Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll shows Ayotte ahead of Hassan in NH Senate matchup (New Hampshire)
The Hill ^ | July 23, 2015 | Ben Kamisar

Posted on 07/23/2015 1:16:34 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) holds a slight lead over Gov. Maggie Hassan (D) in a new poll of a hypothetical matchup for Ayotte’s seat, a race that could prove to be one of the battleground elections determining the control of the Senate.

Ayotte is ahead 47 percent to 41 percent with likely voters, according to a new poll by the University of New Hampshire and WMUR-9 News. That result is outside the margin of error.

Most local and national Democrats see Hassan as the party’s best shot at winning the seat on the way to taking back the Senate. But as Hassan hasn’t publicly announced a decision on whether to wade into the race, only 10 percent of likely voters are definitive, while 81 percent are still deciding.

The finding comes just weeks after a poll sponsored by a major Democratic super-PAC showed Hassan holding a slight lead over Ayotte, as well as other recent polling that showed Ayotte ahead within the margin of error.

The poll also details a dramatic slump in popularity for embattled Rep. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), who recently settled with the Federal Election Commission to return more than $300,000 that the FEC says was an improper donation from his parents.

Forty-nine percent of likely voters have an unfavorable view of Guinta, compared to just 25 percent who hold a favorable view of him. That’s a stark difference from his numbers when he was voted back into office in 2014, when both his favorables and unfavorables hovered around 28 percent.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A plurality of likely voters want him to resign his seat, 44 percent. Fifty-five percent say that they would definitely vote for another candidate, including 33 percent of Republicans. Only 11 percent of Republicans are sure that they would vote for Guinta

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: polls
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2015 1:16:34 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; GOPsterinMA; randita; Sun; NFHale; ExTexasRedhead; GeronL; ..

I know that some conservatives are disappointed in Ayotte and regard her as mediocre, but remember that she’s a NEW ENGLAND Republican.

As for Frank Guinta, even if he didn’t commit a crime, he did something that was unwise at best. He should take one for the team and not seek reelection.


2 posted on 07/23/2015 1:18:18 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (The War on Drugs is Big Government statism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
Ayotte ain't perfect...not even close...but,OTOH,they don't come any filthier than Hassan.
3 posted on 07/23/2015 1:46:29 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Obamanomics:Trickle Up Poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
...but remember that she’s a NEW ENGLAND Republican.

That's what many Freepers simply can't understand.New England might as well be on a different planet.They label Scott Brown,Romney and Ayotte as filthy Commies but they're *the best...by far* that can be expected from that part of the country.Reagan carried Massachusetts in 1980.Today,he wouldn't get 20% of the vote here.

That's how far down the toilet then region has sunk.

4 posted on 07/23/2015 1:52:13 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Obamanomics:Trickle Up Poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

I wouldn’t miss her, she’s a McOrc clone


5 posted on 07/23/2015 1:54:25 PM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Kelly is as conservative as you will get here in NH. Hassan is a far left commie. It’ll be a tough campaign for Kelly. NH is a swing state in off years but pretty blue in the presidential years.


6 posted on 07/23/2015 2:06:58 PM PDT by nhwingut (This tagline for lease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
100% correct. Maine conservatives can be grateful for their governor who got elected on a plurality only because the Socialist and Marxist factions ran separate candidates.

Absent that, you just aren't going to do better than a Brown, Romney or Ayotte in Red England.

7 posted on 07/23/2015 2:12:55 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
"Reagan carried Massachusetts in 1980. Today,he wouldn't get 20% of the vote here."

He also carried it in 1984. Given that execrable RINOs McQueeg and Willard got 36% and 37.5% respectively, I expect if the MA electorate were presented with an honest Conservative, they would do better than that.

8 posted on 07/23/2015 3:40:35 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
but they're *the best...by far* that can be expected from that part of the country.

And that boys and girls is how we got The Enemy Within.

9 posted on 07/23/2015 4:06:26 PM PDT by itsahoot (55 years a republican-Now Independent. Will write in Sarah Palin, no matter who runs. RIH-GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
I expect if the MA electorate were presented with an honest Conservative, they would do better than that.

In my entire life I've spent about 12 hour in Tennessee...about 6 of them at Graceland.As a result I cannot rightfully claim to know *anything* about the state..including the political landscape.

OTOH,I've lived my entire life,except for my time in the Armed Forces,in Massachusetts and,as a result,I have a pretty good idea what this state's all about...including the political landscape.

Have you ever been to Massachusetts?

Now look at the stats for recent elections.Obola got 51% of the national vote in 2012.He got 60% here.

I repeat...if Reagan were running next year he's be lucky to get 25% of the vote here.And a prediction...if the Former Twelfth Lady is the Rat nominee next year she'll get close to two thirds of the vote here *regardless* of who the GOP nominates....while nationally she'll get around 50%.

Massachusetts is *different*.Some claim that the country's going to hell in a hand basket...led by California,But,in fact,it's being led by Massachusetts.

10 posted on 07/23/2015 5:49:47 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Obamanomics:Trickle Up Poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative; GOPsterinMA; Impy; BlackElk
I'm pinging fellow MA resident GOPster to this discussion...

"In my entire life I've spent about 12 hour in Tennessee...about 6 of them at Graceland. As a result I cannot rightfully claim to know *anything* about the state.. including the political landscape."

That's 6 hours more than I've spent at Graceland, even being an Elvis fan.

"OTOH,I've lived my entire life,except for my time in the Armed Forces,in Massachusetts and,as a result,I have a pretty good idea what this state's all about...including the political landscape. Have you ever been to Massachusetts?"

I've seen many make the argument that unless you've lived in a place, you don't really know about it. There can be a kernel of truth in that, yes, but no place is so isolated today that immersing yourself in learning from a distance can bring you up to speed on it. Yes, I've been to Massachusetts. I spent a month in New England during the infamous campaign season of 1994 (Oct/Nov). I've written scores of material (essays) on FR about the state (usually as a warning on what not to do), if only because it is a premier example of a formerly heavily GOP state that went Democrat almost entirely on the incompetence of the GOP leadership (and failure to embrace Conservatism).

"Now look at the stats for recent elections. Obola got 51% of the national vote in 2012.He got 60% here."

60.7% to be precise, and this running against a highly unpopular ex-Governor who fled the state rather than run for reelection. He was not carrying any banner for Conservative change. Indeed, he was the same Socialist crap the state has been offered for election after election.

"I repeat...if Reagan were running next year he's be lucky to get 25% of the vote here.And a prediction...if the Former Twelfth Lady is the Rat nominee next year she'll get close to two thirds of the vote here *regardless* of who the GOP nominates....while nationally she'll get around 50%."

And I say that if MA were offered an actual choice (as it has not been really in over 3 decades), I think you'd be very surprised how the commonwealth might vote. Because neither the MA Dems or MA GOP offer anything but hard-leftism, there remains a bloc of voters out there waiting for real change. One could've made the argument that MA was lost in 1964. Why ? Because LBJ got a ludicrous 76.2% of the vote, entirely due to a sympathetic vote (by contrast, JFK got 60.2% in 1960). Look at 1968, Humphrey got 63% and Nixon only got 33%. McGovern carried it (54.2%) even as Nixon won a national landslide in 1972. Carter did as well (56.1%).

But Reagan came in and offered something different that hadn't been seen in a long time: a choice. Enough people in the state soured on the Democrat that Carter dropped to just 41.75% (losing almost 400,000 votes from 1976). Reagan stood firm and got 41.9%, albeit just 1.5% higher than Ford got, but if he had taken the approach of writing off the state, he would've lost. Anderson took the remainder of 15%. When Reagan ran for reelection in 1984, he cleared 51.2% of the vote and a quarter-million vote improvement on 1980.

To say a Reagan would "only" get 25% of the vote in 2016 is ridiculous. A Republican with a pulse can get 36-37% of the vote as a base in the state (Dubya got 36% in '04, so did McQueeg, Willard 37.5%). These were no paragons of Conservatism, but the latter two being antagonists. If a GOP candidate broke 41% in MA for President, which Reagan did in 1980, that alone would mean a national victory. Running a non-loser candidate for a change who unapologetically stands on message and actively contests the vote in the state can do just that. They don't have to win there, but they can start making the Democrats sweat and have to work for places they can't afford to take for granted.

"Massachusetts is *different*.Some claim that the country's going to hell in a hand basket...led by California, but, in fact, it's being led by Massachusetts."

California has 55 members of Congress (53 House/2 Senate), MA has just 11 (9 House/2 Sen). CA has a disproportionate influence, and not for the better. Unlike CA, at least MA has a GOP Governor (and is not so disinclined to vote against them) and a balanced budget requirement. I would tell you sincerely that I believe MA has a better chance of being turned around at this point than the formerly Golden State is. But the latter also suffers from the problem of a moribund GOP that thinks that imitating the left-wing instead of offering successful Conservatism forcefully is the way to go. Conservatives taking control of local and state party apparatii is one way to begin to set these states on the right course.

11 posted on 07/23/2015 6:43:38 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I know a Senate race isn’t the same as the presidential contest, but it’s worth noting Scott Brown, despite running in a presidential election year, got 47 percent of the vote statewide, running almost 270,000 votes ahead of Romney. I’m sure there’s a lot of points about that race that can be debated (including whether Brown ought to have been able to beat the very flawed Warren anyway), but it’s clear Republicans can get more of that state even with presidential-year turnout.


12 posted on 07/23/2015 7:59:23 PM PDT by Galactic Overlord-In-Chief (Our Joe Wilson can take the Dems' Joe Wilson any day of the week)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Galactic Overlord-In-Chief

You’re exactly right. What holds the MA GOP back IS the state party leadership. They are run by ultra-left wingers who believe running moonbats further to the left of the Dems is the way to win. It’s not only crazy, it’s criminal. They’re not there to see the GOP expand, they’re there to preserve an ultraleft majority for the Democrats. If that same gang ran every state party in the nation, the GOP would hold between 0-10% of the federal and legislative seats, too.

What caused Brown to lose for the full term is that he made the mistake of tacking left for the general and was beginning to piss off the very die-hards who helped him to take the Kennedy seat. You never piss off your base and the people that worked their butts off for you.


13 posted on 07/23/2015 9:23:29 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; GOPsterinMA; Galactic Overlord-In-Chief; ...

LePage was barely elected in 2010 and would have lost a two-way race. But in 2014 while running for reelection he got 48% and was 5 points ahead of the rat. I think he still would have won a two-way race, ALL of the Cutler vote wouldn’t have gone rat. So someone more conservative than Susan Collins can win in Maine, narrowly, under the right circumstances. I think LePage should challenge Angus Queen in 2018.

Back to NH, which is the least liberal New England State. Ayotte seems to be about the same ideologically as the man she replaced, Judd Gregg. She’s certainly much better than Susan Collins. Given the circumstances, NH is lucky to have her rather than a rat or a Collins/Snowe type RINO (Scott Brown was better than those 2)

Someone a bit more conservative than Ayotte could win in NH, Sununu was more conservative than her and would have been reelected in 2008 if it wasn’t a rat landslide year. Also it’s important to remember Ayotte was something of a mystery before her election. Opinions of her here on FR varied from “New England Palin” to “Worse than Snowe” turns out she’s “Judd Gregg changed genders”.

The cupboard is pretty bare in NH, no one of consequence will oppose her in the primary, if such a person even exists at the moment. Some weak Christine O’Donnell type would be slaughtered in a general election even if they were capable of a primary upset, which is unlikely. So the choice is clear, her or a 100% Marxist rat. Easy friggin choice for me. Backing some “tea party” Realtor or something would be foolish. Conservatives hunting for RINO hides should look elsewhere.

I have a worse choice personally in Illinois than those in NH do. Mark Kirk might be is the second or third worst Republican in the Senate (He and Lisa Murkowsi are right behind Collins). But compared to my other Senator and my Congressman he’s a brick of GD gold, SOB actually votes my way roughly half the time as opposed to NEVER. And the chances of improving upon him are slim to none. So faced with reality, would I rather have that commie *itch fake war hero Tammy Duckworthless who makes me sick every time I see her? Hell to the no.

Some FRiends will never vote for Kirk and I respect that. Anyone who wouldn’t vote for Ayotte though is a shortsighted fool in my opinion. If she’s their cuttoff point for “unacceptable” then they’re asking for a Senate with a veto proof rat majority.

About MA, I was disappointed Romney only just slightly improved on McPain’s performance, Scott Brown could have won if it didn’t to rely on quite so many crossover voters. That fugly comminist Warren would have gotten creamed in NH and would have lost in ME or CT.

GOP POTUS vote in MA seems pretty stagnant (or stable if you want to call it that), little deviation in the last 3 elections.


14 posted on 07/24/2015 1:05:21 AM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj

Some really good stuff being posted; nice job.

I’ll try to be brief and focus on MA only:

Ronald Reagan was reelected in 1984...31 years and nearly 2 generations ago. No way would he win this state today. Just looking at my own family, how many of them (GOP & semi-sane RATs, excluding my father of course) that voted for Reagan are now dead? And what have they been replaced with?

Answers: Many and with diehard leftists. Demographics are destiny.

As a whole, this country is no where near as patriotic, as American, as it was in 1984...even less so in Massholechusetts. I don’t see a GOP POTUS candidate winning this state again in my lifetime.

Statewide, the best you’ll get is a barely Republican (although he’s doing a good job IMO) Chazz Baker running against a truly unlikeable, weak RAT like Marcia Coakley and squeaking in for the win.

Even the CDs are lost. Look at some of the opportunities and quality candidates (Sean Bielat vs. Bwaney Franklover for example) that have lost.

Nope. MA, like the rest of the deep, deep blue states is what it is - a lost cause.


15 posted on 07/24/2015 6:26:28 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (I'm with Steve McQueen: I live my life for myself and answer to nobody.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Impy
So someone more conservative than Susan Collins can win in Maine, narrowly, under the right circumstances.

Good analysis, all of it. But the "right circumstances" in this case is that they actually had a chance to see LePage govern and he didn't do half bad.

Same reason that Reagan did a lot better in New England in 1984 than he did in 1980. As you may recall, he lost only one state in 1980 (Rhode Island), but I believe he would've lost them all (except New Hampshire) had all the votes for John Anderson gone to Jimmy Carter. Anderson provided a decent cover for those folks who couldn't possibly vote for a Republican but knew Carter had been an abject disaster.

I think it is the relative whiteness of New England (especially the northern 3 states) which will allow them to vote for someone other than a Democrat endorsee and still maintain their leftward lean.

16 posted on 07/24/2015 11:02:51 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA
I had to test my hypothesis.

In 1980, there were 158 electoral votes which might have flipped to Carter if he could have added all or nearly all the John Anderson votes, the green states in this graphic.

Those in the south probably would not have been among them since the combined total would've been such a narrow margin over Reagan, it is unrealistic to think they might have flipped.

But even in this case, Reagan still would have won an impressive 331 electoral votes.

17 posted on 07/24/2015 11:26:23 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Impy
I had a LOT of fun playing with that graphic in the previous post.

This shows what WOULD HAVE happened if every state where Reagan didn't score at least 50% would have flipped. IOW, even if those voting Libertarian or one of the right leaning parties had gone for Carter. Reagan still would have garnered 254 electoral votes.

18 posted on 07/24/2015 11:43:09 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA

I seem to recall reading an article saying that Bielat should’ve run in an adjacent district as he probably would’ve won (either against Tierney or for the open Cape & Islands district in the then-10th). Frank’s district, although containing parts of the ancestral GOP area that sent Speaker Martin and Peg Heckler until 1983, still has too many moonbat areas.

As per that article you sent me, I don’t believe the state will remain indefinitely one party/one ideology. There’s enormous opportunity for growth running anti-establishment candidates with an eye to finally dispatching the leftist control of the state GOP. A big part of the reason the Dems seized a majority was taking advantage of a stagnant and statist GOP, and that’s the problem the MA Dems face now.


19 posted on 07/24/2015 4:56:33 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Nice work.


20 posted on 07/25/2015 8:37:37 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (I'm with Steve McQueen: I live my life for myself and answer to nobody.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson