Was Vermont ever a battleground state????????????

[PJ]

So was this state ever heavily contested? It was always a reliable Republican state, voting R from 1856 to 1960, until 64, when Johnson wins it by a huge margin. Then it goes back to reliable R, not even being close until 88, when Bush won it 51/47. Then in 92 Clinton won it a huge margin, and it's been reliable D ever since, and possibly the most liberal state in the union. So my question is why did it switch sides so quickly without being heavily contested.

[bgwah]

It only has 3 electoral votes.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

1988 to an extent. Had McCain been the nominee in 2000 it could have been close.

[PJ]

It only has 3 electoral votes.

So does MT, but it was a battleground state in 08. NH has 4, and both sides have been fighting over it for some time now.

[PJ]

I guess a kind of asked 2 questions. Question 2 is, why did it switch sides so quickly?

[Vosem]

It was a prime battleground state in '88, and it was still single digits as recently as '00.

[Mr.Phips]

Yes, it was a pure tossup in 1988.  Some polls actually had Dukakis ahead there even at the end. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, it was a pure tossup in 1988.  Some polls actually had Dukakis ahead there even at the end. 

Weird how New Hampshire turned out to be Bush's 2nd best state.

[old timey villain]

 Vermont was never really a battleground state because it's pretty homogenous. It's basically full of white, small town, left leaning moderates and liberals. There's really no racial, ethnic, religious or regional divide that could make the state competitive for both parties. At least not like Florida or Ohio. What you saw in the 1980s and 1990s was the majority of the state's voters shifting parties.

I really believe that a state has to be diverse to be a battleground state. New Hampshire, in my opinion, is not a battleground state, but a swing state, due to a large number of independents. Bush did really well with those independents in 1988 but since then most of them have voted for the Democrat, which is why NH is left leaning now. That's the case with Vermont but to a much greater extent, benefiting Dems.

A battleground state isn't as much about persuading moderates as it is about getting your base out to the polls, so it's like a battle. Each candidate has a sizable "army" throughout the state and the battle consists of registering voters and going to the polls. To be crass, the battle in Ohio was between Obamaphone lady and Joe the Plumber. Which bastardized version of the average Obama or Romney voter will win the state? A state like Vermont just doesn't have the same contrast, so it will never be battleground state in my opinion.

[PJ]

So what made everyone in VT switch from R to D so quickly.

Vermont was never really a battleground state because it's pretty homogenous. It's basically full of white, small town, left leaning moderates and liberals. There's really no racial, ethnic, religious or regional divide that could make the state competitive for both parties. At least not like Florida or Ohio. What you saw in the 1980s and 1990s was the majority of the state's voters shifting parties.

I really believe that a state has to be diverse to be a battleground state. New Hampshire, in my opinion, is not a battleground state, but a swing state, due to a large number of independents. Bush did really well with those independents in 1988 but since then most of them have voted for the Democrat, which is why NH is left leaning now. That's the case with Vermont but to a much greater extent, benefiting Dems.

A battleground state isn't as much about persuading moderates as it is about getting your base out to the polls, so it's like a battle. Each candidate has a sizable "army" throughout the state and the battle consists of registering voters and going to the polls. To be crass, the battle in Ohio was between Obamaphone lady and Joe the Plumber. Which bastardized version of the average Obama or Romney voter will win the state? A state like Vermont just doesn't have the same contrast, so it will never be battleground state in my opinion.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Vermont has a miniscule population, so any major population influx would greatly shift its political lean. I think Vermont had a massive migration of Dems longing for a rural environment. This was enough to radically shift its political lean in just a few years.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Vermont would have been a battleground state in 1980, 1984, and 1988 if those elections had been close.  However, none of them were.  Even then its status as a battleground was not due to the voters changing but the parties changing and the fact that different voters adapted to that at different times.

[ElectionsGuy]

I would say the only time it was a battleground was in '88. When Bush won in a landslide, Vermont nearly picked him, this was the transformation that nearly the whole Northeast went through in which the the populist, progressive republicans became liberal. By Northeast, I mean Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Upstate New York.

Here, watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2omvQMK7MRo
Sorry for the crappy quality

[soniquemd21921]

Vermont started more and more competitive as the state's population started to grow:

1900-1950 - increase of 34,106
1950-2000 - increase of 231,080

I think what happened was that in the mid late '60s, 70's and 80's the state saw a rather large increase in out-of-state residents ("flatlanders" as locals dubbed it). As mentioned elsewhere, many of these newcomers were college-educated New Yorkers who were well to the left of the average Vermonter.

[barfbag]

Not really! It's very interesting too. The only year I can call it remotely battleground is 2000 and Ralph Nader had a strong showing there. I don't remember for sure if Vermont was contested between Bush and Gore?

[soniquemd21921]

1988 was the first time the state had ever been close. From what I understand the polls actually showed Dukakis in the lead until election night.

[stevekamp]

Closest margin since 1852 is the 1.91 point between Taft and TR in 1912 (national winner Wilson finished third).  Was a Whig stronghold until 1856, R till 1964, then 1968-1988.  Read Robert Speel, Changing Patterns of Voting in the Northeastern United States -- discusses the slow erosion of the Republican percentage starting in 1956.  You can see this on the Atlas as well.

[barfbag]

It would've been a battleground state in the 1980's had it not been for the landslides.

[Sopranos Republican]

We used to be the most Republican state, now we're one of the most Democratic states, we've always exemplified partisan hackery. In the 80's the state was trending Democratic even as most of the rest of the country trended Republican, so it's pretty apparent as others have said, that this would have been a battleground state in the 80's if the elections were close.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I think the Democratic trend in the 80s had a lot to do with the fact that the older generations (primarily Yankee and Republican) were dying off and making way for the younger generations who were more Democrat.  That's all I really have to say on the subject.

[RedSLC]

I think the Democratic trend in the 80s had a lot to do with the fact that the older generations (primarily Yankee and Republican) were dying off and making way for the younger generations who were more Democrat.  That's all I really have to say on the subject.

This, and more liberal out-of-staters moving into the state in large numbers.

[barfbag]

I think the Democratic trend in the 80s had a lot to do with the fact that the older generations (primarily Yankee and Republican) were dying off and making way for the younger generations who were more Democrat.  That's all I really have to say on the subject.

This, and more liberal out-of-staters moving into the state in large numbers.

I don't think Vermont has ever had people move there in large numbers.

[RedSLC]

I think the Democratic trend in the 80s had a lot to do with the fact that the older generations (primarily Yankee and Republican) were dying off and making way for the younger generations who were more Democrat.  That's all I really have to say on the subject.

This, and more liberal out-of-staters moving into the state in large numbers.

I don't think Vermont has ever had people move there in large numbers.

Certainly enough moved in to affect the state's demographics. In the early 2000's it helped spawn the Take Back Vermont Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Back_Vermont

[barfbag]

I think the Democratic trend in the 80s had a lot to do with the fact that the older generations (primarily Yankee and Republican) were dying off and making way for the younger generations who were more Democrat.  That's all I really have to say on the subject.

This, and more liberal out-of-staters moving into the state in large numbers.

I don't think Vermont has ever had people move there in large numbers.

Certainly enough moved in to affect the state's demographics. In the early 2000's it helped spawn the Take Back Vermont Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Back_Vermont

It's always been 3 electoral votes though so the population hasn't changed much.

[RedSLC]

I think the Democratic trend in the 80s had a lot to do with the fact that the older generations (primarily Yankee and Republican) were dying off and making way for the younger generations who were more Democrat.  That's all I really have to say on the subject.

This, and more liberal out-of-staters moving into the state in large numbers.

I don't think Vermont has ever had people move there in large numbers.

Certainly enough moved in to affect the state's demographics. In the early 2000's it helped spawn the Take Back Vermont Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Back_Vermont

It's always been 3 electoral votes though so the population hasn't changed much.

Electoral votes are allocated to the states based on their population relative to the country as a whole. Between 1980 and 2000, the state gained nearly 100,000 new residents, which was a roughly 20 percent increase in its population size. There's plenty of room for out-of-staters in there. Because it's such a small state, an influx of out-of-state transplants is going to have a more noticeable effect.

Also, the state has not always had three electoral votes. It had two districts until 1932, and at one point had as many as six districts.