New Hampshire

[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 ).

[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...

[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".

[Antonio the Sixth]

Massive freedom state.

That is all.

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

[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".

[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...

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

Just LOL