New Hampshire's 1st District was a Democratic pickup in 2006: Carol Shea-Porter beat Jeb Bradley 52/48, despite being outspent and despite Bradley's apparent lead. The general consensus for that race is that the conventional wisdom (anger over the Iraq War) was actually correct in this case: Shea-Porter is notoriously against the war, and has consistently been in favor of troop timetables.
Bradley, however, has decided to go for a rematch - and at the moment, he's ahead in the polls. According to the current poll from the University of NH, Bradley leads Shea-Porter 46/40 (compared to 45/39 in April ), while the other GOP challenger John Stephen trails Shea-Porter 42/36 (43/35 in April). The interesting numbers here are the favorable/unfavorables: Shea-Porter has a favorable rating of 35%, a Neutral rating of 9%, an Unfavorable Rating of 32%, and a Don't Know rating of 24% (F 39%, N 12%, UF 28%, and DK 21% in April), while Bradley's is F 48%, N 8%, UF 27%, DK 17% (F 43%, N 19%, UF 23%, N 16% in April); and Stephen's is F 19%, N 8%, UF 11%, DK 62% (F 19%, N 13%, UF 9%, DK 59% in April). This is good news for Bradley, both in the primary and the general.
It should be noted, of course, that Shea-Porter came from behind to win this seat in the first place. It should also be noted that her favorable rating has never been above 43%, is currently almost at a historical low point, and her unfavorable rating is at a historical high point. For that matter, if her election really was a referendum on the Iraqi war this recent Rasmussen poll indicating that a majority of the population now thinks that we're winning it may be an alarming sign for her campaign. Which would, of course, be an absolute shame.
Jeb Bradley's donations page may be found here, and John Stephen's can be found here. Shea-Porter is, of course, free to try to get her own side to contribute to her re-election campaign. No doubt they have her on their lists.