Hew Hampshire in 2014 and beyond?

[Prince of Salem]

First, please watch the video linked below from 1:15:05 to 1:16:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J3S96VWfUg

My first thought about it is: well, this doesn't make sense. Only 2 years before, New Hampshire was a quite close state in the Presidential Election. And if there's a reason why Scott Brown lost was because the people of New Hampshire didn't want a carpetbagger to represent him in the Senate.

What do you think?

[Vega]

The guy lost any credibility when he said Scott Brown was one of the best politicians in this country.

[Prince of Salem]

The guy lost any credibility when he said Scott Brown was one of the best politicians in this country.

LOL, but you have to be good to win as a Republican in Massachusetts ^^

[Zioneer]

The guy lost any credibility when he said Scott Brown was one of the best politicians in this country.

LOL, but you have to be good to win as a Republican in Massachusetts ^^

You also have to have Martha Coakley as an opponent.

[Vega]

The guy lost any credibility when he said Scott Brown was one of the best politicians in this country.

LOL, but you have to be good to win as a Republican in Massachusetts ^^

You also have to have Martha Coakley as an opponent.

And have an extremely generous political atmosphere.

[Torie]

Brown as a carpet bagger ran very well against a very competent, and reasonably popular incumbent Senator. NH is still a very "in play," and unpredictable state. It has a relatively high elasticity. New England tends to be that way for various reasons, including the lack of a fundamentalist Christian block, that allows more fiscally conservative voters to coalesce to vote across party lines, given all the right circumstances. It is less an "us" versus "them" place than many places on the Fruited Plain. Upstate New York is the epicenter of that kind of sentiment.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Brown lost because of "muh carpetbagging", not because NH is unwinnable by republicans.  Sununu, Bradley, Bass, and Innis all would have won. Maybe even Guinta. And as much as this guy (and OC) may think otherwise, Ayotte is a favorite to keep her seat, and the only one who can beat her in a non-2008 environment is Hassan, who might not even run.

[Free Bird]

I'll disagree. It's all about the candidate. A Libertarian-minded candidate like Rand Paul would do well there assuming he is the nominee. The reason it doesn't go Republican regularly in a Presidential field is because of the atmosphere of the candidate. Let's have a rundown of the elections since it became a swing state.

92: Unpopular incumbent. Southern at that. Ross Perot
96: Popular incumbent
00: I have no idea really
04: Patriot Act backlash and a regional son as the Democratic nominee
08: Wave
12: Elitist minded Romney and a high percentage of Indies voting for Obama

An analysis will conclude that the Indies contribute to its elasticity. A southern evangelical won't bode well there, but a Libertarian will. Rand Paul has proven to be competitive there, even against the Great Female Savior. Hell, it had two Republican senators until one was swept away by a wave. The same could theoretically have happened to Shaheen against a non-carpetbagger and more time for her IRS involvement to brew. Had he run, we would have a Senator Gatsas right now, for example.

[bedstuy]

It's an irreligious New England state with some exurbs thrown in.  The major hurdle for Republicans is thus social issues and sheer cultural polarization.  There are simply not enough people voting GOP, "because Jesus."  And, that's really the foundation of GOP success, culturally conservative rural voters providing their margin.  In New Hampshire, those people just don't exist in any significant number. 

I'll disagree. It's all about the candidate. A Libertarian-minded candidate like Rand Paul would do well there assuming he is the nominee. The reason it doesn't go Republican regularly in a Presidential field is because of the atmosphere of the candidate. Let's have a rundown of the elections since it became a swing state.

92: Unpopular incumbent. Southern at that. Ross Perot
96: Popular incumbent
00: I have no idea really
04: Patriot Act backlash and a regional son as the Democratic nominee
08: Wave
12: Elitist minded Romney and a high percentage of Indies voting for Obama

An analysis will conclude that the Indies contribute to its elasticity. A southern evangelical won't bode well there, but a Libertarian will. Rand Paul has proven to be competitive there, even against the Great Female Savior. Hell, it had two Republican senators until one was swept away by a wave. The same could theoretically have happened to Shaheen against a non-carpetbagger and more time for her IRS involvement to brew. Had he run, we would have a Senator Gatsas right now, for example.

No.

"An analysis?"  The only similarity to an analysis of that is that you pulled it from the area of the first four letters of the word "analysis."

[IceSpear]

It was ONE reason (although calling him a carpetbagger was really unfair, I guess muh Hillary only moved to New York because she cares about the people there and not to win a Senate seat?)

Hillary didn't build her career in another state and then move to NY within a year of losing re-election.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Hew Hampshire had good prospects last year even though he failed to run, but given the reputation of his family name in the state I think he will go far in the future.

[Xing]

Saying New Hampshire is a blue state is like saying Florida is a red state. New Hampshire may have a slight Democratic lean, but it's certainly not out of reach for a moderate Republican (or possibly a Libertarian.)

[smoltchanov]

Saying New Hampshire is a blue state is like saying Florida is a red state. New Hampshire may have a slight Democratic lean, but it's certainly not out of reach for a moderate Republican (or possibly a Libertarian.)

Last elections confirm: 51.5% Democratic for Senate, 52.5% Democratic for Governor, but 14-10 Republican for state Senate, and (AFAIK) 239 -161 for state House. Typical generally purple numbers..

[free my dawg]

Brown lost because of "muh carpetbagging", not because NH is unwinnable by republicans.  Sununu, Bradley, Bass, and Innis all would have won. Maybe even Guinta. And as much as this guy (and OC) may think otherwise, Ayotte is a favorite to keep her seat, and the only one who can beat her in a non-2008 environment is Hassan, who might not even run.

I wouldn't go that far. She's a slight favorite, but considering the NHGOP is a barely functioning party, I'm skeptical that Hassan is the only one who can win.

[smoltchanov]

Brown lost because of "muh carpetbagging", not because NH is unwinnable by republicans.  Sununu, Bradley, Bass, and Innis all would have won. Maybe even Guinta. And as much as this guy (and OC) may think otherwise, Ayotte is a favorite to keep her seat, and the only one who can beat her in a non-2008 environment is Hassan, who might not even run.

I wouldn't go that far. She's a slight favorite, but considering the NHGOP is a barely functioning party, I'm skeptical that Hassan is the only one who can win.

Well, of course i live abroad now, but, AFAIK, i wouldn't call NHGOP "a barely functioning party". IMHO - it's in considerably better shape then most republican organizations in New England or Pacific states. I also don't see anyone, but Hassan, able to beat Ayotte. And not sure even that she can.

[free my dawg]

Brown lost because of "muh carpetbagging", not because NH is unwinnable by republicans.  Sununu, Bradley, Bass, and Innis all would have won. Maybe even Guinta. And as much as this guy (and OC) may think otherwise, Ayotte is a favorite to keep her seat, and the only one who can beat her in a non-2008 environment is Hassan, who might not even run.

I wouldn't go that far. She's a slight favorite, but considering the NHGOP is a barely functioning party, I'm skeptical that Hassan is the only one who can win.

Well, of course i live abroad now, but, AFAIK, i wouldn't call NHGOP "a barely functioning party". IMHO - it's in considerably better shape then most republican organizations in New England or Pacific states. I also don't see anyone, but Hassan, able to beat Ayotte. And not sure even that she can.

I mean it's not entirely hard to be more functioning than the places you listed because they don't even exist (and even then that's wrong). WA manages to still keep things competitive (and have a very good future bench in Reichert/JHB/McKenna/Wyman), the MEGOP is a threat everywhere but in the 1st district, and the MAGOP finds openings to take advantage of. Hell, even Vermont of all places managed to keep it close. RI's barely exists and CT's is f**king up because of the blue trend (not to mention running a more combative, negative style of campaigning).

Meanwhile in NH, they can barely control their Tea Party wing, and only kept the state senate in 2012 because of gerrymandering (and only by a few hundred votes altogether). They pissed away two very winnable races because they decided to literally outsource their candidates (never mind that basically any B-lister but Garcia or Guinta could have beaten Shaheen and Sununu or Bradley could have beaten Hassan), and Guinta won because CSP ran a weak campaign and there happened to be a massive wave. Never mind that there's a candidate who could have been a rising star in Dan Innis (the gay businessman with a socially moderate, fiscally conservative background), and never mind that he could actually carry the district long-term, the party bosses decided to go with a corrupt ultra-socon and pray that Shea-Porter's weakness would buoy him across the finish line.

Let's go further downballot. They may have picked up the House, but their only State Senate pickup was by a few hundred votes in an R+4 district. You know, that tends to happen if you're a men's rights activist who got caught violating his wife's protection order. They definitely could have picked up another seat (and decimated the Democratic bench) had they not nominated someone who literally argued against suicide prevention classes because they had the liberty to commit suicide. They might have actually been able to pick up one more had they not nominated an arch-conservative there. Republicans could have dominated had they been able to reign in their Tea Party wing, but they picked up one seat in a Republican wave. That's... underwhelming, to say the least.

Yes, I'll give it to you - the New Hampshire Republican Party has had some success. However, I stand by me saying that they're the worst competitive Republican party in the country. What sets them apart from the rest is that while they're successful, they've consistently been underachieving for the past three years in my state. They pissed away a Senate seat, they pissed away a chance at making Democrats spend money defending another governor's seat, and they pissed away a chance to forge a strong majority downballot. They could have come out with another Senate seat, a chance at taking back Concord, and reducing the Democratic bench to just Chris Pappas and Annie Kuster, but they didn't. Compare that to the other parties that still make Democrats divert their resources to blue states and you'll see that they're barely treading water.

[smoltchanov]

A big thanks for detailed answer! I will agree with you on number of points (though - disagree on some, that's natural). If you don't mind - some additional questions:

1. With my thoroughly moderate views i was a big fan of few remaining moderate Republicans like Bob Odell in state Senate and Kidder, Gargasz and their like in state house (i generally like variety, not uniformity, in both parties, so, for example, in the South i am very much for Democrats, even very conservative ones). What can you say about Jerry Little, who replaced Odell (i know Odell supported him in primary, so he is, probably, not too conservative)?

2. And what about composition of Republican state House caucus (AFAIK - Democratic is, generally, solid liberal with minor exceptions like couple "free staters" elected on Democratic line)? Of course - i know about very vocal and rather big "tea-party caucus" (O'Brien and his like). But -  Republicans added 50-60 seats in 2014, most likely - in competitive moderate districts (solid Democratic and solid Republican remained that way), so is there an additions to few sane moderate Republicans that existed?

[free my dawg]

A big thanks for detailed answer! I will agree with you on number of points (though - disagree on some, that's natural). If you don't mind - some additional questions:

1. With my thoroughly moderate views i was a big fan of few remaining moderate Republicans like Bob Odell in state Senate and Kidder, Gargasz and their like in state house (i generally like variety, not uniformity, in both parties, so, for example, in the South i am very much for Democrats, even very conservative ones). What can you say about Jerry Little, who replaced Odell (i know Odell supported him in primary, so he is, probably, not too conservative)?

2. And what about composition of Republican state House caucus (AFAIK - Democratic is, generally, solid liberal with minor exceptions like couple "free staters" elected on Democratic line)? Of course - i know about very vocal and rather big "tea-party caucus" (O'Brien and his like). But -  Republicans added 50-60 seats in 2014, most likely - in competitive moderate districts (solid Democratic and solid Republican remained that way), so is there an additions to few sane moderate Republicans that existed?

1. Yeah, sounds about right. He's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, but leans more economically conservative (pro-RTW). He's not as moderate as Odell, but still not that bad.

2. I haven't paid much attention, to be honest. I've only been in NH for a few weeks of the new session.

[smoltchanov]

A big thanks for detailed answer! I will agree with you on number of points (though - disagree on some, that's natural). If you don't mind - some additional questions:

1. With my thoroughly moderate views i was a big fan of few remaining moderate Republicans like Bob Odell in state Senate and Kidder, Gargasz and their like in state house (i generally like variety, not uniformity, in both parties, so, for example, in the South i am very much for Democrats, even very conservative ones). What can you say about Jerry Little, who replaced Odell (i know Odell supported him in primary, so he is, probably, not too conservative)?

2. And what about composition of Republican state House caucus (AFAIK - Democratic is, generally, solid liberal with minor exceptions like couple "free staters" elected on Democratic line)? Of course - i know about very vocal and rather big "tea-party caucus" (O'Brien and his like). But -  Republicans added 50-60 seats in 2014, most likely - in competitive moderate districts (solid Democratic and solid Republican remained that way), so is there an additions to few sane moderate Republicans that existed?

1. Yeah, sounds about right. He's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, but leans more economically conservative (pro-RTW). He's not as moderate as Odell, but still not that bad.

2. I haven't paid much attention, to be honest. I've only been in NH for a few weeks of the new session.

More thanks! Then the only remaining question - is it possible (if you know) to get information about ideological composition i need? I know that present speaker Jasper is rather pragmatic "moderate conservative" who beat O'Brien with Democratic help. Probably sometime an organization like House Republican Alliance will publish their scorecard (they are ultraconservative, so - more or less ideologically "pure"), but it's unlikely to be before June - July.

Again - lot of thanks and no more questions for now)))

[free my dawg]

A big thanks for detailed answer! I will agree with you on number of points (though - disagree on some, that's natural). If you don't mind - some additional questions:

1. With my thoroughly moderate views i was a big fan of few remaining moderate Republicans like Bob Odell in state Senate and Kidder, Gargasz and their like in state house (i generally like variety, not uniformity, in both parties, so, for example, in the South i am very much for Democrats, even very conservative ones). What can you say about Jerry Little, who replaced Odell (i know Odell supported him in primary, so he is, probably, not too conservative)?

2. And what about composition of Republican state House caucus (AFAIK - Democratic is, generally, solid liberal with minor exceptions like couple "free staters" elected on Democratic line)? Of course - i know about very vocal and rather big "tea-party caucus" (O'Brien and his like). But -  Republicans added 50-60 seats in 2014, most likely - in competitive moderate districts (solid Democratic and solid Republican remained that way), so is there an additions to few sane moderate Republicans that existed?

1. Yeah, sounds about right. He's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, but leans more economically conservative (pro-RTW). He's not as moderate as Odell, but still not that bad.

2. I haven't paid much attention, to be honest. I've only been in NH for a few weeks of the new session.

More thanks! Then the only remaining question - is it possible (if you know) to get information about ideological composition i need? I know that present speaker Jasper is rather pragmatic "moderate conservative" who beat O'Brien with Democratic help. Probably sometime an organization like House Republican Alliance will publish their scorecard (they are ultraconservative, so - more or less ideologically "pure"), but it's unlikely to be before June - July.

Again - lot of thanks and no more questions for now)))

Don't think it is this early.

[/]

Hew Hampshire...

[Rockefeller GOP]

Upstate New York is the epicenter of that kind of sentiment.

And it is - just like NH - trending Democratic.

Saying New Hampshire is a blue state is like saying Florida is a red state. New Hampshire may have a slight Democratic lean, but it's certainly not out of reach for a moderate Republican (or possibly a Libertarian.)

McCain lost it in a landslide and the GOP won't nominate a moderate like Susan Collins in 2016. If Kasich or Bush get the nomination, they will probably make it (semi-)competitive, but other than that the state is probably gone for good for the GOP. In 20 years, it will likely vote like Maine or Connecticut.

You are SO adamant that NH is this deep blue state that the GOP has lost, and it's just not.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Upstate New York is the epicenter of that kind of sentiment.

And it is - just like NH - trending Democratic.

Saying New Hampshire is a blue state is like saying Florida is a red state. New Hampshire may have a slight Democratic lean, but it's certainly not out of reach for a moderate Republican (or possibly a Libertarian.)

McCain lost it in a landslide and the GOP won't nominate a moderate like Susan Collins in 2016. If Kasich or Bush get the nomination, they will probably make it (semi-)competitive, but other than that the state is probably gone for good for the GOP. In 20 years, it will likely vote like Maine or Connecticut.

You are SO adamant that NH is this deep blue state that the GOP has lost, and it's just not.

I'll believe it when I see it. The right Republican CAN win it, but try to get that Republican nominated.

Well, that's a different question.  Obama was also a very good candidate for this whole region.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Upstate New York is the epicenter of that kind of sentiment.

And it is - just like NH - trending Democratic.

Saying New Hampshire is a blue state is like saying Florida is a red state. New Hampshire may have a slight Democratic lean, but it's certainly not out of reach for a moderate Republican (or possibly a Libertarian.)

McCain lost it in a landslide and the GOP won't nominate a moderate like Susan Collins in 2016. If Kasich or Bush get the nomination, they will probably make it (semi-)competitive, but other than that the state is probably gone for good for the GOP. In 20 years, it will likely vote like Maine or Connecticut.

You are SO adamant that NH is this deep blue state that the GOP has lost, and it's just not.

I'll believe it when I see it. The right Republican CAN win it, but try to get that Republican nominated.

Well, that's a different question.  Obama was also a very good candidate for this whole region.

So were McCain and Romney. Face it: The state is probably fading into lost cause territory for the GOP.

If anything, the state is drifting republican. It voted 4 points to the nation's left in 2004, 2 points to the nation's left in 2008, and 1.5 points to the nation's left in 2012.

2008 and 2012 were democratic wave years. In 2004, it bordered the Dem Nominee's home state. The last time we had a 'neutral year' presidential election where no candidate had a regional advantage was in 2000, and that year, the state went to the Republicans.

Throw in the fact that this is one of only 2 swing states where the Republican strategy lies within improving among white voters (Obama won NH and IA whites in 2012), and the fact that New Hampshire, starting with 1936, has voted for the nationwide winner all but three times (1960, 1976, and 2004), and it doesn't look so hopeless for the GOP.

[windjammer]

Why do everyone believe that Virginia can't be competitive???