US With British Parties

[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

[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.