'We're going first whether they like it or not,' NH Governor Sununu on retaining first-in-the nation

[brooklynite]

Source: Boston Globe

New Hampshire Governor Chris T. Sununu isn’t prepared to relinquish his state’s status as the first in the nation to hold the presidential primary without plenty of pushback.

“We’re going first whether they like it or not,” Sununu said Tuesday during a forum hosted by the Institute of Politics at Harvard University.

The Democratic National Committee voted in February to give South Carolina the party’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary for the 2024 cycle, a move that New Hampshire’s Democratic leaders say is punitive and could make it more difficult to expand voting rights in the Granite State.

At the forum, Sununu said he responded to the vote with a letter to the DNC that was “cordial but firm and snarky with a little bit of New England sarcasm thrown in there” saying the DNC was “crazy” and to go “pound sand.”

Read more: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/03/22/metro/were-going-first-whether-they-like-it-or-not-nh-governor-sununu-retaining-first-in-the-nation-presidential-primary-2024/

---

Didn't see that coming....

Actually I did, and I spoke to Jaime Harrison about it. Not consequential in 2024, but for the next open Primary, either 1) NH will go first, 2) the Democratic Party will have to hold its own Primary/Caucus at a later date, or 3) we'll have to screw over Democratic voters in a Battleground State.

[sanatanadharma]

1. The biggest problem with the United States of America has always been ...

The biggest problem with the United States of America has always been the States.

Here we have a fine example of the me - not thee thinking that puts selfish desires ahead of the common good or even common sense.

"Change" is what everyone wants as long as they don't have to change.

[CentralMass]

2. They should have left it alone.

[brooklynite]

4. What is the "common good" that New Hampshire going first prevents?

Consider that New Hampshire was one of the FIRST States to actually let voters have an opinion on Presidential candidates. For most of our History, both Parties left the choice up to Party officials in "smoke filled rooms". Add to which, small "unrepresentative" States that emphasize retail politics rather than huge rallies and advertising budgets present an opportunity for lesser-known candidates (say, Pete Buttigieg) to compete.

[sanatanadharma]

7. I should have refered to the commonwealth, not common good

The commonwealth is not confined to one State, small or large.
Texas doesn't want to be lead by New Hampshire and no one wants to be lead by Texas.
A decades long tradition may not (or may) be the best for the commonwealth, the better benefit of the more, rather than the fewer.

I want a moral leader to rise up for the common good, not simply a affable party-handshaker.

Perhaps Delaware should lead off, followed by Rhode Island. What of Vermont?

[brooklynite]

8. A SAFE Democratic State will produce a candidate that Democrats like....

...unfortunately we let other people vote in November.

[thucythucy]

12. Except the DNC picked South Carolina to go first,

hardly a "safe Democratic state."

It is, however, a state the population of which is far more representative in terms of demographics, racial and otherwise, than New Hampshire.

It also has a major metropolitan area--Charleston--which is also more representative of the country at large than New Hampshire with its more rural population.

New Hampshire going first may have made some sense in 1940 or 1950 or 1960--when African Americans--especially in the south--were less a factor in both the Party and in the general election. Fortunately we've moved past that point, and now NH being first is simply a matter of tradition, a tradition which might best be retired like so many other holdovers from previous centuries.

[brooklynite]

15. I was replying to someone who was suggesting Rhode Island and Vermont

I have no philosophical objection to SC, other than that it's essentially the same. You have a "real" Democratic electorate who will pick a representative candidate who won't necessarily be competitive in the Battleground States.

[thucythucy]

17. But isn't that true for every state?

In a Democratic primary Democrats are going to vote for candidates who appeal to Democratic voters. At least in a state where the Democratic electorate is more diverse--and thus more representative of the electorate nationally, we would theoretically at least have a better chance of picking a candidate with a better chance in the battlegrounds.

Let's look at New Hampshire's record for picking winning Democratic presidential candidates.

2020: Bernie Sanders
2016: Bernie Sanders
2012: President Obama, but he was an incumbent president--they NEVER lose the primaries
2008: Hillary Clinton
2004: John Kerry.

I'll give them Al Gore in 2000, since he won the popular vote, but he was also a sitting vice president, so the outcome was hardly in doubt.

In 1996 it was President Clinton, but again--an incumbent president. In 1992 the wise voters of New Hampshire picked Paul Tsongus--remember him?

In 1988: Michael Dukakis. In 1984, Gary Hart.

In fact you have to go back to 1976 to find New Hampshire picking a winning Democratic candidate, and then back to 1988 to when voters there even managed in a contested primary to pick the eventual nominee--a New Englander who as it turned out did nothing in the swing states.

IMHO the only reason to stick with New Hampshire is tradition. That's it. As far as I can see the voters there aren't any more capable of picking viable candidates--and perhaps even less so--than voters anywhere else.

And that doesn't even take into account the damage that primary has done to us, beyond picking losing candidates, the most salient example being the havoc Senator Kennedy caused in 1980.

Nope, time to retire New Hampshire and give voters somewhere else a crack at it.

[Hope22]

3. Best advertisement for a National Primary.

One and done. National Holiday to boot! I feel like the life has been sucked out of me with all that goes on!

[brooklynite]

5. A National Primary is a terrible idea.

You'll end up with a smaller pool of candidates who already have name recognition and/or a huge war chest, and you'll push most campaigns to incessant TV advertising rather than meeting actual voters.

[Hope22]

10. I don't know. Living in a state lead by deadly imbeciles

Leaves me no inclination but to think that the rogue states will continue to jerk us around in every way imaginable. Sooner or later the minuses in this situation will be greater than the pluses in my opinion. Past thoughts on the process may change. Really, being a woman with rapidly disintegrating rights I should probably keep my opinion to myself. Thank you for sharing your kind opinion.

[NullTuples]

6. Is there any reason not to just have Primary Day across the nation?

Seems like it would result in results that more accurately reflect the will of the people of each party.

[former9thward]

11. Yes, there is a good reason.

A candidate would have to be a billionaire to compete. The money to do a 50 state campaign would be enormous. Only the very rich would be able to do such a primary (or someone with super name recognition like a certain past president).

[thucythucy]

13. And how is this different from the system we have now,

especially after Citizens United?

I'm not in favor of a national primary as such, and think there's value in a staggered system that balances all the various factors, small versus large state, demographic mix, etc.

But the idea of retail politics, even in a "small" state such as New Hampshire, is now mostly a thing of the past. To compete in New Hampshire, for instance, a candidate has to purchase ads in the Boston media market--one of the most expensive in the nation. This means the candidate has to be independently wealthy, or have the backing of the wealthy.

Until we get public funding for elections our national politics will continue to be slanted in favor of the rich and/or famous. A national primary would probably make that worse, but really at this point it's only a matter of degree.

[former9thward]

21. Its not a thing of the past.

Obama won the primaries in 2008 and he was not wealthy. Biden won in 2020 and while he is wealthy he certainly is not in the realm of a billionaire or near billionaire.

BTW we DO have public funding for our presidential elections. It is right there on your income tax form where they ask you if you want to contribute. The problem is none of the candidate take the public funding. The last candidate that did was McCain in 2008. Obama, Clinton and Biden all refused it. Too many restrictions on how the money could be spent.

[thucythucy]

27. By my standards President Obama was and is relatively wealthy.

Granted, he's not up there with the Bushes and others, but compared to most Americans the Obamas were and are quite affluent.

In the 2008 primaries President Obama won 48.1% of the votes, Secretary Clinton won 48%. Hardly a decisive win. He did win more delegates, even after losing California and most of the northeast--including New Hampshire. My recollection is that it was the south that pulled him through, along with Illinois and much of the midwest.

And this was before Citizens United, which was handed down during the Obama presidency.

I suppose a majorly charismatic candidate (such as Obama) can still pull off the occasional upset, but the odds are very much stacked against it.

Anyway, all this discussion is in the context of the Republican governor of New Hampshire--who may himself become a presidential candidate--throwing a shit fit about New Hampshire being bumped from its first in the nation status. As I've said in other posts here, the only reason I can see NH retaining its cherished status is tradition.

If you look at the record, NH hasn't been a positive for Democratic candidates in decades. Nor has it been predictive. In fact, the last Democratic candidate to win the NH primary in a contested election without an incumbant president, who then went on to win the general, was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Hardly an impressive track record.

I think the action taken by the DNC was a good one, but time will tell.

[Marcuse]

20. We could have four to six Regional Primaries. Cut costs by not splitting TV markets by State lines.

[link:http://archive.fairvote.org/index.php?page=2084&mode=showallbig&offset=9|



Example: Rotating Regional Primaries in March, April, May and June.

[News Junkie]

19. I don't think we'd have gotten Obama in 2008

if it were a single day.

[SKKY]

9. Couldn't they rotate them?

[News Junkie]

14. Don't reward them for throwing a tantrum

Precedent makes it important. If they go earlier than allowed, strip them of their delegates. Michigan and Florida (at the time) were much larger battleground states who went early without authorization in 2008 and were rightfully stripped of theirs.

[brooklynite]

16. Who is "not allowing them"?

The Democratic Party can't TELL a State when to hold its Primary. And the Republican Governor and Legislature won't care if the Democratic voters are disenfranchised.

[News Junkie]

18. Sure, they can't stop them from going early

But if it's earlier than allowed by the DNC calendar, it won't count. As you said above, the Democrats can hold their own primary - they don't have to depend on the Republicans.

[former9thward]

23. It costs a fortune to have a primary.

And the Democratic party would have to pay for it if they wanted to go alone.

[former9thward]

22. The delegates were restored.

They were not stripped. The DNC restored all the delegates before the convention.

[News Junkie]

24. It was meaningless at that point

The nomination had been decided and the delegates had a half vote. When the primaries were held, candidates didn't campaign in the states and it was understood the results wouldn't have any impact. I'd also note in both cases it was Republicans who moved the date up.

I don't see why New Hampshire should be treated any differently. Otherwise you are inviting chaos.

[former9thward]

25. No, there full voting status was restored.

Do you really think the DNC was going to offend voters in a swing state? They are not. In 2008 FL was a swing state and MI still is close. That threat was just PR and everyone knew it.

NH has a law saying they are first with a primary. If the DNC wants to ignore that fine but it is not the state that is creating chaos by following their own law.

[News Junkie]

26. But the DNC rightfully marginalized the primaries

I'd have no issue with New Hampshire delegates being seated with voting rights so long as the primary results didn't influence the selection of the nominee.

I think we agree - treat New Hampshire as Florida and Michigan were. Marginalize the primary, mend fences later.

Of course state law can't be allowed to override the DNC's decisions. What if another state passes a law they have to go first? It's ridiculous. And, yes, it's their fault if they don't reform the law. They have until 2028 to do so since 2024 doesn't look meaningful anyway.

[mpcamb]

28. Sununu sounds like his old man who fundraised on public $ and opposed

climate change regulation.