Antonio's claims fail on so many levels. You seriously didn't get how the Southern states' results totally undermined your "Vermont is Democratic since 1980 because Reagan barely won the State while sweeping the country" argument?
No, I still fail to see how Vermont is anyhow related with the South and how you can use that to deduce that my argument is "undermined". However, I'm not surprised you claim that.
I think what Libertas argument is that the margins in some of the Southern states were a bit too close for comfort while the margin in Vermont was by a bit more comfortable of a margin (between Carter and Reagan) undermines your thesis statement that "Vermont is Democratic since 1980 because Reagan barely won the state while sweeping the country".
I mean I really don't like Libertas abrasive style Antonio, but I think he kind of has a point here. Reagan did win Vermont by almost 6% over Carter, I wouldn't call a victory margin of six points "barely winning" the state. Sure, Reagan won more nationally than he did in the state, but SIX PERCENTAGE POINTS and 12,700 votes or so over your opponent in a state with a population a little bit above 500,000 is not "barely winning it". I believe the correct wording would be that "Since 1980 the traditionally Republican state of Vermont has been shifting Democratic", to imply it was a Democratic state since 1980 is a bit well misleading. And although Reagan was conservative, I can't see Vermont shifting towards the Southerner Carter, especially considering that the Election of 1980 was pretty much a referendum on Carter. I hate to throw demographics in here, but somehow I doubt a New England state would decide to vote for the unpopular Southern incumbent in 1980 without the presence of Anderson. Just because moderate Republicans disagreed with Reagan doesn't mean that they would jump ship and support the unpopular Democratic President Jimmy Carter.
Just a few thoughts, don't get mad.
