New Hampshire House Races: A Tale of Two Progressives

 

Kelly Ayotte, a former state attorney general, has won the Senate race in New Hampshire, beating Rep. Paul Hodes. But the real action in the Granite State is on the House side, where two districts offer a study in contrasts. In the first district, Dem Rep. Carol Shea-Porter has already lost to former Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta. The anti-incumbent tide proved too strong to save Shea-Porter, a progressive and former anti-Iraq war activist who was swept into office in 2006. 

On the other side of the state, in Hodes’ former district, the second, a different story may be unfolding. Ann “Annie” McLane Kuster, a progressive activist who I wrote about in September, is still neck-and-neck with former GOP congressman Charlie Bass, whom Hodes beat in 2006. Progressive groups poured money and energy into the primary in this race, helping Kuster beat Katrina Swett, a more centrist Dem. But even though Kuster and Shea-Porter have very similar politics, their fates may end up being different.

If Kuster does pull out a win, progressives like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s Adam Green will tell you it’s because she was a “bold progressive.” On a night when Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, the boldest of the bold, has already lost, that seems a bit off. Instead, I’d say this: differing results in the two New Hampshire races would show that voters don’t care too much about ideology. What they do care about is incumbency. And when the economy is in trouble, they want to throw the bums out—whoever those bums may be. When there’s no incumbent, it gets a lot more complicated. Of course, Kuster could very well lose, in which case none of this will matter. After all, she’s still from the incumbent party.

UPDATE, 11:50 p.m. EST: Kuster lost.

 

DEFEND THE TRUTH. DEFEND JOURNALISM.

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things it doesn’t like—which is most things that are true.

We’ll say it loud and clear: At Mother Jones, no one gets to tell us what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please do your part and help us reach our $150,000 membership goal by May 31.

payment methods

DEFEND THE TRUTH. DEFEND JOURNALISM.

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things it doesn’t like—which is most things that are true.

We’ll say it loud and clear: At Mother Jones, no one gets to tell us what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please do your part and help us reach our $150,000 membership goal by May 31.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate