States where Reagan did best in 1984

[darklordoftech]

Which states did Reagan win by the most in in 1984?

[TDAS04]

Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska

This website has state results in every presidential election, including popular vote data back through 1824.  It's under the heading "Elections Results" at the top of the page.

[darklordoftech]

Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska

This website has state results in every presidential election, including popular vote data back through 1824.  It's under the heading "Elections Results" at the top of the page.

Thanks, although I’d like lists of how well each candidate performed in all 50 states. I find it interesting that in 1988-present, Utah in 2004 is the only time a state voted for anyone by 70% or more.

[Calthrina950]

Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska

This website has state results in every presidential election, including popular vote data back through 1824.  It's under the heading "Elections Results" at the top of the page.

Thanks, although I’d like lists of how well each candidate performed in all 50 states. I find it interesting that in 1988-present, Utah in 2004 is the only time a state voted for anyone by 70% or more.

I don't think this is correct, if you are referring to overall statewide percentage. Mitt Romney in 2012 also got over 70% of the vote in Utah (and did slightly better than Bush!), and Obama received over 70% in Hawaii in both 2008 and 2012.

[SingingAnalyst]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

[darklordoftech]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

[Calthrina950]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

[Hnv1]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

Carter was a terrible fit for Vermont, and as a small state the migration of left wing voters from NY really changed Vermont. The Vermont republicans are still there, but they are very traditional moderate republicans hence why they can get elected at the state level.

[Calthrina950]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

Carter was a terrible fit for Vermont, and as a small state the migration of left wing voters from NY really changed Vermont. The Vermont republicans are still there, but they are very traditional moderate republicans hence why they can get elected at the state level.

Certainly true. What I was getting at here is that the signs for the Republican collapse in New England during the 1990s were already visible. Moreover, Vermont, as I noted, was more Democratic-leaning then the national average in both 1984 and 1988, especially in the latter year.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

Carter was a terrible fit for Vermont, and as a small state the migration of left wing voters from NY really changed Vermont. The Vermont republicans are still there, but they are very traditional moderate republicans hence why they can get elected at the state level.

The Vermont Republicans are moderate because they have been surrounded by Democrats and have needed to adapt, and because the "geographic centre of gravity" of the Republican Party has shifted. They certainly weren't before this kind of things were set in motion in the 1960's.

[Hnv1]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

Carter was a terrible fit for Vermont, and as a small state the migration of left wing voters from NY really changed Vermont. The Vermont republicans are still there, but they are very traditional moderate republicans hence why they can get elected at the state level.

The Vermont Republicans are moderate because they have been surrounded by Democrats and have needed to adapt, and because the "geographic centre of gravity" of the Republican Party has shifted. They certainly weren't before this kind of things were set in motion in the 1960's.

Vermont was abolitionist very early on, and not culturally conservative or very religious ever. as a small state they were less on the progressive side during the first progressive wave true. but overall Vermont republicans were always less socially conservatives than their peers

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

Carter was a terrible fit for Vermont, and as a small state the migration of left wing voters from NY really changed Vermont. The Vermont republicans are still there, but they are very traditional moderate republicans hence why they can get elected at the state level.

The Vermont Republicans are moderate because they have been surrounded by Democrats and have needed to adapt, and because the "geographic centre of gravity" of the Republican Party has shifted. They certainly weren't before this kind of things were set in motion in the 1960's.

Vermont was abolitionist very early on, and not culturally conservative or very religious ever. as a small state they were less on the progressive side during the first progressive wave true. but overall Vermont republicans were always less socially conservatives than their peers

I am not expert enough in history on that front but I have the sensation that Vermont was actually pretty religious one time. I was talking more about economic conservatism however, Vermont LOVED Calvin Coolidge and rejected Mr. New Deal four times out of four.

[Hnv1]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

Carter was a terrible fit for Vermont, and as a small state the migration of left wing voters from NY really changed Vermont. The Vermont republicans are still there, but they are very traditional moderate republicans hence why they can get elected at the state level.

The Vermont Republicans are moderate because they have been surrounded by Democrats and have needed to adapt, and because the "geographic centre of gravity" of the Republican Party has shifted. They certainly weren't before this kind of things were set in motion in the 1960's.

Vermont was abolitionist very early on, and not culturally conservative or very religious ever. as a small state they were less on the progressive side during the first progressive wave true. but overall Vermont republicans were always less socially conservatives than their peers

I am not expert enough in history on that front but I have the sensation that Vermont was actually pretty religious one time. I was talking more about economic conservatism however, Vermont LOVED Calvin Coolidge and rejected Mr. New Deal four times out of four.

Which is very reasonable for a small state that was neither built on heavy industry or agriculture. Add to that the general dislike of Vermont of southern politicians and the old solid south democrats. FDR won the counties around Burlington which was the only thing close to a proper city there.

Vermont was never a hot bad for evangelical Christianity. Part for the perplexing support for the anti Masonic ticket the history of the state and the Republican Party there was always quite moderate. It also had very low population and a strong affinity to the GOP as an identity which made it inflexible.

The first republican who ran on the right wing platform of post war conservativism in Goldwater was smashed there by a southern democrat

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

Carter was a terrible fit for Vermont, and as a small state the migration of left wing voters from NY really changed Vermont. The Vermont republicans are still there, but they are very traditional moderate republicans hence why they can get elected at the state level.

The Vermont Republicans are moderate because they have been surrounded by Democrats and have needed to adapt, and because the "geographic centre of gravity" of the Republican Party has shifted. They certainly weren't before this kind of things were set in motion in the 1960's.

Vermont was abolitionist very early on, and not culturally conservative or very religious ever. as a small state they were less on the progressive side during the first progressive wave true. but overall Vermont republicans were always less socially conservatives than their peers

I am not expert enough in history on that front but I have the sensation that Vermont was actually pretty religious one time. I was talking more about economic conservatism however, Vermont LOVED Calvin Coolidge and rejected Mr. New Deal four times out of four.

Which is very reasonable for a small state that was neither built on heavy industry or agriculture. Add to that the general dislike of Vermont of southern politicians and the old solid south democrats.

Vermont was never a hotbed* for evangelical Christianity. Part for the perplexing support for the anti Masonic ticket the history of the state and the Republican Party there was always quite moderate. It also had very low population and a strong affinity to the GOP as an identity which made it inflexible.

The first republican who ran on the right wing platform of post war conservativism in Goldwater was smashed there by a southern democrat

Someone can be very religious without being evangelical.

I don't understand your last point. Was pre-war conservatism not true conservatism?

[Alcibiades]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

Carter was a terrible fit for Vermont, and as a small state the migration of left wing voters from NY really changed Vermont. The Vermont republicans are still there, but they are very traditional moderate republicans hence why they can get elected at the state level.

The Vermont Republicans are moderate because they have been surrounded by Democrats and have needed to adapt, and because the "geographic centre of gravity" of the Republican Party has shifted. They certainly weren't before this kind of things were set in motion in the 1960's.

Vermont was abolitionist very early on, and not culturally conservative or very religious ever. as a small state they were less on the progressive side during the first progressive wave true. but overall Vermont republicans were always less socially conservatives than their peers

I am not expert enough in history on that front but I have the sensation that Vermont was actually pretty religious one time. I was talking more about economic conservatism however, Vermont LOVED Calvin Coolidge and rejected Mr. New Deal four times out of four.

Which is very reasonable for a small state that was neither built on heavy industry or agriculture. Add to that the general dislike of Vermont of southern politicians and the old solid south democrats. FDR won the counties around Burlington which was the only thing close to a proper city there.

Vermont was never a hot bad for evangelical Christianity. Part for the perplexing support for the anti Masonic ticket the history of the state and the Republican Party there was always quite moderate. It also had very low population and a strong affinity to the GOP as an identity which made it inflexible.

The first republican who ran on the right wing platform of post war conservativism in Goldwater was smashed there by a southern democrat

Before WWII, Vermont was a rural, homogenous, die-hard Yankee state with a strong contingent of moralistic Congregationalists. It was naturally culturally conservative. It was only after WWII that the progressive faction of the state GOP became dominant.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Vermont's Republicans back in the day were often quite conservative both fiscally and culturally* but they also had some moderate liberals.  Like many states where one party predominated, the party had a wide range.

*(there's a difference though between Yankee and Sunbelt cultural conservatism that seems relevant in the case of the Goldwater campaign)

[MATTROSE94]

Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska

This website has state results in every presidential election, including popular vote data back through 1824.  It's under the heading "Elections Results" at the top of the page.

Thanks, although I’d like lists of how well each candidate performed in all 50 states. I find it interesting that in 1988-present, Utah in 2004 is the only time a state voted for anyone by 70% or more.

I don't think this is correct, if you are referring to overall statewide percentage. Mitt Romney in 2012 also got over 70% of the vote in Utah (and did slightly better than Bush!), and Obama received over 70% in Hawaii in both 2008 and 2012.

Donald Trump will probably get 70% or more this time around in West Virginia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, NE-3, and North and South Dakota and will come just shy of 70% in Arkansas and Tennessee.

[Calthrina950]

Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska

This website has state results in every presidential election, including popular vote data back through 1824.  It's under the heading "Elections Results" at the top of the page.

Thanks, although I’d like lists of how well each candidate performed in all 50 states. I find it interesting that in 1988-present, Utah in 2004 is the only time a state voted for anyone by 70% or more.

I don't think this is correct, if you are referring to overall statewide percentage. Mitt Romney in 2012 also got over 70% of the vote in Utah (and did slightly better than Bush!), and Obama received over 70% in Hawaii in both 2008 and 2012.

Donald Trump will probably get 70% or more this time around in West Virginia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, NE-2, and North and South Dakota and will come just shy of 70% in Arkansas and Tennessee.

If Trump were on his way to reelection, and hadn't bungled his response to the pandemic, I could believe this. But I think it is much more likely that Biden reaches Obama 2008 levels in states like Kentucky and Tennessee, and perhaps Obama 2012 levels in the two Dakotas, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Moreover, NE-02 is very competitive according to the polls, and Biden could win it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vermont's Republicans back in the day were often quite conservative both fiscally and culturally* but they also had some moderate liberals.  Like many states where one party predominated, the party had a wide range.

*(there's a difference though between Yankee and Sunbelt cultural conservatism that seems relevant in the case of the Goldwater campaign)

Behind the veneer of ideology these matters become proxies for ethnic and geographic rivalries. In some many cases that underpins so many of the divisions, and the ideology is just papered over that divide.

That is why Coolidge gets over 70% and Goldwater is in the 20s. Remember the distance between Coolidge and Goldwater's performance is the same as between Reagan's and today, 40 years. Goldwater also violated a lot of traditional cultural tropes of the GOP and this is talked about by Kevin Phillips. Though as noted above, he did talk about the declines from 1960 to 1968 in terms of Nixonian strength in traditional Yankee counties.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

In fact, I think there were hints of the Republican decline in New England as a whole as early as 1964, when Goldwater became the first Republican to lose every state in the region (and in the Northeast). Although Vermont, New Hampshire, and other Northeastern states went back to voting Republican in 1968 and thereafter, things were never quite the same in the region after the Johnson landslide. That year, Maine went for Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey was helped by his running mate Edmund Muskie, but it was the first time in living memory that the state had voted Democratic in a nationwide loss for that party. Moreover, Humphrey did better in Massachusetts and Rhode Island then Kennedy had in 1960. I also recall reading in The Emerging Republican Majority that Nixon, although generally still winning them, did worse in "Yankee" rural counties and precincts across the region then in 1960-areas that had been powerfully Republican for generations.

Four years later, in 1972, Vermont, which for over a hundred years had frequently been the most Republican state, was beat out on that score by at least a dozen states in the West and South, and Nixon's performance there was close to his national average. 1976 was the last time Vermont was more Republican than the national average. In 1980, Reagan won it and Maine with only pluralities, with John Anderson winning over many moderate Republicans who thought he was too far to the right. And in 1984, Vermont voted to the left of the national average. Finally, in 1988, Bush won the state by only three points, and Dukakis won some counties that hadn't gone Democratic since Johnson. So the Republican collapse in the state, and the region, during the 1990s was perhaps inevitable, and a culmination of these trends.

Carter was a terrible fit for Vermont, and as a small state the migration of left wing voters from NY really changed Vermont. The Vermont republicans are still there, but they are very traditional moderate republicans hence why they can get elected at the state level.

The Vermont Republicans are moderate because they have been surrounded by Democrats and have needed to adapt, and because the "geographic centre of gravity" of the Republican Party has shifted. They certainly weren't before this kind of things were set in motion in the 1960's.

Vermont was abolitionist very early on, and not culturally conservative or very religious ever. as a small state they were less on the progressive side during the first progressive wave true. but overall Vermont republicans were always less socially conservatives than their peers

I am not expert enough in history on that front but I have the sensation that Vermont was actually pretty religious one time. I was talking more about economic conservatism however, Vermont LOVED Calvin Coolidge and rejected Mr. New Deal four times out of four.

Which is very reasonable for a small state that was neither built on heavy industry or agriculture. Add to that the general dislike of Vermont of southern politicians and the old solid south democrats. FDR won the counties around Burlington which was the only thing close to a proper city there.

Vermont was never a hot bad for evangelical Christianity. Part for the perplexing support for the anti Masonic ticket the history of the state and the Republican Party there was always quite moderate. It also had very low population and a strong affinity to the GOP as an identity which made it inflexible.

The first republican who ran on the right wing platform of post war conservativism in Goldwater was smashed there by a southern democrat

Before WWII, Vermont was a rural, homogenous, die-hard Yankee state with a strong contingent of moralistic Congregationalists. It was naturally culturally conservative. It was only after WWII that the progressive faction of the state GOP became dominant.

It was 1958 and then 1964 that destroyed the "Conservative" faction of the VT GOP.

Kevin Phillips points to UES having a conservative Republican from 1947 to 1959. Vermont likewise has a relatively "conservative" Senator in Ralph Flanders in the same time frame, though he was not excessively so, he was so certainly compared to Winston Prouty or George Aiken.

1946 was really the last gasp for "Yankee Conservatism" in a lot of places. This was really a call back election and there is a reason why it and 1952 looks far more like the results of the 1920s then that of the future majorities in the 1990's. The main reason for this is that it was a low turnout midterm dominated by Lost Generation voters tired of both the war and the New Deal, the terrible economic dislocations (inflation) and so forth. These people were 46 years and older in 1946, by 1958 with lower age expectancy of the period they would have started to dwindle in number just as their Greatest Generation started to hit is stride in terms of voting power.

The is the cultural liberalization of generational change, then there is the birth rate differential relative to ethnics and Catholics and the fact that in New England, there wasn't the voting patterns of middle class conservatism in these groups found in New York and elsewhere, possibly because long standing hostility and longer memories of the Yankee nativism. In a another thread recently, it was pointed out that MA went from 36% Catholic to 48% Catholic in the period about 15 to 20 years as I recall in the lead up to the 1948 elections.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

OK and NH were tied for 5th best. Four years later NH and ID were tied for 2nd best Bush states. This was just before the GOP collapsed in New England.

It’s interesting how sudden the GOP’s collapse in New England was.

NH went against the grain of New England for about 20 years precisely because of white flight from Boston created a large counter trend to the right in Southern New Hampshire and balanced out the effects of Yankee liberalization in the mid 20th century. Democrats made a lot of gains in NH in the 60's only to see them wiped out in the late 70's and early 80's.

[MATTROSE94]

Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska

This website has state results in every presidential election, including popular vote data back through 1824.  It's under the heading "Elections Results" at the top of the page.

Thanks, although I’d like lists of how well each candidate performed in all 50 states. I find it interesting that in 1988-present, Utah in 2004 is the only time a state voted for anyone by 70% or more.

I don't think this is correct, if you are referring to overall statewide percentage. Mitt Romney in 2012 also got over 70% of the vote in Utah (and did slightly better than Bush!), and Obama received over 70% in Hawaii in both 2008 and 2012.

Donald Trump will probably get 70% or more this time around in West Virginia, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, NE-2, and North and South Dakota and will come just shy of 70% in Arkansas and Tennessee.

If Trump were on his way to reelection, and hadn't bungled his response to the pandemic, I could believe this. But I think it is much more likely that Biden reaches Obama 2008 levels in states like Kentucky and Tennessee, and perhaps Obama 2012 levels in the two Dakotas, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Moreover, NE-02 is very competitive according to the polls, and Biden could win it.

I meant to put NE-3 instead of NE-2. NE-2 is definitely competitive and I have it voting for Joe Biden by about 5%. As for the other states, Joe Biden is a very poor fit at best and President Donald Trump still has extremely high approval ratings in all of them (especially in West Virginia, Wyoming, and Arkansas). Also, it is possible that the coronavirus pandemic will depress Democratic turnout in those states, which will enable President Donald Trump to reach ~70% in them.