Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 24, 2014, 10:29:51 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  What changed in Vermont over the past century?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: What changed in Vermont over the past century?  (Read 1836 times)
Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5070


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

View Profile
« on: September 16, 2012, 01:49:51 am »
Ignore

The same state that voted against FDR in each of his presidential campaigns and where Republican candidates consistently outperformed their national results gave Barack Obama nearly 70% of the vote in 2008, two years after they elected their at-large congressman, a self-identified democratic socialist, to the US Senate. Now the same state that couldn't stomach the New Deal is introducing universal health care.

What's changed in Vermont? It's still a mostly rural state and overwhelmingly white - two things that should make it low-hanging Republican fruit. No minorities. No remotely large cities. It hasn't had an influx of Boston commuters like New Hampshire, or New York City commuters like Connecticut.
Logged

Quote
"Well, religious beliefs aren't reasonable. I mean, religious beliefs are categorical. You know, it's God tells you. It's not a matter of being reasonable. God be reasonable? He's supposed to have a full beard."
—Hon. Antonin Scalia, Holt v. Hobbs (2014)

morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5380
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2012, 03:11:05 am »
Ignore

The parties did.
Logged
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14111
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2012, 04:45:45 am »
Ignore

A few things I should note about Vermont (at least recently):

34% Non-religious
26% Roman Catholic
29% Protestant

Compare that to 1990:

13% Non-religious
37% Roman Catholic
47% Protestant

Non-religious ID has exploded in Vermont.

More has changed here besides parties.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 04:54:26 am by LARGE HAM, THE POSTER »Logged



17:20   bore   the point of atlasia is to achieve things which you can then use as pick up lines
Senator bore
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2707
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2012, 05:13:15 am »
Ignore

It's not the commuters which make Connnecticut and, especially New Hampshire Democratic because the suburbs are actually the most republican area of the state. And it's not just Vermont, in similar areas of New England to Vermont- like northern and Western New Hampshire, Northern New York, and most notably Western Massachusetts- the voting patterns are similar, although slightly less Democratic.

Anyway the reasons I've heard are migration from NY, where people like Sanders and Dean came from, although I don't think this can explain the margins. Anti southern feeling, bearing in mind the Republicans are a very southern party now,  and anti war feeling, again because the Republicans are seen as the pro war party. But I think most of the change can be put down to the later two, because in areas which haven't seen mass immigration from NY the changes have been similar.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29830
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2012, 06:51:47 am »
Ignore

Has has been noted the in migration from MA has overall actually helped the Republicans, and the GOP base in along the MA border. More recent migrants may be a different story though.

As for the GOP becoming a party of the south, that is a possible cause. But keep in mind this group of rural, WASP New Englanders loved the brand of Conservatism offered by the GOP in the 1920's, not that different from the current philosophy of the GOP on many positions save defense and possibly trade. Fervently protestant, ruggedly independent, largely free of urban concerns, hostile to immigrants, and historically opposed to the Democratic party in general dating back to the days of the Anti-Masonic party.

I think it is simply a case of priorities changing. Defense and interventionism play a big role as does probably the growth in environmental awareness and decline in Religious fervor amongst these people starting in the middle of the 20th century.

Lastly, it is small. NH is still winnable, MA had already imploded, and New York's suburbs had more to offer then the far north country. There simply was no need to cater to such a tiny band of votes, that had once been the firmest of firm elements of the GOP base for 100 years.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6330
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2012, 07:01:42 pm »
Ignore

The lack of large cities also means a lack of wealthy suburbs and Fundie exurbs, which are major sources of Republican support in other parts of the country. Look at Michele Bachmann's district vs the rest of Minnesota for a well-known example.
Logged

soniquemd21921
Full Member
***
Posts: 137
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2012, 07:33:13 am »
Ignore

The Census statistics for Vermont are also pretty interesting to point out:

1900 - 343,641
1910 - 355,956 (+12,315)
1920 - 352,428 (-3,528)
1930 - 359,611 (+7,183)
1940 - 359,231 (-380)
1950 - 377,747 (+18,516)
1960 - 389,881 (+12,134)
1970 - 444,732 (+54,851)
1980 - 511,456 (+66,724)
1990 - 562,758 (+51,302)
2000 - 608,827 (+46,069)
2010 - 625,741 (+16,914)

Conclusion: In the 50-year period between 1960 and 2000, the state's population increased by 235,860 - whereas in the 50 years preceding 1960 it increased by only 33,925.

And going all the way back to 1860, the population was 315,098. So during that entire 100 year period between 1860 and 1960, the state's population only grew by 74,783, whereas in the 20 years between 1960 and 1980 it grew by 121,575!
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 08:03:19 am by soniquemd21921 »Logged

E +3.25
S -3.65
They call me PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5472
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2012, 12:08:44 pm »
Ignore

Mechaman has the right idea. Vermont has gone from a traditionally "conservative" mostly WASP state to a state with a large proportion of Catholics and an even larger (and growing) proportion of secular types who are often very liberal in their politics, while the (affiliated) Protestant population has declined.

Also, keep in mind that many of the mainline Protestant churches like the UCC, the Episcopalians, etc. have either become more actively progressive or have divided along regional lines; either way, the Vermont population of Protestants is a far cry from the population even in Ohio, let alone in Alabama.

Self-selection and sorting is also part of the story here (as it is everywhere, frankly). Once a few waves of people who were more liberal than the long-timers moved to Vermont (a lot of this starting to happen in the 1960s, when Phillip Hoff became the first Democrat elected Governor of the state in 80 years), the liberal transformation developed a momentum of its own. Plus, as indicated in other posts in this thread, Vermont residents were always fairly dovish on foreign policy; Governor Hoff prominently opposed LBJ on Vietnam. And the Democrats becoming associated with Civil Rights and, more broadly, the idea of social justice, all tied in well with Vermont residents conceptions of themselves, in terms of religion, politics, and history.

Combine all this with the Southern and Western states becoming the new base of the Republican Party, the  ideological evolution that was part of that process, and the sense of ideological and religious fundamentalism in the modern GOP, and you have a recipe for Vermont voting the way it does nowadays.
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4783
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2012, 07:20:49 pm »
Ignore

Building on what everyone else has said, Northeastern states have long been areas of intense religious radicalization and change (the Burned Over Districts of New York, for example).  So, the influence of more socially left-leaning religious preaching as well as a more socially progressive Democratic party lead to the very gradual transformation of Vermont - this has to be coupled with the end of the old party-line Republicans of the states by the 1990s.
Logged

Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21433
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2012, 04:46:59 am »
Ignore

Vermont didn't change, America did.
Logged

Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8808
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2012, 06:45:43 pm »
Ignore

The Republican Party, sadly, has become too far-right in the minds of many voters.  Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the country, which is interesting.  Intersting analysis: the Republican Party was founded in 1854 (hence the "1854" in my username.)  From 1854 until the streak was broken by the election of Democrat Philip Hoff in 1962, a period of 108 years, Vermont elected all Republican governors.  From 1856 to 1988, starting with John C. Fremont, the first Republican nominee for president, Vermont voted for the Republican candidate in all but one presidential election (the exception was Goldwater in 1964.)  George H. W. Bush carried the state in 1988, but has voted overwhelmingly for Democrats for president since then.  How I wish Vermont had stuck to its Yankee Republican roots (roots which I, as a Republican, refuse to renounce, although I am a conservative). 
Mechaman has the right idea. Vermont has gone from a traditionally "conservative" mostly WASP state to a state with a large proportion of Catholics and an even larger (and growing) proportion of secular types who are often very liberal in their politics, while the (affiliated) Protestant population has declined.

Also, keep in mind that many of the mainline Protestant churches like the UCC, the Episcopalians, etc. have either become more actively progressive or have divided along regional lines; either way, the Vermont population of Protestants is a far cry from the population even in Ohio, let alone in Alabama.

Self-selection and sorting is also part of the story here (as it is everywhere, frankly). Once a few waves of people who were more liberal than the long-timers moved to Vermont (a lot of this starting to happen in the 1960s, when Phillip Hoff became the first Democrat elected Governor of the state in 80 years), the liberal transformation developed a momentum of its own. Plus, as indicated in other posts in this thread, Vermont residents were always fairly dovish on foreign policy; Governor Hoff prominently opposed LBJ on Vietnam. And the Democrats becoming associated with Civil Rights and, more broadly, the idea of social justice, all tied in well with Vermont residents conceptions of themselves, in terms of religion, politics, and history.

Combine all this with the Southern and Western states becoming the new base of the Republican Party, the  ideological evolution that was part of that process, and the sense of ideological and religious fundamentalism in the modern GOP, and you have a recipe for Vermont voting the way it does nowadays.
Hoff was actually the first Democrat elected governor in 108 years.  And I always thought that Vermont had always been a liberal state, both for those times and for our time.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
When I voted for the first time a few weeks ago, I announced "damnit, I voted for Pat Buchanan!" Nobody got it.
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29830
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2012, 12:07:06 am »
Ignore

The Republican Party, sadly, has become too far-right in the minds of many voters.  Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the country, which is interesting.  Intersting analysis: the Republican Party was founded in 1854 (hence the "1854" in my username.)  From 1854 until the streak was broken by the election of Democrat Philip Hoff in 1962, a period of 108 years, Vermont elected all Republican governors.  From 1856 to 1988, starting with John C. Fremont, the first Republican nominee for president, Vermont voted for the Republican candidate in all but one presidential election (the exception was Goldwater in 1964.)  George H. W. Bush carried the state in 1988, but has voted overwhelmingly for Democrats for president since then.  How I wish Vermont had stuck to its Yankee Republican roots (roots which I, as a Republican, refuse to renounce, although I am a conservative). 
Mechaman has the right idea. Vermont has gone from a traditionally "conservative" mostly WASP state to a state with a large proportion of Catholics and an even larger (and growing) proportion of secular types who are often very liberal in their politics, while the (affiliated) Protestant population has declined.

Also, keep in mind that many of the mainline Protestant churches like the UCC, the Episcopalians, etc. have either become more actively progressive or have divided along regional lines; either way, the Vermont population of Protestants is a far cry from the population even in Ohio, let alone in Alabama.

Self-selection and sorting is also part of the story here (as it is everywhere, frankly). Once a few waves of people who were more liberal than the long-timers moved to Vermont (a lot of this starting to happen in the 1960s, when Phillip Hoff became the first Democrat elected Governor of the state in 80 years), the liberal transformation developed a momentum of its own. Plus, as indicated in other posts in this thread, Vermont residents were always fairly dovish on foreign policy; Governor Hoff prominently opposed LBJ on Vietnam. And the Democrats becoming associated with Civil Rights and, more broadly, the idea of social justice, all tied in well with Vermont residents conceptions of themselves, in terms of religion, politics, and history.

Combine all this with the Southern and Western states becoming the new base of the Republican Party, the  ideological evolution that was part of that process, and the sense of ideological and religious fundamentalism in the modern GOP, and you have a recipe for Vermont voting the way it does nowadays.
Hoff was actually the first Democrat elected governor in 108 years.  And I always thought that Vermont had always been a liberal state, both for those times and for our time.

The problem is that the definition of liberal and Conservative has also changed. And even beyond that, the strength of the GOP in that period meant that Conservatives did in fact win as Republicans during that period. Party was more important than ideology and WASPs were the GOP base.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8808
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2012, 06:59:43 am »
Ignore

The Republican Party, sadly, has become too far-right in the minds of many voters.  Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the country, which is interesting.  Intersting analysis: the Republican Party was founded in 1854 (hence the "1854" in my username.)  From 1854 until the streak was broken by the election of Democrat Philip Hoff in 1962, a period of 108 years, Vermont elected all Republican governors.  From 1856 to 1988, starting with John C. Fremont, the first Republican nominee for president, Vermont voted for the Republican candidate in all but one presidential election (the exception was Goldwater in 1964.)  George H. W. Bush carried the state in 1988, but has voted overwhelmingly for Democrats for president since then.  How I wish Vermont had stuck to its Yankee Republican roots (roots which I, as a Republican, refuse to renounce, although I am a conservative). 
Mechaman has the right idea. Vermont has gone from a traditionally "conservative" mostly WASP state to a state with a large proportion of Catholics and an even larger (and growing) proportion of secular types who are often very liberal in their politics, while the (affiliated) Protestant population has declined.

Also, keep in mind that many of the mainline Protestant churches like the UCC, the Episcopalians, etc. have either become more actively progressive or have divided along regional lines; either way, the Vermont population of Protestants is a far cry from the population even in Ohio, let alone in Alabama.

Self-selection and sorting is also part of the story here (as it is everywhere, frankly). Once a few waves of people who were more liberal than the long-timers moved to Vermont (a lot of this starting to happen in the 1960s, when Phillip Hoff became the first Democrat elected Governor of the state in 80 years), the liberal transformation developed a momentum of its own. Plus, as indicated in other posts in this thread, Vermont residents were always fairly dovish on foreign policy; Governor Hoff prominently opposed LBJ on Vietnam. And the Democrats becoming associated with Civil Rights and, more broadly, the idea of social justice, all tied in well with Vermont residents conceptions of themselves, in terms of religion, politics, and history.

Combine all this with the Southern and Western states becoming the new base of the Republican Party, the  ideological evolution that was part of that process, and the sense of ideological and religious fundamentalism in the modern GOP, and you have a recipe for Vermont voting the way it does nowadays.
Hoff was actually the first Democrat elected governor in 108 years.  And I always thought that Vermont had always been a liberal state, both for those times and for our time.

The problem is that the definition of liberal and Conservative has also changed. And even beyond that, the strength of the GOP in that period meant that Conservatives did in fact win as Republicans during that period. Party was more important than ideology and WASPs were the GOP base.

Very true.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
When I voted for the first time a few weeks ago, I announced "damnit, I voted for Pat Buchanan!" Nobody got it.
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29830
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2012, 09:03:25 am »
Ignore

Another thing to consider, is that today when people think of Conservatism, they think of the South. 100 years ago you probably would find more Conservatives (depending on your definitions) in New England and the Midwest then in the South, which was overrun by aggrarian populists and such, especially after an "age-wave" washed out most of the Bourbons between 1890 and 1910 in many deep south states. They were replaced by populist/progressive and to an extent even more racists politicians and managed to ratchet the insignificant black voting that remained all the way down to below zero, so much was there zeal. Any conservativism that could be associated with these people was either 1) dial based conservatism by virtue of a opposing a reform to something, 2) a calculated association to provide some kind of legal/political defense that wasn't, atleast on the surface, pure racism. New York even had an anti-Suffrage Senator in James Wadsworth. Imagine Todd Akin not only running, but winning in New York and even further, getting reelected. Anti-Catholic, anti-urban, nativist, prostestant officeholders were common in base GOP territory, yes, even in Vermont.

Before unionization, the New Deal and the changes of the 1960's culturally, just think how various groups were so different and thus voted differently. Blacks were 70%-90% Republican, working class voters shifted back and forth between the parties based on the economy, and women were more Republican than men (Harding and Ike benefitted from a pro-GOP Gender gap amongst women). Middle class professionals still lived in Manhattan, rather than as far off as Orange and Rockland counties. There wasn't an ideologically basis for either party, just a partisan set of issues based on the political divide stretching back to the 1790's for the most part on economics, that was taylored to the interests of their party's regional base. Since the regional political devide remained, the broad issues of currency and trade policy remained the same.

If a GOP primary produced a conservative rather than a progressive, he was just as apt to get 75% in Vermont, 55% in New York and 5% in South Carolina as his progressive opponent. 
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2012, 05:32:22 pm »
Ignore

Those God awful Yankee WASP people, who these days, inter alia, have a high incidence of Godlessness, and New Age awareness. They also don't like mush mouths too much.  If you are going to have a weird accent, it needs to sound like flinty, with soft to non-existant "r's," not mushy. They also notice how Pub Catholics have become.  That is yet another signal (when the undesirables more in, you move out) - albeit of waning resonance (certainly in comparison to those overly emotional and ignorant wear your religion on your sleeve Christers out there, with the ones from Texas being particularly intolerable because they are so pushy and arrogant).  Many in fact are now more worried about the well being of their gay issue.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 05:35:24 pm by Torie »Logged

They call me PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5472
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2012, 09:53:17 pm »
Ignore

Another thing to consider, is that today when people think of Conservatism, they think of the South. 100 years ago you probably would find more Conservatives (depending on your definitions) in New England and the Midwest then in the South, which was overrun by aggrarian populists and such, especially after an "age-wave" washed out most of the Bourbons between 1890 and 1910 in many deep south states. They were replaced by populist/progressive and to an extent even more racists politicians and managed to ratchet the insignificant black voting that remained all the way down to below zero, so much was there zeal. Any conservativism that could be associated with these people was either 1) dial based conservatism by virtue of a opposing a reform to something, 2) a calculated association to provide some kind of legal/political defense that wasn't, atleast on the surface, pure racism. New York even had an anti-Suffrage Senator in James Wadsworth. Imagine Todd Akin not only running, but winning in New York and even further, getting reelected. Anti-Catholic, anti-urban, nativist, prostestant officeholders were common in base GOP territory, yes, even in Vermont.

Before unionization, the New Deal and the changes of the 1960's culturally, just think how various groups were so different and thus voted differently. Blacks were 70%-90% Republican, working class voters shifted back and forth between the parties based on the economy, and women were more Republican than men (Harding and Ike benefitted from a pro-GOP Gender gap amongst women). Middle class professionals still lived in Manhattan, rather than as far off as Orange and Rockland counties. There wasn't an ideologically basis for either party, just a partisan set of issues based on the political divide stretching back to the 1790's for the most part on economics, that was taylored to the interests of their party's regional base. Since the regional political devide remained, the broad issues of currency and trade policy remained the same.

If a GOP primary produced a conservative rather than a progressive, he was just as apt to get 75% in Vermont, 55% in New York and 5% in South Carolina as his progressive opponent. 

Good post. Would you reckon that the decline of the influence of the local political machines (and the rise of social liberalism and progressivism in the Democratic Party, and "movement conservatism" in the Republican Party) are all reasons why the parties have become increasingly polarized on ideological lines?
Logged
後援会
koenkai
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1283


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2012, 09:56:09 pm »
Ignore

Well, there's at least a good reason why Vermont moved far further towards the left than New Hampshire. WASPs in New Hampshire are just as solidly left-wing as their counterparts in Vermont. It's just that the Nashua/Concord/Manchester area of the state has a lot of Boston suburbs filled with people who vote a lot like their counterparts in the Boston suburbs of Massachusetts.

Obviously, Vermont doesn't really have any Boston suburbs to pull it towards the center. The areas of New Hampshire chock filled with WASPs (I'm talking about you Upper Valley) are just as left-wing as Vermont.
Logged

The opinions and views expressed above are mine alone and do not represent the opinions or views of any other individual, organization, or government.
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6372


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2012, 11:13:49 pm »
Ignore

Those God awful Yankee WASP people, who these days, inter alia, have a high incidence of Godlessness, and New Age awareness. They also don't like mush mouths too much.  If you are going to have a weird accent, it needs to sound like flinty, with soft to non-existant "r's," not mushy. They also notice how Pub Catholics have become.  That is yet another signal (when the undesirables more in, you move out) - albeit of waning resonance (certainly in comparison to those overly emotional and ignorant wear your religion on your sleeve Christers out there, with the ones from Texas being particularly intolerable because they are so pushy and arrogant).  Many in fact are now more worried about the well being of their gay issue.

Well, of course it's ethnic vote. Yanks and (white) Dixie don't mesh in the same party.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29830
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2012, 11:51:16 pm »
Ignore

Another thing to consider, is that today when people think of Conservatism, they think of the South. 100 years ago you probably would find more Conservatives (depending on your definitions) in New England and the Midwest then in the South, which was overrun by aggrarian populists and such, especially after an "age-wave" washed out most of the Bourbons between 1890 and 1910 in many deep south states. They were replaced by populist/progressive and to an extent even more racists politicians and managed to ratchet the insignificant black voting that remained all the way down to below zero, so much was there zeal. Any conservativism that could be associated with these people was either 1) dial based conservatism by virtue of a opposing a reform to something, 2) a calculated association to provide some kind of legal/political defense that wasn't, atleast on the surface, pure racism. New York even had an anti-Suffrage Senator in James Wadsworth. Imagine Todd Akin not only running, but winning in New York and even further, getting reelected. Anti-Catholic, anti-urban, nativist, prostestant officeholders were common in base GOP territory, yes, even in Vermont.

Before unionization, the New Deal and the changes of the 1960's culturally, just think how various groups were so different and thus voted differently. Blacks were 70%-90% Republican, working class voters shifted back and forth between the parties based on the economy, and women were more Republican than men (Harding and Ike benefitted from a pro-GOP Gender gap amongst women). Middle class professionals still lived in Manhattan, rather than as far off as Orange and Rockland counties. There wasn't an ideologically basis for either party, just a partisan set of issues based on the political divide stretching back to the 1790's for the most part on economics, that was taylored to the interests of their party's regional base. Since the regional political devide remained, the broad issues of currency and trade policy remained the same.

If a GOP primary produced a conservative rather than a progressive, he was just as apt to get 75% in Vermont, 55% in New York and 5% in South Carolina as his progressive opponent. 

Good post. Would you reckon that the decline of the influence of the local political machines (and the rise of social liberalism and progressivism in the Democratic Party, and "movement conservatism" in the Republican Party) are all reasons why the parties have become increasingly polarized on ideological lines?

I don't have much time to respond in detail, but machines may actually have set it in motion. You are a GOP Conservative looking at a map after 1948 elections, where would you look for the future? A region that is dominated by New Deal style politics or one that has largely resisted it even while voting for that party with such unanimity. I think it began when the GOP began to claw its way into the south and southwest. You got three decades of diverse politics in all regions, before they reconsolidated with the South, Conservative and Republican and North, Liberal and Democrat.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8808
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2012, 11:46:37 am »
Ignore

Another thing to consider, is that today when people think of Conservatism, they think of the South. 100 years ago you probably would find more Conservatives (depending on your definitions) in New England and the Midwest then in the South, which was overrun by aggrarian populists and such, especially after an "age-wave" washed out most of the Bourbons between 1890 and 1910 in many deep south states. They were replaced by populist/progressive and to an extent even more racists politicians and managed to ratchet the insignificant black voting that remained all the way down to below zero, so much was there zeal. Any conservativism that could be associated with these people was either 1) dial based conservatism by virtue of a opposing a reform to something, 2) a calculated association to provide some kind of legal/political defense that wasn't, atleast on the surface, pure racism. New York even had an anti-Suffrage Senator in James Wadsworth. Imagine Todd Akin not only running, but winning in New York and even further, getting reelected. Anti-Catholic, anti-urban, nativist, prostestant officeholders were common in base GOP territory, yes, even in Vermont.

Before unionization, the New Deal and the changes of the 1960's culturally, just think how various groups were so different and thus voted differently. Blacks were 70%-90% Republican, working class voters shifted back and forth between the parties based on the economy, and women were more Republican than men (Harding and Ike benefitted from a pro-GOP Gender gap amongst women). Middle class professionals still lived in Manhattan, rather than as far off as Orange and Rockland counties. There wasn't an ideologically basis for either party, just a partisan set of issues based on the political divide stretching back to the 1790's for the most part on economics, that was taylored to the interests of their party's regional base. Since the regional political devide remained, the broad issues of currency and trade policy remained the same.

If a GOP primary produced a conservative rather than a progressive, he was just as apt to get 75% in Vermont, 55% in New York and 5% in South Carolina as his progressive opponent. 
Women were more Republican than men because of support for social reforms and because it was mainly Republicans who fought to give women the right to vote.  Republicans were also the ones who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against them.


Well, there's at least a good reason why Vermont moved far further towards the left than New Hampshire. WASPs in New Hampshire are just as solidly left-wing as their counterparts in Vermont. It's just that the Nashua/Concord/Manchester area of the state has a lot of Boston suburbs filled with people who vote a lot like their counterparts in the Boston suburbs of Massachusetts.

Obviously, Vermont doesn't really have any Boston suburbs to pull it towards the center. The areas of New Hampshire chock filled with WASPs (I'm talking about you Upper Valley) are just as left-wing as Vermont.
As I understand, a lot of the voters in southern New Hampshire tend to vote against "Taxachusetts".

Those God awful Yankee WASP people, who these days, inter alia, have a high incidence of Godlessness, and New Age awareness. They also don't like mush mouths too much.  If you are going to have a weird accent, it needs to sound like flinty, with soft to non-existant "r's," not mushy. They also notice how Pub Catholics have become.  That is yet another signal (when the undesirables more in, you move out) - albeit of waning resonance (certainly in comparison to those overly emotional and ignorant wear your religion on your sleeve Christers out there, with the ones from Texas being particularly intolerable because they are so pushy and arrogant).  Many in fact are now more worried about the well being of their gay issue.

Hey, watch it, man, those were the guys who fought for civil rights.  I'm the conservative equivalent of a Yankee Republican, except that I'm not from the Northeast.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
When I voted for the first time a few weeks ago, I announced "damnit, I voted for Pat Buchanan!" Nobody got it.
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8808
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2012, 11:50:34 am »
Ignore

The lack of large cities also means a lack of wealthy suburbs and Fundie exurbs, which are major sources of Republican support in other parts of the country. Look at Michele Bachmann's district vs the rest of Minnesota for a well-known example.
Wealthy suburbs are only major sources of Republican support in conservative areas.  In just about every area outside of Republican-leaning states (MN-6 being an exception), they are major sources of Democrat support because of social issues.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
When I voted for the first time a few weeks ago, I announced "damnit, I voted for Pat Buchanan!" Nobody got it.
soniquemd21921
Full Member
***
Posts: 137
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 01, 2012, 12:48:43 pm »
Ignore

In the pre-Southern Strategy era upper-income suburbs were always overwhelmingly Republican, several of them being the most Republican communities with more than 10,000 residents. How ironic is it that in that era the richest city (Scarsdale) and poorest county (Owsley, Kentucky) voted the same way by lopsided margins?
 
BTW, is Edina in Michele Bachmann's district? That used to be the most Republican town in Minnesota, but I'm not sure how it is now.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 12:57:47 pm by soniquemd21921 »Logged

E +3.25
S -3.65
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2012, 03:35:55 pm »
Ignore

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/new-vermont-is-liberal-but-old-vermont-is-still-there/
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8808
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2012, 04:50:02 pm »
Ignore

In the pre-Southern Strategy era upper-income suburbs were always overwhelmingly Republican, several of them being the most Republican communities with more than 10,000 residents. How ironic is it that in that era the richest city (Scarsdale) and poorest county (Owsley, Kentucky) voted the same way by lopsided margins?
 
BTW, is Edina in Michele Bachmann's district? That used to be the most Republican town in Minnesota, but I'm not sure how it is now.

Have you done any research on the Southern Strategy?  It had nothing to do with race, and neither did the rise of Republicans in the South.
Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
When I voted for the first time a few weeks ago, I announced "damnit, I voted for Pat Buchanan!" Nobody got it.
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3538


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2012, 09:03:21 pm »
Ignore

The lack of large cities also means a lack of wealthy suburbs and Fundie exurbs, which are major sources of Republican support in other parts of the country. Look at Michele Bachmann's district vs the rest of Minnesota for a well-known example.
Wealthy suburbs are only major sources of Republican support in conservative areas.  In just about every area outside of Republican-leaning states (MN-6 being an exception), they are major sources of Democrat support because of social issues.

Wealthy suburbs are most certainly a source of Republican support in NJ.  Just take a look at Morris County, or Somerset, or Hunterdon, or northwestern Bergen, or... you get the idea.

We do have some wealthy liberal areas, and even more purple areas, but the McMansion vote still leans Republican in most parts of the mid-Atlantic that aren't Westchester County.
Logged



Quote from: Alice Goodman
To those who come prepared to see and hear only what they want to see and hear, nothing one can say is of any use.

Economic: -4.45
Social: -6.52
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines