New Hampshire Megathread: Sherman in

[brucejoel99]

@sawx: Can they remove him from this office at some point if a situation warrants it, or is this set in stone?

Impeachment

[Strudelcutie4427]

This is sad news, but at the least it seems likely this will be Gardner's final term.

A close election in 2020 benefits NH republicans. There was just D+7 years and they still couldn’t get rid of Gardner. I don’t expect him to go anywhere or if he does van ostern will not win in a closer legislature

[free my dawg]

@sawx: Can they remove him from this office at some point if a situation warrants it, or is this set in stone?

Nope. Well there's impeachment, but he's been scandal-free. There's no apolitical reason to do it.

This is sad news, but at the least it seems likely this will be Gardner's final term.

A close election in 2020 benefits NH republicans. There was just D+7 years and they still couldn’t get rid of Gardner. I don’t expect him to go anywhere or if he does van ostern will not win in a closer legislature

You're operating under the assumption that Van Ostern lost because of his campaign skills. Van Ostern lost because Gardner has built literal decades of personal connections in both parties. You don't just coincidentally have the GOP be fine with you since the 1980s, and you just don't become their de facto candidate as a Democrat.

This race basically exists in its own bubble. Most of his defectors are long-time state representatives who really don't have much accountability to the state establishment. To put it as plainly as I can, Bill Gardner won because there are many state reps who won't throw away decades of actual nonpartisanship over 2 years of GOP loyalty.

[Antonio the Sixth]

F**k this f**king party.

Between this, Schumer giving away free money to T***p on immigration, the PSC's shenanigans, and the inability to get voters out in Georgia, Democrats keep proving why they don't deserve to win elections.

[free my dawg]

F**k this f**king party.

Between this, Schumer giving away free money to T***p on immigration, the PSC's shenanigans, and the inability to get voters out in Georgia, Democrats keep proving why they don't deserve to win elections.

Really in general, the party needs a good purge.

[Virginiá]

This is sad news, but at the least it seems likely this will be Gardner's final term.

A close election in 2020 benefits NH republicans. There was just D+7 years and they still couldn’t get rid of Gardner. I don’t expect him to go anywhere or if he does van ostern will not win in a closer legislature

lol that is irrelevant. They could have, but he just barely scraped by due to what sawx said. If it was strictly a party-line vote, he'd be gone.

[smoltchanov]

I have a "double feeling" about that: understand a frustration of "partisan Democrats", but - still glad, that such notion, as friendship, surpasses ideological disagreements sometimes. That rarely happens now in our "scoundrel's time"....

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have a "double feeling" about that: understand a frustration of "partisan Democrats", but - still glad, that such notion, as friendship, surpasses ideological disagreements sometimes. That rarely happens now in our "scoundrel's time"....

yay naked cronyism!!! so beautiful

[Virginiá]

I have a "double feeling" about that: understand a frustration of "partisan Democrats", but - still glad, that such notion, as friendship, surpasses ideological disagreements sometimes. That rarely happens now in our "scoundrel's time"....

yay naked cronyism!!! so beautiful

Yeah, I have to say, in this instance, if they are voting for him based on some vague years-old "personal connection" despite Gardner having little in common with them with regards to election policy, then that is pretty blatant cronyism. Gardner isn't some election god, he's just another guy who has outstayed his welcome. They could have given him the boot today and New Hampshire's elections and presidential primaries would have kept on ticking just fine.

[smoltchanov]

I have a "double feeling" about that: understand a frustration of "partisan Democrats", but - still glad, that such notion, as friendship, surpasses ideological disagreements sometimes. That rarely happens now in our "scoundrel's time"....

yay naked cronyism!!! so beautiful

I frequently quarrell with my friends, but would always vote for ANY of them over ANY ideological "principles"....

[smoltchanov]

I have a "double feeling" about that: understand a frustration of "partisan Democrats", but - still glad, that such notion, as friendship, surpasses ideological disagreements sometimes. That rarely happens now in our "scoundrel's time"....

yay naked cronyism!!! so beautiful

Yeah, I have to say, in this instance, if they are voting for him based on some vague years-old "personal connection" despite Gardner having little in common with them with regards to election policy, then that is pretty blatant cronyism. Gardner isn't some election god, he's just another guy who has outstayed his welcome. They could have given him the boot today and New Hampshire's elections and presidential primaries would have kept on ticking just fine.

As i said - it was for them to decide. They (just as i would do) seem to preferred friendship over ideological expediency. You think differently - it's your right.

[Boobs]

I have a "double feeling" about that: understand a frustration of "partisan Democrats", but - still glad, that such notion, as friendship, surpasses ideological disagreements sometimes. That rarely happens now in our "scoundrel's time"....

yay naked cronyism!!! so beautiful

Yeah, I have to say, in this instance, if they are voting for him based on some vague years-old "personal connection" despite Gardner having little in common with them with regards to election policy, then that is pretty blatant cronyism. Gardner isn't some election god, he's just another guy who has outstayed his welcome. They could have given him the boot today and New Hampshire's elections and presidential primaries would have kept on ticking just fine.

As i said - it was for them to decide. They (just as i would do) seem to preferred friendship over ideological expediency. You think differently - it's your right.

Unfortunately for them, they were elected for their policy positions, not for their friends.

[smoltchanov]

I have a "double feeling" about that: understand a frustration of "partisan Democrats", but - still glad, that such notion, as friendship, surpasses ideological disagreements sometimes. That rarely happens now in our "scoundrel's time"....

yay naked cronyism!!! so beautiful

Yeah, I have to say, in this instance, if they are voting for him based on some vague years-old "personal connection" despite Gardner having little in common with them with regards to election policy, then that is pretty blatant cronyism. Gardner isn't some election god, he's just another guy who has outstayed his welcome. They could have given him the boot today and New Hampshire's elections and presidential primaries would have kept on ticking just fine.

As i said - it was for them to decide. They (just as i would do) seem to preferred friendship over ideological expediency. You think differently - it's your right.

Unfortunately for them, they were elected for their policy positions, not for their friends.

They were elected as candidates and persons, not "party robots". If they voters like them - they will reelect them, if not - not. That's exactly why i not only don't give a damn about present day parties, but - utterly despise them all.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have a "double feeling" about that: understand a frustration of "partisan Democrats", but - still glad, that such notion, as friendship, surpasses ideological disagreements sometimes. That rarely happens now in our "scoundrel's time"....

yay naked cronyism!!! so beautiful

Yeah, I have to say, in this instance, if they are voting for him based on some vague years-old "personal connection" despite Gardner having little in common with them with regards to election policy, then that is pretty blatant cronyism. Gardner isn't some election god, he's just another guy who has outstayed his welcome. They could have given him the boot today and New Hampshire's elections and presidential primaries would have kept on ticking just fine.

As i said - it was for them to decide. They (just as i would do) seem to preferred friendship over ideological expediency. You think differently - it's your right.

Unfortunately for them, they were elected for their policy positions, not for their friends.

They were elected as candidates and persons, not "party robots". If they voters like them - they will reelect them, if not - not. That's exactly why i not only don't give a damn about present day parties, but - utterly despise them all.

Not sure a Russian would know much about politicians and the people who like or dislike them considering Russia's awesome history with unbiased and fair democratic values.

And if you consider my insults cheap... consider it charity so you can afford them.

[Virginiá]

They were elected as candidates and persons, not "party robots". If they voters like them - they will reelect them, if not - not. That's exactly why i not only don't give a damn about present day parties, but - utterly despise them all.

Personally, I could support a Republican whose views on elections leaned pro-voter access (aka in line with Democrats, more or less). It doesn't have to be a partisan affair.

[smoltchanov]

I have a "double feeling" about that: understand a frustration of "partisan Democrats", but - still glad, that such notion, as friendship, surpasses ideological disagreements sometimes. That rarely happens now in our "scoundrel's time"....

yay naked cronyism!!! so beautiful

Yeah, I have to say, in this instance, if they are voting for him based on some vague years-old "personal connection" despite Gardner having little in common with them with regards to election policy, then that is pretty blatant cronyism. Gardner isn't some election god, he's just another guy who has outstayed his welcome. They could have given him the boot today and New Hampshire's elections and presidential primaries would have kept on ticking just fine.

As i said - it was for them to decide. They (just as i would do) seem to preferred friendship over ideological expediency. You think differently - it's your right.

Unfortunately for them, they were elected for their policy positions, not for their friends.

They were elected as candidates and persons, not "party robots". If they voters like them - they will reelect them, if not - not. That's exactly why i not only don't give a damn about present day parties, but - utterly despise them all.

Not sure a Russian would know much about politicians and the people who like or dislike them considering Russia's awesome history with unbiased and fair democratic values.

I am ready to bet - i know much more then you do, It's a field of my interests for 45 years. And to base my knowledge on Russian history is an idiotism, pure and simple. So - who you are? Answer is obvious .....

[smoltchanov]

They were elected as candidates and persons, not "party robots". If they voters like them - they will reelect them, if not - not. That's exactly why i not only don't give a damn about present day parties, but - utterly despise them all.

Personally, I could support a Republican whose views on elections leaned pro-voter access (aka in line with Democrats, more or less). It doesn't have to be a partisan affair.

Agree. But this time old connections and friendship prevailed. Wait until next time. Even more - with Democratic majorities in both Houses of legislature Gardner's positions became almost symbolic and far less important, then with Republican one before.

[free my dawg]

It's not even the fact that he lost that pisses me off. It's the fact that most of these scared-ass mother****ers won't stand by their vote. There are 37 defectors in the party. Only two have named themselves, and those two are deeply entrenched incumbents that are also political institutions (at least in Manchester).

These people know the consequences of their vote. They know it was the wrong thing
 And they're all too ****ing cowardly to face the music.

[smoltchanov]

^ Well, i suppose "political institutions" knew precisely what they were doing. And tend to trust their opinion.

[AudmanOut]

How many seats do the New Hampshire dems have?
Are there any areas they can improve in?

[smoltchanov]

How many seats do the New Hampshire dems have?
Are there any areas they can improve in?

14 in state Senate, and (IIRC) 234 - in House

[free my dawg]

^ Well, i suppose "political institutions" knew precisely what they were doing. And tend to trust their opinion.

Well of course they did. My point is that the only two on the record are (in effect) immune from any sort of consequence because they are so entrenched. Their influence is also confined to a local level (in this case, Manchester).

And, well, I'm of the school of thought that if you're going to make a tough vote, you should have the guts to name yourself and stand by it.

[free my dawg]

SECRETARY OF STATE ARCHIVE:

The dust has settled. Democrats have won both chambers of the State House, though Chris Sununu still controls the governor's mansion. This only leaves one race of the 2018 cycle, the Secretary of State's race. Previously noncontroversial, bipartisan incumbent Bill Gardner has been a largely uncontroversial figure, despite being a Democrat. Even the most ardent Republican hacks re-elected him in 2010, and he has been a political institution for the state.

Then he served on Trump's voter fraud position. In addition to that, he endorsed Republican voter suppression measures, giving a bipartisan veneer to Bill O'Brien's goal to stop college students from voting. Democrats are calling for his head, and have floated a fallen rising star in former executive councilor and failed gubernatorial candidate Colin Van Ostern. His method of campaigning has involved creating a PAC and promising to fund legislators' campaigns in exchange for their support in the upcoming election. This turned off a few people in the party - mainly the anti-money in politics crowd. One of their own ran in Peter Sullivan, but this flamed out.

Quick candidate profiles:

Republicans:

Bill Gardner (de facto) - 42-year incumbent. Technically a Democrat. Decided to shill for Trump and GOP voting policies, and is now facing an internal revolt. Has the support of every Republican, so I'm putting him under here. Was previously an institution for protecting the FITN primary.

Democrats:

Colin van Ostern - Former Executive Councilor/gubernatorial nom. Promises to modernize our elections. Some in the party are turned off by his big-money campaigning.

Peter Sullivan - Former Manchester alderman and state rep. Also a Twitter friend. Generally campaigned on being Gardner without the voter suppression. Got seven votes in the prelim and dropped out.

RATING: Most of the scuttlebutt seems to say Van Ostern is favored, but if you want me to be honest, I think it's a pure toss-up. Sullivan's supporters seem to oppose CVO more, and while he hasn't endorsed, he's certainly angry at the NHDP for what he perceives to be a coronation. Assuming Sullivan's supporters break for Gardner and the ratio holds for the absentees, Dems would just barely be over the majority. This could really go either way.

[free my dawg]

Wayne MacDonald declined, and so did Biundo. The field is cleared for Stepanek to be the next NHGOP chair.

The Trumpification of the NHGOP is now complete.

[free my dawg]

I finally have some clear, reasoned thoughts on the issue. It took me a week of analysis and reflection, but I can finally do a post-mortem on the Secretary of State's race.

The more I think about it, the more angry and frustrated I get. Not because of Democratic defectors, but because I believe this was an avoidable outcome. Looking back at the race, there were some legitimate concerns with Van Ostern. I admittedly sympathized with some of them, mainly about him trying to buy the seat, and would have supported Sullivan on the first ballot because of them. We can argue about whether Gardner was bipartisan or not, but we can't argue that Van Ostern (and, by proxy, the NHDP) was trying to buy the position of Secretary of State.

Don't get me wrong. Gardner was an incredibly strong, entrenched candidate, who had a profile of operating outside the political realm before his Trump stunt. Normal campaign logic would have been to coalesce around a qualified, low-profile, grassroots candidate, have the state party pour money into the downballot races, run a strong campaign on the level of state representatives, and win. Peter Sullivan was that candidate - he essentially ran as a continuation of Gardner's best policies with some reforms and without the GOP shilling.

But of course, this is the Democratic Party. Even the NHDP, despite being an island of competence in a sea of ineptitude over the past year, is susceptible to messing things up. They decided to take a page out of Generic Dying State Party's book and run a retread candidate. And this wasn't just your average retread. This was a retread that lost in 2016. You know, the year where a fairly popular Republican Senator fell, even as Trumpmania almost turned the state red for the first time in 16 years. That should have been the first sign that they'd screw this up - out of the thousands of Democrats in the state, you coalesce around this guy?

Instead of lobbying whatever representatives were elected, keeping a low-profile, and learning from other Democratic Secretaries of State, Van Ostern decided to run a glorified pay-to-play scheme. In effect, he would take an active role in politics and his PAC would fund their campaigns if they promised their support. I don't blame Peter Sullivan for having sour grapes over the thing. Maybe I was going too far with using the word perceived - the Democratic "primary" was a coronation. Party leadership came out to support CVO as soon as he announced, with almost no consideration to Sullivan. Instead of going with their formula, which had worked for years, they decided to run a candidate with a strong profile, throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at the election, and call it a day. You know, because that strategy worked so well for the Moulton-No Labels coalition in NH-1.

Of course, throwing money at people does nothing for the 20-to-30 defectors who are so entrenched that they can freely buck the party for their decades-long friendships with Gardner. And that's not counting the 7 rogue Sullivan supporters who wound up voting for the Republican because of said money-throwing. I'll at least concede most of the supporters wouldn't change their minds if Sullivan ran. But I'd be willing to bet there are more than a few defectors who were legitimately turned off by CVO's attempt to buy the election - enough to flip it to Democrats.

This is, without a doubt, the biggest Democratic failure of any race in the 2018 cycle. This wasn't FL-Gov, where the devout Trumpie base matched enthusiasm levels of the base and elect DeSantis and Scott. This was a very winnable race that was botched in spectacular fashion. To put it as bluntly as I can, the NHDP ditched their playbook and decided to go Full 2016.