On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, SA wrote:
> You can see that West Virginia had a competitive alternating two-party
> system while Virginia had literally zero Republican senators from 1877
> to 1973.
Fair enough. West Virginia is an interesting and exceptional state.
But back to the original point: I don't think it's hard to explain why poor rural folk vote for an anti-poor party if they are against big government on principle. It's kind of like rich people who vote for the Democrats even though they are for higher taxes on rich people. Both would consider giving up their principles for their self-interest to be venal. And poor people are just as principled as rich people on this point. The only violate a principle for another principle (or because they think the party has betrayed the principle).
> One interesting exception, though, is Harlan County. In the 1976
> election (which I think is the best point of comparison because it was
> close and it precedes Reagan), Harlan gave Carter 61% of the two-party
> vote; in 2008 it gave McCain 72% of the vote. That's a huge swing.
True, but this might have something to do the fact that when Carter was first running he was considered the first evangelical for President. The controversy over his being born again rallied evangelicals behind him and he overwhelming got their vote -- the last time that happened for the Dems. Disappointment with him (i.e., that he didn't storm into the temple of hte party and break the tablets of its social policy) was part of what gave rise to the moral majority and its marriage to the Repugs.
I'd be interested in their votes in 1980 and 1984, if you have them handy.
Michael