New Hampshire

[Dan the Roman]

I got into a discussion about New Hampshire in a 2012 thread and was getting worried I was approaching thread-jacking territory and I thought it might be interesting to give the state its own thread.

A whole lot of Atlas maps, especially those for Mitt Romney, seem to show it going Republican. Many, if not a majority, show it doing so before MI, WI, MN, or PA. This seems odd, not only because it ignores facts on the ground in New Hampshire, such as the complete Democratic dominance illustrated by the recent passage of Gay Marriage, but also ignores the fact that no Republican has gotten above 49% there since Bush Senior in 1988. While I could see a Republican winning it, I can't see a losing Republican winning it, or a Republican who is not already well over 300 electoral votes anyway(sort of like North Carolina for the Democrats).

So NH. Is it a swing-state? A Lean-Democratic State? Safe Democratic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Technically, the republicans need a 2.34 pts national lead to win the State. That means NH is clearly less democratic than MI ( 9.17 ), WI ( 6.64 ), MN ( 2.97 ), and PA ( 3.04 ).

[Dan the Roman]

Technically, the republicans need a 2.34 pts national lead to win the State. That means NH is clearly less democratic than MI ( 9.17 ), WI ( 6.64 ), MN ( 2.97 ), and PA ( 3.04 ).

But how solid is that? MI and PA were almost as close as NH in 2004, and more recently have shown a much greater willingness to vote Republican locally. New Hampshire may have less of a margin but is also more polarized. PA just reelected a Republican to statewide office comfortably this past year. Even with strong candidates the GOP has not been able to oust Carol Shea-Porter.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Technically, the republicans need a 2.34 pts national lead to win the State. That means NH is clearly less democratic than MI ( 9.17 ), WI ( 6.64 ), MN ( 2.97 ), and PA ( 3.04 ).

But how solid is that? MI and PA were almost as close as NH in 2004, and more recently have shown a much greater willingness to vote Republican locally. New Hampshire may have less of a margin but is also more polarized. PA just reelected a Republican to statewide office comfortably this past year. Even with strong candidates the GOP has not been able to oust Carol Shea-Porter.

On the other side, MI, WI, MN and PA have not voted Republican in Presidential elections since 1988, whereas NH went for Bush in 2000...

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

Lean Dem.

[Smash255]

I got into a discussion about New Hampshire in a 2012 thread and was getting worried I was approaching thread-jacking territory and I thought it might be interesting to give the state its own thread.

A whole lot of Atlas maps, especially those for Mitt Romney, seem to show it going Republican. Many, if not a majority, show it doing so before MI, WI, MN, or PA. This seems odd, not only because it ignores facts on the ground in New Hampshire, such as the complete Democratic dominance illustrated by the recent passage of Gay Marriage, but also ignores the fact that no Republican has gotten above 49% there since Bush Senior in 1988. While I could see a Republican winning it, I can't see a losing Republican winning it, or a Republican who is not already well over 300 electoral votes anyway(sort of like North Carolina for the Democrats).

So NH. Is it a swing-state? A Lean-Democratic State? Safe Democratic.

from a structural standpoint the other states you mentioned are probably a bit more Democratic than NH.  However, NH is a bit more liberal, and long term the chances for the Republicans in NH (minus a party turnaround) are worse in NH.  

I think the Romney picks are based off his so called 'economic credentials', the fact he was from a neighboring state, and the small government thing.  Romney from five years ago would have been a good fit for NH and would have been very competitive there, the flip flopping, hard right turn Romney has made basically destroys any chance outside of an Obama collapse.

[Holmes]

In 2006, the state became socially liberal with Democrats winning huge landslides and taking back the state legislature for the first time in a century and then some. They passed a gay marriage law and a medical marijuana bill this year, for instance... although Lynch vetoed the medical marijuana one. And they probably would have repealed the death penalty had Lynch not come out in opposition before the session even began.

The state is still economically conservative though. Probably less so than when Bush won the state nine years ago, but it still is. It has no sales taxes or income taxes, even. And Lynch is pretty clear that he won't change anything about that as long as he's the governor.

The phrases "live and let live" and "live free or die" are synonymous with New Hampshire. The latter is their motto after all.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I'd categorize New Hampshire as the most libertarian state in the nation. Most Republicans from New Hampshire are considerably more liberal on the social issues than the mainstream party. I think they really do believe in that classical liberalism/libertarian philosophy of limited government and personal freedoms up there. While the state has swung more Democratic since 2006, I would still categorize it as a swing state but I don't see Republicans making any major gains there for a while. Their best chance seems to be with the open U.S. Senate race between Rep. Paul Hodes (D, NH-02) and Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) who was appointed, not elected, to that position by Gov. John Lynch (D-N.H.). I think this race will be a true testament to the future political leanings of New Hampshire - if Hodes, a two-term congressman from the more liberal western part of the state, can defeat a seemingly more well known Republican for a statewide race, I'd say Democrats will have a solid hold on New Hampshire for a while, but if Ayotte wins, then I'm not so sure.

At the presidential level, I would have said that Mitt Romney would have stood a fair shot at winning New Hampshire should he become the nominee, but that was the Mitt Romney prior to his unsuccessful run in 2008 when he moved more to the right. John McCain, with whom the Granite State has had a love affair since 2000, was clearly the best Republican to win New Hampshire in 2008 especially after the Democratic tsunami that swept the state in 2006. His "maverick" status appealed to a lot of Independents in the state, evident in his comeback victory in the New Hampshire GOP primary, but his selection of the socially conservative Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate more than likely alienated a lot of those libertarian-leaning Independents in the state (i.e. Palin's hard-right views on abortion and gay rights probably didn't play so well here). Seeing as how the Republican Party has moved so far to the right and that it only allows hard-line conservatives to be in the party, I don't see any one of them - Romney, Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc. - being able to win New Hampshire in 2012. The only way it will be remotely close is if the economy gets worse/Obama's approval ratings go down/etc., but I'd still give it to Obama in 2012 regardless of the GOP nominee.

A swing state with a slight Democratic lean is my analysis of the state as it seems to be now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd categorize New Hampshire as the most libertarian state in the nation. Most Republicans from New Hampshire are considerably more liberal on the social issues than the mainstream party. I think they really do believe in that classical liberalism/libertarian philosophy of limited government and personal freedoms up there. While the state has swung more Democratic since 2006, I would still categorize it as a swing state but I don't see Republicans making any major gains there for a while. Their best chance seems to be with the open U.S. Senate race between Rep. Paul Hodes (D, NH-02) and Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) who was appointed, not elected, to that position by Gov. John Lynch (D-N.H.). I think this race will be a true testament to the future political leanings of New Hampshire - if Hodes, a two-term congressman from the more liberal western part of the state, can defeat a seemingly more well known Republican for a statewide race, I'd say Democrats will have a solid hold on New Hampshire for a while, but if Ayotte wins, then I'm not so sure.

At the presidential level, I would have said that Mitt Romney would have stood a fair shot at winning New Hampshire should he become the nominee, but that was the Mitt Romney prior to his unsuccessful run in 2008 when he moved more to the right. John McCain, with whom the Granite State has had a love affair since 2000, was clearly the best Republican to win New Hampshire in 2008 especially after the Democratic tsunami that swept the state in 2006. His "maverick" status appealed to a lot of Independents in the state, evident in his comeback victory in the New Hampshire GOP primary, but his selection of the socially conservative Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate more than likely alienated a lot of those libertarian-leaning Independents in the state (i.e. Palin's hard-right views on abortion and gay rights probably didn't play so well here). Seeing as how the Republican Party has moved so far to the right and that it only allows hard-line conservatives to be in the party, I don't see any one of them - Romney, Palin, Mike Huckabee, etc. - being able to win New Hampshire in 2012. The only way it will be remotely close is if the economy gets worse/Obama's approval ratings go down/etc., but I'd still give it to Obama in 2012 regardless of the GOP nominee.

A swing state with a slight Democratic lean is my analysis of the state as it seems to be now.

Agreed with this analysis. Until the GOP will keep these far-rightist positions on social issues, it will disgust more and more the moderate voters, and help democrats to solidify their "Blue Wall".

[Alexander Hamilton]

Technically, the republicans need a 2.34 pts national lead to win the State. That means NH is clearly less democratic than MI ( 9.17 ), WI ( 6.64 ), MN ( 2.97 ), and PA ( 3.04 ).

But how solid is that? MI and PA were almost as close as NH in 2004, and more recently have shown a much greater willingness to vote Republican locally. New Hampshire may have less of a margin but is also more polarized. PA just reelected a Republican to statewide office comfortably this past year. Even with strong candidates the GOP has not been able to oust Carol Shea-Porter.

Bullsh**t! Democrats have won in Michigan with weak candidate after weak candidate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

That's becaue of the weakness of Spence Abraham, after Debbie Stabenow won in 2000, it carried Al Gore to victory and Spence Abraham and the republican candidates for governor went down along with him.

As far as New Hamsphire, they lean libertarian so at the presidential election they don't have much carry over affect.

[Scam of God]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

[pogo stick]

I love New Hampshire.

[Zarn]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

[aaaa2222]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

Democrats and Republicans are both anti-freedom, albeit on different issues.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

A "massive freedom state" would never vote for a stupid religioconservative who destroyed civil liberties with the pretext of "national security".

[HAnnA MArin County]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

A "massive freedom state" would never vote for a stupid religioconservative who destroyed civil liberties with the pretext of "national security".

AMEN.

Not to mention ordered the CIA to withhold information from Congress in the name of "national security." I'm surprised the conservatives don't exploit "national security" for all their issues.

"Stop killing babies in the name of national security."
"Destroying the sanctity of marriage is damaging to our national security."
"Universal health care is a socialist plot designed to destroy capitalism and threaten our national security." LOL

Silly Republicans. 

[aaaa2222]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

A "massive freedom state" would never vote for a stupid religioconservative who destroyed civil liberties with the pretext of "national security".

AMEN.

Not to mention ordered the CIA to withhold information from Congress in the name of "national security." I'm surprised the conservatives don't exploit "national security" for all their issues.

"Stop killing babies in the name of national security."
"Destroying the sanctity of marriage is damaging to our national security."
"Universal health care is a socialist plot designed to destroy capitalism and threaten our national security." LOL

Silly Republicans. 

I've heard all of these but the first used seriously.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

A "massive freedom state" would never vote for a stupid religioconservative who destroyed civil liberties with the pretext of "national security".

AMEN.

Not to mention ordered the CIA to withhold information from Congress in the name of "national security." I'm surprised the conservatives don't exploit "national security" for all their issues.

"Stop killing babies in the name of national security."
"Destroying the sanctity of marriage is damaging to our national security."
"Universal health care is a socialist plot designed to destroy capitalism and threaten our national security." LOL

Silly Republicans. 

I've heard all of these but the first used seriously.

The French guy is retarded. I just put him on ignore. Every single post he makes he chimes in with left-wing propaganda and he doesn't understand America so I can't take him seriously.

[Scam of God]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

A "massive freedom state" would never vote for a stupid religioconservative who destroyed civil liberties with the pretext of "national security".

So they made a mistake. I think it's apparent that they've since rectified it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

A "massive freedom state" would never vote for a stupid religioconservative who destroyed civil liberties with the pretext of "national security".

So they made a mistake. I think it's apparent that they've since rectified it.

The margin of Kerry's victory here was also quite weak...

[Dan the Roman]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

A "massive freedom state" would never vote for a stupid religioconservative who destroyed civil liberties with the pretext of "national security".

So they made a mistake. I think it's apparent that they've since rectified it.

The margin of Kerry's victory here was also quite weak...

It was the only state to go from Bush and Kerry,

Anyway, what people are missing here is that it was a Bush state in 2000 only in the sense that it was close due to Nader. Bush got 48% here, much like her got 46% in Oregon. There was no way he was going over either number.

And Kerry's performance was D+4 to the national average

Secondly as someone who has live in New Hampshire, I laugh a bit at the libertarian accusations. It was somewhat t true 20 years ago, but the state has changed massively, and the changes are not a result of a lack of libertarianism on the part of the GOP, but on the population getting much more liberal. 20 years ago it was a strong pro-life state, and was even 10 years ago.

The real place it may be worth looking for a reason is education.  New Hampshire is one of the most educated states in the country, and over the last 20 years it has suburbanization in the south, while the Lakes Region has become an extension of the Boston suburbs.  Ask yourself what has happened to the voting patterns of high-income educated north-easterners.

I think in this respect people underestimate as well how isolated it was. 30 years ago there were no ATMs, which meant that people had to live close to their bank, and relocating as far away from Boston was impractical. 8 years ago it was impossible to get cable tv or high speed internet where we have a house in the lakes region. All that has changed and the big change in voting patterns is in places like Belknap and Carroll county which used to be dominated by high-income leave me alone Republicans, but have switched hard to the Democrats not because the Republicans are more right-wing, but because on issues like Gay Rights, Abortion, and even economic issues after the 2001 budget crisis. The Republican party in the state has failed to move with them, even ousting their house speaker in 2005 for being too "liberal" causing him and his supporters to caucus with the Democrats and giving them control before the they took it formally 18 months later.

Could it go for a Republican? Of course, but probably not to any of the leading people mentioned as running in my view.

[Zarn]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

A "massive freedom state" would never vote for a stupid religioconservative who destroyed civil liberties with the pretext of "national security".

I don't recall him doing that, before being elected.

[SamInTheSouth]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

A "massive freedom State" that voted for Bush in 2000 ?

So always voting Democratic is 'freedom?'

A "massive freedom state" would never vote for a stupid religioconservative who destroyed civil liberties with the pretext of "national security".

But they would vote for an anti-freedom Marxist like Obama?

As someone already said, if you're looking for freedom you aren't going to find it in the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party.