Why did Vermont turn so hard left compared to neighboring NH and ME

[NewEnglandRepublican]

If you look historically at elections Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine voted pretty similarly, especially NH and VT. However, how come VT shifted so hard left in every level, except for governor. NH and ME have stated relatively moderate, NH centrist leaning ether each way and ME left leaning on national elections. So why is is this all so?

[MarkD]

I read in Congressional Quarterly's Politics In America that, starting in the 1960s, a lot of urban liberals from cities like NYC moved to Vermont.

[RINO Tom]

It's smaller and easier to "manipulate" its margin with immigration.

[RINO Tom]

The parties switched plaforms and the GOP moved to the right (especially on social issues), which alienated a lot of moderate Republicans and moderates in the process who then became Democrats.

#FactzofHistory

[darklordoftech]

Hippies moved in.

[NewEnglandRepublican]

The parties switched plaforms and the GOP moved to the right (especially on social issues), which alienated a lot of moderate Republicans and moderates in the process who then became Democrats.

That explains nothing. Like how New Hampshire and Maine didn't go hard as left as Vermont. Additionally, Vermont didn't start voting Democratic at all levels till the early 90s. Way after the supposed magical switch. I go with that Vermont trending so hard left is more of people from outside the state moving in at massive numbers. In other words, carpetbagging of some sort.

[darklordoftech]

The parties switched plaforms and the GOP moved to the right (especially on social issues), which alienated a lot of moderate Republicans and moderates in the process who then became Democrats.

That explains nothing. Like how New Hampshire and Maine didn't go hard as left as Vermont. Additionally, Vermont didn't start voting Democratic at all levels till the early 90s. Way after the supposed magical switch. I go with that Vermont trending so hard left is more of people from outside the state moving in at massive numbers. In other words, carpetbagging of some sort.

1. You responded to obvious flame-bait.
2. The goal of the people moving wasn't to change Vermont's politics, so I wouldn't call it "carpetbagging".

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

When New York and Massachusetts send their people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing social liberalism. They're Democrats. And some, I assume, are good people.

[Intell]

When New York and Massachusetts send their people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing social liberalism. They're Democrats. And some, I assume, are good people.

I mean people from Massachusetts turned NH heavily Republican in the 70's-80's.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The parties switched plaforms and the GOP moved to the right (especially on social issues), which alienated a lot of moderate Republicans and moderates in the process who then became Democrats.

The GOP have clearly been the more right wing party since 1896 so did it take the people who live in Vermont another 96 years before they figured that out

[Free Bird]

The parties switched plaforms and the GOP moved to the right (especially on social issues), which alienated a lot of moderate Republicans and moderates in the process who then became Democrats.

The GOP have clearly been the more right wing party since 1896 so did it take the people who live in Vermont another 96 years before they figured that out

[Intell]

The parties switched plaforms and the GOP moved to the right (especially on social issues), which alienated a lot of moderate Republicans and moderates in the process who then became Democrats.

The GOP have clearly been the more right-wing party since 1896 1936 election so did it take the people who live in Vermont another 96 years before they figured that out

There was no left-right divide from 1896-1936 election.

[junior chįmp]

Reynolds vs Sims really screwed over the VT GOP. In 1965, there were a 195 Republicans in the lower state legislature vs 50 Democrats...after the Sims decision...it was down to 93 Republicans vs 55 Democrats and declined from then on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Vermont GOP had a very hierarchical system where people were suppose to wait their turn climbing from Speaker to PPT, to Governor, to House and finally to Senate. Along with this was the mountain rule, we ensured these positions were often split half and half between both sides of the state.

The Vermont Republican Party also suffered a similar problem faced by many Deep South Democratic Parties. When everyone in politics or with a political interest is in your party and ideological and factional differences begin to become more salient, the result is a slug fest.

The weird thing about it, is that in most Southern States the conservatives left for the GOP, while the more populist/progressive elements, those at least somewhat in line with their national parties on economics on least were able to hold on, the reverse happened in Vermont. The Conservative faction in the VT GOP didn't survive the 1950's and the final nail in the coffin was 1964. It was the faction most out of line with their national party that became dominant in the state and held on for several decades, leading to a yawning chasm and eventually Jim Jefford's party switch in 2001.

I think the big reason for the different outcome was indeed the in migration of urban liberals and the impact on the culture and politics of the state.

When New York and Massachusetts send their people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing social liberalism. They're Democrats. And some, I assume, are good people.

I mean people from Massachusetts turned NH heavily Republican in the 70's-80's.

Middle class white flight is a different political phenomenon to the influx of liberals that moved from NYC to Vermont, the Hudson Valley, the Berkshires etc. The former is a largely Catholic demographic motivated to move by taxes and/or racial tensions, which in the 70's and 80's is a perfect stew from which Republican voters are created.

The latter is far less religious, more racially tolerant and progressive on economics and the environment.

That is why Vermont became so much more Dem, while NH became more Republican and Maine was somewhere in between. Back 100 years ago, VT was most Republican, followed by Maine, with NH the state most willing to vote Dem (like it did in 1916).

[Skill and Chance]

The Democratic shift on civil rights in the 50's and 60's made it contestable for the first time.  The post-2000 shift to being a Dem base state was driven by strong anti-war/isolationist views (you can see this process starting when Reagan underperformed his nationwide margin both times). 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Foreign policy is definitely an important factor. VT's "Conservative" faction was certainly more of the isolationist and old right variety. It was also a very protectionist state as well and thus a sunbelt GOP this is very interventionist and also in favor of free trade would not do well even with the original Vermont demographic, much less the anti-war transplants.

[RINO Tom]

The Democratic shift on civil rights in the 50's and 60's made it contestable for the first time.  The post-2000 shift to being a Dem base state was driven by strong anti-war/isolationist views (you can see this process starting when Reagan underperformed his nationwide margin both times). 

If migration into the state isn’t part of your answer, your answer is bad.  Period.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Democratic shift on civil rights in the 50's and 60's made it contestable for the first time.  The post-2000 shift to being a Dem base state was driven by strong anti-war/isolationist views (you can see this process starting when Reagan underperformed his nationwide margin both times). 

If migration into the state isn’t part of your answer, your answer is bad.  Period.

Completely discounting shifts in the native population is also bad. Otherwise Maine would be solidly Republican.

Without wondering too far into the "party flip" cesspool, it should be noted that one lasting impact of Goldwater's defeat is that Republicans have never reached the same levels they had previously with WASP/Yankees and have instead cascaded downwards since then. Nixon for instance lost a lot of ground compared in 1968 to 1960 and he replaced that lost ground among largely Catholic middle class voters and Germans. Most of the quintessential Republican voters are in fact in this period middle class Germans in the suburbs or Midwestern cities, not Yankee Whites like my maternal grandfather, though he was solidly Republican until his death in 1970.

If Yankee whites voted as they used to, NH, ME, MI and WI would be safe R, and OR and VT swing states.

He is not entirely correct though because while this breaking point occurred in 1964, the trends had already started in the 1950's. Demonstrated by relative softeness for Ike compared to say Dewey, despite the fact that Ike was winning a landslide. Also the first major hit was 1958 for VT, UES New York and many other places that started lurching to the left and towards the Democrats. Of course Ike was the perfect candidate for the new GOP base among Germans and Catholics. It should also be considered that Nixon's 1960 levels were likely the product of a dead cat bounce prompted by lingering anti-catholic sentiment. And his 1960 weakness among Catholics likewise temporarily halted the trends for the sake of electing a Catholic JFK to the Presidency.

I think the New Deal, FDR's support for Britain, the destruction of protectionism as a viable political weapon and a variety of cultural factors and mainly cultural and political irrelevance caused by diversification and inter-marriage with other groups, left this group numerically less than a core group in the GOP's base and open to swinging between parties.

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Here you can see how Vermont's Republican victory margins slowly declines over the years starting from 1960. 1988 was the tipping point and 1992 was when VT finally votes Dem consecutively in Presidential Elections (1/2) 1948-1964

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

(2/2) 1968-1996

[Sumner 1868]

Surprised nobody mentioned Ezra Taft Benson yet. Vermont's Catholic and unionized urban areas had voted Democratic FDR on but weren't large enough to break the machine. Then rural dairy farmers, enraged at Benson's policies, caused a big crack in the GOP machine in 1958 by sending a Democrat, William Meyer to it's al-large House seat, and came within one point of electing a Democratic governor as well as within five points of electing a Democratic senator. There was no going back after 1958 - thousands of Vermonters started voting Democratic long before the population boom the final quarter of the 20th century saw.


Also, Vermont was never a particularly conservative state. The author Neil R. Pierce in his book The New England States: People, Politics, and Power in the Six New England States made the following observation about FDR-era Vermont Republicans:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite a commentary.

[kcguy]

The Democratic wins of 1958 were a fluke--that was the year that Republicans nationwide defended 20 Senate seats and lost 12 of them, including 10 incumbents--but it did open the door to Vermonters taking Democrats seriously for the first time.

I think what helped the Democrats was the environmental movement of the 1970s, especially when phrased as "helping Vermont retain its rural character".  In a state of small farms, commercial interests aren't automatically natural allies of the populace.

New Hampshire, by contrast, is not a state of small farms.  It is a state of people who are willing to commute really far to jobs in the Boston area.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Democratic wins of 1958 were a fluke--that was the year that Republicans nationwide defended 20 Senate seats and lost 12 of them, including 10 incumbents--but it did open the door to Vermonters taking Democrats seriously for the first time.

I think what helped the Democrats was the environmental movement of the 1970s, especially when phrased as "helping Vermont retain its rural character".  In a state of small farms, commercial interests aren't automatically natural allies of the populace.

New Hampshire, by contrast, is not a state of small farms.  It is a state of people who are willing to commute really far to jobs in the Boston area.

1958 might be a fluke but it has to be taken into context with the fact that even bigger landslides were happening cycle after cycle in the 1930's and yet Vermont remained Republican in its delegation.

[RINO Tom]

NC Yankee,

I am not discounting polarization of social issues, intrastate issues with the VT GOP or the changing voting behaviors of Yankee Whites at all.  I was just pointing out that those issues alone can't possibly explain ALL of the shift.  No one in his or her right mind can with a straight face categorize 2018 Vermont as the same type of state as 1940 Vermont, even adjusted for the decades-long difference in year.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Hippies moved in.