Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Now that's more like it. And especially satisfying since the poll methodology reflects population and voter data pretty well.
In CD1, we have Bradley a point ahead of Carol, but the sample is half the size, making the MoE is a ridiculous 6%. So there's not a whole lot of faith I can put in that one.
Hodes (again, tiny sample) and Lynch are comfortably ahead.
Very interestingly, both Palin and Horn are doing better among men than women. Proof that putting a woman on the ticket for the sake of gender is insulting to thinking women in NH.
They promise results for for U.S. Senate, U.S. House and Governor Friday
UPDATE (Dean): ZOMG - they actually polled New Hampshire this time, not that other state! (methodology, boldface mine):
The poll was conducted by Research 2000 of Rockville, Md., from Sept. 22-24. A total of 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers. A cross-section of exchanges was utilized in order to ensure an accurate reflection of the state. Quotas were assigned to reflect the voter registration of distribution by county.
The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 4 percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any subgroup, such as for gender or party affiliation.
Huh. Who would've thought? A bigger sample, a more accurate "likely voter", a county by county suborganization, and a party ID breakdown that reflects reality (or at least, only off by a half point or so)?
Actual, per Bill Gardner, Aug 2008:
D: 30.5%, R: 31%, U: 38.5%
Of course, half the reason Bosse keeps getting praise is to draw a contrast to Fergus Cullen's preferred candidate, Jennifer Horn. While I am fond of my "AM Talk Radio Fantasy Campaign" slogan for her, this from the Monitor endorsement is pretty darn good:
Horn, a radio talk show host, has few thought-out positions. Her campaign consists of a Muzak of conservative clichés that fill what would otherwise be dead air time.
I've had a few kind things to say about Bosse, mostly because I think Hodes deserves a candidate he will defeat soundly on the issues, instead of fluff.
But make no mistake - if Bosse wins, we will show in no uncertain terms how his stridently conservative views are totally out of touch with the 2nd district's electorate.
Adding: LOL- I'm guessing this is what sealed the deal against endorsing Horn. A qualified Republican or Democratic candidate could have hit this question out of the park in a number of ways, but it's clear she's clueless:
Concord Monitor: What did you think a few years ago when Sen. Sununu filibustered renewal of the Patriot Act?
Jennifer Horn: I wasn't in Congress at that time. I'll tell you that. Obviously. So I, in a general sense, my approach to all of this, to government, to the process, is that we have to work together. [blah, blah, blah, et cetera simillima...]
Monitor: I don't know that that answered that, though. So was that a good thing for him to stand up for his values?
Jennifer Horn: Well, only Sen. Sununu can defend himself or explain his actions. All I can do is tell you what my philosophy is and what my approach is.
Monitor: But did you agree with him?
Jennifer Horn: You know what? I'm not a big fan of the filibuster in general. I'm not a big fan of the filibuster. But I appreciate that some people over time have felt like they needed to use it to do what they thought was right. But again, I think it is the responsibility of folks in Congress to come together and work in the best interest of the people.
The Pulitzer Prizes were announced today. Along with the Washington Post and the New York Times, one of this year's recipients is Preston Gannoway of the Concord Monitor.
The paper won for the photojournalism series "Remember Me," chronicling final days of a dying woman and the effect on her family.
The Monitor's story on the prize - and a link to the award-winning series - is here.
I have to admit, all snark aside, Bush's fetish for torture and what it has done to our country gets me really down. I mean, there are so many issues directly affecting Americans every day that stem directly from Bush's disastrous reign, be it a collapsing economy, a war based on lies, climate change, unsafe food and water - you name it. But the torture issue, while one that doesn't affect the air I breathe or my checkbook, offends my very heart and the very meaning of what it means to be an American citizen. Every time Bush spends political capital upholding the torture of other human beings, our nation is lessened, our souls diminish in stature, our very patriotism becomes tortured along with what Bush does in our names.
That's why I was so heartened to see Paul Hodes' strong response to Bush's waterboardin-lovin' veto, and why I am today quite proud of our state newspaper, The Concord Monitor:
New Hampshire Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu, in voting against a bill that would have prohibited water-boarding and other forms of interrogation historically considered torture, are complicit in what should be seen as crimes against humanity. Shamefully, they were joined in their opposition by Sen. John McCain, a man who knows about torture and its lack of efficacy first hand. His vote smacked of political expedience and hypocrisy.
...Torture is a "method of the lazy, the stupid and the falsely tough," says retired admiral and Franklin Pierce Law Center President John Hutson. Since torture victims will eventually say anything to stop the pain, it fails to get results. Torture dehumanizes and makes war criminals of the torturers. It increases the likelihood that America's troops, if captured, will be tortured, if only in retribution. It fuels the hatred that breeds terrorism. It degrades the United States in the eyes of the world and in its own eyes. It makes us less as a people.
...Congress will get a chance to overturn Bush's veto. That won't happen unless senators like Gregg and Sununu leave their Jack Bauer, Rambo world and accept the reality that torture is not just counterproductive but morally repugnant.
But really, you should click the link and read the whole thing. And thank you, nameless Monitor editor, for those words. It gives me strength to pick myself up and fight again for basic American decency, a decency begun by George Washington during the Revolutionary War and continued for two centuries until the pretender that is our President.
The Concord Monitor has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.
Immediately after taking office, President Hillary Clinton would begin preparations to withdraw American troops from Iraq.
She would send a message to world leaders that the United States intends to rejoin the community of nations.
She would make clear to federal employees that they must heed the Constitution.
She would reverse Bush-era policies that have harmed the environment.
She would quickly sign legislation supporting stem-cell research and expanding children's health insurance.
She would lift the gag rule prohibiting international family planning programs from counseling poor women about abortion.
Many White House administrations start off slowly, as green presidents fumble through their early months, unsure how to bend Washington to their will. Come 2009, America will be unable to afford such squandered time.
Clinton's ambitious to-do list for her first few weeks in office gives us confidence that her priorities are right and that she would act swiftly to make a positive difference. She is the Monitor's choice in the Jan. 8 Democratic primary.
The Concord Monitor recognizes that while there are many good Democratic candidates, there is only one who is ready to lead on day one. Read it here
Now this is kind of interesting. Right after reading in the Union Leader that Mitt considers Iowa and New Hampshire must win states in order to capture the White House, I see that the Concord Monitor has taken the unusual step of issuing an anti-endorsement of him:
In the 2008 campaign for president, there are numerous issues on which Romney has no record, and so voters must take him at his word. On these issues, those words are often chilling. While other candidates of both parties speak of restoring America's moral leadership in the world, Romney has said he'd like to "double" the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, where inmates have been held for years without formal charge or access to the courts. He dodges the issue of torture - unable to say, simply, that waterboarding is torture and America won't do it.
When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.
Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.
And the Great NH GOP Primary Crack-Up continues unabated. I'm telling you, we're going to be looking at a four-way car crash tie for first by primary day (and Rudy! will still come in second to all of 'em).
Romney can count on one Granite Stater, at least:
"The one endorsement I'm most proud of is Sen. Judd Gregg. I'll take Sen. Gregg and his organization and his followers any day," Romney said.
If I've learned one thing about Hillary Clinton during this primary year (and, it must be admitted, we've been at this for a year now) it's that she continues to be the most complex candidate in the race for me, and that perhaps despite all that's been said and written, I nonetheless understand very little about her.
This admission of mine is courtesy of two new state newspaper items. The first is the Keene Sentinel endorsement of Hillary (h/t gradysdad), which really surprised me. I simply assumed that a paper serving the southern Connecticut River Valley would go for someone further to the left, such as John Edwards. But the endorsement reminds me that, in many respects, Senator Clinton has a very progressive voting record (and really, everyone should check out the Sentinel's interviews with the candidates). From the endorsement:
At home, the new president will have to address the fact that comprehensive health insurance is now beyond the reach of an increasing number of Americans. The new president will have to redouble the country's commitment to veterans and their families, especially in light of the wave of wounded men and women returning home from Iraq. The new president will have to pursue an effective yet humane strategy to curb illegal immigration. The new president will need to restore an ideological balance on the Supreme Court, reflecting the wide range of beliefs in American society. The new president will have to ease the country toward energy independence, without killing off the economic engine that is the envy of the world. And the new president will need to reshape key regulatory agencies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that have become dangerous appendages of the industries they are supposed to govern.
Would a Hillary Clinton presidency be responsive to those challenges? I have to think so, and strongly so.
But then there's the other side. The Concord Monitor blog notes that it was Condi Rice, not Colin Powell, that ultimately convinced Clinton of authorizing the use of force in Iraq, a position she continues to defend. This is, well, breathtaking to me, since every other candidate on our side (and including our two NH-Senate candidates) either has expressed regret for their Iraq war vote or support, or else demonstrated that they were against it from the start. I don't want to live in the past, but going to war on false premises is a black mark upon our nation so huge that it can't be glossed over. Indeed, this lone position on the Iraq is what ruled her out for me back when I set out to be a "decided" voter.
I confess I really can't figure her out, despite feeling that she would be an outstanding Commander in Chief.
Most of the audience members who came to Manchester's Verizon Wireless Arena to hear Oprah Winfrey endorse Senator Barack Obama were women who seemed fired up and ready to go. It remains to be seen whether this burst of enthusiasm, combined with Team Obama's get out the vote drive, will deliver New Hampshire in the nation's first primary.
However, a new poll released by the Concord Monitor indicates that Obama has closed the sizeable lead once held by Senator Hillary Clinton. The poll of likely Democratic primary voters shows Obama with a one-point edge over Clinton. And much of his gains may be attributed to undeclared voters and New Hampshire women who are inspired by his message of change leadership to produce new direction for America.
First off: every American citizen has a right to speak their mind on matters great and small. If a group of variously related military families, some of whom are from the first district, want a personal meeting with second district Congressman Paul Hodes so that they can shout at him without letting him get a word in edgewise, and then selectively edit a YouTube of it for a right-wing blog, God bless them. If they want to yell at him for voting to fund the troops instead of the president who will veto those funds, our Constitution gives them that right. And since the President has callously and recklessly decided to shoulder the burden of two wars, one of them an occupation, on an all-volunteer army, it is especially important to hear from military families at this time in our nation's history.
Secondly, if media such as the Concord Monitor and Union Leader are going to be invited to this clearly partisan and coordinated effort, they have a responsibility to provide some context other than mentioning them as military families. And perhaps a word or two about how current approval ratings for the President are at rock bottom levels largely because of Granite Staters' objections to the Iraq war.
Imagine if I were granted a personal meeting with Sununu based on the fact that I have an immediate family member who is now serving in the armed forces. How many words into the Union Leader article do you think you would get before you saw the words "liberal blogger"?
Here are some minor details left out of the articles on the meeting with Hodes:
I continue to be amazed and thankful to the Concord Monitor for their efforts to press the issue of civil unions into the foreground of NH Politics. By taking a stand as a newspaper, commissioning a poll, and demanding our elected officials take a public stand they are making it much easier for our new Democratic Majorities to take action on this issue in the new legislative session.
Today is no exception. The Monitor found Governor Lynch's proposal for yet another commission to `study' the issue of equality unacceptable. The published a staff editorial which I will post in its entirety. (If this is a problem, I will cut it)
No more study, please
The 2007 Legislature will see at least two bills to make civil unions legal for same-sex couples. In response, Gov. John Lynch has suggested, through a spokesman, that he may deploy one of the most potent weapons ever designed to kill time, a committee. He should not make good on that threat.
It's true the legislative commission former governor Craig Benson appointed to study the implications of legalizing same-sex marriage was fatally compromised by the lack of objectivity of many of its members. The group's tempestuous meetings and bigoted conclusions embarrassed the state. But no matter how fairly constituted the next group could be, its contribution to the debate would be insignificant compared with the real-world experiences of neighboring states. Vermont made civil unions legal in 2000, and Massachusetts recognized same-sex marriage in 2004.
The governor opposes gay marriage but, without making his position on civil unions clear, has voiced support for equal rights for all citizens. Creating a committee to study the issue would simply allow him to maintain that vague stance indefinitely.
Support for civil unions has increased. According to the latest poll taken for the Monitor, 44 percent of New Hampshire residents favor civil unions, 40 percent oppose them and 16 percent are undecided.
The governor could take the lead on this issue and make his position clear, or he could wait to see whether a bill lands on his desk. The former course would be preferable, the latter understandable. But as for another study commission, to paraphrase the late, great singer James Brown, "Please, please, please don't . . ."
When New Hampshire becomes the second state in the country to institute civil unions for gays and lesbians through legislative action, It will be in no small part due to the efforts of the Concord Monitor.
Last week I blogged about an issue that I think our new Democratic Majority in Concord should take up, Same Sex Marriage. I knew in my heart of hearts that I wasn't alone in my cause, and tonight I was proved right. Imagine my surprise as I was reading the Concord Monitor:
Fiscal reality should and will temper the aspirations of New Hampshire's newly Democratic Legislature. But it will cost nothing to right a truly major wrong, the discrimination against homosexuals inherent in state law. The next session of the Legislature should legalize civil unions and grant inheritance, visitation, custody and other rights currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples to same-sex partners in committed relationships.
I want to ask you a really tough question:
What New Hampshire newspaper has the worst website?
The difficulty here lies in how stiff the competition is. (Very)
The Union Leader and Concord Monitor have, in my opinion, fairly reasonable sites. No, the search function doesn't always work very well, but they're easy to navigate and offer lots of free content.
But after that, things get pretty ugly pretty quickly.
The Keene Sentinel wants you to pay for almost everything, including letters to the editor, so I don't even know much about the site. (Other than that paywalling a little local paper like that is dumb dumb dumb, so strike one against them.) But here's what else I know: Aside from AP headlines, they offer about as many sports headlines as news ones on their front page. And the layout is terrible - even the parts that aren't ads kind of look like them.
The Nashua Telegraph at least has free registration, but it's not exactly loaded with easy-to-identify interesting content. In fact, most of the articles linked on the front page are linked in something like a 6-point font, with just headlines, no descriptions.
The Valley News is an interesting case. It doesn't offer very many articles online, but the ones that are available are free and include summaries; as well, they list several print-only articles. It's not a lot of content, but they're completely up front about what is and is not available, so it's a user-friendly site.
So my question is, which is the worst? How do we weigh user-friendliness against content availability? How does a paper's circulation factor in - how much more should we expect of larger papers? What other factors would you include in your judgment?
In a future post I intend to ask about the quality of the political reporting itself, but at the moment, it's all about the websites.
