Submitted by JonDiPietro t3_119z6s1 in newhampshire
TL;DR
The Republican primary wasn't moved, it's still the first in the nation. And since both the governor and the legislature are both Republican right now, the Democratic primary will be on the same day, whether they like it or not.
Yup!! They don't want to show up for our primary then they get no votes. They can show up when they want but no one is going to be working the polling stations.
I'm really curious what's going to happen on the Dem side. Is Biden going to win even though he doesn't campaign here? Or does some upstart win because he was the only one to bother showing up?
Democrats kicked us to the curb, GOP's first primary is still set for New Hampshire.
Assuming Biden is running , the DNC primary is a nothingburger.
NH law requires it to be scheduled before anyone else (for both parties). That hasn't changed.
The DNC has voted to endorse a different calendar. The DNC is a private entity and cannot control state law or when NH schedules its primary. But the political parties are private entities and they can set the rules for how they nominate people (e.g., the libertarian party does not have a primary, the DNC has its famous "superdelegates"). What the DNC has said is essentially "if NH goes first, we won't count NH votes in the nomination. Any candidate that campaigns in NH will be punished".
The Republican primary hasn't changed. It still still be first and it will still be counted.
NH will still have to schedule its primary first (by law that is very unlikely to be changed). Then those votes will essentially be ignored for the Democratic party nomination. Probably won't matter, since Biden is presumptively the nominee.
In 2028, when Biden will presumably not be running, and there is thus less need for South Carolina to go first and less fear of a progressive challenger getting early momentum by winning NH, that might change. Or, by 2028, control of the NH legislature might be in the hands of people who don't want the first in the nation primary and they change the law.
>Why are we talking about this?
Because the hyper -partisan peanut gallery needs something so all it's head spinning and projectile pea soup looks like it has a valid purpose.
I'm talking about it because, as I wrote, it's bad for the state. It has nothing to do with partisanship. I'm a Republican and 95% of them disagree with me on this.
I would disagree that the debate is non -partisan. The fact that "95%" of your party disagrees with you when there are clearly valid arguments to be made, proves other wise. Neither party can have a honest debate about it. It'a all about sticking it to the other side and non-productive partisan talking points.
You are confused about the differences and separation between the federal and state government. Under the current system, the status of our state legislature does not have much of an impact on the selection of national candidates outside of a process completely unrelated to the presidential primary: the gerrymandering of our congressional districts.
Your first two sections make no sense. Even if the NH primary was later in the cycle (and therefore worth much less), candidates would still approach powerbrokers in this state just like they do everywhere else to try to secure more votes. Even losing candidates want more primary votes because it helps their career if they can post a reasonable showing.
Your section on "debunking the advantages" makes no sense from the perspective of someone in New Hampshire. Of course we want unfair advantages for our state. I want as many unfair advantages as we can get, especially if they come at the expense of people from out of state.
Why would we not want advantages in our state? The political clout does matter a lot because it potentially translates into promises of more federal money than we would otherwise probably get because of the wildly outsized leverage that it grants to our politicians.
Who was the last democrat to win the NH primary and actually win the Presidency? (Not counting incumbents) Was it Carter? I will miss meeting the candidates in person but things change and NH is not entitled to FITN forever. Trump won the primary in 2016 but lost the state to Clinton who had lost the primary to Bernie.
The article amounts to the author's opinion and hand waving.
Could it be written to let the democrats let themselves down, now that they've volunteered to make themselves irrelevant in the national elections?
Did a Democrat write this?
No
“iT’s RaCiSt!”
That's not one of the reasons
IntelligentMeal40 t1_j9ouomk wrote
Why are we talking about this? Wasn’t this already decided it’s not here anymore?