How did Vermont go from being the most Republican state to the most Democratic
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:38:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  How did Vermont go from being the most Republican state to the most Democratic
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: How did Vermont go from being the most Republican state to the most Democratic  (Read 45224 times)
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2015, 12:31:07 AM »

The parties switched platforms.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,614


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2015, 12:34:29 AM »

The point is, the Democrats were the more racist party before, and now the Republicans are the more racist party. So in that sense, they did switch sides.
No, it's still not really that simple. For example, the Democrats of the 19th century might have been more racist against blacks, but you could easily argue that the GOP of the same time period was more racist against foreigners.

True, the Democratic party has always been more pro immigrant than the Republican party.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2015, 11:34:03 AM »


I don't know you well enough to know if you are typing that ridiculous sentence sarcastically or not, but the troubling thing about that myth is that it's so comforting to several different groups.

It is a nice comforting narrative to modern-day liberal Democrats, as (in their minds) it absolves the party of any racism in its past, all the while stealing any Republican accomplishments on the matter and forking it right over to the endless, always-right social treadmill of "liberalism."

It's comforting to Black voters, as it completely justifies the demographic group's switch from the GOP to the Democrats.  It's a lot more noble in the history books to paint it as the GOP turning on Black voters one day in a spat of coded racism than Blacks being forced to vote their economic interests three decades before the CRA/VRA.

It's also pretty comforting to Southern whites, as they can justify their ancestors' (whom they otherwise seem quite proud of) support of an openly racist party by hiding behind things like "states' rights" or "small government."  Of course, things like the Dred Scott case show that Southern Democrats didn't give a crap about states' rights and were willing to take any avenue possible to preserve White racial supremacy.

That pretty much just leaves Northern Republicans and Democrats who are true students of history/not completely ignorant (which, I'll say, describes most on this forum) to try to refute this fairy tale and tell the much more complicated story.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2015, 08:23:06 PM »


I don't know you well enough to know if you are typing that ridiculous sentence sarcastically or not, but the troubling thing about that myth is that it's so comforting to several different groups.

It is a nice comforting narrative to modern-day liberal Democrats, as (in their minds) it absolves the party of any racism in its past, all the while stealing any Republican accomplishments on the matter and forking it right over to the endless, always-right social treadmill of "liberalism."

It's comforting to Black voters, as it completely justifies the demographic group's switch from the GOP to the Democrats.  It's a lot more noble in the history books to paint it as the GOP turning on Black voters one day in a spat of coded racism than Blacks being forced to vote their economic interests three decades before the CRA/VRA.

It's also pretty comforting to Southern whites, as they can justify their ancestors' (whom they otherwise seem quite proud of) support of an openly racist party by hiding behind things like "states' rights" or "small government."  Of course, things like the Dred Scott case show that Southern Democrats didn't give a crap about states' rights and were willing to take any avenue possible to preserve White racial supremacy.

That pretty much just leaves Northern Republicans and Democrats who are true students of history/not completely ignorant (which, I'll say, describes most on this forum) to try to refute this fairy tale and tell the much more complicated story.

The Democratic Party was openly hostile to blacks until the FDR years.  This was, in no small part, because in the South, most states did not allow blacks to become memberes of the Democratic Party.  This was not true in every state, but it was true in many, and the "White Primary" lasted until 1944 when the SCOTUS threw it out.

In truth, it was the Nixon years that drove blacks out of the GOP in any kind of significant numbers.  Goldwater ran them off with his Civil Rights stances, but Nixon kept them gone with a Southern Strategy that sided against blacks whenever they were in conflict with the White South.  As late as the mid-1960s, Everett Dirksen and Gerald Ford were producing GOP votes to ram home Civil Rights legislation, but this all stopped during the Nixon years.

Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2015, 08:54:16 PM »


I don't know you well enough to know if you are typing that ridiculous sentence sarcastically or not, but the troubling thing about that myth is that it's so comforting to several different groups.

It is a nice comforting narrative to modern-day liberal Democrats, as (in their minds) it absolves the party of any racism in its past, all the while stealing any Republican accomplishments on the matter and forking it right over to the endless, always-right social treadmill of "liberalism."

It's comforting to Black voters, as it completely justifies the demographic group's switch from the GOP to the Democrats.  It's a lot more noble in the history books to paint it as the GOP turning on Black voters one day in a spat of coded racism than Blacks being forced to vote their economic interests three decades before the CRA/VRA.

It's also pretty comforting to Southern whites, as they can justify their ancestors' (whom they otherwise seem quite proud of) support of an openly racist party by hiding behind things like "states' rights" or "small government."  Of course, things like the Dred Scott case show that Southern Democrats didn't give a crap about states' rights and were willing to take any avenue possible to preserve White racial supremacy.

That pretty much just leaves Northern Republicans and Democrats who are true students of history/not completely ignorant (which, I'll say, describes most on this forum) to try to refute this fairy tale and tell the much more complicated story.

The Democratic Party was openly hostile to blacks until the FDR years.  This was, in no small part, because in the South, most states did not allow blacks to become memberes of the Democratic Party.  This was not true in every state, but it was true in many, and the "White Primary" lasted until 1944 when the SCOTUS threw it out.

In truth, it was the Nixon years that drove blacks out of the GOP in any kind of significant numbers.  Goldwater ran them off with his Civil Rights stances, but Nixon kept them gone with a Southern Strategy that sided against blacks whenever they were in conflict with the White South.  As late as the mid-1960s, Everett Dirksen and Gerald Ford were producing GOP votes to ram home Civil Rights legislation, but this all stopped during the Nixon years.



At the end of the day, no Republican has won the Black vote since HERBERT HOOVER.  That's a long while before Richard Nixon.  Eisenhower, post-Little Rock, lost the Black vote to Stevenson who had an open segregationist on his ticket, didn't he?  Nixon solidified Blacks not voting Republican.  He didn't even come close to starting the trend, and it's a historical fact that Blacks overwhelmingly backed a POTUS (FDR) who vetoed anti-lynching legislation and appointed a Klansman to the SCOTUS.  Anyone who says the Black vote left the GOP over anything other than economics is lying or an idiot.  It left "again" post-Nixon ... uh, so what?  It was never coming back.
Logged
ObamaThirdTerm
Rookie
**
Posts: 48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2015, 08:59:46 PM »

The priorities of the two parties changed over time and the people voting in the state of Vermont also changed over time. These two factors working together brought about a realignment of sorts.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2015, 09:09:11 PM »
« Edited: October 01, 2015, 09:12:41 PM by The Trump Card (2016 Edition) »


I don't know you well enough to know if you are typing that ridiculous sentence sarcastically or not, but the troubling thing about that myth is that it's so comforting to several different groups.

It is a nice comforting narrative to modern-day liberal Democrats, as (in their minds) it absolves the party of any racism in its past, all the while stealing any Republican accomplishments on the matter and forking it right over to the endless, always-right social treadmill of "liberalism."

It's comforting to Black voters, as it completely justifies the demographic group's switch from the GOP to the Democrats.  It's a lot more noble in the history books to paint it as the GOP turning on Black voters one day in a spat of coded racism than Blacks being forced to vote their economic interests three decades before the CRA/VRA.

It's also pretty comforting to Southern whites, as they can justify their ancestors' (whom they otherwise seem quite proud of) support of an openly racist party by hiding behind things like "states' rights" or "small government."  Of course, things like the Dred Scott case show that Southern Democrats didn't give a crap about states' rights and were willing to take any avenue possible to preserve White racial supremacy.

That pretty much just leaves Northern Republicans and Democrats who are true students of history/not completely ignorant (which, I'll say, describes most on this forum) to try to refute this fairy tale and tell the much more complicated story.

The Democratic Party was openly hostile to blacks until the FDR years.  This was, in no small part, because in the South, most states did not allow blacks to become memberes of the Democratic Party.  This was not true in every state, but it was true in many, and the "White Primary" lasted until 1944 when the SCOTUS threw it out.

In truth, it was the Nixon years that drove blacks out of the GOP in any kind of significant numbers.  Goldwater ran them off with his Civil Rights stances, but Nixon kept them gone with a Southern Strategy that sided against blacks whenever they were in conflict with the White South.  As late as the mid-1960s, Everett Dirksen and Gerald Ford were producing GOP votes to ram home Civil Rights legislation, but this all stopped during the Nixon years.



At the end of the day, no Republican has won the Black vote since HERBERT HOOVER.  That's a long while before Richard Nixon.  Eisenhower, post-Little Rock, lost the Black vote to Stevenson who had an open segregationist on his ticket, didn't he?  Nixon solidified Blacks not voting Republican.  He didn't even come close to starting the trend, and it's a historical fact that Blacks overwhelmingly backed a POTUS (FDR) who vetoed anti-lynching legislation and appointed a Klansman to the SCOTUS.  Anyone who says the Black vote left the GOP over anything other than economics is lying or an idiot.  It left "again" post-Nixon ... uh, so what?  It was never coming back.

I think a lot of the more affluent, middle-class black voters (such as those with longstanding roots in the North whose families had been Republicans since the Civil War) voted Republican up until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It was their significantly more numerous downscale counterparts - many of whom had recently moved into Northern cities from the South during the Great Migration, and who became part of the urbanized working class there - who started the big shift toward the Democratic Party.

The Southern Strategy and backlash/right-wing populism has made a difference in expanding the GOP's appeal to lower-middle and working class whites, but it has also made a difference in alienating a lot of voters (not just black ones) who might otherwise have voted Republican in the past.

Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2015, 08:18:05 AM »


I don't know you well enough to know if you are typing that ridiculous sentence sarcastically or not, but the troubling thing about that myth is that it's so comforting to several different groups.

It is a nice comforting narrative to modern-day liberal Democrats, as (in their minds) it absolves the party of any racism in its past, all the while stealing any Republican accomplishments on the matter and forking it right over to the endless, always-right social treadmill of "liberalism."

It's comforting to Black voters, as it completely justifies the demographic group's switch from the GOP to the Democrats.  It's a lot more noble in the history books to paint it as the GOP turning on Black voters one day in a spat of coded racism than Blacks being forced to vote their economic interests three decades before the CRA/VRA.

It's also pretty comforting to Southern whites, as they can justify their ancestors' (whom they otherwise seem quite proud of) support of an openly racist party by hiding behind things like "states' rights" or "small government."  Of course, things like the Dred Scott case show that Southern Democrats didn't give a crap about states' rights and were willing to take any avenue possible to preserve White racial supremacy.

That pretty much just leaves Northern Republicans and Democrats who are true students of history/not completely ignorant (which, I'll say, describes most on this forum) to try to refute this fairy tale and tell the much more complicated story.
Finally, a breath of fresh air on this forum!
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2015, 08:48:19 AM »
« Edited: November 01, 2015, 09:04:40 AM by DS0816 »


^ WINNER!

Look…in 1964, Vermont carried Democratic the only time it had ever done so between the Republicans-vs.-Democrats of 1856 to 1988. In 1964, part of the reason Vermont made an exception and carried Democratic for Lyndon Johnson was because the Deep South duo of Alabama and Mississippi carried Republican for Barry Goldwater.

Alabama/Mississippi vs. Vermont: The trio carried for the 1872 re-election of Republican president Ulysses Grant. After that, they didn't carry the same until the 1972 re-election of Republican president Richard Nixon.

Why?

In part the answer has to do with an 1872 Grant and a 1972 Nixon re-elected in landslides in which they carried more than 80 percent of the available and participating states in the nation.

In fact, if you go over the precious few elections in which the trio carried the same…it's been because the winners carried at least three of every four states.

Another part of the reason is that Alabama/Mississippi, on one side, and Vermont, on another side, are typically very opposite on social and political issues. For 100 years to be the gap between carrying the same, and with a 49-state landslide (98 percent of available and participating states), says a lot.

When realigning the map of the Old Confederacy states (sans bellwether states) to the Republicans…it only stood to reason that the non-Old Confederacy states which backed winning Republicans (while the Old Confederacy states backed winning Democrats) would go ahead and do their own counter-realignment.

That's what happened with Vermont.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2015, 02:18:03 PM »
« Edited: November 01, 2015, 02:21:23 PM by Rockefeller GOP »

^ I seriously can't believe you the fantasy you write.

The South was solid Democrat during the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, while Vermont was just as loyally Republican during that time.  Are you seriously suggesting the Democratic Party of those decades was a more conservative party than the Republican Party?  You can't be that dumb.
Logged
YaBoyNY
NYMillennial
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,469
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2015, 02:41:49 PM »

I think anybody suggesting that the Democrats/Republicans in general were liberal/conservative before the 1990's and 2000's is crazy.

It was entirely a state by state thing.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2015, 02:58:48 PM »


I don't know you well enough to know if you are typing that ridiculous sentence sarcastically or not, but the troubling thing about that myth is that it's so comforting to several different groups.

It is a nice comforting narrative to modern-day liberal Democrats, as (in their minds) it absolves the party of any racism in its past, all the while stealing any Republican accomplishments on the matter and forking it right over to the endless, always-right social treadmill of "liberalism."

It's comforting to Black voters, as it completely justifies the demographic group's switch from the GOP to the Democrats.  It's a lot more noble in the history books to paint it as the GOP turning on Black voters one day in a spat of coded racism than Blacks being forced to vote their economic interests three decades before the CRA/VRA.

It's also pretty comforting to Southern whites, as they can justify their ancestors' (whom they otherwise seem quite proud of) support of an openly racist party by hiding behind things like "states' rights" or "small government."  Of course, things like the Dred Scott case show that Southern Democrats didn't give a crap about states' rights and were willing to take any avenue possible to preserve White racial supremacy.

That pretty much just leaves Northern Republicans and Democrats who are true students of history/not completely ignorant (which, I'll say, describes most on this forum) to try to refute this fairy tale and tell the much more complicated story.

The Democratic Party was openly hostile to blacks until the FDR years.  This was, in no small part, because in the South, most states did not allow blacks to become memberes of the Democratic Party.  This was not true in every state, but it was true in many, and the "White Primary" lasted until 1944 when the SCOTUS threw it out.

In truth, it was the Nixon years that drove blacks out of the GOP in any kind of significant numbers.  Goldwater ran them off with his Civil Rights stances, but Nixon kept them gone with a Southern Strategy that sided against blacks whenever they were in conflict with the White South.  As late as the mid-1960s, Everett Dirksen and Gerald Ford were producing GOP votes to ram home Civil Rights legislation, but this all stopped during the Nixon years.



At the end of the day, no Republican has won the Black vote since HERBERT HOOVER.  That's a long while before Richard Nixon.  Eisenhower, post-Little Rock, lost the Black vote to Stevenson who had an open segregationist on his ticket, didn't he?  Nixon solidified Blacks not voting Republican.  He didn't even come close to starting the trend, and it's a historical fact that Blacks overwhelmingly backed a POTUS (FDR) who vetoed anti-lynching legislation and appointed a Klansman to the SCOTUS.  Anyone who says the Black vote left the GOP over anything other than economics is lying or an idiot.  It left "again" post-Nixon ... uh, so what?  It was never coming back.

This is not correct.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2015, 03:14:11 PM »

^ I seriously can't believe you the fantasy you write.

The South was solid Democrat during the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, while Vermont was just as loyally Republican during that time.  Are you seriously suggesting the Democratic Party of those decades was a more conservative party than the Republican Party?  You can't be that dumb.

Only in 1920 and 1924 not 1928
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 01, 2015, 04:31:33 PM »

^ I seriously can't believe you the fantasy you write.

The South was solid Democrat during the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, while Vermont was just as loyally Republican during that time.  Are you seriously suggesting the Democratic Party of those decades was a more conservative party than the Republican Party?  You can't be that dumb.

Only in 1920 and 1924 not 1928
The Deep South still went for Smith in 1928.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2015, 05:27:09 PM »
« Edited: November 01, 2015, 05:31:02 PM by DS0816 »

^ I seriously can't believe you the fantasy you write.

The South was solid Democrat during the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, while Vermont was just as loyally Republican during that time.  Are you seriously suggesting the Democratic Party of those decades was a more conservative party than the Republican Party?  You can't be that dumb.

The first presidential election, in which a winning Republican carried today's Republican base states from the Old Confederacy [think Alabama/Mississippi], didn't happen until Richard Nixon's 49-state re-election in 1972. All eleven Old Confederacy states gave him margins above his national R+23.15.

The first presidential election, in which a winning Democrat carried all of today's Democratic base states, not among the Old Confederacy [think Vermont], didn't happen until Lyndon Johnson's 44-state landslide of a national margin of D+22.58. It included a map which, not unlike 1972, deviated from the then-historical norm (of that period and before it).

In 1988, winning Republican George Bush carried all Old Confederacy states above his national margin of R+7.72.

In the 1990s, the only state Democrat Bill Clinton, with counter-realigning the map, didn't carry above his national margins of D+5.56 (in 1992) and D+8.52 (in 1996) was Oregon. Both times, his carriage of Oregon was under those margins. In 2008 (and with re-election in 2012), all those states (now referred to as the "Blue Firewall" states) gave stronger margins than the national ones (D+7.26, in 2008; D+3.86, in 2012) to winning Democrat Barack Obama.

I know about the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the … point is that where we are now are results from years and decades in the makings that you're trying to mention with the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s and, well … it does take a long time for numerous states and numerous regions to break from long-established patterns. The presidential elections of 1960 and 1968 and 1976 were examples of Republican and Democratic presidential candidates winning in particular states (each other's party's turf) which used to back the opposing party (even in elections lost). Now, things are lot more solidified. But, Alabama/Mississippi will not vote Democratic while Vermont votes Republican without the two parties rebranding into what they used to be. They're polar-opposites' voting patterns (Alabama/Mississippi, on one side; Vermont, on the other side) are long-established traditions.
Logged
rbt48
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,060


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 17, 2015, 03:11:46 PM »
« Edited: November 17, 2015, 03:13:46 PM by rbt48 »

I think that this table will provide you a fairly good feel, numbers wise, for the transition of Vermont from a solid Republican to a solid Democratic state:
http://www.rbt48.com/weather/Presidential_Elections/Vermont_pv.pdf

From 1856 through 1928, it didn't require any hint of gerrymandering (or too many rural districts) to keep the state overwhelmingly Republican.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 17, 2015, 08:44:23 PM »
« Edited: November 17, 2015, 08:59:19 PM by d32123 »

Vermont was a very "Yankee" state for a long time (centuries, actually), which meant heavily moralistic Protestantism and the kind of reformist public life and politics that followed from that. There was more than a tinge of anti-Catholicism in this Protestant moralism, in addition to being virulently opposed to Southern slavery/rebellion, or anything that sought (or was perceived as such) to undermine the Union. In that sense, Vermont and other strongholds of Yankee/New England Protestantism - perhaps more than anywhere else - identified their own values as being equivalent to the nation's values.

Today, Vermont is considerably more pluralistic and secularized than what it used to be, with plenty of Catholics, Jews, and other types who, in the 21st New England context, are very liberal (and who the remaining Protestants have accommodated, even as New England Protestantism has changed in many ways to be more pluralistic and less "evangelical" Tongue), but it still retains a lot of that core Yankee/New England Protestant moralistic cultural influence on its politics. It's the interactions of Vermont's long-established cultural traditions with the added influx of newcomers that makes it, in contemporary terms, one of the most "liberal" places in the country.

Lol I see someone else read American Nations.

But yeah, this post nails it.  It was a combination of New Englanders becoming more Democrat-friendly across the entire region along with an influx of almost exclusively liberal outsiders.  Without them, it'd probably be more like New Hampshire politically, but they've helped tip the balance and make Vermont vote heavily Democrat for national elections in line with the rest of the "Birkenstock Belt" (VT + Northeast NY + Western MA and parts of Western NH).
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 22, 2015, 04:43:38 PM »

Why did these liberal transplants choose Vermont over many parts of New Hampshire/Maine/upstate New York?
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 22, 2015, 08:42:33 PM »

Many of them did go to New Hampshire, Maine, and Upstate New York, which is part of the reason those areas tend to vote Democratic. I'm not really sure why Vermont got so many, though. Maybe because it's equidistant from Boston and New York, so it got a lot of people from both of those places?
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 22, 2015, 11:43:46 PM »


I don't know you well enough to know if you are typing that ridiculous sentence sarcastically or not, but the troubling thing about that myth is that it's so comforting to several different groups.

It is a nice comforting narrative to modern-day liberal Democrats, as (in their minds) it absolves the party of any racism in its past, all the while stealing any Republican accomplishments on the matter and forking it right over to the endless, always-right social treadmill of "liberalism."

It's comforting to Black voters, as it completely justifies the demographic group's switch from the GOP to the Democrats.  It's a lot more noble in the history books to paint it as the GOP turning on Black voters one day in a spat of coded racism than Blacks being forced to vote their economic interests three decades before the CRA/VRA.

It's also pretty comforting to Southern whites, as they can justify their ancestors' (whom they otherwise seem quite proud of) support of an openly racist party by hiding behind things like "states' rights" or "small government."  Of course, things like the Dred Scott case show that Southern Democrats didn't give a crap about states' rights and were willing to take any avenue possible to preserve White racial supremacy.

That pretty much just leaves Northern Republicans and Democrats who are true students of history/not completely ignorant (which, I'll say, describes most on this forum) to try to refute this fairy tale and tell the much more complicated story.
Finally, a breath of fresh air on this forum!
Agreed!
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,254
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 25, 2015, 10:29:54 PM »


I don't know you well enough to know if you are typing that ridiculous sentence sarcastically or not, but the troubling thing about that myth is that it's so comforting to several different groups.

It is a nice comforting narrative to modern-day liberal Democrats, as (in their minds) it absolves the party of any racism in its past, all the while stealing any Republican accomplishments on the matter and forking it right over to the endless, always-right social treadmill of "liberalism."

It's comforting to Black voters, as it completely justifies the demographic group's switch from the GOP to the Democrats.  It's a lot more noble in the history books to paint it as the GOP turning on Black voters one day in a spat of coded racism than Blacks being forced to vote their economic interests three decades before the CRA/VRA.

It's also pretty comforting to Southern whites, as they can justify their ancestors' (whom they otherwise seem quite proud of) support of an openly racist party by hiding behind things like "states' rights" or "small government."  Of course, things like the Dred Scott case show that Southern Democrats didn't give a crap about states' rights and were willing to take any avenue possible to preserve White racial supremacy.

That pretty much just leaves Northern Republicans and Democrats who are true students of history/not completely ignorant (which, I'll say, describes most on this forum) to try to refute this fairy tale and tell the much more complicated story.
Finally, a breath of fresh air on this forum!
Agreed!

Holy $Hit, Don1 you're still alive ? Shocked Wink
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: December 02, 2015, 05:40:57 PM »

Not really making a case here, but here is Vermont's population so you can see how and when it grew:

2010 - 625,741 (+ 2.80%)
2000 - 608,827 (+ 8.20%)
1990 - 562,758 (+ 10.00%)
1980 - 511,456 (+ 15.10%)
1970 - 444,330 (+ 14.0%)
1960 - 389,881 (+ 3.20%)
1950 - 377,747 (+ 5.20%)
1940 - 359,231 (- 0.10%)
1930 - 359,611 (+ 2.00%)
1920 - 352,428 (- 1.00%)

VT took a significant turn left in the 1960s (elected first Democratic governor ever) and an even bigger one in the '70s (elected first Democratic Senator ever and continued to go off and on with Republican and Democratic governors).  That matches up pretty well with huge population growths, and those people's children grew up knowing a mixed (i.e., not conservative) Vermont, and their kids are now growing up knowing a liberal Vermont.  There are other factors, sure, but it's not like the Vermonters who voted for all those Republicans in a row just decided, "I'm going to be a Democrat now."
Logged
Hillary pays minimum wage
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2015, 09:52:09 PM »

There's a 70 year progression so it's not hard to imagine when looking at the distance from center in each election.  During the 80's, it would've been competitive had it not been for such landslides.
Logged
Hillary pays minimum wage
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2015, 02:26:20 AM »

There are other factors, sure, but it's not like the Vermonters who voted for all those Republicans in a row just decided, "I'm going to be a Democrat now."
Except in 1964

Yes but he's basically correct.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2015, 04:21:26 AM »

Many of them did go to New Hampshire, Maine, and Upstate New York, which is part of the reason those areas tend to vote Democratic. I'm not really sure why Vermont got so many, though. Maybe because it's equidistant from Boston and New York, so it got a lot of people from both of those places?

It had the lowest population of people already there, so the newcomers formed proportionately the largest share of the population. And once it started getting a reputation as a liberal state it became a self-fulfilling prophecy, attracting liberals to move there.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 11 queries.