A quick note before getting ready for work: This was the headline above the fold in Sunday's UL: ["GOP straw poll puts Lamontagne, Stephen on top"].
So, maybe the commenter to my other post about the New Hampshire Herald had something there about activists pushing for Ovide.
That said, in New Hampshire, we have open primaries, meaning independents can grab ballots and do what they like. Without a Senate primary on the Democratic side (and no real race for the governor's office either), there is a good chance independents will draw the Republican ballot. In New Hampshire, independents tend to trend more liberal than conservative. So they will probably water down the super conservative activist vote somewhat in the primary.
Does that mean that the more liberal of the conservatives will win? No. But trying to out-conservative each other thinking that the entire state will elect you to the Senate after you win a bloody primary is not the winning strategy, even with a floundering president and neutered Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Simply put, a super pro-life, cut taxes on business, drill baby drill militarist is not going to beat Paul Hodes in November. A Republican who will support the best public policies of both parties and commits to doing the best thing for Granite Staters could easily be elected. That is the reality that conservatives who blather about the lack of military spending, support free trade when there is no such thing, while supporting policies that limit the liberties of Americans have to get realistic about.