Why is Vermont so liberal nowadays?

[Vepres]

This has probably been asked before, but I will post this anyway

Why is it that Vermont has swung hard-left since 1988, to the point where it has now become the most liberal state in the views of many? Contrast this with Maine, which has become about as Democratic as Oregon, and New Hampshire, widely considered a swing state today.

Seriously, they went from being one of the most Republican states in the union to the first state to elect a self-described socialist to the US Senate.

[xavier110]

Transplants from liberal states like Massachusetts, and well, the Vermont GOP wasn't exactly conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

NH hasn't always been a swing state. That change only occurred in the 90s.

[Bo]

Because the GOP nationwide has gotten so conservative to the extent that Vermonters have begun to feel alienated from it. Also, the Democrats lost a large part of their conservative element in the last 20 years, as conservative Southerners began to vote more and more Republican.

[Fuzzy]

Big reasons:

1.)  George Bush, and the war

2.)  Bill Clinton bringing much of his party to the right in the 1990's

3.)  The GOP has moved too far to the right

4.)  Several big Democratic candidate have come from the Northeast, as Joe Kerry, Joe Liberman, and Michel Dukakis.

[Verily]

Transplants from liberal states like Massachusetts, and well, the Vermont GOP wasn't exactly conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

NH hasn't always been a swing state. That change only occurred in the 90s.

Wrong. Among other things, Vermont has the highest percentage of residents born in-state in the country. They are certainly not flooded by people from Massachusetts (who are not nearly as liberal as you proclaim, anyway, merely loyal to the Democrats).

Vermont has always been liberal, very liberal, using the modern definition of the term. It is merely party loyalties which have shifted, largely because of increased emphasis on religious conservatism by the Republicans and its decline among the Democrats (as well as the complete collapse of the Dixiecrat tradition and association of the Democrats with the South, which is really part of the same story and maybe the cause of it).

Basically, Vermont=WASP. In the 1980s and previous, WASP=Republican; today, WASP=Democrat (in the traditional meaning of the term, not its generic use today to describe all wealthy people). The real story is the changing political affiliation of people of English extraction, especially those whose ancestors did not embrace the Second Great Awakening (which was very weak in Vermont).

[Senator Libertas]

Transplants from liberal states like Massachusetts, and well, the Vermont GOP wasn't exactly conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

NH hasn't always been a swing state. That change only occurred in the 90s.

Wrong. Among other things, Vermont has the highest percentage of residents born in-state in the country. They are certainly not flooded by people from Massachusetts (who are not nearly as liberal as you proclaim, anyway, merely loyal to the Democrats).

Vermont has always been liberal, very liberal, using the modern definition of the term. It is merely party loyalties which have shifted, largely because of increased emphasis on religious conservatism by the Republicans and its decline among the Democrats (as well as the complete collapse of the Dixiecrat tradition and association of the Democrats with the South, which is really part of the same story and maybe the cause of it).

Basically, Vermont=WASP. In the 1980s and previous, WASP=Republican; today, WASP=Democrat (in the traditional meaning of the term, not its generic use today to describe all wealthy people). The real story is the changing political affiliation of people of English extraction, especially those whose ancestors did not embrace the Second Great Awakening (which was very weak in Vermont).

Um, no. Vermont's invasion by hippies from New York and Massachusetts is a fact, and it began back in the 60s. Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders are both native New Yorkers.

Vermont has more French and French Canadians than it has WASPS. People of English ancestry make up less than 20% of the population, and a plurality of the population is of Catholic background.

About half the population of Vermont was born outside the state, ranking 37th in the country in terms of percentage born in-state.

Among Vermonters with college degrees, 73% were born out-of-state. Among Vermonters who make more than $100k a year, 70% of them were born outside Vermont.


Clearly you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

[DS0816]

Though Vermont was the Republicans' most reliable state (its first election in 1856 until 1988 with exception of 1964), the party became out of touch with Vt.. This started turning plenty sooner than 1992. Look at Election 1980 and you'll notice it was the only state that shifted toward Jimmy Carter when Ronald Reagan flipped 17 of Carter's 1976 states.

[Progressive Realist]

Transplants from liberal states like Massachusetts, and well, the Vermont GOP wasn't exactly conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

NH hasn't always been a swing state. That change only occurred in the 90s.

Wrong. Among other things, Vermont has the highest percentage of residents born in-state in the country. They are certainly not flooded by people from Massachusetts (who are not nearly as liberal as you proclaim, anyway, merely loyal to the Democrats).

Vermont has always been liberal, very liberal, using the modern definition of the term. It is merely party loyalties which have shifted, largely because of increased emphasis on religious conservatism by the Republicans and its decline among the Democrats (as well as the complete collapse of the Dixiecrat tradition and association of the Democrats with the South, which is really part of the same story and maybe the cause of it).

Basically, Vermont=WASP. In the 1980s and previous, WASP=Republican; today, WASP=Democrat (in the traditional meaning of the term, not its generic use today to describe all wealthy people). The real story is the changing political affiliation of people of English extraction, especially those whose ancestors did not embrace the Second Great Awakening (which was very weak in Vermont).

Um, no. Vermont's invasion by hippies from New York and Massachusetts is a fact, and it began back in the 60s. Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders are both native New Yorkers.

Vermont has more French and French Canadians than it has WASPS. People of English ancestry make up less than 20% of the population, and a plurality of the population is of Catholic background.

About half the population of Vermont was born outside the state, ranking 37th in the country in terms of percentage born in-state.

Among Vermonters with college degrees, 73% were born out-of-state. Among Vermonters who make more than $100k a year, 70% of them were born outside Vermont.


Clearly you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

The only thing I disagree with is the Catholic part. Catholics are the largest denomination, however, this is misleading as the number of people affiliated Protestant denominations in Vermont combined is more than the number of Catholics.

[rebeltarian]

There certainly was a shift starting in the 60s when affluent urbanites began settling in VT, but the state has always been pretty egotistical and independent in a liberal-libertarian kind of way.  VT voted reliably Republican from the civil war era through the Reagan years because they percieved the Democrats as too southern and too populist.  They couldn't stand guys like William Jennings Bryan or Woodrow Wilson.  VT also voted against FDR all four times mainly because the small rural state did not feel the effects of the depression and it's citizens saw the new deal as unconstitutional.  Nowdays, the Democrats have become home to the affluent, educated WASPs while the Republican Party has gotten more populist/southern, so naturally Vermonters have flipped on the presidential level.  However, the state/local Republican Party in VT is still competitive, albeit much more socially liberal than the national party.  If Mit Romney wins the nomination in 2012 and runs on fiscally conservative principles, I could see Obama actually losing 5-10 percentage points in VT.

[Senator Libertas]

Transplants from liberal states like Massachusetts, and well, the Vermont GOP wasn't exactly conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

NH hasn't always been a swing state. That change only occurred in the 90s.

Wrong. Among other things, Vermont has the highest percentage of residents born in-state in the country. They are certainly not flooded by people from Massachusetts (who are not nearly as liberal as you proclaim, anyway, merely loyal to the Democrats).

Vermont has always been liberal, very liberal, using the modern definition of the term. It is merely party loyalties which have shifted, largely because of increased emphasis on religious conservatism by the Republicans and its decline among the Democrats (as well as the complete collapse of the Dixiecrat tradition and association of the Democrats with the South, which is really part of the same story and maybe the cause of it).

Basically, Vermont=WASP. In the 1980s and previous, WASP=Republican; today, WASP=Democrat (in the traditional meaning of the term, not its generic use today to describe all wealthy people). The real story is the changing political affiliation of people of English extraction, especially those whose ancestors did not embrace the Second Great Awakening (which was very weak in Vermont).

Um, no. Vermont's invasion by hippies from New York and Massachusetts is a fact, and it began back in the 60s. Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders are both native New Yorkers.

Vermont has more French and French Canadians than it has WASPS. People of English ancestry make up less than 20% of the population, and a plurality of the population is of Catholic background.

About half the population of Vermont was born outside the state, ranking 37th in the country in terms of percentage born in-state.

Among Vermonters with college degrees, 73% were born out-of-state. Among Vermonters who make more than $100k a year, 70% of them were born outside Vermont.


Clearly you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

The only thing I disagree with is the Catholic part. Catholics are the largest denomination, however, this is misleading as the number of people affiliated Protestant denominations in Vermont combined is more than the number of Catholics.

That's incorrect. Practicing or not, Catholics make up close to 40% of Vermont; Protestants altogether only add up to less than 30% of the population.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

It is an interesting question - Vermont is a very rural state, and usually rural = conservative Republican. I guess there's no really great answer that I can give, I just don't know enough about it.

[Californian Tony]

If Mit Romney wins the nomination in 2012 and runs on fiscally conservative principles, I could see Obama actually losing 5-10 percentage points in VT.

ROFL Fail.

[Dallasfan65]

It is an interesting question - Vermont is a very rural state, and usually rural = conservative Republican. I guess there's no really great answer that I can give, I just don't know enough about it.

Western mass too.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Western mass too.

Western Mass has been hit hard by free trade, so it's understandable. Vermont, however, has never had any manufacturing and has in fact become increasingly affluent. So it's kind of bizarre.

[rebeltarian]

If Mit Romney wins the nomination in 2012 and runs on fiscally conservative principles, I could see Obama actually losing 5-10 percentage points in VT.

ROFL Fail.

A new englander taking on a fiscally irresponsible president with a shaky economy?  If anything, 57-62% of VT would be quite generous for Obama.

[Χahar]

If Mit Romney wins the nomination in 2012 and runs on fiscally conservative principles, I could see Obama actually losing 5-10 percentage points in VT.

ROFL Fail.

A new englander taking on a fiscally irresponsible president with a shaky economy?  If anything, 57-62% of VT would be quite generous for Obama.

Haha.

[Bo]

It is an interesting question - Vermont is a very rural state, and usually rural = conservative Republican. I guess there's no really great answer that I can give, I just don't know enough about it.

Vermont isn't socially conservative like most rural areas, and the GOP has become increasingly socially conservative (while the Dems have become increasingly socially liberal) in the last 20-30 years.

[shua]

Vermont isn't quite as affluent as it's sometimes made out to be. per capita income is @ 27K, and median household income is 51K, almost exactly the US average. (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US50&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010) VT ranks

[Bo]

If Mit Romney wins the nomination in 2012 and runs on fiscally conservative principles, I could see Obama actually losing 5-10 percentage points in VT.

ROFL Fail.

A new englander taking on a fiscally irresponsible president with a shaky economy?  If anything, 57-62% of VT would be quite generous for Obama.

First of all, I doubt the economy will be shaky in 2012. Secondly, the deficit will be much smaller in 2012 than in 2009. Third of all, Obama could say that he inherited the huge deficit from Bush and that the last three Republican Presidents were extremely fiscally irresponsible. I could actually see Obama hitting 70% in VT in 2012, or maybe even 75% with Sarah Palin as the GOP nominee.

[feeblepizza]

If Mit Romney wins the nomination in 2012 and runs on fiscally conservative principles, I could see Obama actually losing 5-10 percentage points in VT.

ROFL Fail.

A new englander taking on a fiscally irresponsible president with a shaky economy?  If anything, 57-62% of VT would be quite generous for Obama.

First of all, I doubt the economy will be shaky in 2012. Secondly, the deficit will be much smaller in 2012 than in 2009. Third of all, Obama could say that he inherited the huge deficit from Bush and that the last three Republican Presidents were extremely fiscally irresponsible. I could actually see Obama hitting 70% in VT in 2012, or maybe even 75% with Sarah Palin as the GOP nominee.

Wow you're smoking something!!! -
1. The economy is in no shape to recover anytime in the next two years (at best unemployment will be at
2. Bush tripled the deficit in EIGHT YEARS while Obama accumulated more debt than the previous 43 Presidents COMBINED from his FIRST BUDGET
3. Probably

[Bo]

If Mit Romney wins the nomination in 2012 and runs on fiscally conservative principles, I could see Obama actually losing 5-10 percentage points in VT.

ROFL Fail.

A new englander taking on a fiscally irresponsible president with a shaky economy?  If anything, 57-62% of VT would be quite generous for Obama.

First of all, I doubt the economy will be shaky in 2012. Secondly, the deficit will be much smaller in 2012 than in 2009. Third of all, Obama could say that he inherited the huge deficit from Bush and that the last three Republican Presidents were extremely fiscally irresponsible. I could actually see Obama hitting 70% in VT in 2012, or maybe even 75% with Sarah Palin as the GOP nominee.

Wow you're smoking something!!! -
1. The economy is in no shape to recover anytime in the next two years (at best unemployment will be at 8%)
2. Bush tripled the deficit in EIGHT YEARS while Obama accumulated more debt than the previous 43 Presidents COMBINED from his FIRST BUDGET
3. Probably

Even if unemployment will be at 8% in 2012 (and that's very possible), that's still going to be an improvement from the over 10% unemployment rate in late 2009. Unemployment will probably be decreasing throughout 2011 and 2012 and most people would feel that while unemployment is still high, Obama turned the economy around and thus deserves another term. As for Obama's debt, those were projections for the next 10 years. Right now, the debt is just 15-20% more than when Obama entered office. Obama didn't accumulate more debt than all 43 Presidents combined yet, and projections can and often do change. And George W. Bush actually did accumulate (or almost accumulated) as much debt as all his predecessors combined, since the debt doubled under Bush's watch.

[memphis]

Vermont has been liberal for a while now. It's become solidly Dem as the GOP has become more conservative. Pretty much the reverse of the South.

[feeblepizza]

If Mit Romney wins the nomination in 2012 and runs on fiscally conservative principles, I could see Obama actually losing 5-10 percentage points in VT.

ROFL Fail.

A new englander taking on a fiscally irresponsible president with a shaky economy?  If anything, 57-62% of VT would be quite generous for Obama.

First of all, I doubt the economy will be shaky in 2012. Secondly, the deficit will be much smaller in 2012 than in 2009. Third of all, Obama could say that he inherited the huge deficit from Bush and that the last three Republican Presidents were extremely fiscally irresponsible. I could actually see Obama hitting 70% in VT in 2012, or maybe even 75% with Sarah Palin as the GOP nominee.

Wow you're smoking something!!! -
1. The economy is in no shape to recover anytime in the next two years (at best unemployment will be at 8%)
2. Bush tripled the deficit in EIGHT YEARS while Obama accumulated more debt than the previous 43 Presidents COMBINED from his FIRST BUDGET
3. Probably

Even if unemployment will be at 8% in 2012 (and that's very possible), that's still going to be an improvement from the over 10% unemployment rate in late 2009. Unemployment will probably be decreasing throughout 2011 and 2012 and most people would feel that while unemployment is still high, Obama turned the economy around and thus deserves another term. As for Obama's debt, those were projections for the next 10 years. Right now, the debt is just 15-20% more than when Obama entered office. Obama didn't accumulate more debt than all 43 Presidents combined yet, and projections can and often do change. And George W. Bush actually did accumulate (or almost accumulated) as much debt as all his predecessors combined, since the debt doubled under Bush's watch.

I don't think that he has a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected with an 8% unemployment rate, due to the fact that when he was trying to cram the stimulus down our throats, he stated that the unemployment WOULD NOT RISE ABOVE 8%. Right now, it's 9.5%, and will reach 10% before we go back down again in 2011-2012

[oakvale]

You guys realise that feeblepizza (?) is eleven years old and there's no point trying to have a rational argument with the kid, right?

[Bo]

You guys realise that feeblepizza (?) is eleven years old and there's no point trying to have a rational argument with the kid, right?

Yes, I do realize that he's 11.