Poll Watch: UNH/WMUR New Hampshire 2016 Republican Primary Survey [Paul first...again]

[FriedChicken]

If Stalin and Hitler were the (D) and (R) candidates, respectively, I would have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the lever for Hitler.

You use the words "utterly unacceptable" as if they meant something. Do you imagine that it matters whether you "accept" a candidate? The winner of the election will be imposed upon you whether you like them or not - your acceptance or lack thereof is irrelevant. Voting is simply a minuscule act of violence in the constant Cold Civil War that is democracy. Voting for a third party candidate is like firing into the air. Voting for a sub-optimal Republican (like Romney) is akin to firing at the enemy horde. Voting for a Democrat is like turning around and firing at your own.

I've noticed your posts the past few days and have thought you had very good, valid and correct points in many of them.
But tonight I've noticed several, like this one, that I don't agree with.

I'm not as much of a purist voter as I use to be. In fact I've voted for a D. before in an effort to keep the R. candidate out - not because I had any desire for the the D. to be my rep but because the R. wasn't good enough and I thought it was worth waiting for another shot to put a good candidate in the seat.

In many posts you sound very common sensical but in others you just sound like a straight ticket voter.

I'm strategic with voting. If there is a liberal repub running for a seat that in the next election a conservative repub has a chance at I'll vote to keep the seat "available" for the conservative.
But if its a seat thats almost always won by a Dem I'll vote for a liberal repub just because it really is the best that can be done.

And sometimes I'll vote for a libertarian candidate if I really like them and don't care if the repub wins to send a message that the liberty message does carry some votes to the GOP and try to make that a group they wish to court.

I get a ton of flack from my local group of Ron Paul supporters for being this way.
I think it best, in the long run, that Romney lost. I didn't vote for him (or Obama ...) and wrote in Ron Paul for principle.

Sure, Romney would have been better in someways, I believe that. But he wouldn't have been good in any vital area, would have prob served 2 terms and after which a liberal democrat would probably win next and stay in office for 8 years.

So we had to put up with 4 more years of crap from Obama, but thats better than 16 years of crap from Romney and whoever followed him just to get another shot at a liberty candidate.

 

[Keith and stuff]

They are pretty greedy ya know. They keep rejecting seatbelt laws and income/sales taxes yet tend to dump on the rest of us with the federal picks.

So we defeated the adult seat belt law in 2009 when the Democrats controlled the state. The Democrats have been too afraid to reintroduce the bill since then because it's politically toxic. Now, the rumor is that the adult seat belt lady won't even run again. Heck, there is even a rumor that the lady that said the free state is the single biggest threat to NH won't run again. Another rumor is the Concord city council that pushed for the BEARCAT won't run again. These statists are getting a lot of attention and running scared.

Anyway, it's good to see Rand Paul on top in New Hampshire, just like 4 out of the last 5 polls I've seen. This is a nice change from Ron Paul, who never topped a poll in New Hampshire.

 

[devil21]

Mitt Romney is an incredibly bright, accomplished man with strong family values and a commitment to keeping America great. As President, I am confident that he would have enforced the country's immigration laws rather than disregard them as Obama has done. If I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for him.

Your failure to distinguish between Obama and Romney is nothing more than a symptom of sloppy and unsophisticated thinking.

wtf? Why is anyone talking about Romney and Obama?? Get with the now.

 

[anaconda]

120 million registered voters understand that they have just two reasonable choices. This will always be true in a first-past-the-post system. To vote for a third party candidate in a competitive election is the height of silliness.

I always vote Republican in local races, which tend to be pretty close where I live.

Silliness is what we have. And what 120 million registered voters vote for.

 

[anaconda]

If Stalin and Hitler were the (D) and (R) candidates, respectively, I would have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the lever for Hitler.

You use the words "utterly unacceptable" as if they meant something. Do you imagine that it matters whether you "accept" a candidate? The winner of the election will be imposed upon you whether you like them or not - your acceptance or lack thereof is irrelevant. Voting is simply a minuscule act of violence in the constant Cold Civil War that is democracy. Voting for a third party candidate is like firing into the air. Voting for a sub-optimal Republican (like Romney) is akin to firing at the enemy horde. Voting for a Democrat is like turning around and firing at your own.

I disagree because history shows that paradigms change and minorities can become majorities. But they never got that way by supporting their status quo. Romney lost because a significant and growing (key word here: "growing") segment took the "utterly unacceptable" approach. And now change is being negotiated in the GOP. No thanks to anyone who voted for Mr. Romney.

 

[KingNothing]

It's throughout the U.S.
Romney got 60,000,000 votes. President Obama got 60,000,000 votes. I can't think of one single Romney voter I know that can explain to me why Romney was better than President Obama, only that he WASN'T President Obama at the very base of their reasoning.

Some of these people waited HOURS in line to vote for someone they couldn't tell you why other than he WASN'T the other person.

I would NEVER vote for Romney, but I think it's pretty obvious that he'd be a better president than Obama. He's run businesses before. He's been part of the real world. That alone gives him a credibility and a perspective Obama does not possess.

 

[mosquitobite]

I would NEVER vote for Romney, but I think it's pretty obvious that he'd be a better president than Obama. He's run businesses before. He's been part of the real world. That alone gives him a credibility and a perspective Obama does not possess.

And if Romney had won, we'd have to wait til 2020 for Rand. No thanks.

Not only that, but mainstream republicans would go back to their false sense of safety that "everything is all right" now.

 

[jbauer]

If Stalin and Hitler were the (D) and (R) candidates, respectively, I would have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the lever for Hitler.

You use the words "utterly unacceptable" as if they meant something. Do you imagine that it matters whether you "accept" a candidate? The winner of the election will be imposed upon you whether you like them or not - your acceptance or lack thereof is irrelevant. Voting is simply a minuscule act of violence in the constant Cold Civil War that is democracy. Voting for a third party candidate is like firing into the air. Voting for a sub-optimal Republican (like Romney) is akin to firing at the enemy horde. Voting for a Democrat is like turning around and firing at your own.

Great, you'd vote for Hitler instead of Stalin. You can claim a vote for a 3rd party is a throw away but if there is ever to be a 3rd party that is sustainable those votes have to START somewhere. Understanding that there are studies that say a 3rd party will never be viable. However, discerning the level of evilness between two almost identical candidates isn't a choice. Saying one is better than the other even by a tiny margin isn't a choice. Voting outside the box is a choice. Its a statement of whats wrong with the current political culture. I look forward to making more statements about whats wrong in future elections.

 

[Keith and stuff]

And if Romney had won, we'd have to wait til 2020 for Rand. No thanks.

Not only that, but mainstream republicans would go back to their false sense of safety that "everything is all right" now.

You make some interesting points to think about. I noticed that many Republicans were substantially less bad in 1994, because Clinton won in 1992. The same thing happened in 2010. Plus, a ton of additional Republicans were elected in 2010, because of Obama winning in 2010. And it the states that elected governors or state senators every 4 year, many of those Republicans are still in offer, partly due to the backlash against Obama in 2010. Then, in some of the Southern states like AR and NC, the backlash against Obama (with groups organizing and so on) in 2012 to help Southern Republicans pick up even more group.

 

[Keith and stuff]

So we defeated the adult seat belt law in 2009 when the Democrats controlled the state. The Democrats have been too afraid to reintroduce the bill since then because it's politically toxic. Now, the rumor is that the adult seat belt lady won't even run again. Heck, there is even a rumor that the lady that said the free state is the single biggest threat to NH won't run again. Another rumor is the Concord city council that pushed for the BEARCAT won't run again. These statists are getting a lot of attention and running scared.

Anyway, it's good to see Rand Paul on top in New Hampshire, just like 4 out of the last 5 polls I've seen. This is a nice change from Ron Paul, who never topped a poll in New Hampshire.

Now it has come out that the horrible NH Speaker of the House (she is perhaps located in the most Democratic district in NH) will not seek reelection. While the Republicans are expected to take back the NH House, there is now hope that the Democratic Party leader might be more of a moderate. Plus, whomever it is, the person will not know protocol as well, so he will likely be a less effective leader (hopefully).

 

[trey4sports]

lol @ Donald Trump

 

[menciusmoldbug]

I'm not as much of a purist voter as I use to be. In fact I've voted for a D. before in an effort to keep the R. candidate out - not because I had any desire for the the D. to be my rep but because the R. wasn't good enough and I thought it was worth waiting for another shot to put a good candidate in the seat.

I've never done this but can certainly imagine situations in which it'd make sense to. Looking back, for example, I think we can all agree that it would've been better if Lindsey Graham had lost to a Democrat in 2002, which would've freed up the seat for a better Republican in 2008. I'd also have preferred that he lose in 2008, so he wouldn't have the advantage of incumbency that he does now. And I obviously hope he loses his primary this year to Lee Bright.

But if he doesn't, I'd prefer that he keep his seat rather than have a Democrat take it. Repealing and replacing Obamacare takes precedence, in my opinion, over every other issue, and I expect Graham to vote for that, while I'd expect a Democrat to vote against it. If I didn't expect the Senate to be split almost exactly 50/50, I'd say having a Democrat beat Graham would be preferable in 2014 too - it's only worth keeping him if he is the 50th or 51st Republican Senator.

In many posts you sound very common sensical but in others you just sound like a straight ticket voter.

There has never been an election in which I have only voted for candidates from a single party. In every election I have voted for some (R)s and some (L)s. I have never voted for a (D).

I'm strategic with voting. If there is a liberal repub running for a seat that in the next election a conservative repub has a chance at I'll vote to keep the seat "available" for the conservative.
But if its a seat thats almost always won by a Dem I'll vote for a liberal repub just because it really is the best that can be done.

And sometimes I'll vote for a libertarian candidate if I really like them and don't care if the repub wins to send a message that the liberty message does carry some votes to the GOP and try to make that a group they wish to court.

+1 to all of this, that's how I vote too.

I get a ton of flack from my local group of Ron Paul supporters for being this way.

Ron Paul supporters, as a rule, are not the sort of people you should be taking political advice from. The people you should take political advice from are those who have a track record of putting people that they support into high office. You'll note that the Republican money men have basically spent the entirety of the last year intensely studying the Obama campaign (or, well, you'd note that if you knew a lot of Republican money men - I do).

I think it best, in the long run, that Romney lost. I didn't vote for him (or Obama ...) and wrote in Ron Paul for principle.

I did the same, but that's because I knew my vote had no chance of being decisive. If granted the authority to decide whom would be elected President (with Romney and Obama as my only choices), I would pick Romney without hesitation.

Sure, Romney would have been better in someways, I believe that. But he wouldn't have been good in any vital area, would have prob served 2 terms and after which a liberal democrat would probably win next and stay in office for 8 years.

So we had to put up with 4 more years of crap from Obama, but thats better than 16 years of crap from Romney and whoever followed him just to get another shot at a liberty candidate.

I don't think these predictions about the future would've come true, but hopefully it's obvious that I agree Obama 2012 > Romney 2012 if they would've.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Silliness is what we have. And what 120 million registered voters vote for.

You'll hear no argument from me on this point. What you need to understand is that this silliness is a necessary effect of the fact that our country has foolishly granted the power to pick its leaders to 120 million silly people, and the people in question aren't getting any less silly over time.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

I disagree because history shows that paradigms change and minorities can become majorities.

All minorities are not created equal. Some are predictably more likely to grow and become majorities than others.

Cthulhu may swim slowly, but he only swims left. Isn't that interesting?

But they never got that way by supporting their status quo. Romney lost because a significant and growing (key word here: "growing") segment took the "utterly unacceptable" approach. And now change is being negotiated in the GOP. No thanks to anyone who voted for Mr. Romney.

All I want to do in response to this is quote and quote and quote and quote some more. Please just read the whole thing.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

Great, you'd vote for Hitler instead of Stalin. You can claim a vote for a 3rd party is a throw away but if there is ever to be a 3rd party that is sustainable those votes have to START somewhere.

There will never be a major 3rd party. That simply isn't a possible sustainable development in a first-past-the-post system. [mod delete]

Understanding that there are studies that say a 3rd party will never be viable. However, discerning the level of evilness between two almost identical candidates isn't a choice. Saying one is better than the other even by a tiny margin isn't a choice.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course these are choices. You might as well argue that A != A. But A does = A. A always = A. Choices are choices. A choice between two almost identical candidates is a choice.

What you are upset by, though you don't seem to realize it, is the fact that first-past-the-post systems of electoral democracy predictably produce two centrist parties who consume the vast majority of the votes and are repugnant to the vast majority of voters. This outcome is baked into the cake, as the saying goes. You cannot alter the outcome without altering the system itself.

Voting outside the box is a choice.

Of course it is. I've never argued otherwise. My claim is that it is usually a bad choice in competitive elections. As a Texan citizen, my general voting pattern is to vote (L) for all statewide races and (R) for all local races. As demographic changes begin to make Texas more purple, I'll probably either move or begin voting straight (R).

Its a statement of whats wrong with the current political culture.

What's wrong with the current political culture is that we live in a democracy, which is by far the worst form of government ever known to man. If you want to fix things, you must first get rid of the democratic rot that has been eating away at the heart and soul of our people for hundreds of years now.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

re the Romney/Obama question...

There was no significant difference between them in terms of policy, but there were cynical political reasons for favoring Obama:

(1) When a Dem is in the WH, the Reps get more conservative. Our faction in the GOP would not be nearly as influential had Romney won in 2012.

(2) An Obama win in 2012 guaranteed us a shot in the 2016 primary. A Romney win might have delayed our shot till 2020.

(3) There's no better time to be the Republican nominee than after 8 years of Dem rule, i.e. best chance at winning the general.

(4) Romney losing helped send a message to the GOP electorate: i.e. moderates can't win.

...all that said, I was extremely certain that Obama would win, and by a large margin, so I decided my vote would be better spent as a protest, for the LP.

 

[helenpaul]

the best news is the hated rubio is at 2%

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yep, he's dropped 13 points from his high!

And Christie's dropped 9

Good stuff

 

[anaconda]

If Stalin and Hitler were the (D) and (R) candidates, respectively, I would have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the lever for Hitler.

That would be your prerogative. But the "choice" that you earlier called "reasonable" is certainly not rational, as voters are unwittingly compelled by propaganda to vote in a manner that is not in their best interests (continual reduction in wealth, per capita GDP, and civil liberties). Participation in the false choice yields a perpetual pass to the central bank/warfare model of government for the cherished opportunity to vote for one set of contrived wedge issues over another, neither of which the establishment cares one iota about beyond their effectiveness in polarizing the electorate. It is not rational to vote on the arrangement of deck chairs aboard the Titanic.

 

[menciusmoldbug]

That would be your prerogative. But the "choice" that you earlier called "reasonable" is certainly not rational, as voters are unwittingly compelled by propaganda to vote in a manner that is not in their best interests (continual reduction in wealth, per capita GDP, and civil liberties).

With all due respect, it's pretty plain that you don't know what the word "rational" means.

Furthermore, it is not obviously the case that voters vote against their best interests. Democracy creates a prisoner's dilemma; by legitimizing the redistribution of property, it creates an irresistible incentive for every individual to vote himself the belongings of another. If one resists this temptation, all he does is make himself the certain victim of tomorrow's majority; far better, then, to take what one can grab now before it's all gone (as it inevitably will be - democracy destroys wealth and prosperity, leaving little but a smoking ash-heap in its wake).

Situations where individuals acting rationally produce a sub-optimal outcome are quite common; to dismiss the behavior of people in these situations as "not rational" is to invert the definition of the word.

Participation in the false choice yields a perpetual pass to the central bank/warfare model of government for the cherished opportunity to vote for one set of contrived wedge issues over another, neither of which the establishment cares one iota about beyond their effectiveness in polarizing the electorate.

Please define: "false choice"

Please define: "contrived wedge issues"

Please define: "the establishment"

Or maybe don't bother. [mod delete]

It is not rational to vote on the arrangement of deck chairs aboard the Titanic.

This statement perfectly illustrates the absurdity of your views, for it is indeed rational to vote on the arrangement of deck chairs aboard the Titanic, assuming one holds a preference (either aesthetic or practical) on the issue. That the ship is sinking does not change this. Similarly, it is indeed rational to vote for the lesser of two evils in a democratic election, assuming one holds a preference (either aesthetic or practical) for one candidate/party or the other. That the ship is sinking does not change this.