Clinton out front, Republican field wide open

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is way out in front among potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidates while the Republican field is wide open with no real frontrunner, according to a New England College survey of Granite State registered voters conducted exclusively for NH Journal.

Clinton has a commanding lead among Democrats, with just over 65% of the vote. “Unsure” comes in second with around 19%, followed by Vice President Joe Biden with 8%. If New Hampshire’s senior Sen. Jeanne Shaheen were to launch a “favorite daughter” campaign, she would earn 6%. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley barely register with 1.5% and .6%, respectively.

The Republican field seems far less settled. A cluster of probable candidates trail “Unsure,” which leads the pack with almost 20% of the vote. Next come Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul with just over 19%, followed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie with 17.5% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with just over 13%.

2012 Republican Vice Presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (9.5%), Rick Santorum (5.5%), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (2.5%), Texas Gov. Rick Perry (2.1%) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (1.8%) all register in single digits.

If New Hampshire’s junior Sen. Kelly Ayotte were to launch a “favorite daughter” campaign in the Granite State, she would earn 8.6% of the vote.

The NEC Poll uses Interactive Voice Response technology to enable high response, accurate data collection on political races, policy issues and commercial considerations. This poll was conducted across a random sample of registered voters from New Hampshire. For the presidential polls there were 333 responses and a margin of error of 5.37% for the Democratic Primary and 326 responses and a margin of error of 5.42% for the Republican.

Author: Patrick Hynes

Share This Post On
468 ad
  • Blogger Gone Wild!

    Kelly Ayotte should step down and help pave a way for a real conservative to take over her Senate seat.

    • Anonymous

      Let’s focus on putting a real conservative in the seat currently held by Jeanne Shaheen. We’ll deal with Kelly in 2016. Let’s not lose focus on the immediate task at hand.

      • Blogger Gone Wild!

        I don’t live or vote in your state, so I don’t care what you guys do in regards to Shaheen. My focus was Kelly Ayotte and if I want to comment on her I’ll damn well do so.

        • Anonymous

          ” if I want to comment on her I’ll damn well do so.”

          As will the people who think you’re either mistaken, or a divisive Democrat troll.

          • Blogger Gone Wild!

            Mistaken for wanting to see true conservatives elected to office around the country? Who is the divisive democrat troll, I believe it is you.

          • Anonymous

            I post under my real name, and have a clear public record, unlike you, who are certainly divisive and unhelpful to the Republicans, although I concede that I cannot tell if you are a liberal troll or a misguided conservative.

            It is silly and counterproductive for a conservative to ask an elected Republican Senator, even if a RINO (which is debatable), to step down 3 years before the end of her term, when the result will be a replacement named by a Democrat governor, and/or a Democrat then elected by the voters, who just put in 2 Democrats in the House, despite the ridiculous lack of political experience, outrageous distortions and unhinged temper of Annie Kuster (I am not as familiar with the other district).

          • Blogger Gone Wild!

            “I post under my real name, and have a clear public record, unlike you,”

            Bravo! (Clapping hands) How noble of you. Like you I have two initials and a last name, however, I’m not self centered and egotistical so I prefer a moniker. If you don’t like that, then tough. In regards to you having a “clear public record” I don’t know what that means, if you’re implying you are someone of notoriety, perhaps an elected official, etc etc. I don’t give a crap.

            The original comment I made that is causing you to menstruate, was made as a tongue and cheek comment. A rhetorical statement of frustration that I have with Kelly Ayotte. Whether it is counterproductive to ask that of her or divisive to your state party, I could care less. I am not about the Republican party, and consider them to be part of the problem, particularly you Northeastern a-holes. I am about conservatism and you either are, or you’re not. When you serve as a “handmaiden” to John McCain and Lindsey Graham which Ayotte does, you lose your conservative bona fides.

            I don’t expect any politician of either party to suddenly realize what a deceptive pile of excrement they are and fall on their sword for the good of the whole. Your inability to realize that and let be, but to come in as some arbiter of reason shows you’re nothing but a fool attacking windmills.

            If you’re some guy that passed out fliers and canvassed neighborhoods for Ayotte or our some big GOP party guy that is all rah rah rah. Then too bad, deal with it, some people have standards and true beliefs.

    • Anonymous

      If there was a real conservative in the wings who could win the general I would say yes. My view is we get the most conservative candidate who can win an any state, which means I am unforgiving of rhinos in conservative states, but far more forgiving of them in swing and liberal states.

    • theWalsh

      Why not change your name to Blogger Gone Rogue? Kelly Ayotte is the best senator we’ve had in years. I do not require an officer holder to be in total lock step agreement with me. I just want someone with intelligence and our best interest in mind. If you truly are a conservative, you will be circumspect and reasonable. W.F. Buckley said to support the most conservative candidate who can win. Good Advice!!!

      • Blogger Gone Wild!

        She is a stooge for the establishment and if winning means governing as a democrat lite then quite frankly I wouldn’t be interested in voting for her re-election. For your information I am truly a conservative, you are not. You are truly a republican, I am not, which is why you would settle for a pro amnesty, pro war, Senator who goes along to get along because she is obedient to her corrupt leadership. I’d give you some advice, but it would be a waste of time telling you anything.

        • theWalsh

          Dear B.G.Wild: You are judging me too quickly on sparse information. I reside in New Hampshire and have followed Senator Ayotte’s career for years before her becoming our Senator. She’s a lot better than she gets in credit from you. Are you a resident of NH? Are you a…Democrat?

          • Blogger Gone Wild!

            Mr. Walsh, I judge just as I am judged with whatever information provided on these discussion threads. If there is something vital about your CV that I should know before daring to make conclusions about you, feel free to share.

            As for Ayotte, she absolutely gets no credit from me. I have no idea what she does for New Hampshire perhaps she brings home the pork and that makes you guys happy.

            She is nothing but another Collins/Dukakis squish and a minion of John McCain.

            No, I live on the West Coast.

            Am I a Democrat? If I were a democrat I wouldn’t have a problem with Ayotte, she is the perfect useful idiot that will help deliver a dem majority across this country.

  • Anonymous

    if the fat bastard runs, may as well close down the R party

    • Carrick

      sounds good to me

      • Anonymous

        yeah, worked out well for Detroit

  • I BarKahn

    Remember to put asterisk next to the names of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz, none of whom are constitutionally eligible to be President. Even better, every member of the American media should have that list of ineligible potential candidates tattooed in his/her forehead; whenever you meet up with each other, you’ll be reminded. Leave a little room in case some other ineligible politician, who also wants to be an Obama, decides to run.

    • scooby509

      All of them are natural born US citizens; Rubio was born in Miami and Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, so on those two there’s no question.

      Cruz was born in Canada, but his mother was born in Delaware and grew up in the US; even if he was born out of wedlock, that’s enough.

      • I BarKahn

        You are in far over your head and have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Unfortunately, there seems to be fifty-five million low or no information voters like you.

        • Anonymous

          Please provide a source for your unusual position on the natural born citizen clause. Because while the sources I pay attention to (e.g., the CRS and SCOTUS) are sometimes listed as authorities on US law and the Constitution, you no doubt have better sources, because I’m sure you wouldn’t just be talking out of your backside.

        • scooby509

          LOL! The more you tell everyone who takes a straightforward view that they’re “in over their heads” the more you look like a crank.

          • I BarKahn

            Get a prosthetic brain to fill your empty head.

    • Anonymous

      Jindal and Rubio were born in the United States. Cruz was born in Canada, but his mother was a citizen of the United States. Essentially anyone with the experience (e.g., federal Judge, Constitutional lawyer) to have a learned opinion would agree that Jindal and Rubio are natural born citizens and eligible to be President, and most would say the same of Cruz. I’d agree that there would be some downside to nominating any of them, because then we’d have to listen to silly yahoos screaching that they are ineligible, and even though they’d win in court, it would be a distraction which would lose the votes of some nativist clowns who’d rather be ruled by Hillary Clinton than have a “foreign” President.

      • I BarKahn

        You are in far over your head with not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Stop embarrassing yourself.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, I’m as embarrassed as the Congressional Research Service, which stated in 2011 that:
          “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth”. Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.”

          But why should I believe the morons at the CRS when I can avoid embarrassing myself by believing a pseudonymous commenter on the internet?

          • I BarKahn

            Pitelli, Thanks for identifying your sources. I will not be snarky and I assume you’ll reciprocate. I want to give you sources of information so that we can talk about what I believe to be the nation’s gravest political danger since the Civil War.

            First, the CRS report, which I’ve read, did not just spontaneously spring out of the congressional landscape; it was ordered up by the Democrat Party to refute or, at least, to obscure or muddy up contentions that Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be President. There are many sites that also attempt to refute this contention, but having a report under the imprimatur of the CRS, which refutes such a contention, is a political three-bagger in disseminating disinformation. (My description is accurate and dispassionate; and I think you will see that, shortly.)The CRS report, was written by Jack Maskell, who has worked for the Congressional Library and the CRS since 1973 (?). According to Maskell, the Report was written for internal congressional consumption and not for publication. Whoever leaked it, did historical and legal truth a favor; once leaked it could be examined for historical and legal accuracy. Instead of my making an inferior attempt to discuss the Report’s important historical inaccuracies and legal misconceptions (or misrepresentations) I’m referring you to the analysis of Mario Apuzzo at, which treats Jack Maskell’s CRS “Natural Born Citizen ” report, as well as virtually all–perhaps all all–contentions, assertions, descriptions and ruminations about the provenance, historical American use, and inferior and Supreme Court references and use of the term “natural born Citizen” and the term “Citizen.” Many others have written about aspects of this issue, but to my knowledge, none as comprehensively and as clearly as Apuzzo, and it is Apuzzo upon whom I generally, but not exclusively, rely for an understanding of the “natural born Citizen” constitutional requirement.

            Yes, I write under a pseudonym, but my CV is genuine. I’m a former academic–BA, MA, MFA, Ph.d. I’m trained in research. My field was 18th, 19th, early 20th Century British and American Literature. I’ve devoted many years to studying American and British pre-colonial, colonial, and post colonial history; but I can’t begin to match Apuzzo’s melding of historical and legal knowledge, accuracy and logic. Apuzzo has one of the best minds I’ve encountered.

            I do not write under a pseudonym out of fear for myself. I use a nom de plume because members of my immediate family are extremely well-known public figures, whose professional careers would be damaged by an unnecessary association with political controversies.

            Please do not stop at Apuzzo’s analysis of Maskell’s CRS report. Read him cumulatively, as he explores the political and legal history of our current constitutional issue.

            If you wish, I’ll send you a couple of more sources, but do read Apuzzo first.

          • Thracker

            Here’s a link to Mario Apuzzo’s excellent article, “The
            Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen” ”


            Here’s another link to a further article by Mario Apuzzo on the same topic.


            Worth reading!………….. fact is, Jack Maskell has misled the US Congress and Senate.

          • I BarKahn


            I read SCOTUS, but only for the majority and dissenting Opinions in important cases; these I read very carefully, and, in the ACA ruling, with dismay.

          • Anonymous

            So I understand that under your (Apuzzo’s) analysis, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, and is thus ineligible to be President. Right? But lo and behold, he is the President, and all attempts to declare him ineligible were not only soundly rejected in the courts, but rebounded against his accusers, as they were used to make Republicans look like stupid racists. So I ask you, if your interpretation of this clause is a dead letter in every way that counts, then in what sense can it, in our system of government, be fairly described as the law of the land, and why should we tattoo it upon our foreheads?

          • I BarKahn

            Mario Apuzzo a pseudonymous blogger?? You are not just in over your head, you are drowning in a lack of knowledge, an inability to understand the nature of events, and disinformation.

            Attributed to Gandhi: First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.

  • b. LO

    Rubio is over in the GOP after pushing amnesty(y did he do that?) and can these idiot pollsters and writers stop putting Christie in these polls!?! he is basically a democrat and it would be an embarrassment if he ran with his disgusting Obama loving self…no conservatives like him..Rand is the leader in the first two presidential voting contest and probably more states too….they cannot dilute the field with moderates like Jindal Christie paul ryan Rubio and psycho santorum who claims to be Christian but wants to invade and destroy the entire middle east against him like they did his dad…they had to use massive election fraud against ron in at least 5 states…they were announcing winners with 4% of the vote in and taking two weeks to count votes.. and the RNC convention was a chaotic circus…if they try the same thing it will be an embarrassing tragedy…Rubio is who the GOP establishment wanted to push and now he`s done…its 2013 and all sides are attacking Paul weekly,they will be out of ammo by 2016 so I wanna see what tricks they got

  • Anonymous

    If the Republicans were smart (they’re not), they’d recruit the most revolting black racist they could find (e.g. Al Sharpton, Lois Farrakan), give him lots of money, and force him onto Democratic ballots. As “Obama’s rightful successor”, he takes most of the black vote, but loses the nomination to Hillary in a long, brutal battle. Feeling betrayed, blacks stay home on Election Day and the Dems get routed coast to coast.