US with UK parties

[morgieb]

Well, what would it look like?

Discuss with maps, etc.

[morgieb]

I think it might be.....

Though I'm not 100% sure there.

[morgieb]

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

[morgieb]

So 2010 atm:

[morgieb]

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

[morgieb]

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.