New Hampshire rejects DNC, keeps first-in-the-nation primary.
New Hampshire Defies Democratic Party, Sticks with First-in-the-Nation Primary
In a bold move, New Hampshire has chosen to defy the Democratic Party and stand firm on holding the first-in-the-nation primary.
At a press conference in the Hall of Flags of the State House, David Scanlan, New Hampshire’s Secretary of State, announced on Wednesday that his state will hold its 2024 primary on Tuesday, January 23.
“We haven’t changed a thing,” declared Governor Chris Sununu (R-NH), who joined Scanlon and other officials at the event, adding later that, “In all the craziness of this day and age, consistency and integrity” in the election process is what people want.
BREAKING: The New Hampshire first-in-the-nation primary will be on Tuesday, January 23, 2024. pic.twitter.com/wEshMQEREk
— Kelsey Walsh (@Kjwalsh_news) November 15, 2023
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) chose to shake up its primary schedule by selecting South Carolina as the first presidential nominating state for the 2024 cycle on February 3, prompting a scheduling clash with Iowa and New Hampshire. Republicans elected to keep their calendar the same.
Iowa decided to work with the DNC on a plan to hold an in-person caucus to deal with “party business” and down-ballot races on January 15 — in step with the GOP holding its caucuses on that date — while conducting a mail-in presidential caucus until Super Tuesday in early March.
New Hampshire refused to mess with the state law, which has helped preserve the decades-long tradition of it holding the first presidential primary, despite the DNC’s threat to levy sanctions that would strip the power of New Hampshire’s delegates at next year’s national convention in Chicago.
CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPING GUIDE
The effort by the DNC to make South Carolina the first presidential nominating state comes as part of a push for more diversity atop the early voting process. South Carolina also happens to be the state where Biden started to gain momentum in the 2020 primary contest with a victory after he got fourth place in the Iowa caucuses and fifth place in New Hampshire.
Though Biden opted not to appear on the primary ballot in New Hampshire because of the brewing standoff over the order of election contests, there has been an effort to get voters to write in the incumbent’s name. Biden has a couple primary challengers, including Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN) and self-help author Marianne Williamson, but has dominated primary polls.
What potential consequences could arise from changing the primary calendar and pushing other states to hold their primaries earlier in the process
Ses on the same day. However, New Hampshire has remained steadfast in its commitment to maintaining its traditional position as the first primary state in the nation.
This decision by New Hampshire has sparked debate within the Democratic Party. Some argue that the party needs a more diverse and representative state to begin the nomination process, rather than starting with two predominantly white states like Iowa and New Hampshire. They believe that South Carolina, with its sizable black population, will provide a better reflection of the party’s diversity.
Others, however, argue that New Hampshire’s status as the first primary state is essential for multiple reasons. Firstly, it allows candidates to connect with voters on a more personal level, as the state’s smaller size allows for more intimate interactions. Secondly, New Hampshire voters are known for their meticulous decision-making process, closely scrutinizing candidates’ positions and performances. This can weed out candidates who may not be as strong on the national stage, ensuring that only the most viable contenders continue in the race.
Furthermore, New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary status has historical significance. It has served as an important testing ground for presidential candidates since 1920, providing valuable insights into candidate viability and serving as a predictor of future success in the nomination process. The state’s unique political climate and its mix of rural and urban voters also make it a microcosm of the larger country, allowing candidates to gauge their appeal across different demographics.
Supporters of New Hampshire’s first primary status also argue that changing the primary calendar could have unintended consequences. By pushing other states earlier, it might result in candidates spending less time in each state and engaging in more superficial campaign tactics. This could diminish the personal connections between candidates and voters, undermining the democratic process.
New Hampshire’s decision to stand firm on its first-in-the-nation status sends a message about its commitment to upholding the integrity of the primary process. It demonstrates that the state values its role in vetting and shaping presidential candidates and believes in the importance of allowing voters to have a significant say in the selection process.
The Democratic Party will need to navigate these conflicting opinions as it moves forward with its primary schedule for the 2024 cycle. While New Hampshire has defied the party’s wishes, it remains to be seen how this standoff will be resolved and what impact it will have on the overall nomination process. Ultimately, New Hampshire’s decision highlights the ongoing tension within the Democratic Party between the desire for change and the preservation of tradition.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
