Ambivalent with an apathetic lean.

[deleted]

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.

Without FITN, New Hampshire would get no attention at all from presidential candidates.

Every primary I voted in the candidate drops out from the race shortly after which renders my vote useless. I'd rather actually have a primary vote that matters and vote when the candidates remaining have some staying power.

I thought the results were binding in NH. It used to be the case the the parties picked candidates, but that changed after the 1968 riots at the DNC.

[deleted]

From a campaign strategy viewpoint it makes no sense. NH is too different in too many ways to be a reliable gauge of national voting trends. It might make sense as part of a group of states to hold primaries at the same time, but not by itself. I can totally see why both parties want to go somewhere else first.

I understand the argument that candidates wouldn't come to NH if we weren't first, but that applies to most places in the country (including two of our neighbors). I understand that VT and MA tried to organize a single primary day for all of new england to combat that problem, but NH wouldn't participate. With the internet we can see every speech a candidate makes so the need for a personal visit is diminished. Again, that's something that most voters don't have or need to make a decision.

Others will say that it makes NH an important trial and they point to successful campaigns that did badly in NH and then recovered later. To me that says NH isn't important and candidates know that. They can safely bomb this state and still win the nomination in the rest of the country.

I don't really care that much, I just don't follow the logic that NH has to be first.

It’s basically just a flex at this point. Total media circus the day of and the days leading up to. Being first is cool and all but it means nothing

The purpose of campaigns in NH from a strategy point is not to "win NH". That's not actually important. What is important is to "not lose NH". The person who comes in first in NH doesn't always go on to be the nominee, but the person who comes in last in NH almost never does.

The candidates who come in last and pull single digit numbers will be seen as having forgettable, disorganized campaigns and will have staff leave and donations dry up. Having an early primary prunes a lot of unviable candidates and keeps them from splitting the vote down the line.

Literally nobody in the RNC establishment "chose" their last nominee. Most of the establishment was supporting Jeb Bush. They were all against Trump until he started winning. Primaries do, in fact, matter.

Whole idea of having staggered primaries where candidates get “momentum” is ridiculous. Do all the primaries at once so people vote based on policy preferences and not jumping on a bandwagon.

We don't represent the diversity that other parts of the country has but it's good for business.

We help cull the herd of potential candidates that would do better starting somewhere else first.

Having the first primary, I wouldn't say it's fair for the rest of the country but it will help you get re-elected here.

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.

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.

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.

I see what you mean, but in that regard they never mattered (i.e. nothing changed in 2020). Parties could always pressure candidates to drop out of the race before it was decided.

In 2020 there was a lot of pressure for the Dems to pick a candidate early to beat Trump. It was a strategic decision to solidify the base and give the impression of party unity. The bickering between Hilary and Bernie camps in 2016 was thought to be a major reason Trump won so they wanted to avoid that.

All the NH primary does is tell the nation who a bunch of old white people think should be president

It's not pleasant being a political fishbowl, and it's blatantly unjust to the rest of the country.

That said, there are benefits to that kind of small stage, and if we wanted to preserve the town halls and other small scale stuff, I'd say to rotate it throughout the country to give everyone the pluses and minuses of the whole thing.

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.

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.

In the age of internet, 100 million dollar campaigns, private jets and 24 hour news makes the primary system much different. I question the need for a small state to go first. The small guy like Jimmy Carter isn’t going to win anymore.

The money to the state is nice.

I think the country should do a lottery for all 50 positions.

I wish we had a caucus system

> 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.

> 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.

That’s fine by me.

It's silly. The only reason it exists is for the two state parties and the media to make a lot of money. That's why it takes like 8 months to go through all the primaries, so each state gets a chance for consultants and dark money groups to blow up their tvs/radios/social media/etc with advertisements everyone hates.

It does not matter what size a state is, but whether a state is not partisan like such states as NY, MA, and TX, FL. NH is a great state for having an honest showing of who people are voting for without any political leanings.

Not to mention, having NH have the first election allows campaigners and staff be in close proximity to wealthy donors and wealthy states.

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.

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.

The problem with a primary election in the first place is that it is entirely a matter of picking which candidate you think can motivate more of your base to go to the polls to vote for them, meaning it is literally a contest of who can build the biggest bandwagon, and there is no better way to measure that than to let the candidates all attempt to build bandwagons.

Approval voting would solve the problem; and it would also threaten the party duopoly, so it will never be allowed to happen on any nontrivial scale even though it is trivial to implement.

Agree with every point. Being a true purple state is an advantage in elections like 2024 where both parties will be executing.

Don't care.

A lot of people here don't seem to like it, but growing up here was great for my civic development. My parents would take us to the local rallies no matter who the candidate was just so we'd have that experience and pay attention to how politics work. Made a huge impact on my life and career path.

The smallness is the point! If you’ve raised a million dollars you can get your opportunity to speak in NH. If you’ve only got a million dollars in say North Carolina, you might get to talk to the people of Raleigh and Durham.

Elections should maybe, at some level, consider what candidates are actually available and interested, not just single out those who are already being financed by billionaires.

It's black letter RSA. (shrug) It's an expectation.

Good

Just thinking how cynical I'm probably making kids for thinking they all suck and their ads suck worse.

I generally don't watch or follow the news but around the primaries I can't help myself, I look at the predictions and check who won... sometimes I get sucked into the election politics cycle for months which makes me a bitter and unhappy person. I'm much better off not knowing what's going on outside my world. I might be better off if NH wasn't an important primary state and it wasn't interesting to watch. But it is interesting.

I'd imagine that for political buffs it would be kind of fun to have every four years.

How often do the most famous people in the world come to small towns?

But I think I'm just opposed to the primary process as it currently stands, so it's hard to support NH being first.

Fucking hate it.