What happened to West Virginia and Virginia

[Ebsy]

It's pretty hard to argue that race had nothing to do with the South switching to the Republican party during Reagan's two terms.

[Rockefeller GOP]

It's pretty hard to argue that race had nothing to do with the South switching to the Republican party during Reagan's two terms.

Maybe, but it's pretty clear it's not the main reason.  Southerners had no problem being loyal Democrats for decades, being in a party that was unapologetically the party of Northern Blacks.  It's also pretty hard to argue that the DNC didn't get a lot more socially liberal, or at least less welcoming of social conservatives.

[Hydera]

It's pretty hard to argue that race had nothing to do with the South switching to the Republican party during Reagan's two terms.

1. Large economic rebound in 1983 and 1984 after a recession in 1981 and 1982.

2. Carter still won a lot of rural southern areas in 1980.

3. Mondale did not sit well with southerners who voted for a southerner from georgia who did peanut farming just four years ago. Humphrey, McGovern and Mondale were too left for the south.

4. Southerners will not naturally under any circumstance favor a liberal compared to southern centrists like Bill Clinton and southern centre-leftist carter. Heck Al Gore thought he would still win states in the south because he had a Tennessee accent when he went left to try to convince nader votes to come to him. In reality people in the south thought of him as a Foghorn Leghorn who pissed on "southern social conservative values" compared to Bush a Yosemite sam with a rough texas country accent who at least "believed the things they did". I don't even agree with many southern socially conservative values. But its not "its because of race!!!".

[Goldwater]

...
It's kind of funny that while West Virginia became a state due to left-wing causes (staying in Union/abolishing slavery), Virginia got its current borders due to right-wing causes (Confederacy). Now they're switched.
...

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

...
It's kind of funny that while West Virginia became a state due to left-wing causes (staying in Union/abolishing slavery), Virginia got its current borders due to right-wing causes (Confederacy). Now they're switched.
...

Heh heh heh.

[Mechaman]

...
It's kind of funny that while West Virginia became a state due to left-wing causes (staying in Union/abolishing slavery), Virginia got its current borders due to right-wing causes (Confederacy). Now they're switched.
...

Heh heh heh.

Yes, Red Avatar privilege is truly cute, isn't it?

Okay, that was rude, but really a quick look at a few wikipedia articles will confirm the following:

West Virginia's cause for split from Virginia was a protest against secession, not slavery: In fact, Lincoln forced them to add in gradual emancipation to their first state constitution to be admitted to the Union.  That's right, they had to be coerced into adding abolition into their constitution.  West Virginians opposed Virginia because they wanted to be on the right side of history, but not on the issue the reddie here assumes.  There were more than a few areas in the South that had also opposed secession largely because they didn't believe that Lincoln being elected warranted seceding and/or Civil War.  In fact, West Virginia secessionists waited until Virginia officially seceded from the Union before seceding from Virginia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What was being argued by West Virginia secessionists was a cause to stand by American Nationalism, not radical change.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeling_Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War)#West_Virginia (about the only support for darth's argument is the following:  The western areas were growing and were based on subsistence farms by yeomen; its residents held few slaves. The planters of the eastern section were wealthy slaveholders who dominated state government.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia#Separation_from_Virginia

Further, considering that many West Virginians did fight on the side of the Confederacy, it is intellectually dishonest to imply (like darth did) that they were united against slavery or even pro-Union.  And neither should one use the 1864 presidential election as proof that West Virginia was anti-slavery, as turnout (judging by the 1860 population vs. the total number of votes cast) was astronomically low due to many in the eastern and southern parts of the new state refusing to recognize the West Virginia state government as well as war politics (Confederates caused much more damage than Unionists did in WV).  A lot of people who would have otherwise voted Democratic likely stayed home out of the belief that the West Virginia state government was illegitimate and that West Virginia was still a part of the Confederate Virginia government.  Increased voter turnout in West Virginia for most of the late 19th century was consistently in favor of the Democrats, not the Republicans.  There was more support for anti-slavery politics in West Virginia than other similar areas, but that was largely due to how elitist the Virginia planter elite was and how much their politics disadvantaged the white lower class that populated the mountainous western region.  There is a reason why there was a lot more support for the state of West Virginia than say the State of Winston for instance.  The existence of this wealth and power disparity, however, should not be interpreted as the only motivation for staying in the Union, given that many wealthy people in the North also supported the Union for economic reasons.

Oh sure, I won't deny that West Virginia has a history of leftism, particularly labor union leftism, but arguing that the key motivation to secede from Virginia was because of some left wing ideals of race equality (I could go on for days about how anti-slavery didn't equal "left wing", but just for the sake of argument I am throwing in the one major left wing argument for abolitionism at the time) rather than political practicality and nationalism is kind of ignorant.

[/]

...
It's kind of funny that while West Virginia became a state due to left-wing causes (staying in Union/abolishing slavery), Virginia got its current borders due to right-wing causes (Confederacy). Now they're switched.
...

Heh heh heh.

Yes, Red Avatar privilege is truly cute, isn't it?

Okay, that was rude, but really a quick look at a few wikipedia articles will confirm the following:

West Virginia's cause for split from Virginia was a protest against secession, not slavery: In fact, Lincoln forced them to add in gradual emancipation to their first state constitution to be admitted to the Union.  That's right, they had to be coerced into adding abolition into their constitution.  West Virginians opposed Virginia because they wanted to be on the right side of history, but not on the issue the reddie here assumes.  There were more than a few areas in the South that had also opposed secession largely because they didn't believe that Lincoln being elected warranted seceding and/or Civil War.  In fact, West Virginia secessionists waited until Virginia officially seceded from the Union before seceding from Virginia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What was being argued by West Virginia secessionists was a cause to stand by American Nationalism, not radical change.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeling_Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War)#West_Virginia (about the only support for darth's argument is the following:  The western areas were growing and were based on subsistence farms by yeomen; its residents held few slaves. The planters of the eastern section were wealthy slaveholders who dominated state government.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia#Separation_from_Virginia

Further, considering that many West Virginians did fight on the side of the Confederacy, it is intellectually dishonest to imply (like darth did) that they were united against slavery or even pro-Union.  And neither should one use the 1864 presidential election as proof that West Virginia was anti-slavery, as turnout (judging by the 1860 population vs. the total number of votes cast) was astronomically low due to many in the eastern and southern parts of the new state refusing to recognize the West Virginia state government as well as war politics (Confederates caused much more damage than Unionists did in WV).  A lot of people who would have otherwise voted Democratic likely stayed home out of the belief that the West Virginia state government was illegitimate and that West Virginia was still a part of the Confederate Virginia government.  Increased voter turnout in West Virginia for most of the late 19th century was consistently in favor of the Democrats, not the Republicans.  There was more support for anti-slavery politics in West Virginia than other similar areas, but that was largely due to how elitist the Virginia planter elite was and how much their politics disadvantaged the white lower class that populated the mountainous western region.  There is a reason why there was a lot more support for the state of West Virginia than say the State of Winston for instance.  The existence of this wealth and power disparity, however, should not be interpreted as the only motivation for staying in the Union, given that many wealthy people in the North also supported the Union for economic reasons.

Oh sure, I won't deny that West Virginia has a history of leftism, particularly labor union leftism, but arguing that the key motivation to secede from Virginia was because of some left wing ideals of race equality (I could go on for days about how anti-slavery didn't equal "left wing", but just for the sake of argument I am throwing in the one major left wing argument for abolitionism at the time) rather than political practicality and nationalism is kind of ignorant.

LOL nice rant

The whole post was a joke; read the other paragraphs.

Sheesh

[Rockefeller GOP]

Opposing slavery is strictly left wing.  Everybody knows this!

*prepares self for "for its time* argument, which makes no sense.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What should be noted is that, of the two Republican Governors the state had between like 1950 & 2000, Cecil Underwood was a desegregator and Arch A. Moore was liberal compared to the national party (by my recollection). Moreover, the state's had Jay Fricking Rockefeller as its Senator. Sure, not a Republican, but someone decently liberal. Hopefully that can put WV's transformation into fuller context.

[Mr. Illini]

The idea that WV went GOP because of social conservatism really should be put to rest.

Poor, racist, socially conservative states such as Mississippi and Arkansas were voting GOP long before WV went that way. Reagan and Bush were strong social conservatives, let us not forget as well. Nixon was, too.

It has everything to do with coal. Democrats did not play nearly as much to environmentalism in the era up until the W Presidency. WV and Kentucky rely heavily on coal jobs, and indeed we've seen them swing much harder toward Republicans than the Deep South, and perhaps much harder than anywhere else in the country.

[Nym90]

More to the point, there are far fewer coal jobs in those states than there once were, and Republicans have successfully managed to blame Democratic environmental policies for this.

[RINO Tom]

The idea that WV went GOP because of social conservatism really should be put to rest.

Poor, racist, socially conservative states such as Mississippi and Arkansas were voting GOP long before WV went that way. Reagan and Bush were strong social conservatives, let us not forget as well. Nixon was, too.

It has everything to do with coal. Democrats did not play nearly as much to environmentalism in the era up until the W Presidency. WV and Kentucky rely heavily on coal jobs, and indeed we've seen them swing much harder toward Republicans than the Deep South, and perhaps much harder than anywhere else in the country.

Let me say first of all that I'm DEFINITELY waiting until after 2016 to declare WV a "red state" (at least at the local level), but I think your explanation - which, don't get me wrong, is good - applies a lot more to Presidential elections than it does to other ones.

Also, this won't be well received on this forum, because a lot seem to buy into the narrative that Southern Democrats were more or less conservatives in most senses of the word, but imagine you're a West Virginian (or an Arkansan in 2010, a Georgian in 2004, etc.) and you heard this campaign argument from the Republican candidate:

"Look, I get and respect the Democratic tradition in this state ... But Democrats have had COMPLETE control of everything from the governor's mansion down to the country clerks' offices for decades, and what improvement have we seen?!  It's time to try something new!"

How would you react?

[RFayette]

The idea that WV went GOP because of social conservatism really should be put to rest.

Poor, racist, socially conservative states such as Mississippi and Arkansas were voting GOP long before WV went that way. Reagan and Bush were strong social conservatives, let us not forget as well. Nixon was, too.

It has everything to do with coal. Democrats did not play nearly as much to environmentalism in the era up until the W Presidency. WV and Kentucky rely heavily on coal jobs, and indeed we've seen them swing much harder toward Republicans than the Deep South, and perhaps much harder than anywhere else in the country.

Um, AR and WV shifted almost at the same time.

Agree with the rest of what you said, as WV is actually not that religious and has relatively few Evangelicals.  Except WVers are very pro-gun, which had a marginal impact in 2000-2008 (coal outweighed all in 2012)

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

WV : Up until relatively recently US elections were much more class based. The Democrats being the party of FDR and unions were perceived as the party for the working man. The average working class guy in WV's dad and granddad and all voted straight ticket Democrat since 1932. Republican's were the party of the Chamber of Commerce and the  upper middle class or the wealthy. They were the party your boss voted for. So in a poor state like WV they even voted for Dukakis and Carter because they saw the Democrats as being the party of labor and the working man. Obviously since then social issues such as gun control, environmentalism and coal came into play which caused the state to trend right.

VA: Obviously a huge part of the trend is migration of Yankees working for the federal government from the Northeast, and blacks moving in from the DC area. These northerners bring with them their more moderate and Liberal views compared to the native southerners. Another trend is that historically Republicans had great appeal to the wealthy, highly educated, science respecting suburbanites in NOVA. Republicans are now toxic to these types of people in suburban northern cities.  The Democrats move to appeal to the 'wine' track while ditching the 'beer' track has done wonders in Virginia, while costing them WV.

[buritobr]

The maps of 1896 and 1916 were almost    recent maps * (-1)

Exception: Virginia and West Virginia. Virginia went Democratic and West Virginia went Republican. Like 2008 and 2012. But the opposite of 1948-1996

[Mr. Illini]

The idea that WV went GOP because of social conservatism really should be put to rest.

Poor, racist, socially conservative states such as Mississippi and Arkansas were voting GOP long before WV went that way. Reagan and Bush were strong social conservatives, let us not forget as well. Nixon was, too.

It has everything to do with coal. Democrats did not play nearly as much to environmentalism in the era up until the W Presidency. WV and Kentucky rely heavily on coal jobs, and indeed we've seen them swing much harder toward Republicans than the Deep South, and perhaps much harder than anywhere else in the country.

Let me say first of all that I'm DEFINITELY waiting until after 2016 to declare WV a "red state" (at least at the local level), but I think your explanation - which, don't get me wrong, is good - applies a lot more to Presidential elections than it does to other ones.

Also, this won't be well received on this forum, because a lot seem to buy into the narrative that Southern Democrats were more or less conservatives in most senses of the word, but imagine you're a West Virginian (or an Arkansan in 2010, a Georgian in 2004, etc.) and you heard this campaign argument from the Republican candidate:

"Look, I get and respect the Democratic tradition in this state ... But Democrats have had COMPLETE control of everything from the governor's mansion down to the country clerks' offices for decades, and what improvement have we seen?!  It's time to try something new!"

How would you react?

Probably the same way I did when they said that in Illinois in 2014. I voted for the Democratic candidate.

But I see the third component you are adding and it is valid.

[RINO Tom]

The idea that WV went GOP because of social conservatism really should be put to rest.

Poor, racist, socially conservative states such as Mississippi and Arkansas were voting GOP long before WV went that way. Reagan and Bush were strong social conservatives, let us not forget as well. Nixon was, too.

It has everything to do with coal. Democrats did not play nearly as much to environmentalism in the era up until the W Presidency. WV and Kentucky rely heavily on coal jobs, and indeed we've seen them swing much harder toward Republicans than the Deep South, and perhaps much harder than anywhere else in the country.

Let me say first of all that I'm DEFINITELY waiting until after 2016 to declare WV a "red state" (at least at the local level), but I think your explanation - which, don't get me wrong, is good - applies a lot more to Presidential elections than it does to other ones.

Also, this won't be well received on this forum, because a lot seem to buy into the narrative that Southern Democrats were more or less conservatives in most senses of the word, but imagine you're a West Virginian (or an Arkansan in 2010, a Georgian in 2004, etc.) and you heard this campaign argument from the Republican candidate:

"Look, I get and respect the Democratic tradition in this state ... But Democrats have had COMPLETE control of everything from the governor's mansion down to the country clerks' offices for decades, and what improvement have we seen?!  It's time to try something new!"

How would you react?

Probably the same way I did when they said that in Illinois in 2014. I voted for the Democratic candidate.

But I see the third component you are adding and it is valid.

Haha, okay so you're a bad example.

[Prince of Salem]

Immigration was a major factor in Virginia.

As for West Virginia, the situation is a little more complex:

-First, social issues rising up.
-Second, Al Gore's environmentalism (and the subsequent growth of this cause in the Democratic Party).
-Third, race. Hate to say this, but this seems to be a factor here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And 100 years ago, Virginia was way more Democratic.

[ElectionsGuy]

Immigration was a major factor in Virginia.

As for West Virginia, the situation is a little more complex:

-First, social issues rising up.
-Second, Al Gore's environmentalism (and the subsequent growth of this cause in the Democratic Party).
-Third, race. Hate to say this, but this seems to be a factor here.

I contest this. Obama and Kerry performed nearly the same in the state. Maybe the southern part of the state voted against him more because of his unapologetic environmental positions which called for heavy regulation on coal (cap and trade) and promoting "green energy", the emphasis was probably the greatest since any president. Many felt like he couldn't care less about their jobs. The Democrats still had a grip on the state level, but the presidential trend for the Republicans had been there for a while too (and this had to do with the urban rural divide and "progressive" wing of the Democratic party gaining strength). The truth is, the places that would vote on race the most are still where you'd stereo-typically think, the rural white areas of the deep south.

[CapoteMonster]

Immigration was a major factor in Virginia.

As for West Virginia, the situation is a little more complex:

-First, social issues rising up.
-Second, Al Gore's environmentalism (and the subsequent growth of this cause in the Democratic Party).
-Third, race. Hate to say this, but this seems to be a factor here.

I contest this. Obama and Kerry performed nearly the same in the state. Maybe the southern part of the state voted against him more because of his unapologetic environmental positions which called for heavy regulation on coal (cap and trade) and promoting "green energy", the emphasis was probably the greatest since any president. Many felt like he couldn't care less about their jobs. The Democrats still had a grip on the state level, but the presidential trend for the Republicans had been there for a while too (and this had to do with the urban rural divide and "progressive" wing of the Democratic party gaining strength). The truth is, the places that would vote on race the most are still where you'd stereo-typically think, the rural white areas of the deep south.

http://youtu.be/ODaxZSz3Awg

How about now?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Both states had ties to confederacy. West Virginia was part of the Union, but rebel flags, like in KY and Mo do fly there

Mark Warner broke the GOP hold on Va, then came Kaine and Webb. Kerry clearly would have won Ohio had Warner, not Edwards been the VP pick.

[pbrower2a]

WV has always been socially conservative, and it has few racial minorities.  After a while, the progressively more social liberalism of the national Democratic Party became too much for the average WV Democrat to sign off on.  Coupled with the anti-coal posture of the Democrats under Obama (who appears both foreign and unsympathetic to the average West Virginian), resentment against the Democratic Party finally went all the way down the ballot. 

If Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2008, WV probably would have went Democratic then, and in 2012.  Obama and his Administration have PERSONALLY offended West Virginians with their anti-coal policies and their social policies that WV is probably lost to the Democrats up and down the ballot for the rest of my lifetime.  They HATE Obama, and while some of it is racial prejudice and prejudice against someone who seems foreign to them, some of it is Obama's real disdain for the likes and lifestyles of many West Virginians. 

Case:

1972  Nixon 64 McGovern 36 (R+2)
1976  Carter 58 Ford 42 (D+8)
1980  Carter 50  Reagan 45 Anderson 4 (D+7)
1984  Reagan 55 Mondale 45 (D+4)
1988  Dukakis 52 Bush 47 (D+6)
2000  Bush 52 Gore 46 (R+2)
2004  Bush 56 Kerry 43 (R+6)
2008  McCain 56 Obama 42 (R+8)
2012  Romney 62 Obama 35 (R+11)

West Virginia swings heavily against anyone seen as a radical on the Left side. It voted twice against Obama ... and in 2012 West Virginia rejected Obama almost as firmly as it rejected McGovern in 1976. In 1972 it was close to the national trend; in 2008 and 2012...

Choose your metaphor wisely.