We all know that independent voters comprise about a third of the New Hampshire electorate, and every election season brings its own slew of predictions about how that electorate might swing. But first we have to ask, what is an independent?
In political terms, there’s an easy answer to this question; an independent is a voter who is not a Republican or a Democrat. But that’s a pretty shallow definition indeed. Literally, “independent” means “not dependent” or “the opposite of dependent,” and it is in that sense that we say New Hampshire is an independent state. Our state is not dependent on the federal government for very much at all, and for that reason, we as independent voters are inclined to oppose candidates who want to expand and consolidate government in Washington, D.C. Our citizen legislature and accessible local governments do not require federal oversight or federal mandates, and we prefer to have most of the important decisions made here within our borders.
This independent approach to governance has been forgotten inside the beltway, where each year the federal government assumes a greater degree of control over the states. New Hampshire independents have traditionally swung Republican for exactly this reason. However, now that the last decade’s “Republican Revolution” has amounted to more of the same big, centralized government, independents are hard-pressed to find a maverick Republican they can get behind (e.g. Pat Buchanan in 1996). Some say the Republican party has failed because it failed to heed the lessons of Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, and others who warned that big government would prove inconsistent with the principles of a free society. Others say it has failed because George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are such incredible bunglers. And still others say it has failed because George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are such incredibly evil geniuses who have hijacked the American system of government to their own ends.
Regardless of which explanation one believes, it’s obvious most New Hampshire independents will not vote for a candidate who wants to prolong the War in Iraq. The results from 2004 and 2006 prove that without a shadow of a doubt. In a state that is 1/3 independent voters, this means none of the pro-war guys can possibly win our electoral votes in the November election.
So who does that leave from the Republican field, Ron Paul?
And what Democrat can independents trust not to consolidate power in D.C., maybe Bill Richardson?
At this stage, it’s good to have more questions than answers. In New Hampshire, with our spotlight on the process, it's a luxury we can afford.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
Thanks for your comment.
I thought it was a little funny that you left the word "most" out of my quote. Without the word "most," yes, it would have been a blanket statement.
And it's worth noting that Geroge W. Bush was *not* re-elected in New Hampshire. He might get 15% if a vote was held today, and that only because some people still like his wife.... I guess.
My point is that I think we are very likely to have a Democrat in the White House unless we start seeing something very different from the top Republicans on foreign policy. Ron Paul was dead right in the debate when he said the party's base had deflated considerably because of the Bush administration's foreign policy. It's something Republican voters ought to think about.
Unless (heaven forbid) there's another major terrorist attack in the U.S., the fear/security message is not going to win the White House. (Or at least it would take some pretty major bungling by the other candidate...)
Republicans are in need of a new PR pitch. Young Republicans should be obseving the upcoming change- they will have to change inorder to stay afloat. Hopefully, when Bush and Cheney are out of office, Reps. will admonish the duo. Just as Dems, stepped away from Bill Clinton in the last election. I don't think many Reps. will be asking for Bush or Cheney to intro them at any rally.
Your comments on the independent nature of NH were right on. It's the excitement of the unknown that makes the primaries and elections in NH so exciting. Although, I do agree with Matt, barring any attack- we will see a Dem in the White House, and most likely, NH will help him/her into office.
But failing a Ron Paul miracle, there is still a chance somebody like Chuck Hagel could enter the race and save the GOP in 2008. Any candidate who "has never heard of the idea" that U.S. foreign policy payed a role in causing the 9-11 attacks (Giuliani) is living in a fantasy world -- I mean, he's got to be lying, right? Like Ron Paul said, that stuff is in all kinds of intelligence reports including the 9-11 Commission report.
Just pure, ridiculous political grandstanding from Giuliani -- I have to call it like I see it. I think there's a damn good reason Dr. Paul came in 2nd in the Fox News text message vote -- establishment Republicans don't want to know how high a percentage of Americans have figured this stuff out already. It's really pretty simple, sort of like being a good neighbor -- but most of these guys probably don't even have neighbors, do they?
If Ron Paul gains any more momentum on foreign policy in the next debate, it will be a "teaching moment" for the Republican party, should they choose to accept the lesson. And then maybe we see a Chuck Hagel, or maybe another twist. Whatever happens, I think this will all be very educational...
Tell Washington DC that there's this thing called "The Constitution of the United States," and that since they obviously don't want to have anything to do with it anymore, we'll adopt it and do it ourselves!
Have you read the NH state Constitution? I'll bet you'd like it. But still, I don't think my neighbors will be convinced to secede anytime soon -- they take more of a "vote the bums out" approach to bad government.
Jane, you're right that Hagel doesn't have much in common with Paul except opposition to the war. I haven't studied his health care plan, especially since he isn't a candidate. I mention him because an announcement from Hagel would change the dynamics of the race completely. (For Ron Paul supporters, adding a mainstream Republican anti-war candidate to the race would just plain suck).
If doing well in online and text polls is a desirable thing, wouldn't you think the well-organized, well-funded candidates could produce better results than Ron Paul?
I don't sense any artificiality whatsoever from the Paul campaign, or from his supporters. Before we dismiss this candidate, we should listen to what he is saying. It's hard to accurately gauge his support, in part because he attracts a lot of independents and libertarians who are so fed up with the process that they don't usually vote at all (or don't vote for major party candidates). It's true that his supporters are a very active, passionate bunch -- enthusiasm can be quite contagious. Do you see any such enthusiasm for the other so-called bottom-tier candidates?
Exactly! Don't forget Hajek, who evidently Reagan had read. It was Hajek's book "A Road to Serfdom" that motivated Ron Paul to join Congress. GREAT book that should be required reading. In 1944 it predicted what would happen to the Soviet Union, and what is happening to our country today.
William - Ron Paul doesn't attack people - he talks about principles and ideas. He used his rebuttal time to elaborate on our failed foreign policy rather than go after Giuliani for being stupid. Watch his interviews on CNN, Fox, etc if you want to see him go after Giuliani for "not reading the 9/11 commission report". And he also challenged Rudy to a debate on foreign policy.
I would never forget F.A. Hayek -- it's just that he has a funny name, and not as much name recognition as Friedman, so I lumped him in with "others." "Road to Serfdom" is one of the most important books I've ever read.
Just finished Road to Serfdom today! I had been reading it for a while, but was on the last couple of chapters. What a fantastic book. I can't believe he wrote it in 1944. He really predicted our current state of affairs.
William - we will have to agree to disagree. Ron Paul's youtube views have shot through the roof, money is coming in from donors at an increasing rate, his myspace friends have skyrocketed, etc. Being attacked by Giuliani has done great things for his campaign. Not everyone is so stupid as to believe Giuliani's rhetoric.
Spamming means someone voted twice and I don't see how that could happen.
There is no top down organization directing anyone to do this -- it's a bunch of people who like Ron enough to vote when asked. The support is strong from those people.
If Ron Paul can get his message out to more people, I am certain he will gain even more supporters, and donations.