The words “courage,” “republicans,” and “Donald Trump” almost never go together in a sentence, because for the last 7 years, we have watched as the GOP bends to Donald Trump’s will at every opportunity. Whether that be the 2016 GOP presidential candidates’ refusal to directly confront Trump before it was too late, Republicans’ acquiescence to his sexual misconduct, or the Senate GOP’s inability to impeach him after he tried to overthrow our government, any reasonable person could not possibly expect conservatives to ever take real action against Donald Trump. This is especially true in red-state state legislatures, whose legislators are owned by their lunatic constituents.
But one state party appears poised to deal a real blow to Trump’s 2024 campaign: The New Hampshire Republican Party. Although New Hampshire has not supported a statewide Republican at the federal level since Kelly Ayotte’s victory in the state’s 2010 Senate election, New Hampshire’s legislature as been completely controlled by Republicans since 2021. But New Hampshire Republicans are a completely different animal than their nutcase counterparts across the country. Raising taxes may be the touch of death in the “Live Free or Die” state, but New Hampshirites are among the least religious people in the country. Even many conservatives in New Hampshire are vehemently opposed to any attacks on the rights of gay people and abortion rights. In addition to New Hampshire’s social liberalism, another huge moderating factor is the state’s unique system of government. New Hampshire is the 10th smallest state by population, but it is home to the 5th largest legislative chamber in the entire English speaking world, only behind the United Kingdom’s two Houses of Parliament, India’s lower house, and the United States House of Representatives. With a whopping 400 seats and only 1.39 million constituents, each representative represents a population similar to that of a large urban high school. With every single voter so easily able to meet and talk to their lawmakers, it is extremely difficult for even the most conservative of Republicans to advance extreme measures. More importantly, if the total number of people voting in your election is under 1500 - sometimes under 1000 in a midterm - big money interests have a much taller task of influencing legislative elections. Voters don’t have to hear about a candidate’s positions on television - he or she is your own neighbor!
Since 2017, the New Hampshire Governor’s Mansion has been occupied by a Republican named Chris Sununu. New Hampshire elects all of its state officers every two years, including the governor, which is unique within the United States, with the lone exception of its neighbor, Vermont. Despite New Hampshire’s tilt to the left in the Trump era, Sununu has not just survived, but thrived in every single re-election campaign. While I would never dream of voting for Sununu, he is certainly more palatable of a Republican than the rest of his MAGA party, and his electoral strength in the state has given him much more control within the state GOP.
The New Hampshire state legislature is soon going to consider a bill changing its primary to being “closed,” rather than its current status of being “open.” In Lehman’s terms, an open primary means that parties can hold elections for their nominees, but every registered voter in the state must be allowed to vote in that primary, including independents and members of the opposite party. However, a “closed” primary means that only registered members of the Democratic and Republican parties (or any other political party that could conceivably be relevant in the future) can vote in the primary, and only within their OWN party’s primary.
The primary reason for this change is likely not related to Trump - it actually has to do with NH Republicans’ recent traumatic experience in the 2022 midterms. Right-wing lunatic and litter-boxes-in-schools conspiracy theorist Don Bolduc narrowly defeated a more establishment Republican in the Republican primary, and went on to lose by 9 points to Democratic incumbent Senator Maggie Hassan, and almost cost NH Republicans control of the state House. Many republicans in the state have theorized that registered democrats, with no competitive primary to vote in, swamped the polls with votes for Bolduc to tank republicans’ chance of a Senate seat flip. Whether or not this is actually true (there is neither evidence proving nor any disproving it), the state GOP is acting on it.
One of the biggest misconceptions in modern American politics is that independent voters are the most reasonable-minded voters. This is unequivocally false. Unfortunately, because distrust in government has infected our social and political institutions, many (but certainly not all) independent voters are actually some of the most cynical, low-information voters hungry to burn the system to the ground. Partisan voters get a bad rap from the media as being pigeon-holed and ideological, but that can often be the opposite. Partisan voters (especially democrats) happen to enjoy winning elections, and are willing to compromise on certain issues to avoid losing to the other party with a weak nominee. To register with a party is also an indication that a voter is more intrinsically involved in politics, understands the nuances of policy, and most importantly, knows how government works. While most registered Democrats may agree with Medicare-for-all on paper, they are more likely to understand that Bernie Sanders’ promise of passing it into law is worth nothing more than a fantasy novel, because the United States Senate exists. On the other hand, a liberal independent voter whose top concern is burning the establishment to the ground has never heard of the legislative filibuster and sometimes doesn’t even realize that a President can’t pass a piece of legislation without the approval of an entirely different branch of government. The media consistently protrays these people as the individuals caught in the middle of our nation’s sharp divide, but a lot of times, they’re actually the ones yanking from the edges.
An article on NBC said “it is possible that (in New Hampshire) there will be about the same amount of independents and Republicans voting. This theoretically would weaken the influence of extreme MAGA Republicans and leave room for an anti-Trump candidate to be successful.” This article has the facts completely backwards. Allowing independent voters will actually be the biggest ENABLER of Donald Trump’s campaign to win the Republican nomination for a third time in a row. Independent voters have actually been the biggest enablers of extremism, NOT moderation. To prove this, let’s look back at 2016:
The first state in the 2016 Republican presidential primary was Iowa. A reminder: Iowa is a closed primary. In most polls, Donald Trump led Ted Cruz by a narrow margin, typically 3-5%. But in a surprising twist, Ted Cruz defeated Trump in Iowa by 3 percentage points. Aided by the fact that evangelical voters make up over 60% of GOP voters, Cruz was able to boost his numbers over Trump, despite Iowa’s anti-establishment voters. One of the reasons why Cruz might have outperformed his poll numbers may have been the nature of the primary itself - if a person had not registered as a Republican, they couldn’t participate. Now, some “independent voters” in Iowa did register at the last second, and they showed up in the exit polls.
Among republicans, Ted Cruz beat Trump by a margin of 30-25, with Rubio just behind at 23%. But among independents, Trump won against Cruz, 22-19, with Rubio tied with Trump. The lower-tier candidates with the biggest improvements? The extremists. Ben Carson jumped from 9% to 11%, and Rand Paul jumped from 3% to 10%. So yes, while some of the moderate-minded independents certainly showed up - they helped Rubio break even with Trump - the rest of the independents actually gravitated towards the chaos candidates.
In New Hampshire, Trump won in a landslide, and Kasich finished in second place. But when the results are broken down by Party ID, Trump won republicans by 32% to Kasich’s 15%, but won independents by 38% to Kasich’s 18%.
If anybody tries telling you that independents are going to be the moderating force, they are flat-out misunderstanding the electorate. CNN and other trash news outlets would love people to believe the false narrative that there is a woeful group of independent voters caught in the middle of a both-sides battle between two equal ideological evils, Democratic partisans and Republican partisans. A 2nd grader could read these polls and disprove this narrative in a heartbeat.
If New Hampshire republicans can pass this legislation closing their primaries off from independents, it will certainly be controversial. I can already see the Atlantic articles crying out for the “oh so hurt” “moderate independents” not able to vote in a primary. But in reality, this bill will substantially harm Donald Trump. Will it be enough? Probably not. Remember, Donald Trump still won the New Hampshire Primary running away with it, even with Republicans. It just wasn’t as big of a margin with the partisans.
This bill would probably have a bigger effect within a Democratic primary than on the Republican side. Partisan Democrats are much more pragmatic than partisan Republicans, and they care much more about actually winning the election with a sane candidate. In 2016, Bernie Sanders scored his first big victory against Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, where he got 60% of the vote. However, if the race had just been among registered democrats, Bernie would only have won by 4 percentage points. Partisan democrats, including me, may have agreed with Bernie on the substance, but realized that the guy would've started out the general election with a 10 point loss in Florida to Donald Trump because he called himself an actual socialist. Here's another 2016 primary state where the gulf between Democrats and Independents was enormous: In South Carolina, Hillary kicked the crap of Bernie Sanders, winning 73% to 26%. Among Democrats, Hillary won 80% to 20%. Among Independents, Clinton lost to Bernie by 53% to 46%. Just more proof that completely dismantles the CNN/Atlantic editorial writer narrative of the supposed bloc of "moderate" Independent voters.
Republican partisans really are less likely to vote strategically like the Democratic partisans do, and the numbers are great evidence of that. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden won the 2016 and 2020 primaries because they were the most electable candidates in the field (yes, Hillary did lose, but Bernie Sanders would have likely not even managed to win the popular vote, let alone more than 15 states). If Republicans had been selecting their candidates for the same purposes, we would have all had Marco Rubio on our ballots in 2016. In the South Carolina Primary, republican voters who selected electability as their top reason for deciding their vote went for Rubio by 47% to Trump's 21%, and Cruz's 17%. But Trump won the South Carolina primary by a landslide and a half, meaning that these voters were far in the minority. The effect of the electability question really is just not as important to Republican voters.
Now, if the New Hampshire Primary is a razor-thin race between Trump and DeSantis, this change in the system could mean the difference between a 1 point Trump victory in New Hampshire, which would prove to primary voters that he is still the MAGA King, and instead, a 1 point DeSantis victory, which would finally prove to the GOP’s base that the MAGA King is not invincible. New Hampshire’s delegate count is minescule, but its impact on candidate momentum leading into the Michigan and Georgia primaries, and then Super Tuesday, is undeniable. Politics is a game of inches, and you would certainly have to give it to the New Hampshire GOP if they can pull off passing this bill at the defiance of Trump.
Of course, this may not matter much if Chris Sununu enters the presidential race. He’s so popular in his home state that he could easily scoop up 60-70% of the vote, and make the state’s importance on candidate momentum basically moot. I'm not saying that Sununu is likely to win his home state, but if any low-tier Republican could beat Trump in a home-state matchup, it would be an extremely popular governor or senator in a small state like New Hampshire. For example, in 1992, Senator Tom Hardin of Iowa ran for President, and most Democrats did not even step one foot into Iowa. Harkin got 77% of the vote in the caucus, and the world let out a collective snore. New Hampshire, where Bill Clinton scored a second place finish, was where the real momentum swing began. If Sununu runs, New Hampshire might just be the 1992 version of Iowa in 2024: A big nothing-burger. But nonetheless, credit to New Hampshire Republicans where credit is due.
Perhaps in 2028, when both the Democratic and Republican primaries (unless DeSantis wins the whole thing in 2024) will undoubtedly be inundated with complete chaos as every American politician who ever daydreamed or got high on mushrooms and thought about being President, decides they're gonna try and accomplish the impossible and make a run - then the effect of the closed primary will truly be unmasked. If Democrats no longer have to deal with the "tear it all down" voters, our chances of having a sane successor to President Biden will be a bit higher. Will pragmatic Republican partisans in 2028 that no longer have to share their polling places with "Independent" voters hell-bent on exacting nuclear destruction on our political system be able to save their party from the Destroy-Drag-Queens chaos candidate? I have my doubts. Trusting conservative voters to do the right thing is like leaving a plate of chicken on the kitchen table and expecting the cat to not eat it. But 2028 is a long way away, and perhaps the upcoming dumpster fire election in 2024 will make a difference on that front.
Comments
Post a Comment