Talk Elections

Why is NH so different from neighbouring Vermont, Mass and RI in it's voting inclinations? It seems to be much more inclined to the GOP than the region as a whole. Why? Is it based purely on fiscal policy or is it more socially conservative?

I'm not from New Hampshire but as it is my second favorite state (behind my own, of course), I will give a go at explaining it.  I also have a personal empathy for NH, as it voted for Buchannan during my so-con phase and McCain during my moderate phase. :)

The state's motto - "Live Free or Die" explains it all.  New Hampshire is probably the most ideologically libertarian state in the union and thus has an overall preference for Republican candidates.  It has no state income tax and not many other taxes for that matter.

It also is probably the most (small-d) democratic state with a 400-member legislature and an great tradition of citizen civic involvement.  That's why we trust it to select our Presidential nominees :)

It has made some 'wierd' choices though.  It has a strong contingent of populists who sympathize with social conservatives - hence the election of Senator Bob Smith and the '96 primary victory of Pat Buchannan.  I think it has less to do with an agreement on social conservative issues, and more to do with the idea of challenging an establishment.  Buchannan's slogan was "peasants with pitchforks" and that kind of thing plays well in NH better than it would in any other state.  'Insurgent' candidates (Dean, Bradley, McCain, Buchannan, etc.) usually have a better shot in NH because of this populism.

NH is certainly different from Massachusetts and western Vermont but not all that different from Maine or eastern Vermont. (four of VT's easternmost counties went for Bush in '00)

And as for inclination, keep in mind that all three states you mentioned (Vermont, Mass, and RI) have GOP governors :)

...But Wyoming has a Democrat governor(!)

It makes no sense. The GOP is an enemy of personal freedom. Why would a state that supports less invasive government vote GOP?

   Its called the NRA and Gun Control, most Republicans are against gun control, most Democrats are for it, and that is a big issue, along with taxes, in NH.

Well, they claim to be.

Yes, bizzare!
I think presidential elections are a better way to judge the voting inclinations of states!

I think elections for Congress (especially the House) are a better way to gauge the political climate of a particular era than elections for President are. America was far far ***FAR*** more conservative under Clinton than under Reagan.

2002 saw a lot of switches in Gov.  WY, KS and OK of note all voted in Dem gov in GOP states.  

However the GOP also won in traditional dem states; HI, GA, MD being the 3 most remarkable; but also the GOP continued its domination in MA, which amazes me likes the Utah Dem Gov talked about on another thread.


The GOP is definately against gun control.  Gore was severly hurt byu this issue in 2000 in WV and other like states.  Dean at least from Dem side supports states rights on this one.

Bush hasn't done a thing to help America's hunters.

When he conquered Iraq, he even tried to seize guns from Iraqis. If he thought he could get away with it in America, he'd do it.

Ok I respectfully disagree.  Well one you don't have to do anything to help people.  The hunters and ie gun owners don't want anything done except to have their 2nd Amendment rights protected.  They don't need any laws or executive orders passed to do that just enforce the constitution.  There are enough gun laws ont he books now, just enforce what we have.  

Agreed

LOL there are a LOT of things in America that REALLY puzzle you arnt they bandit?? ;D

As a side note Vermont was an underpopulated Republican bastion until the 1970s, when lots of liberals (like Howard Dean) started moving in with a concerted effort to take over the state.  Perhaps NH's strict anti-tax laws have made it unpalatable to such efforts, and it has remained more conservative than the rest of NewEngland.

I agree-I am puzzled as to what Bush could do to "help the hunters".  The taking away guns in Iraq point is not really relevant as I see it, after all, it is tough enough to determine who is fighting us over there and who is not.  Additional guns in the Iraqi population (at this point in time) would only cause more problems for US.  I don't think you can draw a conclusion that Bush would take everyones gun if he could b/c he took guns from Iraq.  Looks like you're falling for the empty Patriot Act Is Evil rhetoric.

By the way, someone mentioned Maryland along with 2 other states as surprisingly having Rep governors.  Just to share personal experience, it was truly shocking when Ehrlich (R) defeated Kennedy Townsend (D) in the 02 governors contest, since you have to do an archaeological dig in this state to find a Republican voter or politician.  I felt I was wasting my time bothering to vote that day, and was amazed at the result. In my opinion, this governor's race is a great example of what is going on with politics as a whole in this country (the Rep upswing).  One of the debates took place at Morgan State University, and the crowd was vehemently anti-Ehrlich.  What happened at the debate was a microcosm of the whole campaign and I feel the reason Ehrlich and other Reps are winning.  He calmly delivered a positive, coherent, positive message, refusing to sling mud, while Townsend frequently lost her cool when things were not going her way and ran on a negative, scare-tactic basis.  The voters responded to the positive message (despite the overwhelming Dem tendencies of this state), just as is happening all over the country.  Very Reaganesque.

interesting and informative post, wonk.

i have relatives there too near Baltimore and they were surprised but happy at the Gov Ehrlich win.  

Maryland ain't really all that liberal. It's dominated by suburbs, and it has a high average income. Last I heard, it still had some pretty loopy conservative laws.

Oh it's liberal.  Trust me.

No, what bandit is saying makes sense. Although the GOP supports less government on affirmative action, guns, and most economic issues, they favor a more intrusive government on the following issues:

abortion
capital punishment
flag desecration
school prayer
the war on drugs
military spending
the 1st and 4th amendments
most gay rights issues
internet regulation

And immigration of course.

An American friend of mine told me that politicians of both colours tend to be socially liberal in liberal states and vice versa. Is that usually correct? If so, would a 'liberal' Republican be elected in Utah or Texas? Even if they were up against a socially conservative Democrat?

Normally a 'liberal' Republican or a 'conservative' Democrat would be knocked out in a primary so that simply doesn't happen that often.

One example I can think of is the Congressional race last year in Maine 2.  The district went for Gore - I wouldn't call it liberal, but it does tend to favor Dems.  Kevin Raye (R) is pro-choice while Mike Michaud (D) is pro-life.  Michaud won the election even though he would probably be considered a socially conservative Democrat.

I think this is the tendency but there's quite a few exceptions.  There's pro-life Democrats around and pro-choice abortion Republicans if you really look at voting records.  Until this year Dennis Kucinnich was pro-life!

What you have to remember is that the US (like the UK) have a political system where you vote for candidates, not parties. Because of this things can get turned upside down rather easily due to personal charisma/unpopularity, etc. This is very clear in the US where someone like Reagan could win everywhere except extreme conservatism simply because voters supported him as president. This is why congressional elections really gives a better picture, since you get rid of some of the personal dynamics ruling presdential ones.

Got it in one.

It should obviously be "despite extreme conservatism", not except (!), since it makes no sense. I was tired and English isn't my first language...

On and other point I think a two-party-system also contributes to upsets and dramatic changes in the electorate. I live in Sweden and we have had the same party in government for 62 out of the last 71 years (!!). One of the reasons for this is that discontented left-wingers tend to vote for another leftist party and vice-versa, instead of crossing bloc lines. In the US there really is nowhere else to go bt to the opposition which makes electoral fortunes change rather often.

If I remember correctly, the Swedish Social Democrat's have been the most electorally sucessful socialist party in the world.
Compare with the SPUSA...

I would think you are very correct...

In Sweden the right winged parties have actually once campaigned udner the slogan "support the oppsostion this year", which kind of says it all...

Also, the two occasions on which no-socialist governements have been elected, 1976 and 1991, have seen the two deepest economical crises since the depression.  

Is this linked? ;)

and back to American Politics and New Hampshire...

Sorry, jravnsbo, but there are a lot of off-topic threads in this forum. It's a jungle out there!

To Realpolitik: Not really no. In -76 the collapse came within months of the election, I think it might have been before the formal concede had been made. The real reason is probably that the Swedes only dare to vote for the right when the economy is doing really, really great. And that is always just before a depression.

Sounds about right.

New Hampshire is to the right of neighbouring states because of its very low minority population.

"American Hunter" is the official journal of the NRA.  This issue's cover has a picture of Charlton Heston, and the cover read "From my cold, dead hands sweepstates!  Win a rifle and help us win the 2004 elections!"  Ugh.

Cool.

Mr. Gore "You can take my gun from my cold dead hand!"

God Bless Charlton Heston!

Then why is Vermont so liberal?  Vermont doesn't have any more minorities than New Hampshire does.

In neighboring states, white voters are very liberal, so I don't think it has that much to do with the state's population of minorities.

Vermont ISNT liberal.  Burlington is North Manhattan, the rest of the state is west New Hampshire :)

In VT Dean had a reputation as an expert "triangulator" with a fetish for balanced budgets.

Htmdon is right-Vermont isn't all that liberal.  Take the 2000 and 1996 Pe's:

2000: Gore 50.63 to Bush 40.7
1996: Clinton 53-Dole 31-Perot 12, But NH went Clinton by 11%.  New York was 59-31-8 and Mass 61-28-9.
Vermont has the 13th highest percentage for Gore in 2000.  Not that impressive.

Because Vermont is cool!

He's independent in that Bernie Sanders sort of way.

If VT isn't liberal, answer me these questions?

Why did it pass civil unions?

Why does it consistently send a Representative to Congress that acknowwledges he is a SOCIALIST!

Plus add in Sen Leahy ( Hard left) and Sen Jumping Jim Jeffords and it looks very liberal to me.

Then having Howard Dean come from there sure doesn't improve its image as a moderate state.

Bernie is a very good constituancy rep and he usually gets about a quater of the normal GOP vote(!)
In Vermont people tend to "vote for the man, not for the party", something common in a lot of rural areas.

Everyone is going to have civil unions soon, why not be first!  Note that the passage of civil unions did not cause an immediate end to the family in Vermont.



Why does it consistently send representatives to Montpelier who acknowledge they are conservatives?  That's better than we can do here in Tennessee!



They have a socialist congressman, a liberal and a moderate-liberal senator, and a Republican governor and state house.  I think they just want one of each.  (I think they have some Libertarian state reps too)



Howard Dean WAS a centrist as governor.  (Al Gore was a centrist as a Senator from TN)
 
 

Our State's voting record is different from other states in NE for many different reasons.  One of these reasons is becuase we believe in low taxes and no new taxes. We want our politicians that we elect to be fiscally responsible and not force unpopular tax increases upon us. We are also brought up with more conservative ideals and we also believe in the idea that government needs to be smaller and and more responsible to the people.

It's been said that voters in SD want Democrats in DC to bring back money and Republicans in SD to manage it.

very true about SD and your NH analysis is right on as I see it as an outsider too.  That is why I think Bush will win NH over the Dem nominee since they are all advocating tax increases.

Vermont would be more similar if not for the immigration of liberals from New York who wanted to turn the state into a flower power commune of goofy idealism.  

One interesting trend is that the richer the state has become (the richer the residents have become), the more inclined they are to support more social spending and higher taxes-- the story of the rest of New England and the whole Yankee area of the country.  So far, the desire hasn't really bubbled up with any vigor, but it's there. Maybe a case of guilty rich syndrome. Who knows?  

The courts have gotten engaged in deciding how much should be spent on education and that puts pressure on low tax rates, too.

The state really embraced its identity of low taxes and individual liberty under Meldrim Thomson. Before then, the state was more Eisenhower Republicanism than Reagan Republicanism. Thomson came up with all sorts of pithy quotes that Reagan conservatives salivate over-- "Ax the tax," "Keep your guns," "Live free or die," "They are wrong: My beliefs [aren't rooted in the 19th-century as I've been accused, but instead] are rooted in the values of the 17th century, and I'm proud of it." He also thought the national guard should have access to nuclear weapons.  Now, all of our statewide elected leaders are Reagan conservatives.  Even Bradley and Bass are supportive of supply-side tax policy.  

I will say that social conservatism isn't a big factor here.  New England believes in Frost's "good fences make good neighbors" statement. New Hampshire pretty much does, too.  There are far fewer churches in the region-- even in Republican New Hampshire-- than in Southern states. The churches we do have are dry and non-controversial. Even Yankee catholic churches aren't as strict as varieties elsewhere.

Well, if New Hampshire truly does support fiscal responsibility and smaller government, I can't see how Bush would be popular there. Rather, it seems that New Hamsphire likes tax cuts, period.

It's like David Brooks has said, the modern Republican Party has basicly declared defeat on things like Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Medicaid, the Dept of Education, etc.  The GOP now stands for trying to bring some free marketism to these programs, but they don't disagree with these programs' right to exist.  GOP voters here in NH and across the country don't expect Bush to shut down these programs and departments.  

Of the $209B three-year discretionary increase under Bush, 76% of that increase ($159B) has been for defense and domestic security.

During that same period, spending for all remaining discretionary programs has grown from $331B to $381B. That's 15%, or 5% a year.

Yes, spending could have been cut even less than 5% per year, but Bush wanted to give prescription drug coverage to the elderly, subsidies to farmers, etc. (the compassionate part of his agenda, I guess). Voters can tell him in November if they disagree with spending on these programs.

So, on social issues, NH would be in the middle of the pack nationally on abortion, gay rights, Iraqi war, etc.?

Would Democrats be competitive if they ran as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal?

Also, isn't it true that NH is the only state that doesn't require a car driver or passenger to wear a seatbelt?

It's true that we don't have adult seatbelt laws, yes.

Culturally, the state is libertarian.  They support the war, though, and support some limits on abortion access.

this is mainly due to the democratic rise in the connecticut river valley

In before MTTreasurer

A thread from 2003...really?   This is like digging up a history book.

New Hampshire is the only state that's dominated by Boston exurbs, and Boston exurbs that are that far out are generally conservative (especially in NH where people are moving to avoid taxes).

Massachusetts is dominated by Boston and contains part of the Birkenstock Belt, Vermont is almost all Birkenstock Belt, Maine is Maine, Rhode Island has Providence, and Connecticut has a few decent-sized cities plus the entire Hartford area is pretty Democratic.