My question is why be fifth? Why not first? Who annointed New Hampshire anyway? They’ve had their lead for a lot longer than they deserve.
New Hampshire anointed itself, as it has a state law mandating that its primary be the first in the country. I’d say there are two reasons for CA not moving it up more than that: not shaking everything up completely, and not wanting a Presidential primary in January.
The short answer is that trying to “beat” New Hampshire is a no-win situation. New Hampshire has a law on their books giving their Secretary of State broad, unilateral powers to move the date of their primary ahead of any state that attempts to get ahead of them. If California went to all the hassle of changing their laws to move the primary to next Tuesday, the NH SoS would simply declare next Monday the new NH date.
Why get into that sort of pissing contest?
Well it makes sense to have the biggest states hold their primaries first. What is to prevent CA from passing a law saying their primary must be held before NH. Matter of fact, TX, IL, FL and NY should all have their primaries first. That way someone may win early and save all the money and time for the candidates who lose.
I have never really understood why Iowa and New Hampshire go so early and have so much power. I would bet a very significant portion of the population couldn’t point to both of them on a map, yet they have so much power in the primaries? Never really made much sense to me.
Many Americans can perhaps identify four or five states on a map. (CA, TX, FL, maybe NY, and their own) Geographical incompetence is no reason to change the scheduling of primaries.
The problem with big states going first is that it gives a huge advantage to candidates with a lot of money. Letting a few small states go first gives a talented but underfunded candidate a chance to compete and emerge.
Even an underfunded candidate can manage to get around a small state like New Hampshire and meet a lot of voters before the primary. Winning or making a strong showing in New Hampshire creates momentum, and campaign contributions come rolling in.
In California, pounding the pavement won’t have the same effect as in New Hampshire. There are just too many voters to reach. The winner is the one who can mount the biggest ad campaign. Money carries the day.
If the big states had gone first in 1992, no one would ever have heard of Bill Clinton.
I’ve always wondered how long will it be before a primary is held the year before a presidential election.
Actually, I think big states should go last. Getting it over quickly gave us W. Bush. Also John Kerry (who really wasn’t that bad, but a lot of us felt like he was shoved down our throats).
In fact, the way we do it now saves much more money, because you only have to win over three small states, & 40 others will throw up their hands & say, “Well, the majority has spoken!” :dubious:
Personally, I’d like a system of dividing all of the states into ten five-state groups with a mix of different regions and sizes in each group. Then each group would have a primary day once a week for a period of ten weeks. And every election the order of the groups would move forward one space with the first one going to the end of the live. This way every state would get an equal share of importance in the primaries and we would eliminate the competition we currently have.
Actually, the respective parties have annointed New Hampshire, and the Democrats have also annointed the Iowa caucuses. Any time everyone else threatens to get uppity and move ahead of them, the party mechanism threatens dire sanctions at the convention for the delegates so chosen, which puts everything in proper perspective. 
As someone pointed out, by having small states early, a large number of relatively unknown candidates can try and get heard by enough people to make a name for themselves. Over the years, since we switched to the primary method of delegate selection, a number of candidates have had their campaigns jump-started in places like Iowa and New Hampshire. California would be a nightmare as a leading primary: you might as well simply limit the contest to the two best-funded candidates and see who wins. 
As for why New Hampshire as opposed to, say, South Carolina? Amazingly enough, people in New Hampshire tend to be suited for the role. The state isn’t overly conservative or liberal in its approach, tending to return to national office middle-of-the-road people. They take the role of contemplative voter seriously, and put more stock in the concept of citizen duty than many other states (town meetings, for example). And, generally, they don’t produce really screwy results from their primary.
And, of course, there is the tradition factor, never to be underestimated in American anything. 
Have you heard of William Loeb?
He’s long dead. So’s Nacky. Your point?
NH is much more typical than it used to be, due in large part to its southern tier becoming part of suburban Boston and reflecting the attitudes of those who’ve moved there. It still has its share of reflexive anti-government types, but they’re largely balanced out now. The place is still far more Caucasian than average, though.
Nemo, I guess you missed NH giving both its House seats to the Dems last November, to go with its Dem Governor?
Pat Buchanan won the 1996 New Hampshire primary.
DSY *did * say “generally”.
FWIW, NH is so white that if a minority candidate does well there, he probably shouldn’t have to worry about the race issue nationally.
Would it help if he has a Franco-American background? 
Maybe. 
NH is Southern enough to host *two * NASCAR races and a major motorcycle rally every year. Never mind that its hillbillies are French-Canadian, there’s almost no blacks or even Hispanics to be found, and it’s covered by ice for 5 months a year; it’s still full of pickup trucks with Confederate flag bumper stickers. So is Maine, for that matter.