NH: Canary in the polling coal-mine

[Statistikhengst]

Bet that title got your attention.


PPP (D) has just released a poll from New Hampshire on the state level, showing a neck-and-neck race between Kelly Ayotte (R-Inc, Sen) and Maggie Hassan (D-Inc, Gub):

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NH_41615.pdf

747 RV, MoE= +/-3.6, taken from April 9 to April 13, 2014.

NH Senate:

Hassan 46%
Ayotte 45%
Margin: Hassan +1, statistical tie, could go either way.

The stickler here is the approv/disapprove numbers:

Ayotte (R) approve 40 / disapprove 43, margin = +3. Ayotte is underwater.
Hassan (D) approve 53 / disapprove 34, margin = +19. Hassan has some of the best approval numbers for any incument Governor in the country right now.

What makes for the huge disparity?

Well, 85% of D's approve of Hassan's work, only 64% of Rs approve of Ayotte's work. That's the difference. Lots of Conservatives strongly disapprove of Ayotte.

Why spend so much time on a Sen poll? Well, lots of other matchups were there from this poll...

...but also, in the 2014 mid-terms, in-spite of a strong GOP wave in the Senate, Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen won re-election by +3 over GOP challenger (and former Senator from Massachusetts) Scott Brown. That says something about the overall direction that NH is going. It is getting bluer and bluer.

On the national level, NH is now a 5-for-6 Blue state:

1992: Clinton, Bill +1.22% (D pick-up over 1988)
1996: Clinton, Bill +9.96% (D retention)
2000: Bush 43 +1.27% (R pick-up)
2004: Kerry +1.37% (the only D pick-up of 2004)
2008: Obama +9.61% (D retention)
2012: Obama +5.58% (D retention)
2016: ???

So, yeah, eyes are being cast on NH as an indicator of 2016. It is expected to be a battleground state and statistically, in 4 of the last 6 cycles, it was (1992, 2000, 2004, 2012). It was considered a battleground in 2008, but with an almost +10 (landslide) margin for Obama in that year, it obviously was not.

PPP (D) tends to put out the state polls on one day and then the "Hillary" polling for that state a day or two later, so it would not surprise me to see a Hillary vs. GOP poll from PPP (D) for NH come out tomorrow or at that weekend.

How did the LAST PPP (D) poll look? It was from more than one year ago:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NH_116.pdf

January 16, 2014, 1354 RV, MoE = +/-2.7

Clinton 44 / Christie 39, margin = Clinton +4
Clinton 49 / Bush, J 38, margin = Clinton +11
Clinton 50 / Paul 37, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 / Cruz 32, margin = Clinton +19


So, "back then", there were 4 Clinton vs. GOP matchups in NH, all of which Clinton won with margins outside of the MoE, from +4 to a crushing +19.

Since then, 2 of those four GOP candidates have officially announced, the other 2 are expected to announce and I project that PPP (D) will have polled Hillary against 9 or 10 candidates this time.

Therefore, it will be interesting to compare. We are talking about a pure comparison PPP (D) to PPP (D).

Since that last PPP (D) poll, seven other polls have come in, including a poll from the Republican pollster Gravis, also a "Purple Poll".

All said and told, until now, there have been 12 polls of the Granite state and 33 individual matchups, of which Hillary has won 32, but some of them are indeed statistical ties (but not mathematical ties).

I predict that the new PPP (D) will pit Hillary against Christie, Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Huckabee, Carson, Fiorina, Walker, and for good measure, Ayotte, just for comparison purposes.

The Gravis (R) poll from March 21, 2015, showed her at +3 over Paul, Bush and Walker alike.

Wait and see what this poll brings, but one thing will be for sure. It will be only be partly from after the time that Hillary announced. The time frame for the Senatorial poll is already above (April 9 to April 13, Hillary announced on Sunday, April 12) and I assume that the presidential numbers will come from the same time frame. Wait and see.


In 2000, had Al Gore actually campaigned like crazy in NH, he could have won the state and then, in spite of the controversy of Florida, he would have been elected our 43rd president. So, a little state like New Hampshire can play big in electoral politics, and not just on the primary level. John McCain campaigned tirelessly in this state. Mitt Romney ended election day in 2012 with a final stop in New Hampshire. Both teams want this state badly. But the demographics and the electoral history of this state in the last soon to be 24 years show a clear movement toward purple, moving more blue.


Oh, and btw, how did PPP (D) do in New Hampshire in 2012? Well, here was the final poll:

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.

PPP (D) predicted Obama +2 over Romney. Obama won by +5.58, so PPP (D) picked the correct winner but was off to the RIGHT by 3.5 points in it's final poll margin. Definitely no "Liberal" bias in that poll at all.

The two pollsters who came the closest in the end-run were:

WMUR/UNH and Lake Research (D), both with Obama +5 over Romney.


And one piece of interesting of electoral trivia:

George W. Bush, Jr, is one of three Republican presidents to "pick-up" New Hampshire in his first election (also, Nixon 1968, Harding 1920) and one of three president ever to have lost New Hampshire in their re-election bid. The others? George W. Bush, Sr in 1992, also William Howard Taft in 1912. So, there is a historical element involved in why the GOP so much wants to re-cement this state, the only really "reachable" state for them in the NE, back into their column.

When the newest PPP (D) poll comes out, I will post it here on this thread, for comparison purposes.

 

[pepperpot]

Bet that title got your attention.


PPP (D) has just released a poll from New Hampshire on the state level, showing a neck-and-neck race between Kelly Ayotte (R-Inc, Sen) and Maggie Hassan (D-Inc, Gub):

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NH_41615.pdf

747 RV, MoE= +/-3.6, taken from April 9 to April 13, 2014.

NH Senate:

Hassan 46%
Ayotte 45%
Margin: Hassan +1, statistical tie, could go either way.

The stickler here is the approv/disapprove numbers:

Ayotte (R) approve 40 / disapprove 43, margin = +3. Ayotte is underwater.
Hassan (D) approve 53 / disapprove 34, margin = +19. Hassan has some of the best approval numbers for any incument Governor in the country right now.

What makes for the huge disparity?

Well, 85% of D's approve of Hassan's work, only 64% of Rs approve of Ayotte's work. That's the difference. Lots of Conservatives strongly disapprove of Ayotte.

Why spend so much time on a Sen poll? Well, lots of other matchups were there from this poll...

...but also, in the 2014 mid-terms, in-spite of a strong GOP wave in the Senate, Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen won re-election by +3 over GOP challenger (and former Senator from Massachusetts) Scott Brown. That says something about the overall direction that NH is going. It is getting bluer and bluer.

On the national level, NH is now a 5-for-6 Blue state:

1992: Clinton, Bill +1.22% (D pick-up over 1988)
1996: Clinton, Bill +9.96% (D retention)
2000: Bush 43 +1.27% (R pick-up)
2004: Kerry +1.37% (the only D pick-up of 2004)
2008: Obama +9.61% (D retention)
2012: Obama +5.58% (D retention)
2016: ???

So, yeah, eyes are being cast on NH as an indicator of 2016. It is expected to be a battleground state and statistically, in 4 of the last 6 cycles, it was (1992, 2000, 2004, 2012). It was considered a battleground in 2008, but with an almost +10 (landslide) margin for Obama in that year, it obviously was not.

PPP (D) tends to put out the state polls on one day and then the "Hillary" polling for that state a day or two later, so it would not surprise me to see a Hillary vs. GOP poll from PPP (D) for NH come out tomorrow or at that weekend.

How did the LAST PPP (D) poll look? It was from more than one year ago:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NH_116.pdf

January 16, 2014, 1354 RV, MoE = +/-2.7

Clinton 44 / Christie 39, margin = Clinton +4
Clinton 49 / Bush, J 38, margin = Clinton +11
Clinton 50 / Paul 37, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 / Cruz 32, margin = Clinton +19


So, "back then", there were 4 Clinton vs. GOP matchups in NH, all of which Clinton won with margins outside of the MoE, from +4 to a crushing +19.

Since then, 2 of those four GOP candidates have officially announced, the other 2 are expected to announce and I project that PPP (D) will have polled Hillary against 9 or 10 candidates this time.

Therefore, it will be interesting to compare. We are talking about a pure comparison PPP (D) to PPP (D).

Since that last PPP (D) poll, seven other polls have come in, including a poll from the Republican pollster Gravis, also a "Purple Poll".

All said and told, until now, there have been 12 polls of the Granite state and 33 individual matchups, of which Hillary has won 32, but some of them are indeed statistical ties (but not mathematical ties).

I predict that the new PPP (D) will pit Hillary against Christie, Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Huckabee, Carson, Fiorina, Walker, and for good measure, Ayotte, just for comparison purposes.

The Gravis (R) poll from March 21, 2015, showed her at +3 over Paul, Bush and Walker alike.

Wait and see what this poll brings, but one thing will be for sure. It will be only be partly from after the time that Hillary announced. The time frame for the Senatorial poll is already above (April 9 to April 13, Hillary announced on Sunday, April 12) and I assume that the presidential numbers will come from the same time frame. Wait and see.


In 2000, had Al Gore actually campaigned like crazy in NH, he could have won the state and then, in spite of the controversy of Florida, he would have been elected our 43rd president. So, a little state like New Hampshire can play big in electoral politics, and not just on the primary level. John McCain campaigned tirelessly in this state. Mitt Romney ended election day in 2012 with a final stop in New Hampshire. Both teams want this state badly. But the demographics and the electoral history of this state in the last soon to be 24 years show a clear movement toward purple, moving more blue.


Oh, and btw, how did PPP (D) do in New Hampshire in 2012? Well, here was the final poll:

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.

PPP (D) predicted Obama +2 over Romney. Obama won by +5.58, so PPP (D) picked the correct winner but was off to the RIGHT by 3.5 points in it's final poll margin. Definitely no "Liberal" bias in that poll at all.

The two pollsters who came the closest in the end-run were:

WMUR/UNH and Lake Research (D), both with Obama +5 over Romney.


And one piece of interesting of electoral trivia:

George W. Bush, Jr, is one of three Republican presidents to "pick-up" New Hampshire in his first election (also, Nixon 1968, Harding 1920) and one of three president ever to have lost New Hampshire in their re-election bid. The others? George W. Bush, Sr in 1992, also William Howard Taft in 1912. So, there is a historical element involved in why the GOP so much wants to re-cement this state, the only really "reachable" state for them in the NE, back into their column.

When the newest PPP (D) poll comes out, I will post it here on this thread, for comparison purposes.

I think if Hassan wants to run for senate she will need to change her adamant anti- pot stance. Its angering people and now that we here in Vermont are intending on legalizing recreational pot, she is digging in even more against it. NH has a bit of a libertarian streak and pot can be an issue there.

Governor says she would veto marijuana legalization Politics - WMUR Home

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You got trounced last November and are still butt hurt about it, we get it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You got trounced last November and are still butt hurt about it, we get it.

With whom are you talking?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You, you are a liberal and support Obama and the democrats.

 

[pepperpot]

You, you are a liberal and support Obama and the democrats.

What does that have to do with the polling? Its quite interesting and may change dramatically as election time nears, but for now its always informative.

 

[HenryBHough]

One must remember that New Hampshire's population is now more than 50% composed of liberals who left Taxachusetts. Folks who left because of the economic pain but failed to understand that it was caused by the huge taxes they voted for. Now they want to try again and cannot accept that the result might be any different.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Bet that title got your attention.


PPP (D) has just released a poll from New Hampshire on the state level, showing a neck-and-neck race between Kelly Ayotte (R-Inc, Sen) and Maggie Hassan (D-Inc, Gub):

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NH_41615.pdf

747 RV, MoE= +/-3.6, taken from April 9 to April 13, 2014.

NH Senate:

Hassan 46%
Ayotte 45%
Margin: Hassan +1, statistical tie, could go either way.

The stickler here is the approv/disapprove numbers:

Ayotte (R) approve 40 / disapprove 43, margin = +3. Ayotte is underwater.
Hassan (D) approve 53 / disapprove 34, margin = +19. Hassan has some of the best approval numbers for any incument Governor in the country right now.

What makes for the huge disparity?

Well, 85% of D's approve of Hassan's work, only 64% of Rs approve of Ayotte's work. That's the difference. Lots of Conservatives strongly disapprove of Ayotte.

Why spend so much time on a Sen poll? Well, lots of other matchups were there from this poll...

...but also, in the 2014 mid-terms, in-spite of a strong GOP wave in the Senate, Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen won re-election by +3 over GOP challenger (and former Senator from Massachusetts) Scott Brown. That says something about the overall direction that NH is going. It is getting bluer and bluer.

On the national level, NH is now a 5-for-6 Blue state:

1992: Clinton, Bill +1.22% (D pick-up over 1988)
1996: Clinton, Bill +9.96% (D retention)
2000: Bush 43 +1.27% (R pick-up)
2004: Kerry +1.37% (the only D pick-up of 2004)
2008: Obama +9.61% (D retention)
2012: Obama +5.58% (D retention)
2016: ???

So, yeah, eyes are being cast on NH as an indicator of 2016. It is expected to be a battleground state and statistically, in 4 of the last 6 cycles, it was (1992, 2000, 2004, 2012). It was considered a battleground in 2008, but with an almost +10 (landslide) margin for Obama in that year, it obviously was not.

PPP (D) tends to put out the state polls on one day and then the "Hillary" polling for that state a day or two later, so it would not surprise me to see a Hillary vs. GOP poll from PPP (D) for NH come out tomorrow or at that weekend.

How did the LAST PPP (D) poll look? It was from more than one year ago:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NH_116.pdf

January 16, 2014, 1354 RV, MoE = +/-2.7

Clinton 44 / Christie 39, margin = Clinton +4
Clinton 49 / Bush, J 38, margin = Clinton +11
Clinton 50 / Paul 37, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 / Cruz 32, margin = Clinton +19


So, "back then", there were 4 Clinton vs. GOP matchups in NH, all of which Clinton won with margins outside of the MoE, from +4 to a crushing +19.

Since then, 2 of those four GOP candidates have officially announced, the other 2 are expected to announce and I project that PPP (D) will have polled Hillary against 9 or 10 candidates this time.

Therefore, it will be interesting to compare. We are talking about a pure comparison PPP (D) to PPP (D).

Since that last PPP (D) poll, seven other polls have come in, including a poll from the Republican pollster Gravis, also a "Purple Poll".

All said and told, until now, there have been 12 polls of the Granite state and 33 individual matchups, of which Hillary has won 32, but some of them are indeed statistical ties (but not mathematical ties).

I predict that the new PPP (D) will pit Hillary against Christie, Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Huckabee, Carson, Fiorina, Walker, and for good measure, Ayotte, just for comparison purposes.

The Gravis (R) poll from March 21, 2015, showed her at +3 over Paul, Bush and Walker alike.

Wait and see what this poll brings, but one thing will be for sure. It will be only be partly from after the time that Hillary announced. The time frame for the Senatorial poll is already above (April 9 to April 13, Hillary announced on Sunday, April 12) and I assume that the presidential numbers will come from the same time frame. Wait and see.


In 2000, had Al Gore actually campaigned like crazy in NH, he could have won the state and then, in spite of the controversy of Florida, he would have been elected our 43rd president. So, a little state like New Hampshire can play big in electoral politics, and not just on the primary level. John McCain campaigned tirelessly in this state. Mitt Romney ended election day in 2012 with a final stop in New Hampshire. Both teams want this state badly. But the demographics and the electoral history of this state in the last soon to be 24 years show a clear movement toward purple, moving more blue.


Oh, and btw, how did PPP (D) do in New Hampshire in 2012? Well, here was the final poll:

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.

PPP (D) predicted Obama +2 over Romney. Obama won by +5.58, so PPP (D) picked the correct winner but was off to the RIGHT by 3.5 points in it's final poll margin. Definitely no "Liberal" bias in that poll at all.

The two pollsters who came the closest in the end-run were:

WMUR/UNH and Lake Research (D), both with Obama +5 over Romney.


And one piece of interesting of electoral trivia:

George W. Bush, Jr, is one of three Republican presidents to "pick-up" New Hampshire in his first election (also, Nixon 1968, Harding 1920) and one of three president ever to have lost New Hampshire in their re-election bid. The others? George W. Bush, Sr in 1992, also William Howard Taft in 1912. So, there is a historical element involved in why the GOP so much wants to re-cement this state, the only really "reachable" state for them in the NE, back into their column.

When the newest PPP (D) poll comes out, I will post it here on this thread, for comparison purposes.

And, as promised, here comes the PPP (D) poll of New Hampshire, just 4 days later than I expected it:


PPP (D), New Hampshire, released 21.04.2015, the surveys were taken from April 9 to April 13, so only part of the survey crowd was interviews AFTER Hillary's entrance into the race. The values in (parentheses) are from the previous PPP (D) for that particular matchup - from 16.01.2014.

Clinton 49 (50) / Paul 40 (37), margin = Clinton +9 (+13)
Clinton 49 / Walker 40, margin = Clinton +9
Clinton 50 / Rubio 38, margin = Clinton +12
Clinton 49 (49) / Bush, J 36 (38), margin = Clinton +13 (+11)
Clinton 51 / Huckabee 38, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 / Carson 38, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 / Perry 38, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 (43) / Christie 36 (39), margin = Clinton +15 (+4)
Clinton 52 (51) / Cruz 37 (32), margin = Clinton +15 (+19)

Here we see that Clinton is winning in the "Live free or Die" state by +9 to +15, with 4 of those margins at +13 and seven margins in double digits, also seven margins where Hillary is at 50 or above. Once again, Ted Cruz is at the bottom of the list, but this time, Chris Christie is there with him. Christie is the candidate who has lost the most ground against Hillary in the last year. Rand Paul has actually gained ground.

But if these numbers hold, then New Hampshire would not even be a battleground in 2016.

 

[AceRothstein]

You got trounced last November and are still butt hurt about it, we get it.

Another Republican who doesn't understand math.

 

[HenryBHough]

New Hampshire used to be a bellweather state.

Now it's largely populated by liberals who could no longer afford to live in Taxachusetts and migrated north. In time they'll destroy New Hampshire's business climate and impose "Bay State" style taxes.

Then they'll move to Maine.

 

[Nyvin]

New Hampshire used to be a bellweather state.

Now it's largely populated by liberals who could no longer afford to live in Taxachusetts and migrated north. In time they'll destroy New Hampshire's business climate and impose "Bay State" style taxes.

Then they'll move to Maine.

Massachusetts is growing much faster than New Hampshire....

Maine is declining in population.

 

[auditor0007]

Bet that title got your attention.


PPP (D) has just released a poll from New Hampshire on the state level, showing a neck-and-neck race between Kelly Ayotte (R-Inc, Sen) and Maggie Hassan (D-Inc, Gub):

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NH_41615.pdf

747 RV, MoE= +/-3.6, taken from April 9 to April 13, 2014.

NH Senate:

Hassan 46%
Ayotte 45%
Margin: Hassan +1, statistical tie, could go either way.

The stickler here is the approv/disapprove numbers:

Ayotte (R) approve 40 / disapprove 43, margin = +3. Ayotte is underwater.
Hassan (D) approve 53 / disapprove 34, margin = +19. Hassan has some of the best approval numbers for any incument Governor in the country right now.

What makes for the huge disparity?

Well, 85% of D's approve of Hassan's work, only 64% of Rs approve of Ayotte's work. That's the difference. Lots of Conservatives strongly disapprove of Ayotte.

Why spend so much time on a Sen poll? Well, lots of other matchups were there from this poll...

...but also, in the 2014 mid-terms, in-spite of a strong GOP wave in the Senate, Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen won re-election by +3 over GOP challenger (and former Senator from Massachusetts) Scott Brown. That says something about the overall direction that NH is going. It is getting bluer and bluer.

On the national level, NH is now a 5-for-6 Blue state:

1992: Clinton, Bill +1.22% (D pick-up over 1988)
1996: Clinton, Bill +9.96% (D retention)
2000: Bush 43 +1.27% (R pick-up)
2004: Kerry +1.37% (the only D pick-up of 2004)
2008: Obama +9.61% (D retention)
2012: Obama +5.58% (D retention)
2016: ???

So, yeah, eyes are being cast on NH as an indicator of 2016. It is expected to be a battleground state and statistically, in 4 of the last 6 cycles, it was (1992, 2000, 2004, 2012). It was considered a battleground in 2008, but with an almost +10 (landslide) margin for Obama in that year, it obviously was not.

PPP (D) tends to put out the state polls on one day and then the "Hillary" polling for that state a day or two later, so it would not surprise me to see a Hillary vs. GOP poll from PPP (D) for NH come out tomorrow or at that weekend.

How did the LAST PPP (D) poll look? It was from more than one year ago:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_NH_116.pdf

January 16, 2014, 1354 RV, MoE = +/-2.7

Clinton 44 / Christie 39, margin = Clinton +4
Clinton 49 / Bush, J 38, margin = Clinton +11
Clinton 50 / Paul 37, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 / Cruz 32, margin = Clinton +19


So, "back then", there were 4 Clinton vs. GOP matchups in NH, all of which Clinton won with margins outside of the MoE, from +4 to a crushing +19.

Since then, 2 of those four GOP candidates have officially announced, the other 2 are expected to announce and I project that PPP (D) will have polled Hillary against 9 or 10 candidates this time.

Therefore, it will be interesting to compare. We are talking about a pure comparison PPP (D) to PPP (D).

Since that last PPP (D) poll, seven other polls have come in, including a poll from the Republican pollster Gravis, also a "Purple Poll".

All said and told, until now, there have been 12 polls of the Granite state and 33 individual matchups, of which Hillary has won 32, but some of them are indeed statistical ties (but not mathematical ties).

I predict that the new PPP (D) will pit Hillary against Christie, Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Huckabee, Carson, Fiorina, Walker, and for good measure, Ayotte, just for comparison purposes.

The Gravis (R) poll from March 21, 2015, showed her at +3 over Paul, Bush and Walker alike.

Wait and see what this poll brings, but one thing will be for sure. It will be only be partly from after the time that Hillary announced. The time frame for the Senatorial poll is already above (April 9 to April 13, Hillary announced on Sunday, April 12) and I assume that the presidential numbers will come from the same time frame. Wait and see.


In 2000, had Al Gore actually campaigned like crazy in NH, he could have won the state and then, in spite of the controversy of Florida, he would have been elected our 43rd president. So, a little state like New Hampshire can play big in electoral politics, and not just on the primary level. John McCain campaigned tirelessly in this state. Mitt Romney ended election day in 2012 with a final stop in New Hampshire. Both teams want this state badly. But the demographics and the electoral history of this state in the last soon to be 24 years show a clear movement toward purple, moving more blue.


Oh, and btw, how did PPP (D) do in New Hampshire in 2012? Well, here was the final poll:

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.

PPP (D) predicted Obama +2 over Romney. Obama won by +5.58, so PPP (D) picked the correct winner but was off to the RIGHT by 3.5 points in it's final poll margin. Definitely no "Liberal" bias in that poll at all.

The two pollsters who came the closest in the end-run were:

WMUR/UNH and Lake Research (D), both with Obama +5 over Romney.


And one piece of interesting of electoral trivia:

George W. Bush, Jr, is one of three Republican presidents to "pick-up" New Hampshire in his first election (also, Nixon 1968, Harding 1920) and one of three president ever to have lost New Hampshire in their re-election bid. The others? George W. Bush, Sr in 1992, also William Howard Taft in 1912. So, there is a historical element involved in why the GOP so much wants to re-cement this state, the only really "reachable" state for them in the NE, back into their column.

When the newest PPP (D) poll comes out, I will post it here on this thread, for comparison purposes.

And, as promised, here comes the PPP (D) poll of New Hampshire, just 4 days later than I expected it:


PPP (D), New Hampshire, released 21.04.2015, the surveys were taken from April 9 to April 13, so only part of the survey crowd was interviews AFTER Hillary's entrance into the race. The values in (parentheses) are from the previous PPP (D) for that particular matchup - from 16.01.2014.

Clinton 49 (50) / Paul 40 (37), margin = Clinton +9 (+13)
Clinton 49 / Walker 40, margin = Clinton +9
Clinton 50 / Rubio 38, margin = Clinton +12
Clinton 49 (49) / Bush, J 36 (38), margin = Clinton +13 (+11)
Clinton 51 / Huckabee 38, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 / Carson 38, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 / Perry 38, margin = Clinton +13
Clinton 51 (43) / Christie 36 (39), margin = Clinton +15 (+4)
Clinton 52 (51) / Cruz 37 (32), margin = Clinton +15 (+19)

Here we see that Clinton is winning in the "Live free or Die" state by +9 to +15, with 4 of those margins at +13 and seven margins in double digits, also seven margins where Hillary is at 50 or above. Once again, Ted Cruz is at the bottom of the list, but this time, Chris Christie is there with him. Christie is the candidate who has lost the most ground against Hillary in the last year. Rand Paul has actually gained ground.

But if these numbers hold, then New Hampshire would not even be a battleground in 2016.

By the time we hit November 2016, it is likely that things will have tightened up as the GOP coalesces around their candidate. That being said, there is also a possibility that come November 2016, voters take a strong move back to the center as Dem's ride the Hillary wave into the White House. Something Republicans do not acknowledge is the idea that many Democrats did not vote in the mid-terms for whatever reason, but that they will vote in 2016 in very big numbers.

 

[Statistikhengst]

New Hampshire used to be a bellweather state.

Now it's largely populated by liberals who could no longer afford to live in Taxachusetts and migrated north. In time they'll destroy New Hampshire's business climate and impose "Bay State" style taxes.

Then they'll move to Maine.

Massachusetts is growing much faster than New Hampshire....

Maine is declining in population.

In fact, Massachusetts is likely to regain an elector after the 2020 census.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[pepperpot]

New Hampshire used to be a bellweather state.

Now it's largely populated by liberals who could no longer afford to live in Taxachusetts and migrated north. In time they'll destroy New Hampshire's business climate and impose "Bay State" style taxes.

Then they'll move to Maine.

Massachusetts is growing much faster than New Hampshire....

Maine is declining in population.

All of northern New England is dying. Vermont is getting hit the hardest, losing some big businesses. Its starting to change the dynamics of politics as well. We are already seeing it here with education, the seniors attend the school board meetings and vote all the budgets down.

The Northeast is getting older and it s going to cost them - The Washington Post

 

[Nyvin]

New Hampshire used to be a bellweather state.

Now it's largely populated by liberals who could no longer afford to live in Taxachusetts and migrated north. In time they'll destroy New Hampshire's business climate and impose "Bay State" style taxes.

Then they'll move to Maine.

Massachusetts is growing much faster than New Hampshire....

Maine is declining in population.

All of northern New England is dying. Vermont is getting hit the hardest, losing some big businesses. Its starting to change the dynamics of politics as well. We are already seeing it here with education, the seniors attend the school board meetings and vote all the budgets down.

The Northeast is getting older and it s going to cost them - The Washington Post

Pretty much, it's just the southeastern section of NH that keeps the state afloat. Maine and Vermont are pretty much lost causes.

 

[HenryBHough]

All of northern New England is dying. Vermont is getting hit the hardest, losing some big businesses. Its starting to change the dynamics of politics as well. We are already seeing it here with education, the seniors attend the school board meetings and vote all the budgets down.

The Northeast is getting older and it s going to cost them - The Washington Post

Total population for Maine and New Hampshire are slipping as people move to Florida. In the case of Maine, to escape taxes. In the case of New Hampshire because liberals fleeing Massachusetts are buying up real estate making it profitable to cut and run. True that Massachusetts IS growing in population despite the exodus of the less mentally deficient liberals going North; leaves the low IQ crowd in place; the very crowd that's best at reproduction.

Vermont is unique. A very large percentage of industrious people fled years ago as New Yorkers looking for a place to cast a second ballot (and have a "summer place") bought up farms and allowed them to return to (unproductive) nature. With the industrious people gone is it any wonder that industry has moved on? At least that's the perspective I get from a few relatives whose children have left and who have cut down to just holding the old family home to live out their remaining years.

Still, Vermont is lovely to visit. Maine, too. Even some parts of New Hampshire though there are fewer by the month.

 

[Nyvin]

All of northern New England is dying. Vermont is getting hit the hardest, losing some big businesses. Its starting to change the dynamics of politics as well. We are already seeing it here with education, the seniors attend the school board meetings and vote all the budgets down.

The Northeast is getting older and it s going to cost them - The Washington Post

Total population for Maine and New Hampshire are slipping as people move to Florida. In the case of Maine, to escape taxes. In the case of New Hampshire because liberals fleeing Massachusetts are buying up real estate making it profitable to cut and run. True that Massachusetts IS growing in population despite the exodus of the less mentally deficient liberals going North; leaves the low IQ crowd in place; the very crowd that's best at reproduction.

Vermont is unique. A very large percentage of industrious people fled years ago as New Yorkers looking for a place to cast a second ballot (and have a "summer place") bought up farms and allowed them to return to (unproductive) nature. With the industrious people gone is it any wonder that industry has moved on? At least that's the perspective I get from a few relatives whose children have left and who have cut down to just holding the old family home to live out their remaining years.

Still, Vermont is lovely to visit. Maine, too. Even some parts of New Hampshire though there are fewer by the month.

It's the same story as everywhere else in the country, the small, more rural states are in decline or stagnant....the big, urban states see growth. Unless you have giant fossil fuel reserves underground this is the norm across the country.

 

[pepperpot]

All of northern New England is dying. Vermont is getting hit the hardest, losing some big businesses. Its starting to change the dynamics of politics as well. We are already seeing it here with education, the seniors attend the school board meetings and vote all the budgets down.

The Northeast is getting older and it s going to cost them - The Washington Post

Total population for Maine and New Hampshire are slipping as people move to Florida. In the case of Maine, to escape taxes. In the case of New Hampshire because liberals fleeing Massachusetts are buying up real estate making it profitable to cut and run. True that Massachusetts IS growing in population despite the exodus of the less mentally deficient liberals going North; leaves the low IQ crowd in place; the very crowd that's best at reproduction.

Vermont is unique. A very large percentage of industrious people fled years ago as New Yorkers looking for a place to cast a second ballot (and have a "summer place") bought up farms and allowed them to return to (unproductive) nature. With the industrious people gone is it any wonder that industry has moved on? At least that's the perspective I get from a few relatives whose children have left and who have cut down to just holding the old family home to live out their remaining years.

Still, Vermont is lovely to visit. Maine, too. Even some parts of New Hampshire though there are fewer by the month.

It's the same story as everywhere else in the country, the small, more rural states are in decline or stagnant....the big, urban states see growth. Unless you have giant fossil fuel reserves underground this is the norm across the country.

Well the reality is northern New England has always been known for a couple of things, farming and factories (mills). Farmers are getting hammered and the mills have all closed. Some high tech companies moved in like IBM in Vermont but they just sold them to a Chinese company and its possible a ton of jobs could be lost. Financially its possible Vermont could see double digit unemployment if that happens. New Hampshire is now known for defense with the Portsmouth Naval Yard and BAE systems which of course is all dependent on the defense budget. Maine has tourism and some shipbuilding. Energy costs have skyrocketed in New England and many have had a hard time affording their bills. Its certainly been problematic and you are going to see huge changes in the future both socially and politically due to it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well the reality is northern New England has always been known for a couple of things, farming and factories (mills). Farmers are getting hammered and the mills have all closed. Some high tech companies moved in like IBM in Vermont but they just sold them to a Chinese company and its possible a ton of jobs could be lost. Financially its possible Vermont could see double digit unemployment if that happens. New Hampshire is now known for defense with the Portsmouth Naval Yard and BAE systems which of course is all dependent on the defense budget. Maine has tourism and some shipbuilding. Energy costs have skyrocketed in New England and many have had a hard time affording their bills. Its certainly been problematic and you are going to see huge changes in the future both socially and politically due to it.

They are getting exactly what they have been voting for for decades.

 

[Nyvin]

Well the reality is northern New England has always been known for a couple of things, farming and factories (mills). Farmers are getting hammered and the mills have all closed. Some high tech companies moved in like IBM in Vermont but they just sold them to a Chinese company and its possible a ton of jobs could be lost. Financially its possible Vermont could see double digit unemployment if that happens. New Hampshire is now known for defense with the Portsmouth Naval Yard and BAE systems which of course is all dependent on the defense budget. Maine has tourism and some shipbuilding. Energy costs have skyrocketed in New England and many have had a hard time affording their bills. Its certainly been problematic and you are going to see huge changes in the future both socially and politically due to it.

They are getting exactly what they have been voting for for decades.

Some of the best educated, healthiest, least polluting states in the country (all three in the top 10 in each category). They have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

They just happen to be extremely white, old, and rural, none of which means high population growth.