Is New Hampshire Rugged and Individualist?

Not so much.  The Atlantic:

But here's a surprise: The "Live Free or Die" State, having lost much of its manufacturing base, seems to be thriving mostly on a steady diet of government spending and public jobs. For one, government employment in New Hampshire is up 14% since 2000, compared to 6% for the country as a whole.
What's more, real personal income growth in New Hampshire over the past decade has been driven almost entirely by government spending. Here's how it breaks down: From 2000 to 2010, real personal income in the state rose by $4.6 billion, in 2005 dollars. Out of that, $3 billion, or 66%, came from the growth of government transfer payments such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Another $1.4 trillion, or 31%, came from increased wages and benefits to government employees (numbers are rounded and in 2005 dollars).
In other words, 97% of real personal income growth in New Hampshire from 2000 to 2010 came from government transfer payments and government jobs. Part of the problem is that New Hampshire has historically been a manufacturing-intensive state. As late as 2000, 22% of employee compensation in New Hampshire was generated by manufacturing. That put it in nearly the same league as Michigan(26%) and Ohio (24%), and far above the national average of 16%.
As a result, the 35% decline in manufacturing employment since 2000 has competely transformed the economic landscape of New Hampshire.

That must be why New Hampshire voted for Obama in 2008.  Only rugged independent states like South Carolina and Kansas and Mississippi can manage to vote Republican.  Blah blah blah.