By Logan Scisco
The presidential primary season is fast approaching and by the time next month’s briefs are released the chances are that the Iowa caucuses will have been completed and we will be mere days from the New Hampshire primary. These two contests highlight the beginning of the presidential nomination calendar and despite the movements of primaries in Florida and California, both states have managed to retain their position as being first in the nation when it comes to presidential politics.
The New Hampshire primary is the first presidential primary conducted in the presidential nomination system. Some extempers may say “I thought Iowa was,” but it is important to remember that Iowa operates under a caucus system and not a primary election system. If extempers remain unclear on this issue or wish to explore these differences in more depth I would encourage them to check out the Iowa caucuses brief I wrote for the September edition of Extemp Question Central Extemp Topic Briefs.
This year’s New Hampshire primary date has been set for January 8th, a mere five days after the Iowa caucuses which will occur on January 3rd. This means that the population of both Iowa and New Hampshire will have to endure presidential campaigning during the holiday season. It also means that the losers in Iowa will not have the typical recovery time of several weeks before New Hampshire voters go to the polls. These two contests have been put in such close proximity to each other due to states trying to become a more important part of the presidential nominating calendar. Earlier this year, Florida moved its primary into January and California moved theirs to February despite threats by both major parties that they would lose delegates to their nominating conventions next summer. Due to states moving their primary calendars forward, it has threatened the traditional positioning of Iowa and New Hampshire as the first presidential contests. Therefore, instead of having the Iowa caucuses in late January and the New Hampshire primary in early February, the system has been tweaked to make these contests even earlier.
This brief will follow much of the same format as the Iowa caucuses brief in September. I will discuss the history of the New Hampshire primary, how it works, and where the race for the presidency for each party stands at the current time.
History
The New Hampshire primary began in 1916 when President Woodrow Wilson won unopposed on the Democratic slate and no decision was made in the Republican Party primary. In 1916, primaries were still a new mechanism in the selection of political candidates as party bosses and other influential party leaders still made decisions as to who the presidential candidates would be. During this time period primaries were not binding and even if a candidate performed well in the primaries this was not a guarantee that they would win their parties nomination. The best example of this can be found in the election of 1912 when former President Theodore Roosevelt challenged then-President William H. Taft for the Republican presidential nomination. Despite the fact that Roosevelt crushed Taft in a large number of the primaries both men participated in, Taft was still given the Republican presidential nomination in 1912 at the Republican National Convention. This action caused Roosevelt and his followers to defect from the Republicans, form the Bull Moose Party, and run in the 1912 presidential contest where Roosevelt defeated Taft but lost in an electoral landslide to Woodrow Wilson.
Presidential historians point the rising importance of the New Hampshire primary in 1952 when World War II General Dwight D. Eisenhower ran against U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft. Taft was considered by pundits at the time to be the Republican nominee in 1952 and the general perception was that Eisenhower had limited appeal as a presidential candidate. However, in that 1952 primary, Eisenhower defeated Taft and Taft’s candidacy never recovered. The victory led to Eisenhower’s nomination and subsequent victory in the 1952 presidential election.
On the Democratic side, 1952 is also seen as important because it crushed the dreams of President Harry S. Truman to win a third term. Truman’s name was on the New Hampshire ballot for the primary, held at this time in early March, but Truman suffered a defeat at the hands of Estes Kefauver thereby devastating his attempts at another presidential run. Interestingly enough, this same scenario would play out in 1968 when President Lyndon B. Johnson had his aspirations of a third presidential term defeated when he barely defeated anti-Vietnam candidate Senator Eugene McCarthy by a 49-42% margin.
Overall, the New Hampshire primary is an important test of a candidate’s appeal to a vast electorate who can directly vote for the first time in a presidential nominating contest. Unlike Iowa’s caucus system, being an individual’s second choice candidate does not matter and New Hampshire’s primary averages much better turnout than the Iowa caucuses, whose system represents less than twenty-five percent of voters in the state in a good year. Also, the New Hampshire primary does not use a precinct threshold system for a candidate acquiring votes as is seen in the Iowa caucuses. This plays up candidates abilities to “get out the vote” but downplays some of the intense party activity that is required to emerge victorious in the Iowa caucuses.
However, it is important to note that the last two U.S. Presidents did not win the New Hampshire primaries. In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton lost to Senator Paul Tsongas and in 2000, Texas Governor George W. Bush lost to Senator John McCain. Despite this, though, extempers should realize that in today’s highly charged media climate if a candidate should win both Iowa and New Hampshire they are nearly a lock for the party’s nomination due to the publicity they receive. As an example of this extempers should look at the last presidential nominating cycle where Senator John Kerry rallied to defeat Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean in Iowa and then proceeded to defeat Dean again in New Hampshire. The wave of momentum established by the Kerry campaign enabled it to crush its opposition and win nearly the rest of the primary contests, with the major exception being a loss in the South Carolina primary to Senator John Edwards.
New Hampshire also serves as the last stand for many presidential candidacies. Candidates who have gained little to no traction by the New Hampshire primaries typically drop out of the race. This year this may not be as important due to the fact that the Iowa caucuses are so close to the New Hampshire primaries and future primary contests await candidates soon after in Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, and other high profile states.
In this section it is also worth noting the objections to the use of the New Hampshire primary as such a important part of the presidential nominating calendar. As with objections to the use of the Iowa caucuses, New Hampshire is criticized for being a state with a predominately white population. The 2000 U.S. Census indicated that New Hampshire’s white population is 96% of the state’s total and that African-Americans account for less than one percent of the state’s population. Both of these numbers run counter to the nation’s demographic makeup of that same 2000 Census which indicated that the United States is 75% white and 12.5% African-American. Activists, mostly on the Democratic Party side, allege that allowing New Hampshire to go first in terms of having an elected primary does not represent the diverse viewpoints of the country, especially along racial lines. These opponents of the New Hampshire primary also point out that due to the importance of the New Hampshire primary candidates are only concerned with issues that affect white, middle-class voters rather than issues that may be important to lower-income minority voters in other states that come later in the primary calendar. The Democratic Party attempted to try to solve this problem by introducing the Nevada caucus into the January primary calendar to gain more Latino voters into the process and adding South Carolina’s primary in mid-January to accommodate more African-American voters. However, despite these attempts New Hampshire retains its position as the first presidential primary due to state law.
There are some benefits to having New Hampshire vote early in the presidential calendar, though. First, the state is economically more prosperous than Iowa and represents differed business concerns that are not centered on agriculture. A candidate who shows they can win in Iowa and New Hampshire shows that they have a grasp of issues that can accommodate a economically diverse voting population. Second, New Hampshire is a state with a independent streak. Over 37% of New Hampshire’s voters are independents, which is more than the percentage of voters aligned with the Democratic or Republican parties. New Hampshire has also been a source of Republican electoral votes (although it has a measly total of four) in a New England area that has been painted liberal blue for two elections under George W. Bush. Due to the importance of independent voters in the primary, a factor which will be discussed later in this brief, candidates cannot simply appeal to the radicals on the fringes of their party, a common result in primary contests, to win.
As with the Iowa caucus brief, I will provide a list below of the winners (marked in bold) of the New Hampshire primary for both parties and who they defeated. Candidates who ended up winning the parties nomination are marked with an asterisk. This list should serve as a roadmap for extempers who would like to read more about the history of the New Hampshire primary so they can integrate it into future speeches.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY RESULTS
2004: John Kerry* defeated Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Joseph Lieberman, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton
2000: Al Gore* defeated Bill Bradley
1996: Bill Clinton* ran unopposed
1992: Paul Tsongas defeated Bill Clinton*, Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin, and Jerry Brown
1988: Michael Dukakis* defeated Dick Gephardt, Paul Simon, Jesse Jackson, and Al Gore
1984: Gary Hart defeated Walter Mondale*, John Glenn, Jesse Jackson, and George McGovern
1980: Jimmy Carter* defeated Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown
1976: Jimmy Carter* defeated Mo Udall, Birch Bayh, Fred Harris, and R. Sargent Shriver
1972: Edward Muskie defeated George McGovern* and Samuel Yorty
1968: Lyndon Johnson defeated Eugene McCarthy
Note: Johnson’s Vice-President Hubert Humphrey would win the nomination
despite not contesting a single primary. This prompted rules changes led by George McGovern and others in the Democratic Party for the 1972 election.
1964: Lyndon Johnson* won against no significant competition
1960: John F. Kennedy* won against no significant competition
1956: Estes Kefauver defeated Adlai Stevenson*
1952: Estes Kefauver defeated Harry Truman
REPUBLICAN PARTY RESULTS
2004: George W. Bush* won against no significant competition
2000: John McCain defeated George W. Bush*, Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, and Gary Bauer
1996: Pat Buchanan defeated Bob Dole*, Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Richard Lugar, and Alan Keyes
1992: George H.W. Bush* defeated Pat Buchanan
1988: George H.W. Bush* defeated Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Pete du Pont, and Marion Robertson
1984: Ronald Reagan* won against no significant competition
1980: Ronald Reagan* defeated George H.W. Bush, Howard Baker, John Anderson, Phillip Crane
1976: Gerald Ford* defeated Ronald Reagan
1972: Richard Nixon* defeated Pete McCloskey and John Ashbrook
1968: Richard Nixon* defeated George Romney
1964: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. defeated Barry Goldwater*, Nelson Rockefeller, and Richard Nixon
1960: Richard Nixon* won against no significant competition
1956: Dwight D. Eisenhower* won against no significant competition
1952: Dwight D. Eisenhower* defeated Robert Taft and Harold Stassen
1948: Harold Stassen defeated Thomas Dewey*
How Does it Work?
Explaining the workings of the New Hampshire primary will not be as difficult as explaining the Iowa caucuses. The New Hampshire primary works like a typical primary election with voters heading to the polls and voting for their preferred candidate. However, there are some details that need to be explained.
First, the New Hampshire primary is not a closed primary. In a closed primary the only people who can vote in each party’s primary are voters who are registered with that political party. For example, under this system only voters registered as Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary. Under the New Hampshire system, voters who are registered as independents can vote in either party’s primary. This has major political implications because in most presidential nomination cycles both parties do not have competitive races as we have in 2008. Instead, one party usually has an incumbent candidate and another party has a more open race and that race tends to attract the independent voters of New Hampshire. These independent voters have been a potent force in the New Hampshire primary and can make or break candidacies. In 2000, Senator Bill Bradley was hoping that he could use independent voters in New Hampshire to upset Vice-President Al Gore in the state. However, independent voters largely chose to participate in the Republican primary instead of the Democratic one and voted for Senator John McCain against then-Texas Governor George W. Bush. As a result, John McCain defeated Bush to keep his candidacy alive while Bradley suffered a devastating defeat to Al Gore that later forced him to leave the race.
Extempers should not infer that New Hampshire is a open primary simply because it is a closed primary. In an open primary, party affiliation does not matter and there can be cross-voting with Democrats voting in Republican primaries and vice versa. The New Hampshire primary does not allow for such voting tactics. Instead, those individuals who are registered as Democrats or Republicans can only vote in their respective primaries. This may explain why New Hampshire has a plurality of independent voters.
The Democratic Field: Where the Race Stands
After former First Lady and Senator Hillary Clinton’s famous debate gaffes over driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, her lead in the polls has been diminished. As the polls have tightened the race in New Hampshire has gained greater importance as it now appears that Hillary Clinton will not have an immediate coronation as the Democratic Party’s candidate in 2008.
For Senator Barack Obama and Senator John Edwards, New Hampshire is a critical state for turning the tide against Hillary Clinton. In Iowa, both men are locked in a three-way tie with Mrs. Clinton and the outcome of that race may not be known until it actually occurs because polls in Iowa are typically unreliable. Due to the fact that Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, victories by her in Iowa and New Hampshire would most likely cement her hold on the nomination and other candidates would admit defeat and step aside. Therefore, stopping Hillary in either Iowa or New Hampshire, preferably both for anti-Hillary elements of the Democratic Party, is a must for Edwards and Obama if they want to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. It is important to note here as well that if Hillary wins Iowa that she could easily win New Hampshire as she will validate her candidacy there and receive the positive media attention that could easily spill into New Hampshire. However, winning the Iowa caucuses does not automatically guarantee political success in New Hampshire, a fact that Senator Tom Harkin learned in 1992 and George W. Bush learned in 2000.
Currently, Barack Obama has a four-point lead over Hillary Clinton in the polls in the Iowa caucuses. However, in New Hampshire the junior senator from Illinois trails his New York counterpart by a 35-23% margin. While this margin appears large, Obama has closed the gap in recent weeks as previous polls had him trailing by nearly twenty percentage point to Mrs. Clinton. Obama’s campaign hopes that if he wins Iowa there will be a positive spillover effect into New Hampshire and that can greatly assist his efforts to win the state. Two consecutive primary victories by Obama, though, may not immediately translate into the nomination because Hillary’s candidacy could be revived by victories in the South Carolina primary, the Nevada caucuses, and/or Super Tuesday.
The reasons for Obama’s re-emergence as a political force in the Democratic primary are due to several factors. First, his campaign has become noticeably more combative towards Hillary Clinton. In the early stages of the race, Obama tried to run a positive campaign and was not willing to directly engage or criticize statements made by the Clinton campaign team. As a result of this he allowed Clinton’s campaign team to define him as inexperienced and ill-suited for the job of running the United States. However, Obama has now managed to turn the tables and is questioning two weak points of the Clinton campaign machine: her level of experience and general appeal.
First, Obama has leveled accusations that Hillary Clinton cannot have it both ways on the campaign trail when it comes to her husband’s previous presidency. Hillary has been criticized as running on her husband’s record rather than her own and taking some credit for some of the noticeable achievement of the Clinton years such as having a peaceful foreign policy and presiding over a period of unprecedented economic growth. However, Hillary seems to be distancing herself from her husband’s failures, noticeably in attempting a universal health care proposal that Mrs. Clinton presided over and the impeachment proceedings due to Lewinskygate. Obama has verbally criticized Clinton for trying to take credit only for successes and has said that just because Mrs. Clinton was First Lady does not mean that she has any level of experience in running the executive branch of government.
Second, Obama has attacked Clinton’s appeal to a broad American electorate. As most extempers already know, Hillary Clinton’s negative ratings are the highest of any candidate in American history approaching a general election. The American public is largely polarized in their feelings about Mrs. Clinton and many of those opinions are not open to change. Obama has played up Mrs. Clinton’s vulnerability in a general election and has questioned her electability as a Democratic nominee. Picking the correct nominee is fundamentally important for the Democrats as a victory in the presidential race would most likely lock up power in Congress and the executive branch, opening a wide door for liberal policy proposals. Obama argues that if Clinton loses America will have divided government and the Democrats will lose their ability to initiate significant public policy changes. Also, Obama points to recent polls that have him defeating major Republican candidates in head-to-head matchups, especially former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani whereas Mrs. Clinton is now trailing. Senator Obama is also more popular among Republican voters than Mrs. Clinton and Obama has emphasized that he can reach across the aisle and attract more support from the other party in the general election than Mrs. Clinton could. Finally, Obama has undermined Clinton’s appeal by arguing that if he is the nominee she could galvanize Republicans to go to the polls and the turnout achieved by her could lead to Democrats losing not only the White House but Congressional seats picked up in the 2006 midterms due to the fact that Democratic gains occurred in conservative parts of the country.
While these attacks have weakened Mrs. Clinton’s lead in the polls, Obama still has many hurdles to overcome. First, he has to win Iowa and New Hampshire to show that Clinton is not an unbeatable candidate and even after he wins those two contests he must continue to beat her, a fact only emphasized more by Hillary’s significant leads in states such as California, Nevada, and New York over her opponents. Second, Mrs. Clinton is still attracting a large portion of women and minority voters that Obama has not been able to capture. Losing the minority vote is a especially damaging aspect of the Obama campaign because minorities, especially African-Americans, have a largely positive view of former President Bill Clinton who is sometimes referred to as America’s “first black president.” Due to the fact that President Clinton is campaigning for his wife, Obama has to negate this loss in some respect and he hopes that recent campaign action by Oprah Winfrey may regain some lost ground with women and minority voters. Third, Obama will have to endure attacks from the Clinton campaign machine that has shown its ruthlessness in past elections. Negative attacks are bound to fly in Iowa and New Hampshire and they will be directed at Mr. Obama. How he responds to these ads will define his candidacy and if he falters in responding it could be lights out on his campaign.
Aside from the Clinton-Obama scuffles it is important to discuss John Edwards. Edwards’ campaign is very Iowa-centric. Edwards has picked up endorsements from some of Iowa’s congressional delegation, although former governor Tom Vilsack has endorsed Hillary Clinton leading some to believe he could be a vice-presidential candidate for her if she wins the primary, and has the best team in Iowa to solicit a get out the vote effort. Edwards campaign hinges on winning Iowa and riding that wave of momentum through the rest of the primaries. A large consensus is forming in political circles that if Edwards loses Iowa his campaign is finished and he may drop out the day after. However, Edwards may stick around for the race in New Hampshire due to the fact it is so close to Iowa and pray for a miracle at the polls. Either way, Edwards currently trails Obama by nine points in New Hampshire polls and definitely needs momentum from Iowa to boost his candidacy in the state.
Overall, the race in New Hampshire is a two person campaign between Clinton and Obama with Edwards pulling away support from both campaigns and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson polling ten percent of support. However, Governor Richardson’s campaign has not gained as much traction as some hoped when his presidential run began and he is often viewed as a vice-presidential choice rather than a leading candidate for the top of the ticket.
What extempers should note in the Democratic race is how candidates are drawing support from each other, noticeably those candidates who oppose Hillary Clinton. The interesting scenario that scares Clinton supporters is if John Edwards loses Iowa. A loss by Edwards in Iowa may cause him to drop out of the race and his supporters may defect to Obama in New Hampshire. If this occurs, Obama would defeat Clinton according to polls by a 37-35% margin. The other nightmare is if Edwards loses Iowa to Obama and Obama gets major media attention that could raise his poll standings higher. The biggest nightmare for Clinton supporters is if Obama defeats Edwards in Iowa and both Obama and Edwards beat Clinton and she ends up in third place. This would devastate Clinton’s aura of invincibility and potentially lead to losses down the road.
In the end analysis, extempers should closely monitor what is going on in Iowa and draw parallels to New Hampshire as much as possible. New Hampshire voters are not afraid to rebuke the presidential choice made by Iowa voters. Also, the streak of independent voters can change the results of Iowa in a heartbeat. One think is for certain, though: the race is only bound to become tighter and more vicious as January 8th approaches as voters pay more attention and more seriously look at the candidates.
The Republican Field: Where the Race Stands
The Republican field has recently suffered a shakeup with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee increasing his support in opinion polls and being heralded by the media as the winner of the CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate. Huckabee is benefiting in Iowa from the departure of Senator Sam Brownback from the presidential race as the social conservatives who have supported Brownback are going to him in droves. This has enabled Huckabee to cut former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s lead in Iowa and some polls now have him leading Romney in some respects.
When the focus comes to New Hampshire, though, Huckabee’s momentum is not noticeable. Among current opinion polls he trails Romney, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Senator John McCain. As a result, there is a significant chance that the winner of the Iowa caucuses for the GOP will not win New Hampshire thereby extending the presidential race into other states such as Florida, California, and other contests on Super Tuesday.
The candidate that has the most riding on winning the New Hampshire primary is Mitt Romney. The former governor of Massachusetts has staked a lot on gaining early momentum to secure the GOP nomination. Romney has poured more money and attention in Iowa than any other candidate, arguably more than any candidate from either party minus John Edwards. Romney’s attention to the state secured him a victory in the GOP straw poll earlier this year, although it should be noted that Rudy Giuliani and John McCain did not heavily contest that poll. Romney’s team believes that if he is able to win Iowa and New Hampshire that he can eliminate candidates such as Mike Huckabee from the field and become engaged in a one-on-one showdown with Rudy Giuliani, who is centering his campaign on winning larger states where he is polling more support. This is important for Romney because he has flip-flopped and become anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage in an attempt to appeal to the social conservative wing of the Republican Party. Romney’s hope that if he is faced against a pro-choice Giuliani that social conservatives will choose him and that he will win the Republican nomination. Romney would also hope to play up the fear among conservative voters that if Giuliani were nominated that many conservative voters, especially evangelicals who made the difference for President Bush in 2004, may stay home to punish the party for nominating a pro-choice candidate. Therefore, Romney’s strategy hinges heavily on winning New Hampshire and he currently enjoys a 33-19% advantage over Giuliani when polls are averaged for the month of November.
A candidate who desperately needs to win New Hampshire or regain lost ground in the polls is Senator John McCain. At this time last year McCain was behind heralded as the anti-Giuliani in the race and political pundits thought it would be him and Giuliani fighting it out for the GOP nomination. Unfortunately, the independent streak that characterized much of McCain’s candidacy in 2000 against George W. Bush has evaporated as McCain has been seen as working too closely with the President over issues such as the war in Iraq. Furthermore, it has been eight years since McCain last ran for president and concerns have emerged about his age. McCain’s support has been steadily declining since the spring and despite a impressive performance in the CNN/YouTube debate his standing in polls has not improved. McCain sits four points behind Giuliani in New Hampshire (although some polls have them tied for second place) and trails Romney by nearly twenty points. McCain’s campaign rallying in New Hampshire will have to depend on some late election magic. McCain’s message has often been vague and his candidacy has often lacked direction. Barring an electoral miracle, McCain has little chance of winning New Hampshire. The only factor that may swing the election in his favor would be a significant crossover of independent voters but he is splitting that block with Giuliani and there is the possibility that a large portion of independent voters may choose to participate in the Democratic primary undermining that block of independent support. Overall, McCain’s candidacy is in serious jeopardy and after New Hampshire it is doubtful that his campaign will be able to recover.
Rudy Giuliani’s campaign is attempting to pursue a different course of action to win the Republican nomination. Giuliani has not poured significant resources into Iowa or New Hampshire, although he has made the customary campaign stops. Instead, Giuliani is looking to win bigger states such as Florida and California that have a larger share of Republican delegates for the national convention than Iowa or New Hampshire. In these states Giuliani is outpolling his Republican rivals by decent margins so his strategy is not unthinkable in its execution. However, Giuliani’s strategy is littered with pitfalls. His record as mayor of New York City has successes such as the implementation of the broken windows theory in fighting crime but he also has significant problems such as several charged racial incidents that occurred in New York City under his watch and marital problems that quickly turned ugly in the public eye. Coupled with his support for former New York City police chief Bernard Kerik in the face of multiple corruption charges, Giuliani’s record has many blemishes to go with its many achievements. Furthermore, Giuliani’s strategy runs the risk of giving up too many primary states to his competition. Allowing four of the first five primaries to go to other candidates would cause Giuliani to stave a comeback from behind. It is not as if this task would be impossible, but it would run the risk of Giuliani losing significant momentum and media attention in the early stages of the primary season. Due to these facts, Giuliani’s campaign team has shifted more focus onto New Hampshire and has started to be more vocal against Romney in an attempt to directly challenge him in the state over issues such as illegal immigration and criticizing Romney from running away from his health care plan in Massachusetts. However, the effects of these recent challenges have not made a significant dent in the polls and Romney still leads by a comfortable margin.
The one candidate that can play a spoiler role in New Hampshire is Texas Congressman Ron Paul. A candidate that would be better suited running as a Libertarian rather than a Republican, Paul has made inroads with disaffected conservatives and young people who want radical change at the top of the government. Some of Paul’s positions include withdrawing troops from Iraq and other foreign locations, paying down the national debt, and returning the United States to the gold standard. Although he was discounted as a fringe candidate in the primaries, Paul has shown a great knack for fundraising, raising millions of dollars in simply one day over the Internet, and has performed comparably well with his opposition in recent Republican debates. In a libertarian leaning state such as New Hampshire, Paul is bound to draw a decent amount of support at the polls on election day. Most polls have him garnering anywhere from seven to eight percent of the primary vote, although that runs significantly behind Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. Nevertheless, that level of support puts him a mere a one point behind Mike Huckabee, who shares Paul’s disdain of the Internal Revenue Service. Although Paul’s chances of winning the Republican nomination are slim to none, he, like Bill Richardson in the Democratic primary, can attract a significant amount of support from a candidate who needs it the most such as John McCain or Rudy Giuliani. Therefore, it would be worth extempers time to research this spoiler effect that can take place in the New Hampshire primary on both sides.
Cards:
Duffy, Michael. “Giuliani’s Huckabee Strategy.” Time Magazine. 26 November 2007. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1687447,00.html.
For most of the last six months, the Giuliani high command has spent considerable time trying to decide how to deploy its most precious assets – its money, its best organizers and the candidate himself – in the early primary states. It has been a complex – and shifting – calculation for a Republican who got in relatively late, comes from a blue city in a blue state, tilts to the center on abortion and homosexuality and has a name that ends with a vowel. And so, Team Giuliani has already passed through several stages on the path to nirvana.
Harrop, Froma. “New Hampshire: GOP Crumbles in the Granite State.” The National Ledger. 29 November 2007. http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272617471.shtml.
Laconia, N.H. — During the French Revolution, angry mobs were not content to just chop off a monarch’s head. They attacked the royal tombs and buried the remains of long-gone kings in quicklime, lest any earthly bits of the old rulers survive. With similar passion, though in a nonviolent manner, New Hampshire voters seem intent on removing the last traces of the Republican Party in their state.
“McCain Bets on National Security in New Hampshire.” CNN.com. 20 November 2007. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/19/mccain.new.hampshire/?iref=mpstoryview.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is betting heavily on the New Hampshire primary, hoping his muscular approach to national security will appeal to the state’s Republican voters.
To win in the New Hampshire primary, McCain needs the support of the Independent voters who helped him win in 2000, many of whom are wary of his support of the Iraq war.
Balz, Dan. “Romney and Giuliani Turn Negative in New Hampshire.” The Washington Post. 26 November 2007.
CONCORD, N.H., Nov. 25 — With Rudolph W. Giuliani looking to spring a surprise against Mitt Romney in the state hosting the nation’s first primary, the race for the Republican presidential nomination took a sharply negative turn here Sunday as the two candidates traded accusations about taxes, crime, immigration, abortion and ethical standards.
Wulfhorst, Ellen. “Short Voting Gap Shapes Presidential Race.” Reuters News Service. 30 November 2007. http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN3025267920071130.
NEW YORK (Reuters) – After more than a year of political campaigning and tens of millions of dollars raised and spent, some experts believe the contests to choose the Democratic and Republican nominees for president could be over in a mere five days.
The first political caucus in Iowa on January 3 and the first primary in New Hampshire on January 8 could produce the nominee for each party, leaving millions of voters headed to nominating contests later in the spring with the nominees already effectively chosen, they say.
Vennochi, Joan. “The Moment of Truth for Clinton.” The Boston Globe. 29 November 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/29/the_moment_of_truth_for_clinton?mode=PF.
On Monday, Hillary Clinton countered news that Oprah Winfrey will be stumping for Barack Obama with endorsement news of her own. She has the backing of Susan Lynch, the wife of Governor John Lynch, who describes herself as the first lady of New Hampshire, a pediatrician, and “most importantly” a mother. Lynch’s husband is officially neutral in the race to win the New Hampshire primary.