Vermont going Republican

[redcommander]

What do you think?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Vermont will go Republican when the Republicans win their next 450+ EV landslide.

I have no idea when that will happen, though.

[Psychic Octopus]

Not in the foreseeable future.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Vermont will go Republican when the Republicans win their next 450+ EV landslide.

I have no idea when that will happen, though.

A Republican could easily break 500 EV and still lose Vermont. It was the Democrats 2nd best state each of the last two elections, and it averages to the best state. Hell, even 532 EV for the Republican wouldn't rule out the Democrat winning Vermont (and of course DC).

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Vermont will go Republican when the Republicans win their next 450+ EV landslide.

I have no idea when that will happen, though.

A Republican could easily break 500 EV and still lose Vermont. It was the Democrats 2nd best state each of the last two elections, and it averages to the best state. Hell, even 532 EV for the Republican wouldn't rule out the Democrat winning Vermont (and of course DC).

Well, I don't think Vermont will be the most Democratic/2nd most Democratic state or anything by the time it goes R. That's why I put it at 450 instead of 500. Of course it would need to be far higher right now, but then again right now Vermont would not go Republican in the first place.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Vermont is not a partisan state. If the Republican was the more "progressive" candidate, it would vote Republican.

While the Reagan-era set it on a decidedly Democratic course, Vermont could revert to its old ways if the conditions were right.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Vermont is not a partisan state. If the Republican was the more "progressive" candidate, it would vote Republican.

While the Reagan-era set it on a decidedly Democratic course, Vermont could revert to its old ways if the conditions were right.

Right.

[phk]

Vermont is not a partisan state. If the Republican was the more "progressive" candidate, it would vote Republican.

While the Reagan-era set it on a decidedly Democratic course, Vermont could revert to its old ways if the conditions were right.

Right.

I would say more of a post-Gingrich era.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Vermont is not a partisan state. If the Republican was the more "progressive" candidate, it would vote Republican.

While the Reagan-era set it on a decidedly Democratic course, Vermont could revert to its old ways if the conditions were right.

Right.

Vermont was the only state in the country to swing Democratic in 1980. It also trended Democratic by 17 points, the largest margin in the nation.

Vermont was more Republican than the national average in every election except 1964, until 1980 when it became more Democratic than the national average, where its been ever since.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Massachusetts would rather vote Republican in presidential (which is still not very likely) than Vermont

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

When Republican will become a decent party (thus not before 2030).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Massachusetts would rather vote Republican in presidential (which is still not very likely) than Vermont

No, it wouldn't.

[DS0816]

What do you think?

Vermont voted for the Republicans in their first election, for John Freemont, in 1856 all the way up till 1988. One exception along the way: 1964 winning Democrat Lyndon Johnson.

Vt., along with Utah, was so Republican it backed the disastrous re-election bid, in 1912, of William Howard Taft. It, along with Maine, backed Alf Landon as one of two states Franklin Roosevelt didn't carry in his 1936 re-election (and likewise in any of FDR's four elections!).

The GOP lost the state of Vt. in 1992, and you gotta look to the party's platform, in its past, to get an idea how it can win back Vt. (That is, if the Republicans want to win back Vt.)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The GOP lost the state of Vt. in 1992, and you gotta look to the party's platform, in its past, to get an idea how it can win back Vt. (That is, if the Republicans want to win back Vt.)

They don't.

[Bo]

2024 or beyond. I think that the GOP will win Vermong again only if they either have a massive landslide in this favor, or have a Eisenhower-Nixon-Ford moderate type of Republican as their Presidential nominee.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

2024 or beyond. I think that the GOP will win Vermong again only if they either have a massive landslide in this favor, or have a Eisenhower-Nixon-Ford moderate type of Republican as their Presidential nominee.

This race is now extinct.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

2024 or beyond. I think that the GOP will win Vermong again only if they either have a massive landslide in this favor, or have a Eisenhower-Nixon-Ford moderate type of Republican as their Presidential nominee.

This race is now extinct.

No it isn't. Politics isn't static.

[Verily]

The GOP lost the state of Vt. in 1992, and you gotta look to the party's platform, in its past, to get an idea how it can win back Vt. (That is, if the Republicans want to win back Vt.)

They don't.

/Thread over.

The Republicans will never win Vermont so long as they are identified as the Republicans we have today. That is not to say that they could not win Vermont at some point in the far future, but that victory would involve a party system so changed from the current one that it might as well not be the Republicans winning Vermont at all, much like the Democrats of 1865-1920 were essentially a different political party from the Democrats of today.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The GOP lost the state of Vt. in 1992, and you gotta look to the party's platform, in its past, to get an idea how it can win back Vt. (That is, if the Republicans want to win back Vt.)

They don't.

/Thread over.

The Republicans will never win Vermont so long as they are identified as the Republicans we have today. That is not to say that they could not win Vermont at some point in the far future, but that victory would involve a party system so changed from the current one that it might as well not be the Republicans winning Vermont at all, much like the Democrats of 1865-1920 were essentially a different political party from the Democrats of today.

Well on one hand, its understandable for the GOP not to make a fuss over Vermont and it's 3 electoral votes, which aren't likely to be deciding an election anytime soon. Still the Republican Party's loss of their "star that never set" is indicative of a much larger shift against what the Republicans have become.

As an aside, what big change happened to the Democratic Party in 1920?

[Verily]

The GOP lost the state of Vt. in 1992, and you gotta look to the party's platform, in its past, to get an idea how it can win back Vt. (That is, if the Republicans want to win back Vt.)

They don't.

/Thread over.

The Republicans will never win Vermont so long as they are identified as the Republicans we have today. That is not to say that they could not win Vermont at some point in the far future, but that victory would involve a party system so changed from the current one that it might as well not be the Republicans winning Vermont at all, much like the Democrats of 1865-1920 were essentially a different political party from the Democrats of today.

Well on one hand, its understandable for the GOP not to make a fuss over Vermont and it's 3 electoral votes, which aren't likely to be deciding an election anytime soon. Still the Republican Party's loss of their "star that never set" is indicative of a much larger shift against what the Republicans have become.

As an aside, what big change happened to the Democratic Party in 1920?

1920 is a good marker for when the Democrats began to seriously appeal to the urban working class outside of a few historic ethnic strongholds. Not perfect, of course, but it's a general marker. Basically, around 1920 or so is when there started to be some overlap between the constituencies and ideologies of the modern Democratic Party and the historical Democratic Party. 1928 is probably a better marker, since that's when the La Follette Progressives started voting Democratic.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The GOP lost the state of Vt. in 1992, and you gotta look to the party's platform, in its past, to get an idea how it can win back Vt. (That is, if the Republicans want to win back Vt.)

They don't.

/Thread over.

The Republicans will never win Vermont so long as they are identified as the Republicans we have today. That is not to say that they could not win Vermont at some point in the far future, but that victory would involve a party system so changed from the current one that it might as well not be the Republicans winning Vermont at all, much like the Democrats of 1865-1920 were essentially a different political party from the Democrats of today.

Well on one hand, its understandable for the GOP not to make a fuss over Vermont and it's 3 electoral votes, which aren't likely to be deciding an election anytime soon. Still the Republican Party's loss of their "star that never set" is indicative of a much larger shift against what the Republicans have become.

As an aside, what big change happened to the Democratic Party in 1920?

1920 is a good marker for when the Democrats began to seriously appeal to the urban working class outside of a few historic ethnic strongholds and also to the Scandinavians of the Upper Midwest. Not perfect, of course, but it's a general marker. Basically, around 1920 or so is when there started to be some overlap between the constituencies and ideologies of the modern Democratic Party and the historical Democratic Party.

Cox-Roosevelt in 1920 didn't win a single state outside the South, and even then didn't hold onto the Solid South, losing Tennessee, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Harding broke 70% throughout the Upper Midwest (and in Vermont of course), and the mid-60s throughout the Northeast and West.

Then in 1924, the Democrats nominated an old-fashioned racist West Virginian who opposed civil rights, who also went down in a landslide.

The Republicans carried New York City and Chicago in 1920 and 1924.

I think you're off probably by at least 8 years.

[Verily]

I wasn't using that particular Presidential election; it certainly wasn't a game-changing one. Between 1908 and 1932 is a general time period when the Democratic Party was in flux; 1920 was, like I said, nothing more than an estimated date of the change (when it reality the change itself spanned a couple of decades).

Similarly, Reagan won Vermont in a landslide in 1980 even though the seeds of the Republicans' utter defeat in the state had already been sown.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Oh, another thing (thanks Libertas): The Republicans won't win Vermont if they don't try, but then again there's no point in doing so when it's not really a competitive state, but also, more importantly, when there are only 3 electoral votes to be won.

[Mjh]

Oh, another thing (thanks Libertas): The Republicans won't win Vermont if they don't try, but then again there's no point in doing so when it's not really a competitive state, but also, more importantly, when there are only 3 electoral votes to be won.

Indeed.
Trading away Vermont for the South is whats called tradin up. Let the Democrats keep Vermont.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh, another thing (thanks Libertas): The Republicans won't win Vermont if they don't try, but then again there's no point in doing so when it's not really a competitive state, but also, more importantly, when there are only 3 electoral votes to be won.

Indeed.
Trading away Vermont for the South is whats called tradin up. Let the Democrats keep Vermont.

You mean trading away the Northeast, the Upper Midwest, the Pacific Coast, and now even the peripheral South. Yep, trading up for sure.