Several days ago Great Britain held a general election to decide the country's government over the next few years. Facing discontent and a nation thirsty for change, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the governing Labor Party were soundly defeated. The challenging Conservative Party, led by David Cameroon, gained 97 seats but failed to take a majority in Parliament. Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats, who had surged after a strong performance in the first debate by their leader Nick Clegg, badly underperformed their expectations.
This election offers a useful study of a political system outside of the United States. While more similar to the United States than most countries, Great Britain's electorate also offers a number of intriguing differences.
A map of the results illustrates several aspects of this system:
Note: In Britain and most of the world, the party of the left - Labour - is traditionally represented by the color red (symbolizing the revolution and the so-called blood of the workers). The Conservatives are represented by blue; the Liberal Democrats by yellow.
Democratic candidates in Utah must feel as if they're facing an impossible task. The state is often considered the most far-right Republican stronghold in the United States. Winning Utah is akin to slaying a mighty dragon with only a bow as one's chosen weapon.
Like all dragons, however, Utah has a weak spot. The year 2012 may be a ripe time for Obama to shoot an arrow through it.
The majority of Utah's voters are Mormon; the religion is a heavy influence on daily life in the state. The vast majority of Mormons are also conservative, because Mormonism is an inherently conservative beast. In every presidential election so far, Mormons have proved to be strongly Republican.
Mormons like to think of themselves as average, normal Americans. They're good people. They help with the community. They love their children and teach them traditional values. Nobody cares if they have a different religion.
Except many people do care very much indeed, especially the type of person who tends to vote Republican. Many would never vote for a Mormon.
The other day, I shattered the ugly belief that the Republican candidate in the 23rd congressional district, Dede Scozzafava, was the most liberal. That post was a direct response to Markos' post Thursday, which also included a critique of Democratic candidate Bill Owens.
One of the arguments made by Markos is that Owens is a "conservaDem" and that he would be just another member of the Blue Dog Coalition should he win in November. Owens, who was an independent but has changed his party affiliation to become a Democrat, was picked over two Democrats to run.
This doesn't surprise. A lot of people, including people here in New York, have made the same argument. Part of it has to do with a lack of research on Scozzafava. The other half of it is a lack of information on the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who conservatives call "liberal" and some progressives like Markos have called a "Blue Dog."
After reading Markos' post multiple times, it seems he uses the following as important points for his "liberal" labeling of Scozzafava.
Thanks to David here at Swing State Project, we now have data on how every congressional district voted for POTUS for the last several elections. This is a treasure trove for geeks like me. That list is here.
Today, I look at districts with conservative Democrats as representatives
Note: some of these things only apply to incumbents, while some only apply to challengers.
* political positions on issues, as advertised and/or as perceived by people
** how easily said perception can be changed (versus how cemented it already is)
* actual political positions as based on voting records, and whether this is different from the above
* fit to the district based on perceived ideology
* fit to the district based on actual ideology
* constituent services (can seriously make up for bad fits)
* backbencher versus leader
* teflon-coated-ness versus controversy generation (also known as gaffe/misbehavior probability)
* campaigning style--what is it suitable for (liberals, moderates, conservatives, liberal Democrats, liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, conservative Republicans, rural voters, suburban voters, urban voters, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Whites, etc.)
* campaigning effort and effectiveness (some people are just lazy campaigners or haven't adapted well to a new district's style or such)
* charisma
* length of incumbency
* vote percentages in previous elections
* previous positions held, victories, and losses
* scandals (current and past)
* anything that dirty tactics can target (shouldn't be a deciding factor, but should be paid attention to be ready to defend against)
* fundraising capability and fund availability
* fund usage capability (campaign on a dime?)
Anything else?
And is there a way we can distill this? Though I'm sure some professional strategists already have some sort of abbreviated list that they use in their line of work.
