-
Chains of Austerity
June 20, 2012 | 83 comments
-
John Edwards, RIP
June 4, 2012 | 28 comments
-
Tough Nuts Roasting Under Friendly Fire
December 1, 2011 | 36 comments
-
Confessions of a K Street Freeloader
November 18, 2011 | 26 comments
-
The Left’s Mormon Problem
October 14, 2011 | 328 comments
Political Hay
New Hampshire Has Gotten Old
The myth of its being an examplar of grassroots democracy has worn thin.
The image on television and in the papers is of a civics teacher’s wet dream: A state of ordinary citizens coming out en masse to pick the top contenders to lead the nation but only after they have soberly and carefully vetted each candidate.
“Are you going to vote for candidate Smith?” “I don’t know, I’ve only met him twice,” goes an old and oft-repeated joke about New Hampshire.
The reality is less inspiring. Now, New Hampshire residents do come out to vote. Turnout hit an all-time high of 53.6 percent in 2008. That sounds impressive until you realize that that was a year with two highly contested primary races and Barack Obama at the height of his messiahhood. The previous cycle, when only the Democratic race was contested, turnout was just 23.5 percent.
In any event turnout in the general election was 64 percent in 2008, meaning that Granite State primary turnout still lagged behind the national average. They’re not any more attentive than the rest of us, maybe less.
Those that do come out to vote do not help the notion that this is pure grassroots politicking. Go to one of the candidate events in the state and you’ll see why. The attention these voters regularly receive every four years from politicians and journalists is unlike anything people in any other state get expect for Iowa. It warps the process.
I’m leaning to Candidate X because I chatted with him at my neighbor’s barbeque this summer, one resident might tell you. Then again, they might vote for Candidate Y because that’s what they said when they were interviewed on MSNBC.
Famous reporters greet veteran local activists like old friends from years back, because that’s what they are. Talk to these voters and they’re likely to respond in perfect soundbytes because they’ve been talking to reporters since at least Reagan’s day. In New Hampshire everyone is the love child of Karl Rove and James Carville.
Who are they voting for? Well, that’s tough. Many genuinely agonize. Others just refuse to make up their minds. And why should they? All the attention is placed on the undecideds, so why give that up? Ever wonder why the number of voters who cannot make up their mind in New Hampshire polls is always so high?
Candidates lavish attention on these voters in the hopes that they can catapult them to front-runner status. So they forego campaigning in other states in the hope that everything can start here. Sometime next week Jon Huntsman will wake up and realize he wasted six months of his life trying to persuade stubborn Granite staters to like him.
That’s assuming you can even find voters to talk to. It is not uncommon for the number of reporters, campaign staff and various activists to completely dwarf the amount of ordinary people at an event. And some of those probably aren’t even from New Hampshire.
That’s because the candidates don’t campaign like this in other states, so political junkies come up here to see them. Reporters swap frustrated stories of conducting interviews with undecided voters only to discover that they live in Boston or somewhere else.
And yet it all matters. Bill Clinton managed to win the presidency in 1992 without winning either the Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire primary but he is the only president in recent decades to do that. His second place finish in New Hampshire was successfully spun as a win anyway because it followed the Gennifer Flowers scandal. (Remember “The Comeback Kid”?)
The sane thing to do would be to scrap Iowa and New Hampshire’s right to the early contests and rotate them among different states each election cycle. Why should the presidential primaries be less democratic than the Super Bowl?
Other states have periodically tried to do exactly that by setting their primaries earlier. New Hampshire party leaders have typically acted like the other states had just hit their wives. These officials jealously guard the state’s status and the attention they get from wanna-be presidents. It is actually state law that the New Hampshire primary be first in the nation. They’ve strong-armed the Republican National Committee into accepting this too. Party rules ensure that Iowa and New Hampshire always go first.
Don’t expect the local media to upset the status quo. Do you think the Manchester Union Leader wants to diminish its role as a Republican Party kingmaker?
The major national newspapers and networks won’t do anything either. Most of them have long since bought into the myth of New Hampshire as a great example of pure grassroots democracy.
As I write this Mitt Romney has a double-digit lead in most primary polls. A win here will cement his status as the Republican Party front-runner, giving him a solid boost going into the South Carolina primary. How many of you readers think that is the best possible outcome for the party or the country?
Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thirsty McWormwood
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/09/new-hampshire-has-gotten-old
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Her Unrequited Letter
- A Nation on the Edge
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 6:41AM
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.
Occam's Tool| 1.9.12 @ 12:00PM
To the paulbots: Now we take you to your electoral desert to die.
Appleby| 1.9.12 @ 7:19AM
Will Mitt Romney admit in South Carolina that his first name is in fact Willard? Will that calm the large plurality of South Carolinians who know Mr. Romney is a Mormon and wears secret mystical underwear? Will anybody mention that Mr. Romney believes that after death he willgbecome a god, be given his own planet to rule, and he and his wife(or wives, since all unmarried women are given one last chance at the gates of heaven to contract a "spiritual marriage" and get in on the fun, or spend Eternity as servants to the gods and goddesses on the top level of Heaven) will "create worlds and populate them" with worshippers of HIM?
The press doesn't know the difference between the Methodist church and the Mormon church; a good many Christians do, and are telling the others. Being named Willard may not save him from a large Christian base who know that Mormons are no more Christians than Muslims are.
tmd| 1.9.12 @ 7:41AM
Thank you, Applebee. Mormons are daft. They are also quite weird. Sometimes cagey, crafty weird. There's a lot from the West part of the nation that no one ever hears, sees, or encounters that has to do with Mormons. They are not just in Utah doing weird things. Colorado and Idaho too. I think they probably have control of about 65% of Idaho now.
I'd love for a candid writer to finally put pen to paper and tell the real (yes, factual) state of affairs of life if one goes out to Utah to seek the West, mountains, snow, open spaces, great parks, landscapes and trails.....but then, after the veneer has long gone, realizes how ostracized one is if resisting and avoiding joining the Mormon movement.
Sorry, I'll just say it: They give me the creeps. And this is no wonder. Mormonism is a cult. It is just a more urbane looking version of something like the Krishnas.
So there cannot be much good in the head of a man who claims this as his life compass, his life faith. Beware.
Indy| 1.9.12 @ 8:04AM
Let's not make the mistake of painting people with a broad brush. I have friends who are Mormon and there is nothing weird about them.
Do you know any weird Christians?
I have plenty of concerns about Mitt, his religion is not one of them.
tmd| 1.9.12 @ 9:08AM
tmd, I'll paint anything anyway I so choose when I am focusing on using the medium called "truth." You should 'paint,' think, reason, and live in the same manner.
You obviously know very little of Mormon doctrine.
You've also obviously never lived in Salt Lake City or Ogden.
A cult is a cult. Short haircuts, button-downed shirts, and supposed teetotalling do not at all a good, morally sound man-make.
If it concerns you not a whit what a man does to lead his family in matters that are eternal and how we are to live as God's children, then you have a very, very, very low bar for what you expect in your leadership.
And you are dooming yourself, your family, your community.
Thanks. Yes, that is sarcastic. Your put-on ambivalence toward Mormonism means you've been too lazy to invest the time in learning about it.
Is Mitt the post-child for the Latter Day Saints? No. And for good reason. He's using them; they are using him. None of it is good. And it is a cult just as bad as if you lost your firstborn to the Jim Jones Commune.
Life requires us to be astute. You've got to look beyond the easily set up facades.
Get up off your lazy ass and go investigate Mormons and Mormonism for yourself -- and do it thoroughly. Put real sweat and brainpower in the effort. Soon you will have to; there is a nationwide "And I'm a Mormon, too!" campaign that is as insidious as anything that has ever occurred on our shores in the last 250 years. So, go. Invest the time. If you have a heart, mind, and true soul, you will abhor what you discover as you get beneath the well propped up veneer of mormonism.
Be prepared for real anguish if you start learning too much.
W| 1.9.12 @ 11:30AM
What is your point, that Mormons are not qualified to be president?
Indy| 1.9.12 @ 12:46PM
“I'll paint anything anyway I so choose”
Of course, you are free to do as you choose, I support that 100%
as I am free to disagree with you.
“You obviously know very little of Mormon doctrine.”
Really, you can make such a bold statement based on my post above? You are free to believe and say whatever you want. I don’t claim to be an expert on any religion, not even my own but that doesn’t mean I know little, you don’t know what I read / study.
“Your put-on ambivalence toward Mormonism means you've been too lazy to invest the time in learning about it…Get up off your lazy ass and go investigate Mormons and Mormonism for yourself”
Interesting how you accuse me of being lazy, yet you do not know me. I ruled out Romney as soon as I learned he was running simply based on policy (RomneyCare, Global Warming, etc) his religion never came into play for me. As a conservative who supports our Constitution, the First Amendment matters a great deal, as do the others. I would be a hypocrite to rule out a candidate based on religion.
John786| 1.9.12 @ 8:30AM
Muslims are monotheistic ( tauhid) christains. They accept everything about Christ accept the trinity and his divine essence ( he was a human of miraculous birth destined to return at the end times to save only the people of tauhid).
Dai Alanye | 1.9.12 @ 9:32AM
Monotheistic, yes, but the religion was started by a fraudster who got his basic theology from kabbalastic Judaism, selecting the pagan lunar god (and his two female consorts, initially) for a deity. The creator of Islam rivals Joseph Smith of Mormonism for imaginative self-interest, although both have since been topped by L Ron Hubbard. Muslims have attempted to utilize Jesus of Nazareth to add prestige to their doctrine, just as they have claimed the ancestors of the Israelites. In any case, they hardly deserve to be called Christians.
Still, we in the largely secular present ought to judge individuals by their actions and characters rather than by the faith to which they subscribe.
John786| 1.9.12 @ 10:38AM
Muslims don't claim Islam as a new faith. It is a retread of monotheism which has always existed from the beginning ( Adam Abraham moses Jesus (Isa). it has reached its final renewal under the Arabian Prophet Mohammed son of abdullah ( pbuh). Islam ( the worship of the one And onlyGOD) existed before the creation of the world & humans.
Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 6:37PM
Islam is a return to paganism. That it is a montheistic paganism makes no difference. It is not a retread of montheism. It just takes one of the old Pagan gods and makes it the only god.
There is only one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Father of Jesus Christ, the final revelation of God himself, who walked among men, and died to make a way for Salvation. The true God asks us to live for Him and persuade others. Allah, on the other hand requires we kill others who resist persuasion. Sorry, but another name for such a god is what the Jewish and Christian scriptures call Satan.
John786| 1.9.12 @ 8:13PM
So your not converting then.
JP| 1.9.12 @ 7:57AM
New Hampshire has changed quite a bit since 1980. Most of the old mills are closed and the textile biz went first to the South and then to Mexico and Asia. Fishing isn't what it used to be. In recent decades New Hampshire, like Vermont has become the vacation destination of choice for many Manhatten stockbrokers and liberal financiers seeking cozy second properties. And while New Hampshire never suffered the invasion of radical hippies and yippies than Vermont has, the influx of liberal tax avoiders from Mass. has significantly changed the demographics. What was once a solidly red state is now a deep purple state; it's on its way to becoming a blue state this decade. New Hampshire without its traditional manufacturing, fishing, and agriculture now is a haven for high tech chic and service companies. Nashua is the its mecca.
Like Iowa, New Hampshire is trending Democrat. But, it is the Democrat cum Progressive Technocrat and not the old FDR Dems of trade unions, VFW Halls, and the Catholic Church. And while Iowa still has a large minority of conservative farmers (old German Lutheran stock), New Hampshire is going the way of Boston. It is not only going Dem, but Far Left. Incorporating hundreds of thousands of Bostonians tends to do that.
Of course the RNC doesn't mind a bit. The GOP at the national level hasn't a problem with ObamaCare and the Administrative State (of course, it will never admit to it). Iowa, which is becoming a state dependent upon the Dept of Ag subsidies, subsidized Green initiatives, and home to a large education bureaucracy, will probably go the way of Wisconsin; yet, both these states determine our nominations. Obama couldn't think up a better plan. Could one imagine Alabama and Indiana picking the Dems leadership?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.9.12 @ 7:59AM
Mitt Romney is the only candidate besides Perry who hasn't served in a federal position and hasn't made a living off the government. However, Perry has a long standing relationship with government work and now collects about $85,000 of a government pension while still collecting $150,000 state salary.
Incredibly, Romney may be the anti-government candidate this cycle which is what Obama was last cycle even though he had been in the U.S. Senate for two years.
That will leave Romney in a unique position.
He's outside the circle although he signed the Massachusetts' health care law.
You also have to give Romney credit for understanding free markets. Massachusetts health care was designed to allow private companies to operate through a health care connector. Although costs have gone up, only 2% more people are covered now under the Massachusetts health care law than before the law was passed.
Before the bill was signed by Romney 6% of Massachusetts were not covered by health care. Under the Health Connector system that number has dropped to 4%. In the meantime costs have accelerated for all. In that sense it's a failure.
However, Romney tried to line item veto 10 items associated with the bill. Eight of his vetoes were immediately overturned and two were eventually overturned.
Is it Romneycare? The concept sounded good to many at the time including Heritage and Newt Gingrich but it led to higher costs.
The Republicans have no candidate other than Romney that are capable of guiding the country in the right direction.
If he's elected I suspect the country will see some workable solutions to everything from Fannie/Freddie to Medicare/Medicaid.
Indy| 1.9.12 @ 8:08AM
Are you aware, Romney is open to a VAT (recent WSJ article)? Most people aren't especially since the moderators in the "debates" won't bother to ask, instead they want to focus on social wedge issues since that meets their agenda.
The VAT is a major issue, we need to know where candidates stand.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.9.12 @ 8:32AM
Mitt Romney never stated he supported a VAT other than the one proposed by Congressman Ryan as a replacement for some corporate taxes.
That statement has been taken and used to state "He's for it because he never stated specifically he was against it."
Although I would prefer Perry as a candidate I don't believe Mitt Romney will wreck the country as we are currently observing with Obama.
In fact, if he applies his Bain management principles to federal agencies things could get interesting.
Dai Alanye | 1.9.12 @ 9:39AM
O'Stalin has put his finger on the main problem with Romney, which revolves around the word "if." We don't know, even after several years of his running for President, what Mitt truly believes. I'm sure he'd be better than Obama, but so what! Even Joe Biden would be preferable to BO.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.9.12 @ 10:59AM
"A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States — Barack America!" --Joe Biden, at his first campaign rally with Barack Obama
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." --Joe Biden on Barack Obama
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." --Joe Biden
''I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. ... When one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That's me. I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway.''
—Joe Biden, providing handy tips to protect against the swine flu and freaking us out, ''Today Show'' interview, April 30, 2009
Indy| 1.9.12 @ 12:55PM
I saw a clip of Willard speaking of liberty and the Constitution, he sounded like he was speaking in front of a Tea Party but to your point, you don't have to look hard to find a clip of him calling himself a progressive...he says what he thinks we want to hear, well, I have not heard him say he is against a VAT so buyer beware is all I am saying.
When Willard starting using OWS language, i.e. 99% v. 1%, I took note...typical politician. Sadly, we have the field that we do, I will be voting against Obama but not for anyone...again.
Intelligent Design| 1.9.12 @ 8:02AM
NH is still a good barometer. It's a mixture of conservatives and the dummy liberals who left MA, only to forget why they left.
MXLord327| 1.10.12 @ 3:02PM
Exactly, I work in NH and see it everday. I just cannot not understand why people flee a state because of excessive regulation, taxation, etc., but then try their best to implement the same failed policies they are fleeing in their new state???
Indy| 1.9.12 @ 8:15AM
Most of us don't live in early states. It is well past time we go to a rotational system, I suggest breaking states into 4 regions (NE, SE, NW and SW), then use a lottery system to set up a rotation. Iowa and NH enjoy the attention and the economic benefits of being first...the media hounds flock to the states and ignore the rest of the country. Obama won Iowa by 10 pts, they keep electing Tom Harkin, one of the most progressive senators. NH loves John McCain....sorry, I'm not impressed.
Anthony| 1.9.12 @ 8:19AM
The entire primary/straw poll system is corrupt and merely a ploy for certain states to make money, as they vie for who will be first.
There should be 4-6 regional primaries spaced out from January to June, and all with the same rules for both parties. Only registered party members for at least 3 preceeding months can vote.
Sorry Independants, there is a penalty for not joining a political party, and a damn good reason for not allowing your participation in parties choosing their nominees. The fact that this is ignored by many states speaks volumes about how the entire process is corrupt.
States allow for unafilliated voters to vote in primaries merely to keep the excitement up and to let everybody participate in the party game.
It's no wonder our country is sinking; we run our election process as if it was a T.V. gameshow.
Louis Jenkins| 1.9.12 @ 9:01AM
Who pays much attention to Iowa or NH? Now Pennsylvannia, or Florida, that's a different matter.
bill| 1.9.12 @ 9:43AM
NH is a state with only 1.3 million people and 4 electoral votes, and still is a crucial player determining the next GOP nominee, in a country with 312 million people and 535 electoral votes. Whoever wins in NH will be shoe-in for SC and FL. In 2008, McCain won NH, and absorbed SC and FL, and became the GOP nominee. The significance of SC and FL in GOP race is enormous. SC has 9 electoral votes while FL has 29 electoral votes. In the general election, NH is not a factor. But for GOP nominee, winning SC and FL is a big deal. McCain lost FL and was defeated.
The presidential primary has some glitches. Instead of NH, NY or PA should hold its primary in the NE. In the south, FL should hold its primary before SC. In the midwest, MI or IL should hold their primary before IA.
Bigger states should have bigger role than smaller states with no influence in the general election.
In the general election match up, nobody cares about NH or IA or SC, but FL, MI, IL, NY, PA are states candidates must win.
WE must change our primary race.
JeffB| 1.9.12 @ 2:53PM
There are two basic changes that make New Hampshire an invalid, or less valid, test and representaion of conservatives.
The open primary system and mostly the infestation of former Mass-Holes that fled their own failing state. Like any parasite they have proceeded to kill off the host.
Shery| 1.9.12 @ 4:32PM
The whole process needs to be revamped. In the future, if we still have one, we should give this a rotation, letting other states have the rights to be first. By the time some states get a chance to vote the primaries, the winner has all but been determined, which sucks, if you ask me! And the RNC's decision to punish states who moved their primary dates? Ridiculous! A better solution would've been to allow states to be the first ones on a rotating basis, or conduct a a drawing. This is change you can believe in, really! The present system is an out-dated process that only isolates blocks of voters who are always at the end of the spectrum. We need change.
MXLord327| 1.10.12 @ 3:06PM
The idea sounds good, but do we really want CA, NY, NJ, MD, DE etc determining our candidate when the time comes for them to be first in the rotation? I sure don't...
JeffB| 1.9.12 @ 6:03PM
It does make some sense to allow the smaller states to go first because it allows a lot more candidates to afford to compete. Imagine you are a no-name candiate and the first primary is in California. You could never afford to advertise on 1/10 of the TV stations or in a fraction of the newspapers. On the other hand, Iowa and New Hampshire act as sort of a farm team to let everyone play but you have to show some strength to move on.
Rebecca| 1.9.12 @ 8:19PM
NH is trending the way of Boston, that's true. But it's tiring to keep hearing inaccurate talk about the state. "Large minority of German Lutheran stock?" There are very few Lutherans in this part of the country (I know...I'm one of them). Mitt Romney is a "native son?" Most of us (those not from MA) don't have a lot of love for Taxachusetts. The fact the Romney is polling well here has little to do with the fact that he was the Governor of MA.
FreeMarket| 1.9.12 @ 8:34PM
Re: "Bigger states should have a bigger role..." They already do. States like Florida, New York, and California have an inordinate influence on the political landscape. I'm not suggesting it has to be Iowa and NH who go first each time, but there is definitely merit in smaller states getting a first look.
POST American| 1.9.12 @ 10:17PM
-------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------
"Everything OLD ---is NEW AGAIN."
Bob| 1.9.12 @ 10:46PM
I decided to look up the voting stats because I wasn't too sure that old THIRSTY'S numbers were any good. Surprise, they aren't. Hey Thirsty where did you find that NH voted at a lower rate than the national average? The fact is that NH had the second highest voter participation in the nation just behind Minnesota and nearly 10 percentage points ahead of the national average. 2008 Voter Age Participation rate for New Hampshire was 69.6%, #2 in the nation. The national Voting age participation rate for 2008 was 56.9%. Why would you just fake numbers in order to trash New Hampshire?
Bob| 1.9.12 @ 10:56PM
Oops my bad, NH was 12.7% above the national average, not nearly 10%, so it's even better than I said...the numbers in my original comment are correct at 69.6% vs. 56.9%.
MXLord327| 1.10.12 @ 3:08PM
The large number of Obama signs I have seen in NH this week are not a good thing at all....
POST American| 1.11.12 @ 1:48AM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
"Notice, as the campaign approaches,
the REAL issues DISAPPEAR---"
And, with the passage of the criminally
UN-Constitutional, wholly TREASONOUS
ND 1031 ----you too may be 'disappearing'.
"Understand, every one of your leaders
who signed the UN charter pledged themselves
to subvert their own sovereignty in the name
of 'world government'. Every one of your
candidates who's received support, taken
oaths, taken membership with the occult
NGO's and foundations have, likewise, already
betrayed your interests. Every one of them
is a TRAITOR. You MUST know who your
candidates have been involved with, are
involved with, --ARE WORKIN FOR."
CUT TO THE CHASE:
We're dealing with TREASON______________