Shea-Porter Seen as Vulnerable

If the 2008 election for Congress in New Hampshire’s first congressional district were held today, Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter would lose her seat to former Rep. Jeb Bradley, whom she defeated in 2002, according to a new Survey from the University of New Hampshire.

According to the survey, “45% of likely voters in the 1st District say they will vote for Bradley, 39% say they will vote for Shea-Porter, 2% prefer some other candidate and 13% are undecided.”

It is not unusual for freshmen members of Congress to be more vulnerable than other incumbents.

Republicans are enthusiastic about the results. One high-level Republican official in New Hampshire attributed Rep. Shea-Porter’s struggles to her over-the-top partisan behavior.

“She seems to represent the far left of her party. There are a lot of Democrats who are embarrassed by her attack dog behavior,” the official told Now! Hampshire.

In a statement, Bradley said, “[i]n the past year and a half we have seen Congress vote to pass the largest tax increase in history. We have seen gas prices soar with no feasible proposal for a long term energy plan, a lack of Congressional support for our troops in harm’s way and significant job losses, and all Carol Shea-Porter offers is higher taxes and bigger government. The results of this new poll show people do not believe this is the right vision for our country. I am encouraged and pleased by these results and will work hard through November to show the people of New Hampshire I will fight for their needs in Washington.”

However, when matched against Bradley’s primary opponent, former Health and Human Services Commissioner John Stephen, Rep. Shea-Porter leads 43%-35%.

According to the report, “five hundred (500) randomly selected New Hampshire adults were interviewed by telephone between April 25 and April 30, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/-4.4 percent. Two hundred forty-nine (249) respondents lived in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District (margin of sampling error = +/-6.2%) and 251 lived in the 2nd District (margin of sampling error = +/-6.2%).”