Why the New Hampshire Presidential Primary Is Good for Democracy

Why the New Hampshire Presidential Primary Is Good for Democracy

Why the New Hampshire Presidential Primary Is Good for Democracy

Our state’s first-in-the-nation primary gives sincere candidates without access to dark money a chance to make their case.


Not all that long ago, America was at war. The Vietnam conflict of the 1960s and ’70s meant the deaths of our young people, then subjected to mandatory drafts to fill quotas. Over 50,000 Americans and allies died, with many others suffering lifelong injuries. An estimated 3 million-plus citizens of North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were killed. President after president got our nation more deeply involved, with no ending in sight—goaded in large part by the military-industrial complex.

In 1968, Eugene McCarthy, a little-known US senator from Minnesota, decided to run for president. Anti–Vietnam War activists became involved in his campaign in the first-in-the-nation primary that year. Underfunded, with little national name recognition and no political network of support, McCarthy did well in New Hampshire’s primary, encouraging New York Senator Robert Kennedy to announce his candidacy. Within two weeks, President Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for reelection.

Richard Nixon won that November, but the movement to end the war continued. As 1972 drew near, another unknown, Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, came to our state to challenge the candidate who had national support from establishment Democrats, Senator Edmund Muskie from neighboring Maine. On election day, Muskie received 46 percent of the vote, short of a majority.

Underfunded and not considered by the Washington powers that be of the time worthy of support, McGovern saw his 37 percent propel him onto the national stage, and he became the Democratic presidential nominee that year. He lost to Nixon but made opposition to the Vietnam tragedy the goal of a new, young, revitalized generation of voters. The war ended three years later.

Such is the special purpose of the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary. Our state has the special “asset of smallness,” and a less expensive media market. Our population of 1.4 million is one-third that of South Carolina, and a quick look at the map shows our much smaller size compared with Nevada. Both Georgia and Michigan have populations around 10 million each. In New Hampshire, a candidate with a sincere, meaningful message can visit voters face-to-face, and the impact of image-makers and flashy campaign ads paid for with mass amounts of dark money is minimized.

The case can be made that without the New Hampshire primary, Jimmy Carter, an unknown governor from Georgia, would never have become president. In 1988, the grassroots candidacies of Colorado Senator Gary Hart and civil rights activist Jesse Jackson received national attention they would not have gained without our primary being their first stop (the same is true of Jackson’s 1984 run).

Let’s also remember Bill Clinton, whose second-place showing in 1992 against a neighboring senator from Massachusetts made him “the Comeback Kid.” President Barack Obama was able to perfect his personable campaign skills here. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders twice made inroads in New Hampshire that gave him a chance for the nomination, which he wouldn’t have had if he couldn’t first make his case here.

Because of our primary, we helped stop the Vietnam War. Because of our primary, we have allowed candidates without vast national networking or access to unlimited dark money a chance to make their case. It is because of our unique asset of smallness that it is more difficult to buy our voters.

That’s why I sponsored the 1975 law protecting our lead-off status. The asset of smallness is a good thing for the democratic process, and for the Democratic Party.

Our secretary of state will follow that state law requiring him to set our date seven days or more before any other. He will invite all candidates—Democrats and Republicans—to have their names printed on our primary election ballots. Any political party attempting to disenfranchise voters, or to prohibit or punish candidates who run here, will be met with both dismay and disgust.

New Hampshire’s primary isn’t about us. It’s about democracy in its purest sense.

Thank you for reading The Nation

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Ad Policy