Danziger: It’s time for Vermont to get in on New Hampshire’s primary spoils

[cali]

Now that the Vermont legislature has returned to Montpelier, I’d like to suggest again that it consider a plan to alter New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary. I’ve said this before, and nobody paid any attention. Things have not gotten better.

It’s not only the money that the New Hampshire primary brings in that bothers me. It’s the .?.?. well, okay, it’s the money. In the run-up to the vote in 2016, New Hampshire’s television stations will be rolling in dough, its restaurants will be crowded with journalists and hangers-on, and its merchants’ registers will sing.

Meanwhile, we here in Vermont, who, God knows, are much better equipped to make an intelligent decision about the future of the country, are ignored. Worse, we are forced to watch salty old New Hampshire men crackle wise to the candidates and floor credulous news crews with their cranky humor. But actually it’s the money.

<snip>

That would mean that the millions in additional trade that goes to New Hampshire would be shared by Vermont. It would also mean that the beggar-thy-neighbor, hard-fisted, poor-mouthing, unchivalrous and ungenerous attitude of New Hampshire would be tempered by the kinder, warmer, more humane Vermont. No matter how much New Hampshire voters forced primary candidates to twist their taxation and social stances into the crabbed demands so common east of the Connecticut River, a countervailing attitude of fair play and friendly persuasion would prevail to the west.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-danziger-its-time-for-vermont-to-get-in-on-new-hampshires-primary-spoils/2015/01/11/70e28008-9841-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html

[joshcryer]

1. I'll never understand why it's so limited.

I understand why some states get preference, but we need at least 3-4 potentially 6 states on the first group of states to get primaries.

I know candidates can't campaign in all states on the same day, that's fair enough (for the primaries), but Iowa and New Hampshire have had too much leeway. Expand it and this may even be frowned upon but throw a southern state in there too. Why not.

[Scuba]

2. Don't be silly. New Hampshire and Iowa should solely determine our Presidential candidates.

[Vinca]

3. They can have it.

New Hampshire (if you own a phone) is a nightmare during primary season. I've gotten so I recognize the pollsters on caller ID so I don't pick up, but the phone is always ringing. If Vermont was first, they would be a reliable vote for the left. New Hampshire zigzags.