New Hampshire - WTF?

[Duke David]

When I looked at the latest State Polls Aggregate map I was shocked:
The blue blob in the North East completely defies my explanation.

The blob is not even painted light blue, but mid blue, meaning the state is leaning Republican.
However, the worst thing is the fact that the Republican presidential candidate hasn't even been selected yet, and nevertheless the New Hampshirites prefer an unknown person to President Obama.

Let's not forget that they voted "wrong" once already: In 2000 Bush utterly surprisingly received the New Hampshire vote, making him ascend Gore's throne.
Will history repeat itself?

Some sociological maps indicate divergences from other new England states as well.

As y'all also think that New Hampshire is gonna turn red (or blue, respectively) in the next election, which is visible on the Compiled 2012 Prediction Map, I'm asking you:

What is it that makes the New Hampshirites so much more conservative than their brethren - particularly in comparison to the Vermonters?

[minionofmidas]

The Boston exurbs. [/very condensed answer]

[Vern]

New Hampshire has always been more Republican friendly then the other states in the Northeast. It shouldn't shock you that the Republicans are polling well in New Hampshire, considering President Obama's approval ratings are quite low in through out the Nation.  

[Simfan34]

All the attention they get from the primaries. I feel like if you look at years the GOP candidate won the NH primary, it'll at least trend GOP in the general.

[CatoMinor]

I feel like if you look at years the GOP candidate won the NH primary, it'll at least trend GOP in the general.

As far as recent elections, I think your are wong

2008: McCain won it in primary, lost it in general; Obama lost it in primary, won in general
2000: Bush lost it in primary, won it in the general, Gore won in primary, lost in general
1996: Dole lost it in primary, lost in General
1992: Bush won it in primary, lost in general, clinton lost it in primary, won it in general.

[Politico]

It's really simple: Taxes.

New Hampshire is easily the most anti-tax state in New England (most of their state/local government revenue is from property taxes, which does not carry so much deadweight loss with it, but all of the New England states have high property taxes).

If you want to see the biggest difference between Vermont and New Hampshire, the next time there is snow storm take a ride up I-91 and get off on I-89 towards New Hampshire. Despite being quite anti-tax, New Hampshire actually knows how to provide a basic government service, unlike Vermont (i.e., NH actually plows it highways properly while VT does not). I almost got killed once driving up I-91 in Vermont. You have to wonder where all of their taxes go if they cannot even plow the roads/highways properly.

[Duke David]

It's really simple: Taxes.

New Hampshire is easily the most anti-tax state in New England (most of their state/local government revenue is from property taxes, which does not carry so much deadweight loss with it, but all of the New England states have high property taxes).

So that means Lynch (D) simply has to raise the taxes in his state to bring New Hampshire back in the blue (red) column?

Btw: Has anyone noticed that if you change the vowels in "Texas" you get taxes?

[TJ in Oregon]

It's really simple: Taxes.

New Hampshire is easily the most anti-tax state in New England (most of their state/local government revenue is from property taxes, which does not carry so much deadweight loss with it, but all of the New England states have high property taxes).

So that means Lynch (D) simply has to raise the taxes in his state to bring New Hampshire back in the blue (red) column?

Btw: Has anyone noticed that if you change the vowels in "Texas" you get taxes?

No. Lynch raising taxes would likely make him unpopular rather than changing the views of his constituents.

[Simfan34]

I feel like if you look at years the GOP candidate won the NH primary, it'll at least trend GOP in the general.

As far as recent elections, I think your are wong

2008: McCain won it in primary, lost it in general; Obama lost it in primary, won in general
2000: Bush lost it in primary, won it in the general, Gore won in primary, lost in general
1996: Dole lost it in primary, lost in General
1992: Bush won it in primary, lost in general, clinton lost it in primary, won it in general.

I'll admit that was pure conjecture.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Btw: Has anyone noticed that if you change the vowels in "Texas" you get taxes?

what a wonderful addition to the forum you are.

[LastVoter]

One of the highest incomes in the nation.

[izixs]

NH can be roughly broken up into four voting groups.

Native Libertarians - Anti-tax and not much else. Tend to be moderate to liberal social issues if they have to choose. Can be swayed towards a dem if the Democrat is seen as not insane and otherwise ok with taxes being low in the state. (for example being alright with, Gov. Lynch) These folks are peppered around the state and appear in great numbers in areas not dominated by the other groups.

Vermont Bleed Over Liberals - Basically the folks that make Vermont so heavily dem. Progressive social issues tend to dominate these folks but they're also pretty progressive in economics as well. Not all of them come from Vermont, but some are generic college kids and young professionals. As one of these myself, I can say that for us its more an issue of motivation and turn out then it is swinging one way or another.

Older Boston Exurbanites - Taxes were too high for them in Boston or anywhere south of the boarder, so they took the opportunity to join the old school libertarians in NH while still having most of their work attached to the greater Boston area in some fashion. As time as moved on, that attachment has weakened and the relative halo has expanded north. They tend to be socially moderate, anti-tax, but also like social services like plowed roads. They also have money to pay high property taxes and the like so they're ok with such a setup. Usually vote rep unless faced with a loony. Have been edging towards tea land of late thanks to the appearance of the next group.

Newer Boston Exurbanites - Taxes are less an issue for these folks, but it is a factor as cost of living is what drives them across the boarder. Lean apolitical overall or moderate, they're probably the nearest the state has to a true swing group. Not as keen on the property taxes as the Older Exurbanites, they'd be ok with lower property taxes and income taxes instead. Especially as most of these folks are still bunched up by the boarder and can easily work in Boston anyway. They're more in tune with Mass. in terms of social issues but not as fervently as the Vermont bleed over group. Lean dem overall but can swing a great deal depending on how a campaign goes.


If the newer exurbanites and vermont bleed over are motivated and going dem, and the other two groups either demotivated or the rep's put up a crazy candidate, a Democrat wins here. That's how Lynch has been doing it. That's how Obama did it in '08 (McCain became unacceptable to the old guard as tax policy doesn't matter if you don't know how to handle the economy, vermont bleed over was motivated and the new exurbanites were appealed to).

At present, Romney is the one in the best position to solidify the old exurbanites and to keep the new exurbanites split. Obama's pretty much lost the old libertarians and has to hold the vermont bleed over to have a chance. If Romney isn't the nominee, the new exurbanites can swing Obama heavily and depending on which nominee it is and how their tax plans hold up, the other two right leaning factions can be split or depressed.

[Duke David]

NH can be roughly broken up into four voting groups.
...

Thank you for your sociological analysis.

However, one question remains.

Where do those "native libertarians" come from?
Have they always been in there?
Do they affect neighboring states, too?

[izixs]

Where do those "native libertarians" come from?
Have they always been in there?
Do they affect neighboring states, too?

The Native Libertarians are primarily descendants of previous generations of New Hampshire residents. Their parents and grand parents were skeptical of Democrats as they saw the Democratic party as the party of the south and socialists in the middle of the 20th century. I'm not as certain about their exact origins beyond maybe some folks take the state motto (Live Free or Die) to heart long after the Revolutionary War.

There is a small fraction of this group that are entirely new residents. These folks are those that moved to NH as part of the Free State Project. Estimates are that these folks number only around a thousand in state residents and 11 thousand others who have signed onto the project. They basically saw the native libertarians as their in for taking over state politics in order to turn it into a libertarian play ground. Despite their small numbers, they do have voices in the state legislature.

The Native Libertarians as a demographic do have some influence yet in neighboring states, but it is vastly diminished. Before Vermont became a liberal bastion, these were the folks that ran Vermont (and to an extent Maine) and had both those states not voting for FDR in any of his four elections (while FDR won NH in I believe 3 of those). Back then NL folks teamed up with moderate Republicans to control northern New England politics. But with the shift of the Republican party to the south and against liberal social issue positions, those moderate Republicans and some NL were converted to liberal Democrats over time. This process sped up in the late 80s and 90s and began the Vermont bleed over group.

[Nichlemn]

I'm intrigued into why VT is so much more liberal than NH on a deeper level. Yes, the move of the Republican Party may have caused VT to trend Democratic, but why did it trend Democratic so much more than NH did? It's a difficult question that no-one really knows the answer to and call fall into an infinite regress, but I'd to see theories.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

NH wasn't always the most Republican friendly state in New England.  That started in the 1960s. Before that, it's voting tended to be in between the more Republican VT and ME, and the somewhat less Republican south New England. In some cases, such as 1916, NH was among the most Democrat states in the Northeast.

[Napoleon]

I feel like if you look at years the GOP candidate won the NH primary, it'll at least trend GOP in the general.

As far as recent elections, I think your are wong

2008: McCain won it in primary, lost it in general; Obama lost it in primary, won in general
2000: Bush lost it in primary, won it in the general, Gore won in primary, lost in general
1996: Dole lost it in primary, lost in General
1992: Bush won it in primary, lost in general, clinton lost it in primary, won it in general.

New Hampshire trended Republican in 2008.

[freepcrusher]

NH can be roughly broken up into four voting groups.

Native Libertarians - Anti-tax and not much else. Tend to be moderate to liberal social issues if they have to choose. Can be swayed towards a dem if the Democrat is seen as not insane and otherwise ok with taxes being low in the state. (for example being alright with, Gov. Lynch) These folks are peppered around the state and appear in great numbers in areas not dominated by the other groups.

Vermont Bleed Over Liberals - Basically the folks that make Vermont so heavily dem. Progressive social issues tend to dominate these folks but they're also pretty progressive in economics as well. Not all of them come from Vermont, but some are generic college kids and young professionals. As one of these myself, I can say that for us its more an issue of motivation and turn out then it is swinging one way or another.

Older Boston Exurbanites - Taxes were too high for them in Boston or anywhere south of the boarder, so they took the opportunity to join the old school libertarians in NH while still having most of their work attached to the greater Boston area in some fashion. As time as moved on, that attachment has weakened and the relative halo has expanded north. They tend to be socially moderate, anti-tax, but also like social services like plowed roads. They also have money to pay high property taxes and the like so they're ok with such a setup. Usually vote rep unless faced with a loony. Have been edging towards tea land of late thanks to the appearance of the next group.

Newer Boston Exurbanites - Taxes are less an issue for these folks, but it is a factor as cost of living is what drives them across the boarder. Lean apolitical overall or moderate, they're probably the nearest the state has to a true swing group. Not as keen on the property taxes as the Older Exurbanites, they'd be ok with lower property taxes and income taxes instead. Especially as most of these folks are still bunched up by the boarder and can easily work in Boston anyway. They're more in tune with Mass. in terms of social issues but not as fervently as the Vermont bleed over group. Lean dem overall but can swing a great deal depending on how a campaign goes.


If the newer exurbanites and vermont bleed over are motivated and going dem, and the other two groups either demotivated or the rep's put up a crazy candidate, a Democrat wins here. That's how Lynch has been doing it. That's how Obama did it in '08 (McCain became unacceptable to the old guard as tax policy doesn't matter if you don't know how to handle the economy, vermont bleed over was motivated and the new exurbanites were appealed to).

At present, Romney is the one in the best position to solidify the old exurbanites and to keep the new exurbanites split. Obama's pretty much lost the old libertarians and has to hold the vermont bleed over to have a chance. If Romney isn't the nominee, the new exurbanites can swing Obama heavily and depending on which nominee it is and how their tax plans hold up, the other two right leaning factions can be split or depressed.

what I find interesting is how they elected someone like Bob Smith or Norris Cotton. Both of whom qualify in my book as pure nutters. Cotton was the only NE Republican (and only one of six republicans overall) to vote against the civil rights act. Bob Smith was only one of three senators to vote against Ginsburg in 1993. You would think the republicans would be like the George Aikens, Olympia Snowes, Ed Brookes in surrounding states.