Which state has the longest history of voting against Democratic presidential nominees?

[nyquil_man]

A. Vermont

From 1828 to 1960, in 34 consecutive elections, Vermont voted against every Democratic nominee, from Jackson, to Cleveland, to Wilson, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy.

132 years. No current red state even comes close to that record. In fact, that's longer than the four reddest states in 2012 (Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Idaho) have even been states.

Vermont didn't stop there, either. After veering into the Democratic column for the Johnson landslide of 1964, it returned to the Republican column for another six elections. In 40 out of 41 presidential elections, Vermont opposed the Democratic candidate.

So, how did Vermont vote in 2012?

Obama - 66.57%
Romney - 30.97%

Behind the President's native Hawaii, it was the bluest of the 50 states.

It takes effort. Sometimes it takes an enormous amount of patience. But there is no state we can't win.

[calimary]

1. Excellent, nyquil_man: "there is no state we can't win."

Howard Dean proved that the "50-State Strategy" was a winner. Yes, I realize, we didn't win all 50 states. But we won more than we lost. And I think it was well worth giving some love to some long-neglected Dems in those states, too.

[nyquil_man]

3. The 50 state strategy was designed to be long term.

If you got 30% in the last election, you aim for 35% in the next. 40% in the one after that. 45% in the one after that... Short term, you'll still be losing elections. Long term, you're laying a foundation.

Politics is so fickle that long term strategies get lost in the shuffle.

[BlueMTexpat]

20. +1000 - or so!! eom

[LeftyMom]

2. I'm sorry, but that's a really shallow reading of history.

In the years that VT didn't vote Democratic, Democrats were the party associated with southern racism (including anti-immigrant sentiment toward people who would now be considered "white".) Northeastern Republicans were the social liberals. The party switch neatly reflects the realignment of the two parties on social issues.

The parties changed, the attitudes of voters in the northeast stayed remarkably consistent.

[nyquil_man]

4. And that's a shallow forecast for the future.

Do you think everything's set in stone now?

[LeftyMom]

5. You can't predict the future based on a comically bad understanding of history.

At least not with any appreciable accuracy.

[nyquil_man]

6. Is that why you didn't answer the question? nt

[LeftyMom]

7. Your question is based on incorrect assumptions, but here goes:

Your OP actually provides an excellent counterexample of what you're claiming. While parties can change their emphasis on issues and the electorate can change their attitude on issues over time, regional trends tend to be long lasting and resistant to change. One of the main factors behind this, and one of the most intractable, is religion.

[nyquil_man]

9. What I'm claiming is that even the most solidly partisan state can change sides.

That is all I'm claiming. It is an argument for having a strong, responsive party presence in every state, regardless of that state's current partisan status.

It is an argument against believing that certain states cannot be won.

Do you disagree with those arguments or would you rather continue to disagree with arguments I haven't actually made?

[LeftyMom]

10. Your example is one of the parties changing sides and a state being very consistent.

The social trends that flip states (demographic changes in age, religiosity, ethnic composition and income) aren't controlled by parties, they adjust their messages based on those realities.

[nyquil_man]

11. I didn't say social trends were controlled by parties.

You are arguing with your imagination. Really.

[LeftyMom]

12. Your whole argument is based on this "50 state strategy" bumper sticker slogan.

You stated that "there's no state we can't win" and I'm sorry, but that's just not true. At least to the extent that "we" means a party with anything resembling it's current ideology.

A democratic victory in Utah (to use the most obvious example) is impossible without dramatic change in the demographics of the state, a dramatic realignment in the social politics of the party, or a complete 180 by the dinosaurs who run the Mormon church. Utah will reliably vote for the most socially conservative (and racist) party available because doing so is consistent with the state's religious ideology. That will not change until the state's underlying ideology changes, and that's almost certainly not going to happen in most of our lifetimes, because the church is very hierarchical and it's structure makes it unusually resistant to change.

Likewise Democrats lost the bible belt when the orientation of Baptist and evangelical churches changed toward an emphasis on social issues and abortion instead of personal transformation and a rejection of worldly concerns. This is reversing slowly as younger Baptists and evangelicals come of age with different social attitudes and a renewed emphasis on personal transformation and social justice, and as the demographics of the region slowly change (immigration, urbanization, etc)

[nyquil_man]

14. Okay, let's abandon every state where your understanding of the demographics

tells us that we can't win.

Let's tell those voters, "Hey, we don't know how to talk to you about our principles. So we won't bother. Just keep voting Republican. We expect you to." Yes, that's a brilliant, forward-looking strategy.

And "Because Demographics" would look great on a bumper sticker, too.

[LeftyMom]

16. I live in a state with 0 statewide Republican officers, a democratic supermajority in the leg,

a Dem governor, two Democratic senators who will only lose their seats to retirement or death, and if Republicans are dumb enough to waste money here on a presidential election I'll laugh myself sick.

That said, they're still more likely to flip CA than dems are to flip Utah.

Fortunately most of the states Dems have zero chance in are cheap media markets, so wasting money on a few ads and a campaign stop in them isn't a huge waste. But it's a waste, because ads and appearances don't flip states that aren't close, and underlying changes within those states get them close.

To look at an intrastate example: look at elections in VA. Dems pound away at the northern counties near DC, even though these are the most expensive to work, because the demographics are in their favor and these areas are winnable. A candidate who diverted time from these winnable areas to put more than a token effort into the parts of the state with unwinnable demographics would hurt their chances, because they would be wasting money and time working on people they were not going to persuade. This is even more foolish in the case of a national campaign, because the electoral college does not reward incremental improvements in unwinnable states.

[nyquil_man]

17. I understand your defeatism.

You don't have to keep explaining it.

[LeftyMom]

18. It's not defeatism, it's a long term view. Underlying trends are favorable in many places.

However campaign stops don't change them faster. I know that's not what campaign consultants and pundits say because "we'll win the state when the hateful people die off" isn't an action plan you can sell for a gazillion dollars and it doesn't drive the horse race coverage of campaigns, but it's true.

[nyquil_man]

19. You're trapped in a box

and, because you can't figure out how to get out of it, you assume nobody else can either.

Yes, it's defeatism. Your "long term strategy" is to stay in the box and wait for the wood to rot.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. The fact that you use the word "defeatism" shows that you don't understand.

The debate here is between evidence-based realism and blind-faith optimism in defiance of the evidence; the former is what the Democrats need.

[raven mad]

23. Tell that to Mark Begich -

THE big "D" from the very, very red state of Alaska.

[truebluegreen]

35. A very conservative dem

from the libertarian (but socialist) state of Alaska.

[raven mad]

36. He has to be.

To get elected in a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Oil/Military.

[truebluegreen]

37. So you are conceding LeftyMom's point?

[raven mad]

38. I wasn't replying to LeftyMom, but yes.

There's a lot that depends on where you live. At least Mark has that big, beautiful, blue "D" next to his name - and that was one hell of a battle up here.

[dsc]

45. who beat, by a miniscule margin, a man who was convicted of fraud just days earlier

Oh, and Alaska is way, way, way less red than either Utah or Oklahoma.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. Not entirely true - as Vermont resumed voting Republican from 1968-1988,

1968: They voted Nixon
1972: They voted Nixon
1976: They voted Ford
1980: They voted Reagan
1984: They voted Reagan
1988: They voted Bush

Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to win Vermont since LBJ's landslide in '64. Outside '64, Vermont voted Republican in every election since 1856. In fact, Johnson was the first Democrat to ever win Vermont. Prior to 1992, well after the Republican Party was co-opted by the Racist Right, he remained the only Democratic president to win the state.

[cali]

30. sure and at the same time, Vermont elected liberal repub after liberal repub

to Congress.

people who established landmark liberal education legislation , like Robert Stafford- heard of Stafford loans, right? People who led the fight against McCarthy like Aiken and Flanders- the latter was the Senator who introduced legislation censuring McCarthy.

Vermont Republicans led the fight for environmental leadership- both in the state on outside of it. Vermont's radical land use legislation, Act 250 was republican. So was the banning of billboards in the state.

[cali]

22. bingo, LM

[struggle4progress]

39. +

[Johonny]

40. +1

[LuvNewcastle]

8. Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic nominee to be elected in Mississippi.

In 1976, he won by a 1.9% margin. Miss. has voted for Republicans in Presidential elections beginning with Reagan in 1980. No Democrat has carried the state since.

http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/92/presidential-elections-mississippis-voting-history

[Blue_In_AK]

15. Alaska hasn't voted for a Democratic candidate for president since 1964,

much, much too long.

[merrily]

25. True.

Before McCain named Palin, though, Alaska had gone for Obama over McCain in at least one poll. I remember an Obama supporter posting that triumphantly on another message board.

[Blue_In_AK]

41. That's true.

Obama was doing quite well, and even Sarah herself said she liked him and wouldn't be too upset if he took the state -- that is, BEFORE McCain and his crew picked her and brought out her worst. There's an old New Yorker article from the summer of 2008 where she's quite candid about her admiration for candidate Obama.

It's really a shame about Alaska because we were founded as a very progressive state, solidly Democratic, almost socialist, but with the oil boom the state was infested with Texas and Oklahoma oil men and their southern ways. Those of us who have been around here a long time are really heartbroken about it.

[merrily]

42. I did not know about the article.

I am surprised that I did not hear about it during the 2008 campaign.

It really is too bad about Alaska. I would be very upset if my state went from blue to red.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. I can't seem to find the original article

for some reason, but here's a reference to it. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mccain-iraq-page-palin-article-1.314795

[merrily]

44. Thank you.

I hope my post didn't seem as though I doubted the existence of the article. I believed you.

[Blue_In_AK]

46. Oh, no, nothing like that.

I just thought you might be interested to read it. Sarah basically did a 180 on just about everything after McCain picked her. She was bipartisan when she was governor.

[merrily]

47. Good.

I would hate to have insulted you without meaning to do so. Wasn't Sarah also at least sympathetic to secessionists before McCain picked her? It's really hard for me to see her as anything rational and consistent. No, that's not right either. I see her as consistently opportunist.

[Blue_In_AK]

48. I think Todd was more into the Alaska Independence Party

than Sarah was, but she was never an ordinary Republican. She made her reputation here by opposing the good ol' boy Republican establishment which at the time (2006) was under investigation by the FBI. She cooperated with the Dems in the state legislature to pass some pretty good laws and had many, many enemies within the mainline R ranks. She really was quite popular here, but not at all for any of the reasons that she's popular with certain factions now. Like I said -- a 180. She was unrecognizable to a lot of us when she gave that speech at the convention.


As far as the Alaska Independence Party, the topic of "federal overreach" is ever popular here. I don't think anyone really wants to secede, they're just pissed off that so much of the state is tied up in federal ownership, over 60%. Only 1% of Alaska's land is privately owned.

[merrily]

50. Yes, Todd was a member and she was not.

But, then again, could she have been a member and still sworn an oath of office, even as Mayor of Wassila? As I recall, she was friendly to the secessionists, but said that she had no choice given she was an officeholder and had to be friendly to everyone.

I could easily be wrong that it was secessionists, though. Could have been some other group. Crap. 2008 and I am forgetting already!

She made her reputation here by opposing the good ol' boy Republican establishment which at the time (2006) was under investigation by the FBI.

But, didn't that help her get elected? I don't remember all the details and you probably do, but I seem to recall that her horror of corruption served her personal interests.

She cooperated with the Dems in the state legislature to pass some pretty good laws and had many, many enemies within the mainline R ranks.

Okay, that seems strongly in her favor. Then again, things before 2008 were not as bad as they are now. Romney cooperated with a legislature that was over 90% Democratic in order to get some legislation passed, including Romneycare (tho Kennedy helped with that). I don't know if Romney would do that today, if he had his eye on the Oval Office. IIRC, even then, Romney started changing after the 2004 Presidential election.

I don't think anyone really wants to secede, they're just pissed off that so much of the state is tied up in federal ownership, over 60%. Only 1% of Alaska's land is privately owned.

I did not know that, either. Interesting, thanks. Who owns the other 39%?

BTW, totally unrelated: did you know that the US was once (maybe still--I don't know) the largest single landowner in Bermuda? At least Alaska is a US state!

Todd and his buddies are trying to get the feds to give or sell property (cheaply, I'm guessing), by threatening secession? Still doesn't sound that good to me. I also remember Sarah incorporating a business under a name that means Redneck in another language (French, IIRC). Between that and the secessionist connection, I fell in love with instantly.

But, I will take your word that she did a 180 after McCain chose her. And, I bet she'd do another 180 if she thought it would help her in any way.

[Blue_In_AK]

51. Breakdown of Alaska land ownership is here

http://nrm.salrm.uaf.edu/~stodd/AlaskaPlanningDirectory/landOwnership.html

65% federal
24% state
10% native corporations
1% private

The link shows further breakdowns within those categories -- national parks, national forests, military land, etc. etc.


As for Sarah, yes, she's an extraordinary opportunist. There's no doubt she worked the scandals to her advantage. We were all so sick of Frank Murkowski and the corruption, she seemed like a breath of fresh air. I didn't vote for her, but I did meet her when she was campaigning, and I liked her well enough. She was spunky. ... Little did we know just how "spunky" she would become. Lol.

[merrily]

52. To quote the Lou Grant character (Mary Tyler Moore)

"You're spunky.......I hate spunk."

Unlike Lou Grant, I have no particular objection to spunk, but I object to Palin!

Thank you for the information. That's very interesting.

I always learn something at DU.

[LuvNewcastle]

29. Carter was the only Democrat after 1964 to win Miss., and he won

by such a small percentage that it's safe to say he was an aberration. I think the only reason he won that election here was because he said he was a born-again Christian. Well, it was that and the fact that there were still some white yellow dog Democrats alive to vote for him.

[cali]

21. this Vermonter knows what nonsense your OP is.

sure, it's true that Vermont voted Republican for eons, but it's also true that Vermont was the first state to outlaw slavery. Vermont has always been quirky and independent and it's never been conservative in the way that Oklahoma or South Carolina have.

In other words, the transition wasn't nearly as great as you think and that's reflected in these folks who were elected as republicans to the U.S. Senate and House:

Deane Davis

Ralph Flanders

Winston Prouty

Robert Stafford

George Aiken

Look up these guys- they ALL left a liberal legacy and they were all Republicans- and let's not forget Jim Jeffords-

Vermont's land use laws and environmental direction were ALL established by republicans.

It's just foolish as hell to compare Vermont with Oklahoma.

[merrily]

26. I agree with you that Vermont is essentially a liberal state on issues.

I agree with the OP, though, that no state should be written off as impossible. On the third hand, though, resources are finite.

Right now, it's been certain counties in purple states that have been deciding Presidential elections. Some say 8 counties, some say 12, some say 100 counties, but it drills down to some number of counties.

[cali]

28. oh, I do too merrily. I'm a big proponent of the 50 state strategy

but using VT as an example is absurd.

[merrily]

24. Vermont has been voting Democratic in Presidential elections consistently for a while now.

And it has elected one of the most liberal Senators, namely, Sanders.

It dropped my jaw that Obama won Indiana in 2008, though.

In any event, I agree with your overall point. Anything is possible.

[JI7]

27. and West Virginia use to be a Very Democratic State

your op just ignores history, culture, local and state politics .

[nilesobek]

31. I live in Idaho and refuse

to believe we can't win even though we hardly ever do. It only takes effort and determination. I do believe there is a lot of just general apathy out there considering the voter's overall participation numbers.

[TexasProgresive]

32. There is a gag in White Christmas

that something was as scarce as a Democrat in Vermont.

So that must've been common knowledge.

[cali]

33. Vermont: First state to outlaw slavery. First state to provide suffrage for non-property owners

first state to provide public school education. And this was all in Vermont's Constitution which predates its joining the union in 1791. Prior to that it was an independent Republic for some years.

Many of Vermont's 20th century Republican Senators, Reps and Guvs have left a decidedly liberal legacy in the arenas of environmentalism- think Vermont's groundbreaking Act 250 land use legislation and no billboard legislation, to higher ed- think Stafford loans, as in Robert Stafford, Vermont Republican Senator.

I could go on and on and on.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. The problem with this is that back in 1828 we'd have all been Republicans, or at least I would have

Because I am opposed to slavery. I would have probably been a very strong Republican, as I am strongly opposed to slavery, Democrats supported slavery, I would have voted Lincoln, among others, and as was the case for many, many people, that 'we support slavery' crap would have poisoned the Democratic brand for me, probably for a lifetime.
So you are blaming Vermont for not voting for Pro Slavery Democrats. For opposing slavery. It's a hell of a proposition you are making, you seem to be asking current Democrats to support principles of a Party that no longer exists as it did then.
I'd have joined Vermont in voting Republican when Democratic meant supporting human chattel slavery. Supporting the 'fugitive slave laws'. Sorry, you are on your own with this shit.
50 States today, maybe, but the historical context you attempt to provide is bogus and a tad on the creepy side.

[Nye Bevan]

49. 1976 is interesting. Texas went Democratic but Vermont Republican!