Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 09:43:56 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  Why is/was President Obama so amazingly popular in Vermont?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Why is/was President Obama so amazingly popular in Vermont?  (Read 7223 times)
Warren Griffin
Red Shadow
Rookie
*
Posts: 44
Germany


View Profile
« on: June 08, 2010, 11:11:41 am »
Ignore

In 2004 Kerry was strong too, but President Obamas numbers in 2008 seems pretty impressive.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 11:13:19 am by Red Shadow »Logged

Forward!

WEAR RED, GET LOUD! GO 49ers!

Who's got it better than us? Nooobody!!!

You could travel the world, but nothing comes close to the Golden Coast!
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30148
France


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2010, 11:37:05 am »
Ignore

Well, it's a pretty long-term trend in Vermont, which is continuously trending democrat since 1988 (with the exception of 2000, but it was probably due to Nader).
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2010, 01:08:04 pm »
Ignore

Vermont has just been trending Democratic for a long time.
Logged

Warren Griffin
Red Shadow
Rookie
*
Posts: 44
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2010, 01:27:55 pm »
Ignore

Well, it's a pretty long-term trend in Vermont, which is continuously trending democrat since 1988 (with the exception of 2000, but it was probably due to Nader).

Ok, I also see an general trend since 1988, but these numbers still look awesome in my opinion. About plus 27 is extraordinary dominant. Altough Kerry was generally a weak candidate, he possibly
have had a kind of "New England bonus". By the way, excuse me for my bad American English, but I am originally from Germany.

« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 01:29:41 pm by Red Shadow »Logged

Forward!

WEAR RED, GET LOUD! GO 49ers!

Who's got it better than us? Nooobody!!!

You could travel the world, but nothing comes close to the Golden Coast!
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2010, 01:56:18 pm »
Ignore

This shows how Democratic relative to the national average Vermont was in Presidential elections since 1988:

1988: D+2
1992: D+3
1996: D+4
2000: D+2 (due to Nader)
2004: D+11
2008: D+15

Keep in mind that Obama won a greater nationwide % of the vote than Kerry did, and thus it is expected that he would do better percentagewise in Vermont. Vermont did trend a little Democratic between 2004 and 2008, though. In 2004, Vermont was 11% more Democratic than the national average, while in 2008, Vermont was 15% more Democratic than the national average.
Logged

Dallasfan65
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5510


Political Matrix
E: 5.68, S: -9.91

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2010, 02:03:53 pm »
Ignore

Well, I highly doubt that with electoral-rich states like North Carolina and Ohio in play, McCain was willing to waste time in the Heavily Democratic, worth 3 electoral votes State of Vermont.
Logged

Warren Griffin
Red Shadow
Rookie
*
Posts: 44
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2010, 02:26:12 pm »
Ignore

This shows how Democratic relative to the national average Vermont was in Presidential elections since 1988:

1988: D+2
1992: D+3
1996: D+4
2000: D+2 (due to Nader)
2004: D+11
2008: D+15

Keep in mind that Obama won a greater nationwide % of the vote than Kerry did, and thus it is expected that he would do better percentagewise in Vermont. Vermont did trend a little Democratic between 2004 and 2008, though. In 2004, Vermont was 11% more Democratic than the national average, while in 2008, Vermont was 15% more Democratic than the national average.


Thank you for the explanation, but why Vermont has trended so strong since 1988?
Logged

Forward!

WEAR RED, GET LOUD! GO 49ers!

Who's got it better than us? Nooobody!!!

You could travel the world, but nothing comes close to the Golden Coast!
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2010, 02:45:56 pm »
Ignore

Vermont has been trending away from the Republican party for some time now. The party of war and corporate bailouts represented by Bush and McCain forced them into the arms of the Democrats.
Logged
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30148
France


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2010, 03:02:37 pm »
Ignore

This shows how Democratic relative to the national average Vermont was in Presidential elections since 1988:

1988: D+2
1992: D+3
1996: D+4
2000: D+2 (due to Nader)
2004: D+11
2008: D+15

Keep in mind that Obama won a greater nationwide % of the vote than Kerry did, and thus it is expected that he would do better percentagewise in Vermont. Vermont did trend a little Democratic between 2004 and 2008, though. In 2004, Vermont was 11% more Democratic than the national average, while in 2008, Vermont was 15% more Democratic than the national average.


Thank you for the explanation, but why Vermont has trended so strong since 1988?

To put it quickly, it's all about the GOP's change. Until the 1970's the Republicans were pretty different than how they are now. The "conservative revolution" of the 1980's and the 1990's basically disgusted Vermonters, who are generally rural/small town moderates. The religious conservatism and/or the radcal anti-welfare stances of most republicans were absolutely unappealing to them, wereas the democrats were seen as more moderates and less ideological (and were also remembered as the party of civil right, something who mattered in the North). Obviously, such trend happened gradually, as Vermonter used to vote strongly for republicans (as a reaction against pro-South democrats). so, it took more than 20 year for this move to be fully achieved.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
PASOK Leader Hashemite
Hashemite
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31322
South Africa



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2010, 03:16:13 pm »
Ignore

as Vermonter used to vote strongly for republicans (as a reaction against pro-South democrats).

In fact, it was often one of the most Republican states in the nation.
Logged


President Mitt
Giovanni
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3647
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2010, 04:04:16 pm »
Ignore

Vermont is generally an anti-war state. It swung Republican in 2000 when Bush campaigned on a 'humble' foreign policy, when it turned out to be a farce, Vermont swung the most against Bush of all states in 2004. Another example might be 1964, when Johnson campaigned as the candidate of peace, and Goldwater was painted as the candidate of war. Even though Vermont was heavily Republican, it voted against Goldwater because he was perceived as the 'pro-war' candidate.

So, Vermont doesn't like warmongers, that's pretty much how it goes.
Logged

[This space is available for purchase]
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2010, 10:41:05 pm »
Ignore

It fits his left wing ideology.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10406
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2010, 12:38:06 pm »
Ignore

Because Vermont rocks.
Logged
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2010, 02:02:27 pm »
Ignore

Vermont is also 98% white. Voting for a black is exotic and makes Vermonters feel all warm and fuzzy and tolerant.
Logged
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10406
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2010, 03:21:34 pm »
Ignore

Vermont is also 98% white. Voting for a black is exotic and makes Vermonters feel all warm and fuzzy and tolerant.

Which apparantly doesn't apply to the Dakotas, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and a host of other near all-white states that didn't back Obama because.....?

For that matter, New Hampshire's hardly an ethnic melting pot and gave Obama only 54% compared to 67% in Vermont.
Logged
Senator Libertas
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14781
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -9.22

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 11, 2010, 03:44:13 pm »
Ignore

Vermont is also 98% white. Voting for a black is exotic and makes Vermonters feel all warm and fuzzy and tolerant.

Which apparantly doesn't apply to the Dakotas, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and a host of other near all-white states that didn't back Obama because.....?

For that matter, New Hampshire's hardly an ethnic melting pot and gave Obama only 54% compared to 67% in Vermont.

All of those states swung Democratic in 2008.

Obama's margin in New Hampshire was held down by the few populous counties, of which there are none in Vermont. The two states have rather different political cultures and a Democrat starts off with a much stronger position in VT than in NH.

Merely being black isn't what won Vermont for Obama, but he had a much higher ceiling there than in a racially polarized state like Arkansas, or North Carolina for that matter.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8101
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 11, 2010, 03:57:34 pm »
Ignore

Vermont is also 98% white. Voting for a black is exotic and makes Vermonters feel all warm and fuzzy and tolerant.

Which apparantly doesn't apply to the Dakotas, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and a host of other near all-white states that didn't back Obama because.....?

For that matter, New Hampshire's hardly an ethnic melting pot and gave Obama only 54% compared to 67% in Vermont.

All of those states swung Democratic in 2008.


As did most states.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4702
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 11, 2010, 04:30:48 pm »
Ignore

Vermont is also 98% white. Voting for a black is exotic and makes Vermonters feel all warm and fuzzy and tolerant.

That's true Libertas! Leave it to guilty white liberals to spoil it for conservatives.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
DariusNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 423


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2010, 09:02:07 pm »
Ignore


1)Extremely strong anti-incumbency feeling.
2)The Democrat was a perceived liberal
3)The Democrat was perceived as the anti-war candidate.
Logged
FBF
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3940
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2010, 02:39:55 pm »
Ignore

Vermont has been trending away from the Republican party for some time now. The party of war and corporate bailouts represented by Bush and McCain forced them into the arms of the Democrats.

True.  I think Bush Snr. and Clinton had something to do with it too.  I think that the GOP was killed in Vermont after Bush raised taxes on the wealthy.  Than after Clinton was elected, he proved that not all Democrats were hardcore liberals, which I think helped a fair amount.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2010, 02:46:56 pm »
Ignore

Vermont has been trending away from the Republican party for some time now. The party of war and corporate bailouts represented by Bush and McCain forced them into the arms of the Democrats.

True.  I think Bush Snr. and Clinton had something to do with it too.  I think that the GOP was killed in Vermont after Bush raised taxes on the wealthy.  Than after Clinton was elected, he proved that not all Democrats were hardcore liberals, which I think helped a fair amount.

Bush Sr.'s tax raise didn't affect the wealthy that much (it probably affected ordinary Americans more) and Reagan raised taxes on ordinary Americans numerous times, which didn't seem to hurt him in VT. Besides, VT isn't that wealthy. I think VT trended Democratic since 1988 due to the increasing social conservatism of the GOP and the increased social liberalism of the Democrats. I don't think it had much to do with economics since the GOP was arguably the more economically conservative party since the late 1970s, way before VT started trending Democratic.
Logged

FBF
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3940
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2010, 02:57:34 pm »
Ignore

Vermont has been trending away from the Republican party for some time now. The party of war and corporate bailouts represented by Bush and McCain forced them into the arms of the Democrats.

True.  I think Bush Snr. and Clinton had something to do with it too.  I think that the GOP was killed in Vermont after Bush raised taxes on the wealthy.  Than after Clinton was elected, he proved that not all Democrats were hardcore liberals, which I think helped a fair amount.

Bush Sr.'s tax raise didn't affect the wealthy that much (it probably affected ordinary Americans more) and Reagan raised taxes on ordinary Americans numerous times, which didn't seem to hurt him in VT. Besides, VT isn't that wealthy. I think VT trended Democratic since 1988 due to the increasing social conservatism of the GOP and the increased social liberalism of the Democrats. I don't think it had much to do with economics since the GOP was arguably the more economically conservative party since the late 1970s, way before VT started trending Democratic.

Maybe, but I think the publicity of that event screwed the GOP over in Vermont.  Although I think the Dems would have picked it up anyways, I think Bush Snr. was the nail in the coffin, so to speak. 
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2010, 09:18:04 pm »
Ignore

Vermont has been trending away from the Republican party for some time now. The party of war and corporate bailouts represented by Bush and McCain forced them into the arms of the Democrats.

True.  I think Bush Snr. and Clinton had something to do with it too.  I think that the GOP was killed in Vermont after Bush raised taxes on the wealthy.  Than after Clinton was elected, he proved that not all Democrats were hardcore liberals, which I think helped a fair amount.

Bush Sr.'s tax raise didn't affect the wealthy that much (it probably affected ordinary Americans more) and Reagan raised taxes on ordinary Americans numerous times, which didn't seem to hurt him in VT. Besides, VT isn't that wealthy. I think VT trended Democratic since 1988 due to the increasing social conservatism of the GOP and the increased social liberalism of the Democrats. I don't think it had much to do with economics since the GOP was arguably the more economically conservative party since the late 1970s, way before VT started trending Democratic.

Maybe, but I think the publicity of that event screwed the GOP over in Vermont.  Although I think the Dems would have picked it up anyways, I think Bush Snr. was the nail in the coffin, so to speak. 

I honestly don't think Bush Sr.'s tax raise had much to do with VT going Democratic. Most of the GOP distanced themselves from that tax raise (and from any tax raises, for that matter) soon afterwards, yet the GOP didn't make any gains in VT in 1994, 1996, or 2000. Besides, the conservatives that strongly oppose such tax raises are much less widespread in VT than in other states, and I doubt many of those conservatives would be willing to vote for Democrats for 20 years in a row. I still think it was social issues that swung VT to the Dems since 1992. Over the last 20 years, the GOP became much more socially conservative and the Dems became much more socially liberal, and VT was always much more socially liberal than the rest of the nation.
Logged

Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2010, 11:36:05 pm »
Ignore

This shows how Democratic relative to the national average Vermont was in Presidential elections since 1988:

1988: D+2
1992: D+3
1996: D+4
2000: D+2 (due to Nader)
2004: D+11
2008: D+15

Keep in mind that Obama won a greater nationwide % of the vote than Kerry did, and thus it is expected that he would do better percentagewise in Vermont. Vermont did trend a little Democratic between 2004 and 2008, though. In 2004, Vermont was 11% more Democratic than the national average, while in 2008, Vermont was 15% more Democratic than the national average.


Thank you for the explanation, but why Vermont has trended so strong since 1988?

Vermont is a very social liberal state in the old Congregationalist tradition. Way back when, that meant support for abolition, then for prohibition, then for women's suffrage, causes championed primarily by the Republicans. As a result, Vermont was an incredibly tribally Republican state during the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries.

However, the Republican leadership abandoned social liberalism around the time of the Civil Rights movement with the adoption of the Southern Strategy (an attempt to exploit the national Democrats' support for civil rights to break the historical Democratic stranglehold on the South and appeal to conservative Southern whites). The unwind among social liberal voters from this was slow to occur, but it was clear that it was occurring by 1980, when ex-Republican John Anderson won much of the tribal New England Republican vote running as a social liberal independent.

This was accelerated during the 1980s by the collapse of the Dixiecrats, ultra-conservative Southern Democrats who had kept the party away from explicit endorsement of many social liberal positions. The surviving Dixiecrats were mostly defeated in the 1994 wave, and the Democrats became clearly defined as the party for social liberals.

As a result of this transformation of the Democratic Party, and the earlier transformation of the Republicans, Vermont, the epitome of social liberalism in the United States, swung dramatically from among the strongest Republican states in the 1970s to the strongest Democratic state today as its partisan voting moved in line with its ideology.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 11:38:59 pm by Verily »Logged
Scottish Robb Stark
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30148
France


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2010, 06:54:27 am »
Ignore

I still think it was social issues that swung VT to the Dems since 1992.

The main point is there : Vermont isn't a Dem State since 1992, but instead since 1980, when Reagan barely won the State while sweeping the country. Since then, Democrats have always done better there than nationwide. If its clear that the trend intensified in the 1990s, 1992 ceartainly isn't the tipping point.
Logged



Robb of the House Stark, First of his Name, Lord of Winterfell and King in the North



Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines