New Hampshire: Still a Primary Player

DURHAM, N.H. -- The Democratic National Committee has moved to reduce the influence of the longtime first-in-the-nation presidential primary state: New Hampshire. It has done so by (1) inserting another state's party caucuses (Nevada's) between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire vote and (2) scheduling the South Carolina primary right after New Hampshire's. Political leaders in the Granite State are, of course, resisting the change and threatening to ignore the new schedule.

But in fact, it may be time for New Hampshire to reflect on its traditional role in the nomination of presidential candidates, and perhaps face up to the need for some changes.

As has been argued before, New Hampshire is not particularly representative of the nation. Neither, for that matter, are Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina. New Hampshire has the third-lowest percentage of minority residents and one of the lowest rates of regular church attendance in the country.

But unlike Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina, New Hampshire has a strong, broad-based economy with a significant concentration of high-tech companies and global exporters. In many respects its economy represents the nation's (hoped-for) economic future. It's a very good place for candidates to test out economic ideas and principles and to learn from workers and entrepreneurs.

In the past quarter-century, New Hampshire's economy has been transformed. Its economic base has changed from traditional manufacturing to concentration in high technology and skilled professional services. It has improved in rank among the states in per capita income from 25th to sixth. It has been the strongest economic performer in New England, with the region's fastest growth rates in employment, gross state product and exports. New Hampshire consistently has among the lowest rates of unemployment and poverty.

The state's leading employers include Fidelity Investments (the largest mutual fund company in the world), BAE Systems (a British defense and homeland security product manufacturer) and Liberty Mutual (a Fortune 500 insurance company). Timberland Co. has its worldwide headquarters in the state. The Segway human transporter was invented in the state, and the company has its headquarters here.

One of the fastest-growing manufacturers in New Hampshire is GT Equipment Technologies Inc., a company that in many respects reflects the future promise and direction of the state's economy. Founded by Kedar Gupta, an immigrant from India, it invented and sells solar cell manufacturing equipment, with the largest markets for its products being in China and elsewhere overseas.

Just as the New Hampshire economy has changed, so must its political position and role. Even with the DNC discussing its alterations in the primary process, presidential hopefuls have continued to come to New Hampshire. In fact, the state need not be first, or even second, in the presidential primaries to be an important factor in the nomination process. Its economic standing, its political heritage and traditions, its continuing high level of citizen engagement, its voters' questioning and testing of candidates, and its current standing as one of the few contested states all combine to make it an ideal testing ground for presidential candidates.

New Hampshire's retail politics -- the level of political engagement -- will not be replicated in Nevada or South Carolina. In New Hampshire, more than three-quarters of the electorate votes in presidential primaries. Survey data indicate that almost all voters in the state pay "some" or "a lot" of attention to the primary, and over two-thirds of the voting-age population watches or listens to a presidential candidate debate during primary seasons.

New Hampshire should work with the Democratic and Republican national committees on changes in the nomination process. This would help to retain the national credibility of its primary and interest in it. The state and its political leaders from both parties should recognize that New Hampshire's status, role and influence in the presidential nomination process will remain strong even if it accepts the proposed changes in the nomination process.

For example, suppose Hillary Clinton won the Iowa and Nevada caucuses before the New Hampshire primary in 2008. She'd still have to win in New Hampshire to move toward an early lock on the nomination. What if Clinton lost in Iowa and Nevada? By then winning New Hampshire, she could generate momentum and bring many comparisons to her husband's role in 1992 as the "comeback kid." If Mark Warner or another dark-horse candidate won or did surprisingly well in New Hampshire he would generate attention and establish himself as a legitimate candidate regardless of his performance in Iowa and Nevada.

On the Republican side, if John McCain lost the New Hampshire primary, there'd be questioning of why he won the state against George W. Bush in 2000 but couldn't win it in 2008. If Rudy Giuliani won or did better than expected in New Hampshire, he would generate attention and establish himself as a legitimate candidate, regardless of his performance in the first two caucuses.

So don't expect Mitt Romney or John Kerry to forget the roadways from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, or Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani or George Pataki not to scuttle back and forth between New York and New Hampshire if the Democratic and Republican national parties change the presidential nomination schedule. New Hampshire can continue to be a field of dreams for presidential candidates, and rightfully so.

The writer is the James R. Carter professor at the University of New Hampshire's Whittemore School of Business and Economics.