Great Britain: the 51st state

[Joe Republic]

Kerry: 294
Bush: 246

Anybody care to speculate how GB would have voted in some earlier elections?  My guess is:

2000: Gore
1996: Clinton
1992: Toss-up
1988: Bush
1984: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1976: Toss-up
1972: Nixon
1968: Humphrey
1964: Johnson
1960: Nixon
1956: Eisenhower
1952: Eisenhower

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hard to tell really... why people vote for who they vote for over here is class based to a degree you don't see alot of in the U.S, exactly how "moral" issues would effect things is debatable. As an example all those textile marginals that stuck with Labour this year (some even swing towards us) would have probably voted for Bush, some (like Colne Valley) pretty heavily.

[Joe Republic]

I thought Bush was pretty resoundingly hated in Britain?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I thought Bush was pretty resoundingly hated in Britain?

Yes... but I'm assuming that Britain had been part of the U.S for a while.

[Joe Republic]

I see.  I've noticed though that a great deal of people who would otherwise vote Conservative would be Democrats over here, judging by the nature of that party, and the viewpoints of a couple of forum members here.  Surely that would be enough to make Britain firmly Democratic?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Surely that would be enough to make Britain firmly Democratic?

In terms of registration yes, although not usually in Presidential elections as far as actual votes go. My guess would be that Britain would have voted for Clinton in '92 and '96 (Perot would have done fairly well in '92), Gore in 2000 and Kerry last year. Bush sr. would have won fairly narrowly in 1988.

Mind you Britain would probably have been split into states rather than admitted as a whole country; Wales, NI and Scotland would all be seperate states and England would probably be divided into at least two states, maybe three.

[Democratic Hawk]

The Spectator/You Gov poll, weighted to the Demographic profile of GB, 15-18 October 2004, asked 2004 Britons how they would vote in the US presidential election:

Total: Bush (Rep) 15%, Kerry (Dem) 47%, Nader (Ind) 4%, Not Sure 25% and 10% wouldn't vote

Labour: 21% Bush, 43% Kerry, 5% Nader, 25% Not Sure and 7% wouldn't vote

Conservative: 19% Bush, 45% Kerry, 2% Nader, 27% Not Sure and 8% wouldn't vote

Lib Dem: 5% Bush, 67% Kerry, 7% Nader, 14% Not Sure and 7% wouldn't vote

However, had the UK been the 51st US state for some time, many of the not sures may have broke for Bush - but it's all speculation

Still, I think Kerry would have won in 2004; Gore 2000; and Clinton both in 1996 and 1992

Dave

[JohnFKennedy]

I disagree with you on 1960 personally.

[Joe Republic]

I disagree with you on 1960 personally.

Not sure to be honest, but I figured that GB was a lot more conservative then than it is now.  I guess it would have been a toss-up, but I still think it would have leaned Nixon.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not sure to be honest, but I figured that GB was a lot more conservative then than it is now

Not especially. Some areas are. Some areas have gone the other way.

[A18]

This means we get involved in World War II WAY earlier, and American history would end up entirely different.

[Platypus]

well, if it's only been a state since 52, or maybe the same time as Alaska nad Hawaii...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

My guess:

2004: Kerry
2000: Gore
1996: Clinton
1992: Clinton
1988: Bush
1984: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1976: Carter
1972: Nixon
1968: Humphrey
1964: Johnson
1960: Kennedy
1956: Eisenhower
1952: Eisenhower
1948: Truman
1944: Roosevelt
1940: Roosevelt
1936: Roosevelt
1932: Roosevelt

1988 and 1980 would be kind of close.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For the earlier elections, note that the real life 1950, 1951, 1955, 1959 and 1964 elections could all have gone the other way.

[Platypus]

Oh, and the candidates would probably be different, because brits may actually BE candidates, or affect the primaries significantly.

[MasterJedi]

GB would also probably broken up into a couple of states as well based on EV's. Margret Thatcher for President!.

[Joe Republic]

Oh, and the candidates would probably be different, because brits may actually BE candidates, or affect the primaries significantly.

Very true.  With 77 electoral votes, I guess whoever wins GB in the primaries wins the nomination, just like if they win GB in the general, they win the White House.

What's the likelihood of a British President in this scenario?  That'd certainly be a dramatic case of history repeating itself.