US With British Parties

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

2005

Labor: 251
Conservative: 215
Liberal Democrat: 38
USIP: 16
SUP: 10
SDLP: 5
Plaid Alaska: 3

No EC majority, Lib Dems allow Labor to continue governing, but do not want the VP position.

2010 without USIP

2015 (projection only)

USIP will likely get less EVs, and the Tories more, come the election, but this is what a hypothetical 2015 result would look like, based on current UK polling. As I stated earlier, I will update this thread with the "actual" 2015 result, should I still be posting on this forum. I will leave the projection up though, if and when I do post the update.

Labor: 290
Conservative: 67
USIP: 142
Liberal Democrat: 28
SUP: 11
SDLP: 5

[DC Al Fine]

What a fantastic series. Excellent job seeing it through to the end.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

What a fantastic series. Excellent job seeing it through to the end.

Thanks!

[morgieb]

Good work.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Good work.

Thanks, are you going to do any more of your US with Australian parties project? What you've done so far is looking good!

[King of Kensington]

Quite impressive.  I wonder though if this analysis underestimates Labour support and overestimates Lib Dem support however.

I think "New Democrats" like Clinton would be New Labour not Lib Dems - first of all, it's the larger party and ambitious pols will be attracted to it; second Clinton's welfare reform and emphasis on "personal responsibility" is in fact quite Giddens-inspired.

Obama too I think would be Labour, maybe more Ed than David Miliband.

You're quite right I think about the difference between British Tories and US Republicans.  The David Cameron model would not fly in the South!

Also, Respect is a bit tricky as there is no concentration of lower income South Asian Muslims as in the UK.  Outside of NYC, US South Asians are mostly pretty much affluent Indian American Hindu professionals.

Another question: how about Jews?  Obviously they would be much more Tory than GOP.  I think in the UK the more religious/orthodox Jews are more Tory and secular Jews more Labour.   On paper secular Jews sound like Lib Dems but I don't think they vote for them in particularly high numbers.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Quite impressive.  I wonder though if this analysis underestimates Labour support and overestimates Lib Dem support however.

I think "New Democrats" like Clinton would be New Labour not Lib Dems - first of all, it's the larger party and ambitious pols will be attracted to it; second Clinton's welfare reform and emphasis on "personal responsibility" is in fact quite Giddens-inspired.

Obama too I think would be Labour, maybe more Ed than David Miliband.

You're quite right I think about the difference between British Tories and US Republicans.  The David Cameron model would not fly in the South!

Also, Respect is a bit tricky as there is no concentration of lower income South Asian Muslims as in the UK.  Outside of NYC, US South Asians are mostly pretty much affluent Indian American Hindu professionals.

Another question: how about Jews?  Obviously they would be much more Tory than GOP.  I think in the UK the more religious/orthodox Jews are more Tory and secular Jews more Labour.   On paper secular Jews sound like Lib Dems but I don't think they vote for them in particularly high numbers.

I did change Obama from LD to Labour later on, should go back and revise the original post, thanks for reminding me.

As for Respect, I changed them somewhat into an urban black and Latino party, doing well in the likes of the Bronx, poor parts of LA such as Watts, and poor parts of the Rust Belt, namely parts of inner Chicago and Detroit.

With the respective support for Labour and the Lib Dems, you have to remember that a former socialist party, especially militant 1980s Labour, would not do well in the US. Also, in 2005 and 2010, a lot of Americans would have gone from Labour to the Lib Dems from Labour's support of the Iraq War. Labour will get a fair amount of support back in 2015 though, as they will in the UK.

As for the Jewish vote, you're right, they'd be largely Tory-voting, although more secular Jews would have a Labour lean.

Thanks for the feedback by the way, it's great to still get interest in this!

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Party topping the poll in each state, in a hypothetical 2014 North American Union election:

Second place map:

[Hatman 🍁]

This North American Union contains just the US?

[DC Al Fine]

This North American Union contains just the US?

I think the map is supposed to be the equivalent of the UK's EU election results.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

This North American Union contains just the US?

I think the map is supposed to be the equivalent of the UK's EU election results.

DC is correct, the update is showing how the US would have voted in a hypothetical 2014 "NAU" election.

Green on the map = USIP, or in AZ/NM, the SUP, by the way.

[Hatman 🍁]

Booo!

[Del Tachi]

I think, in general, you've underestimated the strength of Labor and overestimated how strong USIP would be in the South.

American Labor would be much more socially moderate than the modern Democratic Party and the Liberals would fill the void for a socially progressive, neoliberal party.  Thus, I think Labor would do quite well in the South whereas the Tories' success in the South would probably be constrained to wealthy Atlanta and Houston suburbs, South Florida, and Eastern Tennessee.

If USIP is suppose to be analogous to UKIP then it would not fly well in the Souty at all.  Libertarian candidates don't do very well in the Southern U.S. as is, so I don't see why they would if British parties would suddenly transposed onto the American political landscape. 

In 2014, I believe that this "British America" would be in the midst of a huge political realignment.  The Liberals have probably recently (or are poised to soon) take over Labor to become the largest leftist party in Parliament.  This has probably been achieved by the Liberals encroaching on both Conservative and Labor territory in the Northeast - defeating Tories in places like New Hampshire and New Jersey while gentrification allows them to capture inner-city districts from Labor. 

The defeat of the Tories in their historical strongholds (Northeastern suburbs) has pushed the overall Party considerably to the right.  This means that the Tories natural expansions are coming in the South at the expense of Labor.  A few Labor politicians live-on the South, people like Travis Childers and John Spratt, in the more rural areas, but overall Labor is becoming the party of Blacks as Tories capture the White vote under the banner of the "New Right" which marries capitalism and social conservatism.

Labor is obviously getting the short-end of the stick in this scenario.  It's traditional base of Southern Whites is transitioning into the Tories' electoral base while the death of the pro-Union middle class in the Midwest and Northeast is translating into Liberal gains among the new "White Collar" professionals in these regions.  The one bright spot for Labor is it's strength among Hispanic voters, and Labor's clout in the Southwest and West Coast as a result.  Combined with the party's strength with Blacks, Labor may become the first major party in parliament to be minority-majority

I think that's how things would shakedown

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I think, in general, you've underestimated the strength of Labor and overestimated how strong USIP would be in the South.

American Labor would be much more socially moderate than the modern Democratic Party and the Liberals would fill the void for a socially progressive, neoliberal party.  Thus, I think Labor would do quite well in the South whereas the Tories' success in the South would probably be constrained to wealthy Atlanta and Houston suburbs, South Florida, and Eastern Tennessee.

If USIP is suppose to be analogous to UKIP then it would not fly well in the Souty at all.  Libertarian candidates don't do very well in the Southern U.S. as is, so I don't see why they would if British parties would suddenly transposed onto the American political landscape. 

In 2014, I believe that this "British America" would be in the midst of a huge political realignment.  The Liberals have probably recently (or are poised to soon) take over Labor to become the largest leftist party in Parliament.  This has probably been achieved by the Liberals encroaching on both Conservative and Labor territory in the Northeast - defeating Tories in places like New Hampshire and New Jersey while gentrification allows them to capture inner-city districts from Labor. 

The defeat of the Tories in their historical strongholds (Northeastern suburbs) has pushed the overall Party considerably to the right.  This means that the Tories natural expansions are coming in the South at the expense of Labor.  A few Labor politicians live-on the South, people like Travis Childers and John Spratt, in the more rural areas, but overall Labor is becoming the party of Blacks as Tories capture the White vote under the banner of the "New Right" which marries capitalism and social conservatism.

Labor is obviously getting the short-end of the stick in this scenario.  It's traditional base of Southern Whites is transitioning into the Tories' electoral base while the death of the pro-Union middle class in the Midwest and Northeast is translating into Liberal gains among the new "White Collar" professionals in these regions.  The one bright spot for Labor is it's strength among Hispanic voters, and Labor's clout in the Southwest and West Coast as a result.  Combined with the party's strength with Blacks, Labor may become the first major party in parliament to be minority-majority

I think that's how things would shakedown

Are you basing this on my state-by-state analysis, and/or my EU 2014 projection?

While Labor would be more conservative in the US, particularly on the likes of gun rights, they still be socially to the left, I tried not to change too much from the British parties.

Also, UKIP, and thus USIP, aren't that libertarian, and I think their values of freedom from the EU, which might become getting out of NAFTA in a US context, would resonate well with Southerners that would vote for the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and so on. There would be a Paulite wing of USIP, but they wouldn't exactly control the party. In other words, it would carry the Tea Party vote, both Palinite and Paulite.

I've also tried to mirror the results over the years to make it match the UK results in a sense as much as possible. Looking back though on the project, I think the likes of Georgia could have stayed Labor in 2001, especially if USIP began its rise back then.

[Del Tachi]

I think, in general, you've underestimated the strength of Labor and overestimated how strong USIP would be in the South.

American Labor would be much more socially moderate than the modern Democratic Party and the Liberals would fill the void for a socially progressive, neoliberal party.  Thus, I think Labor would do quite well in the South whereas the Tories' success in the South would probably be constrained to wealthy Atlanta and Houston suburbs, South Florida, and Eastern Tennessee.

If USIP is suppose to be analogous to UKIP then it would not fly well in the Souty at all.  Libertarian candidates don't do very well in the Southern U.S. as is, so I don't see why they would if British parties would suddenly transposed onto the American political landscape. 

In 2014, I believe that this "British America" would be in the midst of a huge political realignment.  The Liberals have probably recently (or are poised to soon) take over Labor to become the largest leftist party in Parliament.  This has probably been achieved by the Liberals encroaching on both Conservative and Labor territory in the Northeast - defeating Tories in places like New Hampshire and New Jersey while gentrification allows them to capture inner-city districts from Labor. 

The defeat of the Tories in their historical strongholds (Northeastern suburbs) has pushed the overall Party considerably to the right.  This means that the Tories natural expansions are coming in the South at the expense of Labor.  A few Labor politicians live-on the South, people like Travis Childers and John Spratt, in the more rural areas, but overall Labor is becoming the party of Blacks as Tories capture the White vote under the banner of the "New Right" which marries capitalism and social conservatism.

Labor is obviously getting the short-end of the stick in this scenario.  It's traditional base of Southern Whites is transitioning into the Tories' electoral base while the death of the pro-Union middle class in the Midwest and Northeast is translating into Liberal gains among the new "White Collar" professionals in these regions.  The one bright spot for Labor is it's strength among Hispanic voters, and Labor's clout in the Southwest and West Coast as a result.  Combined with the party's strength with Blacks, Labor may become the first major party in parliament to be minority-majority

I think that's how things would shakedown

Are you basing this on my state-by-state analysis, and/or my EU 2014 projection?

While Labor would be more conservative in the US, particularly on the likes of gun rights, they still be socially to the left, I tried not to change too much from the British parties.

Also, UKIP, and thus USIP, aren't that libertarian, and I think their values of freedom from the EU, which might become getting out of NAFTA in a US context, would resonate well with Southerners that would vote for the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and so on. There would be a Paulite wing of USIP, but they wouldn't exactly control the party. In other words, it would carry the Tea Party vote, both Palinite and Paulite.

I've also tried to mirror the results over the years to make it match the UK results in a sense as much as possible. Looking back though on the project, I think the likes of Georgia could have stayed Labor in 2001, especially if USIP began its rise back then.

I just think that the EU/NAFTA comparison is grossly imperfect.  And wouldn't opposition to NAFTA be highest in the Midwest and Northeast, not the South?  Also, why would an anti-NAFTA message resonate with Southern voters who are inclined to support politicians like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santroum who themselves were pro-NAFTA?

I just think in your analysis you've grossly mischaracterized the American South.  I can speak most precisely on your analysis of Mississippi.  You've characterized the Northeast Mississippi/Tupelo area as being one of the strongest regions for Tories in the entire region.  This somewhat perplexes me, as Northeast Mississippi has historically been the strongest region in the entire state for White, conservative Democrats.  Therefore, I think American Labor would do quite well there as the national party is not as liberal as today's American Democrats.  The strongest areas in the state for the Tories would probably be the Gulf Coast and Jackson suburbs.  Once again, looking at a historical analysis of Mississippi politics shows that these places were the first places to start voting for Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s.  I would argue that the GOP of the 1960s and 1970s has a lot in common ideologically with today's Tories.     

This effort you have undertaken does have great entertainment value, but it falls short of being classified as some sort of academic exercise.  You can impose British political parties onto the United States, but you can't impose British/European politics onto the United States in a similar way.  In doing such, your exercise fails to be "American" in any sense of the word.  You've just re-imagined the United Kingdom in North America and described how this new "United Kingdom" would vote.       

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I think, in general, you've underestimated the strength of Labor and overestimated how strong USIP would be in the South.

American Labor would be much more socially moderate than the modern Democratic Party and the Liberals would fill the void for a socially progressive, neoliberal party.  Thus, I think Labor would do quite well in the South whereas the Tories' success in the South would probably be constrained to wealthy Atlanta and Houston suburbs, South Florida, and Eastern Tennessee.

If USIP is suppose to be analogous to UKIP then it would not fly well in the Souty at all.  Libertarian candidates don't do very well in the Southern U.S. as is, so I don't see why they would if British parties would suddenly transposed onto the American political landscape. 

In 2014, I believe that this "British America" would be in the midst of a huge political realignment.  The Liberals have probably recently (or are poised to soon) take over Labor to become the largest leftist party in Parliament.  This has probably been achieved by the Liberals encroaching on both Conservative and Labor territory in the Northeast - defeating Tories in places like New Hampshire and New Jersey while gentrification allows them to capture inner-city districts from Labor. 

The defeat of the Tories in their historical strongholds (Northeastern suburbs) has pushed the overall Party considerably to the right.  This means that the Tories natural expansions are coming in the South at the expense of Labor.  A few Labor politicians live-on the South, people like Travis Childers and John Spratt, in the more rural areas, but overall Labor is becoming the party of Blacks as Tories capture the White vote under the banner of the "New Right" which marries capitalism and social conservatism.

Labor is obviously getting the short-end of the stick in this scenario.  It's traditional base of Southern Whites is transitioning into the Tories' electoral base while the death of the pro-Union middle class in the Midwest and Northeast is translating into Liberal gains among the new "White Collar" professionals in these regions.  The one bright spot for Labor is it's strength among Hispanic voters, and Labor's clout in the Southwest and West Coast as a result.  Combined with the party's strength with Blacks, Labor may become the first major party in parliament to be minority-majority

I think that's how things would shakedown

Are you basing this on my state-by-state analysis, and/or my EU 2014 projection?

While Labor would be more conservative in the US, particularly on the likes of gun rights, they still be socially to the left, I tried not to change too much from the British parties.

Also, UKIP, and thus USIP, aren't that libertarian, and I think their values of freedom from the EU, which might become getting out of NAFTA in a US context, would resonate well with Southerners that would vote for the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and so on. There would be a Paulite wing of USIP, but they wouldn't exactly control the party. In other words, it would carry the Tea Party vote, both Palinite and Paulite.

I've also tried to mirror the results over the years to make it match the UK results in a sense as much as possible. Looking back though on the project, I think the likes of Georgia could have stayed Labor in 2001, especially if USIP began its rise back then.

I just think that the EU/NAFTA comparison is grossly imperfect.  And wouldn't opposition to NAFTA be highest in the Midwest and Northeast, not the South?  Also, why would an anti-NAFTA message resonate with Southern voters who are inclined to support politicians like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santroum who themselves were pro-NAFTA?

I just think in your analysis you've grossly mischaracterized the American South.  I can speak most precisely on your analysis of Mississippi.  You've characterized the Northeast Mississippi/Tupelo area as being one of the strongest regions for Tories in the entire region.  This somewhat perplexes me, as Northeast Mississippi has historically been the strongest region in the entire state for White, conservative Democrats.  Therefore, I think American Labor would do quite well there as the national party is not as liberal as today's American Democrats.  The strongest areas in the state for the Tories would probably be the Gulf Coast and Jackson suburbs.  Once again, looking at a historical analysis of Mississippi politics shows that these places were the first places to start voting for Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s.  I would argue that the GOP of the 1960s and 1970s has a lot in common ideologically with today's Tories.     

This effort you have undertaken does have great entertainment value, but it falls short of being classified as some sort of academic exercise.  You can impose British political parties onto the United States, but you can't impose British/European politics onto the United States in a similar way.  In doing such, your exercise fails to be "American" in any sense of the word.  You've just re-imagined the United Kingdom in North America and described how this new "United Kingdom" would vote.       

Bad example on my part, considering that NAFTA and the EU are two different beasts, although the EU did start as a trading bloc itself. That was one of the hard things about this project - trying to come up with equivalents of the likes of the EU, importing the political parties etc. Also, I wasn't talking about Santorum and Gingrich themselves - while they did support NAFTA as you mentioned, I'm not sure whether or not they would support a North American Union. I was talking about the voters themselves - I can't imagine many Tea Partiers, Paulite or Palinite, would support the "Big 3" if they backed a NAU.

Also, thanks for the information on Mississippi and the South in general - while I did use the New York Times' Electoral Explorer to obtain county-level data, demographics including income, ethnicity and religion:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html

Along with using Wikipedia to read about each state/its cities and towns, this formed the basis of my information for the project. Looking back, I could have researched more about voting habits in the past, as you mentioned. You know Mississippi and the South better than I probably ever will, and made some good points about your state in particular. I did this project, and the South's entries in particular, quite a long time ago, so if I were to revise it or do something similar, say the US with Australian parties, I would definitely make Labor stronger in the South.

[Hatman 🍁]

So, how do you think Canada and Mexico would vote in this Union?

How would MNAPs be elected?

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

So, how do you think Canada and Mexico would vote in this Union?

How would MNAPs be elected?

MNAPs would be elected by FPTP in the US and Canada, in multi-member consituencies, while elected by PR in Mexico. Other member nations would choose their own methods of election, much like the European Parliament elections from 1979-1994.

As for how Canada and Mexico would vote, Canada I imagine would have strong results for Wildrose in Alberta, the Bloc would do fairly well in Quebec, and the Dippers would poll well in the Territories, and northern ON/MB. The Greens would also benefit from NAU elections, I don't know where they would do well in Canada though, aside from around Vancouver Island.

Don't know enough about Mexican politics to comment.

[King of Kensington]

How would Asian American groups vote in a UK party scenario?

Would Chinese, Koreans and Indian Hindus vote Tory as the "entrepreneurial party"?  How about Filipinos?

White Catholics I assume vote largely Labour though perhaps they'd go Tory in a big swing.

[King of Kensington]

Given the results, how would a Cameron vs. Miliband matchup gone?

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

How would Asian American groups vote in a UK party scenario?

Would Chinese, Koreans and Indian Hindus vote Tory as the "entrepreneurial party"?  How about Filipinos?

White Catholics I assume vote largely Labour though perhaps they'd go Tory in a big swing.

Hey,

Sorry for the major delay, but yes, a significant number of Americans of Asian ancestry would generally vote Tory, although Labor would win a majority of these voters in a 1997-style landslide, and some would prefer the Lib Dems.

To break things down a bit more:

Filipinos - Tory, 1997-style landslides aside.
Vietnamese - Tory, although a significant portion of younger voters would prefer the Lib Dems or Labor.
Koreans - Tory-leaning swing voters.
Chinese - Generally Labour, although a significant number would have gone to the Lib Dems in 2005 and 2010. Would have also supported the Tories and Liberals more in the past, prior to Labor's shift to the right.
Indian Hindus - Another swing voting bloc.

As for Catholics, they would generally vote Labour (particularly in northern states, which is why the Tories didn't win the likes of WI or PA in 2010 in this scenario), although could vote Tory with the right candidate and/or circumstances, as you said.

Will post the 2015 results in the next post.

[DavidB.]

This is awesome. Great work.