Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really hope that I am not offending anyone, or breaking any of the forum rules by asking... I guess this is more of an opinionated question...and if this is inappropriate, I'm very sorry and do not mean it to be.
I was just wondering, are there any strongly Democratic or Republican (maybe blue collar) town/cities in NH? The reason for my curiousness is that this is one thing you can't see just by visiting. You can get a "vibe", but that can be wrong.
I really hope that I am not offending anyone, or breaking any of the forum rules by asking... I guess this is more of an opinionated question...and if this is inappropriate, I'm very sorry and do not mean it to be.
I was just wondering, are there any strongly Democratic or Republican (maybe blue collar) town/cities in NH? The reason for my curiousness is that this is one thing you can't see just by visiting. You can get a "vibe", but that can be wrong.
Please discuss.
Hello dzmjp! Welcome to the New Hampshire Board! Actually all you have to do is just drive around and look at the condition of the town, how much crime, how well homes and landscaping are maintained! How well the schools are maintained and if there are any gang problems!
Just by knowing all those factors you will then definitely be able to determine whether you are in a Democrat or Republican Community!
Last edited by CometVoyager; 08-02-2008 at 11:06 PM..
Reason: left out word
I know here in Connecticut one cannot judge if a town is Democrat or Republican- since we have upscale towns like West Hartford & Westport that are staunchly Democratic- and rather less upscale old factory towns like Waterbury and Naugatuck that lean republican.
At least here in Connecticut which is a very strong Democratic state- income and status are not as important in determining who votes for either party-
It might be fair to say that here in CT those living within the inner city, suburban towns (both upscale, middle class, and working class) do tend to vote Democratic. With the GOP favored in smaller towns (especially western CT), some working class towns in the Naugatuck river valley and Ultra rich very upscale towns in Fairfield county like Darien, New Canaan, Redding and Greenwich.
Nonetheless, in wealthy Fairfield county-home of the last republican congressperson from New England (Chris Shay's) Could become Democratic this fall-leaving New England with no GOP members in congress.
Last edited by skytrekker; 08-03-2008 at 04:24 AM..
Hello dzmjp! Welcome to the New Hampshire Board! Actually all you have to do is just drive around and look at the condition of the town, how much crime, how well homes and landscaping are maintained! How well the schools are maintained and if there are any gang problems!
Just by knowing all those factors you will then definitely be able to determine whether you are in a Democrat or Republican Community!
What kind of a blanket statement is that?
Using your formula it may be hard to explain the following results for the 2008 presidential primary in these 3 seacoast towns:
Just a tip on political decision making (for all) checkout thomas.loc.gov to find out the REAL content of the bills that your congressman are voting for/against. After being intimately involved in the legislative process I found that it is incredibly important to read the true content of bills (as well as seeing what other bills were voted on at the same time- knowing that "vote trading" occurs) as opposed to listening to what the bill is about on TV:
For example: A bill may be headlined as "Mandatory 20-year sentence for child rapists" (sounds good to me, why would anyone vote against it?) and the media may go "these people didn't vote for it- they are evil"; but if you go read/understand the actual language of the bill you will find that it included a "rider" that added "and lets get rid of all anti-pollution laws, increase taxes 20%, and kill babies in their sleep" (obviously provisions that would make the bill un-passable). It is very common for a bill that LOOKS good (or bad) on the surface to really be the opposite because of what riders are included; yet all MOST people ever know is that representative A or B voted for/against the bill. Research & knowledge of the true content of what was voted for/against are key to political decision making.
By the way, such "riders" are often attached just so that the media will go "look at X who didn't vote for this great bill to protect children from rapists"; it's a rather ingenious political tactic that preys upon the laziness of voters.
Just a tip on political decision making (for all) checkout thomas.loc.gov to find out the REAL content of the bills that your congressman are voting for/against. After being intimately involved in the legislative process I found that it is incredibly important to read the true content of bills (as well as seeing what other bills were voted on at the same time- knowing that "vote trading" occurs) as opposed to listening to what the bill is about on TV:
For example: A bill may be headlined as "Mandatory 20-year sentence for child rapists" (sounds good to me, why would anyone vote against it?) and the media may go "these people didn't vote for it- they are evil"; but if you go read/understand the actual language of the bill you will find that it included a "rider" that added "and lets get rid of all anti-pollution laws, increase taxes 20%, and kill babies in their sleep" (obviously provisions that would make the bill un-passable). It is very common for a bill that LOOKS good (or bad) on the surface to really be the opposite because of what riders are included; yet all MOST people ever know is that representative A or B voted for/against the bill. Research & knowledge of the true content of what was voted for/against are key to political decision making.
By the way, such "riders" are often attached just so that the media will go "look at X who didn't vote for this great bill to protect children from rapists"; it's a rather ingenious political tactic that preys upon the laziness of voters.
Wow, I did not know that! I only knew that sometimes the language of the bill makes it impassable. I didn't know there were added bits of legislation that were unrelated to the main bill. Why is that? Are the riders what proponents really want to get passed or rejected?
It can work either way - although usually it's little stuff that people are trying to get passed (often snuck in). It's very common - especially in Congress. So when you hear all those annoying political ads about 'Soandso voted against the really morally good thing - so don't vote for them' don't take it at face value, there's usually a good reason like something else attached that you never hear about! happens all the time. Frankly, it's why I can't believe any of the election ads, and looking at their voting record doesn't help much either for the same problem.
I don't know if this map is any indication, especially since it seems like most NH towns are more or less evenly split or moderate, but here you can see the distribution of representatives (in the state house) by party across the state's districts:
Wow, I did not know that! I only knew that sometimes the language of the bill makes it impassable. I didn't know there were added bits of legislation that were unrelated to the main bill. Why is that? Are the riders what proponents really want to get passed or rejected?
It's very interesting; I was very involved in the process for several years and will never evaluate a bill, a vote, or a political candidate in the same way again.
There are multiple reasons for "riders" to a main bill; here's three I can think of off the top of my head that are very common:
1) They are related/make sense to go with the main bill (for example, an environmental bill that generally addresses water- but has an air related rider)
2) They are not related but are attached for political benefit with constituents (for example, an environmental bill that generally addresses water- but has a rider that funds a bridge being built in WV which was added by the WV rep)
3) They are or are not related but are attached for political posturing (for example, an environmental bill that generally addresses water- but has a rider that bans teddy bears; politician A who added the rider then votes for the bill to show how environmentally friendly they are...knowing that the rider will prevent the majority from voting for it- therefore politician A looks good but accomplishes their goal of not passing the environmental legislation)
Most riders fall under category one or two since three is somewhat risky (but generally the media only reports on the short summary of a bill rather than the full language- so not THAT risky)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
