Why didn't coal country flip to the GOP much earlier than it did?

[Matty]

How the hell was john kerry winning some of these southern WV and eastern KY counties? How was dukakis?

The clear divide between the GOP and the dems on environmental regulations started long ago.

When a coal miner went into the voting booth to vote for mike dukakis, george mcgovern, walter mondale, or john kerry......what exactly did he think would benefit him and his union by doing so? lol

[Antonio the Sixth]

You're falling into the same bogus "voting based on self-interest" logic that leads Democrats to wonder why the WWC abandoned them.

Voting is not about muh issues, ffs. It's about symbols, narratives, and emotions.

[Intell]

You're falling into the same bogus "voting based on self-interest" logic that leads Democrats to wonder why the WWC abandoned them.

Voting is not about muh issues, ffs. It's about symbols, narratives, and emotions.

It is, it is issues about your financial situation, your social or economic values, and the issues of your culture, and which party is closes to your culture.

[Kantakouzenos]

The largest factor was probably organized labor still holding a large clout there.  The narrative of the "war on coal" I don't think was being played very much there yet either.  Natural gas and renewable energies only got big recently so the actual threat of job loss wasn't that high yet.

Also, you are assuming that only issue thwy will vote on is the continuing existence of their jobs.  Work place safety and the continuing existence of their high wages are also an important issues to them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Generational change is a factor.

Everyone who voted for McGovern who was 40 or older, would have remembered the Depression. 55 and over would have for Dukakis.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Voting is not about muh issues, ffs. It's about symbols, narratives, and emotions.

I'd approve if you didn't seem to think that was a good thing.

[Sumner 1868]

Generational change is a factor.

Everyone who voted for McGovern who was 40 or older, would have remembered the Depression. 55 and over would have for Dukakis.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Not really. If you look at exit polls from 1996 in WV you see age had little role in determining whether they voted for Clinton. More important is there aren't many coal jobs to unionize.

[Intell]

Older people were much more democratic in WV, while younger people swung much more to the republicans, or when they started voting, they voted for the republicans

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The complete electoral collapse (2012) only happened after a Democratic administration openly and gleefully pursued policies sure cause the collapse of most of the remains of the industry and then proceeded to gloat about it. Like, this isn't really a mystery everyone...

[NOVA Green]

The complete electoral collapse (2012) only happened after a Democratic administration openly and gleefully pursued policies sure cause the collapse of most of the remains of the industry and then proceeded to gloat about it. Like, this isn't really a mystery everyone...

So Sibboleth, what happened in short, medium, and longer term electoral voting patterns in the UK (Midlands, Wales, etc...) after Thatcher destroyed the NUM after the massive Coal Miner Strike of '84-'85?

Although I am extremely supportive of the UMWA, and still have a camouflage UMWA T-Shirt that was given to me by a 3rd generation Ohio Coal Miner, because of solidarity work that I did at college in support of the strike of '93, that was basically an extension of the Pittston Strike of '89/'90 that shut down much of the Coal Production in Appalachia against the practice of "double-breasting" (Coal Operators shutting down Union mines/pits and opening up non-union mines a few hollers down, combined with shifting operations to open non-union giant pit-mines in Wyoming and elsewhere in the Mountain West....

So what in your opinion that the Obama administration did was seen as declaring war on Coal Country?

I don't recall anything specifically..... rather the "Free" trade agenda that Obama pursued, as most of his Democratic and Republican predecessors alike, allowed the "invisible hand of the market" to do its thing, and encouraging everything from oil pipelines from Canada, "fracking" and natural gas production, and supporting shipping literally boatloads of Wyoming Coal to China (Much of this produce leaves out of Ports in Oregon)....

I am sure there is still plenty of Union Coal in Appalachia to continue fueling the aging Coal Power Plants of America, where 33% of our energy supply is still based upon Coal....

If anything, the War on Coal is actually happened directly as a result of imports of Coal from other parts of the World, that is considered "cheaper", than buying locally produced Coal from our Union Mines of places in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, etc....

https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-coal-does-us-export-and-import

[vileplume]

The complete electoral collapse (2012) only happened after a Democratic administration openly and gleefully pursued policies sure cause the collapse of most of the remains of the industry and then proceeded to gloat about it. Like, this isn't really a mystery everyone...

So Sibboleth, what happened in short, medium, and longer term electoral voting patterns in the UK (Midlands, Wales, etc...) after Thatcher destroyed the NUM after the massive Coal Miner Strike of '84-'85?

I'll have a go at answering it but it's a more complex question than it sounds:

In areas that were particularly heavily hit by the closure of heavy industry (including coal) that still haven't recovered are still solidly Labour but more by default than anything else. Labour's vote share has been dwindling for years, for example not so long ago Labour used to get 70+% in the Welsh Valleys constituencies, now they are under 50% in most of them but they still easily win these seats due to lack of a credible opposition. The Tories are still absolutely despised, UKIP's potential is limited due to it's links to the Tory right and prior enthusiasm for things like privatisation, the Lib Dems love of 'do-gooder' internationalism is an anathema to these kind of places and Plaid Cymru (in Wales) potential is limited due to their fixation with things like the Welsh language. Also voter turnout in these areas is terrible and interest in politics is at rock bottom.

But as the lesson from the SNP in Scotland shows these areas have fallen out of love with Labour and will happily abandon them should a suitable alternative come along. If Labour does lose these areas as they have in Scotland they are essentially finished as a viable political force, you can't get even remotely close to winning an election with ideologically left wing voters in big cities alone.

However some constituencies with an industrial heritage have seen their demographics shift dramatically, it is particularly strong in areas where the Conservatives always had a strong base (e.g with rural farming areas or middle class professionals) for example South Derbyshire and North West Leicestershire. As the Labour vote collapsed in the ex-industrial part of these type of constituencies former marginals transformed into safe Conservative seats.

In many Labour coal mining seats new middle class housing private developments are springing up left, right and centre to accommodate the Conservative voting middle classes fleeing the big cities (the pattern in constituency boundary changes of many decades has been the cities and metros losing representation and the 'provinces' gaining). Some ex-industrial towns have also reinvented themselves and have become geared towards more skilled manufacturing or have transformed into commuter towns for large cities as the ex-mineworker/steelworker vote literally dies off, the latter change in particular (given voting patterns in Britain) will wipe out Labour's vote in an area in one foul swoop.

These changes potentially present a huge problem for Labour. While the very deprived ex-industrial constituencies should remain Labour at least in the short term but it would only take the right kind of populist movement to sweep them all away. In many others the demographics are shifting in a very unfavourable way as constituencies turn from an ex-industrial ones into 'Middle England' ones.

I hope that helped.

[Lothal1]

Al Gore happened.

[Intell]

Al Gore happened.

Right? And? Coal Country voted for him?

[uti2]

Al Gore happened.

Not Al Gore, it was Monica Lewinsky. Republicans were cynically appealing to the religious right before, but the Lewinsky event allowed them to kick the religion-baiting into hyperdrive, that's really when democrats lost the south. Clinton might've been able to win it back in '08 in light of the economic collapse, but Obama pretty much killed off any chances of that happening.

[Lothal1]

Al Gore happened.

Right? And? Coal Country voted for him?

The beginning of the shift began because of Mr Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore would have won the presidency had he won West Virginia.

[uti2]

Al Gore happened.

Right? And? Coal Country voted for him?

The beginning of the shift began because of Mr Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore would have won the presidency had he won West Virginia.

No, it was because of Lewinsky, no Lewinsky = No GWB religious pandering, the south stays with Dems longer. Gore would've won at least TN, in addition to WV and FL easily. Hillary was also polling quite well in AR in 2008, she might've won it and WV, in light of the economic collapse.

[NOVA Green]

The complete electoral collapse (2012) only happened after a Democratic administration openly and gleefully pursued policies sure cause the collapse of most of the remains of the industry and then proceeded to gloat about it. Like, this isn't really a mystery everyone...

So Sibboleth, what happened in short, medium, and longer term electoral voting patterns in the UK (Midlands, Wales, etc...) after Thatcher destroyed the NUM after the massive Coal Miner Strike of '84-'85?

I'll have a go at answering it but it's a more complex question than it sounds:

In areas that were particularly heavily hit by the closure of heavy industry (including coal) that still haven't recovered are still solidly Labour but more by default than anything else. Labour's vote share has been dwindling for years, for example not so long ago Labour used to get 70+% in the Welsh Valleys constituencies, now they are under 50% in most of them but they still easily win these seats due to lack of a credible opposition. The Tories are still absolutely despised, UKIP's potential is limited due to it's links to the Tory right and prior enthusiasm for things like privatisation, the Lib Dems love of 'do-gooder' internationalism is an anathema to these kind of places and Plaid Cymru (in Wales) potential is limited due to their fixation with things like the Welsh language. Also voter turnout in these areas is terrible and interest in politics is at rock bottom.

But as the lesson from the SNP in Scotland shows these areas have fallen out of love with Labour and will happily abandon them should a suitable alternative come along. If Labour does lose these areas as they have in Scotland they are essentially finished as a viable political force, you can't get even remotely close to winning an election with ideologically left wing voters in big cities alone.

However some constituencies with an industrial heritage have seen their demographics shift dramatically, it is particularly strong in areas where the Conservatives always had a strong base (e.g with rural farming areas or middle class professionals) for example South Derbyshire and North West Leicestershire. As the Labour vote collapsed in the ex-industrial part of these type of constituencies former marginals transformed into safe Conservative seats.

In many Labour coal mining seats new middle class housing private developments are springing up left, right and centre to accommodate the Conservative voting middle classes fleeing the big cities (the pattern in constituency boundary changes of many decades has been the cities and metros losing representation and the 'provinces' gaining). Some ex-industrial towns have also reinvented themselves and have become geared towards more skilled manufacturing or have transformed into commuter towns for large cities as the ex-mineworker/steelworker vote literally dies off, the latter change in particular (given voting patterns in Britain) will wipe out Labour's vote in an area in one foul swoop.

These changes potentially present a huge problem for Labour. While the very deprived ex-industrial constituencies should remain Labour at least in the short term but it would only take the right kind of populist movement to sweep them all away. In many others the demographics are shifting in a very unfavourable way as constituencies turn from an ex-industrial ones into 'Middle England' ones.

I hope that helped.

Thanks Vileplume!!!

So if I may attempt to consolidate your insights into a few bullet items:

1.) There has been a slow gradual erosion of Labour support by 15-20% in some heavily Coal and Steel constituencies within the UK over the past 15-20 years. (Similar pattern to what has been observed in Coal Country in Southern WV, SE KY, and a few counties in the Western part of VA).

2.) The Tories ("Center-Right") have not been major beneficiaries, nor have the UKIP, and although there have been some gains along the margins for the SNP and Welsh Nationalists in these areas outside of England, fundamentally voter turnout is significantly lower as individuals in these communities reject the electoral politics and choices in greater numbers than ever before.

3.) Within traditional Coal Mining/ Steel Industry areas  in the North of England, because of and/or a combination of traditional Labour constituencies leaving as result of economic decline, combined with an expanding "exurban" population outside of the cities, has gradually been turning marginal constituencies into strong Torie districts.

I hope that's a fair assessment of your comments, and it is certainly fascinating to see many of the comparisons, and some contrasts as well, with electoral shifts in the UK and US....

Now to wrap back to the original topic, I do believe that Bill Clinton not coming out forcefully in defense of the UMWA during the strike of '93 is where WV started to be lost for decades at the Presidential level....

[Sumner 1868]

Al Gore happened.

Right? And? Coal Country voted for him?

The beginning of the shift began because of Mr Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore would have won the presidency had he won West Virginia.

Yes. Appalachia was hardly the only place this happened-in fact 2000 saw several other mining counties (Greenlee AZ, Carbon UT, Ferry/Pend Oreille WA, Sweetwater WY, Mineral MT) vote for Bush and remain Republican afterwards despite decades of Democratic dominance pre-2000.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So Sibboleth, what happened in short, medium, and longer term electoral voting patterns in the UK (Midlands, Wales, etc...) after Thatcher destroyed the NUM after the massive Coal Miner Strike of '84-'85?

The Conservative Party continued to (and continues to) poll appallingly in former pit villages and mining towns, apart from where they were close enough to major metropolitan regions to transform into ordinary humdrum commuter belt settlements. Labour has lost the institutional edge that mass NUM membership meant which means that coalfields now see 'normal' electoral swings (it used to be that you couldn't tell from the result in a mining seat if the election was a good or bad one for Labour; that's how surreally stable things were), but it remains overwhelmingly dominant and entrenched in local culture; it is still the norm in County Durham to refer to Labour as 'The Party'. Nothing even remotely comparable to recent political changes in comparable parts of America has happened so I'm not sure what your point is.

[parochial boy]

For what it is worth, this picture did the rounds after the 2015, which shows both how the mining areas have stayed loyal, but also how immensely vulnerable Labour is if they go.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Voting is not about muh issues, ffs. It's about symbols, narratives, and emotions.

I'd approve if you didn't seem to think that was a good thing.

Whether it's a good or bad thing is irrelevant. That's what politics is, and unwillingness to take this fact seriously is the reason why your mold of technocratic liberalism will never be electorally successful.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wall Street wasn't hated as much until they caused the Great Depression.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://time.com/2806697/obama-epa-coal-carbon/

[RINO Tom]

Political parties were almost hereditary back in those days. You just could not be a coal miner and not be a Democrat

While this is true, it only became that way because of issues that really hit home with the ancestors who gave them those "hereditary political genes," if you will.

[mianfei]

I’ve often thought that the reason coal country took so long to flip to the GOP – although it has done so at a remarkable rate since the turn of the century – is that the Democratic Party was turned towards moderate candidates by the McGovern debacle of 1972, which ranks with that of James Cox in 1920 as the worst election landslide in history. Although McGovern’s top ten counties included two then-banner coal counties (Elliott at #7, Knott at #8) some of his worst losses vis-à-vis preceding Democrats were in Appalachian coal country, especially southern WV.

Although the nomination of a candidate so liberal as McGovern was utterly out of the question in 1976, I have often imagined that if the Democrats had nominated another candidate from the party’s leftmost wing, Appalachian coal counties would have swung to the GOP even in 1976 (assuming a nationwide swing similar to that between 2004 and 2008), and that if the Democrats had in the 1980s tried to cater to the new breed of social ultra-liberals who emerged with “Generation X”, coal country would have flipped to Reagan (or to any GOP candidate).

Many issues producing the rapid twenty-first century trend of mining and logging counties to the GOP not only in archconservative Appalachia but even in the Upper Midwest – witness Red Lake County and Swift County in Minnesota, where McGovern won by double digits yet Trump won by two-to-one – were not important in the 1970s. Gun control is the standout issue here – a nonissue vis-à-vis abortion, school prayer or even homosexual rights in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, but became a hotbed issue late in the 1990s. In rural white areas gun control is vigorously opposed even in regions much less hostile than Appalachia to homosexuality and abortion.

By nominating moderate candidates, the Democrats submerged the powerful social conservatism of Appalachia, and (in effect) campaigned on economic issues against a GOP focused more on economic change, while social norms in core Democratic urban areas were not merely liberalising but radicalising to viewpoints beyond the political range of the Democrats. However, the two trends could not be contained forever, and the Democrats could not risk losing their urban core vote to a genuine radical left party.