President
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HOME I NEWS I ADVERTISING I EDITORIAL I ELECTIONS 2011 I ENTERTAINMENT I COMMUNITIES I SUBSCRIPTON I OPINION
JOBS I ARCHIVE I CONTACT US I EVENTS & CALENDAR I NEWS TIPS
Letters@newhampshireherald.com
COPYRIGHT 2011© NEW HAMPSHIRE HERALD
| ||||||||||
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
By Kevin Rauch
New Hampshire Herald
New Hampshire Herald
The New Hampshire primary has long held the prestige of being the first-in-the nation. It
has often given candidates needed momentum with a big win or better-than-expected
finish.
Most candidates and their campaign staffs (especially when talking to New Hampshire
residents or after winning the pivotal primary) would agree that the New Hampshire
primary plays an important role in setting the stage for the remainder of the primary races
that will determine the Presidential nominee from the Republican and/or Democratic
parties. As a result, nearly all contemporary Presidential candidates have initially spent a
significant amount of time and money in New Hampshire.
Several other states have recently challenged the notion of a consistent first-in-the-nation
primary and have even attempted to move ahead in the primary process. New Hampshire
officials have always countered by citing state law and moving the primary to progressively
earlier dates in order to remain first.
But despite the continued attention that New Hampshire gets in the primary races, one
could wonder whether the primary is truly as important and influential as it seems. The
number of delegates a candidate gets from New Hampshire is an extremely small
percentage of the total number necessary to secure the party’s nomination. Furthermore,
the convoluted process of awarding delegates (particularly in the Democratic Party) can
further reduce the significance of winning any primary, sometimes even giving more
delegates to losing candidates.
Other states are not necessarily inclined to vote in accordance with the residents of New
Hampshire, and certain candidates who have done historically well in New Hampshire
have subsequently gone nowhere fast.
In every election between 1952 and 1988, inclusive, both the winner of the general
election and the candidate who carried New Hampshire in the general election (often the
same candidate) were always candidates who had won the New Hampshire primary for
their respective party. The candidates who had won the New Hampshire primary and lost
their party’s nomination were Estes Kefauver (won the NH Democratic primary in 1952 and
1956 – both times the nomination went to Adlai Stevenson),
Henry Cabot Lodge (won the NH Republican primary in 1964 – nomination went to Barry
Goldwater), Lyndon B. Johnson (won the NH Democratic primary in 1968 but dropped out
of the race after a strong showing by Eugene McCarthy – nomination eventually went to
Hubert Humphrey), Edmund Muskie (won the NH Democratic primary in 1972 – nomination
went to George McGovern), and Gary Hart (won the NH Democratic primary in 1984 –
nomination went to Walter Mondale).
The candidates who won the nomination without winning the NH primary – Stevenson
(both times), Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, and Mondale were all defeated in the
general election. All except Humphrey (who, in 1968, greatly benefited by the presence of
George Wallace in the race) lost by landslide margins.
However, beginning in 1992, this trend has subsequently reversed itself. That year, the
NH Democratic primary was won by Paul Tsongas (although Bill Clinton did have a strong,
surprising, second-place showing). On the Republican side, incumbent President George
H.W. Bush defeated primary challenger Pat Buchanan. Tsongas would ultimately lose the
Democratic nomination to Clinton, who carried New Hampshire and defeated incumbent
President George H.W. Bush in a three-way election. The results in 1996 were not
entirely unprecedented. Pat Buchanan won the NH Republican primary over Bob Dole
and several other candidates. Dole quickly rebounded and went on to easily win the
Republican nomination. However, he lost to Clinton by a substantial margin.
The biggest loss of significance to the potential of the New Hampshire primary came in
2000. George W. Bush, long considered the major frontrunner for the Republican
nomination, was embarrassed in the New Hampshire primary with a loss to John McCain
by nearly 20 percentage points. Democrat Al Gore managed to defeat challenger Bill
Bradley, who failed to win any primary states. Bush quickly rebounded, going on to
secure the Republican nomination and face Gore in the general election.
There, Bush (despite losing the national popular vote) narrowly carried New Hampshire,
securing the state’s four electoral votes which made a difference in the election. He won
the Electoral College by a margin of 271-267 and could specifically thank the voters of
New Hampshire (or ANY other state that he had won) for putting him over the top. He
became the first President to be elected without winning at least a plurality of the popular
vote since Benjamin Harrison in 1888.
The results of the primary in 2004, like in 1996, were not unprecedented. John Kerry won
the New Hampshire primary over long-time frontrunner Howard Dean and went on to easily
secure the Democratic nomination, arguably helped by his NH victory. Kerry narrowly
carried New Hampshire over Bush in the general election but lost to Bush nationally in the
same election. New Hampshire was the only state that was carried by Bush in 2000 and
then Kerry in 2004, effectively voting against the national popular vote both times. Kerry
was also the first losing Democratic presidential candidate to carry New Hampshire since
Lewis Cass in 1848.
Then in 2008, the results of the primary again trended against what was historically
common. On one hand, John McCain again won the Republican primary, which almost
certainly gave him the necessary momentum to ultimately gain his party’s nomination.
However, in a major surprise, Hillary Clinton defied nearly all of the polls and defeated
Barack Obama in the NH primary. Despite this and other key victories for Clinton, Obama
ran strong in a number of other states and took a substantial lead that led him to a long,
drawn-out nomination victory. This proved not to have hurt Obama, as he easily defeated
McCain in the general election, also carrying every county in New Hampshire.
Just like in 1992 and 2000, the candidate who had lost the New Hampshire primary carried
the state in the general election to defeat a candidate who had won the NH primary.As a
result of this recent trend, one can seriously question the significance and relevance of
the New Hampshire primary in this coming election.
While it remains a primary with major prestige and candidate attention due to its timing, it
has in recent years lost the statistical significance that it once carried. Ironically, this has
partly been a result of New Hampshire voters contradicting themselves by supporting
candidates who had been rejected by the same voters earlier in the year. One can only
wonder of the significance of next year’s primary, and only time will tell what events will
follow.
has often given candidates needed momentum with a big win or better-than-expected
finish.
Most candidates and their campaign staffs (especially when talking to New Hampshire
residents or after winning the pivotal primary) would agree that the New Hampshire
primary plays an important role in setting the stage for the remainder of the primary races
that will determine the Presidential nominee from the Republican and/or Democratic
parties. As a result, nearly all contemporary Presidential candidates have initially spent a
significant amount of time and money in New Hampshire.
Several other states have recently challenged the notion of a consistent first-in-the-nation
primary and have even attempted to move ahead in the primary process. New Hampshire
officials have always countered by citing state law and moving the primary to progressively
earlier dates in order to remain first.
But despite the continued attention that New Hampshire gets in the primary races, one
could wonder whether the primary is truly as important and influential as it seems. The
number of delegates a candidate gets from New Hampshire is an extremely small
percentage of the total number necessary to secure the party’s nomination. Furthermore,
the convoluted process of awarding delegates (particularly in the Democratic Party) can
further reduce the significance of winning any primary, sometimes even giving more
delegates to losing candidates.
Other states are not necessarily inclined to vote in accordance with the residents of New
Hampshire, and certain candidates who have done historically well in New Hampshire
have subsequently gone nowhere fast.
In every election between 1952 and 1988, inclusive, both the winner of the general
election and the candidate who carried New Hampshire in the general election (often the
same candidate) were always candidates who had won the New Hampshire primary for
their respective party. The candidates who had won the New Hampshire primary and lost
their party’s nomination were Estes Kefauver (won the NH Democratic primary in 1952 and
1956 – both times the nomination went to Adlai Stevenson),
Henry Cabot Lodge (won the NH Republican primary in 1964 – nomination went to Barry
Goldwater), Lyndon B. Johnson (won the NH Democratic primary in 1968 but dropped out
of the race after a strong showing by Eugene McCarthy – nomination eventually went to
Hubert Humphrey), Edmund Muskie (won the NH Democratic primary in 1972 – nomination
went to George McGovern), and Gary Hart (won the NH Democratic primary in 1984 –
nomination went to Walter Mondale).
The candidates who won the nomination without winning the NH primary – Stevenson
(both times), Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, and Mondale were all defeated in the
general election. All except Humphrey (who, in 1968, greatly benefited by the presence of
George Wallace in the race) lost by landslide margins.
However, beginning in 1992, this trend has subsequently reversed itself. That year, the
NH Democratic primary was won by Paul Tsongas (although Bill Clinton did have a strong,
surprising, second-place showing). On the Republican side, incumbent President George
H.W. Bush defeated primary challenger Pat Buchanan. Tsongas would ultimately lose the
Democratic nomination to Clinton, who carried New Hampshire and defeated incumbent
President George H.W. Bush in a three-way election. The results in 1996 were not
entirely unprecedented. Pat Buchanan won the NH Republican primary over Bob Dole
and several other candidates. Dole quickly rebounded and went on to easily win the
Republican nomination. However, he lost to Clinton by a substantial margin.
The biggest loss of significance to the potential of the New Hampshire primary came in
2000. George W. Bush, long considered the major frontrunner for the Republican
nomination, was embarrassed in the New Hampshire primary with a loss to John McCain
by nearly 20 percentage points. Democrat Al Gore managed to defeat challenger Bill
Bradley, who failed to win any primary states. Bush quickly rebounded, going on to
secure the Republican nomination and face Gore in the general election.
There, Bush (despite losing the national popular vote) narrowly carried New Hampshire,
securing the state’s four electoral votes which made a difference in the election. He won
the Electoral College by a margin of 271-267 and could specifically thank the voters of
New Hampshire (or ANY other state that he had won) for putting him over the top. He
became the first President to be elected without winning at least a plurality of the popular
vote since Benjamin Harrison in 1888.
The results of the primary in 2004, like in 1996, were not unprecedented. John Kerry won
the New Hampshire primary over long-time frontrunner Howard Dean and went on to easily
secure the Democratic nomination, arguably helped by his NH victory. Kerry narrowly
carried New Hampshire over Bush in the general election but lost to Bush nationally in the
same election. New Hampshire was the only state that was carried by Bush in 2000 and
then Kerry in 2004, effectively voting against the national popular vote both times. Kerry
was also the first losing Democratic presidential candidate to carry New Hampshire since
Lewis Cass in 1848.
Then in 2008, the results of the primary again trended against what was historically
common. On one hand, John McCain again won the Republican primary, which almost
certainly gave him the necessary momentum to ultimately gain his party’s nomination.
However, in a major surprise, Hillary Clinton defied nearly all of the polls and defeated
Barack Obama in the NH primary. Despite this and other key victories for Clinton, Obama
ran strong in a number of other states and took a substantial lead that led him to a long,
drawn-out nomination victory. This proved not to have hurt Obama, as he easily defeated
McCain in the general election, also carrying every county in New Hampshire.
Just like in 1992 and 2000, the candidate who had lost the New Hampshire primary carried
the state in the general election to defeat a candidate who had won the NH primary.As a
result of this recent trend, one can seriously question the significance and relevance of
the New Hampshire primary in this coming election.
While it remains a primary with major prestige and candidate attention due to its timing, it
has in recent years lost the statistical significance that it once carried. Ironically, this has
partly been a result of New Hampshire voters contradicting themselves by supporting
candidates who had been rejected by the same voters earlier in the year. One can only
wonder of the significance of next year’s primary, and only time will tell what events will
follow.