What happened to West Virginia and Virginia

[Rockefeller GOP]

The states haven't changed, the parties have. 

Republicans used to resonate with to educated, cosmopolitan voters in Fairfax and Henrico Counties.  Now they don't. 

Democrats used to resonate with the hard-working, conservative voters in West Virginia mining towns.  Now they don't. 

That's a little simplistic ... The Republican and Democratic Parties are functionally the same as they were in 2004, and the post above yours does a good job of explaining how at least VA has changed pretty significantly.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Ever since democrats adopted environmentalism and carbon reduction as a platform back in 2000 to convince nader voters to come back. West Virginia hasn't voted democrat since.

http://www.cbsnews.com/campaign2000results/state/poll_wvop-.html

Union members which were mostly that of the coal workers, went from strongly democrat for many generations,  to 50/50 between Gore and Bush and have voted more and more republican.


Meanwhile in Virginia. There was a military personal/defense contracting jobs boom in Virginia during the Iraq war which was paid by the government. That many were thankful for, which was why counties like Loudon, Prince William county. And in Hampton roads, Suffolk, Chesapeake county. Went for Bush again in 2004. While a lot of states were not doing well in the early-mid 2000's. Virginia was an exception since those jobs and the runoff demand created by those jobs allowed the state to rebound. So by 2008 and 2012, once republicans rediscovered their fondness for reducing government spending. A lot of people who were employed because of the war and didn't want to see their jobs gone, quickly switched to the democrats.

Also add that with the huge increase in turnout by blacks and hispanics in the state. Virginia switched.

John Kerry was the first Democrat since LBJ (IIRC) to win Fairfax county and that was long before Republicans decided to embrace again fiscal conservatism.

Uh, when exactly were the Republicans not embracing fiscal conservatism, at least in campaign rhetoric ?

[Rockefeller GOP]

Ever since democrats adopted environmentalism and carbon reduction as a platform back in 2000 to convince nader voters to come back. West Virginia hasn't voted democrat since.

http://www.cbsnews.com/campaign2000results/state/poll_wvop-.html

Union members which were mostly that of the coal workers, went from strongly democrat for many generations,  to 50/50 between Gore and Bush and have voted more and more republican.


Meanwhile in Virginia. There was a military personal/defense contracting jobs boom in Virginia during the Iraq war which was paid by the government. That many were thankful for, which was why counties like Loudon, Prince William county. And in Hampton roads, Suffolk, Chesapeake county. Went for Bush again in 2004. While a lot of states were not doing well in the early-mid 2000's. Virginia was an exception since those jobs and the runoff demand created by those jobs allowed the state to rebound. So by 2008 and 2012, once republicans rediscovered their fondness for reducing government spending. A lot of people who were employed because of the war and didn't want to see their jobs gone, quickly switched to the democrats.

Also add that with the huge increase in turnout by blacks and hispanics in the state. Virginia switched.

John Kerry was the first Democrat since LBJ (IIRC) to win Fairfax county and that was long before Republicans decided to embrace again fiscal conservatism.

Uh, when exactly were the Republicans not embracing fiscal conservatism, at least in campaign rhetoric ?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GCEC96


They had a majority in congress from 2000-2006, majority in senate 2003-2006. But spending kept increasing. A lot of it had to do with the iraq war.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDEFX

Right, but they've never not CAMPAIGNED on it.  It's been decades, I'd argue a century and a half, that the GOP has at the very least advertised itself as a pro-business party that will run our budget more efficiently than the Democrats.  Now, as you've pointed out, that's sometimes been a hollow promise, but their message to voters in NOVA is not remarkably different than it was in 2000.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Also, areas becoming more educated/cosmopolitan doesn't necessarily mean they will start voting Dem because of partisan realignment.   While the GOP is attracting a lot more downscale voters, Romney is hardly someone who would've scared away the traditional high-class GOP voters.  The underlying trends have more to do with gov't funding and immigration, IMO.  

Most of the trending Dem areas like NoVA are becoming much more diverse, though some whites are jumping to the Democrats as well because of cultural issues.  Of course, there are plenty of well-educated, wealthy born-again Christians, a hyper-GOP demographic, in the South, Interior West, and Midwest (Cincinnati, Houston, Milwaukee, Montgomery, Indianapolis 'burbs are all good examples)  Whether they're cosmopolitan or not is really more of a question of definition more than anything.  I consider them so, but I'm sure others would disagree.       

Some places, like the Research Triangle, trend liberal because government grants are a huge part of scientific research.  As long as the GOP remains more conservative on fiscal issues, non-military public sector employees, whether they be teachers or researchers, will tend to be Democrats (barring social conservatism).  NoVA is also changing because of this.  

Exactly.  People WAY too often look at trends with the mindset of "Area X voted Republican in 2000.  Area X now votes Democrat. --> The parties changed drastically."  Just as 2015 Arkansas is not the same state that elected Clinton to the governorship and Vermont is not the same state today that voted for Reagan twice, NOVA is not the same place it was even ten years ago.

[Rockefeller GOP]

It's pretty hard to argue that race had nothing to do with the South switching to the Republican party during Reagan's two terms.

Maybe, but it's pretty clear it's not the main reason.  Southerners had no problem being loyal Democrats for decades, being in a party that was unapologetically the party of Northern Blacks.  It's also pretty hard to argue that the DNC didn't get a lot more socially liberal, or at least less welcoming of social conservatives.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Opposing slavery is strictly left wing.  Everybody knows this!

*prepares self for "for its time* argument, which makes no sense.