Is NH still a swing state?

[Virginiá]

Consistently close in presidential elections along with being the second most elastic state in the country, Republicans control both houses of the state legislature while a Democrat is governor, one of its CDs is represented by a Democrat and the other by a Republican, one of its Senators is a Democrat and the other is a Republican...yes, it is very much a swing state.

State-level politics aren't really a good predictor here, unless you're being sarcastic on that last bit. Michigan has voted Democratic for president since 92', yet has a GOP governor and legislature, and has had a GOP legislature for something like 2 decades now (with a brief intermission in 2007-2011). Many red states that had been Republican at the presidential level for many decades still had Democratic legislatures/governments up until 2011-2013. Simply put, many states have voted/continue to vote solidly for one party for president while having the other party at the state level. Politics differ at various levels of government.

The ongoing trends at the state level indicate a continuing pro-Democratic trend, and that began many years ago. You also have to consider that when Bush won (barely), the GOP hadn't truly gone off the deep end quite yet.

So I really doubt NH is a true swing state at this point, and likely stopped being one years ago.

[Kempros]

Based on the Partisan Voter Index, NH votes like this compared to the national average.
(+0.20R means .2% More R then the national average and so on)

Year      PVI     %Change from previous election

2000: +0.20R (Base Year)                  
2004: +1.98D (+2.18%D)
2008: +1.27D (+0.71%R)
2012: +0.97D (+0.30%R)

Still easily a battleground state as the numbers are less then 2% toward any party compared to the national average.  Based on the Line of Best Fit predictor, NH should stay around +1D for the 2016 Election.

[Kingpoleon]

Yes(VT calm men)

[Figueira]

Trump could easily lose every county there in November.

McCain also lost every county, so that wouldn't be too shocking.

[pbrower2a]

TNvolunteer, how about you actually give us some proof as to why you think that New Hampshire is a Democratic state?

It doesn't vote for Republicans anymore. Next question?

That's...that's stupid.

Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada haven't voted Republican in eight years. Are they solid Democratic states too?

Pennsylvania and Michigan haven't voted Republican since 1988. Wisconsin hasn't since 1984. Minnesota hasn't voted Republican since 1972. Are they all solidly Democratic?

New Hampshire last voted Republican in 2000, and very narrowly voted Democratic in 2004, when the Democratic nominee was a New Englander. Sure, it hasn't voted Republican in the last three presidential elections, but two of those were Democratic victories.

Nobody is saying that New Hampshire is a Republican state (like it was in the 1980s), but it sure as heck isn't a Democratic one.

Here is Eisenhower vs. Obama again:

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton once
yellow -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
red-- Stevenson twice, Clinton twice
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

Eisenhower and Obama will eventually seem like very similar Presidents. Except for not winning the Plains states in which ranching is a big part of agriculture (contrast dairy farming to ranching; dairies are factory-like in organization and workers therein are on their own; ranchers must supply such basic needs as housing to ranch hands) Obama and Eisenhower won basically the same states even if they were from different Parties. 

Thus one could ask this question in 1960:

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas, and Rhode Island  haven't voted Republican in eight years. Are they solid Republican states too?

Of course not. It is remarkable that Eisenhower won those states -- twice. Texas was very much a Democratic state in statewide elections, and it would go for Humphrey in 1968. Massachusetts would be the two states to be the lone holdouts in 49-state Republican landslides. Rhode Island was one of two states outside the South (the other was Massachusetts) to vote against Herbert Hoover in 1928. States that vote 'wrong' in electoral blowouts are obviously very partisan if something else isn't going on, like a protest vote.

   

[Xing]

I'm interesting to see if someone could make a thread about NH, and have it go 24 hours without a response from TNVolunteer. I think it's impossible, but I'll be impressed if someone could pull it off.

Anyway, I would predict at this point that NH is likely to go Democratic this year. Whether or not it's a swing state kind of depends on how you define the term. If swing states are only the closest toss-up states, then it's probably not (only states like OH, FL, VA, and maybe CO would get that distinction), but if MN, WI, MI, and NV are to be considered swing states, then NH is as well. Trump and Cruz are the wrong kind of Republicans to do well in NH. Someone like Kasich might have a chance, but that doesn't seem relevant at this point.

[IceSpear]

I'm interesting to see if someone could make a thread about NH, and have it go 24 hours without a response from TNVolunteer. I think it's impossible, but I'll be impressed if someone could pull it off.

I thought I could've accomplished this by asking about it in the 2006 election subforum or something, but unfortunately they're all archived now.

[Mallow]

Based on the Partisan Voter Index, NH votes like this compared to the national average.
(+0.20R means .2% More R then the national average and so on)

Year      PVI     %Change from previous election

2000: +0.20R (Base Year)                  
2004: +1.98D (+2.18%D)
2008: +1.27D (+0.71%R)
2012: +0.97D (+0.30%R)

Still easily a battleground state as the numbers are less then 2% toward any party compared to the national average.  Based on the Line of Best Fit predictor, NH should stay around +1D for the 2016 Election.

This, exactly. In a close election, NH will be close. Sure, if Hillary wins by 10 points, NH will be safe D... but then, so will PA, WI, IA, VA, NV, and CO.

[pbrower2a]

Too small and inconclusive to campaign in, and too far from any imaginable swing state. If Donald Trump has to defend Arizona or Georgia he will have to neglect New Hampshire. Democrats have lots of volunteers from Massachusetts. Media are expensive in New Hampshire.

Fringe of contention, mirror image of Georgia.

[Virginiá]

It's shocking how delusional Republicans are when it comes to the competitiveness of NH. It's almost as bad as Democrats thinking Hillary will win WV and AR. 

TN volunteer, since you are our resident New Hampshire aficionado, I was wondering how you might rate the chances of the state legislature flipping back to Democrats? As I understand it, the only reason Republicans have it right now is due to gerrymandering of state legislative districts in the wake of their 2010 wave. The State House seems like a good candidate considering it was able to be flipped in 2012 despite the map, but the State Senate seems like another deal.

Could a massive 15 - 20 point landslide win for Clinton drive enough downballot support to flip it this cycle?

(sorry for offtopic stuff, but didn't want to create a new thread for this)

[100% pro-life no matter what]

^Yeah, I definitely think the House will flip. Angry NH women might go full nuclear and vote against every Republican on the ballot, so the NH State Senate might flip as well. I'm not sure though

Are all New Hampshire women angry, or are there some calm ones too?

[RaphaelDLG]

TN Volunteer will mournfully regret all of his comments about "angry New Hampshire women" when he one day runs for Governor of New Hampshire as a Republican and wins in a squeaker on the backs of NH women.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

TN Volunteer will mournfully regret all of his comments about "angry New Hampshire women" when he one day runs for Governor of New Hampshire as a Republican and wins in a squeaker on the backs of NH women.

Is that a reference to my timeline?

[Badger]

NH can be won by a Republican, but it is growing increasingly difficult and will soon be impossible.  The Vermontification is well under way.

This hits the nail on the head. I won't go so far as to place New Hampshire in the "Safe D" column, but it definitely leans left: no state that reelected its Democratic governor and Democratic Senator in 2014 can be counted a true toss-up.

Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada haven't voted Republican in eight years. Are they solid Democratic states too?

New Mexico really isn't a swing state at this point, and while Virginia could still vote Republican in the near future, it probably tilts D in presidential races. The remainder of those states either elected a Republican Senator in 2014 (Iowa, Colorado) or re-elected a Republican governor that same year (Ohio, Florida, Nevada). Simply put, there are recent examples of Republicans winning statewide races in those states; the last Republican to do so in New Hampshire was Ayotte in 2010. Like Violent Socialist said, it's still possible for the GOP to win there, but it's hardly of the same stripe as Ohio and Colorado.

Pennsylvania and Michigan haven't voted Republican since 1988. Wisconsin hasn't since 1984. Minnesota hasn't voted Republican since 1972.

Yes, and there is no reason to believe this trends is in danger of ending. The fact that the GOP won elections in Wisconsin and Michigan in the wave years of 2010 and 2014 does not make them legitimate swing states any more than Donnelly's 2012 victory makes Indiana a swing state. A down-ballot Republican can still win here under the right circumstances, but they will continue to vote Democratic at the presidential level for the foreseeable future.

Other than adding Nevada really isn't a swing state at the presidential level either, this is the correct answer.