|
Title: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Indy Texas on September 16, 2012, 01:49:51 AM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: morgieb on September 16, 2012, 03:11:05 AM The parties did.
Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Mechaman on September 16, 2012, 04:45:45 AM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: bore on September 16, 2012, 05:13:15 AM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 16, 2012, 06:51:47 AM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Stranger in a strange land on September 16, 2012, 07:01:42 PM 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.
Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: soniquemd21921 on September 17, 2012, 07:33:13 AM 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! Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: All Along The Watchtower on September 28, 2012, 12:08:44 PM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Barnes on September 28, 2012, 07:20:49 PM 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.
Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Platypus on September 29, 2012, 04:46:59 AM Vermont didn't change, America did.
Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on September 29, 2012, 06:45:43 PM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 30, 2012, 12:07:06 AM 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. 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on September 30, 2012, 06:59:43 AM 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. 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 30, 2012, 09:03:25 AM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Torie on September 30, 2012, 05:32:22 PM 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.
Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: All Along The Watchtower on September 30, 2012, 09:53:17 PM 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? Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: 後援会 on September 30, 2012, 09:56:09 PM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: ag on September 30, 2012, 11:13:49 PM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on September 30, 2012, 11:51:16 PM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on October 01, 2012, 11:46:37 AM 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. 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. 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on October 01, 2012, 11:50:34 AM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: soniquemd21921 on October 01, 2012, 12:48:43 PM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: minionofmidas on October 01, 2012, 03:35:55 PM http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/new-vermont-is-liberal-but-old-vermont-is-still-there/
Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on October 01, 2012, 04:50:02 PM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: traininthedistance on October 01, 2012, 09:03:21 PM 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 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: I spent the winter writing songs about getting better on October 02, 2012, 01:09:12 AM 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. 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on October 02, 2012, 01:21:11 AM Fun facts.
Number of Democrats ever elected Senator from Vermont: 1 Number of times Vermont voted Democratic for President before 1992: 1 Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on October 02, 2012, 08:50:10 PM 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. 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. Title: The opebo Institute for Party Switching Post by: Mr. Morden on October 03, 2012, 12:43:08 AM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on October 03, 2012, 07:17:43 AM 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. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: I spent the winter writing songs about getting better on October 04, 2012, 10:53:03 PM 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. 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. BTW: The same is true of Orange County, although it still leans Republican. Oh geez... OK first of all if this is all because of social issues why the hell is Clinton the guy who started the shift? Just four years earlier you had a far more socially liberal Democratic candidate who got destroyed. Actually the main reason why Clinton was far more popular was because he was much less liberal than Dukakis in regards to crime and "law and order" issues. His gun control laws might've been popular in suburbia, but Dukakis was basically the same in regards to gun control. Really what generally happened is suburbanites became less scared throughout the 90s. And in fact the main reason why Clinton was so popular is basically the time, the economy was booming and while certain areas were hard hit despite all this (like tons of places affected by NAFTA), suburbia was not one of them. Clinton was called a "New Democrat" after all, and he wasn't seen as the type of Democrat who wanted to sell out the middle class to unions or tax them to death. And actually this brings up another big factor in the swing here: the realization that pre-Reagan tax rates were not coming back nor were the Democrats proposing this anymore. But beyond all this, to look at individual candidates is kind of minor in comparison to the main reason for the shifts in these discussed areas, especially OC, demographics plain and simple. There's a reason Goldwater did better than McCain in OC, and it's not social issues. If the entire country had the same demographics in 1988 that it does today in fact, Dukakis would've won. As it is the suburban counties in question no longer were havens of white flight from people fleeing the scary minorities of the cities and gained many minorities themselves. You now have DuPage County as more than 20% non-white and OC is barely over 60% white. With demographics like that there is simply no way you are going to get the numbers those places got before the 90s. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: freepcrusher on October 05, 2012, 11:35:26 AM 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. 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. BTW: The same is true of Orange County, although it still leans Republican. Oh geez... OK first of all if this is all because of social issues why the hell is Clinton the guy who started the shift? Just four years earlier you had a far more socially liberal Democratic candidate who got destroyed. Actually the main reason why Clinton was far more popular was because he was much less liberal than Dukakis in regards to crime and "law and order" issues. His gun control laws might've been popular in suburbia, but Dukakis was basically the same in regards to gun control. Really what generally happened is suburbanites became less scared throughout the 90s. And in fact the main reason why Clinton was so popular is basically the time, the economy was booming and while certain areas were hard hit despite all this (like tons of places affected by NAFTA), suburbia was not one of them. Clinton was called a "New Democrat" after all, and he wasn't seen as the type of Democrat who wanted to sell out the middle class to unions or tax them to death. And actually this brings up another big factor in the swing here: the realization that pre-Reagan tax rates were not coming back nor were the Democrats proposing this anymore. But beyond all this, to look at individual candidates is kind of minor in comparison to the main reason for the shifts in these discussed areas, especially OC, demographics plain and simple. There's a reason Goldwater did better than McCain in OC, and it's not social issues. If the entire country had the same demographics in 1988 that it does today in fact, Dukakis would've won. As it is the suburban counties in question no longer were havens of white flight from people fleeing the scary minorities of the cities and gained many minorities themselves. You now have DuPage County as more than 20% non-white and OC is barely over 60% white. With demographics like that there is simply no way you are going to get the numbers those places got before the 90s. all very true. But some of it is a change in the attitude of its white residents. Obama held McCain to around 56-57 percent of the white vote in Orange County and Obama got around 51 percent of the white vote in DuPage. Both would have been unheard of twenty years ago. One of my theories is that many of the hardcore conservatives in those areas died off and their children often moved away to the IE or to Will County. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: muon2 on October 13, 2012, 08:42:52 AM The Collar Counties may lean Republican, but the margins began to decline with the rise of Clinton in the 90s because of social issues. BTW: The same is true of Orange County, although it still leans Republican. Oh geez... OK first of all if this is all because of social issues why the hell is Clinton the guy who started the shift? Just four years earlier you had a far more socially liberal Democratic candidate who got destroyed. Actually the main reason why Clinton was far more popular was because he was much less liberal than Dukakis in regards to crime and "law and order" issues. His gun control laws might've been popular in suburbia, but Dukakis was basically the same in regards to gun control. Really what generally happened is suburbanites became less scared throughout the 90s. And in fact the main reason why Clinton was so popular is basically the time, the economy was booming and while certain areas were hard hit despite all this (like tons of places affected by NAFTA), suburbia was not one of them. Clinton was called a "New Democrat" after all, and he wasn't seen as the type of Democrat who wanted to sell out the middle class to unions or tax them to death. And actually this brings up another big factor in the swing here: the realization that pre-Reagan tax rates were not coming back nor were the Democrats proposing this anymore. But beyond all this, to look at individual candidates is kind of minor in comparison to the main reason for the shifts in these discussed areas, especially OC, demographics plain and simple. There's a reason Goldwater did better than McCain in OC, and it's not social issues. If the entire country had the same demographics in 1988 that it does today in fact, Dukakis would've won. As it is the suburban counties in question no longer were havens of white flight from people fleeing the scary minorities of the cities and gained many minorities themselves. You now have DuPage County as more than 20% non-white and OC is barely over 60% white. With demographics like that there is simply no way you are going to get the numbers those places got before the 90s. all very true. But some of it is a change in the attitude of its white residents. Obama held McCain to around 56-57 percent of the white vote in Orange County and Obama got around 51 percent of the white vote in DuPage. Both would have been unheard of twenty years ago. One of my theories is that many of the hardcore conservatives in those areas died off and their children often moved away to the IE or to Will County. One change in DuPage is that it became mostly built out by the mid 90's. As before the population relocating there from elsewhere in the suburbs is from Cook, but that population isn't from GOP Cook suburbs, but from areas that are mostly Dem. In previous decades even the Dems would tend to flip once they got to DuPage, since they associated the quality of life with the GOP leadership there. The heavier use of cable and the internet has diminished local news so that party association for local issues isn't made as it once was. To the extent I can tell, most the outflow from DuPage goes to Kane and Kendall, and only Will to a lesser degree (generally NW Will). The migration patterns in Chicagoland still largely follow spokes from the Loop outward. This has been true for generations, and still seems to be the case. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on November 06, 2012, 04:48:13 AM A lot of the Republicans in Vermont were liberal enough to be Democrats, and as such, were quite popular with voters when the GOP had a significant moderate presence. But when the 1990s rolled around, this area — much like the old Manhattan district that re-elected its GOP congressman — suddenly had a mass realization that their views were out of step with the national GOP and stopped voting reflexively for the Republicans.
Republicans can still compete somewhat on a local basis. But nationally, they've become non-starters. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on November 06, 2012, 05:44:33 AM 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. Vermont was a Republican Solid South. In addition to traditions, which are not fading so easily, the state Democratic Party as a viable political force is relatively a new thing up there, so lack of alternative was an important factor too. The Republican Party as a real force in the Deep South is also relatively a new thing. There was a saying that before 1960s, you could have Alabama Republican Convention held in a phone booth. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: jimrtex on November 08, 2012, 11:13:31 PM 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. Between 1960 and 2000, the rate jumped to 1.12% or 4.5 times as great. The growth was actually higher in both percentage and numeric terms in the 1960s and 1970s. The growth was focused on Burlington. Chittenden County did not surpass Rutland County to become the state's largest until 1940. By 1980 it had double the population. From 1960 to 2010 Chittenden increased 110%. Counties in the south and east typically increased around 35%. The other high growth rate counties are all neighbors: Grand Isle 13%, Lamoille 122%, Addison 83%, and Franklin 62%. The first two benefited from a small population base (Grand Isle had 2927 left in 1960). If you look at the state of birth reports from the census for the time before the growth spurt, it was almost all outward, to states in New England and Northeast, but also throughout the country. The only true two-way migration was to New Hampshire, and that was net towards New Hampshire. By 2000, this had strongly reversed, with big inward flows from Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, but also further afield, such as Maryland, Ohio, and Illinois. Even the relative flow to California had been reduced. In most of destination states, Vermont-born had declined as people born decades before began to die off. So you have a lot of life-style migrants who didn't move so they could milk cows or collect sap. Only in those over 70 and the very young is there a Vermont-born majority. Title: Re: What changed in Vermont over the past century? Post by: soniquemd21921 on November 09, 2012, 07:13:45 PM Chittenden was a Democratic stronghold decades before the influx of new residents due to its large Catholic population. The city of Winooski really stuck out like a sore thumb in Vermont in the 30s, 40s and 50s: it was 85-90 percent Democratic at a time when nearly all of the other small towns were 80-90% Republican.
From looking at election returns, it appears that the first of the really heavily Republican counties to move in a leftward direction was Windham beginning in the 70s (note how it's Republican percentage got smaller and smaller after 1972). Lamoille's Democratic drift has been in the last 15 years or so. I'm guessing it being the location of Stowe has contributed. |