NH: Dems getting worried?

[ajc0918]

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/06/moving-money-in-new-hampshire.html

Apparently the DGA is moving money into their NH PAC.
I didn't think the GOP had any good candidates...

Are there any?

[Sam Spade]

The polls say that there is reason for potential concern, most certainly.

[RI]

The polls say that there is reason for potential concern, most certainly.

In the governor's race? Is there even a poll showing the race within 10 points?

[Rowan]

The polls say that there is reason for potential concern, most certainly.

In the governor's race? Is there even a poll showing the race within 10 points?

12 points says Rassy.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/new_hampshire/election_2010_new_hampshire_governor

[Lunar]

Who are the Republicans even running?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Who are the Republicans even running?

John Stephen, the former state HHS Secretary who lost the primary for NH-01 in 2008.

Lynch is attempting to do what no New Hampshire Governor has ever managed: win a fourth term in office.

[Sam Spade]

Last Polls:

Ras (5/6): Lynch 47, Stephen 35
UNH (4/28): Lynch 49, Stephen 32
PPP (4/18): Lynch 47, Stephen 36

That's not a slam dunk, folks.  Not at all.  Especially when the opponent is generally unknown.

[Lunar]

I mean, I guess NH would be a little more sympathetic towards cheaper retail politicking...but until I see the RGA spend money here, I'm going to be skeptical.  The fact that the DGA spent money isn't THAT notable, considering how little money there is to be raised among local fundraisers in New Hampshire....but I really don't know.  I'd keep my eye on basically every other state surrounding NH (VT, ME, MA, RI, CT, NY) before I focused on NH.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Also, Stephen is a lot more serious an opponent than the random state legislators that ran against Lynch in the past two cycles. The guy who ran in 2006 was a one-term state representative, and the 2008 candidate spent about $40k. Stephen's raised over $660k so far.

[nhmagic]

The answer is yes.  They are getting worried.  There are articles about Lynch's decline in the polls up here in the Portsmouth Herald and Fosters Daily Democrat.  There are also a bunch of dem state legislature retirements that are freaking dems out.  Also, we already have NH1 & 2 and the senate race in the bag (if Ayotte is the nominee, and she will be).  In general the folks up here are upset about 2 things: the oil spill, which everyone began to start to criticize Obamas response after the Maine boom debacle and theyre worried that the oil will float up the coast, and taxes/healthcare.  The liberals are upset that the wars havent ended yet too, so theyre staying home.

[Dan the Roman]

A agree with most of whats been said, with the caveat that I think Shea-Porter is in better shape than NH-2 or the Senate race, but better shape is probably still toss-up/tilt R. The thing to remember though is that most polls in NH tend to be questionable and tilt slightly R. Remember in in 2008 that virtually every UNH poll showed Shea-Porter behind, some by as much as 6 or 7 points and she ended up winning by six. And for obvious reasons she is less effected by the climate being a polarized and eccentric figure anyway.

That said, a small tilt to the GOP in polls still leaves Hodes in likely hopeless territory, and Bass is probably a shoe-in in the second if he wins the primary, which given his campaign so far, I have serious doubts about. In the first, Guinta finally seems to be launching a serious campaign, and I saw a number of his signs in the Lakes Region over the last week, far moreso than Shea-Porter.

I would also say that the State House is likely to be gone as well at least narrowly, and the Senate is not looking so hot either. Given the Democratic failure to win a stretch of special elections, ones in which they came within an inch of winning in 2006 and 2008, but clobbered in since, is not a good sign.

As for Lynch, the GOP is determined to take him down, less the state settle into one of two things:

1. Gridlock

2. Replublican complicity in tax increases

The Democrats have used magic budgeting tricks to keep the budget in the black, but everyone expects massive spending cuts or tax increases next year. The schools budget is near sacrosanct because the Supreme Court requires an equitable funding system and has on occasion ordered the legislature to raise taxes. The result is that there will be a dance about cuts and then some sort of tax increase.

The problem is that the incoming GOP majority is likely to have a genuine nutty component due to candidate quality issues, and the unpaid nature of the work which discourages normal human beings from running. The result is likely to be a standoff, and if Lynch is in, either a government shut-down, or a tax compromise. Either of these is bad for the GOP, so they want a governor in who won't veto whatever tricks they come up with to postpone disaster for a year.

The very fact that this, rather than whether the GOP will take the majority, is the topic of discussion, is however, very bad news for the Democrats.

[Mr.Phips]

A agree with most of whats been said, with the caveat that I think Shea-Porter is in better shape than NH-2 or the Senate race, but better shape is probably still toss-up/tilt R. The thing to remember though is that most polls in NH tend to be questionable and tilt slightly R. Remember in in 2008 that virtually every UNH poll showed Shea-Porter behind, some by as much as 6 or 7 points and she ended up winning by six. And for obvious reasons she is less effected by the climate being a polarized and eccentric figure anyway.

That said, a small tilt to the GOP in polls still leaves Hodes in likely hopeless territory, and Bass is probably a shoe-in in the second if he wins the primary, which given his campaign so far, I have serious doubts about. In the first, Guinta finally seems to be launching a serious campaign, and I saw a number of his signs in the Lakes Region over the last week, far moreso than Shea-Porter.

I would also say that the State House is likely to be gone as well at least narrowly, and the Senate is not looking so hot either. Given the Democratic failure to win a stretch of special elections, ones in which they came within an inch of winning in 2006 and 2008, but clobbered in since, is not a good sign.

As for Lynch, the GOP is determined to take him down, less the state settle into one of two things:

1. Gridlock

2. Replublican complicity in tax increases

The Democrats have used magic budgeting tricks to keep the budget in the black, but everyone expects massive spending cuts or tax increases next year. The schools budget is near sacrosanct because the Supreme Court requires an equitable funding system and has on occasion ordered the legislature to raise taxes. The result is that there will be a dance about cuts and then some sort of tax increase.

The problem is that the incoming GOP majority is likely to have a genuine nutty component due to candidate quality issues, and the unpaid nature of the work which discourages normal human beings from running. The result is likely to be a standoff, and if Lynch is in, either a government shut-down, or a tax compromise. Either of these is bad for the GOP, so they want a governor in who won't veto whatever tricks they come up with to postpone disaster for a year.

The very fact that this, rather than whether the GOP will take the majority, is the topic of discussion, is however, very bad news for the Democrats.

Dont Democrats have a huge majority in the state House?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am not worried about NH or these elections as much as I did a couple of months ago, the economy is turning the corner and seats like these such as Lynch will stay democratic.  I don't think the GOP majorities are that much a reality now as it was back then.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A agree with most of whats been said, with the caveat that I think Shea-Porter is in better shape than NH-2 or the Senate race, but better shape is probably still toss-up/tilt R. The thing to remember though is that most polls in NH tend to be questionable and tilt slightly R. Remember in in 2008 that virtually every UNH poll showed Shea-Porter behind, some by as much as 6 or 7 points and she ended up winning by six. And for obvious reasons she is less effected by the climate being a polarized and eccentric figure anyway.

That said, a small tilt to the GOP in polls still leaves Hodes in likely hopeless territory, and Bass is probably a shoe-in in the second if he wins the primary, which given his campaign so far, I have serious doubts about. In the first, Guinta finally seems to be launching a serious campaign, and I saw a number of his signs in the Lakes Region over the last week, far moreso than Shea-Porter.

I would also say that the State House is likely to be gone as well at least narrowly, and the Senate is not looking so hot either. Given the Democratic failure to win a stretch of special elections, ones in which they came within an inch of winning in 2006 and 2008, but clobbered in since, is not a good sign.

As for Lynch, the GOP is determined to take him down, less the state settle into one of two things:

1. Gridlock

2. Replublican complicity in tax increases

The Democrats have used magic budgeting tricks to keep the budget in the black, but everyone expects massive spending cuts or tax increases next year. The schools budget is near sacrosanct because the Supreme Court requires an equitable funding system and has on occasion ordered the legislature to raise taxes. The result is that there will be a dance about cuts and then some sort of tax increase.

The problem is that the incoming GOP majority is likely to have a genuine nutty component due to candidate quality issues, and the unpaid nature of the work which discourages normal human beings from running. The result is likely to be a standoff, and if Lynch is in, either a government shut-down, or a tax compromise. Either of these is bad for the GOP, so they want a governor in who won't veto whatever tricks they come up with to postpone disaster for a year.

The very fact that this, rather than whether the GOP will take the majority, is the topic of discussion, is however, very bad news for the Democrats.

Dont Democrats have a huge majority in the state House?

The Republicans had a much large one in 2006 but that didn't save them.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The Dems have a 220-176 majority in the House. It wouldn't take that big a swing to flip it. Of course, the ridiculous size and lack of compensation generally means that a bunch of the newly-elected Reps won't even bother to take office.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The Dems have a 220-176 majority in the House. It wouldn't take that big a swing to flip it. Of course, the ridiculous size and lack of compensation generally means that a bunch of the newly-elected Reps won't even bother to take office.

That seems unlikely. The only reason why some Democrats never took office in 2007 is because they weren't serious about running in the first place and never thought they'd win.

If there are Republicans who never take their seats, then Democrats just got slaughtered 300-124.

[Mr.Phips]

A agree with most of whats been said, with the caveat that I think Shea-Porter is in better shape than NH-2 or the Senate race, but better shape is probably still toss-up/tilt R. The thing to remember though is that most polls in NH tend to be questionable and tilt slightly R. Remember in in 2008 that virtually every UNH poll showed Shea-Porter behind, some by as much as 6 or 7 points and she ended up winning by six. And for obvious reasons she is less effected by the climate being a polarized and eccentric figure anyway.

That said, a small tilt to the GOP in polls still leaves Hodes in likely hopeless territory, and Bass is probably a shoe-in in the second if he wins the primary, which given his campaign so far, I have serious doubts about. In the first, Guinta finally seems to be launching a serious campaign, and I saw a number of his signs in the Lakes Region over the last week, far moreso than Shea-Porter.

I would also say that the State House is likely to be gone as well at least narrowly, and the Senate is not looking so hot either. Given the Democratic failure to win a stretch of special elections, ones in which they came within an inch of winning in 2006 and 2008, but clobbered in since, is not a good sign.

As for Lynch, the GOP is determined to take him down, less the state settle into one of two things:

1. Gridlock

2. Replublican complicity in tax increases

The Democrats have used magic budgeting tricks to keep the budget in the black, but everyone expects massive spending cuts or tax increases next year. The schools budget is near sacrosanct because the Supreme Court requires an equitable funding system and has on occasion ordered the legislature to raise taxes. The result is that there will be a dance about cuts and then some sort of tax increase.

The problem is that the incoming GOP majority is likely to have a genuine nutty component due to candidate quality issues, and the unpaid nature of the work which discourages normal human beings from running. The result is likely to be a standoff, and if Lynch is in, either a government shut-down, or a tax compromise. Either of these is bad for the GOP, so they want a governor in who won't veto whatever tricks they come up with to postpone disaster for a year.

The very fact that this, rather than whether the GOP will take the majority, is the topic of discussion, is however, very bad news for the Democrats.

Dont Democrats have a huge majority in the state House?

The Republicans had a much large one in 2006 but that didn't save them.

Republicans also had their gubernatorial candidate get just 28% of the vote.  I dont think Lynch will do anywhere near that poorly.

[Dan the Roman]

The Dems have a 220-176 majority in the House. It wouldn't take that big a swing to flip it. Of course, the ridiculous size and lack of compensation generally means that a bunch of the newly-elected Reps won't even bother to take office.

That seems unlikely. The only reason why some Democrats never took office in 2007 is because they weren't serious about running in the first place and never thought they'd win.

If there are Republicans who never take their seats, then Democrats just got slaughtered 300-124.

To be fair, I am guessing that if it is a clean sweep, there may be quite few Republicans that the GOP hopes dont take their seats.

That said, the GOP is benefiting more from the utter failure of the Democrats to govern than a swing to them. They lost in 2004 and 2006 because they refused to engage with the reality of New Hampshire's problems and they still have zero fiscal solutions.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If the GOP took the House, wouldn't that just result in a lot of "OMG GAY MARRIAGE!" freaking out from them and hence absolutely nothing getting done?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

GOP will get 200 votes in the house no more than that.