Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Boo Hoo, New Hampshire! Sucks to Be You.
It’s just hilarious to hear the weeping and teeth-gnashing from NH about the DNC changing their primary order. The NH delegate to the DNC rules committee went on and on about how NH was known for “retail politics,” where the candidates had to deal with voters face to face. It was important to really be able to see what the candidates are made of.
Hogwash! The reason NH has clung to its first-in-the-nation status is because those folks luuuuuve the fact that every four years the candidates have to hike up there in the snow, genuflect, kneel down, and lick the boots of the guy that owns Harry’s Deli, the woman who owns Sally’s Bakery, etc., etc. What an ego trip! And they might get on national news asking some candidate a really tough question. National news!!!
And while we’re at it – Iowa Caucuses. They are basically a test of which candidate has supporters who are the most bull-headed and have the largest bladders. Those folks can outlast the other candidates’ supporters at the local high school gym where they meet and be the last to go home, thereby winning that precinct’s caucus for their guy. So….nothing to do with who the voters of Iowa might actually prefer.
I think the primary calendars should rotate each cycle. Give every region a chance to be first.
Published in General
OK. I’m a NH partisan, grew up here and in NYC, came back for the 2nd half of my professional life. But NH agreed to go first way back when it wasn’t advantageous to the state. Now everyone wants in on the action. We are still the First GOP primary so….
NH actually is a good retail politics state. The reality is that it’s a small-ish state by population and geography. Therefore, un-known candidates have a chance to make an impression. If CA went first it would only allow pre-funded candidates to have a chance. NH is also the only purple state in the blue northeast. The current early stage trifecta: Iowa, NH, SC are all similar-sized states in three different regions of the country. I think Arizona is trying to secure the West Coast slot. Sure there are defects in each state’s approach, but they are well-known, and addressable by everyone. The defects of a big-money state going first are likewise known, but are not addressable by upstarts.
It is in the interest of the Establishment to have continuity. The powers that be would prefer that large, big-money states determined primaries. It makes it easier to keep insurgents out. Early primaries from small states up-end that and provide more opportunity for stirring the pot.
Good point. It is interesting to note that in the last couple of Presidential primaries the DNC threatened to punish NH Democrats by cutting their numbers at the Convention and always backed down. This is one matter on which NH Republicans and Democrats are in near-complete agreement. I can see no scenario under which the NH politicians agree to change the law.
It’s our version of political mutually-assured destruction. The only way a state can circumvent this is to use a caucus.
Good comments from @nocaesar. I am guessing @max (or @albertarthur) might have thoughts on this too, if he’s still around.
For New Hampshire’s “New Hampshire Goes First” law to really be credible and valid, wouldn’t every other state need a “New Hampshire Goes First” law as well?
The Iowa Dems could hold their caucus on the 4th of July 2023 or, to be more woke, Junteenth.
A little known fact: Mayor Pete’s supporters have superior bladder control.
I don’t follow. Each state sets the date and means of selecting their Presidential electors. As Gary noted, NH law is auto-updating.
Yes, but, supposedly if there was some kind of agreement that New Hampshire would go first – which seems to be at least the implication from comment 31, for example – shouldn’t that be reflected in EVERY state’s laws, not just New Hampshire’s?
And that’s what switching to South Carolina is all about. Leading off with states where he doesn’t have to do retail politics, where some upstart could get the momentum.
I am all for small state politics, especially because it allows poorly-funded candidates to shine through.
Nevertheless, NH is deeply influenced by Massachusetts, and I agree we should rotate through other states/regions as starters.
And also states with very strong union/political machine election control like Nevada.
No. You’re mixing up the National party committees and state laws. State governments set the dates and means of selecting their Presidential electors. The DNC and RNC are private entities and have their own rules about accepting each state committees’ representatives to select their nominees. So it’s apples and oranges, but still a fruit bowl.
For some reason the DNC has long disliked NH going first and keeps threatening the NH Democrats with diminished representation (probably because of NH’s long-held enmity to unions and high % of military veterans). NH politicians of all parties love the quadrennial spotlight our smallish state gets (non-political residents, less so). Both state parties got each others back on this one topic. And the national GOP sees the value of the first stop NH primary, so is happy with the status quo.
Oh, it sounded like someone said that NH has a LAW that it will always go first. If it’s just a party thing, that’s different.
ABEND ERROR INFINITE RECURSION STACK OVERFLOW
NH does have a law. The state government has passed a bill (I think back in the 1990s) permanently setting the date of its Presidential Primary based upon certain external triggers. This is strongly supported by both NH Republicans and NH Democrats. The state parties support each other on this, there is no difference in position amongst them on this matter. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the law will ever be changed. That is separate from whether a national party committee accepts the delegates from that state in selecting that party’s candidate.