Hextall2727 t1_isoce96 wrote
I enjoy it, if only because it forces the candidates to actually come to NH. I have gone to several candidates' forums, and a party's state convention to see a bunch speak, something that absolutely wouldn't happen if NH wasn't first.
I know there are cynics (including me I guess) that could argue about candidates just spewing talking points. But one of the things I was watching for was if they took questions, how they answered. Did they actually answer the question, or did they blow more smoke. To me that is a subtle sign about their leadership skills and thought processes.
If it went away... I'd be bummed but I would likely have no affect on my day to day life.
3rd_ferguson t1_isoqw6s wrote
Agree. It's a big benefit to NH citizens that we can get into the same rooms as many of these candidates. And yes, you certainly can tell a lot about them just by being in the same room. How they answer questions, how they treat the people who surround them, are they heavily scripted or do they truly know their subject - all of those things are apparent. What we see on TV is so edited and superficial, it really doesn't let you know much in comparison to live events. No media outlet can afford to broadcast a 60 or 90 minute visit from every candidate.
Darwins_Dog t1_isosctu wrote
I find it weird that people in NH put so much stock into meeting the candidates. The majority of US voters don't have this opportunity, yet they still have to decide who to vote for. If one-on-one time is that important, we should have the first primary in NY or CA that way more people get to be in the same room and see a speech in person.
Especially with the internet, every speech and rally is recorded and available to watch for free. There's less need to visit every district and no need at all to rely on TV for information about candidates.
Kv603 t1_isox8ng wrote
> If one-on-one time is that important, we should have the first primary in NY or CA that way more people get to be in the same room and see a speech in person.
That'd give a larger total count of people, but a smaller percentage of the voters eligible to vote in that state's primary getting "one-on-one time"
> I find it weird that people in NH put so much stock into meeting the candidates. The majority of US voters don't have this opportunity, yet they still have to decide who to vote for.
A room can only hold so many, and a candidate can only shake a certain number of hands per hour -- volume doesn't add up to more people "meeting" the candidate.
Darwins_Dog t1_isp4pv0 wrote
My point is that meeting the candidate is ultimately meaningless. <1% of voters live in NH most of them will not even meet a candidate. A vanishingly small percentage of national voters ever get the opportunity. It's at best a neat story.
If meeting a candidate is important (which I contend it is not), it shouldn't be reserved for just NH. More people should have the opportunity (regardless of proportion) because it's important. If proportion of the state is the key, why not Wyoming first?
I haven't seen any evidence of any special insights from retail politics. Seems like we're about 50/50 choosing the actual nominees.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments