NH-PPP Obama safe, unless Romney is GP's nominee

[Niemeyerite]

"New Hampshire voters are evenly divided on Obama with 46% approving and 46% disapproving. He's on slightly positive ground with independents at 46/43, but Republicans (86%) are more united in their disapproval of the President than Democrats (76%) are in their approval and that's what leaves him at an even split overall."

Obama 52% - Newt Gingrich 39%
Obama 52% - Mike Huckabee 38%
Obama 51% - Donald Trump 37%
Obama 56% - Sarah Palin 34%
Obama 47% - Mitt Romney 46%

"Huckabee's favorability is 29/52 and besides him the rest of the folks have unfavorable numbers at the 60% level or even higher- 27/60 for Trump, 24/62 for Gingrich, and 28/67 for Palin."
Romney's favorability is 45/44.

Interesting that Gingrich fares better than Huckabee.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/04/only-romney-would-make-nh-competitive.html

[Horus]

Looks about right.

[Bull Moose Base]

Here's the thing.  Setting aside that the possibility of a favorite son thing for Romney who lives in NH these days, if it is Romney's moderate image that boosts him in NH (and keeping him closer in other states), will he be damaged as a general election candidate by his rightward tack needed to win the primary?  He had (calculated general) praise for Paul Ryan's budget yesterday.  He opposed the lame duck tax compromise in December instead advocating permanent Bush tax cuts and complaining about the extension of unemployment.  He opposed the new  START treaty, flouting the advice of foreign policy players in the Bush 41 administration.  If he has any kind of serious competition for the primary, or even if not, but Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann, or Grover Norquist (moderating a debate) force him further from the center, it's a good possibility, he'll increase his nomination odds at the expense of his odds in swing states.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Another epic fail for Palin. lol

[Tender Branson]

The new map:

Obama vs. Huckabee

Obama vs. Romney

Obama vs. Gingrich

Obama vs. Palin

[NHI]

I see Romney carrying my state if he's the nominee.

[Badger]

I see Romney carrying my state if he's the nominee.

Re-read the poll, please.

[pbrower2a]

I see Romney carrying my state if he's the nominee.

1. Remove rose-colored glasses.

2. The best that you can say on behalf of Mitt Romney is that so far he is down but within a reasonable margin of error.

3. Romney may be the only one who has a chance against Obama in New Hampshire, but at the cost of a sure loss in North Carolina, a horrible trade for the GOP.

4. It looks like "Choose how to lose" times for Republicans when it comes to the Presidency -- dreadful landslide if Palin or other members of the lunatic fringe or slightly-different patterns with Huckabee or Romney.

[Franzl]

Romney's strength is interesting in New Hampshire.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I see Romney carrying my state if he's the nominee.

Re-read the poll, please.

     Given how close the poll is, it's not a ridiculously hackish statement to make. I strongly doubt that Romney would win New Hampshire versus Obama, but it's not a safe call to make at this juncture.

[feeblepizza]

Romney very well could win New Hampshire. He's only losing by a single point and has positive favorability ratings, unlike all the other potential nominees.

[Badger]

I see Romney carrying my state if he's the nominee.

Re-read the poll, please.

     Given how close the poll is, it's not a ridiculously hackish statement to make. I strongly doubt that Romney would win New Hampshire versus Obama, but it's not a safe call to make at this juncture.

Yeah, I somehow misread it as "I see Romney "will be" carrying....", even though it clearly says nothing of the sort. Sorry, my bad.

[Phony Moderate]

And yet most Republicans would rather lose in a landslide that would make 1964 look like 2000.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I see Romney carrying my state if he's the nominee.

1. Remove rose-colored glasses.

2. The best that you can say on behalf of Mitt Romney is that so far he is down but within a reasonable margin of error.

3. Romney may be the only one who has a chance against Obama in New Hampshire, but at the cost of a sure loss in North Carolina, a horrible trade for the GOP.

4. It looks like "Choose how to lose" times for Republicans when it comes to the Presidency -- dreadful landslide if Palin or other members of the lunatic fringe or slightly-different patterns with Huckabee or Romney.

Lol, Pbrower lecturing on the color of one's glasses.

How much does Romney trail by in NC? Last time I checked it was a few points. Is the situation that different from say FL or OH which he will likely be winning if he is winning the Presidency. Romney isn't locked out of NC by any means, which Huck is in a few places and Gingrich/Palin in many more.  Thus I don't see how NC become's a "sure loss".

Plus you have to factor in that Obama leads Romney nationally by 5 points at present. Is it rational to expect a candidate to be winning the electoral college while down by 5 nationwide? However, one has to consider that if Romney becomes tied nationally or takes lead during the course of the campaign, he will reap benefits acrossed a larger number of states then any of the other candidates. If the GOP is locked out of 270 or more electors, it really doesn't matter that the candidate has 2 or 3 points more in NC which Huck has compared to Romney. Huck does worse in MN, MI, NH, VA and FL while comparatively Romney does a point or three worse in NC then Huckabee and has reduced margins in some GOP states like MS, MO, etc.

It is presumptious to say anybody will win anything at this point, especially a swing state. We don't know who will be ahead next year nationwide in the polling. If Romney leads by 15 then he will be winning NH, if he trails by 15, he definately won't be. In a 50-50 election, Romney can win NH because he trails by 1 while trailing nationwide by more then that.

[pbrower2a]

I believe that Romney would narrowly win North Carolina...if it is a win, he will win New Hampshire...even if he narrowly looses, he could still win New Hampshire (narrowly loss thinking compared to 2000 if Bush had narrowly lost Florida but still won New Hampshire)...

That's not what the last PPP poll showed, so it is up to you to show that something will change before November 2012 (don't bother), or that PPP has a flawed methodology. Romney comes close to tying Obama in New Hampshire, but falls short if within the margin of error. Huckabee ties President Obama in North Carolina, but Romney doesn't. Even if you give the ties to Huckabee and Romney, Huckabee loses New Hampshire (which Republicans must win) and Romney loses North Carolina, which the Republican nominee dares not lose.

It's 15-3 in favor of Huckabee early in the game. That's not decisive yet, but at this stage that is a huge edge. Football teams can win after being down 15-3 in the first quarter, but t is very difficult. 

[King]

I believe that Romney would narrowly win North Carolina...if it is a win, he will win New Hampshire...even if he narrowly looses, he could still win New Hampshire (narrowly loss thinking compared to 2000 if Bush had narrowly lost Florida but still won New Hampshire)...

Even if that is possible (and polling does not back that up), Obama will gladly trade 4 EV New Hampshire for 15 EV North Carolina--so that's hardly a plus for Romney.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I believe that Romney would narrowly win North Carolina...if it is a win, he will win New Hampshire...even if he narrowly looses, he could still win New Hampshire (narrowly loss thinking compared to 2000 if Bush had narrowly lost Florida but still won New Hampshire)...

That's not what the last PPP poll showed, so it is up to you to show that something will change before November 2012 (don't bother), or that PPP has a flawed methodology. Romney comes close to tying Obama in New Hampshire, but falls short if within the margin of error. Huckabee ties President Obama in North Carolina, but Romney doesn't. Even if you give the ties to Huckabee and Romney, Huckabee loses New Hampshire (which Republicans must win) and Romney loses North Carolina, which the Republican nominee dares not lose.

It's 15-3 in favor of Huckabee early in the game. That's not decisive yet, but at this stage that is a huge edge. Football teams can win after being down 15-3 in the first quarter, but t is very difficult. 

A ridiculous comparison, with ridiculous parameters, and measured in a ridiculously narrow context of two states. I must admit you have out done yourslf.

[pbrower2a]

I believe that Romney would narrowly win North Carolina...if it is a win, he will win New Hampshire...even if he narrowly looses, he could still win New Hampshire (narrowly loss thinking compared to 2000 if Bush had narrowly lost Florida but still won New Hampshire)...

That's not what the last PPP poll showed, so it is up to you to show that something will change before November 2012 (don't bother), or that PPP has a flawed methodology. Romney comes close to tying Obama in New Hampshire, but falls short if within the margin of error. Huckabee ties President Obama in North Carolina, but Romney doesn't. Even if you give the ties to Huckabee and Romney, Huckabee loses New Hampshire (which Republicans must win) and Romney loses North Carolina, which the Republican nominee dares not lose.

It's 15-3 in favor of Huckabee early in the game. That's not decisive yet, but at this stage that is a huge edge. Football teams can win after being down 15-3 in the first quarter, but it is very difficult. 

A ridiculous comparison, with ridiculous parameters, and measured in a ridiculously narrow context of two states. I must admit you have out done yourslf.

It's just that there aren't that many states really in play now.  The Republicans have a huge number of states in the must-win category if they are to win the Presidency. They basically must win Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and one of Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire to win if President Obama doesn't melt down (in which case Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin become iffy for President Obama with all the states in the 'must-win' category becoming sure things for the GOP nominee).

If it were the other way, with putative rival Democrats in the different position in which one might pick off Montana but lose Michigan in what looks like a tough contest to win overall, then one would have a parallel in being behind 16-3 in the first quarter of a football game, points representing electoral votes.  There's no great difference between 16-3 and 15-3, is there? The team behind needs the equivalent of two net touchdowns to have a reasonable chance.     

[Smash255]

Romney very well could win New Hampshire. He's only losing by a single point and has positive favorability ratings, unlike all the other potential nominees.

The issue is in order for Romney to win the GOP Primary he would have to move further right, which would alienate him from some of those supporting him in the poll and not the other GOP candidates.  So while he might be within one now, once he lurches right for the Primary he won't be.

[Rowan]

I can't even read Pbrower's posts in this thread. Dear Lord.

Oh, and Smash I think you may be right.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I believe that Romney would narrowly win North Carolina...if it is a win, he will win New Hampshire...even if he narrowly looses, he could still win New Hampshire (narrowly loss thinking compared to 2000 if Bush had narrowly lost Florida but still won New Hampshire)...

That's not what the last PPP poll showed, so it is up to you to show that something will change before November 2012 (don't bother), or that PPP has a flawed methodology. Romney comes close to tying Obama in New Hampshire, but falls short if within the margin of error. Huckabee ties President Obama in North Carolina, but Romney doesn't. Even if you give the ties to Huckabee and Romney, Huckabee loses New Hampshire (which Republicans must win) and Romney loses North Carolina, which the Republican nominee dares not lose.

It's 15-3 in favor of Huckabee early in the game. That's not decisive yet, but at this stage that is a huge edge. Football teams can win after being down 15-3 in the first quarter, but it is very difficult. 

A ridiculous comparison, with ridiculous parameters, and measured in a ridiculously narrow context of two states. I must admit you have out done yourslf.

It's just that there aren't that many states really in play now.  The Republicans have a huge number of states in the must-win category if they are to win the Presidency. They basically must win Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and one of Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire to win if President Obama doesn't melt down (in which case Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin become iffy for President Obama with all the states in the 'must-win' category becoming sure things for the GOP nominee).

If it were the other way, with putative rival Democrats in the different position in which one might pick off Montana but lose Michigan in what looks like a tough contest to win overall, then one would have a parallel in being behind 16-3 in the first quarter of a football game, points representing electoral votes.  There's no great difference between 16-3 and 15-3, is there? The team behind needs the equivalent of two net touchdowns to have a reasonable chance.     

I am sure New Hampshire loves that you are depriving them of one of their entitled electoral votes.

The problem with the comparison is that it clouds the big picture in favor of a tunnel vission of the situation. Current PPP polling (which has voth Mitt and Mike down by 5 nationwide) indicates that even with a 50-50 result Huckabee would have a hard time getting to 270. Not so with Romney. An adjustment of the polling to reflect 50-50 gives him not only NC (15), but also FL (29), and NH (4) while putting him within 1 in OH (18), VA (13), CO (9), and NV (6)*. A mediocre position at best mind you but Hucks are much worse. In fact a strengthened NC lead is all he gains and no other electoral votes.  His nationwide numbers mask his weaker electoral position, which gives him a much lower ceiling (perhaps below 270 rendering him unelectable barring some change in perceptions of him or Obama collapses).


*Thats after giving them Dems 5 extra points in NV to account for faulty polling. One would hope the pollsters would find a way to address that in their weighting or something.

[pbrower2a]

I can't even read Pbrower's posts in this thread. Dear Lord.

Oh, and Smash I think you may be right.

The point is that Mike Huckabee now looks more electable because he is closer to the cultural patterns of more Republicans while Mitt Romney draws few voters closer to his culture. North Carolina is far more critical than New Hampshire to the GOP.