Another Poll from Cloud Hampshire

I still feel the seat belt qestion (0.00 / 0)

is natives v. migrants, not D v. R v. U, and so immune from the cloudy sample, but yes, what you say, 1000 times over.

R2K samples done for the Monitor are much better, imo.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 07:21:12 AM CDT

oh I don't know (0.00 / 0)

A lotta free staters showed up to oppose the Seat Belt bill and they (mostly) are recent in-migrants.  One man showed up at the Senate hearing and claimed he had moved here precisely because it was the last state to have no seat belt law.  

-----

Thanks for all the fish

-----

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 08:02:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, maybe not R v. D v. U, (0.00 / 0)

but definitely L on that issue.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 08:11:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Holy priorities, Batman! (0.00 / 0)

I can understand moving to New Hampshire for our "Live Free or Die" spirit.  I can understand moving here because we have the lowest taxes in the lower 48--I don't like our state to be defined by its propensity to underfund everything, but I get it.

What I don't get is moving to a different state because of seat belt laws. Really? Seat belts?  That's what determines where and with whom you want to spend the rest of your life?  How can anyone, save automakers and safety pros, spend that much energy on seatbelts?

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 10:03:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, this is a group of people (4.00 / 1)

That took a stand on the "freedom couch". And manicurist's licensing. They are serious people, man,.

They're not the brightest stars in the firmament. They came to New Hampshire because they like the "liberty index" of the place, but rather than move to Stoddard or somewhere rural up north where they could do whatever they wanted and be left alone, they converged on Keene -- because we have city supported sidewalks, parks, centralized development producing a beautiful downtown, good broadband service (negotiated by the town), a nearby hospital, and the social amenities that a state-supported college provides, etc. Oh -- and a town-supported cable channel for them to air their show on.

None of this phases them, apparently -- that they moved to New Hampshire for Liberty but chose to live in the most Democratic town in New Hampshire, a town that features some of the highest taxes in New Hampshire b/c we think it's important to school our kids, build sidewalks, and develop ambitious five-year plans.

Their current successes include vilifying underpaid city workers to the point where it's going to be hard to hire people into this place, and driving up the operational costs of the court system with stupid stunts.

Not sure how this ends -- I'm hoping some town in Hew Hampshire will step up and say how much they want these people and maybe they'll just leave. But there seem to be more each day, all here with the idea that they will turn Keene into their model town, so who knows.

On the political front they are miserable failures, with net result that politically this town has reacted to their presence the way some people used to react to Mass natives -- Free Staters endorsing any idea  is the kiss of death, so the town has, if anything, moved to the left since their arrival.  

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 13:16:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Industrial Revolution has come and gone, and the digital revolution is only redoubling the way it changed the world. (0.00 / 0)

In 2009, a person cannot be free by living on a privately-owned half-acre with no government.  The world is too complicated and connected, too highly populated, and technology has advanced too much.  In our lifetime and in those to come, we must dispel the notion that less government means more freedom.  It does not.  Anarchy is not freedom.  Anarchy is simply a struggle between feudal lords and warlords.  A just government protects the rights of its people.  And sometimes that's a big job.

---

by: This Was The Moment @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 18:01:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

So getting rid of a government that:

  1) Steals (taxes)

  2) Starts unnecessary wars (and often forces people to die in them)

  3) Breaks it's own laws and amendments, without repercussion (what about "... and justice for all"?) time and time again (need I list any examples?)

  4) Inflates the dollar by printing millions of paper dollars that are backed by nothing more than paper dollars, and has monopoly control over the money supply

  5) Forbids people from making their own decisions as to how they live their life, how they spend their hard-earned money, etc

  6) Forbids voluntary transactions, and anything else that it doesn't like (what about "with freedom ... for all"?)

  7) Throws people in jail for non-"crimes"

  8) Confiscates private property (eminent domain)

  9) The list goes on and on...

isn't freedom, but keeping that government in place, is?

We must dispel the notion that an oppressive government that steals from it's people and violates so many rights means more freedom. It does not.

A "just government" cannot exist when it does all of the things I mentioned above.

---

by: IMAAC @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 18:17:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cool. (0.00 / 0)

> They're not the brightest stars in the firmament. ... I'm hoping some town in Hew Hampshire will step up and say how much they want these people and maybe they'll just leave

You seem to be a very nice, welcoming person.

The libertarians want true peace and freedom, but you, presumably a state-supporter, only want to ridicule and turn the freedom-lovers away. Hmm...

> driving up the operational costs of the court system with stupid stunts.

"Stupid stunts"? Protesting oppressive, wrongful acts of the state is "stupid"? What's next... arresting robbers, burglars, and other violent criminals is considered "stupid"?

Driving up operational costs? Kind of like how the state likes to waste time and money having a jolly-old time busting people for victimless non-crimes, instead of focusing all of their efforts on true crimes like murder, robbery, burglary, and assault?

It's no wonder the crime rates are so high in our big cities.

Here's a solution: tell your government to stop busting people for non-crimes, and "stupid stunts" (non-crimes) and your operational costs will go down... though they'll still find a reason to raise the amount of money they steal from you, anyway.

> that they moved to New Hampshire for Liberty but chose to live in the most Democratic town in New Hampshire

That's exactly why they moved there.

Why be an activist in a town that's inclined to support everything you stand for? Waste of time, don't you think?

> a town that features some of the highest taxes in New Hampshire b/c we think it's important to school our kids, build sidewalks, and develop ambitious five-year plans.

The end does not justify the means; if a group of robbers were to give all of the money they stole from people to "good causes", would that be okay?

Taxation is theft. I challenge you to refute that.

I think it's important that everyone be allowed to keep 100% of the paycheck they work their tails off for, and then let them decide how to spend it.

I think that's true freedom, don't you?

---

by: IMAAC @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 18:03:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're missing the point. (0.00 / 0)

It's the principle of the thing.

Would it be okay for someone to force you to wear a seat belt... and if you didn't, fine you?

How about if they forced you to pay them part of your hard-earned paycheck each year?

How about if they forbade you from owning something they didn't approve of, or doing something they didn't approve of, even if whatever you wanted to do wasn't a true crime?

Coercion, theft, extortion... That's not freedom. Is it?

Done by anyone else other than our government it'd be considered a crime.

---

by: IMAAC @ Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 17:38:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"it's always a good idea to start with the sample" (4.00 / 4)

Five hundred is a small sample. It can tell something about the total population interviewed, but it isn't large enough to adjust to make the sample reflect the state population. Andy's sample certainly isn't representative of the state and breakdowns by subgroups are even less reliable.

24% of his sample is over 65, but only 12.4% of the state's population in 2007 was there yet. 72% of his respondents come from married couple families, but only 54% of the households in the state include married couples. 26% of his sample had a high school education or less, but 41% of the state's adult population has that level of education.

Andy still relies on land-line telephone contacts for his surveys. Until the UNH Survey Center figures out a better way to contact a broad population sample its reports will continue to mis-inform rather than serve our state.

---

by: Chuck Townsend @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 09:02:46 AM CDT

Thank you. (0.00 / 0)

We have been saying this on BH over and over and over, but typically focusing on the small sample and inaccurate party ID breakdown, less so the other demographics you rightly mention.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 09:12:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]