Primary Place Online

Seems to me that the point of Primary Place, and the interest it has created elsewhere in the country, stems from the fact that in NH we DO have an opportunity to study each candidate and make a decision based on our individual impressions and the knowledged gained from first-hand up close interactions.  Whether you are an "issue" voter or a "character" voter or a "platform" voter - go with who you truly like. If NH voters are not voting their deeply felt beliefs about the fitness and worthiness of their choice, what's the point of candidates spending all this time trying to give us a chance to meet them?  I hope that each of you will vote with your hearts and minds and not be swayed by polls and what you think the rest of the country is going to do.  Let's be true to the NH Primary process we fight so hard to protect! 

This is a really important question.  I approach elections as a member of a party.  When I look at the Democratic field, I see a group of candidates who are largely in agreement on a number of issues and I tend to agree with them, much more than I do with the positions of candidates in the Republican field.  It's more important to me that ONE of those Democratic candidates is able to beat whoever is nominated from the Republican Party, than that my favorite Democrat is chosen as the nominee.  I agree that Kucinich's single payer approach to health care is the better approach thatn the top three Democratic candidates'.  But I also think, if he were the party's nominee, he would lose the general election.  On the other hand, at this early stage in the election, there would be nothing wrong with casting a vote for Kucinich to send a message to the rest of the party (when push comes to shove, this is how I usually vote in the primary).  I think of American political parties as coalitions rather than genuine parties, like parties in other countries where more than two parties are able to win elections. If I were in Europe, I'd probably be a member of a social democratic party (which might have to form a coalition with another party AFTER the election).  We don't have one of those, so I'm stuck with the more conservative Dems.  But I'm no less interested in seeing the Dems beat the even more conservative Republicans.

For those Democrats who think that voting for a candidate to "make a statement" is always a wise move, remember Nader in 2000. The Nader supporters who would normally have voted for Gore claimed that Bush and Gore were essentially so similar that it was important to vote for Nader to "send a message." What we got was Bush, an ill-advised war in Iraq, a squandering of the 90's surplus to give huge tax cuts to the wealthy, a ballooning national debt, and an agenda that was clearly not in the best interests of the nation. What "message" did Nader supporters ultimately send? Was it worth it?

And Republicans can consider the impact of their vote for Perot in '92 (or even their vote for Buchanan in the primary that year). Did they send a message? Were they happy with the ultimate result -- Clinton winning the election?

Because of our first in the nation status in New Hampshire, we have a unique opportunity to profoundly impact the process with our selections. I think that we need to consider both how closely a candidate reflects our views as well as the candidate's chances of winning and the impact that our vote will realistically have upon those chances. As Otto von Bismarck noted, "politics is the art of the possible." It isn't enough simply to believe what is "right" -- we have to carefully consider how our vote will help to move the process closer to what we believe is "right."

Go home from the dance with the one who brung you!

Maybe I should rephrase...

If you have to choose between your candidate (one that has a slim chance of winning) and one of the top-tier candidates (so your vote actually influences the nomination), which do you choose?

Sure, you can vote for Kucinich to send a message or you can vote for Paul to send a message, but is it more influential to vote for Obama or Clinton for those Dems out there or McCain or Romney or Huckabee for the Republicans.  You don't want to discount the little guy just cause he's the little guy, but if you want your vote to do something, wouldn't you pick the best candidate (for you) of the top candidates likely to actually get nominated and be considered for the Oval Office?

The polls are what really kill the process, but they typically tend to be correct when it comes to who will place high and who won't make it.  Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy?  Probably.  I suppose if enough of us think the little guy can't do well, then he won't be cause we won't vote for him... but that's human nature.

I suppose it comes down to either being principled and facing the fact that all you can do is "send a message."  Or, in order to influence the results that matter, throw principle out the door and vote for the "best" of the "top-tier" candidates.

The voting process is not a horse race. And it's not a gamble. We have the right to vote on whoever we feel is best suited to the job. Unfortunately, some people see it as a gamble and decide to throw away their vote on the person who they feel has the best chance of winning. To me, that is just plain ignorant.

As an independant, I've done my homework on all of the candidates. My workload got a lot lighter when I discovered that every top tier candidate, and some who are not so top tier, are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. A simple google search on 'CFR NAU Candidates' made it very clear to me that our election isn't so much a horse race as it is a puppet show.

For the record, the CFR candidates are..

Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

Mike Huckabee is not yet a member, although he is currently using Richard Haas (president of the CFR) as his foreign policy advisor. Watch the following youtube clip and you'll discover the globalist agenda of the CFR and it's members, along with some pretty scary quotes from Huckabee's foreign policy advisor.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

Having said all that, I'll be casting my vote for Ron Paul. 

The Primary process is designed to express our own views and values.  We absolutely must choose the candidate who comes closest to articulating those views or we are subverting the process and preventing progress toward the goals we have for our society.  Every vote for a non 'front-runner' sends a strong signal to our fellow citizens and to the candidates.  If we truly believe that a single-payer health care system is an essential goal, there is only one candidate who articulates that view-Dennis Kucinich.  If we vote for Clinton, obama, or Edwards whose health care proposals still rely on for-profit health insurance plans, it is a signal to them that single payer heath care is not very important to us.  If we really think that Iraq was an impeachable offense, we have to go with Kucinich.  Our votes should absolutely rest on the candidates' positions and not on their electability.  Only by knowing what we really care about will the candidates alter their positions to please us.

This is our unique opportunity to make a statement, and jumping on the bandwagon for a first tier candidate makes less of an impact than voting for the person you believe is the most qualified.  This Primary in NH gives us a rare chance to be heard as an individual voter!  Vote your head and your heart, do not vote for the one that the press told you would win!  Anything can happen!

The power that New
Hampshire voters have is to choose
the very best candidate they believe in, and see what the results are. In this
primary, lesser known, under-funded and worthy candidates can get propelled
further with an endorsement from local voters. Don’t vote for the candidate that
seems most electable, for that has more to do with the press and campaign
funding than it does with merit. Vote for the best candidate, no matter their
odds. That is true democracy.

That's a great question.  The "herding" phenomenon is rampant enough on the media and on Wall Street.  What should responsible citizens do?  I am a supporter of Bill Richardson and I believe that my vote for him is valuable, regardless of the final outcome.  My experiences in life have taught me to make decisions based on my true belief, and not based on fears.  BTW, if you truly want a FIRST-RATE president, join me in supporting Bill Richardson.