Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: 288,504 reasons not to vote for NH  (Read 13825 times)

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Western Stigma
« Reply #45 on: July 01, 2003, 01:20:00 pm »

The "western stigma" (which is not my invention, and is mentioned in the "articles and essays section of this site) is the view that will be held by many if we move to a state like Montana or Wyoming.   We will more likely than not be branded as militia members/gun nuts, counterculturalists, and just about every other bad stereotype you've ever heard.  It will stigmatize us because a movement such as this requires the utmost of respect in order to succeed.  I agree that Wyoming is one of the best states to choose (on paper), but it carries a dangerous stereotype that will hurt the movement and make it an easier sell for the feds to shut us down, should the need arise.

Zion - We are not planning a succession movement, however I could imagine one quickly being thrust upon us once we start to enforce more strictly libertarian ideals (you try to legalize marijuana and see how far the feds will let you go).  The Vermont movement does not stigmatize any other state in New England.  The Western stigma, however, affects a good 40% of all US states, some of which aren't even in the West.

Another asinine post from Zion.

We are not planning a succession movement, so the border thing is a non issue. As for the western stigma it is about as valid as the Vermont movement, and yet you think moving in next door would somehow make it chic? Also the LP ranks Wyoming as the most Libertarian state in the union not NH. Another Forest Gump post from our friends in NH.
Quote
So you are saying 20 states have a "western stigma" some not even in the west. What is your so called western stigma? The only western "stigma" I see is a anti-government freedom loving people. If that is a "western stigma" then I think all states should have it.
You said 40% of the states have it let me know when you want to adjust that figure. Also there are only 2 states that even have a hint of that stigma and it is Idaho and Montana, not Wyoming. Of course from a viewpoint of someone back in say NY they are all the same right.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Startegizing for a state
« Reply #46 on: July 01, 2003, 01:26:17 pm »


Based on what? Which quantifiable numbers are you basing that on (not saying it may not be true in some ways, just asking for specifics - No, I don't put much weight on RLC rankings, they're Republicans first and foremost. Party loyalty gets in the way for them)? The LPNH has more Libs elected than all the western states combined.... We are having meetings with other state LP's quite often, with them asking us how to do what we are doing.

Look at the number of LP votes each state got in 2002.  Look at the Number of voters Harry Browne got in 1996 and 2000.  Look at how WY and NH voted in the 1980 and 1964 Prez elections when freedom loving Republicans ran for Prez.  Look at all of the rankings by libertarian groups like VoteHemp, RLC, Gun Owners of America, etc.  Look at the ranking by anti-libertarian groups like Brady Cam., NEA, and ALA.  In all of theseways, and many more, WY is more libertarian than NH.  There are several state reports about this.  Another one is on its way.

Quote
Are you saying that we shouldn't or couldn't work within the LP framework in WY? An LP caucus is a MAJOR tool.... remember, we had one just about 10 years ago.


I never said that.  I am saying that in Wyoming we can run as Republicans and win all of the offices.  Also, some of us will want to run as LP and they will compete against those of us running as Republicans.  Wyoming is the only state I think this can happen in.  

The reasons are simple.  It has term limits.  Very inexpensive elections, the smallest districts, a strong LP, the smallest number of voters, and a very independent and libertarian minded group of voters.  


« Last Edit: July 01, 2003, 01:31:20 pm by FreedomRoad »
Logged

craft_6

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
  • Constitutional Libertarian
Re:Western Stigma
« Reply #47 on: July 01, 2003, 02:02:34 pm »

The "western stigma" (which is not my invention, and is mentioned in the "articles and essays section of this site) is the view that will be held by many if we move to a state like Montana or Wyoming.   We will more likely than not be branded as militia members/gun nuts, counterculturalists, and just about every other bad stereotype you've ever heard.  It will stigmatize us because a movement such as this requires the utmost of respect in order to succeed.  

The "western stigma" or "militia stigma" that might be associated with a western state is not even on my top 10 list of things to worry about.  The FSP will be stigmatized as a group of libertarian extremists regardless of which state is selected.  Legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, polygamy, etc. will not be embraced with open arms anywhere.  In fact, the local opposition in a western state is more likely to focus negative attention on lifestyle factors than on guns, which many westerners are comfortable with.

Top 10 Things for the FSP to Worry About:
1. Will the FSP reach 20,000 members by September of 2006? [I think it will.]

2. How many members will actually follow through and decide to move? [I would guess 85-90%.]

3. How many who want to move will give up if they are initially unsuccessful in finding employment? [Depends on which state is selected.]

4. Will FSP members work against each other, with some joining the LP, some the GOP, some setting up a non-partisan league, and some starting a new third party, or will they work together for maximum impact? [Ever try to herd cats?]

5. Will local business and political leaders actively oppose the FSP? [Some will, some won't.]

6. If the FSP has some early successes in reducing government spending and taxes, will local residents become complacent and stop helping the FSP? [Yes.]

7. Will the Federal government actively oppose Free State moves to greater liberty? [Some of them.]

8. Will FSP membership become a litmus test question for political candidates in the Free State for the next 20 years? [I'm afraid so.]

9. Will local residents resent the FSP population influx, regardless of political persuasion? [Depends on which state is selected.]

10. Will animosity developed during the state selection decision hurt the FSP in the long run? [I doubt it.]
Logged
Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!
http://www.badnarik.org
Badnarik for President, 2004

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Western Stigma
« Reply #48 on: July 01, 2003, 02:38:07 pm »

The "western stigma" (which is not my invention, and is mentioned in the "articles and essays section of this site) is the view that will be held by many if we move to a state like Montana or Wyoming.   We will more likely than not be branded as militia members/gun nuts, counterculturalists, and just about every other bad stereotype you've ever heard.  It will stigmatize us because a movement such as this requires the utmost of respect in order to succeed.  

The "western stigma" or "militia stigma" that might be associated with a western state is not even on my top 10 list of things to worry about.  The FSP will be stigmatized as a group of libertarian extremists regardless of which state is selected.  Legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, polygamy, etc. will not be embraced with open arms anywhere.  In fact, the local opposition in a western state is more likely to focus negative attention on lifestyle factors than on guns, which many westerners are comfortable with.

Top 10 Things for the FSP to Worry About:
1. Will the FSP reach 20,000 members by September of 2006? [I think it will.]

2. How many members will actually follow through and decide to move? [I would guess 85-90%.]

3. How many who want to move will give up if they are initially unsuccessful in finding employment? [Depends on which state is selected.]

4. Will FSP members work against each other, with some joining the LP, some the GOP, some setting up a non-partisan league, and some starting a new third party, or will they work together for maximum impact? [Ever try to herd cats?]

5. Will local business and political leaders actively oppose the FSP? [Some will, some won't.]

6. If the FSP has some early successes in reducing government spending and taxes, will local residents become complacent and stop helping the FSP? [Yes.]

7. Will the Federal government actively oppose Free State moves to greater liberty? [Some of them.]

8. Will FSP membership become a litmus test question for political candidates in the Free State for the next 20 years? [I'm afraid so.]

9. Will local residents resent the FSP population influx, regardless of political persuasion? [Depends on which state is selected.]

10. Will animosity developed during the state selection decision hurt the FSP in the long run? [I doubt it.]

One thing to consider is that the FSP will cease to exist once the 20,000 is reached. I think we just need to stay active in voting and spreading the word. Vote the issues the way of liberty.
Logged

rdeacon

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1874
  • Six Years Into a Ten Year Sojourn
Re:Western Stigma
« Reply #49 on: July 02, 2003, 08:53:22 am »

We can take a poll on whether or not Wyoming would be classified as a "western stigma" state, though the poll would probably end up split down the party line between NH and WY supporters.  And I stand by my estimate of 40%, or at least close to it.


The "western stigma" (which is not my invention, and is mentioned in the "articles and essays section of this site) is the view that will be held by many if we move to a state like Montana or Wyoming.   We will more likely than not be branded as militia members/gun nuts, counterculturalists, and just about every other bad stereotype you've ever heard.  It will stigmatize us because a movement such as this requires the utmost of respect in order to succeed.  I agree that Wyoming is one of the best states to choose (on paper), but it carries a dangerous stereotype that will hurt the movement and make it an easier sell for the feds to shut us down, should the need arise.

Zion - We are not planning a succession movement, however I could imagine one quickly being thrust upon us once we start to enforce more strictly libertarian ideals (you try to legalize marijuana and see how far the feds will let you go).  The Vermont movement does not stigmatize any other state in New England.  The Western stigma, however, affects a good 40% of all US states, some of which aren't even in the West.

Another asinine post from Zion.

We are not planning a succession movement, so the border thing is a non issue. As for the western stigma it is about as valid as the Vermont movement, and yet you think moving in next door would somehow make it chic? Also the LP ranks Wyoming as the most Libertarian state in the union not NH. Another Forest Gump post from our friends in NH.
Quote
So you are saying 20 states have a "western stigma" some not even in the west. What is your so called western stigma? The only western "stigma" I see is a anti-government freedom loving people. If that is a "western stigma" then I think all states should have it.
You said 40% of the states have it let me know when you want to adjust that figure. Also there are only 2 states that even have a hint of that stigma and it is Idaho and Montana, not Wyoming. Of course from a viewpoint of someone back in say NY they are all the same right.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2003, 08:59:10 am by rdeacon »
Logged

Rich T.

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 713
  • Live Free in NH!
    • NH Liberty Alliance
Re:288,504 reasons not to vote for NH
« Reply #50 on: July 02, 2003, 03:40:45 pm »

Also, even if you assume we will be able to recruit an equal amount of people from both parties, Wyoming is still the better choice.  The reason is that its population is much lower than New Hampshire’s and thus we don’t need to bring nearly as many people to our side.

Once we go for a state-level race, perhaps. But that can't be an immediate goal of the FSP. The political physics just doesn't support it. Compare the size of the statehouse districts, which is where our first battles will be. That population number is what will determine our first wave of political success.

Quote
By the way, I totally agree that NH has the strongest libertarian party.  And I admire the passion of the New Hampshire porcupines.  Frankly, I wish New Hampshire had Wyoming’s population so the choice would be easy.

Perhaps it would. Though as even Tim Condon pointed out at Escape, each of the 10 candidate states have relatively tiny populations compared to the other 40. WY has 1 congressional district, NH has 2. Hardly a gaping chasm of a difference.

Quote
In addition, I acknowledge the fact that New Hampshire becomes more attractive when you consider their voting for Benson by a 2:1 margin.  It’s really puzzling that so many people would vote for Gore, though.  The two don’t seem to mix, but there must be some reason.

Simple, Gore had a campaign team here, helped by the incumbent governor Shaheen. Bush largely ignored the state, esp after losing the primary.  Also, given the amount of attention NH media pays to politics, Nader was always in the news. Folks who wanted another choice picked him b/c he was the alternative they heard the most about.

Quote
Therefore, New Hampshire will likely get my #2 vote.

Fair enough, and thanks for the consideration of the merits of the states.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up