Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Red and blue  (Read 5804 times)

z0rr0

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Red and blue
« on: October 23, 2002, 12:32:25 am »

Seems to be a lot of discussion about that whole east vs. west.  Just thought I would post this picture from a couple of years back to add to the fire.  

http://www.sweetliberty.org/images/mandatemap.jpg
Logged

z0rr0

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #1 on: October 23, 2002, 12:35:01 am »

d'oh!  Didn't mean to post it twice.  My mouse got away from me.  :)
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #2 on: October 23, 2002, 07:40:09 am »

Seems to be a lot of discussion about that whole east vs. west.  Just thought I would post this picture from a couple of years back to add to the fire.  
http://www.sweetliberty.org/images/mandatemap.jpg

Zorro,

This map is one of the reasons why I favor the west so heavily.  New Hampshire is represented as an island in an ocean of blue near major, liberal population centers that are only getting bigger.  The potential for urban sprawl from Boston, etc., that could change the face of NH politics within a relatively short amount of time, is simply too great, in my opinion.

The same threat potential simply does not exist to nearly that extent in the west.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2002, 07:41:21 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

z0rr0

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2002, 11:00:38 pm »

Here is another useful link to use along with the red and blue map.  Every state from Maryland to Maine went with Gore on that last election, with the exception of NH.  And it seems to be coming under pressure from spill over from Mass.  MT on the other hand is surrounded by red on all sides, the the migration of folks on the west coast is quite a bit swifter it seems than on the east coast.  More information to ponder.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/electoral_college_2000.htm
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #4 on: October 24, 2002, 01:10:24 am »

More good information here to consider.

There's been some discussion on the Yahoo forum regarding New Hampshire's current level of freedom as opposed to its neighboring states, and all other states in general.  NH does have a number of things going for it in that area, however, as mentioned above, it is an island in a virtual sea of blue on that election map, and I fear that it could well become a modern political Atlantis.

Urban sprawl from liberal Boston, or other migrations from NH's neighbors, could sway the political landscape in NH relatively quickly.  There's much less danger of this factor cropping up out west.

Even removing the sprawl factor, consider the fact that statists in general do not like for people to be "different," unless of course you're referring to an ethnic or lingual difference that favors the involvement of government.  This fact has significant potential for focusing political conformity pressures on NH in the future, particularly if the FSP were to locate there and begin making NH "really different" from its neighbors.

Considering the best home for the FSP inevitably involves considering long-term factors.  New Hampshire may be a good apple now, but it's in a barrel of bad apples, and I have to wonder how long it will take for that corruption to begin influencing even the "good apple."  

Out west, we have a better barrel to choose from.

mlilback

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
  • I'm nobody's llama!
    • home page
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2002, 03:13:03 pm »

Why is there such an assumption that Bush is better than Gore would have been?

I've very staunchly anti-government, but have never voted republican and doubt I ever will (especially after the PATRIOT act). I'd rather have my money given to attempt social reform that given out to the defense industry, enron, tobacco, and the others who purchased shrub.

Areas that are largely red scare me, 'cause I immediately think of religious zealots who have no tolerance for others. Not that I'm a fan of MA or other overly liberal places.

Maybe it's because I value personal freedoms more than economic.

Mark
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5705
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2002, 04:42:05 pm »

The red-and-blue should not be taken too seriously, I agree.  More useful figures are state and local taxes and spending, gun control laws, homeschooling laws, and laws that deal with the cluster of issues we might call "personal liberties."

I actually would agree with Tim Condon's argument, at the same time, that native culture does not matter as much as voting population, pure and simple.  All American states are fairly statist from our perspective, and the differences among them aren't that great.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

z0rr0

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2002, 05:34:42 pm »


Why is there such an assumption that Bush is better than Gore would have been?



I think that red is considered more favorable in some cases is because the republicans are "supposed" to be for smaller govt. and less taxes.  Unfortunately that really isn't the case, but I think it is what some of the reds are hoping for when they vote.  I think if you look at taxes or individual rights over the last 100 years, neither party has done the american people any favors.  The more the left and right meet in the middle, the closer we get to a one party system.  
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2002, 12:40:12 am »

Why is there such an assumption that Bush is better than Gore would have been?

Mark,

You make a valid point here regarding the direction of the Republican Party, a direction that has alienated much of their base support.  But I also think that we have to factor in public perception when considering how the various states go in a given election.  By that I mean that the general public does not necessarily view the Republican Party the same way that we would.  When many of them vote Republican, they think that they are casting a vote for anti-statism.  So, that's why I would factor that % into consideration.  It can demonstrate intent.

Secondly, I would say that Bush would definitely have been better than Gore because, even though the Republicans like their own form of socialism, they go about it more slowly.  We know that either a Republican or a Democrat is going to win the election (at this point in time), so, for me, this is like saying:  "Well, a Democrat in office would be like taking a bazooka to my freedoms, while a Republican would be more like a deer rifle."  I choose the lesser of two evils and confront the deer rifle instead of the bazooka.

So, no, while state votes for Republicans do not necessarily equate to votes for anti-statism, as we would see it, they do at least reflect a population's preference for growing government at a slower rate.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2002, 03:28:06 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Old vs. New Democrats
« Reply #9 on: October 26, 2002, 03:21:38 am »

Robert,
To you, as one of the few incisive minds on this forum, I ask...
from the distance imparted by having to look at voting statistics
how do we identify those Democrats who are conservatives
such as the old union Democrats who are more Republican than
the new-fangled communitarian, socialist, liberal, statist Democrats?
(the above was a bit repetitive but the redundancy is appropriate)

Hmmm...from voting statistics in general, I'd say we'd have to look at the state and local level to discern any sort of dichotomy of the Democrat vote.  

My reasoning is that, on the national level, when I see that someone votes "Gore," for instance, I have to assume that they're voting in that direction because:  1) They're statist in general, 2) They're a minority group (age, sex, whatever) in search of special consideration or "protection," or 3) They're a leftist single-issue constituency.  On the Republican side, I'd have to say that when someone votes "Bush," they're voting in that direction because:  1) They're advocates of limited-government in general, 2) They're voting to keep minority groups from garnering special consideration or protection, or 3) They're a right-wing single issue constituency.

I think you'd have to consult exit polling data to break that down further per voter, and this is always so skewed during the national elections.

Local elections, on the other hand, could tell you much more because their issues are usually much more specific as compared to a broad, street-sweeping national vote.  So, I'd say that analyzing the state and local data would give you better information when searching out Democrat sub-divisions.

Now that I think about it though, the 1992 and 1996 election stats were probably rather telling in regard to what Democrats might actually support us.  Many of them voted Perot in 1992, and then went back to Clinton in 1996.  Perot's 1992 candidacy may have shown us something of a rather sizeable voter disenchantment within the Democratic Party.  As for Perot's poor showing in 1996, I would think that this would have less to do with any change of heart in the average voters mind, so much as it would probably have to do with the fact that Perot was somewhat discredited and ineffective by then.  The "newness" had worn off and they went back to what was familiar, I suppose.


Quote
Why this endeavor?

Because those "old Democrats" may be natural allies to the FSP
whereas "new Democrats" are avowed enemies of a Free State.

We are seeing this dichotomy in the Democratic Party here.
The old union Democrats are, except for their union socialism,
at an opposite pole compared to incoming new liberal Democrats.
Thus the local Democrat Party is going through the throes of an
internal turmoil as these two factions wrestle for control.
A similar struggle may be occuring in other old Democrat bastions.

You make a very, very interesting point here.  The Democratic Party has changed considerably in some areas, particuarly in the South.  A lot of old, conservative Democrats switched over to the Republican Party very recently, but there are still some who have not, and are actively trying to tone down the leftist factions in their respective state and local branches.  My in-laws have done that...voted for the most conservative Democrat running in the primary, although they then almost always vote for the Republican challenger in the general election.  

So, while I might negatively view a state that went Democrat in the national election, I might have a different perspective on it closer to home with regard to those who could potentially support the FSP's ideals.  

How does that sound to you...checking out the state and local vote to see if it might yield useful info on possible Democratic supporters...as well as considering the Perot vote against registered voters in all parties from the 1992 election?  With regard to the latter, we could possibly narrow down how much of Perot's support actually did come from disaffected Democrats (possibly the old "Reagan Democrats").
« Last Edit: October 26, 2002, 03:25:16 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

Steve

  • FSP Board Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • La Vero vin liberigos
    • Elegant Solutions
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #10 on: October 26, 2002, 10:21:56 am »

Quote
mlilback wrote:
Why is there such an assumption that Bush is better than Gore would have been?

In some ways, Bush is making me respect Clinton more.  At least he acted relentlessly for free trade.  But I doubt that Gore would have done the same.
Logged

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2003, 03:51:20 pm »

The Red and Blue portions very accurately describe what has happened to our nation.  The Statist/Liberal/Commie Urban/Suburban Blue is taking over.  These maps used to be Red=Democrat. For 2000 their partners in the media reversed the colors.

Robert
Quote
Urban sprawl from liberal Boston, or other migrations from NH's neighbors, could sway the political landscape in NH relatively quickly.  There's much less danger of this factor cropping up out west.
Zorro
Quote
I think that red is considered more favorable in some cases is because the republicans are "supposed" to be for smaller govt. and less taxes.  Unfortunately that really isn't the case, but I think it is what some of the reds are hoping for when they vote.
Mlilback
Quote
Areas that are largely red scare me, 'cause I immediately think of religious zealots who have no tolerance for others. Not that I'm a fan of MA or other overly liberal places.
Joe
Quote
how do we identify those Democrats who are conservatives
such as the old union Democrats who are more Republican than
the new-fangled communitarian, socialist, liberal, statist Democrats?
(the above was a bit repetitive but the redundancy is appropriate)
Why this endeavor?
Because those "old Democrats" may be natural allies to the FSP
whereas "new Democrats" are avowed enemies of a Free State.
Logged
There's A race of men that don't fit in,
A race that can't stay still;
So they break the hearts of kith and kin,
And they roam the world at will.
http://www.internal.org/view_poem.phtml?poemID=295

Mickey

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
  • Libertarian, Objectivist, head-banger
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2003, 04:32:25 pm »

Red and blue maps don't mean much to me. It is a common mistake in politics to believe that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are two distinct entities. They are in fact one organization with one agenda, CONTROL!
Logged
Ubi libertas ibi patria
Where there is Liberty, there is my homeland.

StevenN

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
  • Friend of the FSP
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2003, 05:58:25 pm »

Quote
consider the fact that statists in general do not like for people to be "different"

I've got to disagree with you here, partially. I think the conservative statists (red) are this way. My experience with liberal statists has been surprising. They are open to other systems of gov't, just not where they are; AND if it is supported by the people. I think people have this negative perception of liberal statists from the "leaders". I think the rank-and-file are like how I described.

And I think national and Federal elections should be taken with a grain of salt. Many states (IN, for example) have Democrat governors and vote for Republican presidents.
Logged
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" -- Jebediah Springfield

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1967
Re:Red and blue
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2003, 06:12:38 pm »


Urban sprawl from liberal Boston, or other migrations from NH's neighbors, could sway the political landscape in NH relatively quickly.  There's much less danger of this factor cropping up out west.

As I pointed out extensively in theses threads: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2298;start=15
and
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2446

Most of the really statist residents of Massachusetts are stuck there.  That's where their power base is, and they need to remain voters in order to ensure their feed trough does not run dry.  There are MANY people as evidenced by recent and not so recent statewide votes that are not statist.  A free state in New Hampshire would be a beacon in the night to them.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up