There is something definitely to be said for run-offs. Raye and Bradley both won because of a bad split of too many Conservatives in their respective primaries, otherwise our nominees would be pro-lifer John Stephen in NH and slightly-more-moderate Tim Woodcock in ME. This is going to be a serious danger for us in the coming years in non-run-off states with liberals waltzing to victories with scarcely 1/4th of the vote while the Conservatives get the other 3/4ths... The big question in NH is whether or not a lot of Conservatives will bother to turn out to help Bradley against Martha Fuller Clark, seeing as it appears there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two (and that won't help Sununu). Perhaps we should vote for Bradley and then work to unite behind a candidate to beat him in the primary in '04 (and that ought to be Bob Smith).
appears there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two I don't know about that. I have talked to State Reps (Thomas, Czech, Rosen) and a Senator (Johnson) who supported this guy. It seems nobody asked him why he did not serve in uniform, nor did they ask about the federal death penalty, partial birth abortion, gays in uniform, his views on Bush's plan to begin harvesting western forests...nothing; nobody knows. He's a personable guy who did a good job on the utility issue and thus they lent him their support. We don't know where he stands.
Instead we hear he owned a hardware store in Wolfboro and likes to climb around rocks.
In NH, the fix may be to statutorily require a winning candidate to receive at least forty percent of the vote or face a run off primary. If you are interested, talk to NH State Senator Robert Boyce and put in a good word for the ammendment: I think he may be toying with introducing something like this.