Talk:New Hampshire presidential primary/Archive 1

initial comments
"the average voter is slightly left of center" - is this a statement about New Hampshire Democrats, all NH voters, or all voters generally? Whatever it is, it is highly debateable and needs to be sourced. Adam 04:47, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Since the average New Hampshire voter is slightly left of center on the political spectrum" Says who? This is not a fact, it is an opinion. It should be either sourced to someone or deleted. Adam 06:55, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since no-one has responded to the previous comments, I have deleted the paragraph which attributes the importance of the NH primary to the supposed demographics of the state, and which says that NH is a left-wing state. In fact for decades people have complained that NH is a small, rural and ultra-conservative state which should not be allowed to dominate the election process the way it does. Yes it has got a bit more liberal (or perhaps libertarian) in recent years, but to call it "left-wing" is absurd. And the importance of the primary is simply because it is first, not because of NH's demographics. Adam 09:07, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are very few farmers left in New Hampshire, by the way, so it's not "agricultural." The phrasing about rural is code for "does not have big city machines" Rjensen 22:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing about the NH primary is that only NH law mandates that it be the first. What if every other state mandated that its state be first? There is no federal law on the issue. The RNC and DNC do help solidify NH's status by creating internal party rules that penalize states who have a primary or nominating process before NH. I would say that there is a lot of tradition with this primary and this tradition along with the media keep it going. The only way to change it will be for large groups of states to challenge NH's earlier primary, but at this point there will be too many primaries too early in the process. Another way around it is for candidates to not participate in the earlier contests, but this hurt Wesley Clarke, who in 2000 was leading many national polls for the democratic nomination. It is clear that NH has no right to its status as being first. There should be some more transparent way of setting the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.23 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Richard Nixon Photo
Are you sure that photo of Dick Nixon is from '68 and not 1960? Pat looks much younger in this photo then she did at her husband's first inaguration.

VP primary
Comment. The New Hampshire primary is also significant because it is the only state that I am aware of with a vice presidential primary. Colin Powell won the Republican primary for VP in 2000. Chronicler3 18:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3


 * Interesting - I wonder how he managed to stand in that. Or is it just a write-in thing? Timrollpickering 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

wtf?
Senator Eugene McCarthy won the primary by forcing Johnson out of the race and reducing his margin of victory, whose campaign staff poor mouthed furiously in the closing weeks, declaring that their candidate, President Johnson, was the underdog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.210.191 (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WHEN IS THE PRIMARY?!!!
What a terribly crucial thing to leave out. The most important piece of information is missing, as it doesn't even list when the article topic is. It should be added.-DMCer 18:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As of 14 November 2007, the date has not yet been set, as a tiny Google search would find out. - DavidWBrooks 22:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It has now been set, and the date was added almost instantly. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just thought it should have been in the article, even though the date wasn't confirmed yet.-DMCer (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You raised a perfectly legitimate question; there should have been some reference about the date not yet (at the time) being set - sorry my response was kind of snarky. I guess I was irrationally responding to the all-caps headline! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

NEW HAMPSHIRE WINNERS BEFORE 1952
According to press reports, the winners of the New Hampshire Primary before 1952 were:

REPUBLICANS: 1948 – Thomas E. Dewey, 1944 – Wendell Willkie, 1940 – Styles Bridges, 1936 – Frank Knox, 1932 – Herbert C. Hoover, 1928 – Herbert C. Hoover, 1924 – Calvin Coolidge, 1920 – Leonard Wood, 1916 – Unpledged delegates

DEMOCRATS: 1948 – Harry S. Truman, 1944 – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1940 – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936 – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1932 – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1928 – Alfred E. Smith, 1924 – Fred H. Brown, 1920 – Herbert C. Hoover, 1916 – Woodrow Wilson 65.95.228.114 (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

unfounded statement?
"The fact that the primary is based on the popular vote means that it gives less well known candidates a chance to pull ahead." This is not at all obvious (to me, at least), and has no citation. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.41.202 (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1968 - Eugene McCarthy Entry
A search on the net seems to indicate that McCarthy's poem was written in 1969 and published in The New Rrpublic in December of that year. Does anyone know if in fact that McCarthy began his campaign in New Hampshire in 1968 by reading this poem?

teneriff (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

bad grammar?
"...the ratio of minority residents being six times smaller than the national average (New Hampshire is 96% non-Hispanic white, versus 75% nationally)."

How can something be 6-times smaller? 50% smaller is half the size, 99.9% smaller is nearly zero, so 100% or 1x smaller would be zero. 6-times smaller would be a negative number 5 times the magnitude of the original.

In NH the ratio is approx 4:96 (assuming all non-Hispanic whites are minority residents) = 0.0417 Nationally the ratio is 25:75 = 0.3333

According to this, the NH ratio is 87.5% smaller, or 12.5% as big as, the national ratio. Or, the national ratio is 8 times larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.177.233 (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to semi-protect for 18 hours
Polls close in 1hour, results will start to follow immediately after. Article will increase in views dramatically and anonymous edits are the primary cause of erroneous information/spam. This pattern has been increasing all day. I request a semi protect for the next 18hours. --mitrebox (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger of article New Hampshire primary, 2008
On January 9, 2007,  New Hampshire primary, 2008 was created. There's not much point in having a separate article. Merge its short content into this article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Support Fireye9 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, he has a point. There are a few students that have reports to do on, you know. It's a very attracting subject, in my opinion. I would rather merge it so it would user-friendly, better to research.

Oppose
 * I say leave it as is until the recount is over. If the recount differs (and I know that's a really big if), this would be deserving of its own article. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the moment as per the above comments - in other words, merge later unless something astonishing happens. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When a Candidate is From a Neighboring State
The winner of the NH primary has lost the nomination only 4 times since 1960, but in 2 of those elections, the winner of the NH Primary came from a neighboring state: 1972 Muskie (Maine) and 1992 Tsongas (Massachusetts). Furthermore, in the latter of these 2 instances, the winner (Tsongas) came from a neighboring city as well, Lowell, Massachusetts, which borders on NH, in fact, on the most populous part of the state. (Most of NH's population lies within the Boston media market.) My point is that when a candidate is from a neighboring state, the national significance of his victory may be partially discounted. Bostoner (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on New Hampshire primary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111030081008/http://www.boston.com:80/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/primary-ballot-becomes-equalizer-between-top-tier-perennial-candidates/MkD7dWcT2Nq0gUe2Gv1GuM/index.html to http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/10/primary-ballot-becomes-equalizer-between-top-tier-perennial-candidates/MkD7dWcT2Nq0gUe2Gv1GuM/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

1920 Primary
The article says 'Before 1992, the person elected president had always carried the primary', but has already said 'The winner in New Hampshire has not always gone on to win their party's nomination, as demonstrated by Republican... Leonard Wood in 1920'. Does this not mean that the person elected president in 1920 (Warren G. Harding) failed to carry the primary? Alekksandr (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)