The REAL Free State Competition

[emeriste]

The results from New Hampshire make me pretty cynical about New Hampshire calling itself the Free State. The next time someone from New Hampshire tries to tell me they are the "live free or die state", I'm going to ask if they voted for Ron Paul. If the answer is no, I plan on laughing at them like a neo-con in a Fox News debate.

So I suggest the following competition. Since we will be fighting this out with Ron Paul to the end, we will have a great chance to see who the REAL free state actually is. Whichever state ends up giving Ron Paul the highest percentage wins. That state will be the new Free State and I will probably end up moving there because I value the company of intelligent people.

So far Iowa is on top. Is your state up to the challenge?

Bump it if you like it. -- www.WeLoveFreedom.com

[electronicmaji]

what if its alaska?

[Wyurm]

what if its alaska?

Gah you beat me to it, but I honestly think it will be Alaska.

[justinc.1089]

I would put money on Alaska. Just think about it, the most free lands are always the last ones being settled because the freedom loving people go out to settle new land to get away from the government, and so the places last settled have the fewest non-freedom loving people there.

I bet the real live free or die state will be Alaska. Maybe we should all move there and declare independence lol!:p jj

[pilby]

i've had similar thoughts. although, in fairness to the Free State Project, the goal is to have 20,000 freedom-loving individuals all move there once they have that many sign up. So far, they're a ways off from the 20,000 goal. If they had gotten there and had 20,000 extra freedom-loving individuals all having moved to NH, they could possibly have more than doubled Dr Paul's results.

[electronicmaji]

I would not move to alaska...there are only manual labor jobs there and the living is Expensive as hell...soo..:<

[donttreadonme]

I'll always love NH

[Paul4Prez]

New Hampshire was leading the way in per capita donations to Ron Paul, though.

Nevada is a close second in per capita donations, and is a low turnout caucus state, so we should be able to do better there.

The real surprise from the donation info is that Montana looks a lot more pro-liberty than Wyoming, which was the runner up in the Free State selection vote.

[Hook]

New Hampshire was leading the way in per capita donations to Ron Paul, though.

Nevada is a close second in per capita donations, and is a low turnout caucus state, so we should be able to do better there.

The real surprise from the donation info is that Montana looks a lot more pro-liberty than Wyoming, which was the runner up in the Free State selection vote.

Not suprising when you realize Montana is the home of the Freemen.

[european]

Let it please be Hawaii, but at this moment it looks like it is Alaska:

www.benjaminsforpaul.com has a nice overview which state wants to donate most for freedom. Alaska has the biggest %. Hawaii has 0% :( What is your state doing?

[austin356]

I wish I could murder big government. ARGH!!!!

[european]

I wish I could murder big government. ARGH!!!!

we can do that together :D

[crazyfingers]

Unfortunately despite an environment that is currently comparatively favorable towards libertarianism, the trend in NH seems to be moving in the opposite direction. I'm sure it is the result of any number of factors, the most obvious (to me) being the large number of Massachusetts transplants to the southern part of the state. In 2006, the Democrats took complete control of state government, and have already began to curtail freedom (such as implementing a smoking ban in bars). This sweep occurred not only because of the transplants, but also due to many long-term residents unjustly taking their disgust with the national GOP out on the local, small-government Republicans.

Ron Paul did not do as well here as we hoped because the people of this state are just as susceptible to unfair media manipulation as anywhere else. In addition, RP made relatively few visits to the state, especially compared to McCain (who, of course, placed first). I'm convinced that if he held the same number of "town hall meetings" as McCain he would've done much better - the primary voters here care about one thing: face time. The issues take a back seat to personally being able to go see the candidate at your convenience. Just a part of the spoiled mentality developed after being the first in the nation primary for so long, I guess.

Frankly I believe the reluctance to spend a lot of time engaged in "retail politics" here was a poor decision on the part of the campaign. Of course he made visits, but so did all of the other campaigns. McCain went above and beyond and was rewarded handsomely for it; a better showing here would've lent legitimacy to Paul's candidacy that money just can't buy.

I'm not absolving NH voters of their terrible choice - the amount of time spent in-state is not a logical way to choose a candidate - but rather I'm just explaining the facts on the ground as I see them. In all honesty it makes me question if HQ has ever had a strategy to win in the first place, because IMO this was a huge missed opportunity.

[j6p]

Ron could do really well in Alaska and Hawii

[jarofclay]

Alaska or Montana of course. We need more freedom lovers to move to Montana!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22451294/