Darwins_Dog t1_isoqqvz wrote
Reply to comment by Undaedalus in How do you Granite Staters feel about having the first primary in the nation in your state every 4 years? by BoringAccountName78
That would be true no matter which state was first, and seems to reinforce the idea that NH is a throwaway primary for the serious candidates. Small enough that the lost delegates don't matter and early so it weeds out the nonviable candidates. If that's what people want here, I'm fine with that.
Kv603 t1_isowojd wrote
> That would be true no matter which state was first, and seems to reinforce the idea that NH is a throwaway primary for the serious candidates.
Doing it in a small state with a high ratio of "Undeclared" voters makes a difference -- a candidate without a ton of funding can still have a chance here, and the voters (those who care to do so) can literally meet every candidate in person given the number of events and our small size and small population.
Darwins_Dog t1_isp1aav wrote
I guess I don't see how that's relevant. The rest of the country doesn't really care if people in NH met candidates or not and NH voters don't have any special insights into politics (as much as they may claim otherwise). I can't recall an underfunded candidate that did well in NH and went on to win the nomination. Bernie hung on for a while and managed to shift the conversation of the (ultimately unsuccessful) democratic campaign, but that's the most I can think of.
Undaedalus t1_isor8ll wrote
Every candidate thinks they are a "serious candidate". Obviously, a lot of them are wrong. But in their heads, they are all certain they are going to win this thing. The first primaries are their first reality check.
Darwins_Dog t1_isosxke wrote
Are you arguing that NH should continue to be first or go later? I've seen that statement used both ways; some like that NH is the weed out state, some want their vote to matter more.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments