Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cathleeninsc]

Having just returned from our "look over" visit to Delaware, that proximity has us very concerned. I felt as if we were in the shadow of a great black cloud-- or was that just the onset of Hannah?

We were not impressed.
Cathleen in SC

You know, voting for a state may end up like buying a car. You read all the statistics but if the cup holder doesn't fit the cup, you ain't buying it.

[wilaygarn]

Jan Helfeld thinks this is an argument for Delaware.  It might well be, but a friend of mine who's also a political scientist thinks that a more crucial consideration is proximity to major media outlets.  Because the Washington Post and the Boston Globe cover Delaware and New England respectively, he thinks we need to go out West where we won't receive major unfavorable media attention.

I can understand the concerns about negative press, but Idaho has gotten nothing but negative press, even from so-called conservatives like Limbaugh, and one can hardly get further from the media centers than Idaho.

One could even make the argument that with Delaware's accessability it would be that much harder to slander it.
The Washington Times is also nearby, along with other notable organisations and media outlets favorable to liberty.

Despite it's physical geograohy and its proximity to my home state of Virginia, I am by no means sold on it as a viable candidate, but I have not made my mind up yet.

[Robert H.]

The problem with being located close to more conservative groups like the Washington Times, is that, in the vast scheme of all things media, they don't account for much.  They get very little attention comparatively.  And what little in the way of favorable attention you might draw from them would be more than counterbalanced by the negative aspects of being so close to DC and the giant liberal media outlets.  Despite what conservative element there is out there, the liberals very much dominate the media, and as such they set the overall tone that the media takes with regard to most things.

Also, I wouldn't bank on that much support from mainline conservative organizations anyway, particularly in the beginning.  Many of them, despite their small government preferences, have bought into the consolidationist line that the only thing that matters is capturing control of Washington.  It's the Holy Grail of American politics, and they're liable to think that your time is better spent funding special interest groups or mounting other attempts to influence matters on either side of the Rotunda or at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Many conservatives with "stature" are also likely to distance themselves from us because we would threaten their borderline acceptance status in the national media.  The liberals are likely going to tar and feather us as a new Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate extremist movement, and they'll gladly hand out the same treatment to anyone who gets near us, particularly if it gives them the priceless opportunity to destroy a successful conservative like Limbaugh or Hannidy.  For that reason, conservatives that have been more successful in dealing with the left will likely be hanging up crucifixes and garlic to keep us away from their hard-won reputations.

You also have to consider that the FSP is an unusual movement with an unusual goal, and as such it will attract an unusual amount of time and attention on the part of the mostly-liberal press, when they finally see that we are serious.  The only things that can be reasonably expected to curtail their scrutiny will be how much time it takes, and how much it costs them to do it.  For this reason, you're much better off out west where the big news agencies have to take the considerable time and expense of coming to you.  They're agenda-driven organizations to be sure, but when it's all said and done, like any other business, they're mainly profit-driven.

[wilaygarn]

Solitar wrote: "From at least presidential election coverage, the major establishment media regards even New Hampshire as out in the boonies. They seem to regard trips up there as expeditions to the frozen, backward, far north "

I agree with that. I also remember  news articles with that "expedition to the outlands" tone to it, and the Northeast hasn't been stigmatized with a negative stereotype by the mass media.

To counter my argument that Delaware's accessability may make it difficult for the media to successfully slander it, I am also cynical enough to think that the average sheep would believe the mass media over their own personal knowledge.

As much  as I'd like to see a free state of Delaware I do still find myself favoring New Hamster.

[wilaygarn]

A state's policy concerning concealed carry is also very important to me, and I also think it is an important indicater of a state's philosophy towards the individual's right and responsibility to defend himself.

 "May issue" is just about as bad as no issue, because frequently only the well connected can obtain permission to defend themselves with firearms.

 Virginia used to be a "may issue" state, and after a coworker was robbed (they worked in an isolated place) my Dad applied for a CCW. The judge refused him permission, saying that he didn't have "sufficent proof of need".

 I have long suspected that Delaware is nearly as hostile towards private arms as Maryland, which is about as bad as Massachucets.

[JasonPSorens]

Interesting figures - where did you get them?  So your view is that states with lower native-born percentages will be friendlier to us?  That might well be the case, though I could image a hump distribution: states that are mostly native may be most friendly to outsiders because they don't feel threatened, while states that are about half and half will have the most tension.  States that are mostly non-native will again be friendly to outsiders.

[Robert H.]

Joe,

You raise a number of extremely important factors to be taken into overall consideration.

Just a few thoughts on issues you've raised:

1.  In regard to Alaska natives...Alaskans tend to view themselves as an independent, almost pioneering people and are generally suspicious of anyone from "the lower 48."  They have a tremendous sense of state pride, a factor which could weigh decidedly in our favor, or work against us, depending on how we approached them.  At the same time though, they're used to receiving "refugees" from the lower 48, and particularly noted a rising trend in migration to Alaska during the Clinton years (a source of pride for them).  They would be suspicious of us, but would likely receive us in time if we showed our determination to become Alaskans and shied away from attempting to impose "outsider" ways on them (ie: the way things are done in the lower 48).

Also, as you mention, the state's aging population is a growing concern.  I read the Anchorage Daily News and Fairbanks News-Miner online quite often, and I've seen a lot of concern being expressed on the fact that "all the young folk are moving out" in letters-to-the-editor, etc...The stats that you cited may help work somewhat in our favor there as they indicate that the vast majority of AK residents were originally "outsiders."  Having once moved there themselves (likely to escape life in the lower 48), such persons would probably be more receptive to us.  On the other hand, we'd also have to factor in how long those transplants have been living there.

2.  In regard to the NEA, here I think you've identified what will likely be one of the top three sources of opposition to us, if not THE top.  The NEA is a well-organized, very vocal, and very effective special interest group.  If we disclose plans to privatize public schools, we'll effectively be starting a war, the severity of which will probably amaze us in the long run.  The NEA absolutely cannot afford to have a state government demonstrating successful alternatives to the current nationalized public school system.  They'll pull out all the stops to oppose us, including marshalling all of that "no child left behind, invest in the future, education is not just for the rich" rhetoric.  Congressional liberals will side with them and enact whatever form of coercion necessary to keep us from succeeding.  And our arguments that it is our business and no one else's will not disuade them.  South Carolina tried arguing that with regard to the Confederate flag, but the issue was still the subject of a national "dialogue," and even became an issue in the presidential campaign.

Education reform like the FSP has in mind, even restricted to a single state, could be a fight like none other in recent memory, closely followed by dismantling welfare and environmental de-regulation.  I support all of these reforms, but think that we're going to have to plan very, very carefully if we want to come out of the battle better off than Custer did at Little Big Horn.

[JasonPSorens]

Very interesting stuff, Solitar - what you've done is to effectively break down the federal dependence variable we have on the State Data page by types of dependence.  The Western states are so bad on this measure because of farm subsidies!  They're not so bad on public assistance.  I think the farm subsidy issue effectively makes the Dakotas nonviable choices; Idaho and Montana might just be possible, but there would still be a fight.  Wyoming actually looks very good on all the things you just posted.  I've opposed Wyoming in the past because I thought it had zero jobs, and that we would all die of exposure or starvation if we moved there.  But other than that, it looks good.  (Actually, freeing Wyoming would require a lot fewer than 20,000 activists due to its low population.  We could win there with 10,000 probably.  Something to keep in mind.)

[Victor VI]

The Western states are so bad on this measure because of farm subsidies!  They're not so bad on public assistance.  I think the farm subsidy issue effectively makes the Dakotas nonviable choices; Idaho and Montana might just be possible, but there would still be a fight.

It might be useful to know not just how much money these states are receiving for farm subsidies, but what the distribution of the money is. It's my (purely anecdotal) understanding that the farm subsidies largely benefit a relatively small group of corporate farms, rather than your typical independant farmer. If that is the case, it probably wouldn't be to difficult to persuade the independents to vote against receiving the subsidies. In fact, if the money is mostly subsidizing their corporate competition, I expect they'd be glad to do so.

[Victor VI]

Victor,
Even a few thousand dollars per little guy is enough to buy his or her vote. And, according to my friend who used to be out there amongst those people, that subsidy money can and does buy the support of entire communities, counties and states.

It would be interesting to know what the rational of the "little guy" is in accepting this arrangement. Surely they understand that their corporate competitors are getting the lion's share of the federal largess, and that ultimately, subsidies are damaging to their interests. Are they going along with because they don't see a way out, or do they actually think this is beneficial to them in some way? (Hey, I'm from Chicago - I don't pretend to understand farm economics or psychology!)

It would still be interesting to know what percentage of independents are receiving the subsidy.  I have a hard time believing every farmer in the west derives a benefit from this. Unfortunately, a Google search didn't turn up any information that was particularily useful.

The big corps would likely spend at least ten percent of their subsidy money to fun a public relations campaign and buy politicians. View the Dakota figures as a half-billion dollar warchest. They could spend one entire year's worth to ensure the following years' money keeps coming in.

No doubt about that.  Still, the FSP's agenda is going to gore somebody's ram wherever it locates. While I'd personally prefer an eastern state myself, I'm not certain the interests in the east are any less formidible than the ones in the west.

Either the Free State lives with it if it chooses one of the western states other than Wyoming or Alaska, or it is in for one heckuva fight against opponents with very deep pockets. In those four biggest farm subsidy states that money could be as powerful as the education (NEA, etc.) in the New England states.

I suspect the FSP is going to be in for a good fight wherever it goes. I guess in this instance, we have to ask which franchise we stand a better chance of overcoming - public education or farm subsidies.  I'm not sure dollar amounts can tell you the whole story, you're going to be looking at a cultural bias as well. Farm subsidies have always been somewhat controversial - while some people may like them, few people consider them a God-given right. Eliminating them has always been on the table politically, even if it hasn't been notably successful it still isn't considered a radical proposal. Contrast that with most people's attitude toward education - most people will look at you like you're crazy if you even suggest an education is anything but a perfectly natural function of government.  It no longer occurs to most people that there was ever a time when government wasn't responsible for it.  So in addition to dollar amounts, I think you have to consider what it will take to overcome ingrained prejudices, as well.

[mdlowry]

I've only been in New Hampshire for a couple of years.  The government indoctranation centers are a bit of a contraversy here.  The NH Constitution established these long ago.  The state Supream Court (Claremont decision) has been involved lately concerning the funding.  

[Halo]

Here's another little tidbit on subsidies:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110002359

[Halo]

Joe, you're right. Maybe someone could take all the stats posted in this thread and compile it into a coherant data base, by state. That way when it comes time to vote, all the data and information could be looked at state by state and weighed accordingly.

[JasonPSorens]

Actually, we're doing that right now; Matt Cheselka is gathering these stats for a bigger and better Rank the States page.  Some people will want to keep it simple and focussed on the major variables we already have on the State Data and existing Rank the States pages, but we should have the finer data available to those who wish to use them.

[Thor]

I had thought flying would be an option in spread-out states but the hassles at airports now does make that something to have second thoughts about. But in Alaska activist campaigners may have no choice.

Excellent work guys...  Sorry for the late comment on this, but....  In Alaska, I think it is somewhere around 50% (that is probalby too high, but the number is the highest of anywhere) of the population uses float planes for transportation.  

Lake Hood, right out side of Anchorage is the busiest water runway in the world, with flights taking off like every 10 mins or so.  And with a float plane, you get almost anywhere....  

Something to think about when reaching the 50% of Alaskans that live outside the big cities.  Driving everywhere in another state, or a float plane trip in Alaska.