Why NH Matters
Every four years New Hampshire has the pleasure of becoming the epicenter of the political universe in America as we host the first-in-the-nation presidential primary. We are inundated with camera crews, media heavy weights, and a coterie of high-end politicos all asking in a shrill and at times patronizing voice, “What is the mood of the New Hampshire voter?”
And then these same people debate the worth of this state hosting such a monumental political event by challenging the relevancy of the New Hampshire electorate. To these flatlanders we are a state mostly composed of fleece and flannel wearing rural folk whose granite-like conservatism and fickle flights of electoral fancy don’t even come close to reflecting the national electorate.
However, while this caricature does have its merits in at least a portion of New Hampshire, it is no longer a true generalization. The Norman Rockwell simpleness and Yankee crankiness portrayed by many in the national media ignores the evolution and potency of one segment of the New Hampshire electorate. They are not aligned to any particular party, can best be defined as moderates, and they vote. As such, it is an electorate whose performance in the Democratic Presidential Primary will play an important role in proving whether any of the Democratic candidates has what it takes to beat President George W. Bush in November of 2004 or not.
The basis of this evolution leading to the dilution of the traditional New Hampshire political caricature is the nearly decade long in-migration of people primarily seeking smaller communities and a lower cost of living. For the most part they are expatriates of Massachusetts who, according to Exeter, NH, resident Peter Francese, founder of American Demographics magazine, fit the definition of a modern day moderate – fiscally conservative, but centrist to a tad left leaning on social issues. “There is no evidence to suggest that these people are bringing a Massachusetts liberal mentality with them,” he says, “but there is evidence to suggest that they are, politically and socially speaking, mainstream, they are not extremists. These are business people, these are white collar workers, they are not extreme right or left, they are socially center to left, fiscally conservative.”
And according to Francese these folks have primarily settled here on the southern tier arriving at a rate of 1,000 per month over the past several years. In total, approximately 80,000 people have moved to this state since 1995. According to Francese the three reasons driving this migration are mid 30s to 40s aged workers coming for an in-state job or to commute out of state for work, some also seek a lower cost of living, and many come to retire here. In fact, said Francese, the bulk of these new neighbors are over the age of fifty; a group that traditionally tends to be politically aware and votes in large numbers.
The end result of this population boom, added Francese, is that the southern tier of New Hampshire – essentially Derry to Seabrook – looks more like suburban America than the state’s more traditional Yankee caricature. “Southern New Hampshire literally is considered and defined as a suburb of the Boston Metropolitan Area,” he said. “Even a city such as Portsmouth, which has had strong job growth, can be considered an ‘Edge City’ in that it is a satellite to the major city of Boston. Essentially, Portsmouth’s general source of job growth can in many cases be traced back to corporations based in another city, such as Boston.”
While it is hard to determine if these people are more likely to register as Democrats or Republicans or some other option, there is an interesting trend that can be seen when looking at voter registration by party between 1992 and 2002. In 1992 there were 239,646 registered Republicans, 200,631 registered Democrats, and 127,966 people registered as Undeclared (This latter group, which holds no party affiliation, is sometimes misidentified as Independent).
In 2002, there were 253,504 registered Republicans, 176,634 Democrats, and 260,021 registered as Undeclared. Like the margin of error in a poll, these numbers may have some moderate fluctuations based on updates to voter checklists, but they show an obvious and substantial ten year growth in the number of Undeclared voters.
While it is difficult, at best, to assess the motivations behind the actions of any group of voters, it can be said that New Hampshire election law promotes and accommodates non-partisan voter identity and independence. Simply stated, Undeclareds are allowed to choose the primary (Republican or Democrat) they wish to cast a ballot in on the day of the election. Also, as a result of the state’s refusal to sign on to the federal Motor Voter Law, any citizen who is not a registered voter may register on the day of the election. This means that any of the thousands of people who have likely moved to the state since the 2002 mid-term election are able to easily cast a ballot in either primary.
In a general election this large mass of voters is out there and able to catch onto the prevailing political trade winds. Though many continue to vote for a particular party’s candidates with some consistency, they have consciously eschewed the notion of partisan identity and have at times proven to be rather prickly in their independence. Evidence of this can be seen in the three gubernatorial races won by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen who consistently positioned herself as the more moderate choice to her very conservative Republican opponents.
In primary elections this unaligned moderate voting block has shown a great willingness to swim against the currents of the status quo as was seen in the 2000 primary. In 2004, the role these voters play in the Democratic primary will be amplified as the Republican side of the primary leaves President George W. Bush unchallenged. This means that New Hampshire will give the first and likely most substantive indication if any of the Democratic candidates can put forth a viable challenge to President Bush nationally.
“You must be able to connect with this group that is getting larger and larger every two years and they do represent the rest of America,” said Portsmouth resident Steve Marchand, managing director of the political consulting firm Pembroke Strategies. “It is vitally important to watch how the (Democratic) candidates interact with these people. Can they connect with them and tap into them as a voter?”
Therein lays the rub. By sheer numbers these voters will likely dilute the more traditional instincts of the state’s relatively liberal Democrats. Further, since these voters closely resemble the great block of swing voters that will decide the national election, the NH Democratic Presidential Primary will be an important test for two reasons.
First, to win in New Hampshire, or at least among the Undeclareds, will require a message torqued toward these moderate, suburban American voters. Given their numbers it would be foolish for any of the candidates to ignore this group.
Second, to Democrats it is important that large numbers of Undeclareds come out to vote in their primary. Low Undeclared voter turnout for the Democrats bodes well for President Bush and Republicans because it will show that none of the Democratic candidates has yet found a message to energize and motivate these swing voters. “Let’s face it,” says Marchand, “if any of the Democratic candidates can’t get these Undeclareds to come out and vote without a race on the Republican side they are not likely going to get these people to come out for them nationally.”
To take a further look forward let’s take a look back.
In the 2000 presidential primary Arizona Sen. John McCain handily defeated Bush on the Republican side and former Vice President Al Gore narrowly defeated former Sen. Bill Bradley. Essentially, McCain won by 18 percentage points by winning 61 percent of the Undeclared vote as compared to Bush’s meager 19 percent (according to exit polling conducted by CNN). Even though it was clear that Undeclareds were far more motivated to vote in the Republican primary, Bradley still nearly beat a popular and sitting vice president by winning 56 percent of the Undeclared vote to Gore’s 41 percent. In each primary Undeclared voters comprised approximately 40 percent of the vote.
The meaning behind these numbers, argues Paul Peter Jesep, Portsmouth Herald opinion columnist, author, political analyst, and founder of moderaterepublican.com, is that what happens in New Hampshire should be closely watched not just for who won, but why. “John McCain showed his electoral prowess in New Hampshire. He buried Bush in large part because of the enormous support he received from Undeclared voters. As I recall, in a general election match up with Gore, McCain had an edge, due in part to his broad appeal to Undeclareds.
“New Hampshire, if anything, is more of a testing ground. If one of the (Democratic) candidates is able to win the primary with only some of the Undeclared vote then he or she has an enormous amount of work to do for the general election.”
(Back)
|
