Introduction Since the 1950S, New Hampshire Has Gained a Level Of
Introduction Since the 1950s, New Hampshire has gained a level of political notoriety and media attention greatly disproportionate to the size of its population and to the modest four votes it holds in the Electoral College. On paper, at least, these facts, filtered through a first-past-the-post electoral system, should ensure the ‘Granite State’ receives little serious attention from the major parties in presidential elections, except in extremely close races where voter intentions are fluid and nominees must scramble for every vote. The state is also comparatively low yield in terms of convention delegates and, until recently, had a longstanding reputation for rock-ribbed Republicanism, with the GOP dominating executive offices, the state legislature and national congressional delegations. Combined, these factors make it all the more surprising that the voting intentions and political culture of a small, conservative New England state have been national talking points for years. In the early twenty-first century, New Hampshire continues to fascinate reporters and political scientists, not only for its controversial ‘first-in-the-nation’ primary but also for an apparent marked change in its partisan make-up, which has converted it into a key ‘swing state’ in presidential elections. New Hampshire has occupied a unique position in electoral politics since 1952. Changes to the rules governing presidential nomination contests, combined with the rapid growth of media coverage of those contests, propelled it into the political limelight. In the pre-reform nomination system, where closed caucuses and behind-the-scenes bargaining determined convention outcomes, New Hampshire’s early position in the primary calendar meant little, other than allowing presidential hopefuls such as Franklin Roosevelt to test public opinion and state party activists without serious long-term risk.
[Show full text]