Submitted by GraniteGeekNH t3_zay0vj in newhampshire
New Hampshire redditors, do you have any opinion about the possibility that NH may no longer be the first presidential primary state? (Biden and the DNC want to make South Carolina first, then NH and Nevada together, then Georgia then Michigan. They would ditch caucuses like the one in Iowa.)
If you have lived here during at least one such primary, would you miss the attention? Be glad it was gone? Couldn't care less either way?
I kind of hate it. It sucks to see the candidate you vote for give up 6 months later. I feel like everybody should go on the same day or, better yet, just totally get rid of primaries.
It would probably bankrupt WMUR without all that primary ad revenue.
Nope
I would very much oppose losing it.
No
Changing it up is a good thing.
We complain about always getting the same type of people elected, but we don't want to change the way we elect people. Maybe we can get more than just the same old same old by shuffling Iowa and New Hampshire somewhere else.
Literally couldn't care any less as long as we still get to vote lol
No. I imagine most voters don't care either.
All the local politicians and all the folks (e.g. media) who make money off the primary are going to be apoplectic but I don't most people give a shit. We're already second place after Iowa, what does it matter if South Carolina votes the week before us anyway?
Id like to know what effect the DNC thinks this will have. It seems like such a mundane thing to quarrel over. Simply the date of an election. But if it didnt have some sort of perceived impact on a larger scale, why does it matter if New Hampshire as a state goes a week earlier than any other state?
Though it might be fun to watch states keep moving their election dates forward to keep getting in front of the others.
Yes, it would be a huge economic blow to the state. Hotels, restaurant, local tv stations, local radio stations, local colleges, all would lose a massive economic driver.
Moreover, NH is one of the most educated electorates in the country and far less machine-controlled than a state like SC.
Yes.
No, and I don't think the economic impact of the traveling circus of media that comes through every 4 years is particularly strong. But now I want to google it.
It was cool when I was a teenager in the 80s. I think I met everyone who ran for president from 1984 to 1992 (I guess by extension I met most of the people who had run in 1980), or damn near.
But big picture, it's silly for NH to have the first primary, and ridiculous that such importance has been attached to the first primary. The second part we can't do much about, but we can fix the first.
We all lose no matter what
Yeah, I’d care.
I prefer it to go. In the 4 presidential primaries I have voted in my chosen candidate has never made it past super Tuesday. I'd actually like it if my primary options were the candidates that have already made it through the first waves of people dropping out
To put a practical spin on it, how much would the state lose in restaurant tax revenue from losing this circus?
I'm not in the restaurant/bar industry, but how much revenue, wages, and tips would those folks lose?
That's my primary concern with losing it. I hate politics and politicians, but bringing the circus to town does have some benefit.
I would miss it! I love seeing and hearing all the candidates!
Your latter comment is a good point.
If the SC is first, Clyburn and his party infrastructure can heavily influence the vote there. There is no equivalent in NH (thankfully), which the DNC does not like.
Edit:
The DNC gets to package SC being first as being for equity, while they get to covertly exert influence on the first primary. I would be less distrusting if they picked another state, such as Georgia.
Additionally, the primary calendar just looks like Biden's political infrastructure (wonder why he's pushing for Michigan, ehh?). If Biden has a contested nomination, he'd love to have the calendar in his favor
I don't mind the attention, I think it's kind of fun. But it makes no sense to have the first primary here. NH is not representative of the U.S. population on so many levels the bellwether thing seems to be no longer. Like an income tax, though, it's political suicide to suggest that changing things might be an improvement.
This is exactly how I feel about it.
Having the first primary provides income to the state. Hotels and restaurants as well as state taxes benefit from campaigns going through the state. I think it would be a great loss for our state.
This. Unfortunately, many voters want to be on the winning side more than they want to vote for the best candidates. If it’s all on the same day, there is no “influence”.
Do now; its bananas that old confused so and so is going to try to give the primary to the first state to try and secede from the union. Fuck that.
I don't mind, with all the money in politics now. NH used to help give more moderate candidates, of either party, a bump. Nowadays the money overrides the moderating force of the NH primary.
I mean shit, you literally have the opposing party now spending more to get their preferred challenger out of a primary than said challenger could even raise on their own.
The donor class will give us who we are going to get to choose from, and the timing of primaries is now all about appeasing donors in an effort to get them to give/bundle more or to create their own PAC to get in a bidding contest over when their preferred state can be on the primary calendar.
Maybe moving out of the primary spotlight will allow a few more New Hampshirites remember we are neighbors, friends, and family first and partisan operatives promoting a political gang affiliation second.
I wish for this too. But the argument against is that candidates will not be able to campaign in nearly as many places. By spreading the primaries out, candidates can shift their focus over time.
Makes sense. I do feel bad for anyone voting after Super Tuesday. Likely they are voting for someone who is their second or third choice.
Counterpoint: Candidates go where there are tight races. They are not using the extra time to speak to every American in all areas, they are going to Florida for the 25th time because that may help them win.
True. I guess that is the difference between theory and practice. I posted what was intended to happen. Your counterpoint is what actually happens.
Nope
No
Its got our Senators and Reps up in arms. Maybe they should worry and be more vocal about other things.
My opinion is irrelevant. Its NH RSA.
No it would be great
and why not? The DNC just shat on them.
The less the rest of the United States knows about us the better. Leave us the fuck alone.
Aw, you really got me with this. I must now go and rethink my wicked ways of working for decent education, decent affordable healthcare and housing. Guess my days of wanting New Hampshire's children fed and protected are over, now that you've shown me the error of my ways with your statement. No more working for veterans rights, human rights, higher wages, and keeping Medicare and Social Security viable for our seniors.
Fuck you, right back, friend.
This is the most New Hampshire thing I've ever seen in this sub. Take my upvote.
We only want marijuana. 😂
And reasonably priced housing.
[removed]
Can we do away with the two party system yet? Having to choose between a shit sandwich and a shit salad every election cycle is getting really old.
The state gets a shit ton of money from all the political tourism so yes, I would care. Outside of the economics of it? It does mean we get national attention and support for issues like we did with the opioid epidemic. (Not that's its over) so yes. I like that too.
The primary helps the economy, so there’s real impact.
Some highlights from a 2000 primary study:
Media and visitor spending: $71 million Hotel/Restaurant sales: $43 million Transportation/Commuting-related: $33 million
Just like a Republican to want to control everybody. Republicans don't get to decide when the DNC holds their primaries. But it cool you want to try.
If you don't like it don't vote for Dems. Easy peasy
Could care less, but think I would be better off changing
Right. How many posts here complaining about political ads and political mail. Everyday there was a new post about it. Don't complain when people give you what you ask for.
That's real money. And that's from 2020?? Plus the millions wmur gets in ads!
I love the Dixville Notch tradition. It's like a sweet, quirky, and endearing scene from Newhart.
All that WMUR ad revenue….poof. All the quacks and goofballs with no frickin chance of being president…gone. All the mailers and phone calls for 4 months before the primary…no more!
The idea the government decideds when each states party vote happens just enforces the two party systems. Why not the GOP and DNC hold their own damn elections?
It was really great to meet all those candidates in 2020, up close and personal. Because I was involved with my local political committee, I got to meet campaign staff of most of the candidates. Some very smart and hard working young people. I learned so much about the issues and proposals of the candidates.
But honestly, NH is not the state where candidates should be focusing so much time, money, and energy. It is not representative of the US. It's tiny, incredibly white, and mostly older. A great place, but it's not Illinois, or California, or New York, or Colorado. We don't have major cities, extensive farmland, large minority and ethnic populations. I'd miss the star power of the First in the Nation for presidential primaries, but NH doesn't really deserve the power over influencing the election the way it does.
No.
Yes, its huge for small business
As long as the first state rotates, I'm happy. It would be pretty weird and dumb to remove one entrenched first state just to pick another. But if SC goes first this time, then another next time, maybe rotating through all of the smallish states, that's great.
Thank you my friend.
What effect would this have?
Fewer ads hopefully
Exactly. Louder for everyone who doesn’t understand that
Completely. The less anybody knows of NH the better for us.
I hope we don’t lose it. It’s a nice New Hampshire thing.
No I mean functionally. Would this change something about how our elections work?
Throw darts blindfolded at a changing map each year to decide.
When I heard that Biden proposed changing this order; I assumed it was influenced in part by him performing poorly here and James Clyburne co-signing him to where everything turned around. Feels like he's paying back that favor.
Obviously biased as a NH resident, but I like it, so would be sad to see it go. I always found it to be so exciting and interesting.
The idea of NH is actually great in my opinion. It's as far from big money as possible if this was being brought to most other states. No major amount of land to cover and no major media markets, both of those things make it cheaper and more possible to start here. It's made more for the underdogs. Imagine if it was brought to a state with more major media markets, a bigger size and generally more expensive to run a campaign? $ would be a bigger barrier to entry than it already is. At least you can start here a little more minimal and see if you have what it takes to get any traction. Imagine if you started in states where it was much more expensive to run and maybe you had the ideas and could gain momentum, but couldn't overcome the financial barrier? You would have more rich people running and celebs or people with super large name ID. You wouldn't necessarily get better candidates.
The states one claim to fame, no!!!!!!!!
No. "We've been doing it for a century " isn't a good reason to KEEP doing anything. EVER
New Hampshire is NOT representative of the entire country and has no reason to be "first"
I like having it but wouldn’t care too much if we lost it. Personally I think if they decide to change it I think it should be a random draw for which state goes first each primary.
They do but the state of NH made a law saying it would hold said primaries first, the democrats could refuse to show up if they wished but we would still hold our primaries first thus effectively they would not be a part of it.
What difference does it make?
NH due to its remote access and low amount of voting power - traditionally needs to go first. If not - we would not see the qty of different candidates in either party. However because of the voting momentum theory - where winning candidates have increased odds of additional wins- any candidate who wins early here strategically improves their chance at the next state and so on. If small states go after big ones the party is expected to settle for the first “big” state’s winners
No, but I will miss those close interactions. And the economy will miss that sugar rush of money. But, hey, the parties are private entities. Let them live free, mind their own business.
I'd love it if those cunts didn't set my town on (political) fire every few years. Good riddance.
We don’t deserve it.
When I was in first grade we all put our heads down on the desk when taking a vote up or down with our thumbs so that we wouldn't be influenced by others.
So, since first grade I've always maintained that all states should vote at the same time. It's the only fair way. We have candidates dropping out before the primaries are even done.
Can you imagine if a primary was being established for the first time today? Hey, let's make it an unfair hodge podge where this state goes first and the others pop up all on different days. Everybody would scream.
The general election is held on one day, so too can the primaries.
Fairness is easy once we get past the folks who want unfairness.
Not one bit
I mean, those like 9 people voting and posting it first is sorta adorable.
Otherwise nah.
The dnc would be better off doing it elsewhere.
The average net worth of candidates would probably increase due to how expensive it is to campaign in larger states. That’s the only thing I can think of
No. No one on either side feels like our current system is working particularly well. Continuing to do the same things only because “we’ve always done it” is insufficient in the face of chronic failure and disappointment. Let’s shake it up and maybe at least some will like the results rather than abject misery all around
Absolutely not. Hate it!
racist much?
Lmao what? I'm white if it wasn't obvious. A mostly white state doesn't represent America as a whole.
Also reverse racism isn't a thing
Just watch the NH Dems try to explain away this being bad for NH economy… Biden and the DNC once again trying to cheat, while fucking over NH, and the lemmings will cheerfully support… it’s too much
There is too much money to be made advertising in each state when they stagger the primaries, and it gives the DNC/RNC a chance to meddle when things are not going their way.
I worked front desk at a hotel in the Manchester area years ago. It would sell the hotel out every night the entire time. I met some really nice people that run tv stations, and some real assholes from all walks of the campaign trail that stop in NH during primary season. It will be nice to keep the asshole people out of the state.
Lived here all 55sh years and have seen every president since Reagan and I could care less .
The amount of useless energy and torment from people knocking door to door non stop, to pollsters calling every hour non fucking stop ;)
No. Would be for the best.
What? No nationwide primetime interviews with Cirus Earflaphat at The Red Arrow about the border crisis and the property taxes going up and how there used to be fewer beer brands at the store until them flatlanders moved north and ruined it all?
I’m good with a state less demonstrably unsuited to national politics having a go.
I would never go there anymore and not spend any more money there.
Is that what they’re afraid of?
No. Less political ads being crammed at us
Would not care
I'd care if NH was being pushed super far down the list but under the DNC/Biden plan we'd only be second by three days and b/c of the history and midnight voting we'd still get a lot of attention.
Iowa always went before us anyway and nobody cared because of the superficial caucus vs. primary difference. This really doesn't change much.
I just hope our elected officials don't waste their time fighting this when there's real work to be done. It's a good deal, change the law if you have to, but don't spend the next 15 months making things harder on the rest of the country just because the Iowa caucus got swapped for the SC primary.
I’m kind of ambivalent on this subject, but I’d suggest several people commenting here check out the NHPR podcast “Stranglehold” to better understand the importance of thế NH primary.
Why would that change?
This would not at all change lol
It wouldn’t.
I agree 100% with this and the amount of downvotes is pretty characteristic of this sub when you dare criticize the DNC. This will have a huge impact on our state economy. The fact they don’t care about that is sad.
Yeah fk our local economy, right?
I never understand why people bother doing that? It’s annoying and chances are your not changing anyones mind on how or if they’re going to vote by annoying them like that.
Even if you don't change people's mind it can provide useful data to the campaigns
Yes - it's very good.
Don’t care. Actually more interested when an actual Presidential candidate takes the time to go out of their way and visit a small state with less electoral votes (like us).
Edit: words
Me, too. Primary eve, especially if there is no incumbent, is one of my favorite nights in downtown Manchester. I would be so sad if we no longer had that unique NH tradition.
No. In the scheme of things who cares.
It’s to make sure bernie or a Bernie esque candidate can’t win. Making SC, then GA or MI first means Clintonites and their acolytes can run up big totals and momentums before the Bernie bros can even cast ballots.
It’s not meant to enhance diversity, it’s meant to shut it down. This is how you sink outsider campaigns before they even start.
Also it wouldnt surprise me if Biden is doing this literally to avoid getting primaried
I worked for the Obama campaign in NH in 2012. If you lived in Dover/Somersworth/Rollinsford during that period, you probably have me to blame for sending the democratic volunteers who knocked on your door that year.
We knocked on doors early on mainly to collect data. We used fairly sophisticated software that created lists using the responses to in person and over the telephone canvassing questions and combining that with party registration, past voting behavior, and demographic data. The two main lists were possible persuadable voters, and democratic leaning unreliable voters.
Up to about two months before election day, we spent some time on the persuadable voters, going to homes to try to see if we could talk them into voting blue.
After roughly E Day minus 60, all efforts were turned toward people we expected would vote democratic if they voted, but who couldn’t be counted on to always vote. A voter was deemed unreliable if they had failed to vote in a previous election, particularly if it was the last general election, the primary, or the most recent midterm. The goal was to do everything (legally) possible to make sure they planned to actually get the the polls on election day. If they needed a ride, we would get them one. If they needed childcare, we would arrange it. We wanted there to be no chance that they might forget and no excuse for why they could not go.
The tactics were aggressive and annoying to residents, but they delivered undeniable results. No campaign since has really matched the Obama operation’s level of organization and thoroughness.
I know it means the loss of substantial income to the state, I believe the less time with political blow hards the better both sides, especially those more interested exclusion and hate.
No, not at all! Electoral college decides who wins anyway.
True, however we saw the “rules” flex in the Democratic Debates, where Tulsi was tossed from future debates after curb-stomping Kamala over indefinite imprisonment for the financial gain of CalCorrections. Tulsi “didn’t qualify” while others were invited to the stage, polling worse or not polling at all.
“Legal” as Sanders v DNC held the primary process is the entire product of the Democratic Party, which the respective States and the FEC have no actual role in determining “fairness” or equal access.
The role of the States and the FEC comes in the general election, where the DNC can insist that rules of a State violate the fairness of BI-partisan elections. That the States have a legitimate role in repressing 3rd party and independent candidates, as “they are confusing voters” and not consistent with a history of BI partisanship.
Therefore, Primaries are mere Kabuki Theater. Nothing is as it appears, all the actors, including actresses, are men. The plot is known, the outcome assured.
Much as they did in 2015, the DNC can meet, decide to advance a single candidate (Hillary) or a small pool of candidates representing various factions within the Party: Beto, Kamala, Joe, Amy, Pete. One falters? Add another, maybe Deval Patrick will have the Obama touch. Not really declared? Put him on the ballot in NH as a A/B test.
That’s why “First in the Nation” is meaningless, unless you’re a paid political consultant, or you profit from the deeper pockets of a national political establishment, buying TV spots at 4X typical rates. If you’re WMUR? The First in the Nation, is a crucial, indispensable asset. One year of political ads, fluffs the budget for the next three.
SC would “benefit” from the attention of the entire slate. Three days later, some might implode on launch (Beto) or in the first Primary (Kamala) sparing NH from a few ad buys done in SC.
I don't think NH should have the first primary, but that doesn't mean South Carolina should get it. There are plenty of states with diverse populations who are far more invested in the success of Democrats than there. It's an extremely conservative state, part of the Bible belt and has been voting for GOP presidents since 1980. Jimmy Carter was the last candidate to win there. It's hardly the Democratic vision of the future. Ugh.
We should take all 50 states plus DC and list them in descending order by percentage of voters registered as Dems. Give them a rank 1-51. So that would make DC first. Then do the same kind of ranking but by total number of voters who actually voted D in the last presidential election. So maybe California is #1 there.
You take an average of the two. Not a weighted average, just an average. This would help small states with hefty D % (DC, Vermont) maintain leverage against big states with large populations (CA, TX, FL). Based on whoever comes out in the top 3 of those rankings, those states all vote first, on the same day. The top 5 candidates then proceed onto a subsequent round of the next 22 states who all vote on the same day, then the top 3 candidates of that batch finish up with the last 25 states who all vote on the same day. All rounds are ranked choice voting.
Why should the Dems cater to states where people can't be bothered to vote for Dems or Dems can't win elections? Doing it this way would encourage people who tend to lean Dem but register as unaffiliated or independent voters to change their party registration, balance the needs of small D states, prevent a single state from driving the early outcome, and reflect population changes.
I understand that NH being first is a huge problem for other voters, but the people of South Carolina don't speak for me either. We're just trading one problem for another.
Data = $ Nationbuilder is the program referenced, which coupled with a few applications (Polis, Northstar) takes political demographics and translates it into a walking interface for voter contact. No data? No app, no list, no value.
Not one bit. I wouldn't even open an article about it. I'd be interested in the comments section though.
Yes, it generates a significant amount of money for businesses in the state.
The state will lose 9% of the revenue from all the restaurants and hotels in Concord that get busy for primary season. Hardly a drop in the bucket. I think you'll find the only people who care about that money happen to own resteraunts and hotels in concord. Their prosperous tears will fall on deaf ears.
Unsuited how? What state would do better? I don't think its important but your critique makes it seem like you just hate NH. You can find the types of people you're describing in all 50 states.
Don’t care. The proposed change seems reasonable and might better predict the strongest candidates.
The state would turn into Mass in 5 seconds without the fuckton of dark money pouring in to keep it red.
How does it generate money for local businesses?
"Reverse" racism is still just racism.
Well, what are you waiting for?
Are you kidding? Without the FITN primary, Dennis Kucinich would never have gotten to make quacky duck noises when he met my daughter, age 3! Priceless!
seriously, we survived the loss of the Old Man of the Mountain and we’ll emerge from this, stronger because more reality-based and less schtick-based.
Nope, it would be nice to not have so many political ads pounding the voters over head.
When various candidates visit the state, they bring staff, handlers etc. that all need a place to stay, food, fuel, entertainment etc while they are here. You also have all the press that follows them around, they spend money while here. You also have significant amounts of advertising dollars that are spent with various media outlets in the state.
If your business relies heavily on something that happens 1x q 4 years, might want to examine that model.
Politicians might care but not me.
Money spent on junk mail flyers and attack ads...I won't miss it a bit
New Hampshire is one of the handful of states where Democrats actually get more votes. but Republicans control the state through gerrymandering. That statewide races other than the governor go to Democrats. But the state is gerrymandered enough so that even with fewer votes still control the state House and Senate.
I appreciate the volunteering and have volunteered at call centers and the polling centers myself trying to verify addresses so I’m also to blame . It is annoying now but also the electorate is Changing so much and we can’t rely on land lines . Many of us are digital nomads so those of us who aren’t get all the love :(
Nope. I like the way it is more representative of all the people in this country, not just white old men.
For that matter, is spending equally high in every election year? There's a big difference in noise and media attention between an election year like 2000 or 2016 and an election year like 1984 or 2004. I assume that's reflected in the amount of spending (if nothing else, you simply have fewer big-pocketed candidates in the mix when a popular incumbent is running).
I'm definitely not an expert. Maybe it really does have a huge impact. But listing a few figures from a major primary season doesn't make that case.
Thought is was legistated NH was first in the nation?
[removed]
All your harassment is doing is proving you’re the problem.
Mods please ban this user they’re following me around from community to community harassing me.
[removed]
We subsidize these industries by receiving constant unsolicited advertising: our streets are littered with posters, our phones called 15 hours per day, text messages beyond, and emails galore.
But if I suggest that other industries should get the same benefit - supermarket chains, let's say - we should support our supermarket chains by taking a few extra calls per day, maybe 10 or 15 texts and 20 emails daily, and a few extra signs on the side of the road - nah, that's as equally unpopular.
I just wish someone could explain why it's different to me.
It's time to let it go. We can either want what feels best for NH or what we know to be best for the entire nation.
The first few states should be demographically representative of the country as a whole. Iowa & NH do not meet that standard.
Before you accuse me of being new to NH ... I was born here in the 1960s and I've lived here my entire life.
No, I prefer to keep NH a secret. Less attention the better.
Not one bit.
It is. However, other states are not obligated to respect our declarations, as they are not federal law: hence the jockeying for position every single presidential primary season.
Yes. Fuck our local economy, if it means that NH doesn't get to be the first primary in the nation. Is that how NH is supposed to make money? Because democracy doesn't count, just lining our pockets. Sounds kind of shallow and self-serving.
as I understand it, if Biden's plan goes through we might hold an earlier primary but it wouldn't count for delegates to the nominating convention.
Not at all.
no
But we’ll just move the date up, unless something gets passed legally where we can’t
No strong feelings about it one way or the other. But I have a few comments:
Would not mind - at all...
> Call me a cynic...
No need, you're a realist. Biden is doing it because SC was very helpful with his campaign. It's an award/kickback, basically just mild corruption. Other justifications are additions after the fact to make it look better.
This is a NH state law. All it takes is one other state to make the same law and boom we have infinite primaries starting tomorrow!
Being a lifetime resident of NH (read that as very long time) I would hate to see it go but honestly, I suspect many of us who have been through the process multiple times could use a break from the circus coming to town every four years. If anything, the level of vitriol brought to it by Trump in 2016 soured me on the process. Not that we didn't have a lot of back stabbing and attack ads before him; but Donald took it to a whole new dimension with he's scorched earth campaigning.
As for Biden, frankly he skipped us right from the beginning in 2020. Did he even make it to any of the debates? If he did his impact was so marginal it hardly made a ripple on my senses. Meanwhile I saw lots of activity by other candidates (I was out myself working for Bernie).
Joe goes for South Carolina because it is his lucky charm. Yet Barack Obama did very well in NH in 2008 just getting edged by Hillary Clinton (maybe due to that last minute true confession at a diner that showed her 'human side'?).
At the risk of being called a northern redneck liberal (if such a thing exists) I do not believe the Democrats will get the diversity of candidates they hope for out of South Carolina. If you look at the voting results for SC in the general election for President the last Democrat to carry the state was Carter. Since then the state has fallen into the Republican basket every time.
My thoughts - move it to Georgia. At least we know Democrats seem to be doing better there these days!
MartoufCarter t1_iyo78qp wrote
If it would reduce the amount of campaigning I am all for it. It is one of the few things about NH that sucks, campaign season. It lasts forever and there is so much damn junk mail.