New Hampshire Primary - Significance

Significance

There is consensus among scholars and pundits that the New Hampshire primary, because of the timing and the vast media attention, can have a great impact and may even make or break or revive a candidate. Controlling for other factors statistically, a win in New Hampshire increases a candidate's share of the final primary count in all states by 27 percentage points.

Since 1977, New Hampshire has fought hard to keep its timing as the first primary (while Iowa has the first caucus a few days sooner.) State law requires that its primary must be the first in the nation (it had been the first by tradition since 1920). As a result, the state has moved its primary earlier in the year to remain the first. The primary was held on the following dates: 1952-1968, second Tuesday in March; 1972, first Tuesday in March; 1976–1984, fourth Tuesday in February; 1988–1996, third Tuesday in February; 2000, first Tuesday in February (February 1); 2004, fourth Tuesday in January (January 27). The shifts have been to compete with changing primary dates in other states. The primary date for 2008 continued the trend; it was held January 8, the second Tuesday in January.

Before the Iowa caucus first received national attention in the 1970s (Republicans began caucusing in Iowa in 1976), the New Hampshire primary was the first binding indication of which presidential candidate would receive the party nomination. In defense of their primary, voters of New Hampshire have tended to downplay the importance of the Iowa caucus. "The people of Iowa pick corn, the people of New Hampshire pick presidents," said then-Governor John H. Sununu in 1988.

Since then, the primary has been considered an early measurement of the national attitude toward the candidates for nomination. Unlike a caucus, the primary measures the number of votes each candidate received directly, rather than through precinct delegates. The popular vote gives lesser-known candidates a chance to demonstrate their appeal to the electorate at large.

Unlike most other states, New Hampshire permits voters that have not declared their party affiliation to vote in a party's primary. A voter does have to officially join one party or the other before voting; however the voter can change his or her affiliation back to "Undeclared" immediately after voting, and hence he or she only has to belong to a party for the few minutes it takes to fill out and cast a ballot. Voters who are already a member of one party or the other cannot change their affiliation at the polling place: that can only be done before the checklist is closed several weeks prior to the election. New voters can, however, register at the polling place. All voting is done with paper ballots; however, most of the paper ballots are counted by machine.

New Hampshire's status as the first in the nation is somewhat controversial among Democrats because the ethnic makeup of the state is not diverse and not representative of the country's voters. This is shown in the 2000 Census data, with the ratio of minority residents being six times smaller than the national average (New Hampshire is 96% non-Hispanic white, versus 75% nationally). Politically however, the state does offer a wide sampling of different types of voters. Although it is a New England state, it is not as liberal as some of its neighbors. For example, according to one exit poll, of those who participated in the 2004 Democratic Primary, 4-in-10 voters were independents, and just over 50% said they considered themselves "liberal." Additionally, as of 2002, 25.6% of New Hampshire residents are registered Democrats and 36.7% are Republicans, with 37.7% of New Hampshire voters registered as "undeclared" independents. Also, New Hampshire was the only state in the Northeast to vote for George W. Bush in 2000. This plurality of independents is a major reason why New Hampshire is considered a swing state in general U.S. presidential elections.

Recently, media expectations for the New Hampshire primary have come to be almost as important as the results themselves; meeting or beating expectations can provide a candidate with national attention, often leading to an infusion of donations to a campaign that has spent most of its reserves. For example, in 1992, Bill Clinton, although he did not win, did surprisingly well, with his team dubbing him the "Comeback Kid"; the extra media attention helped his campaign's visibility in later primaries.

New Hampshire's political importance as the first in the nation primary state is highlighted in the documentary film Winning New Hampshire. The film focuses on John Kerry's comeback in 2004 and the decisive effect of the New Hampshire Primary on the Presidential selection process.

The three most recent presidential election winners (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama) finished second in the New Hampshire Primary before later being elected to the presidency, while the previous 4 before that won the New Hampshire Primary.