Is Vermont The Anti-West Virginia?

[Alben Barkley]

For most of the 20th century, Vermont was solidly Republican except for major Democratic landslides. Then it suddenly and sharply trended Democratic after the GOP became too socially conservative for the state’s liberal and secular population, becoming one of the most solid D states almost overnight. (Though some Republicans, who are very different from most national Republicans, still have some lingering strength on the state/local level.)

For most of the 20th century, West Virginia was solidly Democratic except for major Republican landslides. Then it suddenly and sharply trended Republican after the Democratic Party became too anti-coal for the state’s very coal-friendly population, becoming one of the most solid R states almost overnight. (Though some Democrats, who are very different from most national Democrats, still have some lingering strength on the state/local level.)

The two states seem like almost mirror images of each other. What’s interesting is demographically the states are more similar than you might think too: very white, very rural, very sparsely populated, very mountainous, not very religious. Biggest difference is Vermont is much more educated, well-off, and white collar.

[darklordoftech]

Also, in 2016, both states had the strongest anti-estabilshment sentiment.

[Alben Barkley]

Also, in 2016, both states had the strongest anti-estabilshment sentiment.

Yet another similarity is that both states have a nationally well-known senator who is (in)famous for being among the most independent-minded members of Congress and is not a member of the party the state routinely votes for in presidential elections. But their other senator is more conventional.

[RINO Tom]

I think you are firstly underestimating the demographic transformation that took place in VT that led to a very significant number of liberal transplants moving in and fundamentally changing the political character of the state.  While some former Republicans obviously defected, I think it's inaccurate to paint, say, 1920s Vermont as this socially liberal place that would move to the Democrats if the GOP became too socially conservative.  That does not jive with the history.  https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/new-vermont-is-liberal-but-old-vermont-is-still-there/

I also think it's worth noting that WV was fairly Republican before the New Deal.  Cleveland and Wilson were the only Democrats to win it since the Civil War, and Cleveland only barely got over 50% once.  I mean, Coolidge won it against a literal West Virginia Democrat.  I'm not sure there are great parallels of states over that much time, as states change SO much in just a few decades sometimes.  Look at 1980s Virginia vs. now or 1970s California vs. now.

[TDAS04]

The anti-Alabama/anti-Mississippi is a better description, especially with historical voting patterns, but also in that VT and WV are both very white, while AL/MS are deeply polarized between whites and AAs.

[Alben Barkley]

I think you are firstly underestimating the demographic transformation that took place in VT that led to a very significant number of liberal transplants moving in and fundamentally changing the political character of the state.  While some former Republicans obviously defected, I think it's inaccurate to paint, say, 1920s Vermont as this socially liberal place that would move to the Democrats if the GOP became too socially conservative.  That does not jive with the history.  https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/new-vermont-is-liberal-but-old-vermont-is-still-there/

I also think it's worth noting that WV was fairly Republican before the New Deal.  Cleveland and Wilson were the only Democrats to win it since the Civil War, and Cleveland only barely got over 50% once.  I mean, Coolidge won it against a literal West Virginia Democrat.  I'm not sure there are great parallels of states over that much time, as states change SO much in just a few decades sometimes.  Look at 1980s Virginia vs. now or 1970s California vs. now.

Obviously neither state changed completely overnight or completely replaced the state’s old views — that’s a big part of why you still have that lingering ancestral strength on some level in both states. (Phil Scott, Joe Manchin, etc.) I’m not saying 1920s Vermont was a bastion of social liberalism, but the West Virginia of that time wasn’t the same as the West Virginia of today either. “Transplants” are a natural part of any state’s change. In some ways it may just be another mirror, actually — in Vermont you have had more well-educated liberal types moving in for a while, while in West Virginia the state’s population has been declining dramatically for some time. Again, all this despite some pretty similar terrain and demographics.

And in any case, I don’t think “the fundamental character” of either state shifted all that much. I just think the states changed their political alignments much along the same lines as the parties themselves did over time. I know you’re a big proponent of “ackshually the parties never really flipped” and while there is SOME truth to that, and the idea of a big “switch” is way oversimplified to say the least, it’s also undeniable that the coalitions that defined each respective party shifted significantly over time and that states shifted their allegiances in turn to match that.

What’s striking about VT and WV is the sheer speed and magnitude of their switch — the swings between 1988 and 1992 for VT and 1996 and 2000 for WV were DRAMATIC. Long streaks of each state voting more for each respective party than the nation were cut off very suddenly. And while it’s true that WV was not solid D until FDR, well, I did say MOST of the 20th century for each. It’s just for WV it was swingy in the beginning and for VT towards the tail end of the century — see, another mirror!

Also in both states, when they flipped, they FLIPPED. They went to not just voting for the party they long opposed, but voting for them by huge margins, frequently in the upper 60s with all-county sweeps. Again, the magnitude is striking as well. I think WV is a better mirror for VT than the likes of Mississippi or Alabama because the demographics are so similar except in a few key ways, and because the timing and strength of these reverse trends were both so stark and so similar. AL/MS were and are much less elastic and much more racially polarized.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

West Virginia's loyalty to the Democratic Party was much shorter than Vermont's loyalty to the GOP.  Before the 1930s WV voted Republican pretty regularly.

[Former President tack50]

The anti-Alabama/anti-Mississippi is a better description, especially with historical voting patterns, but also in that VT and WV are both very white, while AL/MS are deeply polarized between whites and AAs.

Iirc, one of the "fun facts" of American elections is that despite both being states since a long long time ago, Georgia and Vermont have never voted together for a losing candidate if I am not mistaken.

Even if including winners, Georgia and Vermont have only voted together in the following elections:

1792 (Washington ran unopposed)
1804 (Jefferson reelection landslide)
1808 (Madison landslide)
1812 (Madison reelection)
1816 (Monroe landslide)
1820 (Monroe ran unopposed)
1836* (Van Buren vs several Whigs; Technically they voted for different candidates, though since both were Whigs I suppose it counts?)
1840 (William Henry Harrison)
1848 (Zachary Taylor)

1972 (Nixon reelection landslide)
1984 (Reagan reelection landslide)
1988 (HW Bush victory)
1992 (Bill Clinton elected)

So for 124 years between 1848 and 1972 GA and VT never voted for the same candidate. This streak was finally broken when Georgia flipped Republican in 1972 while Nixon won 49/50 states (GA flipped R in 1964 as well, but of course on that one VT voted Democratic). Then they voted together for the winner 3 times in a row between Reagan's landslide and Clinton's reelection. And that was it.

And like I mentioned, they never once voted together for a losing candidate; though technically they did both vote Whig in 1836, so I suppose that is a technicality.

Ironically, it is not hard to imagine GA and VT voting together for a losing candidate soon. If GA trends further Dem and ends up to the left of the US at large, it is trivial to imagine a close election where a Republican wins while GA goes Dem.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Vermont is maybe the anti-West Virginia as far as the small part of 21st century that has already passed is concerned, but it is not historically.

Also, Vermont may be more well-off and white-collar than West Virginia, but certainly it is not in an absolute sense. I mean, Wyoming has a higher median household income than Vermont... (and both are slightly below the U. S. average, 2018 data)

[Alcibiades]

The anti-Alabama/anti-Mississippi is a better description, especially with historical voting patterns, but also in that VT and WV are both very white, while AL/MS are deeply polarized between whites and AAs.

I would agree more with this. Vermont and the pair of Alabama/Mississippi (which have always voted identically since the Civil War) have never voted Democratic in the same presidential election. Vermont’s visceral ancestral Republican was similar to Alabama and Mississippi’s ancestral support for the Democrats. WV on the other hand was much more flexible, and its staunch support for the Democrats post-1932 was based on economic interest and support for the New Deal and labour unions. By the 90s/early 2000s the Dem vote in WV had arguably become ancestral, but by no means stretching back to the Civil War.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I think you are firstly underestimating the demographic transformation that took place in VT that led to a very significant number of liberal transplants moving in and fundamentally changing the political character of the state.  While some former Republicans obviously defected, I think it's inaccurate to paint, say, 1920s Vermont as this socially liberal place that would move to the Democrats if the GOP became too socially conservative.  That does not jive with the history.  https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/new-vermont-is-liberal-but-old-vermont-is-still-there/

I also think it's worth noting that WV was fairly Republican before the New Deal.  Cleveland and Wilson were the only Democrats to win it since the Civil War, and Cleveland only barely got over 50% once.  I mean, Coolidge won it against a literal West Virginia Democrat.  I'm not sure there are great parallels of states over that much time, as states change SO much in just a few decades sometimes.  Look at 1980s Virginia vs. now or 1970s California vs. now.

West Virginia's loyalty to the Democratic Party was much shorter than Vermont's loyalty to the GOP.  Before the 1930s WV voted Republican pretty regularly.

Not true. Tilden and Hancock, both of whom lost nationally, won West Virginia.

Vermont is maybe the anti-West Virginia as far as the small part of 21st century that has already passed is concerned, but it is not historically.

Also, Vermont may be more well-off and white-collar than West Virginia, but certainly it is not in an absolute sense. I mean, Wyoming has a higher median household income than Vermont... (and both are slightly below the U. S. average, 2018 data)

This. It's probably changed somewhat in the past 30-40 years, but I recall seeing a Bernie Sanders interview from the 80s in which he referred to Vermont as "one of the poorest states in the country."

[RINO Tom]

The anti-Alabama/anti-Mississippi is a better description, especially with historical voting patterns, but also in that VT and WV are both very white, while AL/MS are deeply polarized between whites and AAs.

I would agree more with this. Vermont and the pair of Alabama/Mississippi (which have always voted identically since the Civil War) have never voted Democratic in the same presidential election. Vermont’s visceral ancestral Republican was similar to Alabama and Mississippi’s ancestral support for the Democrats. WV on the other hand was much more flexible, and its staunch support for the Democrats post-1932 was based on economic interest and support for the New Deal and labour unions. By the 90s/early 2000s the Dem vote in WV had arguably become ancestral, but by no means stretching back to the Civil War.

I mean, but the three DID both vote Republican multiple times.

[Alcibiades]

The anti-Alabama/anti-Mississippi is a better description, especially with historical voting patterns, but also in that VT and WV are both very white, while AL/MS are deeply polarized between whites and AAs.

I would agree more with this. Vermont and the pair of Alabama/Mississippi (which have always voted identically since the Civil War) have never voted Democratic in the same presidential election. Vermont’s visceral ancestral Republican was similar to Alabama and Mississippi’s ancestral support for the Democrats. WV on the other hand was much more flexible, and its staunch support for the Democrats post-1932 was based on economic interest and support for the New Deal and labour unions. By the 90s/early 2000s the Dem vote in WV had arguably become ancestral, but by no means stretching back to the Civil War.

I mean, but the three DID both vote Republican multiple times.

True, although all four times were either landslides or very comfortable wins (and arguably during their respective transitions away and to the Republicans). I still find it interesting no Democratic candidate has ever been able to appeal to all three.

[OSR stands with Israel]

WV was no where near as Democratic for as long as VT was Republican. Pre 1932 WV was a Republican State

[lfromnj]

No its virginia lol
After truman Virginia was a pretty Republican state.

[Gustaf]

Where are people getting this bizarro take that West Virginia was Republican until the New Deal?

WV voted straight D for president 1876-1892, 5 elections in a row during the gilded age. While it then did vote Republican most of the time, that's because Republicans won almost every presidential election until the New Deal! WV voted more D than the national average in almost every election between the Gilded Age and FDR.

It's true it wasn't *as* Democratic as it became subsequently but calling it a Republican state isn't accurate. More like a Dem-leaning swing state.

[lfromnj]

Where are people getting this bizarro take that West Virginia was Republican until the New Deal?

WV voted straight D for president 1876-1892, 5 elections in a row during the gilded age. While it then did vote Republican most of the time, that's because Republicans won almost every presidential election until the New Deal! WV voted more D than the national average in almost every election between the Gilded Age and FDR.

It's true it wasn't *as* Democratic as it became subsequently but calling it a Republican state isn't accurate. More like a Dem-leaning swing state.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_West_Virginia

Lol no look at that red block that literally ends exactly at 1932.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Where are people getting this bizarro take that West Virginia was Republican until the New Deal?

WV voted straight D for president 1876-1892, 5 elections in a row during the gilded age. While it then did vote Republican most of the time, that's because Republicans won almost every presidential election until the New Deal! WV voted more D than the national average in almost every election between the Gilded Age and FDR.

It's true it wasn't *as* Democratic as it became subsequently but calling it a Republican state isn't accurate. More like a Dem-leaning swing state.

Wilson lost WV in 1916

[YL]

Where are people getting this bizarro take that West Virginia was Republican until the New Deal?

WV voted straight D for president 1876-1892, 5 elections in a row during the gilded age. While it then did vote Republican most of the time, that's because Republicans won almost every presidential election until the New Deal! WV voted more D than the national average in almost every election between the Gilded Age and FDR.

It's true it wasn't *as* Democratic as it became subsequently but calling it a Republican state isn't accurate. More like a Dem-leaning swing state.

Wilson lost WV in 1916

Very narrowly, and in fact it was close enough that one Wilson elector won.