Vermont going Republican

[Guderian]

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 trended Democratic (in relative terms, since Carter went from 43% to 38% but the gap was smaller in 1980) because Anderson was on the ballot. Without him, Reagan probably wins about 54% like Ford did. And of course in 1984 Reagan did better in Vermont than Ford  or even Nixon in 1968. It's asinine to blame Reagan for GOP modern electoral troubles when the man was quite opposite, the most efficient vote-getter in American politics, excluding FDR.  

Also, some of the ideas on this topic really baffle me, it's like people here don't even follow politics. Republicans won't win Vermont again when they compromise every principle and nominate the biggest moderate in the party. This type of opportunism and pandering almost never works in politics. One might actually say that a certain moderate Republican just won 30% of the Vermont vote recently. Republicans will win Vermont again when they find someone who can identify elements of core Republican platform around which a strong national coalition can be built, much like Reagan did. Of course, those elements might be missing right now. Good thing Vermont's 3 electoral votes are hardly essential for winning the elections.

[Vepres]

If they weren't so angry and socially conservative, it would probably only be +10 Dem. A lot, but far better than the status quo.

[redcommander]

I think a good start for Republicans would be to get Brian Dubie elected Governor of Vermont in November, and work towards winning some state offices and pick up seats in the state legislature. I wouldn't call the state solidly Democrat but more that it has been turned off by the Republican National leadership since the early 90's. For a Republican to win they would need to tap into the Political independence and Libertarian streak of Vermont voters. It would have nothing to do with the life issue or Gay marriage. Someone like Ron Paul could make the state go Republican again.

[Sasquatch]

Vermont is to Republicans what West Virginia is to Democrats.


Old reliable's no more, hell Vermont isn't even close at all anymore. At least with West Virginia a certain type of Democrat could make it competive. With Vermont the GOP have no hope.

[Conservative frontier]

When hell freezes over.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

When hell freezes over.

[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.

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

Didn't people say the exact same thing about the Democrats after Bush-Kerry?
Many politicos thought the Democrats were permanently confined to their redoubts in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. They were proved wrong, just as I guess your prediction will be proved wrong in november this year.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Vermont is to Republicans what West Virginia is to Democrats.


Old reliable's no more, hell Vermont isn't even close at all anymore. At least with West Virginia a certain type of Democrat could make it competive. With Vermont the GOP have no hope.

Vermont has much stronger historical Republican roots than West Virginia has Democratic roots.

[DS0816]

Vermont is to Republicans what West Virginia is to Democrats.


Old reliable's no more, hell Vermont isn't even close at all anymore. At least with West Virginia a certain type of Democrat could make it competive. With Vermont the GOP have no hope.

I wouldn't use West Virginia as a comparable; I'd single out Alabama.

[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.

Didn't people say the exact same thing about the Democrats after Bush-Kerry?
Many politicos thought the Democrats were permanently confined to their redoubts in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. They were proved wrong, just as I guess your prediction will be proved wrong in november this year.

Well those people were stupid and wrong. Dubya barely won his two elections.

[Sasquatch]

Vermont is to Republicans what West Virginia is to Democrats.


Old reliable's no more, hell Vermont isn't even close at all anymore. At least with West Virginia a certain type of Democrat could make it competive. With Vermont the GOP have no hope.

I wouldn't use West Virginia as a comparable; I'd single out Alabama.

Alabama was basically lost to Democrats in the 1960's. West Virginia is a more recent example.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Vermont is to Republicans what West Virginia is to Democrats.


Old reliable's no more, hell Vermont isn't even close at all anymore. At least with West Virginia a certain type of Democrat could make it competive. With Vermont the GOP have no hope.

I wouldn't use West Virginia as a comparable; I'd single out Alabama.

Alabama was basically lost to Democrats in the 1960's. West Virginia is a more recent example.

Carter won Alabama in 1976.

There really is no comparison to Vermont. Remember that from the founding of the Republican Party and the first ticket it fielded in 1856, until 1992, the state voted Republican every single time except for the Johnson 64 landslide.

[rebeltarian]

http://www.davegentile.com/philosophy/Vermont.html

FYI, check out the above link for an interesting summary of Vermont's presidential voting history.  The author gives a fairy accurate, unbiased synopsis of state history, concluding that Vermont is a Left libertarian state that champions individual thought and despises purely democratic politics (not excluding popular vote), authoritarianism/militarism and is decidedly anti-Southern.  In other words, Vermont is a zany little state of slanty intellectual rebels who just want to live-and-let-live.  So, if the Republicans can dig up a whacky/boy-genious/outlaw/hippie/northerner type of candidate, they might have a chance, but if they keep nominating hard-ass/american-speaking/cowboy/regular-guy/heartlander types, they're screwed.

[DariusNJ]

http://www.davegentile.com/philosophy/Vermont.html

 So, if the Republicans can dig up a whacky/boy-genious/outlaw/hippie/northerner type of candidate, they might have a chance, but if they keep nominating hard-ass/american-speaking/cowboy/regular-guy/heartlander types, they're screwed.

Very true.

Also, Obama in 2008 was almost the perfect candidate for Vermont. You can tell by looking at some of the results. Essex County, which voted for Bush by 15 points in 2000, and 14 points in 2004, voted for Obama by 15 points in 08! I mention this because it seems as though all these threads about Vermont being so Democratic were made after the 08 election results.

To be honest, if Obama continues to govern the way he has (centrist), and manages to win by a 53-46 margin in 2012, he would not win Vermont by 37 points again.

[Cassius Dio]

When hell freezes over.

My answer to the question.

Vermont will stay with the Democrats for a very, very long time.

[Хahar 🤔]

http://www.davegentile.com/philosophy/Vermont.html

FYI, check out the above link for an interesting summary of Vermont's presidential voting history.  The author gives a fairy accurate, unbiased synopsis of state history, concluding that Vermont is a Left libertarian state that champions individual thought and despises purely democratic politics (not excluding popular vote), authoritarianism/militarism and is decidedly anti-Southern.  In other words, Vermont is a zany little state of slanty intellectual rebels who just want to live-and-let-live.  So, if the Republicans can dig up a whacky/boy-genious/outlaw/hippie/northerner type of candidate, they might have a chance, but if they keep nominating hard-ass/american-speaking/cowboy/regular-guy/heartlander types, they're screwed.

It's not libertarian. No place is libertarian.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

http://www.davegentile.com/philosophy/Vermont.html

FYI, check out the above link for an interesting summary of Vermont's presidential voting history.  The author gives a fairy accurate, unbiased synopsis of state history, concluding that Vermont is a Left libertarian state that champions individual thought and despises purely democratic politics (not excluding popular vote), authoritarianism/militarism and is decidedly anti-Southern.  In other words, Vermont is a zany little state of slanty intellectual rebels who just want to live-and-let-live.  So, if the Republicans can dig up a whacky/boy-genious/outlaw/hippie/northerner type of candidate, they might have a chance, but if they keep nominating hard-ass/american-speaking/cowboy/regular-guy/heartlander types, they're screwed.

It's not libertarian. No place is libertarian.

Well obviously a place can't be libertarian, or liberal, or conservative, or socialist, or fascist. I believe most of us in the thread are talking about the people who live in the place.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually a place can be any of those things, so long as we accept that the human element is critical in defining place. But no place is 'libertarian' for the same reason that no place is Trotskyist.

[Хahar 🤔]

Actually a place can be any of those things, so long as we accept that the human element is critical in defining place. But no place is 'libertarian' for the same reason that no place is Trotskyist.

Al, has an openly Trotskyist party/candidate ever finished in first place in a sizable area at an election?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually a place can be any of those things, so long as we accept that the human element is critical in defining place. But no place is 'libertarian' for the same reason that no place is Trotskyist.

Al, has an openly Trotskyist party/candidate ever finished in first place in a sizable area at an election?

As far as I know, that depends on how you define some of those words. Militant (for example) had a couple of MPs between 1983 and 1992, but all were elected as official Labour candidates (as part of the entryist strategy), though none would have exactly denied being a Trot.

[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.

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

Didn't people say the exact same thing about the Democrats after Bush-Kerry?
Many politicos thought the Democrats were permanently confined to their redoubts in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. They were proved wrong, just as I guess your prediction will be proved wrong in november this year.

Well those people were stupid and wrong. Dubya barely won his two elections.

He didn't have any trouble beating Kerry.

[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.

Didn't people say the exact same thing about the Democrats after Bush-Kerry?
Many politicos thought the Democrats were permanently confined to their redoubts in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. They were proved wrong, just as I guess your prediction will be proved wrong in november this year.

Well those people were stupid and wrong. Dubya barely won his two elections.

He didn't have any trouble beating Kerry.

It was still a very narrow election in which the flipping of one state could have delivered the election to Kerry.

[DS0816]

Vermont is to Republicans what West Virginia is to Democrats.


Old reliable's no more, hell Vermont isn't even close at all anymore. At least with West Virginia a certain type of Democrat could make it competive. With Vermont the GOP have no hope.

I wouldn't use West Virginia as a comparable; I'd single out Alabama.

Alabama was basically lost to Democrats in the 1960's. West Virginia is a more recent example.

W.Va. would've carried for Hillary Clinton. In 2004, John Kerry won 43% each of male and female voters. In an election some felt Clinton would've run up the Electoral College more than Barack Obama (also reflective of the national shift in the 2004/2008 U.S. popular vote), Obama's 11 electoral votes in winning Indiana represents what would've been Clinton's in  Arkansas (6) and West Virginia (5)—two states routinely carried by prevailing Democrats. (Obama became the first not to have Ark. in his column. He's the second not to have carried W.Va.) In Ark., 2004 Kerry won females 49%. He lost them by only one point. So if she were to win 10 percent more Ark. females (final result was Obama lost them by an additional 10 percent), she would've won them approximately 20 points over John McCain. The gap would've been closing with Ark. males (Kerry had them at 40%; Obama garnered the same percent). Even if men didn't move more to Hillary (due to her ties to the state, more than likely they would've), it would have been enough to flip Ark. More than likely she would've seen men shift three to five points toward her in W.Va. (Kerry had 42% of them). And with a shifting of 10 percent the 43% carried by Kerry in W.Va. (I think Hillary would've won W.Va. females comparable to Ark.), that state would've flipped for Clinton.

My point: Don't write off W.Va. for the Democrats.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Vermont is to Republicans what West Virginia is to Democrats.


Old reliable's no more, hell Vermont isn't even close at all anymore. At least with West Virginia a certain type of Democrat could make it competive. With Vermont the GOP have no hope.

I wouldn't use West Virginia as a comparable; I'd single out Alabama.

Alabama was basically lost to Democrats in the 1960's. West Virginia is a more recent example.

W.Va. would've carried for Hillary Clinton. In 2004, John Kerry won 43% each of male and female voters. In an election some felt Clinton would've run up the Electoral College more than Barack Obama (also reflective of the national shift in the 2004/2008 U.S. popular vote), Obama's 11 electoral votes in winning Indiana represents what would've been Clinton's in  Arkansas (6) and West Virginia (5)—two states routinely carried by prevailing Democrats. (Obama became the first not to have Ark. in his column. He's the second not to have carried W.Va.) In Ark., 2004 Kerry won females 49%. He lost them by only one point. So if she were to win 10 percent more Ark. females (final result was Obama lost them by an additional 10 percent), she would've won them approximately 20 points over John McCain. The gap would've been closing with Ark. males (Kerry had them at 40%; Obama garnered the same percent). Even if men didn't move more to Hillary (due to her ties to the state, more than likely they would've), it would have been enough to flip Ark. More than likely she would've seen men shift three to five points toward her in W.Va. (Kerry had 42% of them). And with a shifting of 10 percent the 43% carried by Kerry in W.Va. (I think Hillary would've won W.Va. females comparable to Ark.), that state would've flipped for Clinton.

My point: Don't write off W.Va. for the Democrats.

And don't write off VT for the Republicans.

[rebeltarian]

Interesting, another article indicating that Vermont may be alot less partisan than most people think it is...http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=12020363