[CatoRenasci]

This essay, which is certainly useful in reminding everyone not to take Bush's reelection for granted, fails to note the fundamental difference between the American system in which people vote separately for President, senators and representatives. In England's parliamentry system, no one votes for prime minister, but for the local member. Oh, one knows one is voting for a party - typically Tory or Labour since the collapse of the Liberals (Whigs) after WWI -- but one actually votes for the local candidate. No such thing as divided government in England: the party that controls Parliament determines the Prime Minister.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Still, everyone knew what the outcome would be if they voted Labour-- Attlee campaigned strongly as the liberal he was. He wanted the election to be a referendum on socialist change. I think the British also thought Winston hadn't properly prepared a post-war Europe plan of political and physical rebuilding (as some say about Iraq).

[Nonstatist]

one actually votes for the local candidate

More than that, the British economy by middle of '45 was bankrupt with high inflation and shortages and the rest. To make an analogy between that dread state of affairs and the current state of the U.S. economy would be quite a reach. We all know it's mostly the state of the economy that will dictate whether an incumbent President will be thrown out of office or not.