New Hampshire’s First in the Nation Primary Is Good for Everyone
Image is in the public domain.
The Democratic National Committee extended its deadline for the State of New Hampshire to change the state law which requires the Granite State to hold its presidential primaries before any other state. The DNC has scheduled the South Carolina first, followed by Nevada and New Hampshire three days later. President Biden has suggested that he may not enter the New Hampshire Primary or the Iowa Caucuses – which would be similarly cold-shouldered – if New Hampshire refused to change a law that is near universally popular here1 . This is bad for everyone, including their own voters, and not just those in New Hampshire.
It stems from two ideas: that New Hampshire is not diverse and that New Hampshire is too small.
Both statements are ludicrous. The former comes from the mistaken notion that diversity is some percentage of white people and African Americans. Manchester, the state’s largest city, has been a refugee resettlement area for nearly thirty years. There are Bosnian, South Sudanese, Bhutanese-Nepali and Somali communities there. There are at least 75 languages spoken in the Manchester School District. This, combined with Latino immigration by way of northern Massachusetts, is part of the changing complexion of the state. Is New Hampshire majority white? Yes, but it is not a lily-white as many would assume.
Racial – rather than, say, ideological – balance is an odd motivator for moving a primary, but then again this is anno domini 2023 so I suppose I should just accept that odd is the de facto order of the day.
New Hampshire’s relatively small size is a feature, not a bug.
Photo by Billy Hathorn. From Wikimedia Commons.
You can land at the airport in Manchester, rent a car and within an hour be at the seacoast or in the mountains. The difference is not merely geographical. The seacoast and the city of Portsmouth tend to lean more to the left compared to the northern, more rural parts of the state. There’s a reason why Tulsi Gabbard moved to Goffstown, which borders Manchester, during her last presidential run: An energetic campaign can meet with urban, suburban and rural voters before lunchtime. This compactness gives a distinct advantage to well-run campaigns, which are not necessarily those flush with cash.
New Hampshire’s size relative to other states is also an important factor when it comes to presidential campaigning. It’s small enough that a second-tier campaign on a shoe-string budget can operate and hope to overperform expectations enough to open the fund raising spigot. It’s also unimportant enough come convention time that a front runner can come in second, retool, and still win out in the end. See, for example, one William Jefferson Clinton.
New Hampshire’s real advantages are much more about the people themselves. Having had the first in the nation primary as long as we have has taught important lessons that a population new to the peculiarities of being first don’t have time, such as the absolute insistence on being paid by campaigns in advance lest they try to cut and run.
But it’s more about the influence New Hampshire politics has had on folks around here.
New Hampshire has the 34th largest legislature in the world2. Every legislature above it on the list is that of a country. It is the fourth largest legislative body in North America and serves a mere 1.4 million citizens, give or take. If there’s a legislature with a lower ratio of citizens to representatives, I’d like to see it3.
There are so many of them, we expect to run into our elected officials at the bank or grocery store. As such, New Hampshire is a telling test of a candidate’s skill at retail politics. Heck, we sent a guy named Dick Swett to congress.
All of this is to say that New Hampshire’s place in the primary process is balanced correctly as it is. Unimportant when it comes to the final delegate tally, but an ideal testing ground – one that is both fair to the little guy and a forgiving-enough environment that a slip up here is not fatal – for a campaign looking to make a serious run.
And that, in my opinion, is how it should stay.
- This is not going to happen. Governor Chris Sununu, never one to mince words, has called the DNC’s calendar changes “an absolute joke.”
- There are 400 seats in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, twenty-four in the Senate. In the Executive Branch in addition to the governor there is a five-seat Executive Council which can be an additional check on the power of a governor.
- If my math is correct – and that’s a big if – the ratio of citizens to seats in the NH House is approximately 3500:1. If this ratio were to be applied to the US House the chamber would need somewhere in the neighborhood of 95,000 seats.
How many of those refugees are legally allowed to vote in the primary? What percentage of the state’s population do they make up?
These are important questions to answer if as you allege NH is indeed becoming more racially diverse.Report
New Hampshire is 89 white, non-hispanic, 92% English as primary language, 6% foreign born, 2% black, 5% Hispanic, 20% over 65 and the 2nd oldest population in the country, and on and on. With its New England neighbors, it is easily one of the least diverse states in the country, and its population looks absolutely nothing like the Democratic Party’s voters nationwide. Calling this bare, factual observation “ludicrous” shows a complete lack of seriousness on the OP’s part, and suggests no need to read further (which I confess I didn’t).Report
After the cluster fish of the last caucus Iowa justly deserves to go last and, frankly, no Democratic candidate anywhere should waste another dime there. New Hampshire is, at least, a primary and hasn’t fished up recently so I feel some very minor sympathy for the argument. The best compromise is for NH to continue to go first but to not get delegates at the Democratic convention and for candidates to decide whether or not to compete there. If NH is truly as great as the OP says then it’ll organically draw enough support and interest to merit attention- if not, it’ll just be a quirky state.Report
I kinda like the idea of having the first caucus/primary be due to “lottery” (and if you win, you get put into the “cannot win for X years” jar). Some years, Missouri will have the first primary. Some years, Georgia will. Other years, it’ll be Oregon.
That sounds like *FUN*.Report
State and local election officials, especially those that are mostly vote by mail, will hate you unless the lottery is run years in advance. Lots of statutory requirements tied to specific numbers of days in advance of the election. Possibly additional contract details to be negotiated with service providers (printing, folding, envelope filling, post office sweeps, etc).Report
They can make a big deal of it in the off-year even-number-years. Put 40 of the states in those little Bingo balls. Have someone turn it the crank and watch the little ball roll down the ramp.
B-13!!!! Who is #13 this year? Everyone turns to the big board.
“South Dakota!”
(audible groans)Report
I understand the idea that the first primaries/caucuses should be in small states where small campaigns can operate with small budgets, so they can get to be known. In theory, it makes a lot of sense.
In practice, small states are mostly rural, and are therefore very different from the places real Americans (as opposed to REAL AMERICANS (TM)) live. As a country, we are majoritarily urban, and our cities are very diverse culturally, socially, economically, (and racially ,but I do agree we need to try to start moving away from race). Cities and metropolitan areas is were most of the US economical activity is taking place. The vast majority of Americans are not farmers, they are employees, in companies big and small. Our retail politics should be focused on them.
Manchester is NH’s largest city, and it’s barely above 100,000 people. That’s smaller than some neighborhoods in Houston, where I live Yes, NH might have mountains and sea, but Portsmouth is not a port like Long Beach, or Houston, or Miami, or New York/New Jersey. There is barely any port activity except some yachts in summer, and probably some commercial fishing (though it’s not mentioned anywhere I was able to find). There is not much economic activity in NH at all.
If you want a small state that looks like America, I think Nevada is your best bet. Nevada has twice the GDP of New Hampshire (165 bn vs 83 bn) with similar (albeit a bit lower) GDP per capita. It has a big city, it’s socially and racially diverse, and it’s small enough that you can reach most of it’s population for retail campaigning. If retail campaigning in a place looks like America is what you are looking for, Nevada is waiting for youReport
Myself, I have no problem with Nevada. Playing devil’s advocate, Nevada is one of only six majority-minority states. It is the second least-rural state in the country, measured by population percentage and the 2020 CB definition of rural. It’s a vote by mail state. It’s in the West, which presents a number of potential problems: travel time for candidates based on the East Coast; Trump hates the West (as President, he visited several foreign countries before he set foot west of the Mississippi River); the locals will demand that the candidates talk about fire, water, and other climate change topics.Report
thank you for your comments.
On the majority-minority issue, that’s true, nut the USA is slightly less than 60% non-hispanic white, so we are not very far from being a majority-minority country. Therefore, NV is closer to the average than most states.
Travel from the East Coast should not be a factor, unless somehow the East Coast is more important, and candidates must come from there. NV is very close to two of the largest states by population (CA and TX). And we are talking about a change that it’s supposed to last decades, so Trumps opinion about the West should be immaterial.
Lastly, talking about water and climate change seems to me a very important thing for candidates to talk about. Significantly more important for the vast majority of Americans than maple or pigs raising.
Again, I am suggesting a state small enough to be reachable to small, budget limited, campaigns, which was Bryan’s most valid point in the OP, but that looks closer to what most Americans look like, not just racially, but economically, in lifestyle, in the work they do, and in the things that affect them the most.
No state would be absolutely Goldilocks right, but a very good case can be made for NevadaReport
The best argument I can think of for New Hampshire going early is that it doesn’t cost much money, but does take smarts and know-how, to get your message out to the voters. A candidate that has received lower poll numbers and lower fundraising can show up and literally canvass their way to notability.
But a look back on the Democratic side reveals that candidates that did well this way tended to be from New England or relatively nearby: Edmund Muskie, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Bernie Sanders. That makes me think you kind of have to be familiar with New England culture specifically to get to talk to these voters in a way that not only gets their attention but also their votes. Dukakis went on to get the nomination, but none of the others did (although Sanders did make a big splash).
New Hampshire Republicans seem to have a history of mostly picking the ultimate winners — in my adult lifetime the only times non-nominees won NH were ’96 (Pat Buchanan) and ’00 (John McCain). Runners-up are sometimes interesting, but NH does not seem like a place a scrappy, smart, but initially underfunded Republican can get the ear of the electorate and make a camapign-sparking splash.
So I’m not sure that the “NH makes a success by retail politics possible” theory is borne out by actual experience in the mass media age.Report