Either Fred is not well-known enough in NH, or you could be seeing outright anti-Southern bigotry on behalf of the voters here. I hope that is not the case.
NH goes Dem anyway, even if it is Hillary.
I think it is name recognition. Same reason Romney polls poorly in head to heads in non-early primary states.
Thompson hasn’t been on the ground shaking a lot of hands yet. A later poll may show improvement.
You could be right about anti-Southern bigotry. Do you remember how well Gerald Ford ran against Jimmy Carter in the northeast?
I don't want to sterotype New England Republicans are all being elitist twits, but I'm afraid that is the case. New Hampshire will vote conservative (and I refuse to believe the state has from entirely GOP to entirely Dem in four short years), but they are NOT going to vote for a southern good ol' boy for the same reason Louisiana will vote for liberals like Slick Willie, LBJ, and Mary Laudrieu but not liberals like John Kerry or Al Gore. They perceive the candidate as an "outsider" to their region and don't feel comfortable with them.
Conservatives CAN win in New England. We have a conservative GOP governor in Rhode Island RIGHT NOW. "Unelectable", my ass. The GOP has been wildly successful in New England when we have guys like Reagan (California governor), Nixon (adopted New Yorker & former VP), Eisenhower ("old Kansas Republican like yourself"), and Coolidge (Vermont resident, VP & former governor of nearby Mass.) atop the ticket.
The only southerner we had atop the ticket who won was GWB, and he got NH by the skin of his teeth in 2000 (he has roots in Conn. & Maine), but then it went to the dark side in 2004.
This is why all the freepers who enjoyed kicking Tommy Thompson when he was down were only shooting the GOP's presidential prospects in the foot, as someone like Tommy "I grew up in Eloy, WI, the son of a gas station attentant") is a conservative who could win over New Hampshirites in a way the bible belt candidates can't.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Both parties lose when they are stupid enough to nominate a Senator from a "safe state" whose appeals mainly to their parties base. (It doesn't matter if that candidate is a "celebrity" and very likeable either, as Bill Bradley was DOA outside of NJ)
It was true with Goldwater, it was true with Dole, it was true with Mondale and it was true with Kerry. Folksy southern GOP Senators don't have a prayer in New England and blue-blooded ivy-league liberal Democrats from the northeast don't have a prayer in the deep south.
Romney & Giuliani can win NH, not because they are RINOs, but because they've built up enough roots on the east coast that people there accept them. For some odd reason, freepers seem to enjoy pissing on any conservative who can win that area and gloating when they leave office, and so now we're left with only RINOs who are polling well there. You guys make not like that fact because alot of southern GOP senators would make terrific Presidents, but historical facts can't be ignored.
We are fortunate that the Hilderbeast is also an extremely polerizing figure representing the safe RAT haven of NY. The only way she wins is if the GOP neutralizes this disadvantage by ALSO nominating a Senator from a "safe" state who has limited appeal in swing states.
Unfortunately, it seems many of FR are intent on doing exactly that.
Fred's a likeable guy, but can he take Ohio, New Hampshire, and Colorado? That's what it boils down to. Goldwater may have been the ideal conservative leader but he was sure wasn't presidential material.
Prejudice goes both ways. For example, the Yellow Dogs of the South rejected sKerry due to him being from Massahole. Catholic voters in WI, Mi, and Pa did not vote for George W Bush because he was too Texan for their tastes.