I am against the change. Background, I live and grew up in NH, lived in SC, and is currently a registered democrat.

NH has the racial diversity of a black pepper cracker, at 92.8% white I can understand that. Using that same statistic, the US is 75.8% and SC is 68.6%. Closer, but skews in the opposite direction.

Both states skew older than the US as a whole, with the US at 16.8%, followed by SC at 18.6% and NH at 19.3%. In fact, many people that go between the two regions note that NH/MA have a similar dynamic as SC/NC.

What I think you will find is people who oppose this are going to have two arguments, one local and the other national.

First (local), NH is an extremely purple state. There is no dominant party in the state. Elections are typically closer here than the nation. This change could be used by the GOP to flip NH. NH Democrats have to resist because if not, this alone could cost them reelection. The GOP will use this to demonize the DNC in NH (already started), and they will be successful if NH dems are not careful.

Second (national): many democrats in New Hampshire want the early primary states to be purple, competitive, with a populace that has strong voter engagement and has demonstrated that they can pick good candidates. With a 64.5% turnout for the 2020 elections in SC, many do not feel that they are a good early primary. It appears that a dominantly red state, with a disengaged populace is being seen as a better early slot. The last time a Democrat won the general in SC was Carter is 1972. Over the same period NH has selected the winning candidate in the general election all but two time (Kerry over Bush, and Clinton over Trump).