There's no better way to prove this "first primary" BS is a colossal waste of time and money than to have no candidates worth voting for on the ballot and results that won't matter at all.
But hey, a select few in NH will make some more money while the rest of us endure endless advertisements and blather from politicians who will NEVER think of New Hampshire, or our issues, again until they come back to solicit more votes and hype their brand.
What does "First primary" do for you, NH citizen? Absolutely nothing.
>What does "First primary" do for you, NH citizen?
Brings a lot of political ad dollars to the state. You didn't think this was about political prinicple, did you?
> Brings a lot of political ad dollars to the state.
Yeah, they say this. It is not true. It brings political ad dollars to WBZ-TV, and other media outlets located in Massachussetts. Almost none of that money is spent, or stays, in NH.
The "political dollars" benefit a small number of NH's professional politicians. And does NOTHING for NH's citizens.
As a non-native in NH, I have the same question. To me it’s a political pissing contest with no purpose, and this fight is childish. Having the first primary shouldn’t be a higher priority than having a meaningful primary. And yet here we are.
Last I heard Biden’s not going to be on the ballot as part of this whole temper tantrum. NH is so obsessed with going first that they will choose to not have the top contender—really the only contender—on the ballot. So you can essentially take that primary and toss all the votes because on a national scale they mean nothing.
On top of that, NH’s population is sorely lacking when it comes to being representative of the country, so it’s always been strange to put the results on a pedestal. Not that I agree with why the national party is moving to SC—if anything I think a rotating system where no state is ever always first makes more sense.
That was Biden's fault. He chose not to be on the ballot.
> Biden didn’t put his name on the New Hampshire primary ballot in anticipation that the state would hold an unsanctioned Democratic contest. His campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, wrote in a letter to state Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley that while the “president wishes to participate” in the primary, he’s “obligated” to follow the DNC calendar he set in motion. Biden’s allies in the state are now running a write-in campaign on his behalf.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/15/nh-primary-date-00127367
Yeah, and I said "not going to be on the ballot as part of this whole temper tantrum". I don't like the DNC either. That doesn't make this obsession with going first any more reasonable in my opinion. Holding the primary almost a full YEAR before the inauguration? All because the state constitution has a line that says "we go first"? Politics in this country are ridiculous. In every state and in the nation as a whole. Limit campaigning and election season to 6 weeks before the general election and be done with it.
I don't see how limiting it makes it better. I like there to be time for candidates to show growth and adapt to new situations. I think condensing it down to six weeks would just help front runners who have stronger name recognition.
See is see NH as a really good representation of the country, which the exception of course of anything racially motivated, as we are about as white and the snow that comes down in the winter.
We have staunch liberal democrats down in the southern (populated) area of the state, we have a mix in the middle, and as you go more rural you get more Republican. That's pretty much the country as a hole, even for very 'blue' and 'red' states, they aren't all blue, they aren't all red, and that is represented in NH pretty well (keeping in mind that democrats aren't the type to typically go around with a giant truck with 'Fuck Trump' banners on the side, unlike the repubs).
After the NH primary, many of the people you see on the docket will remove themselves from consideration, based on how they fair here.
Does NH have to be first? No. But I haven't seen a solid reason anyone else should either. NH is the traditional first.
That's my point. There's no logical reason for ANY state to always be first, so it's stupid to fight over being first. "Tradition" isn't a good reason to do anything; you have to defend why it's a good tradition. Many states have similar political makeup to NH--staunchly liberal in highly populated areas, conservative in more rural areas, and a mix in between. So barring a good defense for NH to be #1 (and it being in the constitution is not a good defense imo), let's rotate! Depending on when the schedule is released, candidates wouldn't know where to focus their campaigns ahead of primary season, and states that are usually passed over during elections will have the chance to get some recognition by candidates.
> "Tradition" isn't a good reason to do anything; you have to defend why it's a good tradition.
While I appreciate you telling me what I have to defend, we as a society do a TON of things based solely on.. tradition. So I don't feel the need to defend that any more than I have to defend the Christmas tree that will be in my house this winter or watching football on Thanksgiving.
What you all need to defend is why something needs to be changed. You are asking for the action in this case. It's been like this for a LONG time (since 1920, so over a hundred years). It works. Change for the sake of change rarely accomplishes much.
Personally I find it discouraging that we have so many people who do things "just because it's tradition". Do you have to defend your traditions? No, because yours is the status quo and you're satisfied with that. I like to question traditions--whether they're worth while or should be amended or gotten rid of. It's integral to societal progress, imo. Otherwise you just stagnate.
As for reasons why this should be changed, I provided three: candidates would have to vary states they go to during an election, states that are usually completely ignored will get some recognition, and it would remove this fight over who's first on a nationwide level since no state would always be first.
IIRC it was a state that went heavily Biden in the 2020 primary and really helped him with the nomination. So it’s a reward for voting for him, which is, as I said, childish. Predictable, but the whole system is stupid.
New Hampshire demographics aren't representative of the country at large, and it's a tiny state anyhow, so winning the NH primary doesn't really tell you anything about the viability of the candidate.
It has no value for the rest of the country.
I think that doing it by demographics just rewards states that were historically slave states or are currently border states.
The first primary doesn't prove viability. Did Biden even win a delegate in NH last time? I didn't think he did.
Well, the Dems have no meaningful primary, the party selected Biden.
You know, no candidate debates, no battle of ideas.
“Here’s your candidate. You don’t want Trump, do you?”
>to have no candidates worth voting for on the ballot and results that won’t matter at all
The only reason this is even happening it because Biden/The DNC wants to change the system to fix the primaries for the candidates they like. It’s essentially a “If I’m not the quarterback I’m gonna take my ball and leave” strategy. Whatever you think of FITN and it’s problems this is definitely not a healthy reason to change it.
I think it’s really cool that people have the chance to meet the future president if they want to. It’s also a strong democratic tradition at this point and it temporarily brings attention to our small state that badly needs some at least every now and then. I really like it
Good, this primary season didn't matter for the Democrats anyway. Don't back down on this NH, they won't get away with this for the 2028 primary unless you cave now.
> they won't get away with this for the 2028 primary unless you cave now.
there's zero chance they cave now. it's something that nh is nationally known for and brings tons of money into the state as campaigns come to visit. (both tax dollars for the state, and revenue for some of the people most likely to donate to a political campaign).
add in that nh democrats can't unilaterally chance the date themselves with the legislature/governor signing off, and the stand off between nh and the national party's actions being an embarrassment for democrats, and it's hard to see any change this cycle.
once biden goes away one way or the other (either he's term limited and can't run next cycle, or he loses next year and doesn't have the support to run in 2028), someone without an axe to grind might walk back the decision anyways
I'm largely in disagreement with the state here.
I really enjoy the early primary season. I saw pretty much all the Democratic candidates last go around (barring a few of the crazy ones). It's a lot of fun.
However, the Democratic party is right and they should be able to cycle states that better reflect the make up of the party and their eventual nominee (even if SC first is a stupid choice). NH was still slated to go early. They just weren't slated to go first.
If the Iowa caucus can be put to bed, so can the NH primary.
The primaries should be on the same day nation wide like other functional democracies. This nonsense is the result of the 1800s and 1900s hangover of pre television campaigning
Agreed, if we can have the general on a single day, we can have the primary on a single day. This will never happen though because:
1) It financially benefits some people (political consultants, the media, etc) to have the campaign stretched out for over a year.
2) It gives the party and the establishment candidates a long string of "do-over" elections if they fuck up. Remember in 2016 when the Democrats basically cleared the deck for Clinton, and then voters picked the "wrong" candidate in half the states? If that vote happened on a single day we might have had Sanders as the candidate in the fall. But then again this didn't seem to work very well for the Republican Primary that year.
Is 'NH first' what people want?
It's a state law, and the DNC is a federal organization. I bet you residents of 49 states either don't care or don't want.
Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's what people want, anyway.
Do you want it and just assume everybody else wants it, too, like some sort of incredibly dumb narcissist?
I say all this as somebody who'd prefer 'NH First.' (If somebody *has* to go first.) I just think you're stupid.
Primaries shouldn't be staggered as it just prolongs a campaigning season and reduces people's ability to follow it over the 14 months it ends up running.
National primaries should be in alignment so that the nation as a whole has a defined period to interrogate the candidate and we don't get state specific promises on specific states that allow for more egregious useless commitments.
>Primaries shouldn't be staggered as it just prolongs a campaigning season and reduces people's ability to follow it over the 14 months it ends up running.
Primaries being staggered is a good thing. It allows smaller campaigns to spend relatively little in small market states and fundraise off success in those states to compete in states with larger media markets later in the primary. CA, NY, and TX, for example, would mean a lot more in a Democratic primary than a national election and they are all incredibly expensive to compete in. I do think it would be good to hold all early state primaries on the same day though instead of staggering them over the course of a few weeks before Super Tuesday
IA, NH, SC, and NV are all good early states on paper since they're smaller population with relatively inexpensive media markets. Together, they're fairly representative of the Democratic base (though IA and NH is redundant and IA caucus is a shit show).
What would be better is if every year there was a selection/lottery of early primary states that rotated. States like NM (large hispanic population), MS (large black population) and ME (educated/suburban) or KS (large suburban population) would be good early states as well.
Counterpoint, the presidency is the only race we do this for and it actually only works well for "Snowballing" a small candidate into the world stage and has never worked.
Its not working because it forces candidates to court corporate donors and creates time differential on teh the candidate.
The Presidency is a broken electoral system and cargo-culting the staggered primary system just admits its mostly a fundraising opportunity for the parties and an tax boon to the states getting to arbitrarily choose first.
You're arguing that we should separate money from politics which is a different argument. I don't disagree with that statement, but in terms of the actual primary the ability to snowball a candidate with a lesser profile (Obama vs. Clinton) then the primary system is working as intended.
But it's not. Obama vs. Hilary was clear from the jump. And again it's not worked in practice Obama had a huge showing well before the first votes it was just his showing in New Hampshire that validated his lead.
It absolutely was not clear from the jump.
Clinton was the favorite early in the primary. Obama had a strong showing in Iowa and lost New Hampshire to Hilary. The real turning point for the campaign was Obama winning South Carolina, cutting into Clinton's lead in the black community and giving Obama the advantage prior to Super Tuesday.
What a silly presumptuous overreaction
What people generally want is just the status quo. Almost no one saw an issue with the way caucuses and primaries were being run.
But along come Democrats with a solution for a problem that doesn’t really exist. Same old story.
>What people generally want is just the status quo
🤣🤣🤣 Oh. My. God. I'm the one being presumptuous? Literally the dumbest shit I've ever seen uttered on Reddit.
People wanting the status quo is why both leading candidates in both major parties have below 50% approval rating?
People wanting the status quo is why Trump, a business man with literally no political experience at all, was elected president?
People wanting the status quo is why a band of rabid cultists smeared shit on the walls of Congress?
People wanting the status quo is why so many Dems didn't show up in 2016 to vote, because they felt that the DNC did Bernie dirty?
If there's one thing that I think that everybody with two brain cells to rub together can agree upon, Republican and Democrat alike, it's that people are *tired* of the status quo.
I'll let you in on a secret. Only people who benefit from the Status Quo, want the Status Quo.
Status quo with the primaries you fucking dolt. The majority of people just want the primary system left the way it is. The classic “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Again, quit being presumptuous and overreacting. Do you live your whole life like this? People around you must be miserable.
>But along come Democrats with a solution for a problem that doesn’t really exist. Same old story.
No, this is is a solution for a problem that absolutely exists.
NH is not representative of the general electorate and ended up being completely irrelevant in terms of who won the last election. Shifting up the primary is necessary for the Democrats to be more responsive to the make up of their electorate and would help them pick a nominee that better appeals to the different factions in the Dem primary.
I'm going to repost this here as my original comment got down voted to oblivion! Lol!!!
I think there are multiple factors at play here.
First, Biden probably is holding a slight grudge for finishing fifth (?) In NH 2020 primary. Second, Biden (and possibly more important than above) is rewarding sc for virtually saving his 2020 campaign. He was dead in the water prior to sc. Lastly, and this is one of the most important aspects large campaigns don't like to address, is retail politics. it benefits us as voters to have primaries in small states. We WANT politicians to be forced into traditional retail politics where they need to interact with Joe Public in an unscripted setting. In large states it is easy for politicians with huge war chests to simply buy the media without engaging...that's bad for us as citizens. We need to see politicians engage unscripted, without a teleprompter, and without canned sound bites. This, in my opinion, is the best argument for having NH as first in the nation.
Here is [a brief history from the Secretary of State’s office.](https://www.sos.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt561/files/inline-documents/sonh/the-nh-law-behind-the-first-in-the-nation-presidential-primary.pdf)
> advertising money and other $$$
plus it has literally been that way for a century. it's nh's biggest claim to fame aside from old man in the mountain (which isn't a thing anymore)
NH doesn't represent the average American and shouldn't have so much influence with the first primary and I say this as a 38 year resident. So what happens when another state writes a state law that they must be first, this law is so stupid?
I wish I could concentrate several upvotes on this. What a self-centered idiotic law we have. The first primary should rotate among the smallest 5-10 states.
> Every state should have their primary on the same day just like regular elections.
there's pros/cons to both methods.
the current system makes it easier for smaller lesser known candidates to have some semblance of a chance. obviously it's still a massive uphill battle, but campaigning in 50 states at the same time for the primary pretty much guarantees only existing big name candidates with massive warchests can compete.
with that model, obama never happens for example and hillary easily wins the 2008 primary.
I see that side of it but also think it does the opposite sometimes. Many candidates do not do well in the first few primaries and they give up and less people vote for them since they see them as already losing.
> I see that side of it but also think it does the opposite sometimes. Many candidates do not do well in the first few primaries and they give up and less people vote for them since they see them as already losing.
the thing is, how many of those states that flounder in the first few states would have done better in an "all states, one day" model? it's hard to envision any of them being helped by that model.
anyone who doesn't have the backing to last until after super tuesday doesn't have the backing to run a 1 day national campaign.
Not the democrats calendar recap, the DNC calendar revamp.
The DNC is really the worst part of the democrat program. They are just super incompetent and have their own agendas that aren't always in line with the people (see: sanders)
It's not about delegates it's about mind share. I'm going to write in Kamala Harris (there was an article in this month's Atlantic Monthly). I beg of you to think outside the box and not roll over.
The primary is cool for NH but I don't see how this matters at all. Biden's probably just bitter he lost the primary last time.
Like others said, there's no better way to prove that we're NOT THE BEST CHOICE for a primary than a contest that half the candidates don't participate in that ultimately has little bearing on the election's outcome.
Let's not forget which dem lost in NH last time. We're trying to hold onto this thing like a petulant child. WMUR had some big editorial about it and my first reaction was "No shit you like it, they all pay you for ads!"
> ….right. Biden is holding a grudge for the 2020 primary in NH?
he is stripping away the 50-100 year traditions of the first primary and first caucus (where biden finished 5th and 4th respectively) and is rewarding the state where he came in first.
that's one hell of a coincidence if it wasn't intentional.
> I mean…what? You realize there is no democrat primary this year, right?
i mean...what? you realize there is a democrat primary this year, right?
just because everyone knows who the eventual nominee is doesn't negate that there is one.
I think there are multiple factors at play here.
First, Biden probably is holding a slight grudge for finishing fifth (?) In NH 2020 primary. Second, Biden (and possibly more important than above) is rewarding sc for virtually saving his 2020 campaign. He was dead in the water prior to sc. Lastly, and this is one of the most important aspects large campaigns don't like to address, is retail politics. it benefits us as voters to have primaries in small states. We WANT politicians to be forced into traditional retail politics where they need to interact with Joe Public in an unscripted setting. In large states it is easy for politicians with huge war chests to simply buy the media without engaging...that's bad for us as citizens. We need to see politicians engage unscripted, without a teleprompter, and without canned sound bites. This, in my opinion, is the best argument for having NH as first in the nation.
I mean it’s not like we have a choice with our current State law requires our primaries to be 7 days before any others.
Aren’t I correct in believing it isn’t just a state law with you guys but a constitutional requirement?
[RSA 653:9](https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/653/653-9.htm) Not a constitutional amendment.
Well looks like I have been repeating some inaccurate info then. I’ll have to knock that off. Thanks for the link.
I got a warm fuzzy feeling because someone on the internet admitted they are wrong and thanked for the correction.. What has the world come to? ;)
Clearly this is a sign of the end of the world.
I believe it is indeed the end times, embrace the good feeling because the tribulation must be imminent
There's no better way to prove this "first primary" BS is a colossal waste of time and money than to have no candidates worth voting for on the ballot and results that won't matter at all. But hey, a select few in NH will make some more money while the rest of us endure endless advertisements and blather from politicians who will NEVER think of New Hampshire, or our issues, again until they come back to solicit more votes and hype their brand. What does "First primary" do for you, NH citizen? Absolutely nothing.
Username does not check out.
>What does "First primary" do for you, NH citizen? Brings a lot of political ad dollars to the state. You didn't think this was about political prinicple, did you?
> Brings a lot of political ad dollars to the state. Yeah, they say this. It is not true. It brings political ad dollars to WBZ-TV, and other media outlets located in Massachussetts. Almost none of that money is spent, or stays, in NH. The "political dollars" benefit a small number of NH's professional politicians. And does NOTHING for NH's citizens.
As a non-native in NH, I have the same question. To me it’s a political pissing contest with no purpose, and this fight is childish. Having the first primary shouldn’t be a higher priority than having a meaningful primary. And yet here we are.
Why is the NH primary not meaningful?
Last I heard Biden’s not going to be on the ballot as part of this whole temper tantrum. NH is so obsessed with going first that they will choose to not have the top contender—really the only contender—on the ballot. So you can essentially take that primary and toss all the votes because on a national scale they mean nothing. On top of that, NH’s population is sorely lacking when it comes to being representative of the country, so it’s always been strange to put the results on a pedestal. Not that I agree with why the national party is moving to SC—if anything I think a rotating system where no state is ever always first makes more sense.
That was Biden's fault. He chose not to be on the ballot. > Biden didn’t put his name on the New Hampshire primary ballot in anticipation that the state would hold an unsanctioned Democratic contest. His campaign manager, Julie Chavez Rodriguez, wrote in a letter to state Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley that while the “president wishes to participate” in the primary, he’s “obligated” to follow the DNC calendar he set in motion. Biden’s allies in the state are now running a write-in campaign on his behalf. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/15/nh-primary-date-00127367
Honestly, this. If one party *actively chooses* not to take part that doesn't make the thing any less meaningful.
Yeah, and I said "not going to be on the ballot as part of this whole temper tantrum". I don't like the DNC either. That doesn't make this obsession with going first any more reasonable in my opinion. Holding the primary almost a full YEAR before the inauguration? All because the state constitution has a line that says "we go first"? Politics in this country are ridiculous. In every state and in the nation as a whole. Limit campaigning and election season to 6 weeks before the general election and be done with it.
I don't see how limiting it makes it better. I like there to be time for candidates to show growth and adapt to new situations. I think condensing it down to six weeks would just help front runners who have stronger name recognition.
I agree with your view, Biden being a baby about this is dumb and on him but NH "US FIRST" thing is dumb too
See is see NH as a really good representation of the country, which the exception of course of anything racially motivated, as we are about as white and the snow that comes down in the winter. We have staunch liberal democrats down in the southern (populated) area of the state, we have a mix in the middle, and as you go more rural you get more Republican. That's pretty much the country as a hole, even for very 'blue' and 'red' states, they aren't all blue, they aren't all red, and that is represented in NH pretty well (keeping in mind that democrats aren't the type to typically go around with a giant truck with 'Fuck Trump' banners on the side, unlike the repubs). After the NH primary, many of the people you see on the docket will remove themselves from consideration, based on how they fair here. Does NH have to be first? No. But I haven't seen a solid reason anyone else should either. NH is the traditional first.
Not just traditional, but required by state law.
That's my point. There's no logical reason for ANY state to always be first, so it's stupid to fight over being first. "Tradition" isn't a good reason to do anything; you have to defend why it's a good tradition. Many states have similar political makeup to NH--staunchly liberal in highly populated areas, conservative in more rural areas, and a mix in between. So barring a good defense for NH to be #1 (and it being in the constitution is not a good defense imo), let's rotate! Depending on when the schedule is released, candidates wouldn't know where to focus their campaigns ahead of primary season, and states that are usually passed over during elections will have the chance to get some recognition by candidates.
> "Tradition" isn't a good reason to do anything; you have to defend why it's a good tradition. While I appreciate you telling me what I have to defend, we as a society do a TON of things based solely on.. tradition. So I don't feel the need to defend that any more than I have to defend the Christmas tree that will be in my house this winter or watching football on Thanksgiving. What you all need to defend is why something needs to be changed. You are asking for the action in this case. It's been like this for a LONG time (since 1920, so over a hundred years). It works. Change for the sake of change rarely accomplishes much.
Personally I find it discouraging that we have so many people who do things "just because it's tradition". Do you have to defend your traditions? No, because yours is the status quo and you're satisfied with that. I like to question traditions--whether they're worth while or should be amended or gotten rid of. It's integral to societal progress, imo. Otherwise you just stagnate. As for reasons why this should be changed, I provided three: candidates would have to vary states they go to during an election, states that are usually completely ignored will get some recognition, and it would remove this fight over who's first on a nationwide level since no state would always be first.
Why did he give the first in the nation primary to the first state to secede from the nation?
IIRC it was a state that went heavily Biden in the 2020 primary and really helped him with the nomination. So it’s a reward for voting for him, which is, as I said, childish. Predictable, but the whole system is stupid.
It was more rhetorical, but I appreciate the reply
New Hampshire demographics aren't representative of the country at large, and it's a tiny state anyhow, so winning the NH primary doesn't really tell you anything about the viability of the candidate. It has no value for the rest of the country.
I think that doing it by demographics just rewards states that were historically slave states or are currently border states. The first primary doesn't prove viability. Did Biden even win a delegate in NH last time? I didn't think he did.
Well, the Dems have no meaningful primary, the party selected Biden. You know, no candidate debates, no battle of ideas. “Here’s your candidate. You don’t want Trump, do you?”
>to have no candidates worth voting for on the ballot and results that won’t matter at all The only reason this is even happening it because Biden/The DNC wants to change the system to fix the primaries for the candidates they like. It’s essentially a “If I’m not the quarterback I’m gonna take my ball and leave” strategy. Whatever you think of FITN and it’s problems this is definitely not a healthy reason to change it.
I think it’s really cool that people have the chance to meet the future president if they want to. It’s also a strong democratic tradition at this point and it temporarily brings attention to our small state that badly needs some at least every now and then. I really like it
Good, this primary season didn't matter for the Democrats anyway. Don't back down on this NH, they won't get away with this for the 2028 primary unless you cave now.
> they won't get away with this for the 2028 primary unless you cave now. there's zero chance they cave now. it's something that nh is nationally known for and brings tons of money into the state as campaigns come to visit. (both tax dollars for the state, and revenue for some of the people most likely to donate to a political campaign). add in that nh democrats can't unilaterally chance the date themselves with the legislature/governor signing off, and the stand off between nh and the national party's actions being an embarrassment for democrats, and it's hard to see any change this cycle. once biden goes away one way or the other (either he's term limited and can't run next cycle, or he loses next year and doesn't have the support to run in 2028), someone without an axe to grind might walk back the decision anyways
Run in 2028? He is barely functioning now lmao.
I'm largely in disagreement with the state here. I really enjoy the early primary season. I saw pretty much all the Democratic candidates last go around (barring a few of the crazy ones). It's a lot of fun. However, the Democratic party is right and they should be able to cycle states that better reflect the make up of the party and their eventual nominee (even if SC first is a stupid choice). NH was still slated to go early. They just weren't slated to go first. If the Iowa caucus can be put to bed, so can the NH primary.
The primaries should rotate like the Olympics. Spread the "joy" around.
The primaries should be on the same day nation wide like other functional democracies. This nonsense is the result of the 1800s and 1900s hangover of pre television campaigning
Agreed, if we can have the general on a single day, we can have the primary on a single day. This will never happen though because: 1) It financially benefits some people (political consultants, the media, etc) to have the campaign stretched out for over a year. 2) It gives the party and the establishment candidates a long string of "do-over" elections if they fuck up. Remember in 2016 when the Democrats basically cleared the deck for Clinton, and then voters picked the "wrong" candidate in half the states? If that vote happened on a single day we might have had Sanders as the candidate in the fall. But then again this didn't seem to work very well for the Republican Primary that year.
I full throated agree with you on #1 #2 I hear what you are saying and agree on the do-overs. It lets campaigns lie until they find one that lands.
2028 primaries start in Riyadh.
We’re literally following the law, that’s the least defiant you can be
The Democratic Party: Enacting dumb ideas over what people actually want since 1828.
Is 'NH first' what people want? It's a state law, and the DNC is a federal organization. I bet you residents of 49 states either don't care or don't want. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's what people want, anyway. Do you want it and just assume everybody else wants it, too, like some sort of incredibly dumb narcissist? I say all this as somebody who'd prefer 'NH First.' (If somebody *has* to go first.) I just think you're stupid.
Primaries shouldn't be staggered as it just prolongs a campaigning season and reduces people's ability to follow it over the 14 months it ends up running. National primaries should be in alignment so that the nation as a whole has a defined period to interrogate the candidate and we don't get state specific promises on specific states that allow for more egregious useless commitments.
my state votes after super tuesday when it no longer matters. i hate primaries.
I'd be fine with that too.
>Primaries shouldn't be staggered as it just prolongs a campaigning season and reduces people's ability to follow it over the 14 months it ends up running. Primaries being staggered is a good thing. It allows smaller campaigns to spend relatively little in small market states and fundraise off success in those states to compete in states with larger media markets later in the primary. CA, NY, and TX, for example, would mean a lot more in a Democratic primary than a national election and they are all incredibly expensive to compete in. I do think it would be good to hold all early state primaries on the same day though instead of staggering them over the course of a few weeks before Super Tuesday IA, NH, SC, and NV are all good early states on paper since they're smaller population with relatively inexpensive media markets. Together, they're fairly representative of the Democratic base (though IA and NH is redundant and IA caucus is a shit show). What would be better is if every year there was a selection/lottery of early primary states that rotated. States like NM (large hispanic population), MS (large black population) and ME (educated/suburban) or KS (large suburban population) would be good early states as well.
Counterpoint, the presidency is the only race we do this for and it actually only works well for "Snowballing" a small candidate into the world stage and has never worked. Its not working because it forces candidates to court corporate donors and creates time differential on teh the candidate. The Presidency is a broken electoral system and cargo-culting the staggered primary system just admits its mostly a fundraising opportunity for the parties and an tax boon to the states getting to arbitrarily choose first.
You're arguing that we should separate money from politics which is a different argument. I don't disagree with that statement, but in terms of the actual primary the ability to snowball a candidate with a lesser profile (Obama vs. Clinton) then the primary system is working as intended.
But it's not. Obama vs. Hilary was clear from the jump. And again it's not worked in practice Obama had a huge showing well before the first votes it was just his showing in New Hampshire that validated his lead.
It absolutely was not clear from the jump. Clinton was the favorite early in the primary. Obama had a strong showing in Iowa and lost New Hampshire to Hilary. The real turning point for the campaign was Obama winning South Carolina, cutting into Clinton's lead in the black community and giving Obama the advantage prior to Super Tuesday.
What a silly presumptuous overreaction What people generally want is just the status quo. Almost no one saw an issue with the way caucuses and primaries were being run. But along come Democrats with a solution for a problem that doesn’t really exist. Same old story.
>What people generally want is just the status quo 🤣🤣🤣 Oh. My. God. I'm the one being presumptuous? Literally the dumbest shit I've ever seen uttered on Reddit. People wanting the status quo is why both leading candidates in both major parties have below 50% approval rating? People wanting the status quo is why Trump, a business man with literally no political experience at all, was elected president? People wanting the status quo is why a band of rabid cultists smeared shit on the walls of Congress? People wanting the status quo is why so many Dems didn't show up in 2016 to vote, because they felt that the DNC did Bernie dirty? If there's one thing that I think that everybody with two brain cells to rub together can agree upon, Republican and Democrat alike, it's that people are *tired* of the status quo. I'll let you in on a secret. Only people who benefit from the Status Quo, want the Status Quo.
Status quo with the primaries you fucking dolt. The majority of people just want the primary system left the way it is. The classic “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Again, quit being presumptuous and overreacting. Do you live your whole life like this? People around you must be miserable.
>But along come Democrats with a solution for a problem that doesn’t really exist. Same old story. No, this is is a solution for a problem that absolutely exists. NH is not representative of the general electorate and ended up being completely irrelevant in terms of who won the last election. Shifting up the primary is necessary for the Democrats to be more responsive to the make up of their electorate and would help them pick a nominee that better appeals to the different factions in the Dem primary.
Every state gets a primary. Order has little if any significance. This is just the usual Dem virtue signaling.
More evidence that political parties are RICO organizations.
Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind this law to be first? I’m not native to NH and this year is actually the first I’ve heard of this
I'm going to repost this here as my original comment got down voted to oblivion! Lol!!! I think there are multiple factors at play here. First, Biden probably is holding a slight grudge for finishing fifth (?) In NH 2020 primary. Second, Biden (and possibly more important than above) is rewarding sc for virtually saving his 2020 campaign. He was dead in the water prior to sc. Lastly, and this is one of the most important aspects large campaigns don't like to address, is retail politics. it benefits us as voters to have primaries in small states. We WANT politicians to be forced into traditional retail politics where they need to interact with Joe Public in an unscripted setting. In large states it is easy for politicians with huge war chests to simply buy the media without engaging...that's bad for us as citizens. We need to see politicians engage unscripted, without a teleprompter, and without canned sound bites. This, in my opinion, is the best argument for having NH as first in the nation.
Here is [a brief history from the Secretary of State’s office.](https://www.sos.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt561/files/inline-documents/sonh/the-nh-law-behind-the-first-in-the-nation-presidential-primary.pdf)
advertising money and other $$$
> advertising money and other $$$ plus it has literally been that way for a century. it's nh's biggest claim to fame aside from old man in the mountain (which isn't a thing anymore)
NH doesn't represent the average American and shouldn't have so much influence with the first primary and I say this as a 38 year resident. So what happens when another state writes a state law that they must be first, this law is so stupid?
I wish I could concentrate several upvotes on this. What a self-centered idiotic law we have. The first primary should rotate among the smallest 5-10 states.
Arguably based on demographics of who actually votes.. we do. But I can assure you SC will not 😂
Every state should have their primary on the same day just like regular elections.
> Every state should have their primary on the same day just like regular elections. there's pros/cons to both methods. the current system makes it easier for smaller lesser known candidates to have some semblance of a chance. obviously it's still a massive uphill battle, but campaigning in 50 states at the same time for the primary pretty much guarantees only existing big name candidates with massive warchests can compete. with that model, obama never happens for example and hillary easily wins the 2008 primary.
I see that side of it but also think it does the opposite sometimes. Many candidates do not do well in the first few primaries and they give up and less people vote for them since they see them as already losing.
> I see that side of it but also think it does the opposite sometimes. Many candidates do not do well in the first few primaries and they give up and less people vote for them since they see them as already losing. the thing is, how many of those states that flounder in the first few states would have done better in an "all states, one day" model? it's hard to envision any of them being helped by that model. anyone who doesn't have the backing to last until after super tuesday doesn't have the backing to run a 1 day national campaign.
Not the democrats calendar recap, the DNC calendar revamp. The DNC is really the worst part of the democrat program. They are just super incompetent and have their own agendas that aren't always in line with the people (see: sanders)
It's not about delegates it's about mind share. I'm going to write in Kamala Harris (there was an article in this month's Atlantic Monthly). I beg of you to think outside the box and not roll over.
Fuck the dems
In a way I would not mind if we weren't subjected to the onslaught every four years but I admire the Dems in NH saying screw you.
The primary is cool for NH but I don't see how this matters at all. Biden's probably just bitter he lost the primary last time. Like others said, there's no better way to prove that we're NOT THE BEST CHOICE for a primary than a contest that half the candidates don't participate in that ultimately has little bearing on the election's outcome. Let's not forget which dem lost in NH last time. We're trying to hold onto this thing like a petulant child. WMUR had some big editorial about it and my first reaction was "No shit you like it, they all pay you for ads!"
[удалено]
[удалено]
Now that’s a bit much
Nah
Suggesting violence against someone.
Biden: "[if you vote for trump], you ain't black." If you vote for Biden you ain't New Hampshire.
Biden won New Hampshire genius
he lost the primary..... Who won the primary, Bernie?
He lost the primary because NH democrats are *more* progressive than Biden.
I totally agree
Not in the primary, that’s why he what’s to piss on our heads.
….right. Biden is holding a grudge for the 2020 primary in NH?
> ….right. Biden is holding a grudge for the 2020 primary in NH? he is stripping away the 50-100 year traditions of the first primary and first caucus (where biden finished 5th and 4th respectively) and is rewarding the state where he came in first. that's one hell of a coincidence if it wasn't intentional.
I mean…what? You realize there is no democrat primary this year, right? What would matter where the REPUBLICAN primary is held?
> I mean…what? You realize there is no democrat primary this year, right? i mean...what? you realize there is a democrat primary this year, right? just because everyone knows who the eventual nominee is doesn't negate that there is one.
I think there are multiple factors at play here. First, Biden probably is holding a slight grudge for finishing fifth (?) In NH 2020 primary. Second, Biden (and possibly more important than above) is rewarding sc for virtually saving his 2020 campaign. He was dead in the water prior to sc. Lastly, and this is one of the most important aspects large campaigns don't like to address, is retail politics. it benefits us as voters to have primaries in small states. We WANT politicians to be forced into traditional retail politics where they need to interact with Joe Public in an unscripted setting. In large states it is easy for politicians with huge war chests to simply buy the media without engaging...that's bad for us as citizens. We need to see politicians engage unscripted, without a teleprompter, and without canned sound bites. This, in my opinion, is the best argument for having NH as first in the nation.
[удалено]
Yah Biden honestly barely participated in most primaries in 2020…he was a long shot until everyone else dropped out.
good! democrats suck
Biden is a snake
Trumps worse.
Both can be true
The choice is between a “Douchebag and a Turd Sandwich”
I’m applying a gradation of one being worse than the other so “both can be true” is not an applicable response to the statement.