In Defense of the early New Hampshire Primary

[Tab]

There has always been some grumbling about the New Hampshire "first in the nation" primary, but this year the grumbling has been louder than usual. States like Florida have realized that a lot of attention (and money) is lavished on New Hampshire, and New Hampshire seems to take on an inordinate importance given how small a state it is, and how unrepresentative of America its monochromatic population is.

This year we saw the spectacle of various states trying to leapfrog over others to be first, and because of New Hampshire law, requiring New Hampshire to be first among primaries, this threatened to force the primary possibly as early as November or December and, at worse, over the holidays. Fortunately that didn't happen, but it shows the intensity of the competition. The grumbling often takes the form of asking why New Hampshire should pick the candidates, because more often than not a poor showing in New Hampshire may mean death (or severe damage) to a campaign.

I wish I could find it now (it's probably on my other computer) but I had once done an analysis comparing New Hampshire to other states. Regardless, New Hampshire has a number of things going for it that actually make it a smart place to hold the first primary.

Keep in mind that not all candidates enter the race with a lot of funding. Not all campaigns are finely honed. This is where New Hampshire helps.

New Hampshire is small - a population of about 1.25 million - but also physically small. If you are an introductory candidate - a bit of an unknown - with little funding - you have the opportunity to campaign successfully in New Hampshire. You can drive within southern New Hampshire, where a good chunk of the population is, hopping from the capitol in Concord to Nashua, Manchester, Portsmouth, Salem, and so forth, with at most a 45 minute drive or so. Even if you wanted to spend time up near the Canadian border, you could still drive there in less than a day.

An unknown candidate can make the rounds of most of New Hampshire using only their car - and thus not a lot of money. Such a thing would be impossible in Florida or other larger states - to be effective in a limited time period, you'd need to be flying, most likely in a chartered plane, and that takes money. In New Hampshire, though, even if you restricted yourself to southern New Hampshire to start, you could put in a number of appearances in most major population centers in the same day.

Second, there are a handful of major papers in New Hampshire - the fairly balanced Concord Monitor, and the ultra-conservative Union Leader, and smaller papers scattered throughout. You do not have to pay high rates to place ads as you would have to in major metropolitan newspapers or argue for column inches. Most of the papers are willing to do articles on any credible candidate and the article won't get lost on page E47 or whatever. Little known candidates can get exposure.

Likewise, on radio. New Hampshire, although it is near Boston, is not considered part of the major Boston metropolitan area. New Hampshire has its own radio stations, and you don't have to pay major metropolitan area prices to get ads on it. NHPR (the local NPR station) makes a point to interview any credible candidate that wants exposure, on a one-hour show called "The Exchange". Let an unknown try to get an hour interview, with call-ins, on a major station in Florida or whatever. It's not easy.

New Hampshire basically has an enclosed media system - not under the shadow of a major metropolitan area like, say, Delaware would have. It's easier in New Hampshire to measure results, and to get exposure.

So, New Hampshire shouldn't be criticized so much for being a small state with influence, but for providing an excellent opportunity for lesser-known candidates. They can come, drive around, not spend millions in the process, meet a lot of people, and try to get their message across. If they make an impact, then New Hampshire has given them a boost that might have been impossible in a much larger state. If a number of larger states went first, the race would be only for the well-funded, because by the time the New Hampshire primary rolled around it'd be too late for a lesser-known candidate to get established.

Think of New Hampshire as an incubator. If everyone's well funded, it might not be as important, but it's critical for democracy because it lets everyone have a chance. If I decided to run for President, I could drive around the state, paying only for gas and some hotels, and meet as many people as I wanted, and get interviewed on the radio and profiled in the paper. If I tried that in Florida, it'd be as if I didn't exist. New Hampshire isn't irrelevant because it's small, it's relevant precisely because its size affords anyone the chance to be known and have a chance at President, not just those with large bank accounts.

If you think of it that way, there's a lot of benefit to starting off in New Hampshire. It opens the playing field to all candidates. It is for that reason that it is important.

[Bluerthanblue]

1. thank you-

for this unpopular yet well written perspective.


:hi:

[Honeycombe8]

2. I understand why, and agree with it....for some years. But I think it's unfair...

and not representative for the country to have the same states ALWAYS be the first states. The caucus thing in IA is especially helpful. These people actually "stand" publicly for someone that they have personally met, and they discuss among each other. Some people don't like the 15% rule, but I agree with it. It is helpful that IA is centrally located, too. I don't agree with the N.H. being so early all the time.

Still....there are other small states, population-wise and geographically. New Jersey is small. Delaware is small. Wyoming has a low population. And others.

I think it should be a rotating schedule among small states in different parts of the country.

The momentum gained by the first five states, now that they are all pushed up in time, will be so great that those first five states will be choosing the nominee for the entire country.

[K Gardner]

3. Oh hell, just send 'em down here to one of the deeply Southern states..

we'll chew those candidates up and spit 'em back out for ya ! If they can last down here, then you got yourself a candidate.

Seriously tho, thank you for this well-written post. I understand the machinations. But just look at the number of
threads up here, polls up here, MSM pundits, major print journalists... already calling the "death" of campaigns based on ONE state and an almost vote from one other. Look at our wonderful candidates who have already had to drop out ! It is not right. It is not working. It must be fixed and it must be fixed soon. Rhode Island is a small state also.. I love it and spent a year there.. but it's no more an indicator of the way the south would vote as is New Hampshire. Small is good, but not better. The US is 50 distinctly different states. The only way, the absolutely ONLY way to even this playing field and actually let the people decide fairly is to publically fund elections again. Oh, and abolish the electoral college while we're at it ! And get rid of those damned Diebold Machines !

That's all I know..:-) And to you and all the other voters in NH, I sincerely thank you for your thoughtfulness in this process.

[Honeycombe8]

6. Can't argue with most of your points. nt

[NewHampster]

4. Yes and thanks

One error though. Southern NH gets our news from Boston. All 3 networks. We watch our own Channel 9 WMUR every 4 years like the rest of the country.

[robbedvoter]

5. It's still a small state getting to decide for all. I say same date primaries

so our votes can be equal.