[citizenredstater9271]

I understand Boston liberals spreading out to NH b/c Boston and Massachusetts are too crowded. That's what happens with every city. For example I have friends in southeastern Indiana which is close to Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville is 500x more liberal then anywhere else in the state. Now liberals from Louisville are moving to Indiana b/c they don't like being crowded in the city and that little area is slowly turning liberal. Or people from Los Angeles moving to Nevada and turning Las Vegas into a mini-Hollywood as another example.

But I still think NH was the right choice for a state. It has low taxes and a small population so its politics are easier to influence then say South Dakota. Besides how active are the NH liberals? What have they done thats on par with what the Liberty Movement has aside from getting some liberals elected?

[truthfreedom]

I’m not bashing NH. NH and Maine are the most conservative of all the New England states. But Boston is more liberal than anywhere. And there was significant movement from MA to NH even before FSP.

South Dakota has roughly the same population as NH. People are not commuting from Sioux Falls to Minneapolis. (But they do drive a long way for things like dinner). Alaska would’a been a good choice for FSP. Most of the Rocky states. Wyoming? Idaho? Maine might’ve even been better than NH.

I’m not saying FSP is a bad thing. They didn’t effect Ron Paul positively in NH much though.