The UK with Dems/GOP

[Alcibiades]

Here is a (very!) rough pass at the western U.S.:




A few necessary caveats:
-California means that one really needs a mental model for Asian-American voting patterns, especially for ethnic groups which are less common in the UK. Since it sounds like Chinese-British people are fairly Tory, I modeled them accordingly. For Japanese and Korean-Americans, I also had them going to conservatives, since IIRC those groups tend to be higher income. Other East Asian immigrant groups often skew a bit more working class, so I have them going to Labour. Apologies if this is grimly ignorant.
-I don't have a great sense of the distribution of a lot of Asian-American ethnic groups in west coast cities, especially in the Bay Area. I may be consequently overestimating the conservatives.
-I colored the wrong Colorado district Lib Dem--I meant to color CO-02 yellow and CO-07 blue.

Other notes:
-The West Coast seems like the sort of place where Lib Dems would be especially strong. I gave them several seats in the Bay and Pramila Jayapal's district (lol) (which would normally go Labour). There are a lot of "very bougie but extremely socially liberal/culturally Democratic" places on the west coast--Boulder, much of the richer parts of the bay, Hollywood--and it's hard to see a better party for those places.
-The Bay Area has several seats--thinking especially of CA-05 and CA-11--which are very socioeconomically heterogeneous. Since this was a Conservative year, I had Napa outvote Vallejo and the Tri-Valley outvote Richmond, but obviously most years it would be different.
-Los Angeles is notably more Left-leaning than San Francisco
-In better years, Alaska, AZ-01, AZ-02, NM-02, CA-12, CA-25, CA-36 and Montana would be winnable for Labour, in addition to the ones already mentioned.

I do think that the Lib Dems would be nowhere to be seen in San Francisco quite frankly, especially post-Coalition — IRL, it has a long history of trade unionism and has been a Democratic stronghold for a very long time. However, Labour wouldn’t necessarily be a shoe-in; I think it would be a very good shout for the Green Party’s sole seat in the country. SF simply has an engrained cultural leftism that would transcend the different national contexts, and it would certainly still be to the left of LA, as it has been basically since forever.

[Agonized-Statism]

Snip

Are you sure about Nevada? Unions are still very strong there and played a big part in Democrat victories for the past four elections. Don't know if NV-03 and 04 would go Conservative, especially seeing how receptive the state was to Sanders in the 2020 primaries.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

A few necessary caveats:
-California means that one really needs a mental model for Asian-American voting patterns, especially for ethnic groups which are less common in the UK. Since it sounds like Chinese-British people are fairly Tory, I modeled them accordingly. For Japanese and Korean-Americans, I also had them going to conservatives, since IIRC those groups tend to be higher income. Other East Asian immigrant groups often skew a bit more working class, so I have them going to Labour. Apologies if this is grimly ignorant.
-I don't have a great sense of the distribution of a lot of Asian-American ethnic groups in west coast cities, especially in the Bay Area. I may be consequently overestimating the conservatives.

I'm guessing East/Southeast Asians would be an quasi-Israel-type situation where the major groups whose median household income are below the AAPI median (Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese) would lean Conservative, while the groups with above AAPI median household incomes (Japanese, Filipino) would lean Labour- albeit this has less to do with income and more to do with occupational clustering, spatial distribution, and cultural factors.

Chinese Americans would definitely favor the Tories, but it would be significantly closer than in the UK as I imagine higher turnout and greater inequality would benefit Labour. I can see Labour overperforming with us if not outright winning a plurality/majority in a CAN 2021 type situation. By contrast, Filipinos would be relatively pro-Labour, as I suspect would Japanese and smaller/poorer groups like the Hmong.

Ethnic Chinese from Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia (e.g. Ronny Chieng, Rich Brian) would be strongly Tory or at least non-Labour. And I would expect the Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Cambodians who have and identify with colonial-era Chinese roots to be somewhat more right-wing than non-ethnic Chinese Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Filipino Americans.

South Asians as a whole would obviously be Safe Labour, although I'm guessing Indians would be more receptive to US LibDems than non-Muslim UK South Asians. Not as sure about US Tories as the UK Tories seem to have a certain floor with Indians.

Other notes:
-The West Coast seems like the sort of place where Lib Dems would be especially strong. I gave them several seats in the Bay and Pramila Jayapal's district (lol) (which would normally go Labour). There are a lot of "very bougie but extremely socially liberal/culturally Democratic" places on the west coast--Boulder, much of the richer parts of the bay, Hollywood--and it's hard to see a better party for those places.
-The Bay Area has several seats--thinking especially of CA-05 and CA-11--which are very socioeconomically heterogeneous. Since this was a Conservative year, I had Napa outvote Vallejo and the Tri-Valley outvote Richmond, but obviously most years it would be different.
-Los Angeles is notably more Left-leaning than San Francisco
-In better years, Alaska, AZ-01, AZ-02, NM-02, CA-12, CA-25, CA-36 and Montana would be winnable for Labour, in addition to the ones already mentioned.

I'd flip the SFO and San Jose proper seats to Labour, but other than that I agree with your map. WA-7 going LibDem seems more probable than WA-9, although I would've made it a Green seat.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The West in general is interesting because it's a region where Labour would have suffered some very serious long-term structural decline. Washington, at least, would likely still be somewhere where the party would dominate in an even year (traditions matter), but where things could get very nasty in a bad one. And elsewhere the general picture would be worse.

[JimJamUK]

The Mormon vote could be interesting. They strike me as a naturally small c conservative group and are reasonably well off, so they should largely vote Conservative. However, the much weaker polarisation around moral conservatism does suggest greater potential for Labour than the Democrats, at least in the urban centres of Utah.

[JimJamUK]

Here is a (very!) rough pass at the western U.S.:

-The West Coast seems like the sort of place where Lib Dems would be especially strong. I gave them several seats in the Bay and Pramila Jayapal's district (lol) (which would normally go Labour). There are a lot of "very bougie but extremely socially liberal/culturally Democratic" places on the west coast--Boulder, much of the richer parts of the bay, Hollywood--and it's hard to see a better party for those places.
-The Bay Area has several seats--thinking especially of CA-05 and CA-11--which are very socioeconomically heterogeneous. Since this was a Conservative year, I had Napa outvote Vallejo and the Tri-Valley outvote Richmond, but obviously most years it would be different.
-Los Angeles is notably more Left-leaning than San Francisco

I agree that parts of the West Coast would be Lib Dem territory, particularly the Bay Area. Very socially liberal but wealthy suburban areas aren’t a good fit for either Labour or the Conservatives and consequently tend to have a very good Lib Dem vote (think Oxford West and Abingdon, South Cambridgeshire etc). However, I still think Labour would win San Francisco and Seattle themselves, as even pretty wealthy but ‘alternative’ urban centres vote Labour these days. They might have voted Lib Dem pre-2015, but will have been lost by 2015 and the Lib Dem’s ended up even further behind in their Labour marginals in 2017 and made little progress in 2019.

[JimJamUK]

It probably goes without saying that Orange County would be absolute garbage for Labour. The white vote would be VERY strongly Conservative, and the Asian vote would perhaps be even more so. Labour would basically be restricted to a (relatively modest) majority of Hispanics. Basically anything that flipped IRL in 2018 wouldn’t be remotely winnable.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Mormon vote could be interesting. They strike me as a naturally small c conservative group and are reasonably well off, so they should largely vote Conservative. However, the much weaker polarisation around moral conservatism does suggest greater potential for Labour than the Democrats, at least in the urban centres of Utah.

I mentioned Mormons earlier and I'm not inclined to agree with this point. The history of Mormon involvement in politics is long and I would probably offend people if I said all of what I thought, but Mormons are different than evangelical Protestants in that their voting for right-wing candidates is not necessarily centered around moral conservatism. The important thing to remember here is that the Salt Lake City church hierarchy has historically been very strongly anti-communist. It's difficult to use foreign examples to draw any firm conclusions, since the historic policy encouraging European converts to come to Utah delayed the formation of substantial Mormon communities in Britain, but my guess is that an avowedly socialist party would do worse among Mormons than the Democratic Party.

[Tintrlvr]

Here is a (very!) rough pass at the western U.S.:




A few necessary caveats:
-California means that one really needs a mental model for Asian-American voting patterns, especially for ethnic groups which are less common in the UK. Since it sounds like Chinese-British people are fairly Tory, I modeled them accordingly. For Japanese and Korean-Americans, I also had them going to conservatives, since IIRC those groups tend to be higher income. Other East Asian immigrant groups often skew a bit more working class, so I have them going to Labour. Apologies if this is grimly ignorant.
-I don't have a great sense of the distribution of a lot of Asian-American ethnic groups in west coast cities, especially in the Bay Area. I may be consequently overestimating the conservatives.
-I colored the wrong Colorado district Lib Dem--I meant to color CO-02 yellow and CO-07 blue.

Other notes:
-The West Coast seems like the sort of place where Lib Dems would be especially strong. I gave them several seats in the Bay and Pramila Jayapal's district (lol) (which would normally go Labour). There are a lot of "very bougie but extremely socially liberal/culturally Democratic" places on the west coast--Boulder, much of the richer parts of the bay, Hollywood--and it's hard to see a better party for those places.
-The Bay Area has several seats--thinking especially of CA-05 and CA-11--which are very socioeconomically heterogeneous. Since this was a Conservative year, I had Napa outvote Vallejo and the Tri-Valley outvote Richmond, but obviously most years it would be different.
-Los Angeles is notably more Left-leaning than San Francisco
-In better years, Alaska, AZ-01, AZ-02, NM-02, CA-12, CA-25, CA-36 and Montana would be winnable for Labour, in addition to the ones already mentioned.

I do think that the Lib Dems would be nowhere to be seen in San Francisco quite frankly, especially post-Coalition — IRL, it has a long history of trade unionism and has been a Democratic stronghold for a very long time. However, Labour wouldn’t necessarily be a shoe-in; I think it would be a very good shout for the Green Party’s sole seat in the country. SF simply has an engrained cultural leftism that would transcend the different national contexts, and it would certainly still be to the left of LA, as it has been basically since forever.

I would give Jayapal's seat to the Greens, but I agree they'd be in with a shout in San Francisco, too, and probably also in the CA North Coast district.

The CA North Coast district would be the only Green-Con marginal in the country. Lib Dems might have done well and won it in 2005 (or maybe even a bit earlier) with their base in Marin and the wealthier parts of Sonoma first, losing it to the Cons in 2015, but then the Greens would have come through in 2019 to win it after the LDs crashed in part to tactical voting. The Greens would always have had a significant presence in Mendocino and Humboldt, their base in the district, although those areas probably would have tactically voted LD before 2015. Labour would have been relevant in those places and in Del Norte in the past due to the lumber industry but would have disappeared in the region by 2005.

The CA North Coast district is the only place in the country where local US Green parties have in the recent past actually won local elections (e.g., they governed Sebastopol for a while in the 00s and Arcata in the 90s), so of course the less-fringe UK Greens would be very successful.

[JimJamUK]

I would give Jayapal's seat to the Greens, but I agree they'd be in with a shout in San Francisco, too, and probably also in the CA North Coast district.

The CA North Coast district would be the only Green-Con marginal in the country. Lib Dems might have done well and won it in 2005 (or maybe even a bit earlier) with their base in Marin and the wealthier parts of Sonoma first, losing it to the Cons in 2015, but then the Greens would have come through in 2019 to win it after the LDs crashed in part to tactical voting. The Greens would always have had a significant presence in Mendocino and Humboldt, their base in the district, although those areas probably would have tactically voted LD before 2015. Labour would have been relevant in those places and in Del Norte in the past due to the lumber industry but would have disappeared in the region by 2005.

The CA North Coast district is the only place in the country where local US Green parties have in the recent past actually won local elections (e.g., they governed Sebastopol for a while in the 00s and Arcata in the 90s), so of course the less-fringe UK Greens would be very successful.

San Francisco strikes me as a much better prospect than anywhere else in the Bay Area. It’s worth remembering that the only constituency the Greens have actually won IRL is Brighton Pavilion, on a low vote share and benefitting from both major parties having no-go areas within the constituency pre-2010. The only other constituency where they’ve came reasonably close in Bristol West, with a collection of low double digit vote shares over time mainly in other left-liberal urban areas. The party can of course win the odd council seat and is now even building up proper strength in some council areas, but this usually just means keeping their deposit come a general election. Therefore, the Greens could hypothetically do well at local/state elections in the Bay Area, but mostly make little headway when it comes to Congressional districts, particularly in the more right wing areas (the national Green vote is a more left-liberal protest vote than their local elections vote which in places where are competitive is a lot more, well, Lib Dem style localist).

[Хahar 🤔]

I find it quite unlikely that the San Francisco district would vote for any party but Labour.  As Alcibiades points out, San Francisco has a long history of great union strength. San Francisco also has unusually regimented and organized local politics, with a remarkably well-defined left and right faction. Transported to a British context, I don't think that these factions would represent different parties; it seems more likely to me that they would be competing factions within the Labour Party. The relationship between capital and labor and the activist class feels too close for them to be represented by different parties. My guess is that this in turn would discourage substantial non-Labour organization within the city. You could have seen a strong Liberal Democrat vote in 2005 for obvious reasons, but I don't think that there would be the sort of Liberal Democrat organization necessary for long-term strength.

The counterpoint here that comes to mind is that Liverpool has for a substantial length of time been governed by Liberal and Liberal Democrat councils. I don't know enough to understand the underlying difference between Liverpool and the monolithically Labour council of Manchester or which of those cities would be more like San Francisco.

This isn't a fun answer, but the issue with suggesting a Green victory in San Francisco is that American congressional districts are so large. It is difficult to imagine the Green Party ever winning a constituency with a population close to 800,000.

[morgieb]

Yeah I can't see a place with the cultural + political history of San Francisco or Seattle voting anything but Labour outside of 2005/10 style scenarios, even if the Greens might do well now. Like most Greens-friendly seats outside of Brighton Pavillion have them a very distant 2nd to Labor who are over 60%+. Maybe 2024 could be different in this regard because of how a certain breed of leftist has behaved since Starmer became leader, but even that I highly doubt it.

[morgieb]

So this was the figures I got for each election based on the guess I made since 1997:

1997   
   
Labour   233
Conservative   170
Liberal Democrats   32
   
2001   
   
Labour   224
Conservative   176
Liberal Democrats   35
   
2005   
   
Labour   189
Conservative   207
Liberal Democrats   39
   
2010   
   
Labour   152
Conservative   247
Liberal Democrats   36
   
2015   
   
Labour   161
Conservative   274
Liberal Democrats   
   
2017   
   
Labour   173
Conservative   255
Liberal Democrats   7
   
2019   
   
Labour   141
Conservative   287
Liberal Democrats   7

Either America's political geography is hideously Conservative or I've dramatically overestimated the Tories....realistically it's probably a bit of both.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Sol, I'd be interested in your take on how these constituencies would vote. Thanks for the interesting stuff in this thread, btw. It's been a pleasure.

[ingemann]

The Democrats would win in a landslide. The UK might be one of the more right-wing countries in Europe, but it's not that right-wing to support the GOP on any level.

They would run against the Democrats, the Democrats would be radioactive level of toxic outside the USA.

[morgieb]

The Democrats would win in a landslide. The UK might be one of the more right-wing countries in Europe, but it's not that right-wing to support the GOP on any level.

They would run against the Democrats, the Democrats would be radioactive level of toxic outside the USA.

Depends on the climate. In a year like 2016 it's possible that the Republicans might look better towards the average European, but I don't think that necessarily applies to 2020 (though o/c they would be having serious problems now). And from 1992-2012 it basically would've been years of big Democratic wins as the Republicans message was a lot more traditionally right-wing and the Dems not as "woke".

[ingemann]

The Democrats would win in a landslide. The UK might be one of the more right-wing countries in Europe, but it's not that right-wing to support the GOP on any level.

They would run against the Democrats, the Democrats would be radioactive level of toxic outside the USA.

Depends on the climate. In a year like 2016 it's possible that the Republicans might look better towards the average European, but I don't think that necessarily applies to 2020 (though o/c they would be having serious problems now). And from 1992-2012 it basically would've been years of big Democratic wins as the Republicans message was a lot more traditionally right-wing and the Dems not as "woke".

I’m talking about the modern Democrats, yes the Democrats of the past would be more competitive, but I would also say the rot started before 2012. The Democrats weakness outside the major metropolitan areas, their focus on minority interest, their hostility toward the WWC and to much smaller extent their wokeness would significant weaken them in countries with relative small minorities, strong regional identities and a left heavy depending on the WWC.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I find it quite unlikely that the San Francisco district would vote for any party but Labour.  As Alcibiades points out, San Francisco has a long history of great union strength. San Francisco also has unusually regimented and organized local politics, with a remarkably well-defined left and right faction. Transported to a British context, I don't think that these factions would represent different parties; it seems more likely to me that they would be competing factions within the Labour Party. The relationship between capital and labor and the activist class feels too close for them to be represented by different parties. My guess is that this in turn would discourage substantial non-Labour organization within the city. You could have seen a strong Liberal Democrat vote in 2005 for obvious reasons, but I don't think that there would be the sort of Liberal Democrat organization necessary for long-term strength.

A direct analogy for San Francisco is difficult to find in GB of course, but we can maybe consider Oxford and Cambridge as models because while they are university cities they are also important centres for the sort of economic activity you find in that part of the United States. The general picture is of an urban core that is solidly left-of-centre (and with a strong enough Labour ethos in Oxford that the relevant constituency was held - just - in 2005) and which has more social problems than people not familiar with the places in question might assume, but also of a surrounding suburban and commuter hinterland that is very poor for Labour and where the Liberal Democrats are either very strong or nevertheless function as the main 'opposition' to the Conservatives. I think that works quite well for the Bay Area: reliably 'Labour' urban cores (with exactly how solidly so depending on the circumstances of the election and here the patterns won't necessarily align with national ones), but with 'Labour' largely out of the running in suburban centres and commuter settlements - a fact that would not, however, mean default Conservative dominance. Of course onto this we have the ethnic factors alluded to earlier, but I think they mostly work to reinforce this suggestion.