Rep Steve Vaillancourt


The Week In Polls--Jan. 9--It's All Over

             When you spend millions of dollars sending reporters to a snow less New Hampshire to cover the first in the nation primary, you expect a little more bang for your buck than a runaway, so I guess it should come as no surprise that the lame stream media is going out of its way to make a horse race where there is none.

            After all, it’s more exciting to proclaim, even on the flimsiest of evidence, that Jon Huntsman is surging than to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…that Mitt Romney has this race wrapped up, has had for years, and no one is going to even come close.

            In fact, no merely does Mitt Romney have New Hampshire wrapped up, but he may well have the nomination wrapped up.  Heck, he may well have the Presidency wrapped up, so why don’t we just save ourselves ten months of Sturm and Stress, declare him the winner and all go home.

            If the media can’t have a horserace at the top of the ticket, then they’ll push for a race for second.  That’s the subplot this day before the primary.  Huntsman will certainly make a close race for second, we’re told.

            Probably not.

            We have no fewer than six polls from the past week, and unless every single undecided voter (I don’t believe there really are all that many of them) falls in line for the same dark horse, this race is over.

            Here’s the Real Clear Politics average for New Hampshire the day before the primary.  Romney leads Ron Paul by 18.7 points, and Ron Paul leads Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum, who are tied for third, by 8.3 points.

            Don’t take my word for it.

            Here are the numbers—Romney 38.5, Ron Paul 19.8, Huntsman and Santorum 11.5, The Eft 9.5, and Rick We Hardly Knew Ye Perry is up to 1.0.

   gives Romney a 98 percent chance of winning New Hampshire (two percent for Dr. Paul).  They project he’ll take 38.6 percent of the vote to 19.6 for Dr. Paul and 15.7 for Huntsman, closer for second but still not a nail biter.

            Not only that, but 538 has Romney ahead of The Eft and Santorum by nearly ten points in South Carolina with a 61 percent chance of winning there (19 percent for the Eft and 18 percent for Santorum).

            Not only that, but 538 now has the line out for Florida.  Romney has moved to a 13 point lead over the Eft (38.2-25.2 with Santorum at 17.2).  Romney’s chances of winning there are 82 percent (15 percent for the Eft and three percent for Santorum).

            Barring the unforeseen (video of the front runner in bed with a dead girl or a live boy), this race is over.

            I know, I know.  We thought it was over four years ago when Hillary broke down and cried and scored the sympathy backlash.

            Will lightning strike twice in the same place?

            The media sure hopes so.

            The only poll which has anything other than a Romney-Paul finish in New Hampshire is ARG which has Romney at 40, Huntsman at 17, Dr. Paul at 16, Santorum 12, Eft 8, and Perry 1.  That’s such an outliar that neither RCP nor 538 use it in their averages.

            The WMUR/UNH poll (I trust Andy Smith) has Romney at 41 with Dr. Paul at 17, Huntsman and Santorum at 11, Eft 8, and Perry 1.

            We should also look at the Suffolk/7 News Tracking Poll since they are updating their numbers each day.  On Monday, they had Romney at 3 (down from 33 a week ago), Dr. Paul 20, Huntsman 13, Eft 11, and Santorum 10 (Perry 1 of course).

            It’s so bad for the Pennsylvanian that he’s already left the Granite State for points south.

            I for one will be happy when this entire media brigade packs up for the Palmetto State…I for one am sick of these media games of making a lopsided race appear close.

            With the caveat that I was wrong in Iowa, I’ll go with 40-20-13-12-11-2 for my prediction here.  That would be Romney, Dr. Paul, Huntsman, Santorum and Eft, and Perry. Note that I leave 2 percent for other…hey maybe Fred Karger will surge.  When I left the Manchester Library Saturday afternoon, I ran into a Karger/Gay Pride/Occupy parade…some type of parade; I’m not quite sure what.

            Gallup nationwide has Romney up 12 today.  It’s Romney 30, Santorum 18, Eft 17, Dr. Paul 13, and Perry 6.

            The RCP average has Romney up 9, 26.3 with Santorum at 17.3, Eft 16.0, Dr. Paul 11.8, Perry 5.5, and Huntsman 2.8.

            Put a fork in this nomination; it’s done.  The only question is whether Dr. Paul will re-elect Barack Obama by running as a third party candidate.  My guess is not.

            Rand Paul for President in 2020.

            Even as the Eft continues to spread the canard that he is far more electable than Romney, let’s pause for a reality check.

            Rasmussen’s latest polling has the Eft losing to Obama by 10 (49-39).  In a poll just out today, Rasmussen has Santorum losing to Obama by seven (46-39).  Romney ties Obama at 42-42 (a tie most likely goes to the challenger), and a generic Republican beating Obama by four (47-43).

            So much for Eftian lies!

            Rasmussen has Republicans back to a six point lead in the generic Congressional ballot, 44-38.

            After getting even ever so briefly last week, Obama has slipped again to negative 1.2 in the RCP averages (47.0-48.2).  Gallup has him down only one (46-47), but Rasmussen has the gap widening back to 11 (44-55).  I suspect it’ll be at negative five or six in a few weeks.


Media Watch--Who's Hair Is It Anyway?

            It’s not often I think of New Hampshire’s Democratic Party Chairman, my former housemate, but Raybo sure came to mind this weekend as I was watching the Republican debates.

            No, not for any political reason.  I’m sure Raybo would have toed the Democrat party line, whatever that may be, in criticizing GOP candidates.

            This was more a media observation.

            You see, back in the day, Raymond Charles Buckley and his gang of freewheeling hypercritical friends used to play a game.

            No, no, I don’t mean THAT game.  That’s a story unto itself.

            This was the “bad rug” game.

            Buckley, when he wasn’t enlightening me on which of his “friends” at the State House were having intercourse with each other, used to love to point out who was wearing bad hair pieces.

            All I could think of Sunday morning was that somewhere out there, Raybo must have been proclaiming, “Bad rug!”

            Gentleman that I am, I won’t name names here, but one member of the media was wearing such a stunningly bad rug that I could barely follow the questions.

            It’s not my fault.

            I trained at the feet of a master, Raybo the Almighty Adjudicator of Bad Rugs.



Will Globe/Monitor And RINO Endorsements Doom Jon Huntsman?



This just in!

Jon Hunstman has just received a major endorsement for New Hampshire!

That was the headline a few days ago, and before the reporter could give the details, I began to think what political figure had jumped aboard the Huntsman bandwagon?

Speaker O'Brien?  No, he's for The Eft.

Deputy Speaker Tucker and Rep Silva?  No, last time I checked they were among the zero percent sticking with Rick Perry.

DJ?  No, he's not likely to abandon a winner (the other Mormon) for a cruise into troubled waters.

Well, before I exhausted all possiblities, I learned that it was the Boston Globe which has endorsed Jon Huntsman.

As church lady would say, "Isn't that special?"

Just like the Concord Monitor, another liberal paper which would never endorse a Republican candidate against Barack the Magic Socialist, the Boston Globe wants Jon Huntsman to win the Republican nomination.

You just can't make this stuff up.

I'd call that more of a kiss of death than an endorsement.

Oh, the pundits are proclaiming this morning, with 41 percent of New Hampshire voters independents (undeclared actuallty), the Globe endorsement will certainly help Huntsman.


I've been watching polls for weeks and if anything, Huntsman is losing ground (back to single digits).  To know him apparently is not to love him.

Truth in blogging--although I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter, Huntsman is actually my second choice, so I write this not to detract from Huntsman but rather to point out the folly of left wing papers like the Monitor and the Globe interfering in Republican primaries.  (It would be like the Union Leader endorsing a Bill Richardson rather than Hillary or Barack.  I doubt that many Demorats would follow the Union Leader endorsement).

It doesn't end with these endorsements being the kiss of death for Hunstman.  When I told a Libertarian friend how Huntsman would be my second choice, he responded that he kind of liked Huntsman too (after all, Huntsman is no fascist)...until he checked out the New Hampshire Reps who've endorsed the former Utah governor.

I'm not going to name names here, but if you go to Rick Olsen's RINO of the Year column at, most Huntsman supporters will be listed there.  The fact that Huntsman is endorsed by moderate or "main street" (some dare call them RINOs) Republicans is not good news.

It's anothering slobbering kiss of death.  It reminds me of graffiti on the western side of the Berlin wall.   East German dictator Erich Honneker was being kissed by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev with the caption (I can almost remember the words in German), "God save me (hilf mir) from this deadly love (todliche Liebe)." 

Too bad.  Huntsman deserves a better fate that endorsement from Democrat papers and less than stalwarrt Republicans.

God save Huntsman from this deadly love from Boston and Concord.


Rick Santorum And The "F" Word

In my older years, I try to use the "F" word less and less.  After all, it can be rather provocative and should not be bandied about lightly.   However, I feel the need to use it today, and to defend its use, I have a dictionary in hand.

No, no, no, I don't mean the four-letter "F" word.

It's fascist I mean.

Rick Santorum is an out and out fascist.

There I've said it, and now I need to defend it.

To me, fascism means state control of one's life in various and sundry insidious ways.  Fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism which stresses freedom of the indiviudal to control his or her own life and destiny.

With a captial F, Fascism refers to the state-control of lives initiated by Mussolini in Italy.  However, without an f, fascism has become quite a common word.  No freedom-minded person should tolerate people with fascistic views.

I repeat.

Rickl Santorum is a fascist.

At the same time he speaks of freedoms as enumerated by our founders, clerarly he means freedoms only for those who agree with him.  If you happen to disagree with Rick Santorum on a given issue, he would have the state deprive you of all your rights.  Rick Santorum is not gay, so certainly gay people don't deserve rights in Rick Santorum's warped view of the world.

Oozing his usual smug smarminess, Santorum embarassed himself on the issue of gay marriage before a college crowd this week.  He tried to say that if we allow two men or two women to marry, then we must allow three or more people to marry.

What tortured logic!  We've allowed two heterosexuals to marry through the ages, and we've managed as a society to draw the line there.

Blinded by his homophobia, Santorum can't see that as a society we always draw lines.  We allow people to carry guns, but we don't allow them to randomly shoot at other people.  We allow people to consume alcohol, but we set limits as to how much may legally be consumed before one attempts to drive.

Only a fascist, one who is trying to deny rights to those with whom he disagrees, would fail to see those distinctions.

However, it's far worse than homophobia with this particular fascist.  As a Roman Catholic, apparently Rick Santorum doesn't believe in birth control.  Most Roman Catholics in fact have come to accept birth control as have 98 percent of the population, but should Santorum not wish to use birth control himself, that's his right.

However, he doesn't stop there.  He insists, contrary to court rulings, that states make laws banning birth control.

This is a classic fascistic tactic--government tells you what to do even when the vast majority of people disagree with what government would force you to do (or not to do).

Mussolini did it; yes, I must be said-- Hitler did it; fascists throughout history have done it and will continue to do so if we are insane enough to empower them, to elect them.

Just because I don't do something should not mean I want to deny you the right to do it.  Three quick personal examples come to mind.

I have never owned a gun and have no desire to own one, but I would never think of denying you the right to own one (or more).

I gave up smoking long ago and never smoke, but I would never deny you the right to ruin your health by smoking (please don't blow your smoke in my face, however).

By and large, I no longer consumer alcohol (champagne and a few beers New Years Eve and I'll probably pop a few some hot summer day), but I would never try to limit how much you drink (I might avoid you when you're drunk, but that's another story).

The libertarian philosophy, as best enunciated by Dr. Ron Paul, is to get government out of our lives.  As I like to say, "Government should get out of my wallet, out of my bed, off my back."

The fascist philosophy, as enumerated by Rick Santorum, is for government to intrude in our lives.  Why?  Because the fascist leader assumes that his morality should be shared by all (kind of like pay day or title loans, n'est-ce pas?).

Yes, sad to say, Rick Santorum is a fascist.

I'm not surprised that he nearly won Iowa.  Fascists have always appealed to a segment of the population, to nanny staters from either the left or the right.  At times, fasicists even achieve a majority.  When they do, god save our society.  God certainly did not save Italian or German society.

You will notice from the definition that fascism also intrudes into our economic lives, and yes, I believe Rick Santorum is an economic fascist as well.  Any crony capitalist, any government big spender who would have the state create economic winners and losers, is a fascist.

So here's the definition from Merrimam Webster.

"fascism--a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized autocratic  government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

I shudder to think that we might ever live under fascism.

I shudder to think that we might ever live under Rick Santorum.

Long Live Lady Liberty!

Ron Paul for President!


Senate Redstricting Plan Protects Incumbents

Allow me some time to mull over the details before I offer an analysis of all 24 new Senate districts as proposed by the 19 member Republican majority.  It meets the ten percent deviation range (refer to numbers below).

At first glance, this appears to be little more than an incumbent protection plan, not that there's anything wrong with that.

However, one of the incumbents being protected by the 19 Republicans is Manchester Democrat Lou D'Allesandro.  Talk of including Bedford or even more Republican leaning Manchester wards in District 20 was apparently just talk.

There's no change to District 20.  Republican Goffstown remains outnumbered two to one by four highly Democratic Manchester Wards (3, 4, 10, and 11).   It's almost as if Democrats had somehow invaded the mind of Senate President Peter Bragdon and his chief of staff Jay Flanders as they put this plan together.  Just a simple change like transferring ward 12 for ward 4 would have posed problem for D'Allesandro in this district, but he's been given a free pass.

Republicans also did no favor for one of their own, Manchester Senator Tom DeBlois.  No changes were made to District 18 which includes Democratic wards 5, 7, and 9 along with neutral ward 8 and Republican Litchfield.  During a "normal" year, this district would have to be termed "leans Democratic".

Inexplicably, Republican redistricting also created a highly Democratic district of six Nashua wards (welcome back Betty Lasky).

While Democrats would be considered favorites in eight of the 24 districts proposed here, the plan (ingenious many Republicans told me, even if I do say so myself) I presented last spring would have had Democrats favored in only five districts.

Clearly the path Bragdon and Flanders chose was to strengthen seats of incumbent Republicans rather than to capture more seats.

For example, Nancy Stiles benefits by having Portsmouth removed from her district (24), and Warren Groen benefits by getting Alton and other Republican towns in place of Somersworth in District 6, but in the process two extremely Democratic districts have been created in the Seacoast (Dover, Somersworth, Rollinsford in District 4; Portsmouth, Newington, Durham, Madbury, Lee and Newington in District 21--welcome back Martha Fuller Clark).  No Democrat worth his or her salt could ever lose in either of those districts.

Henniker Republican Andy Sanborn's district has been virtually eliminated to strengthen other Republican seats (O'Dell in District 8 gets Weare for example), but I'm told this is because Sanborn is moving to Loudon, and a new district District 7 has been created there including most of the old Lakes Region district of Senator Forsythe who has announced he's not running again.

The plan creates two totally Democratic districts along the Connecticut River (5 with Lebanon, Hanover, and Claremont and 10 with Keene and surrounding towns), but then my plan did that as well--all those Democrats over there have to go somewhere.  And no Democrat could ever lose District 15 (Larsen) as Henniker has been added in with Concord, Hopkinton, and Warner.

Districts 1 and 2 in the North Country and Grafton County seem to be slightly better for Republican incumbents.  Senators Barnes (17) and Prescott (23) also get stronger districts, and when it comes to southern districts for Sharon Carson (Londonderry), David Boutin (Manchester/Hooksett), Chuck Morse (Salem), and Rausch (Derry)...well, let's put it this way, no Democrat need apply!  In Carroll County, Jeb Bradley's District 3 remains highly Republican

Among the more interesting configurations is District 9 which runs all the way from Bedford to Richmond in Cheshire County.  It's certainly Republican terrain, but with Senator White retiring, the question is--who's it built for?  A conservative Republican from Bedford like Rep Cebrowski or a RINO like former Senator Andy Peterson from Peterborough.  Hey, it also includes Speaker O’Brien’s town of Mt. Vernon--this one could be fun!

While this plan helps Republican incumbents, Democrats--especially Lou D'Allesandro--should be pleased.  They could have done much worse, especially had Republican Senators adopted the type of plan I had created for them!

You just can't make this stuff up!

Existing NH Senate District Map <-- Click to view Color Coded map

Republican Senate Proposal 1/5/12

population prior to redistricting--after redistricting

1 51,713 -3,140 -5.72%          53,356 -1,497 -2.73%

2 57,095 2,242 4.09%            53,513 -1,340 -2.44%

3 56,485 1,632 2.98%            52,328 -2,525 -4.60%

4 54,249 -604 -1.10%            52,856 -1,997 -3.64%

5 53,856 -997 -1.82%            57,091 2,238 4.08%

6 56,650 1,797 3.28%           52,801 -2,052 -3.74%

7 54,987 134 0.24%              57,245 2,392 4.36%

8 54,222 -631 -1.15%           57,164 2,311 4.21%

9 57,859 3,006 5.48%           54,771 -82 -0.15%

10 52,718 -2,135 -3.89%      56,379 1,526 2.78%

11 56,670 1,817 3.31%         55,487 634 1.16%

12 52,473 -2,380 -4.34%       56,130 1,277 2.33%

13 48,078 -6,775 -12.35%      57,639 2,786 5.08%

14 53,549 -1,304 -2.38%        53,549 -1,304 -2.38%

15 55,399 546 1.00%            55,953 1,100 2.01%

16 54,979 126 0.23%            54,979 126 0.23%

17 58,086 3,233 5.89%         54,660 -193 -0.35%

18 54,263 -590 -1.08%         54,263 -590 -1.08%

19 55,224 371 0.68%           55,224 371 0.68%

20 53,882 -971 -1.77%         53,882 -971 -1.77%

21 57,893 3,040 5.54%        53,341 -1,512 -2.76%

22 56,033 1,180 2.15%        56,033 1,180 2.15%

23 56,793 1,940 3.54%        53,009 -1,844 -3.36%

24 53,314 -1,539 -2.81%      54,817 -36 -0.07%

Range 10,008 18.25%          5,311 9.68%

Average 54,853 

Total 1,316,470