US with UK parties

[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

[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

[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.