West Virginia

[Frodo]

Is West Virginia beginning to go the way of Alabama, Mississippi, and the rest of the Deep South -voting Republican on a national level for president, the Senate, and the House, while continuing to vote Democratic at the state and local levels? It seems to me that given West Virginia's votes for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 that it is beginning to do so.  It should be kept in mind that when a state is beginning to switch its political allegiance, that it often begins at the very top -the presidential race- and then gradually works its way down to the Senate and House levels, before finally reaching the state and local levels.  Is this process of political transformation that has affected the South for the past half-century (and especially since 1972) beginning to happen for West Virginia also?     

[Schmitz in 1972]

As one of only 4 states to vote Democratic at least twice in the 1980s (MN, HI, and RI being the others) I'd say yes. Remember though that the complete switch takes decades, in fact, a lot of southern states (particularly Lousiana) still haven't changed that much at the local level. Despite the poll mentioned in another thread, Byrd has at least one more re-election and Rockefeller doesn't seem to be in too much trouble either. That's the problem with sudden changes in voting patterns, there's no big candidates for the emerging majority party.

[Frodo]

As one of only 4 states to vote Democratic at least twice in the 1980s (MN, HI, and RI being the others) I'd say yes. Remember though that the complete switch takes decades, in fact, a lot of southern states (particularly Lousiana) still haven't changed that much at the local level. Despite the poll mentioned in another thread, Byrd has at least one more re-election and Rockefeller doesn't seem to be in too much trouble either. That's the problem with sudden changes in voting patterns, there's no big candidates for the emerging majority party.

at least until the big-name figures in question decide to switch parties the way Strom Thurmond, Phil Gram, and Richard Shelby (among the most prominent names i can remember off the top of my head) have done.

that said, i am not overly familiar with West Virginia politics, so i do not know any major political figures who seem the most likely to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.   

[Sam Spade]

As one of only 4 states to vote Democratic at least twice in the 1980s (MN, HI, and RI being the others) I'd say yes. Remember though that the complete switch takes decades, in fact, a lot of southern states (particularly Lousiana) still haven't changed that much at the local level. Despite the poll mentioned in another thread, Byrd has at least one more re-election and Rockefeller doesn't seem to be in too much trouble either. That's the problem with sudden changes in voting patterns, there's no big candidates for the emerging majority party.

at least until the big-name figures in question decide to switch parties the way Strom Thurmond, Phil Gram, and Richard Shelby (among the most prominent names i can remember off the top of my head) have done.

that said, i am not overly familiar with West Virginia politics, so i do not know any major political figures who seem the most likely to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.   

None of this will happen until the WV GOP Party becomes anything more than the doormat that it presently is.

But the demographics in West Virginia are not very pretty for the Democrats at all for the future, as long as present political trends hold.

West Virginia has lost 200,000 in population since 1950s. 

Right now the really strong Democrat-controlled areas (the Southern coal-mining areas of the state) continue to bleed population fairly rapidly and as long as social issues are in the fore, Republican inroads in the area will continue (though Democrats will dominate there for a long while in the future).

The only areas of the state that are growing in population any are the Charleston suburbs and the Panhandle part of the state.  The Panhandle has always been the most historically Republican part of this very Democrat state also.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The South is getting bigger! Seriously, it is. Kentucky and West Virginia used to not vote like the South, but since 2000 they have.

Contrast the results from Kentucky and West Virginia in 1964 with those from 2004.

Personally, I don't see the trend that much in my own area, but I guess it's because the South hasn't crept up this far yet.

[??????????]

The South is getting bigger! Seriously, it is. Kentucky and West Virginia used to not vote like the South, but since 2000 they have.

Contrast the results from Kentucky and West Virginia in 1964 with those from 2004.

Personally, I don't see the trend that much in my own area, but I guess it's because the South hasn't crept up this far yet.

Um, Kentucky is the south to begin with. lol

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Um, Kentucky is the south to begin with.

Barry Goldwater and George Wallace both got utterly demolished in Kentucky, even though they generally did well in most of the South.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Um, Kentucky is the south to begin with. lol

Parts are (*especially* Western KY...) but eastern and south central KY (which backed the Union in the Civil War) aren't as a rule.
Kinda off topic though.

It's interesting that the main political issues in WV have been more or less the same for at least 45 years; true the Democrats have been weakend by the out-migration (and internal feuding; both of which the WV GOP has failed to exploit. Which tells you something about the WV GOP) but the recent dire showings of Democratic presidential candidates probably says more about where they went wrong rather than anything else; sorry if this sounds like a stuck record but Gore should have carried the state fairly easily (this assumption was his undoing in many ways) and Kerry should have done a hell of a lot better than what he did; he should have got a positive swing at the very least (to see his vote more-or-less collapse in the state look at the Mason-Dixon polls...)

[Gustaf]

Kentucky was  not part of the confederacy, but it voted Bell in 1860 and then consistently Democrat for every election until 1896 (and then only by 277 votes). The next time Kentucky voted Republican was in the landslide year of 1924, again by a fairly slim margin (slightly below 3% or 23 000 votes). Herbert Hoover won it 60-40 in 1928 though.

After the war it does seem to be like Populist said. Thurmond got nothing there and Truman got 56%. It then voted narrowly for Stevenson over Eisenhower (0.7% or 700 votes). It then went clearly for Eisenhower in 1956 and for Nixon 1960. The fact that Goldwater did worse than national average there definitely indicates that Kentucky was not primarily Southern during this period. In 1968 there's a swing of about 5% from Humphrey to Wallace compared to national average, but again this is a far cry from the Deep South results.

[minionofmidas]

Kentucky was  not part of the confederacy, but it voted Bell in 1860 and then consistently Democrat for every election until 1896 (and then only by 277 votes). The next time Kentucky voted Republican was in the landslide year of 1924, again by a fairly slim margin (slightly below 3% or 23 000 votes). Herbert Hoover won it 60-40 in 1928 though.

After the war it does seem to be like Populist said. Thurmond got nothing there and Truman got 56%. It then voted narrowly for Stevenson over Eisenhower (0.7% or 700 votes). It then went clearly for Eisenhower in 1956 and for Nixon 1960. The fact that Goldwater did worse than national average there definitely indicates that Kentucky was not primarily Southern during this period. In 1968 there's a swing of about 5% from Humphrey to Wallace compared to national average, but again this is a far cry from the Deep South results.

The same is true of many parts of the upper South.

[Gustaf]

Yep.

On the issue, I think WV is trending away from the Democrats, but it will take at least as much time as it did with the South, probably longer since you won't have the same defection rate as was experienced in the old South.

[Rococo4]

It is coming our way.  Bush won about 56%  there  if my memory is right. in a highly unionized state.  It will still take a while for the total conversion to take place

[Keep cool-idge]

Oh my this is such a awesome post also it only took 7 years to get every county republican and 11 years to get the highest margin in history.

[Skill and Chance]

Oh my this is such a awesome post also it only took 7 years to get every county republican and 11 years to get the highest margin in history.

States tend to change presidential allegiances abruptly, over 1 or 2 cycles, not as a slow creep toward the opposition party for 25 years.  Look at WV 1996-2000 and VA 2004-08. 

[cvparty]

Oh my this is such a awesome post also it only took 7 years to get every county republican and 11 years to get the highest margin in history.

why you bump this