Does NH deserve its first-in-the-nation place in presidential primary season?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Exactly what it says on the tin.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/mark-shields/america-truly-needs-the-new-hampshire-primary.html
The link provided explains my stance on the issue.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Oh, and poll runs for seven days.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

OH should go first.

[bedstuy]

Of course not.  No state should have one of the first few caucuses or primaries every single year.  It's not fair and it distorts the process in favor of candidates who can play well in IA, NH and SC.

[Boston Bread]

Yes because it's tradition and nothing should be changed, like ever. And who cares if it distorts the power of voters based on their location if it makes elections longer and more entertaining?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I think they're a good state to host it. Iowa needs to lose it, though.

Although I would greatly prefer a national primary day.

[Vega]

No, but there will be a world war before it get's bumped down.

My most honest, non-biased response as to who should have the spot is Pennsylvania. Ohio or California should also be contenders.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

alaska should be the first, to compensate for the fact they report last on election night. (they have a caucus though. first primary should be oregon or california)

[NewYorkExpress]

Actually, I'd switch New Hampshire and Iowa's current positions, replace South Carolina's position with Georgia, and have Nevada, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad go a week later. (I'd also encourage Republicans to do something like Democrats Abroad to put in that timeslot). Louisiana, New Mexico and Michigan would be the Tuesday before Super Tuesday, and from there States would be free to schedule as they please.

[SteveRogers]

Nope. They did nothing to earn it. The idea of having a small state go first is a nice thought though, the state just needs to be rotated out. Same goes for having a southern and a western state go next. It shouldn't be South Carolina and Nevada every time.

[IceSpear]

Of course not.  No state should have one of the first few caucuses or primaries every single year.  It's not fair and it distorts the process in favor of candidates who can play well in IA, NH and SC.

[Stranger in a strange land]

The only fair way to do this is to have a lottery before every election cycle, maybe with the stipulation that a state can't go first twice in a row, or that the winning state has to be from a different region than the previous one.

[pikachu]

No. Imo, there should either regional lotteries to decide the first four states or we should do a nation wide primary.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

They don't really deserve it but then no one else does either.

[publicunofficial]

If it means politicians stop having to pretend ethanol is a viable idea in order to appease Iowa farmers, I'm all for it.

[Zioneer]

I'm in favor of the first two primaries being rotating primaries. Perhaps Rhode Island and Mississippi could go first, or Utah and North Dakota.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

New Hampshire is, what? Inbred farmers, decaying mill towns and way too many rich Baaaawston commuters. Hard case to make, given that.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Nationwide simultaneous primary. End the ridiculousness.

[Badger]

Nationwide simultaneous primary. End the ridiculousness.

And thereby ensure the big money and early name-recognition candidates win. No thanks.

Meanwhile, the OP TOTALLY missed the point of the article. Shields PRAISED the retail level and close scrutiny politics of NH.

I've often opposed NH's place as the first in the nation primary, but when Shields points out it's tough to find someone who has run, served, or is serving in the State leg (or has a spouse who has), plus most of the state's population being accessible within an hour's drive of Manchester, he's converted me.

Though an argument could still be made for Delaware for it's small size and more nationally-reflective demographics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And thereby ensure the big money and early name-recognition candidates win. No thanks.

Um... this is what happens anyway.

[TDAS04]

They don't really deserve it but then no one else does either.

This.

There should not be a nationwide primary, there should just be a few states doing it at a time.  Since no state deserves to be first all the time, the order in which states hold contests should be randomly selected through a lottery each cycle.  One state can be randomly selected for the first primary, then two for the second time, and three for the third round.  After that, the number should not exceed five.

A nationwide presidential primary would be problematic in a field of multiple candidates, and holding a few contests at a time can help eliminate candidates aren't fit for the long haul.  But no state should be entitled the special position of first all the time (and I say this as someone originally from Iowa).

[they don't love you like i love you]

And thereby ensure the big money and early name-recognition candidates win. No thanks.

Um... this is what happens anyway.

As the Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani race of 2008 proved.

[bedstuy]

Here's the system I think might work:

Divide the country into four regions, West, South, Midwest and Northeast.  The first four primaries rotate among those regions every year.

So, say maybe one year it's:
1st West: Arizona
2nd South: Virginia
3rd Midwest: Minnesota
4th Northeast: New Jersey

Then, you would shift the next year

1st Northeast:  Vermont
2nd West:  Oregon
3rd South:  Florida
4th: Midwest: Indiana

Then, you would also have the states rotate in each of their regions, staggered so the biggest states won't all coincide in one year like, California, Texas, New York, Illinois.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As the Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani race of 2008 proved.

Because Obama and McCain were so unknown...

Come on now. This is just knee-jerk small 'c' conservatism. Pining for a lost era of Jacksonian Democracy is not really the soundest principle on which to pick candidates.

[bedstuy]

Didn't Obama actually raise about the same or slightly more money than Clinton if you only include non-General Election earmarked money?