Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Post-Election - Putting it all together - the answer  (Read 4639 times)

freedomroad

  • Guest
Post-Election - Putting it all together - the answer
« on: November 07, 2002, 10:03:41 pm »

All of the federal results and what they mean.  This is a long post with plenty of numbers.

Least voters: (98% to 100% reporting)
1. WY 185,195 (1/2 of voters 92,597.5)
2. AK 197,352 (1/2 of voters 98,676)
3. VT 226,458 (1/2 of voters 113,229)
4. ND 230,420 (1/2 of voters 115,210)
5. DE 232,152 (1/2 of voters 116,076)
6. MT 323,566 (1/2 of voters 161,783)
7. SD 334,526 (1/2 of voters 167,263)
8. ID 410,942 (1/2 of voters 205,471)
9. NH 437,783 (1/2 of voters 218,891.5)
10. ME 495,951 (1/2 of voters 247,975.5)

Important Notes per state:
AK - R party strong, Green p stronger than AI and L party combined
DE - D party strong, L party weak
ID - R party strong, L party strong
ME - D party stronger than R party, Green party stronger than all other minor parties combined
MT - R party strong, L party strong
ND - D party strong, L party weak
NH - R party strong, L party strong
SD - Both R and D strong, L party weak
VT - Threeway power struggle b/t D, R, and various socialist parties
WY - R party stong, L party strong

Based on elected party affiliaction and % the LP got in elections:
1. Good States: ID, MT, NH, and WY
2. OK States: AK, SD
3. Bad States: DE, ME, ND, VT


OVERALL:
1. Good in both: WY (BEST STATE, this state will work)
2. Good in 1 and OK in 1: AK, MT (GOOD STATES, these states will likely work)
3. OK in both: SD (OK STATE this state might work)
4. Good in 1 bad in 1: ID, NH, DE, VT, ND (BAD STATES, these states are too big, liberal, or both to work)
5. Bad in both: ME (WORST STATE, this state is too big and too liberal to work)

MY OPINION:
WY, AK, MT, and SD all seem like exceptable states based on election results.  All of the states are out west except SD.   WY might do as well with 15,000 people as AK, MT, and SD do with 20,000.  ID, NH, DE, VT, and ND might need 30,000 or more people.  ME is a lost cause.


2002 Federal government results by state (98% to 100% reporting for all states):

Alaksa
Governor
R (I) Murkowski 111,311 56%
D Ulmer     81,434 41%
G Benson    2,450 1%
AI Wright   1,845 1%
NL Vinzant  1,255 1%
L Toien     902 0%

Senate
R Stevens (I)  155,054 79%
D Vondersaar   20,466 10%
G Sykes        14,267 7%
AI Dore        5,822 3%
L Karpinski    1,974 1%
     
US House 01
R Young (I) 146,492 75%
D Greene    33,710 17%
G DeForest  12,404 6%
L Clift     3,202 2%
 

Delaware
Senate
D  Biden (I)   135,170 58%  
R  Clatworthy  94,716 41%
I   Barros     994 1%
L   Buranello  922 0%
NL  Mattson    350 0%
     
US House 01
R Castle (I) 164,462 72%
D Miller     60,944 27%    
L Thomas     2,789 1%

(D) Governor and other (D) Senator were not up for election


Idaho
Governor
R Kempthorne (I) 231,270 56%
D Brady          171,495 42%
L Adams          8,177 2%
 
Senate
R Craig (I) 265,849 65%
D Blinken   132,845 33%
L Bramwell  9,350 2%
 
US House 01
R Otter (I)  120,742 59%
D Richardson 80,269 39%
L Gothard    5,129 2%

US House 02
R Simpson (I) 135,389 68%
D Kinghorn 57,594 29%
L Lewis 5,507 3%
 
(R) Sen. Mike Crapo was not up for election


Maine
Governor
D Baldacci   233,543 47%
R Cianchette 205,335 42%
G Carter     46,179 9%
I Michael    10,894 2%
 
Senate
R Collins (I) 290,266 59%
D Pingree     205,901 41%
 
US House 01
D Allen (I) 162,638 64%
R Joyce 92, 784 36%

US House 02
D Michaud 116,652 52%
R Raye    107,005 48%
 
Other (R) Senator was not up for election


Montana
Senate
D Baucus (I) 202,908 63%
R Taylor     102,766 32%
L Jones      10,325 3%
G Kelleher   7,567 2%
 
US House 01
R Rehberg (I) 211,714 64%
D Kelly       107,478 33%
L Fellows     8,995 3%
 
(R) Gov. and other (R) Senator not up for election.


North Dakota
US House 01
D Pomeroy (I) 120,774 52%
R Clayburgh   109,646 48%
 
(R) Gov. John Hoeven, (D) Sen. Byron Dorgan and (D) Sen. Kent Conrad were not up for election

ND is not socialist, the people in the state like farm welfare and the Democrats give them welfare.


New Hampshire
Governor
R Benson  257,386 59%
D Fernald 167,458 38%
L Babiarz 12,939 3%
 
Senate
R Sununu  225,506 51%
D Shaheen 206,689 47%
L Blevens 10,355 2%
 
US House 01
R Bradley  128,252 58%
D Clark 84,732 39%
L Belforti 7,342 3%

US House 02
R Bass (I) 125,777 57%
D Swett    90,459 41%
L Babiarz  5,071 2%
 
(R) Sen. Judd Gregg was not up for election


South Dakota
Governor
R Rounds 189,899 57%
D Abbott 140,260 42%
I Carlson 2,383 1%
L Barton  1,984 0%
 
Senate
D Johnson (I) 167,481 50%
R Thune 166,954 49%
L Evans 3,071 1%
 
US House 01
R Janklow 179,951 53%
D Herseth 153,557 46%
L Begay 3,117 1%
 
Three-term (D) Sen. Tom Daschle was not up for election


Vermont
Governor
R Douglas       101,912 45%
D Racine        95,599 42%
I Hogan         21,875 10%
MML Ericson     1,739 1%
L Williams      1,432 1%
P Badamo        1,350 1%
GR Hejny        753 0%
RJF Christian   622 0%
LU Diamondstone 589 0%
I Pearl         587 0%
 
(I) Hogan a liberal, took votes that would have gone to Racine.  If Hogan was not in the race Racine would have won.

US House 01
I Sanders (I)   143,858 65%
R Meub          71,511 32%
LU and P Newton 2,964 1%
GR Skinner      2,315 1%
L Krymkowski    1,788 1%
 
Sanders is a socialist, yes, he calls himself that
The P or Progressive and LU or Liberty Union are liberal parties

Five-term (D) Sen. Patrick Leahy and (I) Sen. Jim Jeffords (he left the GOP in 2001) were not up for election.


Wyoming
Governor
D Freudenthal 92,545 50%
R Bebout        88,741 48%
L Dawson       3,909 2%
 
Senate
R Enzi (I)    133,554 73%
D Corcoran 49,578 27%
 
US House 01
R Cubin (I) 110,062 61%
D Akin        65,885 36%
L Stock       5,955 3%
 
(R) Sen. Craig Thomas was not up for election
« Last Edit: June 19, 2003, 04:17:43 pm by FreedomRoad »
Logged

Jim1

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re:Post-Election - Putting it all together - the answer
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2002, 10:51:17 pm »

Wyoming definitely looks best for political reasons, and it has great big mountains.  :)

Cheyenne is just a little further north than Washington, DC, but weather.com says it is going to be 11 degrees Fahrenheit 3 nights next week. Is this a fluke?

As wonderful as Alaska is, it is not an option for two reasons. One is that too many people are unwilling to move there, and the other is that it is too likely to result in federal intervention.
Logged

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:Post-Election - Putting it all together - the answer
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2002, 12:11:09 am »

WY is my top choice for these reasons:  extremely low population, independent people, freedom-oriented, tolerable climate, no income tax.  This would be the easiest state to Free.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2002, 12:13:48 am by JT »
Logged

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:Post-Election - Putting it all together - the answer
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2002, 02:58:22 am »

Purely from the strategic standpoint, the best state for a minimal contingent to gain a lot of influence in would be one where none of the present players have a clear lead or, better yet, where a multiplicity of players keep all from coming out on top for long. But a caution would be where a incoming group could prompt some of the local groups to ally against the outsider. Though such coalescing of one side could prompt a similar coalescing of the other "side". The FSP could introduce "reason" and "common sense" if it played its cards just right and allied with those who are sick and tired of the divisive politics.

From the above viewpoint, this one looks good.
VT - Threeway power struggle b/t D, R, and various socialist parties

Remember too the posts from Vermonters who speak of an apparently large contingent of "Take Back Vermont" traditionalists who may ally with newcomers who want to help them take their state back.

as to
Quote
weather.com says it is going to be 11 degrees Fahrenheit 3 nights next week. Is this a fluke?
This is November. Expect that weather in in all of the candidate states this time of year (except Delaware)

Here is a wealth of climate info for each of the states (click on the state you want)
ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/taps/

Here is more on Wyoming and Montana discussion
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=35
« Last Edit: November 08, 2002, 03:14:44 am by Joe, aka, Solitar »
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Post-Election - Putting it all together - the answer
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2002, 03:06:01 am »

Purely from the strategic standpoint, the best state for a minimal contingent to gain a lot of influence in would be one where none of the present players have a clear lead or, better yet, where a multiplicity of players keep all from coming out on top for long.

A couple thoughts.

From a libertarian point of view, it is easier to convert conservatives then liberals.

From an economic point of view, the fewer types of competion and the least amount of competitors the better.  The more competition, the harder everyone works.  That is why going in to a state with 2 parties is better than going into a state with 3 or 4 parties like AK or VT.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2003, 12:56:56 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

mlilback

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
  • I'm nobody's llama!
    • home page
Re:Post-Election - Putting it all together - the answer
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2002, 02:50:47 pm »

From a libertarian point of view, it is easier to convert conservatives then liberals.

I find the opposite. The liberals I know are much more respectful of individual rights, especially if they existed for everyone. Many of the liberal programs most people have problems with are meant to "level the playing field" because it is so skewed. If laws weren't skewed to the rich and powerful, they'd mostly be libertarian.

Almost all the conservatives I know feel they know what is right and want to impose it on everyone else. Or else they gain advanatages from the current system and are unwilling to let them go away. They are opposed to change (hence conservative), and everything being proposed here is change.

From an economic point of view, the fewer types of competive and the least amount of competitors the better.  The more competition the harder everyone works.  That is why going in to a state with 2 parties is better than going into a state with 3 or 4 parties like AK or VT.

I think a state with only two parties would be harder, because it shows most of the people don't care. Strong third parties shows that people in that state care and want to change things. If they've won office, it means it means that citizens are used to the idea of a third party and are more likely to consider not voting for the major parties.

Mark
Logged

craft_6

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
  • Constitutional Libertarian
Re:Post-Election - Putting it all together - the answer
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2002, 05:03:59 pm »

Purely from the strategic standpoint, the best state for a minimal contingent to gain a lot of influence in would be one where none of the present players have a clear lead or, better yet, where a multiplicity of players keep all from coming out on top for long....

From the above viewpoint, this one looks good.
VT - Threeway power struggle b/t D, R, and various socialist parties

Remember too the posts from Vermonters who speak of an apparently large contingent of "Take Back Vermont" traditionalists who may ally with newcomers who want to help them take their state back.


After looking at the election results, Vermont seems a better candidate than I had previously thought.  Vermont voters are definitely independent, and might consider new options more carefully than voters in other states.  Vermont also has a small population, and a small geographic area to campaign across.

A power struggle between two or three parties would mean a lower threshold for a new FSP-based party to gain a seat at the table.  In a two-way race, the bar is at 50%.  In a three-way race, it is at 33%.  In a four-way race, it drops to 25%.    

A competitive libertarian party (LP or not) staffed with FSP activists could ally themselves with left-liberals on social issues and with small-government conservatives on tax and regulatory issues.  Without ever gaining a majority, the FSP might accomplish much of what it wants.  
Logged
Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!
http://www.badnarik.org
Badnarik for President, 2004

Tyler

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • Making soap!
Re:Post-Election - Putting it all together - the answer
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2002, 02:29:46 am »

Just a few points-Freundanthal is a Democrat and not a Republican, he being the fellow who won the Wyoming governship.

Most of the liberals I know are not too favourable towards individual rights, especially if someone might get hurt because of it, although I will admit that the only other person who I've spoke to who has any interest in your group is a far-left liberal who likes what you guys stand for.

Joe, allying yourself with the take back Vermonters is a fine idea, but how much do you folks have in common? There are many in this project who seem to believe Vermont did the right thing in creating a gay marriage law, and I believe that was a chief beef of the TBV crowd. Still, a state which spawned the saucy  Independence War guerilla/outlaw and Deism proponent Ethan Allen can't be too unfriendly towards small "l" libertarianism. I read elsewhere on boards that if you move to a state you should pick up a local hero and use him as a source of inspiration (like the French with Joan d'Arc). Using Allen, who seemed about as old school classical liberal as they come would be an interesting recruiting tool in Vermont. Don't know about as many local heroes in other states-maybe just the cowboy symbolism in Wyoming will work (which I still think is your best choice, although if Vermont is chosen I'll probably wonder up there in about six years or so).
Logged
The world is not thy friend, nor the world's law.

Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet V.i
Pages: [1]   Go Up