What is the New Hampshire Primary?

The New Hampshire primary is the first primary election held in the United States and the second step following the Iowa Caucuses in choosing the Democratic and Republican nominees for the presidency. It takes place in the small state of New Hampshire and is designed to give an early and important voice to the New England region much like the Iowa Caucus gives an early and important voice to the Midwest, South Carolina Primary to the South and Nevada Caucus to the West.

The New Hampshire Primary has a proud history that goes back to 1916. People were not voting directly for the candidates in 1916 instead they voted for delegates for the National Convention. In 1949 Richard Upton decided to make the primary more meaningful by passing legislation allowing the people to vote directly for the candidates instead of for delegates. In 1952, 43% of New Hampshire voters cast their votes in the states first true primary. In 1977 delegate names were removed from the ballot and a law that eliminated any possible future encroachment on the state’s primary being the first was enacted. It has been the the first primary in the nation since that law in 1977. This represents the first time when the people have a direct voice in their parties presidential candidate, unlike the caucuses.

New Hampshire is considered an independent state that votes both Democrat and Republican and therefore has been considered a good gauge of the nations feelings. Though more liberal west coast voters, southern conservatives and minorities would probably beg to differ. The state’s population is 96% white. Nevertheless, the voters of New Hampshire seem to be aware of this and vote for a candidate’s nationwide-electability in addition to their own personal choice. In 1992 the neighbor senator of Massachusetts, Paul Tsongas defeated southerner Bill Clinton 33.2% to 24.8%, but Clinton’s strong showing surprised most and gave him the momentum to win and the nickname”The Comeback Kid”.

The New Hampshire Primary gives a candidate with little money, low name recognition or candidates from smaller states legitimate shots at winning. It is a small state who demands personal contact and is opposed to typical negative political ads. History says do well in Iowa or New Hampshire or go home.

17 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. George Vreeland Hill

    I used to live in New Hampshire and I miss the primary season there.
    It was always exciting.
    Here in California, I don’t get to meet the candidates like I did in NH.
    Politics is always a hot topic, but in New Hampshire, the temperature is always up a notch.
    I wish I was there.

    George Vreeland Hill

  2. OooSillyMe

    Can I vote none of the above…..?

  3. ron paul

    I think ron paul is the best president nominee what do you guys think.

    1. Yates

      I would agree. The other candidates could fill the role of president, but only Ron Paul could be an effective one.

      1. Justin

        Yes, he is……not to mention he actually predicted what is happening in today’s world back in 2002 in front of congress. Go to youtube and search Ron Paul predictions, it will show you just how much he really knows and why he should be President!

        1. Igor

          I apologize for being rude, but you are wrong, sir. It was in 2003. Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnuoHx9BINc
          Enjoy Freedom!
          Here is the original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8XYF0LLrk&feature=related

    2. Jan

      I suggest all of you read/listen to Huntsman’s interviews, town-hall meetings. He is very specific of what he is going to do when elected. I believe he will be the best choice. For the first time in decades I will vote for someone I believe in, instead of the best of two evils.

      1. Dogddad

        Although he’s better than Romney, he doesn’t compare to Ron Paul’s message. Huntsman is just as two-faced when it comes to the issues. The thing that got me is his obsession with expanding our military presence in other countries! The military works for us, which means we pay for them with our tax dollars. I don’t think people understand that that money needs to come from somewhere! Increased military spending will ultimately lead to more taxes and more debt. Show me a single specific budget or cutting plan he will, 100%, use when he gets in office. He kisses up to the same bankers/corporations and big government people that Bush/Obama/Romney/Gingrich have suckled from. The name means nothing, they are the same people! There is really no meaningful difference in their stances, when it comes to the direction of the country. Social issues are secondary to the big issues like economics and military. We won’t have a country anymore if we continue to trust these dirt bags.

    3. Jeremiah Terry

      I also believe that Ron Paul is the best choice. I have been talking to everyone about Ron Paul for years. I continue to read that he only gets the “young” vote. However, my in laws are in their 60′s and have stated that they will be voting for him. I believe that those older votes that Ron Paul will receive will not show until the actual vote. Many of them do not vote in Caucuses and Primaries.

  4. liberty&justice4all

    ya Dr. Paul would be the obvious choice of the common man. Too bad most of the people have thier head in the sand.

  5. Greg Smith

    Ron Paul is the only one who understands how the economy actually works. He tells you the truth instead of offering vague promises like Romney, Huntsman, and Santorum, who if elected will drag out the same mess that we’re already in. RON PAUL will destroy OBAMA in the election & nobody will even think about going democrat if RON PAUL is the nominee. Vote for the good of the people New Hampshire…please vote Ron Paul!!

  6. Nick

    How would he beat Obama if he can’t even beat Romney?

    1. Justin

      How can he beat Obama, he takes the majority of the younger vote from 18-29 and in Iowa won the independents at 8-1, both at which Obama dominated in 2008…..That is how, to bad the mainstream media and even the Republican party in Washington does not want Paul, they rather have Obama…..Big Government and corruption! 3 biggest supporters of Paul…..Army, Navy, Marines…….The other candidates including Obama……big corporations and banks, hmmmmm think about it. Corrupt politicians and Washington want to keep lining their pockets in the demise of the American People……Paul will not have this! Vote Ron Paul!

    2. Emil

      It’s not about beating Obama. It’s about beating the people whom these presidents serve–it’s about beating the establishment.

  7. Jesse Nicola

    I as a young adult voted for Obama in the last election, as did many of my friends. We speak to each other these days, and the feeling is unanimous: We were short changed.

    Ron Paul has our support.

  8. "The" BRAT

    It takes more than four years for any president to do nearly any of the things they promise. Obama set everything in motion that he said he would. He just didn’t take into consideration the amount of time it takes. No candidate is going to take office and make changes as fast as they think, or as fast as the people who vote for them think they will. People are impatient, therefore no matter who becomes president, someone is going to be unhappy. So just vote for the one that strikes you as the one who will continue setting things in motion to improve life for all of us.

    1. Dogddad

      Of course, it’ll take time to decommission bases and convince people they aren’t going to die if “Daddy Government” isn’t watching. As commander and chief he can start it. That’s all we need is someone to start something drastic and the rest will come, in time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Facebook Like Button for Dummies