Vermont

[mileslunn]

Vermont is the whitest state in the union, one of the least urbanized yet it is the bluest of the lower 48 excluding DC.  Why is this?  I understand why it would go Democrat but the size of the margin seems quite big and it is not as though it is a poor state either.  In Britain and Canada the areas that go heavily for parties on the left that are overwhelmingly white and rural tend to be quite poor, not near or above the national average income.  If it were like Maine or New Hampshire where the GOP gets over 40% that would at least make some sense.  And also Vermont used to be one of the safest GOP states so is it more of anti-Southern state, otherwise it goes against whichever party dominates the South.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I doubt it has anything to do with the South.  Vermont is a state that favors small businesses (the only large employer I can think of is IBM in Burlington; I assume that Ben&Jerry is also a large employer but they're a local company).  Places where small businesses can flourish seem to be more liberal because they have more of a personality (as opposed to places where everyone shops at Walmart and eats at MacDonalds). 

It's also a very liberal place culturally, with artist-colonies and many neo-hippies, who enjoy their weed in public.  It's also quite secular and I think proximity to Quebec has played a role in their acceptance of different cultures (you can for example listen to Quebec radio stations in Vermont).

I don't think Vermont is as liberal as many believe it is, but I guess in national elections people realize how far to the right the GOP is.

[mileslunn]

I doubt it has anything to do with the South.  Vermont is a state that favors small businesses (the only large employer I can think of is IBM in Burlington; I assume that Ben&Jerry is also a large employer but they're a local company).  Places where small businesses can flourish seem to be more liberal because they have more of a personality (as opposed to places where everyone shops at Walmart and eats at MacDonalds). 

It's also a very liberal place culturally, with artist-colonies and many neo-hippies, who enjoy their weed in public.  It's also quite secular and I think proximity to Quebec has played a role in their acceptance of different cultures (you can for example listen to Quebec radio stations in Vermont).

I don't think Vermont is as liberal as many believe it is, but I guess in national elections people realize how far to the right the GOP is.

I would have thought small business owners would be more likely to support the GOP as generally excessive regulation and high taxes hurts them more due to low profit, although I do see the lack of some multinationals may be more a reflection of the liberal attitude rather than what creates it.  The Quebec proximity is an interesting one, certainly in New York the areas near the Quebec border are more Democrat, but you don't see that in New Hampshire or Maine, in fact in Maine the areas near the Quebec border are more competitive then areas further south.  Likewise Democrat support is pretty solid even in the southern sections.

It is odd though that Vermont is the whitest state and Obama's second best if you exclude DC which is kind of ironic as white voters are who he did worst amongst.  And the fact it votes GOP at state or local levels albeit more moderate ones is also a sign of the GOP's rightward drift nationally hurting them here.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Small business owners in general are more Republican as polls have shown, but what I meant was that places where small businesses have an easier time surviving due to the lack of multinationals tend to be more liberal.

Also, Vermont is a lot closer to Montreal (the cultural and population center of Quebec) than NH or ME.  People from Burlington who want to do something fun in the weekend go to Montreal, and a lot of people from Quebec visit Vermont during the summer.  I'm not saying this is a major reason why Vermont is liberal, but it plays a role along with a lot of other things.

[RBH]

seeing as Romney won 2 towns in Vermont, i'd guess that there isn't a single state house district where Romney topped 45%

[mileslunn]

Have the Republicans ever done worse than this?  Considering this state went Republican in all but one election from 1857-1992, I suspect this is the worse they have ever done.  Mind you in West Virginia, it is probably the only time the GOP has swept the state as I believe the Democrats have always won at least one county there.  If you look on a municipal basis, Romney may have won at least one municipality in every state as he won several in Massachusetts, won Scutiate in Rhode Island and probably won the island of Niihau in Hawaii.

[MaxQue]

Have the Republicans ever done worse than this?  Considering this state went Republican in all but one election from 1857-1992, I suspect this is the worse they have ever done.  Mind you in West Virginia, it is probably the only time the GOP has swept the state as I believe the Democrats have always won at least one county there.  If you look on a municipal basis, Romney may have won at least one municipality in every state as he won several in Massachusetts, won Scutiate in Rhode Island and probably won the island of Niihau in Hawaii.

Obama won Niihau, 29 votes to 27 (Johnson 3, Stein 2), according to the Hawaii SOP.

EDIT: Romney won two precincts in the entire state, 45-03, 16 votes to 10, 47-03, by 670 votes. But does it is a municipality?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Have the Republicans ever done worse than this?  Considering this state went Republican in all but one election from 1857-1992, I suspect this is the worse they have ever done.  Mind you in West Virginia, it is probably the only time the GOP has swept the state as I believe the Democrats have always won at least one county there.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans swept West Virginia in 1864 and maybe 1868.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Have the Republicans ever done worse than this?  Considering this state went Republican in all but one election from 1857-1992, I suspect this is the worse they have ever done.  Mind you in West Virginia, it is probably the only time the GOP has swept the state as I believe the Democrats have always won at least one county there.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans swept West Virginia in 1864 and maybe 1868.

McClellan won one county in 64, and I believe Seymour won a couple in 68.

[bedstuy]

Religion has a lot to do with it.  Vermont has the lowest church attendance of any state in the country.  Democrats have won non-believers by large margins in recent elections.  The people who do attend church are generally members of mainline denominations which skew Democrat compared to evangelical or non-denominational Christian churches. 

USA, ~16% of people are religiously non-affiliated, Vermont: ~34% religiously non-affiliated
USA, ~26% evangelical, Vermont: ~2%.

What if the USA had these religious demographics?   
Quick dirty math:  Obama won 7/10 non-affiliated voters, Obama won 2/10 evangelicals, Obama won almost 6/10 of everyone else.  Assuming that holds true,  if the electorate had the same religious affiliation as Vermont, Obama would have won the popular vote with over 60%.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This is ironic since Vermont has had only one Democratic Senator only voted Democratic for president once prior to 1992 (in 1964).  They also had 108 straight years of Republican governors, from 1855 until 1963.  It's also ironic because much of New England's history dates back to religious, churchgoing Christians.  Vermont was one of the most Republican-leaning states in the country for many years, and sadly, it is now one of the most Democrat-leaning.  How I wish it had stuck to its heritage! 
I think it has more to do with the fact that Vermont is one of America's most liberal states than an anti-Southern bias.  And don't forget that it has elected some Republicans at the state level recently (like Jim Douglas for four terms before Shumlim became governor, or their current Lieutenant Governor.)

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It's a very progressive state and always has been.  Very, very liberal attitudes up there.  When the Democrats still struck the electorate as more "traditional", they lost Vermont by large margins every time.  Sure, Nixon had the 1968 Southern strategy, but the Democrats had not taken that turn into the "progressive" choice in America.  (Actually, Vermont was right around McGovern's national numbers in 1972 after a century-plus of voting WAY more Republican than the nation as a whole, and he was a progressive)

The evangelical Carter wasn't going to facilitate the switch.  But Mondale got VT to the nat'l average in 1984, it was D+2 in 1988, and it was al downhill for the GOP in VT from there as the GOP continued to drift rightward and the Dems realized that the liberals and progressives could be incorporated into their coalition. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's a very progressive state and always has been.  Very, very liberal attitudes up there.  When the Democrats still struck the electorate as more "traditional", they lost Vermont by large margins every time.  Sure, Nixon had the 1968 Southern strategy, but the Democrats had not taken that turn into the "progressive" choice in America.  (Actually, Vermont was right around McGovern's national numbers in 1972 after a century-plus of voting WAY more Republican than the nation as a whole, and he was a progressive)

The evangelical Carter wasn't going to facilitate the switch.  But Mondale got VT to the nat'l average in 1984, it was D+2 in 1988, and it was al downhill for the GOP in VT from there as the GOP continued to drift rightward and the Dems realized that the liberals and progressives could be incorporated into their coalition. 

This doesn't really capture it, though--think the Proctor dynasty or Ralph Flanders. Nothing very progressive about that sort.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It's a very progressive state and always has been.  Very, very liberal attitudes up there.  When the Democrats still struck the electorate as more "traditional", they lost Vermont by large margins every time.  Sure, Nixon had the 1968 Southern strategy, but the Democrats had not taken that turn into the "progressive" choice in America.  (Actually, Vermont was right around McGovern's national numbers in 1972 after a century-plus of voting WAY more Republican than the nation as a whole, and he was a progressive)

The evangelical Carter wasn't going to facilitate the switch.  But Mondale got VT to the nat'l average in 1984, it was D+2 in 1988, and it was al downhill for the GOP in VT from there as the GOP continued to drift rightward and the Dems realized that the liberals and progressives could be incorporated into their coalition. 

This doesn't really capture it, though--think the Proctor dynasty or Ralph Flanders. Nothing very progressive about that sort.

Well of course you get some habitual voting and recent Southern New England transplants.  I tend to think Vermont was always a place where they prefer the government stay out of your business and, for whatever reason, they don't interpret taxes and healthcare mandate as too much of an intrusion... but those social issues and things like the Patriot Act cross the line. 

And reading up on Flanders... I don't see anything so out there (for his time) in his platform that would dissuade Vermonters from voting like they had for over a century.  He was vehemently opposed to Communism, an ideology that in the 50s was tied to government control and totalitarianism, which goes to my point that Vermonters like the government to stay away unless it comes to practical matters like taxes and healthcare. 

[justfollowingtheelections]

It's a very progressive state and always has been.  Very, very liberal attitudes up there.  When the Democrats still struck the electorate as more "traditional", they lost Vermont by large margins every time.  Sure, Nixon had the 1968 Southern strategy, but the Democrats had not taken that turn into the "progressive" choice in America.  (Actually, Vermont was right around McGovern's national numbers in 1972 after a century-plus of voting WAY more Republican than the nation as a whole, and he was a progressive)

The evangelical Carter wasn't going to facilitate the switch.  But Mondale got VT to the nat'l average in 1984, it was D+2 in 1988, and it was al downhill for the GOP in VT from there as the GOP continued to drift rightward and the Dems realized that the liberals and progressives could be incorporated into their coalition. 

This doesn't really capture it, though--think the Proctor dynasty or Ralph Flanders. Nothing very progressive about that sort.

Well of course you get some habitual voting and recent Southern New England transplants.  I tend to think Vermont was always a place where they prefer the government stay out of your business and, for whatever reason, they don't interpret taxes and healthcare mandate as too much of an intrusion... but those social issues and things like the Patriot Act cross the line. 

And reading up on Flanders... I don't see anything so out there (for his time) in his platform that would dissuade Vermonters from voting like they had for over a century.  He was vehemently opposed to Communism, an ideology that in the 50s was tied to government control and totalitarianism, which goes to my point that Vermonters like the government to stay away unless it comes to practical matters like taxes and healthcare. 

One of the reasons taxes are not an issue is because there isn't much income inequality.  As for healthcare, I'm not sure why anyone would consider it an intrusion.  I was happy to read the other day that Shumlin will do everything he can to bring universal healthcare to Vermont.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It's a very progressive state and always has been.  Very, very liberal attitudes up there.  When the Democrats still struck the electorate as more "traditional", they lost Vermont by large margins every time.  Sure, Nixon had the 1968 Southern strategy, but the Democrats had not taken that turn into the "progressive" choice in America.  (Actually, Vermont was right around McGovern's national numbers in 1972 after a century-plus of voting WAY more Republican than the nation as a whole, and he was a progressive)

The evangelical Carter wasn't going to facilitate the switch.  But Mondale got VT to the nat'l average in 1984, it was D+2 in 1988, and it was al downhill for the GOP in VT from there as the GOP continued to drift rightward and the Dems realized that the liberals and progressives could be incorporated into their coalition. 

This doesn't really capture it, though--think the Proctor dynasty or Ralph Flanders. Nothing very progressive about that sort.

Well of course you get some habitual voting and recent Southern New England transplants.  I tend to think Vermont was always a place where they prefer the government stay out of your business and, for whatever reason, they don't interpret taxes and healthcare mandate as too much of an intrusion... but those social issues and things like the Patriot Act cross the line. 

And reading up on Flanders... I don't see anything so out there (for his time) in his platform that would dissuade Vermonters from voting like they had for over a century.  He was vehemently opposed to Communism, an ideology that in the 50s was tied to government control and totalitarianism, which goes to my point that Vermonters like the government to stay away unless it comes to practical matters like taxes and healthcare. 

One of the reasons taxes are not an issue is because there isn't much income inequality.  As for healthcare, I'm not sure why anyone would consider it an intrusion.  I was happy to read the other day that Shumlin will do everything he can to bring universal healthcare to Vermont.

It intrusion in the sense that it's government mandated as opposed to a free market approach to healthcare.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's a very progressive state and always has been.  Very, very liberal attitudes up there.  When the Democrats still struck the electorate as more "traditional", they lost Vermont by large margins every time.  Sure, Nixon had the 1968 Southern strategy, but the Democrats had not taken that turn into the "progressive" choice in America.  (Actually, Vermont was right around McGovern's national numbers in 1972 after a century-plus of voting WAY more Republican than the nation as a whole, and he was a progressive)

The evangelical Carter wasn't going to facilitate the switch.  But Mondale got VT to the nat'l average in 1984, it was D+2 in 1988, and it was al downhill for the GOP in VT from there as the GOP continued to drift rightward and the Dems realized that the liberals and progressives could be incorporated into their coalition.  

I believe in traditional values, and I would have in the 60s, but I wouldn't have gone along with "traditional values" when I thought they were wrong.

[hopper]

I thought about this yesterday. Are the NY transplants that move to VT are exclusively from NYC? Even New York State(with the city factored in votes) the whites are in the Toss-Up/Tilt D category. Vermont is politically like Canada now. VT is to the left of Massachusetts now(D+16 vs D+10) in 2008-2012 Presidential PVI.

[barfbag]

Here are the recent trends in Vermont.

1952 R+10
1956 R+32
1960 R+18
1964 D+6
1968 R+9
1972 R+3
1976 R+13
1980 D+4
1984 D+1
1988 D+4
1992 D+10
1996 D+14
2000 D+9       for some reason Bush did very well in northern New England
2004 D+23
2008 D+31
2012 D+32

[hopper]

Vermont actually has swung with the rest of the country the past 2 elections from the most part. The country swung 10 points to the left in from 2004 to 2008 while Vermont moved around 9 points to the left. In 2012 the Country swung  3 points to the right while Vermont swung 1 point to the right. Vermont drastic wing to the left took place for the most from 1992-2004(with the exception of 2000 when Bush W. lost the state by 10% to Gore because of Vermont voting for Nader other than Bush W. or Gore.

In 1984 Vermont did actually have results that were close to the actual popular vote that year and in 1988 it was a couple points to the left or Dem than the rest of the country.

[Hnv1]

2000 D+9       for some reason Bush did very well in northern New England

2000 had Nader which took lots of D voters in New England.

I actually questioned this once and as I understood with its small population the influx of new comers from Mass. and Upstate NY with their Liberal positions tilted that the political map drastically. Lots of old guard Vermontees remained republican (in a moderate sense of the word) but they were just overwhelmed with Liberal outsiders and locals who swayed to the left with them. I assume that if the 80+84 elections would have been competitive that democrats would have carried it then.

I would recommend the American progressive movement to take control of Vermont and turn it into a model progressive state for the rest to see (that includes NY, Mass and the rest of New England or as I call it the Progress Belt)

[hopper]

2000 D+9       for some reason Bush did very well in northern New England

2000 had Nader which took lots of D voters in New England.

I actually questioned this once and as I understood with its small population the influx of new comers from Mass. and Upstate NY with their Liberal positions tilted that the political map drastically. Lots of old guard Vermontees remained republican (in a moderate sense of the word) but they were just overwhelmed with Liberal outsiders and locals who swayed to the left with them. I assume that if the 80+84 elections would have been competitive that democrats would have carried it then.

I would recommend the American progressive movement to take control of Vermont and turn it into a model progressive state for the rest to see (that includes NY, Mass and the rest of New England or as I call it the Progress Belt)

Massachusetts is really borderline on creating a Progressive Party. The people most to the left on the political spectrum scale live in Western Massachusetts and that part of Massachusetts is really not gaining population. Eastern Massachusetts has makes up most of the the states population growth recently and has really really swung or trended R except for the Boston Area or the Martha's Vineyard area in recent years.

New York-Long Island, and Nassau County are really not that left and all those area vote close to the national average of the popular vote recently. The Flatbush Area of Brooklyn, The Bronx and Upper Manhattan are left politically yes. New York State(minus the city) is like Ohio and Pennsylvania Politically I think except for Buffalo maybe(The Erie County area.)

Why would people move from Massachusetts move to Vermont? Because Vermont has ski resorts that Massachusetts lacks? People from NY State I could understand in moving to Vermont.

[hopper]

seeing as Romney won 2 towns in Vermont, i'd guess that there isn't a single state house district where Romney topped 45%

The closest Romney came to winning a county in Vermont was Essex County which he lost by 13%. Orleans County was the only county to trend R in the state in 2012.

[hopper]

The country moved 3 point to the right from 1988-1992 when combining Bush H.W./Perot votes and Vermont moved 2 points to the right. From 1992-1996 the country as a whole was EVEN when combining Dole/Perot voters and Vermont moved 18 points to the left. From 1996-2000 the country moved 3 points to the left when combining Gore/Nader voters and Vermont moved 6 points to the left.  In 2000-2004 the country moved 6 points to the right while Vermont moved 2 points to the left.

Vermont was basically near the political center of our politics in 1972 and 1980 according to the popular vote(albeit a couple points to the right of the country as a whole.) I did count John Anderson as a vote for the right in 1980. Even without that Vermont would have been  R+1 PVI for 1980 if I didn't count Anderson's votes.

[Hnv1]

2000 D+9       for some reason Bush did very well in northern New England

2000 had Nader which took lots of D voters in New England.

I actually questioned this once and as I understood with its small population the influx of new comers from Mass. and Upstate NY with their Liberal positions tilted that the political map drastically. Lots of old guard Vermontees remained republican (in a moderate sense of the word) but they were just overwhelmed with Liberal outsiders and locals who swayed to the left with them. I assume that if the 80+84 elections would have been competitive that democrats would have carried it then.

I would recommend the American progressive movement to take control of Vermont and turn it into a model progressive state for the rest to see (that includes NY, Mass and the rest of New England or as I call it the Progress Belt)

Massachusetts is really borderline on creating a Progressive Party. The people most to the left on the political spectrum scale live in Western Massachusetts and that part of Massachusetts is really not gaining population. Eastern Massachusetts has makes up most of the the states population growth recently and has really really swung or trended R except for the Boston Area or the Martha's Vineyard area in recent years.

New York-Long Island, and Nassau County are really not that left and all those area vote close to the national average of the popular vote recently. The Flatbush Area of Brooklyn, The Bronx and Upper Manhattan are left politically yes. New York State(minus the city) is like Ohio and Pennsylvania Politically I think except for Buffalo maybe(The Erie County area.)

Why would people move from Massachusetts move to Vermont? Because Vermont has ski resorts that Massachusetts lacks? People from NY State I could understand in moving to Vermont.

What's keeping the Mass. left from forming a state progressive party and challenging some seats for state houses (I assume Amherst and the surroundings would be perfect)?

Regarding NY I understood the strip stretching north from NY to Clinton\Franklin county through Albany is rather liberal