Either the power of social networking is not yet up to the task of overcoming television ads and the visual and other pollution of yard signs EVERYWHERE, or New Hampshire is not ready for the #SAFE_DEAL and to #IMPOVERISH_DRUG_LORDS. (Or, I suppose, they just didn’t like me. Quickly figuring my likely exposure, though, I believe a large percentage of folks who heard my message actually voted for me. So maybe I just need to get better and spreading the word at low cost. I do find it ironic that MAYDAY pac endorsed a candidate who did spend money on the grounds he pledged to fight against large campaign media budgets in the future, while I operated on a minimal media budget. Notice that is not a criticism of the candidate they did endorse.)
Anyway, completely cribbed from WMUR-TV’s site, here are the apparent 99% returns:
Brown, Scott 58,635 50% Rubens, Jim 27,048 23% Smith, Bob 26,483 23%
Kelly, Walter 1,376 1% Heghmann, Bob 823 1% Farnham, Mark 733 1%
Martin, Andy 717 1% Beloin, Gerard 500 0% Dziedzic, Miro 499 0%
D’Arcy, Robert 415 0%
While of course it is painful that less than 1,000 voters rushed to support me when I really thought my policies were best and that I had the best chance to not only win the general election but forcefully guide the country in a better direction by winning with a minimal expenditure, I also find it interesting that Robert D’arcy finished dead last. Now I only met Robert at the Franklin Pierce debates, so I have not thoroughly vetted him. But with the exception of one of his ideas that I completely disagree with, I thought he had a set of ideas and proposals in the top two of a field that contained a lot of folks who would serve us well. Being left off the NHPR interviews and the WMUR-TV debates, Robert also apparently had trouble getting his message out. After the debate at Franklin Pierce it WAS reported that he had a detailed 10 point plan. But his actual plans were not reported. (At least not widely.) I faced a similar, though possibly even more damaging (though completely accurate as far as it went) result of reporters words: Unless you took the trouble to read my positions on this blog (as about 800 did, which I can see from the site tracking, and which compares very favorably with getting 733 votes) all you knew from the newspaper (if anything at all) was that I wanted to subsidize the poor and make drugs legal. Without an explanation of how and why, those are pretty unlikely positions to inspire my fiscal conservative, be kind to your brother, social libertarian base. Oh well. I really cannot blame anyone else; instead of waiting to publish my ideas lest they be grabbed by several campaigns, I should have published my programs and policies last fall and started a long slow push. Live and learn. I don’t think it would be useful to undertake a write-in campaign in the general election. But if you’re thinking of voting for Shaheen, go ahead.
In a few days I’ll put up a poll regarding whether I should form a non-candidate oriented pac to promote my ideas. I still think it is shameful we spend enough on welfare to have no one legally here in poverty, yet over 12 million often go to sleep involuntarily under the stars and hungry. And I still think the best way to put money and power in the hands of criminals is to make something popular illegal. We just got to end this drug war. The war on drugs makes the problems worse, not better.
All the best!
Mark W. Farnham