2004 Democratic Primary

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Short is about as popular as the bubonic plauge  amoung Labour voters/members/MP's.
Cook is hated as well.

Brown is the most popular political figure in the U.K by some distance.

Watch Bryant and Watson.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Jmf... LOTS of Dems in the South have voted GOP in Presidential elections for about 40 years.
It's not exactly new.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Blunkett is a classic Sheffield Labourite(left on economics, centre-right socially), and has said he would "love to be Chancellor in a Brown government".

Cook is an adulterer(very bad for a political figure over here), and is hated by the rank and file.

Short is facing possible de-selection in Birmingham Ladywood, and is hated more than Cook.
And ignoring a three line whip is NOT a good idea if you want to be P.M(ask IDS).

It's worth remembering that most Labour members(and voters) supported the war on Iraq.

All senior Labour members regard themselves a Socialists(Blair mentioned in the conference speech for example), although until recently they had been playing it down a little.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've just voted in the poll to support Michael Portillo. A man of such erudition and electoral saavy would make an excellent leader and a better PM than Phoney Tony Blair. The only person I would even consider as a better PM in 2005 would be Charles Kennedy.

Sorry to disapoint you, but Portillo ain't reknowned for "electoral savvy".
He went down in 1997 if you remember.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You make your comment about the Liberal Democrats with an utter failure to see the alternative. I don't see how Charles Kennedy could be any worse than the recent PMs which were a harpy with ice water running through her veins, a do-nothing silly billy-goat, and the current PM, a functionary of the inimical trades unions.

Blair is a member of the TGWU,  but does disagree with them a bit... although by U.S standards Labour do take a lot of money from the Unions.
But the giveaway is the word "Labour".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not quite true.
Heathcoat-Amory and Gill managed to hold on to seats that were considered more vunerable than Enfield-Southgate(Wells, Ludlow, although when Gill retired in 2001, the local Tories selected someone even more right-wing than Gill(!), and lost to the Liberals in the biggest upset of the night).

However Portillo was a very different person then(he was basically a right-winger living in denial of his Spanish roots and his Homosexual past), and for most people seeing him go down in Enfield was the highlight of the night.
He was also a crap constituancy MP, which was almost certainly what got him in the end.

After defeat he utterly re-invented himself, and became far more acceptible to the electorate...
Which meant he stood no chance of becoming Tory leader.

Portillo is nowadays a "wet". And the last wet to be Tory leader was Ted Heath...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Latest polling shows Musgrove just ahead in Mississipi, Jindal widening his lead in Louisiana and the Dems closing the gap in Kentucky.

It's all in play.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Something to remember is Mississippi's majority law:

If no candidate gets 50% +1, the election goes to the State House.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Harris isn't a fool... If you think Howard has baggage...

Nice look of shock on his face.
Was it taken when his old riding of Nipissing went red

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No...no... There are plenty of of 'em left...
Problem for the Dems is that they only seem to vote Democrat at state and local level...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It may have been inevitible... but it was still great!

Portillo has re-invented himself, he had to unless he wanted the Tories to lose Kensignton and Chelsea(O.K maybe not...)

Howard is a relic and both Blair and Kennedy are probably loving every moment of this farce.

Conway and Forth are pretty pissed off about Davis dropping out.
We shall see...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My versions(only PA, IL and GA at present):

PENNSYLVANIA
01. Philadelphia South
02. Philadelphia North
03. Erie-Butler
04. Allegheny
05. West Susquehanna  
06. Chester-Berks
07. Chester
08. Bucks
09. Tuscarora
10. East Susquehanna  
11. Wilkes-Barr
12. Johnstown
13. Philadelphia-Mifflin
14. Pittsburgh
15. Allentown
16. West Chester
17. Harrisburg
18. Westmoreland
19. Gettysburg

ILLINOIS
01. Chicago-Southside
02. Chicago Heights
03. Chicago West
04. Chicago-Cicero
05. Chicago-Northside
06. DuPage
07. Chicago Central
08. McHenry-Lake
09. Chicago Northside
10. North Chicago
11. Joliet
12. East St Louis and the Valleys
13. Will-DuPage
14. Batavia-Henry
15. Wabash
16. Rockford
17. Springfield-Moline
18. Springfield-Peoria-Illinois River
19. Kaskakia-Lincon

GEORGIA
01. Okefenokee-Atlantic
02. Cherokee and Seminole
03. Jefferson Long
04. Stone Mountain
05. Atlanta
06. Fulton-Cobb
07. Dahlonega
08. Peachtree
09. Egmont
10. John Ross
11. Berry
12. Savannah
13. Luther King


The base for most of them was Canadian Observers version, but modified where I thought appropriate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

SOUTH CAROLINA
01. Charleston-Atlantic
02. King Charles
03. Anderson-Greenwood-Aitken
04. Greenville-Spartanburg
05. Rock Hill
06. Florence-Orangeburg

Only minor changes

[Filuwaúrdjan]

INDIANA
01. Gary-Hammond
02. La Porte-St. Joseph
03. Fort Wayne-Maumee
04. Wallace-Greenwood
05. Shelbyville-Carmel
06. Muncie-Anderson
07. Indianapolis
08. Evans-Vincennes  
09. Jeffersonville-New Albany

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Basically Labour are Democratic Socialists and the Liberal Democrats are Social Liberals.

The LibDems are to Labour's left on much social issues(eg. Drugs, immigration), but Labour are way to the LibDems left on economics(Labour's economic policy is Kenysian and very interventionalist, the LibDems economic policy is more centrist).

The LibDems were formed from a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party(who had broken off from Labour).

Labour's core constituancy is obvious from the name; Lower income and blue collar voters.

The LibDems do best amoung the liberal wing of the middle classes("Hampstead Liberals"), and in rural areas.

"Old Labour" never really existed... If you mean the "Bennites" the LibDems are nothing like them at all... in America the Bennites would be liked to communists.

Most LibDem voters vote on social issues, most Labour voters with their wallets.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In an election as close as Mississippi looks like, a few thousand votes would do...

And yes the Democrat dominated State House would almost certainly give it to Musgrove if it comes to that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

from http://www.politicalwire.com:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Prediction:

Kentucky: GOP gain
Mississippi: Too Close(50% chance of under 50%)
Lousiana: Too Close

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Point is that the media in WV are blaming Bush, while in IL it still seems to be blaming Ryan.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

More on WV: Wise got into trouble because of he had an affair. He has since decided not to seek re-election in 2004.
He is not being blamed for WV's budget problems, Bush's education policy is. There was a long article on it in the Washington Post a bit ago.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is what he actually said:

Harris: "Bonjewer, Jeemaple en Godfather IV, et moy je'detestey le loosing et la election to le Liberele merdey Paul Martin.
Soo Jai will not beecoom le capitain of le Titanic(le CPC).
Oil Resivoir!"

Crowd booes and starts riot etc.

Harris: "Whadya know... I've still got it!

exit stage right, pursued by a bear

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm curious as to the ideological differences between the Lib Dems and Labour. They do seem quite alike in General (actually Lib Dems and "Old" Labour seemed quite alike)

Even better I would like to know about differences in the voter base or the two parties. Granted both have left-leaning voters but are there demographic differences??
Would appreciate any insight you guys have on this??

Generally I would say the Liberal Democrats are socially to the left of the Labour party, economically slightly to the right. I would disagree that economically Labour and the Liberals are hugely different. Fiscally Labour has shifted enormously to the right since the 1980's when they were beholden to the unions. The voter base however is very different, although the LD's are usually the party of protest for both disillutioned Tories and Labourites. Labour voters are traditionally white working class and ethnic minorities. These groups are usually not very liberal and vote Labour merely out of economic interest. Liberal Democrat voters however are usually middle class and liberal. Doctors, teachers and people in the Arts often vote LD. The LD's however also attract a lot of votes from poor rural voters in areas such as Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, the Scottish Highlands and Herefordshire. These people wouldn't dream of voting Labour in a million years, however they also dislike the Tories so tend to plump for the LD's.

Actually if you look carefully at what they both say they will do, and what Labour has done, there is a big difference... but you have to look for it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oldham West and Royton: Lab maj. 33.5%
Manchester Gorton: Lab maj. 41.5%
Rochdale: Lab maj. 14.3%
Sheffield Hillsborough: Lab maj. 34.2%
Hull North: Lab maj. 37.4

Rochdale and S-H are not urban seats, they have more than a small rural element and are "county" seats.

Although I can see them picking up Rochdale, I would doubt that they will pick up any of the others.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've decided to have a go at naming the districts using the method we use in the U.K
As a result I'd better explain what county and borough seats are.
The best description is from David Boothroyd's(a Labour counciller) excellent site(www.election.demon.co.uk) :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A b next to the districts name will mean borough, and a c will mean county.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

ALABAMA:

01 Mobile c
02 Montgomery and Dothan c
03 Auburn and Anniston c
04 Gadsden c
05 Huntsville c
06 Jefferson and Shelby c
07 Birmingham c