What changed in Vermont over the past century?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

Uh yeah. Orange County is a Democratic vote source? Also look at places like the Collar Counties in Illinois before Obama. Funny you mention MN-6 because it's NOT a wealthy suburban district. The actual wealthy suburbs in Minnesota mostly did vote for Obama but are hardly consistent Democratic cities, one could hardly say this about Eden Prairie, Plymouth,  Maple Grove or Lakeville (the last one didn't even vote for Obama, didn't even come close) even not so uniformly affluent places like Woodbury and Eagan are marginally Democratic at best in a true close race.

BTW, is Edina in Michele Bachmann's district?

No, and it never has been. It's in MN-3 and will be evenly split between MN-3 and MN-5 in the new map.

That used to be the most Republican town in Minnesota, but I'm not sure how it is now.

No it wasn't. It was much more Republican than it is today though when it now voted for Obama by double digits. The stereotypes about Edina being so uniformly affluent though are about three decades outdated, in fact outside of one Census tract that has a median household income in the six digits it's significantly poorer than the parts of Minneapolis it borders. So basically outside of one specific area Edina is just a typical middle income middle class residential suburb.

The Collar Counties may lean Republican, but the margins began to decline with the rise of Clinton in the 90s because of social issues.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

BTW: The same is true of Orange County, although it still leans Republican.

Here's the 1916 electoral map:



Here's the 2000 electoral map:



41 out of 48 states flipped parties between those two elections.  So there's nothing remotely strange about Vermont flipping parties.  Most of the rest of the country did as well.

True, but Vermont was so Republican for so long.