Hey, remember how you heard that Republican senator Kelly Ayotte was running into hostile crowds at her town-hall meetings up in New Hampshire, allegedly as a result of her vote on the Toomey-Manchin background-check proposal? Well, take a look at this exchange from Thursday’s town-hall meeting:

Boy, that crowd was so hostile, they tried to hurt her eardrums by clapping and cheering loudly when an audience member called her “presidential.”

This morning, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus announced to Campaign Spot six more speakers for the party’s national convention in Tampa:

• U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, United States Senator from New Hampshire and former New Hampshire Attorney General.
• Former Democratic National Convention Speaker Artur Davis, former Alabama congressman from the 7th District (2003-2011) who was the first member of Congress not from Illinois to endorse President Obama in 2008. Davis, then a Democrat, seconded the official nomination of Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. He recently announced he is joining the Republican Party and supporting Mitt Romney.
• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, 55th Governor of Louisiana, winning election in 2007 and winning reelection in all of the state’s 64 parishes in 2011; former U.S. Congressman; led the state’s response to the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf in 2010.
• Congressman Connie Mack won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Florida on August 14th and was first elected to the United States House of Representatives in November 2004.
• Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association and chairman of the Republican National Convention Committee on Resolutions, commonly known as the Platform Committee.
• U.S. Senator Rob Portman, U.S. Senator from Ohio who won election in 2010 by 18 points, winning 82 of Ohio’s 88 counties, and former Congressman from Ohio’s 2nd  district.  He is also a former U.S. Trade Representative and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

“This exciting group of headliners includes two successful governors, two outstanding senators, the next senator from our convention state, and a former Co-Chairman of the 2008 Obama campaign,” Priebus said in a released statement. “The perspectives and ideas they bring to the convention stage will show all Americans that Romney and Ryan are the ticket to a better future. Former Congressman Davis especially will give voice to the frustration and disappointment felt among those who supported President Obama in 2008 and are now hungry for a new direction.”

The convention is from August 27-30. Of the above names, Ayotte, Jindal, McDonnell and Portman were among those considered to be potential running mates for Romney. Mack is considered one of the party’s better shots for a takeover of an incumbent Democrat’s Senate seat, taking on Bill Nelson, and Davis is growing in prominence as one of Romney’s surrogates, as an African-American former Democrat. The comparisons of him to Joe Lieberman, who addressed the 2008 Republican convention, are likely to intensify in the coming weeks.

Davis also periodically writes for NRO. In fact, this morning he has a column declaring, “there has always been a measured slickness in how Barack Obama’s political operation has handled race, the third rail in politics.”

An interesting new rule of thumb from Nate Silver:

Senate candidates who have a lead of between 6 and 9 points in the simple polling average, with 30 days to go until the election — about where Mr. Toomey’s lead stands now — are undefeated since 1998.

That is a fantastic way of looking at things for Pat Toomey, as well as for Roy Blunt in Missouri, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Marco Rubio in Florida, and Dan Coats in Indiana.

Oh, and John Boozman in Arkansas, John Hoeven in North Dakota, and incumbents Richard Burr in North Carolina and David Vitter in Louisiana, but . . . come on. Those races have been effectively over for a while.

It’s ominous news for Carly Fiorina in California and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. As for the rest of the big Senate races — Nevada, Washington, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, and West Virginia . . . well, we’ll have to wait and see.

The New Hampshire Senate race is one that made a lot of noise early in the cycle, and has slid back out of the headlines as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, and other states have generated more fireworks.

Republicans have a surplus of good choices here. Early on, there were some conservative worries that frontrunner Kelly Ayotte, a popular state attorney general for five years, might be a bit less socially conservative than some Republican grassroots would prefer; a lack of a voting record in a legislature and fans in Washington are potential points of concern in a year like this. But it’s hard to argue that a Sarah Palin–backed candidate is some sort of closet liberal.

I had a chance to meet Ovide Lamontagne* a few months ago, and it’s easy to make the case that he’s the near-dream candidate for conservatives. “Toomeyesque” comes to mind.

But when you look at the other options, you begin to wish the ballot was a buffet instead of a menu, and you could order a bit from this one and a bit from that one. Bill Binnie’s business experience, Lamontagne’s encyclopedic knowledge of conservative policy ideas, Ayotte’s sterling record as a prosecutor kicking tail on crime and corruption, and Jim Bender’s life story of an inspiring rise from modest means.

The Susan B. Anthony list, a pro-life women’s group, is backing Ayotte, and putting their money where their mouth is: 

Today, the Susan B. Anthony List announced the launch of a $150,000 independent expenditure campaign highlighting the pro-life leadership of Kelly Ayotte, endorsed Republican primary candidate for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire. The SBA List campaign includes $50,000 in radio ads, $50,000 in Google web ads and $50,000 in voter mobilization efforts leading up to the Tuesday, September 14th  primary.

“Kelly Ayotte’s heroic efforts at the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of 37 parental involvement laws on the books across the nation that help protect children from abortion,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said.  “She showed courageous leadership when she stood up for New Hampshire parents and fought to protect young girls from abortion despite facing a hostile environment fueled by a Democratic governor and unfriendly state legislature.”

“Ayotte made a judgment call that potentially saved New Hampshire taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars by complying with a court order to pay the legal fees of Planned Parenthood,” Dannenfelser said referencing a court-ordered settlement to refund the legal fees of Planned Parenthood following a repeal of the parental notification law by the state legislature. “Had Ayotte appealed, it is likely that the higher court would have ruled against her, resulting in taxpayer dollars going to pay even more Planned Parenthood legal fees.”

The primary winner will have a good chance in November, with Democrat Paul Hodes trailing just about everybody, and swimming against a strong anti-Obama tide in the Granite State.

Hodes, who voted for the stimulus, is now running an ad declaring, “I approve this message because you deserve a senator who’s a real fiscal conservative — and who gets rid of the pork.”

* UPDATE: Did I write “Ovide LeMontagne” before? Yes, but that’s what his friends call him.

This new ad from the American Action Network does several things simultaneously: It hits Paul Hodes, the New Hampshire House Democrat likely to be his party’s Senate nominee; it presumes state attorney general Kelly Ayotte will win the GOP primary; it continues the trend of using Robert Davi as the voice-over man of the 2010 election cycle.

Also, it freezes grandma.

I have gotten to the point where when I see good news for a Democrat candidate in the PPP poll, I figure it’s probably just a shift in the partisan divide in their polling sample.

One of my regular correspondents, Number Cruncher, checks in on their latest numbers in New Hampshire:

They blame Palin for the reason why Kelly Ayotte, has lost, four of her seven point lead over Paul Hodes. However, in reading the poll I think a more obvious answer can be deduced once you read the cross-tabs.

First, I checked the “Who did you vote for last time”, I always find this one interesting, because about 6% of people forgot they voted for Obama. This cross-tab is the one I read for my own amusement.

So next we go to Obama personal approvals: While Obama is slipping nationwide, somehow he has made a remarkable turnaround if you trust PPP’s latest poll. In fact his Approve/Disapprove is at a far more respectable 49-47 (+2); in the prior poll it was 47-48 (-1). Could all those polls across the country be wrong? We have a three point turnaround to the positive — hurray the recession is over! I wonder how that would play into Ayotte losing 4 points over April?

Next stops are Party ID and Political Philosophy, both trending more favorably for Democrats and Liberals since the April poll.

PPP Party ID in July: 35% Democrat, 29% Republican, 36% Other (D+6).

PPP Party ID in April: 32% Democrat, 30% Republican, 38% Independent (D+2).

That alone should pretty much tells you why Ayotte lost 4 points. For the record, the exits in 2008 indicated party ID to be Democrat 29%, Republican 27%, and Independent 45%. (D+2).

Next stop: What is your political Philosophy?

In April: 37% Conservative, 20% Liberal, and 43% Moderate

In July: 30% Conservative, 23% Liberal, and 47% Moderate.

So let me get this straight: Liberals have gained 3% and Conservatives lost 7% since April? For the record, the exits in 2008 showed 26% Liberal, 28%, Conservative, and 46% Moderate. In 2004 the exits indicated 30% Conservative, 21% Liberal, and 49% Moderate. Even if PPP argues that their more recent poll is more in line with past elections, it doesn’t change the fact that the reason Ayotte’s polling numbers decreased is that PPP samples 7% less Conservatives and 3% more Liberals. Simply put, its not Palin who caused Ayotte’s polling numbers to go down, rather it’s that PPP sampled more liberals and Democrats this time around than they did in April.

I guess when you’re a partisan pollster you can take a poll and tell whatever story you want. PPP is a Democrat pollster. That being said: I find it interesting that a Democrat pollster is so interested in discrediting Palin from endorsing candidates. If she is truly so polarizing and thus a drain on Republican candidates, why not just keep your mouth shut?

PPP also has a new poll out in California, showing Democrat Jerry Brown leading Republican Meg Whitman in the governor’s race, 46 percent to 40 percent, and Democrat Barbara Boxer leading Republican Carly Fiorina, 49 percent to 40 percent.

Their sample splits 46 percent Democrat, 34 percent Republican, 19 percent independent. The CNN exit poll of the state in 2008 was 42 percent Democrat, 30 percent Republican, 28 percent independent.

An electorate with fewer independents in it would normally be plausible as you change from a presidential election year to a midterm. But more voters are identifying as independents this year, and the economic hard times might mitigate the regular drop-off. It’s not impossible that the California electorate will be more Democratic this year than it was in 2008, but I am skeptical.

UPDATE: A Republican operative well-versed in California politics emails in to contend that there’s a good chance PPP oversampled voters in two groups more likely to favor Democrats in its California poll: Hispanics and African-Americans: “In 2008, Latinos comprised 18 percent of those voting, but 20 percent of those surveyed by PPP were Hispanic. CNN’s exit numbers did show that 10 percent of California voters in 2008 were African-American, but without Barack Obama on the ballot, there’s a good chance that PPP’s 8 percent number could be off, too.”

This individual says that the proportion of Hispanic, and African-American, voters is expected by many California political operatives to be lower than does PPP. I think that interpretation makes sense, but I’m not going to go nuts over a 2 percent shift. I think the party ID is the more troublesome factor in this sample.

The New Hampshire Republican party is filing a complaint with the state attorney general’s office, arguing that Paul Hodes, the Democratic congressman who’s running for Senate in that state, is behind a push poll meddling in the GOP primary. Allegedly, Hodes is hiding the fact that his campaign commissioned the poll, which he is required to disclose under state law.

This is a strikingly unwise decision on Hodes’s part, considering how according to recent polling, he trails everybody.

Okay, in a few polls, he trails Jim Bender and Ovid Lemontagne less than Kelly Ayotte or Bill Binnie. Believe me, Lemontagne will mop the floor against Hodes if he wins the primary. Hodes is stuck at about 40 percent against everybody.

UPDATE: From the state GOP’s complaint:

The Union Leader reports that Mountain West Research of Pocatello, Idaho began conducting push polling phone calls last week. The calls begin with standard questions about the participant’s age voter registration and voter history and their “favorable/unfavorable” reaction to each of the four major Republican US Senate candidates. The person receiving the call is then asked to name their first choice in the primary. If the answer is “Kelly Ayotte” the push begins.

The telemarketer then asks misleading and dishonest questions about Ms. Ayotte that attempt to distort her record and influence the person’s opinion of her candidacy. The specific line of questioning is outlined in the Union Leader article attached to this letter. One person who received a call specifically asked midway through the interview about the poll. Initially, the telemarketer refused to discuss basic information about the call.

After continuing to press the telemarketer to identify the campaign sponsoring the push poll and reveal the name of his polling firm, the person was transferred to a supervisor. The supervisor reluctantly identified Mountain West Research as the polling firm, provided a company phone number, but would not identify the campaign sponsoring the calls, citing a “confidentiality agreement.”

When the Union Leader initially contacted Mountain West Research, a company representative “refused to confirm that Mountain West Research was polling in New Hampshire or identify the sponsor of the push poll.”

A few hours later, a company representative called the Union Leader back and confirmed that they were push polling in New Hampshire and that the calls were conducted on behalf of Anzalone Liszt Research. On its website Anzalone Liszt Research promotes itself as a nationally recognized Democrat polling firm with offices in Washington, DC and Montgomery, Alabama. The company also lists Congressman Paul Hodes as one of its clients.

These calls clearly constitute “push-polling” as defined in RSA 664:2, XVIII. Despite repeated requests, the identifications required by RSA 664:16-a were never made during these push poll calls. I would be pleased to provide you with the names and contact information of people who received these calls, to supply additional information and context. I have personally spoken to these people and verified the information about the push poll calls that has been reported in the Union Leader.