The UK with Dems/GOP

[JimJamUK]

That map doesn't see to make a lot of sense. Surely NE Ohio would be better for a social democratic/union dominated than Southern Ohio? Why would Labor do better in say Denton + Collin? A lot of the assumptions are whack.

Labour would do well in the coal mining/industrial parts of south-east Ohio, but the complete lack of differentiation between them and the more generic rural areas shows the flaws in this model (and potentially any model). I think if they included class, age and agricultural employment they would get a more accurate result.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Anyone brave enough to do the US with UK parties? Or at least the English parties since NI and the Plaid Cymru/Scottish National Party wouldn’t really work well in any serious fashion.

Al tried.

Then there's this thread.

Thanks for linking the thread.
Interesting stuff.

[Sol]

Which is a long and hyper-focused way of bringing us to the increasing difficulty of doing this kind of project, as fun as it undoubtedly is. American voting patterns have become increasingly strange from a European perspective (and often look even stranger once look you at detailed results) which makes getting things to fit rather hard. And one reason for this is that the divergent political histories of the United States and Western Europe mean that often the places that have the most in common in most respects are now very different in other ways: in this case it means that even the worst patches of postindustrial despair in Britain are nothing like what can be found in the various Rust Belts of the United States, but similar comments apply to other types of area.

This is obviously true but I think it's also what makes scenarios like this fun and worth doing--they underline the ways in which these divergences create kind of shocking disparities--i.e. like Safe Labour West Virginia or Democratic Home Counties.

The parts where I think this kind of stuff really often chokes is with culturally divided patterns and with sectionalism. For example, West Virginia does seem like the obvious parallel to South Wales, but given that Wales is a rather distinct country it's complicates making the Valleys a Republican stronghold, given that a British GOP would likely have a rather strong little Englander-type attitude. On the flipside, Black and White voters in the UK are less tightly aligned to their respective party preferences than in the U.S., but importing those patterns to prognosticate in, say, Alabama seems to be a dead end.

[Sol]

In any case, at the risk of seeming dumb, I made the northeast corridor with UK-style parties. Might do the rest of the country in a bit.



This is a bit generous to the Tories--it's assuming a 2019 style right-wing overperformance. A lot of these would be more favorable to Labour normally (thinking of PA-13, NY-24, VA-08 maybe) and then a lot more would be quintessential marginals (MA-04, MA-09, NJ-12, NJ-01, all the Torie SEPA districts, maybe NH-01 and NY-10). District lines and the VRA also have a certain effect--New Jersey would probably have a few more Labour seats with compact districts, while Maryland's gerrymander of Montgomery County actually works as a Tory gerrymander, since the parts of Montgomery County near DC have a slight Labour lean while most of the outer DC area and the panhandle (save Cumberland and Garrett County) are hyper-Tory.

I should also probably say that I don't have an especially deep knowledge of U.K. politics so probably a lot of this is wrong. Also there were certain areas I was unsure about--Long Island in particular, which I ended up using Essex as a parallel for--so I'd welcome corrections. I also just realized that I completely forgot about the Lib Dems (lol) so I'd welcome suggestions about where they might win--my intuition at first blush is MA-05, NY-10, NJ-05, NJ-12, and VA-11, but that seems a little too favorable to Labour.

[Alcibiades]

In any case, at the risk of seeming dumb, I made the northeast corridor with UK-style parties. Might do the rest of the country in a bit.



This is a bit generous to the Tories--it's assuming a 2019 style right-wing overperformance. A lot of these would be more favorable to Labour normally (thinking of PA-13, NY-24, VA-08 maybe) and then a lot more would be quintessential marginals (MA-04, MA-09, NJ-12, NJ-01, all the Torie SEPA districts, maybe NH-01 and NY-10). District lines and the VRA also have a certain effect--New Jersey would probably have a few more Labour seats with compact districts, while Maryland's gerrymander of Montgomery County actually works as a Tory gerrymander, since the parts of Montgomery County near DC have a slight Labour lean while most of the outer DC area and the panhandle (save Cumberland and Garrett County) are hyper-Tory.

I should also probably say that I don't have an especially deep knowledge of U.K. politics so probably a lot of this is wrong. Also there were certain areas I was unsure about--Long Island in particular, which I ended up using Essex as a parallel for--so I'd welcome corrections. I also just realized that I completely forgot about the Lib Dems (lol) so I'd welcome suggestions about where they might win--my intuition at first blush is MA-05, NY-10, NJ-05, NJ-12, and VA-11, but that seems a little too favorable to Labour.

If anything, this is far too generous to Labour based off 2019. Those red rural districts in PA and WV are exactly the type they would have lost that year (the “white working class” constituencies Labour retained in 2019 were mostly deprived urban ones, which the US largely lacks). On the other hand though, I think you have probably been a bit too favourable to the Tories in suburban/urban districts - the Arlington/inner suburban Fairfax districts, for instance, seem somewhat analogous to areas like Wandsworth where the Tories have really slid over the last two elections. Basically, I think you have overestimated the inversion of “US-style” patterns here.

[vileplume]

In any case, at the risk of seeming dumb, I made the northeast corridor with UK-style parties. Might do the rest of the country in a bit.



This is a bit generous to the Tories--it's assuming a 2019 style right-wing overperformance. A lot of these would be more favorable to Labour normally (thinking of PA-13, NY-24, VA-08 maybe) and then a lot more would be quintessential marginals (MA-04, MA-09, NJ-12, NJ-01, all the Torie SEPA districts, maybe NH-01 and NY-10). District lines and the VRA also have a certain effect--New Jersey would probably have a few more Labour seats with compact districts, while Maryland's gerrymander of Montgomery County actually works as a Tory gerrymander, since the parts of Montgomery County near DC have a slight Labour lean while most of the outer DC area and the panhandle (save Cumberland and Garrett County) are hyper-Tory.

I should also probably say that I don't have an especially deep knowledge of U.K. politics so probably a lot of this is wrong. Also there were certain areas I was unsure about--Long Island in particular, which I ended up using Essex as a parallel for--so I'd welcome corrections. I also just realized that I completely forgot about the Lib Dems (lol) so I'd welcome suggestions about where they might win--my intuition at first blush is MA-05, NY-10, NJ-05, NJ-12, and VA-11, but that seems a little too favorable to Labour.

If anything, this is far too generous to Labour based off 2019. Those red rural districts in PA and WV are exactly the type they would have lost that year (the “white working class” constituencies Labour retained in 2019 were mostly deprived urban ones, which the US largely lacks). On the other hand though, I think you have probably been a bit too favourable to the Tories in suburban/urban districts - the Arlington/inner suburban Fairfax districts, for instance, seem somewhat analogous to areas like Wandsworth where the Tories have really slid over the last two elections. Basically, I think you have overestimated the inversion of “US-style” patterns here.

Even in 2019 Labour didn't lose the most abjectly poor parts of 'traditionally working class' Britain (although their position did weaken considerably). The places in the red wall that fell were generally the areas with high homeownership, lower poverty and an elderly age profile. I'm not an expert on West Virginia but if one of the districts is considerably less poor than the state then that one would have fallen, but in general even in 2019 the Tories still fell short in areas as deprived as West Virginia is.

On the other hand the Tories would easily be winning districts like ME-02, NH-02 (the college towns would easily get outvoted) and CT-02. These are the type of districts which would have long been Tory as they aren't poverty stricken and aren't anchored on major urban centres. They *may* have gone Labour in the Blair landslides but in general they are the type of area that Labour would have been dead and buried in since roughly the time Harold Wilson was PM.

I agree the two NOVA districts should be Labour though, the Tories do horribly with government workers even affluent ones. They probably would still hold VA-10 though.

[Sol]

Even in 2019 Labour didn't lose the most abjectly poor parts of 'traditionally working class' Britain (although their position did weaken considerably). The places in the red wall that fell were generally the areas with high homeownership, lower poverty and an elderly age profile. I'm not an expert on West Virginia but if one of the districts is considerably less poor than the state then that one would have fallen, but in general even in 2019 the Tories still fell short in areas as deprived as West Virginia is.

WV-2 is very likely the most likely bit of West Virginia to fall--it has Putnam County and a lot of the not-traditionally industrial parts of eastern WV, plus the DC exurbs near Harpers Ferry which seem like a Tory sort of place. There's a good argument too for flipping PA-17 and PA-14 too then in that case, as well as maybe VA-09 and maybe PA-12?

On the other hand the Tories would easily be winning districts like ME-02, NH-02 (the college towns would easily get outvoted) and CT-02. These are the type of districts which would have long been Tory as they aren't poverty stricken and aren't anchored on major urban centres. They *may* have gone Labour in the Blair landslides but in general they are the type of area that Labour would have been dead and buried in since roughly the time Harold Wilson was PM.

I agree the two NOVA districts should be Labour though, the Tories do horribly with government workers even affluent ones. They probably would still hold VA-10 though.

I kind of have to beg to difffer here. ME-2 in particular is a pretty poor area--lowest median household income in New England, and more in line with the WV districts discussed above--and historically a major center of industry. I suppose there's an argument for it having flipped in 2019 but a place like that doesn't seem like somewhere where Labour would have been "dead and buried."

NH-02 is a bit more mixed, but has some similar areas (thinking of Coos County) and the ex-industrial but suburban weird place of Nashua which doesn't honestly make much sense in the American context either. I don't know much about CT-02 to be honest, but it voting Conservative would make some sense.

Wrt: Virginia, that's a hard area. A big thing which made me put those inner suburban districts in the Con column was that a lot of the suburban employment in NOVA is in industries which lean more right-wing, at least in the American context--a lot of corporate headquarters, military contractors, engineering, in addition to your typical government employees. Are there equivalent dynamics in parts of London?

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Anyone brave enough to do the US with UK parties? Or at least the English parties since NI and the Plaid Cymru/Scottish National Party wouldn’t really work well in any serious fashion.

The original twitter poster of this regression did it in inverse as well for the US, but using only the 3 main English Parties.

The idea that the Iron Range would be a Tory-Lib Dem swing area is... well, it's a fascinating thing for someone to believe.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In any case, at the risk of seeming dumb, I made the northeast corridor with UK-style parties. Might do the rest of the country in a bit.



This is a bit generous to the Tories--it's assuming a 2019 style right-wing overperformance. A lot of these would be more favorable to Labour normally (thinking of PA-13, NY-24, VA-08 maybe) and then a lot more would be quintessential marginals (MA-04, MA-09, NJ-12, NJ-01, all the Torie SEPA districts, maybe NH-01 and NY-10). District lines and the VRA also have a certain effect--New Jersey would probably have a few more Labour seats with compact districts, while Maryland's gerrymander of Montgomery County actually works as a Tory gerrymander, since the parts of Montgomery County near DC have a slight Labour lean while most of the outer DC area and the panhandle (save Cumberland and Garrett County) are hyper-Tory.

I should also probably say that I don't have an especially deep knowledge of U.K. politics so probably a lot of this is wrong. Also there were certain areas I was unsure about--Long Island in particular, which I ended up using Essex as a parallel for--so I'd welcome corrections. I also just realized that I completely forgot about the Lib Dems (lol) so I'd welcome suggestions about where they might win--my intuition at first blush is MA-05, NY-10, NJ-05, NJ-12, and VA-11, but that seems a little too favorable to Labour.

If anything, this is far too generous to Labour based off 2019. Those red rural districts in PA and WV are exactly the type they would have lost that year (the “white working class” constituencies Labour retained in 2019 were mostly deprived urban ones, which the US largely lacks). On the other hand though, I think you have probably been a bit too favourable to the Tories in suburban/urban districts - the Arlington/inner suburban Fairfax districts, for instance, seem somewhat analogous to areas like Wandsworth where the Tories have really slid over the last two elections. Basically, I think you have overestimated the inversion of “US-style” patterns here.

Even in 2019 Labour didn't lose the most abjectly poor parts of 'traditionally working class' Britain (although their position did weaken considerably). The places in the red wall that fell were generally the areas with high homeownership, lower poverty and an elderly age profile. I'm not an expert on West Virginia but if one of the districts is considerably less poor than the state then that one would have fallen, but in general even in 2019 the Tories still fell short in areas as deprived as West Virginia is.

On the other hand the Tories would easily be winning districts like ME-02, NH-02 (the college towns would easily get outvoted) and CT-02. These are the type of districts which would have long been Tory as they aren't poverty stricken and aren't anchored on major urban centres. They *may* have gone Labour in the Blair landslides but in general they are the type of area that Labour would have been dead and buried in since roughly the time Harold Wilson was PM.

I agree the two NOVA districts should be Labour though, the Tories do horribly with government workers even affluent ones. They probably would still hold VA-10 though.

WV-02 would easily be the likeliest of WV's CDs to vote Tory, and has the highest median household income of all three districts.

[morgieb]

Even in 2019 Labour didn't lose the most abjectly poor parts of 'traditionally working class' Britain (although their position did weaken considerably). The places in the red wall that fell were generally the areas with high homeownership, lower poverty and an elderly age profile. I'm not an expert on West Virginia but if one of the districts is considerably less poor than the state then that one would have fallen, but in general even in 2019 the Tories still fell short in areas as deprived as West Virginia is.

WV-2 is very likely the most likely bit of West Virginia to fall--it has Putnam County and a lot of the not-traditionally industrial parts of eastern WV, plus the DC exurbs near Harpers Ferry which seem like a Tory sort of place. There's a good argument too for flipping PA-17 and PA-14 too then in that case, as well as maybe VA-09 and maybe PA-12?

On the other hand the Tories would easily be winning districts like ME-02, NH-02 (the college towns would easily get outvoted) and CT-02. These are the type of districts which would have long been Tory as they aren't poverty stricken and aren't anchored on major urban centres. They *may* have gone Labour in the Blair landslides but in general they are the type of area that Labour would have been dead and buried in since roughly the time Harold Wilson was PM.

I agree the two NOVA districts should be Labour though, the Tories do horribly with government workers even affluent ones. They probably would still hold VA-10 though.

I kind of have to beg to difffer here. ME-2 in particular is a pretty poor area--lowest median household income in New England, and more in line with the WV districts discussed above--and historically a major center of industry. I suppose there's an argument for it having flipped in 2019 but a place like that doesn't seem like somewhere where Labour would have been "dead and buried."

NH-02 is a bit more mixed, but has some similar areas (thinking of Coos County) and the ex-industrial but suburban weird place of Nashua which doesn't honestly make much sense in the American context either. I don't know much about CT-02 to be honest, but it voting Conservative would make some sense.

Wrt: Virginia, that's a hard area. A big thing which made me put those inner suburban districts in the Con column was that a lot of the suburban employment in NOVA is in industries which lean more right-wing, at least in the American context--a lot of corporate headquarters, military contractors, engineering, in addition to your typical government employees. Are there equivalent dynamics in parts of London?

I would've thought PA-12 (and PA-09) would've been more likely to flip than say PA-14, though admittedly PA-14 does have some exurban areas so could've been a narrow 2019 flip (after being quite comfortably Labour in 2017).

Agree that NOVA isn't just government employees, though I think in a climate like 2017/19 that could mean better things for the Lib Dems? Flipside of that is that Labour probably do better in Maryland than you expect, though I don't know for sure.

[Sol]

The embarrassment of revealed ignorance continues, with a pass at the South (excluding the southern states which are a part of the Northeast corridor, like Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware).



There were also some very difficult elements here. In particular, there are several parts of Southern states, particularly in Alabama, the Carolinas, and Tennessee, which had and still have to some extent an industrial economy, one which developed in the early and mid 20th due to the South's ununionized and cheap labor. These places mostly vote Republican these days--the industrial labor isn't and never really has been unionized to the same extent as the North, except in Alabama iirc. I most went with giving these areas to the Conservatives, with exception of urban centers and areas with a union tradition.

The other big question is racial polarization, and that was a bit easier because I just decided that it would basically pattern in the same way as the Democrats and Republicans do irl. That said, I did decide that Cubans would likely be Tory-leaning in a stronger way than irl, with a more overtly socialist Labour and a less overtly racist Conservative party.

Again, this is a rough election year for Labour (or should it be Labor?). In a better year they'd have MO-05, MO-08, KY-01, KY-02 and AL-05, with a decent shot at winning classic marginals NC-08, NC-09, and mayyybe TX-14.

It's funny how in a lot of places these actually look a lot more like real results--that may actually be a Texas congressional map from the earlier part of last decade, and Georgia is of course identical to the map from 2015 to 2019. Really shows how much more the GOP has held up rich southern urban areas until the recent past.

[Sol]

Even in 2019 Labour didn't lose the most abjectly poor parts of 'traditionally working class' Britain (although their position did weaken considerably). The places in the red wall that fell were generally the areas with high homeownership, lower poverty and an elderly age profile. I'm not an expert on West Virginia but if one of the districts is considerably less poor than the state then that one would have fallen, but in general even in 2019 the Tories still fell short in areas as deprived as West Virginia is.

WV-2 is very likely the most likely bit of West Virginia to fall--it has Putnam County and a lot of the not-traditionally industrial parts of eastern WV, plus the DC exurbs near Harpers Ferry which seem like a Tory sort of place. There's a good argument too for flipping PA-17 and PA-14 too then in that case, as well as maybe VA-09 and maybe PA-12?

On the other hand the Tories would easily be winning districts like ME-02, NH-02 (the college towns would easily get outvoted) and CT-02. These are the type of districts which would have long been Tory as they aren't poverty stricken and aren't anchored on major urban centres. They *may* have gone Labour in the Blair landslides but in general they are the type of area that Labour would have been dead and buried in since roughly the time Harold Wilson was PM.

I agree the two NOVA districts should be Labour though, the Tories do horribly with government workers even affluent ones. They probably would still hold VA-10 though.

I kind of have to beg to difffer here. ME-2 in particular is a pretty poor area--lowest median household income in New England, and more in line with the WV districts discussed above--and historically a major center of industry. I suppose there's an argument for it having flipped in 2019 but a place like that doesn't seem like somewhere where Labour would have been "dead and buried."

NH-02 is a bit more mixed, but has some similar areas (thinking of Coos County) and the ex-industrial but suburban weird place of Nashua which doesn't honestly make much sense in the American context either. I don't know much about CT-02 to be honest, but it voting Conservative would make some sense.

Wrt: Virginia, that's a hard area. A big thing which made me put those inner suburban districts in the Con column was that a lot of the suburban employment in NOVA is in industries which lean more right-wing, at least in the American context--a lot of corporate headquarters, military contractors, engineering, in addition to your typical government employees. Are there equivalent dynamics in parts of London?

I would've thought PA-12 (and PA-09) would've been more likely to flip than say PA-14, though admittedly PA-14 does have some exurban areas so could've been a narrow 2019 flip (after being quite comfortably Labour in 2017).

My logic for that was that PA-14 does have quite a bit of exurban, and frankly in some parts, suburban areas, which more closely fits the description of a flipping district which vileplume gave. If you look at income maps of the Pittsburgh area lots of PA-14 is very poor but there are also big chunks of Westmoreland and Washington counties which are quite prosperous.

I don't the demographics of PA-12 and PA-09 super well, but both have very poor industrial areas. Though there is the much more Tory seeming area of Lebanon in PA-09.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Even in 2019 Labour didn't lose the most abjectly poor parts of 'traditionally working class' Britain (although their position did weaken considerably). The places in the red wall that fell were generally the areas with high homeownership, lower poverty and an elderly age profile.

Or which also had a substantial agricultural element (this does correlate with some of the other factors, but is worth noting), usually easy enough to outvote but not under the specific conditions of 2019, with so much of the usual Labour base on 'strike' one way or another and with so many ordinarily apolitical people turning out to vote because of Brexit.

Of course that's the other issue to remember: it's an error to take any individual British election and declare it to be 'normal' and the baseline. So if you're doing this sort of thing you'd be better off projecting a range of outcomes for a range of different scenarios.

I agree the two NOVA districts should be Labour though, the Tories do horribly with government workers even affluent ones.

Though extremely affluent owner-occupied suburbia is generally brutal for Labour, even when there's a lot of public sector employment. There is, of course, a third party and I suspect that might well be the answer in this case...

[vileplume]

Even in 2019 Labour didn't lose the most abjectly poor parts of 'traditionally working class' Britain (although their position did weaken considerably). The places in the red wall that fell were generally the areas with high homeownership, lower poverty and an elderly age profile. I'm not an expert on West Virginia but if one of the districts is considerably less poor than the state then that one would have fallen, but in general even in 2019 the Tories still fell short in areas as deprived as West Virginia is.

WV-2 is very likely the most likely bit of West Virginia to fall--it has Putnam County and a lot of the not-traditionally industrial parts of eastern WV, plus the DC exurbs near Harpers Ferry which seem like a Tory sort of place. There's a good argument too for flipping PA-17 and PA-14 too then in that case, as well as maybe VA-09 and maybe PA-12?

On the other hand the Tories would easily be winning districts like ME-02, NH-02 (the college towns would easily get outvoted) and CT-02. These are the type of districts which would have long been Tory as they aren't poverty stricken and aren't anchored on major urban centres. They *may* have gone Labour in the Blair landslides but in general they are the type of area that Labour would have been dead and buried in since roughly the time Harold Wilson was PM.

I agree the two NOVA districts should be Labour though, the Tories do horribly with government workers even affluent ones. They probably would still hold VA-10 though.

I kind of have to beg to difffer here. ME-2 in particular is a pretty poor area--lowest median household income in New England, and more in line with the WV districts discussed above--and historically a major center of industry. I suppose there's an argument for it having flipped in 2019 but a place like that doesn't seem like somewhere where Labour would have been "dead and buried."

NH-02 is a bit more mixed, but has some similar areas (thinking of Coos County) and the ex-industrial but suburban weird place of Nashua which doesn't honestly make much sense in the American context either. I don't know much about CT-02 to be honest, but it voting Conservative would make some sense.

Wrt: Virginia, that's a hard area. A big thing which made me put those inner suburban districts in the Con column was that a lot of the suburban employment in NOVA is in industries which lean more right-wing, at least in the American context--a lot of corporate headquarters, military contractors, engineering, in addition to your typical government employees. Are there equivalent dynamics in parts of London?

Re. ME-02 I was under the impression that although isn't high income, it's also the type of place where the cost of living is low with little extreme poverty and wealth inequality? These type of areas (if not-urban) are typically solidly Tory and have been since the collapse of the agricultural unions unless there is a cultural alienation at play (which I guess there could be in the French areas). Apologies if this characterisation of the area is incorrect though.

Re.NOVA, yes those industries are good for the Tories and I don't doubt they'd do better than the GOP in the region. However I was under the impression (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that whilst high-income Fairfax/Alexandria/Arlington is full of young professionals with good salaries but also large monthly outgoings (children, rent, mortgage, healthcare, transport, inflated consumer goods prices etc.) so they are nowhere near as wealthy as they look on paper. This along with a generally very socially liberal worldview would make them unlikely to support the Tories. If the area was all entirely like Great Falls, yes, the Tories would curb stomp Labour, but from what I've read it's nowhere near as uniformly wealthy as that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I kind of have to beg to difffer here. ME-2 in particular is a pretty poor area--lowest median household income in New England, and more in line with the WV districts discussed above--and historically a major center of industry. I suppose there's an argument for it having flipped in 2019 but a place like that doesn't seem like somewhere where Labour would have been "dead and buried."

This would be a case where the continental scale of the United States and the wider range of economic activity historically and currently due to the place being, well, large and containing multitudes. Timber-related production on the sort of scale seen in northern Maine isn't something seen in Britain, so there's no direct analogue there, but it seems reasonable, for various reasons, to assume that it wouldn't be bad news for Labour. Certainly industrial-scale timber processing (which does exist in a few places) isn't, so we can at least say that Androscoggin County would be decent for them, most of the time: in fact quite clearly more so than some of the parts of the district that are more reliable territory for the Democrats these days and where I would tend to be very dubious of hypothetical Labour's prospects.

a lot of corporate headquarters, military contractors, engineering, in addition to your typical government employees. Are there equivalent dynamics in parts of London?

In the London metropolitan region rather than London: that's much more of e.g. a Surrey (especially!), Herts or Essex sort of profile.

[Sol]

Of course another factor in the case of NOVA is that it's quite diverse--massive Salvadoran, Korean, Indian, and African-American communities, and in some parts a bit poorer than it's generally expected to be (thinking of SE Fairfax and Eastern Prince William). That was why I had initially suggested VA-08 as a district Labour could win, since it has some of those areas and the socially liberal folks who are in the genuinely urban parts of northern Virginia.

[vileplume]

The embarrassment of revealed ignorance continues, with a pass at the South (excluding the southern states which are a part of the Northeast corridor, like Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware).



There were also some very difficult elements here. In particular, there are several parts of Southern states, particularly in Alabama, the Carolinas, and Tennessee, which had and still have to some extent an industrial economy, one which developed in the early and mid 20th due to the South's ununionized and cheap labor. These places mostly vote Republican these days--the industrial labor isn't and never really has been unionized to the same extent as the North, except in Alabama iirc. I most went with giving these areas to the Conservatives, with exception of urban centers and areas with a union tradition.

The other big question is racial polarization, and that was a bit easier because I just decided that it would basically pattern in the same way as the Democrats and Republicans do irl. That said, I did decide that Cubans would likely be Tory-leaning in a stronger way than irl, with a more overtly socialist Labour and a less overtly racist Conservative party.

Again, this is a rough election year for Labour (or should it be Labor?). In a better year they'd have MO-05, MO-08, KY-01, KY-02 and AL-05, with a decent shot at winning classic marginals NC-02, NC-08, NC-09, and mayyybe TX-14.

It's funny how in a lot of places these actually look a lot more like real results--that may actually be a Texas congressional map from the earlier part of last decade, and Georgia is of course identical to the map from 2015 to 2019. Really shows how much more the GOP has held up rich southern urban areas until the recent past.

The South is the massive problem area for this exercise as if you picked up the Tory Party and dumped them into America with a near-unchanged platform, they'd do horribly with Southern Evangelicals many of whom probably go third party. I'm sure if forced to choose the greater part would pick the Tories over Labour (particularly the rich suburban every-Sunday churchgoing types) but the very poor evangelicals in the backwaters would more not vote, back some Farage-esque third party or if very poor maybe even back Labour as the Tories aren't giving them as much of the cultural incentive to override their economic interests. Labour would do much better than in this map for these reasons, probably with a hard right insurgent party winning seats too.

[Sol]

The embarrassment of revealed ignorance continues, with a pass at the South (excluding the southern states which are a part of the Northeast corridor, like Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware).



There were also some very difficult elements here. In particular, there are several parts of Southern states, particularly in Alabama, the Carolinas, and Tennessee, which had and still have to some extent an industrial economy, one which developed in the early and mid 20th due to the South's ununionized and cheap labor. These places mostly vote Republican these days--the industrial labor isn't and never really has been unionized to the same extent as the North, except in Alabama iirc. I most went with giving these areas to the Conservatives, with exception of urban centers and areas with a union tradition.

The other big question is racial polarization, and that was a bit easier because I just decided that it would basically pattern in the same way as the Democrats and Republicans do irl. That said, I did decide that Cubans would likely be Tory-leaning in a stronger way than irl, with a more overtly socialist Labour and a less overtly racist Conservative party.

Again, this is a rough election year for Labour (or should it be Labor?). In a better year they'd have MO-05, MO-08, KY-01, KY-02 and AL-05, with a decent shot at winning classic marginals NC-02, NC-08, NC-09, and mayyybe TX-14.

It's funny how in a lot of places these actually look a lot more like real results--that may actually be a Texas congressional map from the earlier part of last decade, and Georgia is of course identical to the map from 2015 to 2019. Really shows how much more the GOP has held up rich southern urban areas until the recent past.

The South is the massive problem area for this exercise as if you picked up the Tory Party and dumped them into America with a near-unchanged platform, they'd do horribly with Southern Evangelicals many of whom probably go third party. I'm sure if forced to choose the greater part would pick the Tories over Labour (particularly the rich suburban every-Sunday churchgoing types) but the very poor evangelicals in the backwaters would more not vote, back some Farage-esque third party or if very poor maybe even back Labour as the Tories aren't giving them as much of the cultural incentive to override their economic interests. Labour would do much better than in this map for these reasons, probably with a hard right insurgent party winning seats too.

I mean, the whole point of this exercise is that that's not what one does--rather it's about coming up with the closest fit for the parties involved's coalitions and stretching that in a case where that's not obvious. I obviously would have given UKIP some seats if I was modeling earlier elections, but I wasn't.

Precise realism isn't the goal--the point here is just a thought experiment.

[morgieb]

The embarrassment of revealed ignorance continues, with a pass at the South (excluding the southern states which are a part of the Northeast corridor, like Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware).



There were also some very difficult elements here. In particular, there are several parts of Southern states, particularly in Alabama, the Carolinas, and Tennessee, which had and still have to some extent an industrial economy, one which developed in the early and mid 20th due to the South's ununionized and cheap labor. These places mostly vote Republican these days--the industrial labor isn't and never really has been unionized to the same extent as the North, except in Alabama iirc. I most went with giving these areas to the Conservatives, with exception of urban centers and areas with a union tradition.

The other big question is racial polarization, and that was a bit easier because I just decided that it would basically pattern in the same way as the Democrats and Republicans do irl. That said, I did decide that Cubans would likely be Tory-leaning in a stronger way than irl, with a more overtly socialist Labour and a less overtly racist Conservative party.

Again, this is a rough election year for Labour (or should it be Labor?). In a better year they'd have MO-05, MO-08, KY-01, KY-02 and AL-05, with a decent shot at winning classic marginals NC-02, NC-08, NC-09, and mayyybe TX-14.

It's funny how in a lot of places these actually look a lot more like real results--that may actually be a Texas congressional map from the earlier part of last decade, and Georgia is of course identical to the map from 2015 to 2019. Really shows how much more the GOP has held up rich southern urban areas until the recent past.

NC-02 looks to be coloured in red in your map. Which I'm guessing is a mistake. I could see it being LD though.

Also I think Labour would be stronger in KY-06 than KY-02? From memory KY-06 has part of the big coal region?

Yeah the non-union industrial areas are interesting. From memory outside of Alabama the industry tends to be lighter (and therefore possibly less Labour/social democratic friendly), but I could be wrong. Certainly the nature of unionisation could be very different in the South if one party was pushing harder for unionisation.

[Alcibiades]

In any case, at the risk of seeming dumb, I made the northeast corridor with UK-style parties. Might do the rest of the country in a bit.



This is a bit generous to the Tories--it's assuming a 2019 style right-wing overperformance. A lot of these would be more favorable to Labour normally (thinking of PA-13, NY-24, VA-08 maybe) and then a lot more would be quintessential marginals (MA-04, MA-09, NJ-12, NJ-01, all the Torie SEPA districts, maybe NH-01 and NY-10). District lines and the VRA also have a certain effect--New Jersey would probably have a few more Labour seats with compact districts, while Maryland's gerrymander of Montgomery County actually works as a Tory gerrymander, since the parts of Montgomery County near DC have a slight Labour lean while most of the outer DC area and the panhandle (save Cumberland and Garrett County) are hyper-Tory.

I should also probably say that I don't have an especially deep knowledge of U.K. politics so probably a lot of this is wrong. Also there were certain areas I was unsure about--Long Island in particular, which I ended up using Essex as a parallel for--so I'd welcome corrections. I also just realized that I completely forgot about the Lib Dems (lol) so I'd welcome suggestions about where they might win--my intuition at first blush is MA-05, NY-10, NJ-05, NJ-12, and VA-11, but that seems a little too favorable to Labour.

If anything, this is far too generous to Labour based off 2019. Those red rural districts in PA and WV are exactly the type they would have lost that year (the “white working class” constituencies Labour retained in 2019 were mostly deprived urban ones, which the US largely lacks). On the other hand though, I think you have probably been a bit too favourable to the Tories in suburban/urban districts - the Arlington/inner suburban Fairfax districts, for instance, seem somewhat analogous to areas like Wandsworth where the Tories have really slid over the last two elections. Basically, I think you have overestimated the inversion of “US-style” patterns here.

Even in 2019 Labour didn't lose the most abjectly poor parts of 'traditionally working class' Britain (although their position did weaken considerably). The places in the red wall that fell were generally the areas with high homeownership, lower poverty and an elderly age profile. I'm not an expert on West Virginia but if one of the districts is considerably less poor than the state then that one would have fallen, but in general even in 2019 the Tories still fell short in areas as deprived as West Virginia is.

I think part of the issue here is that there is really nowhere like WV in the UK - as Al said, nowhere as deprived, and also nowhere (apart from perhaps the Highlands and Snowdonia - but those are obviously nothing like it in most other respects) which is anywhere near as remote. Nonetheless, it is not an exaggeration to say that Labour won essentially zero rural seats in 2019 (again, assuming that this is the election Sol is doing an American version of), and West Virginia seems quite a bit like some of those rural seats in County Durham scattered with ex-pit villages which the Tories gained last time out. Another thing is that West Virginia has the second-highest home ownership rate in the United States - Appalachia is generally marked by extremely high rates for such a deprived place.

[afleitch]

Can I just say that in the 2019 GE, the best indicators of voting behaviour was age and education level; two of the strongest indicators at the 2020 presidential election. Social grade/class was no longer strongly correlated. Race etc also played a factor.

These might help;

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election

[CumbrianLefty]

Though the poorest voters still *tend* to vote Labour in the UK, and Democrat in the US.

Income still matters, certainly much more than ever more amorphous concepts of "class".

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Though the poorest voters still *tend* to vote Labour in the UK, and Democrat in the US.

Income still matters, certainly much more than ever more amorphous concepts of "class".

Even now, the vast majority of the most poor constituencies in the UK have Labour MPs - despite the 2019 climate helping demolish the "red wall" and despite real Conservative gains in many of those areas over the past 10-15 years.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

(US Census Bureau)
Here's an income map on county level. Figured this might be of some relevance in this sort of scenario.

[JimJamUK]

In any case, at the risk of seeming dumb, I made the northeast corridor with UK-style parties. Might do the rest of the country in a bit.

I think this might actually work better for 2017 than 2019. A lot of reasonably working class post-industrial seats you have red would have flipped Conservative in 2019 (and would be pretty marginal before). As has been mentioned, Labour do crap in non-industrial rural areas so while there are post-industrial parts of Maine, New Hampshire and West Virginia that are strongly Labour, there are also parts that are near monolithically Conservative and would balance out the Labour vote to a large extent. Therefore, in 2019 the Conservatives would have flipped the central West Virginia district and potentially the northern one as well. The size of US congressional districts and states means that there would be many fewer safe seats in general.

On specific seats, Labour wouldn’t win the Staten Island based one, but they may win a couple more in New Jersey (modestly well off racial minorities and Catholics would mostly vote Labour, it’s the properly well off white suburbs/exurbs where they bomb). Labour wouldn’t win the central Pennsylvania district, but they might win the west central one (lots of coal mining history). The Portland district would probably vote Labour (and heading in the opposite direction to northern Maine) while Vermont wouldn’t necessarily be that safe for Labour. Unlike some other posters I actually agree on metro DC. Labour would do well on the Maryland side largely due to black voters and some working/reasonably middle class support, but do terribly on the Virginia side due to a combination of insane wealth, fewer racial minorities (and much of the non-white vote here is Asian which tends to be more class based), and employment being more defence/private sector based rather than civil service bureaucrats.