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

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Two main factors:

1. Liberal positions on social issues, especially after Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.  Vermont consistently ranks as one of the least religious and most "un-churched" states in the Union, and so it was repelled by the influence of religious/social conservatives in the GOP (like moderate voters in general).

2. Changing demographics.  By the 90s, most of the Yankee voters who had made Vermont a Republican stronghold were aging and dying off, giving Democrats an opening with many younger voters who weren't as attached to the GOP.

Not to mention that New England as a whole is much more liberal than it used to be.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Two main factors:

1. Racism
2. Democrats

Fact.

Huh?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Keep in mind, Dukakis was leading Bush in VT for much of the '88 campaign and Reagan ran behind his national average both times during his two electoral landslides.

I'd like to see some of those polls.  And besides, much of the reason Reagan did worse in 1980 was because Vermont was one of John Anderson's best states.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's much simpler than anyone is saying - Vermont was always liberal. When the liberal wing stopped having any sort of influence in the national party, Vermont went Democrat fast.

This pretty much nails it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The same way that your state went from being so Democratic to so Republican. The ideologies of the parties began to shift, especially on racial and other social issues, the states became closer because of the deep partisan tendencies despite ideology changes, the states became very sympathetic to "liberal Republicans" and "conservative Democrats," and by the 90's and 2000's had completed the shift over to the other side.

Vermont may have become more liberal in recent years, but it has always been a liberal state. And keep in mind that being predominately white doesn't matter as much electorally in the northeast as it does in the south.

This is about right, except the two parties never "switched sides" on race

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The parties switched platforms.

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!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Interesting video that relates to this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06xR1uxp5mI