US With British Parties

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Hello everyone, firstly, I would like to thank Green Mountain Hashemite for the idea, his/her "US with French parties" topic is a very interesting read and even if you don't know too much about French politics, I recommend you read it. I found it so enjoyable, I've decided to create my own variant, using British political parties.

Firstly, I'll list all the parties and abbreviations thereof, for those who are unfamiliar with UK politics. As you can see, I have adapted several party names to US locations, the Americanized name will appear in square brackets:

Major parties:
Labour Party [or Labor in the US] (L) - A good chunk of the Democratic Party, particularly their ethnic minority supporters. Jimmy Carter, Eric Holder and Nancy Pelosi would all be Labor politicians.
Conservative (Tory) Party (C) - Would constitute conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie, Lincoln Chaffee, Michael Bloomberg, and Mitch Daniels all come to mind).
Liberal Democrats (LD) - Would be a mixed bag, but by and large a Democratic one. The likes of Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton and Harry Reid would be Lib Dems, as they are known in the UK.
Green (G) - Most likely led by Jill Stein, taking over from Ralph Nader. Bernie Sanders would likely fit in here too
United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode Jr. and so on)

Ethnic and separtist parties:
British National Party (BNP) [American National Party (ANP)] - Caters for KKK members and racists, particularly working class racists, in general. George Wallace would have run as an ANP candidate back in the day.
Plaid Cymru (PC) [Plaid Alaska (PA)] - Alaskan nationalists, led by Sarah Palin Joe Miller. PA would be more conservative than PC, but still run on a separatist platform.
Scottish National Party (SNP) [Texan National Party (TNP)] - Texan nationalists, led by Rick Perry. Like PA, more conservative than their Celtic counterparts.
English Democrats (ED)[Hawaiian Democrats (HD)]  - Hawaiian nationalists, led by Neil Abercrombie Prince Quentin Kawananakoa. As I have limited knowledge of Hawaiian politics, please inform me if there are any separatist Hawaiian politicians that would make a good HD leader. A very small party, the Hawaiian Democrats call for the restoration of the old monarchy of Hawaii. Also, unlike PA and TNP (and for that matter, the ED), the Hawaii Democrats are a leftist party.
Respect - Would be prominent in some ethnic areas, not sure who their leader would be though. Cynthia McKinney perhaps?

Southwestern Parties (Main parties in AZ and NM):
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) - Pro-American, conservative minor party in Arizona and New Mexico. Would draw supporters of all ethnicities.
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) [Southwest Unionist Party (SUP)]  - Staunchly pro-American, conservative minor party in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Would mainly draw white supporters, and Jan Brewer would be a likely leader.
Social Democratic and Labo(u)r (SDLP) - Left-wing party in Arizona and New Mexico, with primarily Latino supporters.
Sinn Fein (SF) [Nosotros Mismos (NM)] - Latino party in Arizona and New Mexico, calling for the return of these states to Mexico. Like Sinn Fein, Nosotros Mismos members would not take their seats in Congress.

And so, we begin:

Maine

A Conservative stronghold until the 1980s, both the LDs and Labor have made more of a presence here since then, particularly the former. Portland would have been a swinging Tory-Labor town in the past, although the transition to a service economy has boosted LD support. Augusta would also have a high LD vote. The northern border counties of the state would be a rural Labor area, in part due to the French influence. The remainder of the state would vote Conservative, although not as strongly as in years gone by. Minor parties would have next-to-no support here.

Here's how Maine would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Conservative
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Conservative
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Conservative
October 1974: Conservative
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Liberal Democrat, Labour 2nd.
2010: Liberal Democrat, Conservative 2nd. Labor's support would have plummeted significantly to both the LDs and Tories here.

New Hampshire

Owing to its long-time independent streak, New Hampshire would have a higher USIP vote than other New England states. Manchester would have been strong for Labor at the height of the textile history, but this would have declined over the past quarter of a century. Concord, with its large numbers of public servants, would be home to many Labor and LD voters, while rural NH would by and large be a Tory and USIP area.

Here's how New Hampshire would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Conservative
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Conservative
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Liberal (predecessor to the LDs)
October 1974: Conservative
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Conservative
2010: Conservative

Vermont

Like Maine, Vermont would have been a Tory stronghold in years gone by. Like New Hampshire, Vermont has a history of an independent streak, although this isn't as prominent in modern Vermont. With the influx of progressives from further south, seeking a different lifestyle, Vermont has seen a spike in Labor, LD and Green support beginning in the Thatcher years (1979-1990), particularly the latter two over the past decade. USIP would have a sizeable vote here, not as big as in New Hampshire though. With a Cameron-style Tory, however Vermont is still vulnerable.

Here's how Vermont would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Liberal
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Liberal
October 1974: Liberal
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Liberal Democrat
2010: Liberal Democrat

*Edits 4/9/12* Added another politician to the Conservative group and changed all spellings of Labor in the election results sections to the American spelling.
*Edits 28/9/12* Added some more politicians
*Edits 9/12/12* Edited parties for states that I have not yet done, also introduced groupings for parties. No information for states that are already done has been altered.
*Edit 19/2/13* - Removed CA and TX from Southwestern parties list, as they aren't that Southwestern.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Uh, I think you may be overstating the "leftism" of Jimmy Carter. Certainly, he became a lot more leftist after leaving office, but he wasn't the far-left socialist that some people think of him as. Carter had a moderate streak. He resisted the call from some quarters to push for a big healthcare bill (unlike Obama) and also deregulated the airlines and energy industry (something Obama would have never considered).

Thanks for that, I didn't know that. I still think Carter would be a better fit in the Labor party than the Lib Dems though, especially given his appeal to black voters. Which party would you have Carter in?

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Massachusetts

Central Boston and Springfield would be Labor strongholds, particularly the minority populations. Old manufacturing areas would be Labor bastions too. The gay community in Springfield would be home to sizeable LD and Green support. Suburbs of both cities, especially wealthier ones, would have been strong Tory bastions in years gone by, although both Labor and the Lib Dems would have made ground in recent years, the former when New Labor came in under Bill Clinton, the latter particularly in 2005. Rural Massachusetts would be primarily Tory, although the heavy Labor votes in Boston and Springfield outweigh rural Tory votes, except in high watermark years like 1983.

Here's how Massachusetts would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Labor
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Labor
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor, although the Lib Dems would have challenged considerably.
2010: Labor

And here's a map update, showing results of the 2010 election so far:

Key to states coloured in green:
ME + VT - Liberal Democrat

EDIT: Revised 1970 result to Labor from Tory.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

USIP wouldn't do well in New England. They aren't very conservative up there

Otherwise gun stuff.

As I mentioned earlier, New Hampshire would have a sizeable USIP vote, and Vermont would have trace elements of USIP here and there, but otherwise, USIP would not do very well in New England at all.

And thanks for the feedback, glad to hear you're enjoying it!

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Thanks for that, I didn't know that. I still think Carter would be a better fit in the Labor party than the Lib Dems though, especially given his appeal to black voters. Which party would you have Carter in?

Carter didn't really appeal to black voters better than really the generic Democrat. He captured a good 83% of the black vote. Which was actually less than Walter Mondale's 90%. He also captured 47% of white voters, quite possibly the best performance for any modern Democrat besides LBJ in 1964. He also captured 47% of Southern Whites, something completely unmatched.

Keep in mind Carter swept the South because campaigning as a born-again Christian, he swept evangelical voters by promising a religious salve to America's wounds. Really, Carter may have ran the second most religiously-charged campaign in American history (easily putting GWB to shame), with the possible exception of another progressive Christian evangelical, William Jennings Bryan.

If we're looking for someone who governed more from the left and has a tremendous appeal to black voters how about uh...Barack Obama?

I'm uncertain about the USIP appeal in New Hampshire. After all, keep in mind every campaign except for the Romney and Huntsman campaigns were basically dead going into New Hampshire in 2012. Perry and Bachmann probably carried less than 1% of the Republican primary vote.

Also, rural New Hampshire isn't actually more right-wing than the state at large. In fact, the most heavily Democratic area in the state is actually the mostly rural Upper Valley. The strength of the Republican Party is actually in the relatively urban (suburban) areas of Manchester/Nashua and its surrounding areas. Which I don't think makes it that different from Massachusetts (where mostly rural Western Massachusetts is extremely left-wing, and Republicans compete in the suburbs).

Also, I'm definitely enjoying this!

Thanks for your feedback, and my reason for a decent USIP vote in New Hampshire is that Ron Paul attracted a  fair amount of support in the 2012 presidential primary. This comes from a large portion of New Hampshirites' fiscal conservatism, which also explains the higher Tory vote than in the rest of New England. As for the Bachmann wing of USIP, no, they would not be popular in NH at all.

Glad to hear you're enjoying this as well! I'll do RI and CT next.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

One of the difficulties with this sort of thing is that states are often too large a unit to project voting patterns on to. The Liberal Democrats always hold seats based on very localised strengths, but this dissipates on a larger level (see old European election, Scottish and Welsh list results) They would only be able to challenge in the smaller states as a result in the north east and also probably, the Midwest. While they may seem politically suited to say California, they would struggle to win anything statewide.

I always knew California would be a challenge... maybe the biggest challenge! As you may have gathered, I'm doing UK and US style first-past-the-post, but at the state level. I could do individual districts (or constituencies) later, as a way of breaking down the vote.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

One of the difficulties with this sort of thing is that states are often too large a unit to project voting patterns on to. The Liberal Democrats always hold seats based on very localised strengths, but this dissipates on a larger level (see old European election, Scottish and Welsh list results) They would only be able to challenge in the smaller states as a result in the north east and also probably, the Midwest. While they may seem politically suited to say California, they would struggle to win anything statewide.

I always knew California would be a challenge... maybe the biggest challenge! As you may have gathered, I'm doing UK and US style first-past-the-post, but at the state level. I could do individual districts (or constituencies) later, as a way of breaking down the vote.

I disagree that California would be a strong Lib Dem stronghold. For one, the core base of support for the California Democratic Party is the public sector unions, namely the California Teacher's Association, the Prison Guard unions, and the SIEU. In primaries, the union-backed primary always wins, even if the other candidate is more "progressive" on liberal social issues. If anything, the social liberal-environmentalist vote is more up for grabs than the rest of the California Democratic Party - as seen by the Arnold S.'s gubernatorial victories.

I wasn't saying that California would be won by the Lib Dems. Quite the opposite; the party could not mobilise in a state with some 38 million people. If anything California would probably reflect the mood of the nation as a whole and would, at least since the 1970's/1980's back the party that won the who nation. I'd have the Conservatives winning there in 2010.

I was hardly suggesting that I was going to give California to the LDs, merely that California will be hard to pick a winner full stop, and that I could to individual constituencies in each state to highlight pockets of party support not otherwise seen at a statewide level. There would, however, be at least a few LD constituencies in California.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Rhode Island

Rhode Islanders have a history of being independent and progressive, being the 2nd state to abolish the death penalty, abolishing segregation in schools in 1866, and was the 3rd state to permit medicinal marijuana. Rhode Island also has a large number of government employees, and a relatively high number of ethnic minorities, particularly in Providence and its suburbs, some of which are part of the dual-state (with Massachusetts) Greater Boston area. Economically, Rhode Island was dominated by the textile industry, signifying a large working class population.

All of this indicates that Rhode Island is a solid Labor state, with the LDs, Tories and Greens far behind, and other parties virtually non-existent. The Tories would do well in some wealthy areas though.

Here's how Rhode Island would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Labor
1955: Labor
1959: Labor
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Labor
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Labor
1983: Conservative (courtesy of vote splitting from the Alliance, the 1980s form of the LDs)
1987: Labor
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Labor

Connecticut

A large portion of Connecticut, namely western parts of the state, is part of the Greater NYC area, and is quite wealthy and Tory-voting, sometimes voting LD.  Rural areas, what is left of them, would most likely vote Tory as well. Connecticut as a whole is quite wealthy, although parts of Hartford and Bridgeport are quite impoverished. Hartford and Bridgeport, especially their inner sections with their manufacturing pasts and high number of people below the poverty line, would be Labor voting. A large Latino population in both cities is also a base for the Respect party. All in all, these factors make Connecticut a swing state, and I think it would be a bellwether.

Here's how Connecticut would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Labor
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Conservative, although only by a fraction, much like Broxtowe or Hendon in the UK 2010 election.

And here's an updated map, complete with estimated vote shares for each party, along with an update on the electoral vote count:

Key to states coloured in green:
ME + VT - Liberal Democrat

Race so far:
Labor: 15
Conservative: 11
Liberal Democrat: 7

Percentage of votes by state (winner in bold):
Maine: 12-38-44
New Hampshire: 27-49-14
Vermont: 26-21-47
Massachusetts: 40-27-18
Rhode Island: 64-22-8
Connecticut: 43-45-10

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I'm liking this so far!

Although I've raised a few eyebrows over some state voting history.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and so on)

You sure on this one? Santorum/Bachmann/Gingrich, sure, but Paul doesn't really attract the same kind of supporters nor appeal to the same demographics politically (I don't really see anyone who can be described as libertarian supporting censorship, as Bachmann/Santorum do). Other than that, it's great.

The problem is Paul, and libertarianism in general, is not sponsored by any British political party. He could barely fit in the fringe of the Conservative Party, see Dan Hannan, but otherwise there is no home for Paulites. (Although there is an abundance of Ron Paul fans at the Tory grassroots level)

From what I know of British politics, he'd either be in the Conservative Party fringes, or in the UKIP (but he wouldn't really share a space with a Bachmann/Santorum), or in the Lib Dems (like myself).

Yeah. Paul is a bit of dilemma. While on issues such as ID cards, civil liberties and some economic fronts he could fit in UKIP, on foreign policy, defence and immigration, he is way off the mark. UKIP want 40% more of the budget spent on the military and a five year immigration freeze for instance.

The Conservative Party could accommodate Paul's economic views, on its fringes, though that's it. On social issues, defence, foreign policy, immigration, everything other than the economy, he is off the Conservative Party radar. While you can get right-libertarians at the base level they usually differ with Paul in that they're very neo-conservative on foreign policy.

Paul would never fit in the Liberal Democrats. The only issue I can see them seeing eye to eye on are civil liberties and defence, everything else is a no-no. The Lib Dems have a 'left-libertarian' faction, though this is more a case of drug legalization, privacy, internet freedom mixed with an increased role for the government in economic policy.
I went to a speech by Lembit Opik (former Liberal MP) and he proudly proclaimed he was a libertarian, all pro-drugs, anti-war etc, then slated the coalition for 'cutting spending on social services'. I lol'd.

He would fit in a treat with the Libertarian Party (UK).

Paul might be a hard politician to put into a party, but he's a Republican in the US, yet is significantly different to most Republicans out there. Also, if you read my USIP description, you'll notice these words, as highlighted in bold:

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) [United States Independence Party (USIP)] - Would be a broad church of the Tea Party, libertarians and conservative Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and so on).

The fact that USIP would be a broad church in the US is more than enough to fit Paul into that party, over the Tories or Lib Dems, if you ask me. Certainly a better fit than the Tories, which are dominated by the likes of Romney, Huntsman and Christie, or Rick Perry's Texan National Party.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I would also like to state that I aim to have New York up in the next few days. As it is a large state, it will take a bit longer to analyze.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Sorry for the delay, but here's New York's entry:

New York City proper –
•   The Bronx – Since the middle of the 19th century, The Bronx has seen many waves of immigration, including Europeans, Jews, and more recently, Latinos and African Americans. A large immigrant population, in conjunction with the poverty experienced through much of the 20th century, although things have begun to improve since the 1980s, makes the Bronx a Labor-voting borough, one of Labor’s best places in the nation. The rise of Respect in recent years has threatened Labor in parts, though.
•   Brooklyn – Much like the Bronx, Brooklyn has been home to immigrants of all ethnicities over the years, in addition to people from elsewhere in the US. This indicates another safe Labor borough in New York City. Brooklyn does contain a number of small businesses, however, which indicates a higher Tory vote than in the Bronx. I think Respect would do slightly worse and the Lib Dems slightly better as well.
•   Manhattan – The wealthiest of the five boroughs, indeed, one of the wealthiest counties in the United States. Manhattan consists of downtown New York City, and contains Tory-voting Wall Street bankers, Lib Dem and Green voters in Chelsea, home of Manhattan’s gay and arts communities, and ethnic neighbourhoods including Chinatown, Harlem and Alphabet City, containing sizeable Labor votes, although significantly smaller than in the Bronx and Brooklyn, especially since the gentrification of some of these neighbourhoods. The white collar dominance in the area means that Manhattan would likely be a Tory-Lib Dem borough. I think the Lib Dems would have won here in 2010, with the Tories doing better in the 1980s and before.
•   Queens – The most ethnically diverse area in the world, with 138 languages spoken and over 100 ethnicities represented. Extensive private and public sector employment exists in Queens, with a large number of small businesses like Brooklyn. The large ethnic population would indicate a large Labor vote, although I can see the Lib Dems and Respect doing well in some parts. The Tories could do well in a good year in Queens as well, as evidenced by its swing characteristics in mayoral elections.
•   Staten Island (Richmond) – The whitest (64% in 2010) and most conservative borough in New York City. Not as wealthy as Manhattan, but still wealthier than Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn. Staten Island would be reliably Tory, except in their bad years like 1997.
New York City metropolitan area (New York state contents only, Connecticut’s section has already been covered, New Jersey’s and Pennsylvania’s will be covered under those respective states’ sections) –
•   Remainder of Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk Counties) – Strong for the Tories, although there has been a slow drift to Labor and the Lib Dems, particularly the latter, in the past 20-25 years.
•   Lower Hudson Valley (Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties) – Very affluent area, much like southwest Connecticut. Labor would have a very low vote here, with the Tories (Putnam) and Lib Dems (Westchester has trended Lib Dem over the past 20 years) battling it out. Rockland would be a swinging Tory-LD county.
Remainder of the state:
•   Albany – Albany, New York’s capital, has a high number of public service workers, in addition to being home to many immigrants since the 1840s. The city of Albany would be a Labor stronghold, although some suburbs would be better for the Tories.
•   Buffalo – Inner Buffalo is home to a significant black community, and has a base in industry, although this has waned over the past half-a-century or so. Buffalo’s inner city would be another Labor bastion, as would much of its metropolitan area, including Niagara County. Parts of Buffalo would be Tory areas though, signified by Republican control of Erie County’s executive between 2000 and 2012.
•   Rochester – Much like Buffalo and Albany, Rochester is another old industrial, Labor voting city with a high minority population.
•   Remainder of Western New York – Has a slight Labor lean, would have had a slight Tory lean until the early 1990s.
•   North Country and Adirondacks – A fairly conservative area, the northern parts of New York would generally vote Tory, although Labor would have done well here in years like 1966 and 1997.

Overall, I think New York would have been a swing state in the past, but has since trended Labor, as signified by Labor’s 1992 and 2010 victories here.

Here's how New York would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Labor
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Labor
1970: Labor (a very narrow win though)
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Labor

EDIT: Changed 1951 result to Labor.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Keen to see how the South and the West vote.

And I can't wait to do those states!

I'll be doing PA next, followed by NJ, DE, DC and MD.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Just a question. Are you trying to make this as realistic as possible or are you just looking at all parties having the same resources? If you are doing the latter then you can do whatever you like, but if you are doing it with the established parties (ie, Con, Lab and Lib Dem) only having the required organisation then USIP and ANP aren't going to get anywhere near getting any state. You haven't made any allusion to denominational religious background to voting habits either. Labour over here have traditionally done better with the Catholic vote and urban non-conformists. The Lib Dems have a large non-conformist vote, especially in rural areas. The Church of England of course has been called the Conservative Party At Prayer and though that link is nowhere near as close as it once was, it still has a bigger influence on voting patterns than one might think (as much as anything, being historical).

Finally, in many rural and small town areas the Lib Dems are the only real opposition to the Conservatives, even now. This is regardless of how 'liberal' that area is, it is merely if you are not Tory in those areas, you vote Lib Dem (and certainly if we are looking back at 2010, they did). Don't forget pavement politics either!

Enjoyed the thread so far but just thought I better pitch in before you try to break down the South/West minefield

Khunanup, firstly, I would like to say thank you for your feedback, I am welcome to all comments and suggestions. This will especially come in handy when it comes to states like Florida and Texas.

Different parties would have different strengths in different states, for example, Vermont would  have strong LD and Labor organizations, but a weak Tory one, New York would have strong Labor and Tory organiations and a weak LD one, and, to provide a teaser of a southern state, the TNP would have a fairly large organization in Texas, much like the SNP do in Scotland.

As for religion, I looked more towards demographics and the original American voting patterns when conducting this exercise. Some religious voting patterns were implied though, for example, the strong Labor votes in Massachusetts and Rhode Island coming from Catholics of European descent, particularly those of Irish descent. I will add religious influences to state voting patterns where possible from now on, and when I have the time, amend the 7 states I've already done to reflect this.

Regarding small towns and rural areas being straight Tory-LD areas nowadays, particularly in 2010, this is already mentioned in entries for some states, such as the NYC metropolitan area and rural parts of Maine in 2005 and 2010.

Now on to Pennsylvania!

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia/Delaware Valley – Philadelphia, with its manufacturing roots, federal government agencies, and significant black (and growing Latino) population, would have a strong Labor-voting population, and suburbs would lean Labor, except in the Tories’ good years. The Tories would have performed better in Philadelphia suburbia in the 1980s. The remainder of the Delaware Valley, also known as the Philadelphia metropolitan area, is by and large a Tory voting area, with the possible exception of 1997-style elections.

Pittsburgh – Historically a steel producing city, inner Pittsburgh is another Labor stronghold, and would have voted for militant Labor MPs in the 1980s. Considering the positive job and housing situation in the late 2000s, I think Labor would have done better in Pittsburgh’s suburbs than in other suburbs around the country, despite the Conservatives still beating them in the suburbs (example – Cardiff North). The performances here would have helped Labor’s victory in the state.

Harrisburg & The Dutch Country – Harrisburg itself, as a state capital, and with a large black population, large percentage of people under the poverty line and an industrial history, would be a Labor-voting city. Harrisburg’s suburbs would be better for the Tories, although would have reacted to New Labor well in 1997 and beyond. Parts of the Dutch country would have a sizeable USIP vote, considering the religious conservatism of many voters there, and as a personal vote for Rick Santorum. The Dutch Country would be by-and-large a Tory area though.

NW Pennsylvania – Erie and its surrounds would vote Labor, although the further you move from Erie, the more Tory-voting the populace becomes.

NE Pennsylvania – The Coal Region would historically be a Labor-voting area, although may have voted Tory in 2010, like Sherwood in the UK. The remainder of the region would be a long-term Tory bastion.

Rest of Pennsylvania – Would lean Tory, although Labor would win here in elections where they won or narrowly lost. Labor’s good performance here would have helped Labor hold Pennsylvania in 2010.

All in all, Pennsylvania would be a key state, although Labor would have managed to suppress the swing here in 2010, much to the Tories’ dismay, like the constituencies of Chorley or Gedling in the UK. The religious freedom that Pennsylvania is known for would have helped make it a Whig/Liberal bastion back in the day.

Here's how Pennsylvania would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Labor
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Labor

And here's the updated national map:

Key to states coloured in green:
ME + VT - Liberal Democrat

Race so far:
Labor: 64
Conservative: 11
Liberal Democrat: 7

Percentage of votes by state (winner in bold):
Maine: 12-38-44
New Hampshire: 27-49-14
Vermont: 26-21-47
Massachusetts: 40-27-18
Rhode Island: 64-22-8
Connecticut: 43-45-10
New York: 44-35-13
Pennsylvania: 45-41-6

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

New Jersey

Very wealthy and very ethnically and religiously diverse, New Jersey would be a key state in elections. I’ll break down New Jersey’s voting habits by its six tourism regions:

Gateway Region – The most populous and urbanized of New Jersey’s regions, and contains New Jersey’s largest cities, including Newark, Jersey City and Paterson. All three main parties would have some of their respective best and worst booths here, although there would be an overall Labor lean, given the area’s history of being a first stop for new immigrants. The Tories would do well here in their good years though, especially from the 1980s onwards.

Skylands Region – A Tory bastion by and large, the Skylands Region would most likely be Chris Christie’s home turf. The Lib Dems would probably come second here.

Shore Region – Also known as the Jersey Shore, this wealthy holiday location would be another Tory stronghold, and the Lib Dems would finish second here, like in the Skylands region.

Delaware River Region – New Jersey’s portion of the Greater Philadelphia region, the Delaware River Region would be New Jersey’s bellwether region, with strong areas for both the Tories and Labor alike. The Lib Dems would do well in parts of this region, particularly in Trenton.

Greater Atlantic City Region – Atlantic City and its surrounds would lean Labor, particularly in close elections like 1951, 1964 and 1970, although the region has gone to the Tories a number of times, in the right circumstances.

Southern Shore Region – A strong Tory county (Cape May) meets a county with a slight Labor lean (Cumberland). Overall, this thinly populated (by New Jersey standards), naturalistic region would trend Tory, but would have gone Labor in years such as 1966. The Green Party would get some votes here too, particularly near the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve.

The Tories would have won here quite comfortably in 2010, especially given the Tories’ more inclusive approach under people like NJ’s own Chris Christie.

Here's how New Jersey would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Labor
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Conservative

Delaware

As Delaware is divided into 3 counties, I’ll break down voting patterns by county:

New Castle County – The most populous of Delaware’s three counties, and a part of the Delaware Valley, New Castle County is home to a large number of healthcare and public sector workers, including those at the University of Delaware. A significant proportion of the population in New Castle County also claim European ancestry, particularly from Catholic nations. Overall, New Castle County would vote Labor, barring bad years such as 1983 and 1987.

Kent County – Containing Delaware’s capital, Dover, which would be home to a number of Labor and Lib Dem votes, Kent County also contains an air force base, the employees of which would vote Tory. Kent County would be a bellwether county, and would have voted Tory in 2010, after narrowly voting Labor in 2005.

Sussex County – The 2nd in population of Delaware’s three counties, Sussex County is a rural area, home to a large amount of farming, and would strongly (at least 55%, even in bad years) vote Tory.

All in all, I think Delaware would have a Labor lean now, despite being a swing state in the past, and would have stayed with Labor marginally, although comfortably, in 2010, although the Tories would have held on here narrowly in 1992.

Here's how Delaware would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Labor

Maryland

Maryland was founded as a beacon of tolerance for English Roman Catholics, which would have made it a Whig state back in the day. Moving on a bit in history, Maryland would have strong support for Labor and the Tories alike:

Baltimore – Baltimore City itself would vote Labor, considering its industrial past, majority black population (which may provoke some whites in the city to vote ANP), and high poverty rate. In 2005 and 2010, Respect would have garnered a significant vote. Baltimore’s suburbs (or Baltimore County) is more affluent than the city, and would tend to support whoever wins the state overall. The Lib Dems would have some support in Baltimore County, given the large number of education and health workers.

Washington DC Border Counties – An extension of the Washington DC metropolitan area, the Border Counties have high black populations, and are also very educated and wealthy places, meaning both Labor and the Lib Dems would do well, with the Tories in third. It was the Lib Dem surge here in 2010 that helped deliver Maryland to the Tories in 2010.

Western Maryland – One of two strongholds for the Tories in Maryland, they would have held on here in 1997 quite comfortably. Places like Western MD are reasons why I may do a constituency map when I’ve finished all the states.

Eastern Shore – Like Western Maryland, a staunchly Tory voting area, even in years like 1945 and 1997.

Overall: Maryland, as you can see, is a very mixed bag politically, and would trend towards the party in power, but not always. The Conservatives would have managed to win here in 2010, attributed to the Lib Dem and Respect votes in Greater DC and Baltimore respectively, and strong turnout in both Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore.
Here's how Maryland would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Conservative

Washington DC

A Labor stronghold, and would have returned a militant Labor MP in the 1980s, although the LDs would have gradually garnered support here in the past 10-15 years, especially since the rise of New Labor. The Tories would never campaign here seriously, like they never would in parts of London (Tottenham, Camberwell, Brixton and so on), although they would do better here than the Republicans do.

Here's how Washington DC would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Labor
1955: Labor
1959: Labor
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Labor
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Labor
1983: Labor
1987: Labor
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Labor
2010: Labor

And here's the updated map:

Race so far:
Labor: 70
Conservative: 35
Liberal Democrat: 7

Percentage of votes by state (winner in bold):
Maine: 12-38-44
New Hampshire: 27-49-14
Vermont: 26-21-47
Massachusetts: 40-27-18
Rhode Island: 64-22-8
Connecticut: 43-45-10
New York: 44-35-13
Pennsylvania: 45-41-6
New Jersey: 32-48-16
Delaware: 46-41-11
Maryland: 41-42-13
Washington DC: 72-10-15

*Edit 25/9/12 - Amended NJ's vote share (was 34-50-12).
*Edit 28/4/13 - Fixed Border Counties section

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Would've thought Delaware would flip in 2010 as it's largely Philly suburbia, though could be wrong.

Also expect New Jersey and Maryland to be better for the Lib Dems.

Good stuff however, btw.

Why thank you! Will aim to have WV, KY and VA up in the next day or two.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

This is interesting, but you're very off base at times. May have a proper look through later, if I feel unproductive.

This is my very first attempt at figuring out how another country would vote, but I think I'm improving as I go. When I've done all 50 states, I might revise some entries.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Oh, this isn't meant as an attack of any sort. Not at all.

It's ok, I didn't take it as an attack, I took it as a comment in which to help me as I journey through the rest of the states.
No harm done!

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

West Virginia

Created from Virginia during the Civil War,   and divided between several regions, West Virginia is a very mountainous state, and one of only 10 states in 2009 to experience economic growth, this is backed with business costs at 13% below the national average and being one of only 4 states in the US to run a surplus budget.

Charleston – Known for being a headquarters for salt, natural gas, coal and many other industries, and being held, for the most part, by the Union in the Civil War, Charleston would have a high degree of unionization, and be a Labor voting city. Labor would have had some of its strongest results in the country here in the 1980s, in reaction to the Tory government’s actions towards the coal mines. With the industrial jobs remaining relatively strong, in conjunction with the Labor party moving towards more “green” policies in the past decade, the Tories would have increased their vote here, although Labor would still win Charleston city. The Tories would do well in the metropolitan area though.

Eastern Panhandle – An extension of the Greater Washington DC metropolitan area, and home to just under 12% of the state’s population, the Eastern Panhandle would be a reliable Tory area, and the Lib Dems would finish second here.

Northern Panhandle and surrounds – Similar to the Eastern Panhandle, this extension of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area would be another reliable Tory area, and the Lib Dems would again finish second.

Rest of the state – The remainder of West Virginia would be relatively Tory-voting, with a sizeable USIP vote in the southern parts of the state. Some poverty-ridden areas, such as McDowell, Mingo and Logan Counties, however, would still be strong Labor bases, despite West Virginia’s drift to the Tories in the past 20-30 years.

In the UK, coalfields have drifted slowly from left to right, as noted by Sherwood and Amber Valley in the 2010 election. A similar pattern has occurred in the US coalfields, and this is even more exemplified by the social conservatism in the US.
Here's how West Virginia would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Labor
1955: Labor (very narrowly though)
1959: Conservative
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Labor
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Labor
1983: Conservative (thanks to the Alliance, despite a pro-Labor swing in Charleston)
1987: Conservative (with an increased Tory share)
1992: Labor
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Conservative (most narrow win of any state at the 2005 election)
2010: Conservative

Kentucky

Like West Virginia, Kentucky was split from Virginia, is very mountainous (although not as mountainous as WV), and is home to large amounts of coal mining, in addition to its bourbon, tobacco and automotive industries. Kentucky also has a high degree of irreligion (a large plurality of Kentuckians do not affiliate with an religion), and of those who are religious, a majority are Baptists. Kentucky’s voting trends are broken down by its five regions:

Jackson Purchase – Dominated by agriculture and tourism economically, this largely rural, white (save a few counties, such as Fulton) region would have voted Labor from the party’s foundation, the party’s grip loosening since the 1960s. The Tories and USIP would be the dominant players here today, although Labor would retain some support in black communities.

Western Coal Fields – As the name implies, this region is home to a large amount of coal mining, and is demographically similar to the Jackson Purchase ethnicity wise. Would have been a heavily Labor voting region in years gone by, Labor would be in third or fourth place here today, as the Tories and ever-growing USIP battle it out. The Tories would have won here in 2010, although they may be in for a shock at the next election.

Pennyroyal/Mississippi Plateau – A very hilly region with a large number of caves, this by and large farming area would be a Tory/USIP battleground.

Cumberland Plateau/Eastern Coal Fields – Much like its western counterpart, this is a very white, coal-mining region, with some counties imposing restrictions on alcohol, and would be divided between the Tories and USIP in today’s political world. Like in bordering areas of West Virginia, there would be a few Labor-voting counties, particularly those with a high poverty rate (I’m thinking along the lines of Elliott County) although these would be in the minority now. Still, a large number of people below the poverty line would vote Tory or USIP on social issues.

Bluegrass Region – Containing a majority of Kentucky’s population, and the state capital, Frankfort, along with the largest city, Louisville, the strongest bases for Labor and the Lib Dems in Kentucky can be found here, particularly in the cities of Louisville and Frankfort. Home to 1/3 of all bourbon production, and the headquarters of Yum! Brands, Louisville’s suburbs would have become stronger for the Tories as time as gone by, particularly with Labor’s shift towards more regulations on junk food and alcohol.

Kentucky as a whole would not be a good area for the Lib Dems, not even in 2010, and has been a strong (and getting stronger) Tory state for a long time now, although the rise of USIP could threaten this. Labor would be a 3rd party here now, after dominating Kentucky politics until the end of the 1970s.

Here's how Kentucky would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: Labor
1951: Labor
1955: Labor
1959: Conservative
1964: Labor
1966: Labor
1970: Labor
February 1974: Labor
October 1974: Labor
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Conservative
2010: Conservative

Due to the 11,000 character limit, I will continue this post with Virginia and the updated map in another post.

EDIT: Changed KY's 1970 result to Labor from Tory.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Virginia (here we go!!!!!)

Virginia, home to the very first British settlement in the US, and famous for its motto, Sic Semper Tyrannis, is home to a multitude of industries, people of all ethnicities, mountains, coalfields, farmland, wealth, poverty cities and towns.

Northern Virginia – The most affluent region in the USA, Northern Virginia is home to the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, and a wide range of private sector industries, including Verisign, and is also home to significant Black, Asian and Latino populations. This section of the Washington DC metropolitan area has emerged as a swing region between the Lib Dems and Conservatives, although Labor would play well in more ethnic-dominated parts. The Conservatives in their 2010 form would have done well here, and they would have also done well in the 1980s.

Greater Richmond – While inner Richmond would lean Labor, and have a base for Respect in 2005 and beyond, Richmond as a whole, when you take its metropolitan area into account, would vote Tory overall, especially in the suburbs. The Tory slant of Richmond is also boosted when you take into account the large amount of financial workers.

Southwest Virginia – The most mountainous part of the state, and the most similar demographically to that of its former western territory, Southwest Virginia would have favoured Labor in the past, but would now be hotly contested between the Tories and USIP, with the Tories significantly in front.

Southside – Historically the most conservative part of the state, the counties near Richmond would not be as conservative today. Still, this largely agricultural region of Virginia would be USIP’s best spot in the state.

Hampton Roads – Home to a large number of military bases, luxurious waterfront homes, rich and poor alike, and four Fortune 500 companies, there are a number of voting habits in Hampton Roads, which would favour the 3 main parties:

• Labor would do best in inner Norfolk.
• The Tories would do well along the coast and in most suburbs.
• The Lib Dems would do well in gentrified suburbs close to the cities of Norfolk and Virginia Beach.

The Necks (Northern Neck, Middle & Virginia Peninsulas) – Very picturesque coastal areas of Virginia, these lightly populated areas of the state would largely vote Tory, with the main opposition coming from the Lib Dems, USIP and, near national parks, the Green Party.

Shenandoah Valley – Another rural Tory bastion, Labor would be the stronger left-wing party here.

Eastern Shore – Quite Tory, although Labor would finish second here, not the Lib Dems, as a result of a relatively high black population, who tend to favour Labor.

Virginia has historically been a very strong Tory state, only losing it in 1945, February 1974, 1997 and 2001. The increasing ethnic diversity, particularly in the state’s north, has made it lean more towards Labor and the Lib Dems in the recent past, although not enough to win it outside of landslide years. USIP could be a threat here to the Tories though in the future, either by winning the state or causing Labor to win by vote-splitting.

Here's how Virginia would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor (one of the narrower 1945 victories)
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative
1966: Conservative
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Liberal (thanks to discontent with the Conservative Government)
October 1974: Conservative
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Labor
2001: Labor
2005: Conservative
2010: Conservative

And here's the updated map:

Key to states coloured in green:
ME + VT - Liberal Democrat

Race so far:
Labor: 70
Conservative: 60
Liberal Democrat: 7

Percentage of votes by state (winner in bold):
Maine: 12-38-44
New Hampshire: 27-49-14
Vermont: 26-21-47
Massachusetts: 40-27-18
Rhode Island: 64-22-8
Connecticut: 43-45-10
New York: 44-35-13
Pennsylvania: 45-41-6
New Jersey: 32-48-16
Delaware: 46-41-11
Maryland: 41-42-13
Washington DC: 72-10-15
West Virginia: 30-46-12-8
Kentucky: 18-50-4-22
Virginia: 24-44-15-14

EDIT: Added Feb '74 to the Tories' loss record.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Ok, I've been waiting for these.

I think you've got the whole coal thing all wrong. The Tories have benefitted from a shift to the right only in the former (note former) coal fields of the East Midlands and Kent (and to a certain extent in parts of Yorkshire) in the UK. The remaining coal mining areas and former coal mining areas are still generally monolithically Labour (County Durham, Northumberland, Welsh Valleys etc.). This is despite them still being the bastion of very traditional WWC values and traditions. This is something to remember about Labour. It does have a strong thread of working class conservatism (but not Conservatism!) running through it, especially in places like the above and people there vote for Labour regardless because they just do. Remember these people voted for a Tony Blair led Labour party in their droves three times.

I have no doubt that in a West Virginia and the coal mining areas of Kentucky where the political culture of the Labor party has been embedded for over 100 years, it would be any different to County Durham for example and for that reason I had West Virginia earmarked as the most reliable Labor state in the Union.

Virginia's good though!

I had temporarily forgotten about other coalfields (Durham, South Wales etc) when I did West Virginia and Kentucky. My reason for making them more Conservative in recent years would be owing to Labor's more regulatory positions on traditional industries in those states (along with coal, I'm thinking of the tobacco and bourbon industries). As you can see from the voting histories for both states, they were VERY Labor-voting, even by the standards of the 1980s. The Tory victories in the 80s would have partly been caused by vote-splitting in my opinion. You may see more Labor strength on a local level as well, much like in the US, the state and local level Democrats perform better than their federal counterparts in WV and KY.

This is... er... strange.

Lesson number two or three... perhaps even one actually... of British electoral geography is that certain patterns that can be seen on a basic map of coalfields...



...and be seen on pretty much any electoral map...



A rather telling detail is the fact that the current Leader of the Labour Party represents a coalfield constituency, as have all Labour leaders since 1980.

Thanks for that map Comrade Sibboleth, it will help me even more when I try and compare another region in the US to that of one in the UK. My reasons for making WV and KY more right-leaning than their British counterparts is explained in my reply to Khunanup, and I will think of those patterns when I do future states. In particular, the patterns of PC and SNP support in Wales and Scotland respectively will help me when I do Alaska and Texas.

Once again, thank you both, and to everyone else who has commented on this for your feedback and thoughts!

EDIT: I will be doing TN and NC next.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

To add to what Al was saying, if you are looking at how the USA would vote you have to bear in mind that voting behaviour would be different too. There wouldn't be a wierd obsession with what people do in the bedroom and people would vote on the economy and jobs. Most importantly however, people would vote pretty much the same way they have voted for the past fifty years.

Here's coal seams in the USA (not sure which areas were thoroughly mined however)

http://coalgeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/US-Coal-Producing-

A handy tool to use is this;

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html

It allows you to see areas of poverty, low income, manufacturing etc to see where Labour would likely be strongest.

There are two particular nuances that complicate things. Firstly race. The UK is lucky to have a handful of constituencies with a minority population of over 30% yet the USA has whole states. If black voting habits were the same then Labour would dominate disproportionately in some states. Secondly there is mobility; people in the US tend to move from state to state. This dilutes some older voting habits.

I had a stab at Pennsylvania in an 'all things being equal' scenario

I looked at past voting habits from the 50's and 60's, areas of coal mining, areas of manufacturing, areas of poverty and educational attainment and also %Catholic and came up with this guesstimate for Pennsylvania (the Lib Dems taking the richest county with the highest % of people with a degree)

Chester would be strongly Tory, not Lib Dem. Half of it is Philly suburbs/exurbs and half of it is rural farmland like Lancaster/York/Lebanon.

That's part of the reason why I gave the Lib Dems a 'pity county' It's suprisingly the sort of place that the Lib Dems would be able to target and do well in in the UK particularly as it is both wealthy and educated.

They'd do better than their average, but it would probably be Tory; Chester is pretty Republican at a local level.

Chester reminds me of Sheffield Hallam, which is currently Lib Dem held and will remain so until Nick Clegg retires, at least. Before 1997 though, it was a safe Tory seat, and it could go back to them in the future.

Labour would have a tricky time South of New England/New York City.  Being a socialist party, historically at least, it would've generally been met with hostility, even in a lot of working-class areas.  White ones, in particular.  I think the Lib Dems would probably be the second-largest party overall in the US. 

Peternerdman, I agree with you regarding Labor votes outside of the north-east, as my analysis of WV and KY shows. As for the showing of the Lib Dems, well, we'll have to wait and see!

The idea is that American politics are like British politics, and that these are established parties.

That it is, Snowstalker.

And I aim to do TN and NC by the end of the week, just got other commitments and the like.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Sorry for the delay, but here's Tennessee and North Carolina:

Tennessee

Tennessee, home to Graceland, agriculture, manufacturing, mountains, the Grand Ole Opry, the birthplace of many types of music, and on a much bitterer note, the Ku Klux Klan. Tennessee can be broken down by its three regions:

East Tennessee – Entirely located within the Appalachians, and home to the nation’s most visited national park, namely the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. East Tennessee long relied on agriculture, although manufacturing, health, education and tourism have by and large succeeded it. The cities of Knoxville and Chattanooga are located here, although unlike a lot of other cities I have previously analyzed, these cities would have the Tories as the largest party. East Tennessee has a whole has been a Tory stronghold for many years now, owing initially to their view of the local Liberal and Labor parties as aristocratic, and after that, support for social conservatism, although USIP have been gaining significant traction since the late 1990s.

Middle Tennessee – Containing Tennessee’s capital and second largest city, Nashville, which is a stronghold for Labor, and has been since the party’s founding. This is especially attributed to its sizeable immigrant and black population. University and education areas would carry sizeable Lib Dem votes, and the Tories would do better in the suburbs and in wealthy parts. Clarksville and Murfreesboro are home to a multitude of industries, and like Nashville, contain strongholds for all three major parties. The remainder of this part of Tennessee would be mainly Tory voting, much like East Tennessee, with USIP and the Lib Dems competing for second place. The ANP and predecessors would have done well in urban and suburban white areas, particularly prior to the 1970s, and would still have pockets of support today.

West Tennessee – The least populous region of Tennessee, and also the region of Tennessee where the ANP and its predecessors rack up most of their votes, especially as a result of the Jim Crow laws prior to 1964. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act though, West Tennessee was initially a contest between Labor and the NF/ANP, although the ANP vote declined in the 1980s and 1990s, before rising again in 2005 and 2010. The Tories have also increased their standing here since the 1980s. Memphis would be a strong base for Labor, attributable to its large population, although the Tories and Lib Dems would have slowly increased their votes here in the past two decades. The ANP’s predecessors would have had a large base in Memphis in the 1950s and 1960s, although since the 1980s this would have largely died out, although a small but loyal base remains (perhaps around 5-10%).

All in all, Tennessee would have been won by the Conservatives in 2010, although USIP mounted a significant challenge, and could win next time around.

Here's how Tennessee would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Labor
1950: States’ Rights Labor (SRL, predecessor to the NF)
1951: SRL
1955: SRL
1959: SRL
1964: National Front (NF, predecessor to the ANP)
1966: Labor
1970: NF (on the back of George Wallace’s campaign, you could say this was the US’ Enoch Powell moment)
February 1974: Conservative (courtesy of conservative Labor voters moving to the right, along with vote splitting from the weakened NF, Labor and Liberals)
October 1974: Conservative
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Conservative
2001: Conservative
2005: Conservative
2010: Conservative, with a strengthening USIP vote

North Carolina

Historically known for its tobacco and furniture manufacturing, North Carolina has a much more diversified economy nowadays. Its economy is as diverse as its geography, which ranges from mountains to plains, with the Piedmont foothills cutting in the middle.

Coastal Plain – The impoverished parts, especially the parts with a high black population in the northern parts, would continue to have a higher-than-average Labor vote for this part of the US. Around East Carolina University would be a large number of Lib Dem voters, especially in 2010. For the most part, however, the Tories and USIP would be major players here, the latter especially since 2005.

Charlotte and metropolitan area (Metrolina) – The largest city in North Carolina, and the second largest banking and financial hub in the US,  Metrolina is home to large numbers of both government and private workers. Downtown Charlotte would have  a history of voting Labor, although increasing affluence would have diminished this since the 1980s, making Charlotte a Tory-Lib Dem battleground today, with Labor in a strong third place. The remainder of the metropolitan area, including the cities of Concord and Gastonia, would be some of the best Tory areas in the state, with the Lib Dems in a distant second place.

Piedmont Triad – Known for significant numbers of tobacco, textile and furniture corporations, and marked by the cities of Greensboro, Winston-Salem and High Point, the Triad would have a mix of voting patterns, ranging from moderate Labor/Lib Dem strength in Greensboro, to stronger Tory voting in Winston-Salem, to university Lib Dem support in High Point. The overall winner here would vary in year to year, while the Tories would have won the triad overall in 2010, keeping with the overall trend in the area, Labor would have won it in years like 1997 and 1966. The ANP and predecessors would have been strong here prior to the 1980s as well, and still have a base amongst some poor whites in the area today, particularly those out of work.

Research Triangle – Containing the state capital of Raleigh, three prominent universities, and the city of Durham, the Research Triangle, as the name implies, would be the strongest area for the Lib Dems in North Carolina. The Tories would be the second largest party, although Labor would have overtaken them in years like 1997, particularly with a strong support base in the city of Durham.

Rest of the Piedmont – The scant areas of the Piedmont that are not part of the Triad, Triangle or Metrolina would vote Tory and USIP, other parties falling way behind.

Mountain Region – USIP’s best area in North Carolina, although the Lib Dems would be strong in university areas, contributing to their victory in 1997. The Green Party would have a base around the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The majority of the area would support the Tories or USIP though.

North Carolina, as you can see, is more politically diverse than the US two-party system implies, whilst overall it is a Tory-leaning state, the Lib Dems and Labor have done well from time to time, and USIP could very well break through here in the next election.

Here's how North Carolina would have voted in elections from 1945 onwards:

1945: Conservative (thanks to vote-splitting from the SRL)
1950: Conservative
1951: Conservative
1955: Conservative
1959: Conservative
1964: Conservative (thanks in part to the NF splitting the Labor vote)
1966: Labor
1970: Conservative
February 1974: Conservative
October 1974: Conservative
1979: Conservative
1983: Conservative
1987: Conservative
1992: Conservative
1997: Liberal Democrat
2001: Conservative
2005: Conservative
2010: Conservative

And here's the updated map:

Key to states coloured in green:
ME + VT - Liberal Democrat

Race so far:
Labor: 70
Conservative: 87
Liberal Democrat: 7

Percentage of votes by state (winner in bold):
Maine: 12-38-44
New Hampshire: 27-49-14
Vermont: 26-21-47
Massachusetts: 40-27-18
Rhode Island: 64-22-8
Connecticut: 43-45-10
New York: 44-35-13
Pennsylvania: 45-41-6
New Jersey: 32-48-16
Delaware: 46-41-11
Maryland: 41-42-13
Washington DC: 72-10-15
West Virginia: 30-46-12-8
Kentucky: 18-50-4-22
Virginia: 24-44-15-14
Tennessee: 18-54-11-14
North Carolina: 7-48-22-19

I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, so SC & GA won't be up for another couple of weeks. In the meantime, feel free to comment on my job so far!

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Are USIP/ANP going to win any states?

Most likely/probably not respectively, but we'll have to wait and see!

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Update: I will be doing a bumper post containing SC, GA and FL over the weekend, and posting it hopefully early next week.