP-The Tea Party.  Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich all come to mind for leader.  I suppose it'd be Bachmann.
ANP-David Duke, though maybe Jan Brewer so they'd have better electoral prospects
Green Party-Jill Stein or Ralph Nadar
Rick Perry would lead the Texan National Party lol.  

[Peter the Lefty]

UK 2010 election held in the US (hypothetically), if there weren't a Texan National Party or Plaid Hawaii or any other seperatist parties:
Conservatives-42%
Liberal Democrats-21%
Labour-16%
USIP-15%
ANP-5%
Others-1%

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

You've got to realise that "New Labour", while left of the Democrats, would still have most of the Democrat's rank-and-file.

Lib Dems would have moderates or maverickish lefties. Conservatives would be the non-nutcase proportion of the Republican party. The nutters would be in the USIP.

What each main leader would be in:

Obama: Labour
Biden: Labour
Clinton: Labour
Reid: interesting...could be any of the Big 3.
Pelosi: Labour
Romney: Conservative
Bohnner: Conservative
McConnell: Conservative or perhaps USIP.

Add some more.

[ChairmanSanchez]

Well, I'm sure they'd be slightly more Laissez-faire, but crazy right-wingers hate free trade too.  If you look at the Constiturion Party's website, it says free trade is "being used to foster socialism...".  It's hilarious how pathetically stupid these people are.  But the BNP would probably do the same thing.  I'd say the parties would be led by:
Conservatives-Mitt Romney, with someone more moderate like Charlie Christ or Michael Bloomberg as deputy leader to balance out Romney's very right-wing positions within the party.  Would also include people like Mary Landrieu, Harry Reid, Lincoln Chaffee, Evan Bayh, Mark Begich, Mark Warner, and Tim Kaine.  
Labour-Err...Nancy Pelosi, or maybe Elizabeth Warren.  Van Jones would be okay if it weren't New Labour, but with the New Labour "modernizations", Warren might be the most left-wing person who could viably become leader
Lib Dems-Barack Obama, 'cause he's a right-wing sellout just like Clegg, and I guess you could say that in 2008, his ideology seemed to be left-liberal.  Jerry Brown, the Clintons, Al Gore, Dianne Feinstein, and other Dems who aren't blue dogs, but also aren't socialists by any stretch of the imagination.  
USIP-The Tea Party.  Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich all come to mind for leader.  I suppose it'd be Bachmann.
ANP-David Duke, though maybe Jan Brewer so they'd have better electoral prospects
Green Party-Jill Stein or Ralph Nadar
Rick Perry would lead the Texan National Party lol.  

Where would Ron Paul be in this? I could see him in the USIP.