New Hampshire

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[Gustaf]

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.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

[jravnsbo]

and back to American Politics and New Hampshire...

[Gustaf]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sounds about right.

[© tweed]

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.

[jravnsbo]

Cool.

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

God Bless Charlton Heston!

[dazzleman]

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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[© tweed]

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.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Then why is Vermont so liberal?

Because Vermont is cool!

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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

Then why is Vermont so liberal?

Because Vermont is cool!

And you say you are an Independant?

[jravnsbo]

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.

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Justin]

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?

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.

[NHPolitico]

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

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.

[jravnsbo]

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.

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

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.

[NHPolitico]

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?

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.

[Nym90]

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.

[NHPolitico]

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.