Guys, you're making the mistake - especially with these states - of conflating senatorial and gubernatorial elections with presidential elections. These states have different voting patterns/levels of elasticity when it comes to those two categories.
Okay, fine. But I still don't know what makes NH more competitive than WI in your eyes, setting aside this forum's comical obsession with Northern Virginia.
Not specifically related to WI, but I don't think anyone can truly predict
exactly how competitive a state will be short of polling/other very basic measures. Look at California 1992 - Just 8 years early it went heavy for it's favorite son, then next election, much reduced but still red, then 1992 - 2012 it has not gone red once and has only gotten bluer over time. I don't think anyone in 1988 would have predicted that. I'm sure people could see some trends, but doubtful anyone really saw what was coming in 92'
This seems to be a relatively common trend at both the state and national level. Some states rapidly flip and never go back. IMO, New Hampshire did that in 2008. It would take a very moderate Republican to even have a chance, and that is frankly out of the question with the current Republican party, short of an open convention. Their current 'moderates' are even more right-wing now than real moderates from the past. That doesn't help when the state is going left and your party is also going further right at the same time.
Literally nothing backs up your opinions on new hampshire. Nothing.
To be fair, there are obvious pro-Democratic trends at the state level, and while state level success always necessarily predict presidential race success, it can't be ignored, either. The politics of the modern GOP and the politics of NH have been diverging for quite awhile now, which lends credence to the meaning of the shifts we are seeing at the state level.
I'm sure he's mentioned this stuff at one point or another.
Poll
