What changed in Vermont over the past century?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.