She was popular enough to lose the race last time.
2002 was a dream GOP year, and the phone jamming didn't help her numbers either. Any other year and she would've won that race.
Also worthwile to note that New Hamphsire has changed quite a bit politically since then.
2002 may have been a GOP "dream year," but 2006 was a Dem "dream year" in NH that is unlikely to be repeated in 2008.
The big thing would be Bush's mandatory retirement. He simply will not be the dominating issue the way he was in 2006. People will be focused on the new Republican candidate, not the old one.
The simple fact is that the 2006 landslide was caused by the party-line vote lever. People were upset at Bush, and a popular Democratic Governor topped the ticket. Most people just pulled the D party lever, which caused unprecedented Dem gains.
A presidential election on top of the ballot that virtually every poll shows to be darned close all but guarantees people will not be using the Dem party lever to the same extent they were in 2006. I'd expect the Democratic Pres. candidate to carry the state, but Republicans to gain back a number of seats they honestly had no business losing in 2006.
It seems unlikely that after a political realignment not only in New Hampshire but in America in 2006, things would just go back to being the way they were in 2008. I think you're wrong: Bush will be a factor in 2008.
Eisenhower was a factor in 1960 (as many people who voted for Nixon did so in part because they approved of the popular outgoing chief executive).
Johnson was a factor in 1968 (Humphrey was forced to breakway from the unpopular President's position on Vietnam; it is a fact that his position in the polls improved after this and he came close to upsetting Nixon, whereas before he had been far behind him)
Nixon himself was a factor in 1976, despite having resigned over two years earler (Ford was definitely hurt by the Nixon Pardon so in that sense Nixon was an obvious factor, but more than that - the GOP was thoroughly hurt by Nixon in both 1974 and 1976. Carter would not have been elected were it not for his unique position as a man with very little national experience; he was the first anti-Washington outsider to be elected to the Presidency directly because of Nixon and the impact his actions had on the nation.
Reagan was a positive factor for Bush in 1988 (Bush effectively ran as if he would be simply Reagan's third-term in office, and most people who voted for Bush, particularly conservative Southern Democrats - did so because the heavily associated Bush with Reagan; Bush wrapped himself up in the Reagan mantle and legacy).
And finally Clinton was a factor in 2000, and something of a double-edged sword (It is probably true that Gore made a mistake in distancing himself from the President in the campaign - who was still popular at large and particularly so amongst Democratic activists and obviously in his homestate of Arkansas which Gore should have carried really. Yet it is true that Clinton was seen to have stained the Presidency and was particularly detested by evanglicals, conservatives and Republicans - part of Bush's appeal was his wholesomeness founded upon his conservative values).
From all this I think we can conclude that Bush will most definitely be a factor in 2008, and most likely a negative one (he is hardly a positive for the Republican Party now, is he?). Furthermore, I think the Republican nominee will have a rather awkward time balancing on a tightrope in the general election - does he embrace Bush, campaign with him and endorse everything he's done in office when Bush has a 30% approval rating? Or does he distance himself from Bush and refuse to be identified with him and risk losing Bush's evangelical supporters (particularly if the candidate is Romney or Giuliani, this seems more likely) and make the GOP look disunified (never a plus in campaigns). The most likely option, it seems to me, is something in between these two and wholly unsatisfying for the candidate. It is going to be awkward.
