tv Lectures in History CSPAN February 13, 2016 10:30am-12:01pm EST
>> this coming tuesday is the first in the nation new hampshire primary. next political science professor , andrew smith teaches a class on the history of the primary and its significance in the presidential election process. we recorded the class at the university of new hampshire in 2011. his class is about an hour and 15 minutes. professor smith: welcome. today, we are going to talk about the history of the new hampshire primary. before we get into the history, i want to talk for a bit about the history of the nomination process en toto. how do we nominate the candidates for president? the thing i want to talk about overall, first off, giving you a sense of the new hampshire primary. new hampshire did not start with the first presidential primary. i will talk about how it
developed in importance over the years, particularly since 1952. the third part i will focus on are efforts to bump new hampshire out of its slot is the first primary. how those things happened. what was done to respond to them in particular, that the , secretary of state is required by law to set the primary date of new hampshire's primary one week before any similar contest. later on this week secretary of state gardner will be coming to talk about these issues. at one time we had a saying this is always first, always right. it is not always right. the candidate who will become the eventual nominee or president does not always have to win the new hampshire primary. we will talk about that a when -- talk about that a little bit
as well as we go on. when did primary start and what happened? first of all, there's nothing in the constitution about nominating candidates for president. the constitution is pretty quiet on how we choose who the nominees are going to be. article ii, paragraph 2-5 says the states will appoint electors in the manner of their choosing to the electoral college. we have a two-step process only -- when we elect people for president. we are essentially voting for representatives to the electoral college. the electoral college does the election. this is understood to range from popular elections in some states to selection by the legislature. that is how the original electors were done. the reason was the states had a lot of different qualifications for who counted as the voter. the south was different from the north.
mainly in the northeastern states, new england and so forth there was much more of a , tendency in the early years to have popular sovereignty where people could actually choose the delegates to the conventions. other states with slave populations did not have that. the constitution does not say anything about the nomination of candidates for president largely because when the constitution was written, we did not have a what we think of now as political parties. they were generally frowned upon by the framers of the constitution. they did not like the idea of political parties. but politics being what it is, very soon after we instituted our constitution and it was ratified in 1787, we started to see the formation of the factions within the early government. by the 1800 election, we saw the creation of what we think of as our first political parties in the united states. john adams represented the federalist party and thomas
jefferson the representative of the democratic republican party. by 1800, we are seeing parties. how do we nominate candidates for president back in these days? we have something referred to as king caucus, or the congressional caucus system. by 1800, we had members of congress that identified with political parties that they voted as political blocs in congress often. what they would do is meeting caucus throughout the house and the senate of these particular party caucuses. they would choose and vote on who they wanted to have as their party representative, or the nominee for president. most states still elected electors to the electoral college rather than having them appointed by the legislatures. what we started to see was that voting for slates of electors became common.
you wanted to vote for your party's collector when you are voting for who you wanted in europe electoral college parties to be. parties started being more important to the nomination process, but they became much more important in how campaigns are being run in the states as well. king caucus goes on for a while. it finally falls apart -- it started to come apart with the demise of the federalist party in 1816. there was a time we refer to as the "era of good feelings." it was essentially a single party government. even though the democratic republican party was the major party you would still see , fissures starting to develop. competition came to a head in the election of 1824. if you remember in your classes on the american presidency, 1824 was a four-way election. it went to the house of representatives. in the house of representatives
it was john quincy adams who was , chosen to be president over andrew jackson, even know andrew -- even though andrew jackson got more the popular vote across the country and he got more of the electoral votes. he did not have a majority. after that happened, there was a real mess. the parties really started to break up and that required a new settlement of parties as well as a new nominating system for the parties. what we saw was what we call the national nomination conventions. these started along the lines of about the 1836 election. they lasted really to what we have today. we still have national nominating conventions. they are very different now than they were back then, but they still have a function within the party. in modern days the republican , and the democratic parties , they will meet in the summer before the election and hold a convention for the nominate a candidate for their party's representative for president. the reason we are seeing this -- first of all, we had the breakup of the parties.
secondly we have seen some major , technological changes in the early parts of the 1800s. we had great improvements in first, transportation. roads, the development of roads, early development of railroads. it became easier to move people around. you didn't have to have your congressional delegation stuck down in washington and not really be able to communicate with people back in their homes. you also saw improved communications amongst people. we saw the development of large-scale newspapers. the penny press, mass newspapers where you could get information about what was going on in washington to other people around the country. made iran, you saw the development of the telegraph in things like this where you could have faster communication. the post office was much more efficient as roads were being built and railroads. communications was better and it made it so having a national convention was more feasible. you could do it. in the past, it was not
something you could do. another reason we saw the development of a national convention was the whole nature of politics changed. the big difference was a huge increase in suffrage, the ability to vote. the right to vote. in only about 400,000 people 1824, were eligible to vote. this is white males who are eligible. by 1840, this had risen up to 2,400,000. a big boom in the number of people eligible to vote. which meant the old-fashioned system of having a caucus in congress, choosing the nominate, -- choosing who to nominee this , did not seem right. if you had that many people voting, people clamored for more -- for a more democratic system of choosing for the nominees would be. new hampshire was at the forefront of that. franklin pierce may not have been the best president or is often on the list of some of the worst presidents -- was issued was -- was instrumental or one of the first representative for
the first nominating conventions. what we saw at those nominating conventions the delegates were , chosen by the party leaders. the formula was set by the party's congressional representation, not within their strength within states. they had actual nominating campaigns for those conventions. it was also important to remember that back in the early conventions, different from now is you had considerable veto , power. for instance the democratic , party required a two thirds majority to nominate a candidate. you often saw conventions with multiple ballots. 20, 30, 50 ballots. before someone could get the nomination. now our actual nomination vote summer,you watch in the is a foregone conclusion. we know who the nominee is. the delegates are pledged to that nominee. we know it in advance and it's
just largely for show by that time. let's move on a bit to the idea of presidential primaries. what is the presidential primary? it's a system in which the voters of a state, because all of our elections are state-based, according to the constitution, the voters of the state choose delegates to their party's convention. they are not necessarily voting for the candidate. that is a formula. essentially you are voting for a , delegate to your party's convention, the people who represent you at the party's convention. these originated as a reform in the early part of the 1900s. it was part of the progressive era reforms we saw, coming largely out of the midwest. really going all the way across the country, including things like professional civil service. primary elections. in some states you saw the institution of the process in which voters can vote for actual bills. that sort of thing.
what we saw was the idea of a primary was to give voters more of a stake and a say in hitter -- more of a say in who there party's nominee was going to be. the actual voters. make it more democratized. wisconsin was the first day to have a president of primary back in 1908. if you study the progressive era, you will see the name of robert lafollette. a famous progressive from wisconsin. he really pushed this in 1905 and it caught on quickly. pennsylvania adopted one in 1906. south dakota by 1909. oregon by 1910. and by 1916, 26 states had presidential primaries. it caught on quickly. they like to the idea of presidential primaries. new hampshire did not have the first primary. we were not assigned the first slot. it developed over time. it was kind of a happenstance thing, actually. we had the first state primary
in 1910. that was for governor and other state offices. it did not include a presidential primary. we do not have the first presidential primary really until 1916. in the republican party had this 1912, quasi-presidential primary. it was just run by the party. kind of a hybrid party convention. new hampshire, the first bill that talks about this was hb 430, the bullock act. it was named after a state representative from richmond, new hampshire. anybody from richmond? a small town. it was basically an active -- and act of promotion for the election of delegates at the national convention by direct vote of the people. he first set the date for the third tuesday in may, 1916. new hampshire, being a frugal
state, as you know, said, you know, let's think about this. there was a piece of legislation introduced by john glassner of bethlehem, new hampshire. he changed the primary date from may of the town meeting day, the second tuesday in march. why would you move it to town meeting day? we are cheap. yeah. >> everyone is getting together anyway? professor smith: use the microphone to give a good answer. think about it as you walk up. >> because everyone is getting together anyway, so it would save money. professor smith: save money, exactly. these old town halls -- if you grew up in new hampshire in a small town hall, old wooden buildings doesn't have a heater. , it's often heated by a wood stove. why would you spend the money to heat it twice when you can do it once in march? we ended up with the primaries
first because we were cheap. or frugal. yankee frugality. with the early primary we had -- -- we had our first primary in 1916. indiana in 1916 had one a week earlier. we were not even the first in 1916. minnesota had one of same day as us in 1916. by 1920, indiana said enough of this early primary. they moved it back to may. if you are from midwestern states, may primaries are typical. minnesota said they don't want primaries anymore and went back to a caucus. the reason they went back to her caucus was the turnout was low. this is something that plagued the new hampshire primary and other primaries throughout the early part of the 20th century. by minnesota is gone. 1920, indiana has gone. new hampshire has a primary on town meeting day. we have the first primary by
default. we did not plan it that way. it just ended up that way. that's an important point when you think about states who want to move ahead of new hampshire. why is it so special? nobody else wanted it first is the answer. you think of those early new hampshire primaries from 1916-1920, after world war ii. nobody paid attention of those -- to those things. we were a small state. we did not have many delegates. if you are a candidate who had precious time to campaign, why would you bother to go to new hampshire? you could do a whole lot better by spending your time by going to one of the larger states. voters did not get to vote for that candidate. they voted for delegates. there were typically local politicians, state politicians, well-known figures. most of the time those delegates , were not committed to a candidate. they were uncommitted delegates.
they were open -- it was not as if you could vote for your person by proxy voting for a delegate. it was not that way. the other thing that happened turnout was not very good. , not many people voted in those elections. this is a major reason why other states dropped the primary. what we ended up with is a speaker of the house named robert upton, the father of the primary. he said, we've got to do something to try to increase interest in our primary. turnout is low. people are not paying much attention. is there anything we can do here? was introduce a bill in 1949. he amended the primary law so that the ballot now would have the names of the delegates who you could vote for, but also have the names of the presidential candidate listed. you can separately vote for the delegates as well as voting for the candidate you preferred.
people call this a beauty contest because the people you said you were going to vote for, the actual presidential candidate that did not count. , what counted was the delegate vote. that was what mattered. the delegates were still chosen by the votes they received. this went into effect in the 1952 primary. there was some politics that goes with this. 1952, sherman adams was the governor of new hampshire. big eisenhower supporter. at that time people did not know , if eisenhower was a republican or democrat. there were efforts by both parties to draft eisenhower to be their presidential candidate. adams figured he could push eisenhower into the new hampshire primary and it would be a big vote because he's a popular guy. he was a general that led u.s. allied forces in europe in world war ii. of course he is going to win.
he figured this would give them a chance to get a leg up politically. the timing of the new hampshire primary in 1952, when this bill went into effect was really , important in the later development of the new hampshire primary. we saw at that same election the real beginning of television, and television news in 1952. you have newscasters coming up to cover this quaint new hampshire primary. nothing else to talk about about the presidential election in the middle of march except this new hampshire primary. send the team up there, figure up what is going on up in new hampshire. there is some national attention that way. the other thing that happened in 1952 were two very interesting races. the eisenhower race was the first one. with adams' help, he wins new hampshire and he goes on from there to become the republican nominee.
on the democratic side, there was a historic election as well. harry truman is the president in 1952. there was an amendment to the constitution passed in the wake of fdr, his four elections. to reverse or limit the president to two terms. harry truman was grandfathered into that. he could run for president in 1952. in the 1952 primary, he loses by 50%-44%. he announces he will not run for president in 1952. it's an instance in which a sitting president really gives up the opportunity to continue as president based on what happens in part in new hampshire. new hampshire gets this reputation as a kingmaker after the 1952 election. now we have new hampshire as the kingmaker and the press is
paying attention. the only other major change we have had to the new hampshire primary in terms of how it is by we got rid of the 1976, idea you were voting for delegate. you just voted for the candidate. we no longer vote for delegates anymore. you vote for delegates essentially -- you vote for the candidate and whatever the proportion of votes to the candidate gets, and is slightly different on the two sides, but whatever proportion of opposing candidates get, and the republican side and in some states, it is winner take all. you get that many going to the convention. that is what changed. the political part of this is this picture has dwight eisenhower in the middle. governor hugh gregg on the right. the tall gentleman. and the guy with the smile on his face over here is sherman adams. sherman adams went on after
helping eisenhower win the election in 1952 to become eisenhower's chief of staff. incredibly powerful position. he's not the only person that has done that. we will talk later on about the 1988 election between george herbert walker bush and bob dole. there was a governor, john h. sununu, who helps president bush then vice president bush. he wins the nomination and he went down to washington to become the chief of staff for president bush. there is a real opportunity for somebody who really makes a president, or really contributes to a president's victory in new hampshire to have a much longer career in politics down in washington. chief of staff is a very important position. what this is, this isn't an actual ballot. it gives you an idea of what you are doing back in 1952.
this was a flyer put out, it's like a sample ballot put on by the eisenhower people. it says "vote for ike." you can see the names of the people and the towns they are from. the delegates you actually vote for. they are telling you to vote for the following 10 delegates who are favorable to eisenhower. notice, it doesn't say they are committed to eisenhower, but they are committed to eisenhower. -- but they are favorable to eisenhower. the top of the list is sherman adams. you can see some other names that are famous in new hampshire. foster stearns. names that come up quite a bit. norris cotton. important people in the state. you get a sense of what you had to do then. the other thing quirky about new hampshire is a sense of who gets to go first.
there is this saying, hart's location, first in the nation. hart's location is one of the smallest towns in new hampshire. it is that sliver of red. it essentially makes up crawford notch. if you have driven up route 302 from north conway towards the mount washington hotel, it's one of the most beautiful places in the state of new hampshire. essentially nobody lives there. it is in the middle of the white mountains national forest. there is a law still on the books that in new hampshire if you have less than 100 voters, you can have people vote anytime during the day. what hart's location did, a woman there said she wanted some national attention for this little town. she said we will have the voting , start at midnight. 12:01 on election day. they open the polls at 12: no 01 and it- at 12: n
did get a lot of media attention. they got so much attention by 1964, they quit doing it. they got bothered so much for the press. they said enough. i don't want to be pestered by you. somebody else can do this first. the other first in the nation spot first place in new , hampshire to vote is now dix hill notch. it's another spot in the mountains, but essentially not a town as much as it is a hotel. if any of you have been to the hotel in dixville notch, they have the ballot room. the official ballot box is there, down in the picture below, and people would vote just after midnight. the process takes about five minutes because there is only about 30 voters. the gentleman you see, the same gentleman we have here, neil tillitson. he lived a very long life. 102 years old. he claimed or asserted he was
the first voter in the country for president from 1952 up until -- through the 2000 election. he had that right for a couple of reasons. in dixville notch, the oldest person gets the vote first. since he lived to 102, there were not too many older than him at that time. the second thing was, he owned the hotel. if you are having the election at your hotel, everyone else who is voting is working for you and they let him go first. a rather famous minor celebrity in new hampshire. has to be famous enough to get a bobblehead from the new hampshire historical society. so, i mentioned things are not -- have not changed too much in new hampshire other then we dropped voting for delegates in 1976. there were significant changes
nationwide between 1968 and 1972 and how the parties chose their nominee for president. the most significant thing, if you remember in the 1968 election, there was the vietnam war going on. we had a real strong antiwar movement in the united states. riots across the country. the riots at the democratic convention in chicago. hubert humphrey, who became the democratic nominee in 1968, did not run in a single caucus or primary for president. he was picked in the proverbial smoke-filled room by the leaders of the democratic party to be their party's nominee in 1968. not much democratic about that. there was a commission set up after that in the wake of that election to do something about this. it's called the mcgovern fraser commission. mcgovern comes into play a little later.
george mcgovern. the mcgovern-fraser commission comes back and they write rules for the democratic party that said the party either will have a caucus or primary in how you choose your candidates. there are some other rules that go along with it. basically it makes states now , have primaries and caucuses for choosing who the democratic delegates will be for the convention. a big change. you will not have the smoke-filled rooms anymore. now primaries become much more important. the first primary obviously becomes more important than it had been in the past. what this led to was more primaries and caucuses. more -- caucuses. more people voting. other states really don't have experience with primaries and caucuses. very few states do. new hampshire is first in the country. new hampshire, as we see in
1976, 1980, whoever wins new hampshire tends to get the nomination for the party. other states say they don't like that. they want to get a piece of the action. they want new hampshire and iowa to have that much influence. what we're going to do is move our primary up earlier in the schedule, closer to new hampshire or ahead of new hampshire to get the attention that new hampshire has. to get the political influence that new hampshire has. and steal it away from the state of new hampshire. this process is called frontloading. that is the process of moving primaries up earlier in the election calendar. there are a lot of reasons for frontloading. first off, states think they get more influence if they are at the head of the selection process. they think they get more money, too.
there is somewhat of a myth out there. you read this swenson article that puts that economic impact analysis in 2008 iowa caucuses. there is a myth that the new hampshire primary brings in gobs of money to the state. what was it that swenson says? how much money does the caucus does the iowa caucus bring into -- does the iowa caucus bring into the state of iowa that year he was looking at? i think it was $31 million or something like that. they looked at the whole four-year cycle from 1997 through 2000 and calculated the amount of money that candidates spent, other people spent, and even used multipliers to try to guess how much this would be worth and it came out somewhere north of $300 million that the new hampshire primary brought into new hampshire.
the four-year window. it is a good chunk of change. a lot of money. but, we have two nascar races. every year. those two nascar races, each year, bring in more money and have a greater economic impact in the new hampshire primary an the new hampshire primary does. that does not diminish the importance of the new hampshire primary, but to put it in perspective, that is not a huge impact on the overall state budget. for certain industries, it is huge. we do polling for wmur in new hampshire, and if you have been by their building in manchester, it is a very nice, new building. some people call it the house that steve forbes bill, because -- built because in 1996, he spent so much money on television advertising that wmur had a pretty good year and could afford to expand her offices. certain businesses make money. television, newspapers, if you are in the catering business, or if you have restaurants or hotel business, at the very end, you can make some money there.
it is not like it is widespread across the state. in fact, during campaigns, a lot of the money that is supposedly going for campaigns in new hampshire, is actually being spent other places. there's a tremendous amount of television advertising that goes on, but it is in boston. new hampshire is not getting too much of the impact of that. a lot of the people who work for campaigns, they may be getting paid when they're working in new hampshire, but they live in washington. the money is not really staying here. the economic impact, while it is a lot of money and good for businesses that get it, it is not that huge. states still think that there must be buckets of money that is coming into new hampshire, and therefore, we want to get a piece of that action, too. parties like frontloaded primaries because most of the time, almost always, they get the process over, faster. the nominee is chosen faster. that is a big advantage to a party because it means that they do not have to spend as much money beating up on each other,
and having the democrat beating up on the democrat, they can save that money and spending -- and spend it against the republicans. for the november election. it saves them a tremendous amount of money. in 2008, we had a very different event. the first time in recent years, since the 1976 primary, where the primary went on to a long time. all the way into the summer, late spring and summer months. but that was really unusual. an unusual election. most of the time, with frontloading, it is over faster. the work that you will read, and we will have professor mayor from northeastern, he will come to talk about frontloading and the impact of it. the academic research shows that frontloading actually diminishes the importance of states when they try to move up closer to new hampshire because there is very little campaigning that is actually done in those states. it is the momentum that comes
out of new hampshire, that tends to be the only thing that people in the subsequent state c. -- states see. if you're going to vote for somebody for president, how do you know that somebody's going to make a good president? what is the most important thing that you want out of your candidate for president? you want somebody who can win. you want somebody who can be the other guy. how do you know that somebody is a winner? winners win. losers lose. a few win new hampshire, and you are in south carolina or florida or georgia, some other state, may be the only thing you know about a particular candidate , other than their name is that new hampshire. those people up in new hampshire, they have seen these guys for a long time, so that must mean he is ok. you see the momentum build from people in the early states and it usually makes them cruise through the other states. that wave of momentum. we will talk a lot more about the momentum later on in the class and the importance of momentum. states have been moving their primaries closer to what they call the window, the election
window, which is set by the parties. the window refers to the timeframe in which parties say that the states can conduct -- the parties within the states can conduct their primaries or caucuses. the window, this time, the official window for the republican party, i think begins -- new hampshire as an exemption like edward 14, and iowa through february 8, but that does not mean that that is an elections will actually happen. states the torilla sleigh push themselves up in the window. they shut people out. largely, the parties cannot really control when a state sets its primary. so, the parties cannot really stop the states from frontloading. we'll talk about how that was attempted in new hampshire and how other states had done that, more so, down the road, but, really you cannot do much about it. states have not stopped trying
to move themselves closer to the front of the line. the frontloading really was under way in 1980. it has been going on ever since. the impact of frontloading, as i mentioned, the first thing i said is an earlier selection of the nominee parties like it. , you often have problems with buyer's remorse. you wake up one day and say, this guy is our candidate? there's a lot of buyers are -- remorse in 1996 for bob dole. they spent a lot of money, republicans were very enthusiastic about him. he gets clobbered in the 1996 election by bill clinton. it costs a lot more to campaign early. if you are going to have a number of states that are up at the early part of the primary window, that means you have to raise a lot more money because you, as a candidate, have to campaign in multiple states. you are not just going to iowa and hampshire. you're going to iowa, and after,
south carolina, michigan, nevada, florida, all right away. some of the states are pretty big. they require a lot of money. harder to do. it means if you're going to be a credible candidate, you have to start raising money for your presidential bid, a year or two earlier. you really have to get a lot more money. it hurts the little guy. -- hampshire prides of self itself largely on the 1976 nomination of jimmy carter and also for people like gary hart in 1984. and pat buchanan in 1996. john mccain, 2000. as a place where the front runner, the party favorite does not always win. a place where the little guy can do well. but, as frontloading increases, it makes it more difficult for that to happen. pretty much, you have to be a well-funded, one of the better-known candidates to have a chance in any of the early
states because you are campaigning, essentially, across the country. it also means that you have a loss of individual contact, a voter contact that new hampshire, in particular, is famous for. there is a joke about a guy asking his buddy, who you vote -- who is to going to vote for a new hampshire primary? and the guy says, i have only met him five times. to a great extent, that is a myth. but, there is something to be said that a new hampshire, if you want to, you can meet everyone at the candidates for -- every one of the candidates for president very easily. , multiple times, if you want to. if you have interest in politics, you can do that. as you have more frontloading, and the candidates are now spread out across multiple states, voters have less opportunity to do that. not just in new hampshire, but in the other states, as well. the most valuable thing the most , important thing that any candidate has during an election is their time. you can raise my money, but you cannot create more time for a candidate. there is less face time for the candidates. it results in lower voter knowledge about what the candidates are.
what they are all about, what their platforms are. it means you have less chance, as i mentioned, getting an outsider candidate getting the nomination. so, you see this frontloading effort. we have seen states push to the front of the line, tried to go get new hampshire out of the way. how does new hampshire state y number one? how does it stay the first primary? there are a number of reasons, and i will go through some of these. we will focus on the procedural reasons for the next part of the lecture. first off, the media likes new hampshire. it is small. it is photogenic. easy to get around, you can fly into manchester and essentially get to where three quarters of the population lives, within about 45 minutes. it has been going on for a long time, so they know the most scenic backdrops. they know the diners that they need to go to.
they know the town halls that look pretty. they know where the historic events took place. also, and this is not a diss so much to iowa, but if it is january, would you rather be in new hampshire where they are pretty mountains and you can go skiing or in iowa where you may be faced with a ground blizzard? new hampshire is a more attractive place to go. it is easier to do. it is small, so the candidates like it, too. candidates can get everywhere in the state. candidates can fly to manchester and can hit a big chunk of the voters in the states or towns where these voter lives within a couple of days. and then get out. it is easy to schedule lots of events. because we have been doing a primary for such a long time, the people who like to host these events, local parties or local calls, do it really well. they can do very easily. have a house party, sure. how many people? 50 people? no problem. easy to do.
game, it is a sport for a lot of people. it is cheap to get in. over a thousand dollars to get in. one reason, if you look, we talk about fringe candidates in new hampshire down the road. there are a lot of people who will put up $1000 and get on the ballot. i don't know if your member -- you remember lobster man, one guy who would run. and vermin supreme philly campaign with a boot on his head. it adds a little bit more spice to the campaign and the press will do some coverage on these guys. it makes it interesting. we have high turnout in new hampshire. this makes new hampshire a real test compared with a lot of other states. in the 2008 presidential primaries in new hampshire, about 51% of the adult population in the state voted. it was close to 59% or 60% of the registered voters in the state voted.
some states do not get that kind of turnout in president election years. we have higher turnout in the presidential primary do we have in our midterm elections. it is very unusual. iowa, republican primaries, you might get 15% or 20% in iowa. south carolina, 25% or 30%. we have significant higher turnout than other states. that is very important because it means it is not activists who nominate the parties or when election for a candidate here. it is regular voters, voters who do not pay as much attention to politics, who are not single issue voters, who are not as ideological. that means that it reflects more of a general election, a november election, and electorate. if you can do well in new hampshire and pull in a lot of these regular folks that are not activists, it really indicates that you have a greater chance of doing well in the general election. because it means that you are not just appealing to the activists. candidates know that.
another reason is, there is a wildcard with the new hampshire primary. we have what is called a semi-closed primary new hampshire. if you are registered as her a republican you can only vote , in the republican primary. if you are a democrat, you can only vote in the democratic primary. if you are registered as an ," you can vote in either primary. about 40% of the registered voters in new hampshire are registered undeclared. again, we will talk about this later on. that does not mean that they are up in the air or that they are free agents. most of the undeclared are either republicans or democrats. but they do have a choice. so, that means that in any election cycle, you have to figure out, how do i design a campaign to appeal to these undeclared, independent voters? how many of them are there going to be? who will show up? in 2012, we are not going to have a real democratic primary campaign, so, are those
independents, who might have otherwise noted democrat, are they going to stay home? are they going to vote in the republican primary? and if they are, where they going to vote for? will they vote for the weakest candidate to try to sabotage the party? these sorts of story lines get played out every year. smart campaign folks know how to cut through it. the media loves those types of stories. that is another reason why new hampshire state number one. the major reason that new hampshire has kept its status as the first in the nation primary is because it is the law, and bill gardner, the secretary of state, is the enforcer of that law. new hampshire is required, by law, to have its primary one week before any similar state contest. so, when another state visits primary up, the same day as new hampshire, or ahead of new hampshire, secretary of state says, ok, we just had to move ours of a week before them.
it creates an interesting dynamic and i will let the secretary of state talk about that later on this week. i want to go to some of these things now, so you can talk with him about. the first and that happened, 1972, iowa slips through. much to the chagrin of people in new hampshire, ever since. in 1972, iowa had its caucus moved up to january, the people in new hampshire ignore this, because they said, this is not a primary, this is a caucus, not the same thing. nobody votes and caucuses. -- nobody votes in caucuses. primaries are very different. they are a different animal. since that time, i think a lot of people wish that we would not have let that happen and have done something to stop that, but it occurred. it also occurred before the law was passed in new hampshire saying that we had done the -- we had to have the first in the nation primary. also, 1972, florida try to its -- tried to move its primary up
to the same day as new hampshire. the argument was, where would you rather be in the wintertime? campaigning in new hampshire, or in florida? i can see the difference between new hampshire over iowa, the new hampshire over florida -- we have a big chunk of our population that goes to florida every winter. it is a little bit nicer to be down there. but, new hampshire passed a law to move its primary a week earlier in march. originally, it was on town meeting day, the second tuesday in march. the legislature passed a lie earlierve it up a week ahead of florida. , still number one. 1976, massachusetts tries to move in front of new hampshire. we know this is going to happen for the 1976 primary. a state representative, jim swain out of portsmouth, he will come and talk to us, he talks
all about this, but he introduces a law to officially separate the primary from town meeting day. historically, ever since the first new hampshire primary of 1916, we have had it on town meeting day. 1972, with the first time it was not on town meeting day. we thought that might've been a one-off. this law gives the secretary of state the ability to separate the two there. we changed it to be the first tuesday in march, or on the tuesday immediately preceding any other new england state that shall hold a similar election, whichever is earliest. we said, ok, no other new england state will get in front of us. the more important thing, this piece of legislation day, a gave -- this legislation gave the secretary of state the authority to set the date of the primary. this is interesting here, because there are people in the legislatures who said, wait a minute, we should not let the secretary of state do that. that should be something that the legislature does. the legislature usually passes
laws, in most states, that sets the date of their primary or caucus. the governor at that time, melvin thompson, and some people within the state legislature said, no, we want to do is remove partisan politics in the process. the secretary of state is elected by the state legislature. it is not voted on by the public. he is elected by the state legislature. bill gardner was a democrat, originally. but he was elected by republicans when he first ran in 1976. so, he has really held it as a kind of nonpartisan position there. they were able to keep politics out of that process. partisan politics, rather. mr. gardner will talk about all of the politics that goes on in the setting of the day, but try to keep partisan politics out of it. have republicans and immigrants -- and democrats working together to protect new hampshire's number one in the nation status. 1976, bill gardner is elected secretary of state. he is still secretary of state 35 years later.
he is the longest-serving secretary of state in the nation right now. we can ask them about this on thursday. he may be the longest-serving secretary of state in u.s. history. he is really close to that. he takes this job very seriously and really protect the primary. that does not stop other states from saying, we want to hone in on new hampshire's first in the nation status. 1977, we respond to some other challenges. we make a change in the legislation so it says the first tuesday in march or on the tuesday preceding any other state. we drop the new england park, now. we are looking at the more broadly. we have to be a week before any other state. 1980, puerto rico has a republican primary, they move it up to february 17, 1980. but, bill gardner ignores it and says, i have the authority to set the date. puerto rico is not a state. we are not going to pay attention to it.
it probably did him well because it might've looked pretty petty if you are worried about saying before somebody who was not even a state. then we start playing chicken with the democratic national committee for the 1984 election. in 1983, the dnc set the schedule for the new hampshire primaries and they say that no state can have it earlier than the second tuesday in march. but, vermont says, we cannot have an earlier than the second tuesday in march, we will schedule ours on that day. the same day as new hampshire. so, bill gardner says, i guess it will have to set ours up a week earlier. the dnc comes in, and nancy -- nancy pelosi was a dnc representative at the time, flies and with a delegation and
to the secretary of state and have a discussion. the secretary of state says that state law says they have to move it up earlier. nancy pelosi says, you are a young man, and you have a future in politics, do not throw it away on something like this. bill gardner is still the secretary of state. he moves the primary to february 28. the threat that the dnc used was that, if you do not -- if you violate our window, we will not seat your deligates at our convention. new hampshire moves up early. guess what? new hampshire delegates were seated at the convention. the reason this is a hollow threat by the party is, by the time the primary season is over, and you sometimes have very divisive primaries like the , democrats had in 2008, when you want to do? you want to heal those wounds. you want everybody fighting the opposite party. you do not want to carry an ugly
dispute into the convention. it is usually a hollow threat. we saw in michigan and florida 2008, got to have their delegates seated, with a little bit of angst, but they were still seated. it is a hollow threat to keep the delegates out of the convention. we still have more challenges. they do not learn their lesson. 1988, we move our primary to the third tuesday in february because south dakota. we move ourselves in front of south dakota. 1992, we move it to the second tuesday in february -- the third tuesday in february again, when we get one week ahead of south carolina. date tried to jump in. you can see, we're constantly -- bill gardner is essentially following the law and moving it one week ahead of any similar state or contests. a lot of people think that bill gardner has some alternate motives and he is hard to read when he is going to set the
date, but the reality, he looks to see when other people set the date and he does it one week earlier. not too difficult to figure out. by 1996, both arizona and delaware move up. it is good with arizona. arizona actually adopts the language that new hampshire has law, saying that it will be one week ahead of any similar one. arizona essentially playing chicken. eventually, arizona backs down. there is a great quote by jeff glasscock, a state representative from arizona. i don't mind playing chicken, but i have a certain version to playing chicken when there is no reasonable expectation that we could win. they back down, as well. delaware was little bit interesting. this is something where politics came into play. and here, there was a lot of effort by people within the republican party to the pressure -- to put pressure on the actual candidates to not campaign and delaware. they essentially stop the delaware primary by getting
commitments from the republican candidates not to campaign , there. the reason they did that was, they said, if they're going to campaign in delaware, those people in new hampshire are not going to like that very much. if you do not win new hampshire, what are your chance of becoming the nominee? minimal. new hampshire had the threat of momentum that they could build that they could build from -- that they could build from winning new hampshire and the lack of momentum by picking off the voters in new hampshire to keep delaware from being able to schedule its primary. the candidates, largely, refuse to participate in the delaware primary. you still get more challenges. 1999, we change the law again. it gave the secretary of state more flexibility to move the primary to any tuesday, seven days before any similar election. south carolina sets its primary for saturday, february 19. what do we do? we moved ours up to february 8. that is more than seven days,
but it has to be on a so we have tuesday, to take it to tuesday more than seven days before the other states. michigan threatens to move to february 8, they back down, as well. you can see this pattern play out. is a more interesting one. 2000 2000 is not so good. movesouth carolina there's up iowa gets up because , they thought they had their party schedule. they do not want to move and change things. was they did was, they made a claim that they could not move it eight days and the new similar law, a because they say they cannot move there's that because there is a pork producers convention. this convention that was going to be taking over every hotel room and the state of iowa, and of course, we cannot have the caucuses that week. because of all of these people that were in town. this really ticked off people in new hampshire. even "the concord monitor" says,
go ahead, and we will move it ahead of iowa because before , this time, iowa and new hampshire worked well together. to keep each other spots in place. iowa eventually backs down. they move their caucuses to january 24. the big pork convention turned out to be a relatively small affair that took place in one town for a couple of days. it was not a big thing at all. they were working with what they had, is what they said in terms of using a threat against new hampshire. so, the great pork convention turned out not to be a big thing. happy new year, 2008, this is when they started pushing the envelope of silly. in florida moves up its primary, 2008, which means that south carolina moves it's up because now it is the first of the southern primaries. now, they are week ahead of florida.
because south carolina moves theirs up, that has to push new hampshire up a week. it has to push iowa the week. we almost push ourselves into 2007. so, iowa, in order to avoid having its primary in 2007, has to change their law and has their caucus on january 3. new hampshire has its five days later. they did not want to have it on new year's day, it would've been a little bit difficult. although, they could have had tvs, if the iowa hawkeyes had been playing a game. they could about the tv party and caucuses at the same event, but iowa moves there's to third, new hampshire's have theirs on january 8. so, when is the 2012 primary going to be set for new hampshire? anybody know the day? you don't, because it is a trick question. the date is not set. the republican party has a
scheduled date, a suggested date of february 14th. that is probably not going to happen. already, florida is on the books as having theirs on january 30. which remain south carolina with pushing theirs earlier and new hampshire with theirs earlier. it would be the same sort of circus that we had in 2000 -- 2008. secretaries of state are really working to try to not have that happen so that this is going on. yes? we do not know when the 2012 primary is, ask secretary gardner on thursday. i don't think he can say that in front of the cameras but that is , something we can do. right now, we have is the current law, this is passed in may of 2010. hb-341, the primary election shall be held on the second tuesday in march, or on a day selected by the secretary of
state which is seven days or more, immediately preceding the date in which any other state will be holding a similar election in each year that the president of the u.s. is going to be elected or the year previous. we have made some allowances to go into the earlier year. said primaries shall be held in connection with the regular town hall meeting. we still have that language about town hall meetings in there. or if held another day, a special election, the secretary of state for that purpose. then they put in some specific language that defines with his means. it says the purpose of this section is to protect the tradition of the new hampshire first in the nation potential primary. -- presidential primary. it is very, very clear for people that not only is this the specific language of the law, but this is the intent of the law. i mentioned, here is bill gardner, he is the secretary of state. he will set the primary date sometime after the filing.
for the filing timeframe for the ballot. the timeframe is scheduled for the states right now, he could even push that later, which would give him some more flexibility in setting the date. new hampshire has great flexibility. secretary of state has great flexibility of setting the date of the new hampshire primary. most other states, because they require legislation to set their primary caucus dates, are in a much or difficult spot. legislation means they have to have people in your capital. you have to have a vote. you have to the governor willing to sign it. there are some logistics that take place in this other states that we do not have to worry about. so, we are playing chicken with a lot of other states, but we have a lot more tools in the secretary of state still back in the other states have.
i want to turn now, because we so are talking about history we , got in a little bit of recent history. and how it impacts modern elections, but we talked earlier about some of the historical elections in new hampshire historic primary elections. , there have been a lot of them. i think this is one of the reasons that new hampshire is still seen as a real special place by the media and by candidates, as well. we talked with the 1952 election when eisenhower defeats taft. truman is defeated. truman goes back to independence. that is very historic. the president decides not to run. 1964, another historic election. this one is the first one in which a write-in candidate wins. henry cabinet launch, who is the senator from massachusetts runs a campaign and wins just barely.
he comes in ahead of barry goldwater. the thing he does is he knocks nelson rockefeller out of the race. nelson rockefeller, a northeastern republican thought that he could win the new hampshire primary which gave him , a real inside track to winning the nomination, but he was not able to do it. it split the moderate republican vote. goldwater went on to win other contests and begin the republican nominee in 1964. 1968, another one. really a historic election. this is the get clean for gene. eugene mccarthy, senator for minnesota runs as an antiwar , candidate against lbj in 1968. he recruits all of these college kids to come up here who cannot vote, remember in 1968. they were not allowed to vote in presidential elections until 1972. so, he has all of these kids were politically activated and do.vated with nothing to he gets into work for the
campaign. he says do not come up to new hampshire with long beards and scraggly close and knock on doors and scare the natives. get yourself cleaned up. get your hair cut, shave your beard off. dress nicely with a jacket and tie. then go out and campaign and show what nice, young people you are. that mccarthy beat lbj here, and therefore, that can't lbj to choose not to run. the truth is, remember, 1968, we still had the dual system where you voted for delegates and you voted for the candidate. in the beauty pond -- beauty contest part, lbj 50% versus one 42%. the mccarthy people figured that they probably were not going to be able to beat lbj anyway. they were more doing this to make a point. they figured if they had a chance to beat lbj what they , would need to do is concentrate on the delegates. get people to vote for the
delegates. they would say, vote for whoever you want for president, but if you go for delegates, vote for these delegates. they were successful enough that they won the delegates vote. lbj both won and lost in 1968. in either case, it really showed that he had significant problems within his own party, which was one of the reasons that he pulled out and decided not to run in 1968. again, raising the impression that new hampshire is a king-maker or a place raking can -- where a king can get knocked off. musky -- ed musky a , senator from maine is running. he thinks he is a good chance because he is from a neighboring state. he wins new hampshire, 46%-37%. but he wins by less than was expected. people thought that he would be able to knock out these other guys. george mcgovern, south dakota, nobody ever heard of them.
what we saw here, this is where ed musky is standing in front of the union leader who had written a scathing editorial criticizing his wife. the union leader said that he was crying out there. he says, no, that was just snow. it left an impression in the minds of some people that he was not tough enough to be the leader of the united states during the cold war while we had wars going on in vietnam and so forth. it probably hurt him somewhat. he probably still one but not by enough. we'll talk about the expectations game later on in the class. how candidates try to lower the expectations so they can exceed them and seem to be doing better than actually do. bill clinton is famous for that one. 1976, jimmy carter walks into a general store in new hampshire. he says, hello. and the guy says jimmy, who? jimmy carter figure out the
importance of momentum in the early nominating states. the mcgovern-fraser reforms went into place in 1972. onesurprising that mcgovern in 1972. he knew the system. jimmy carter figured out the system, too. he concentrated on iowa. he did not win the iowa caucus, uncommitted, undecided won. but he came in second. he is that as momentum coming to new hampshire where he had been campaigning, essentially by himself or a long time. he got momentum in new hampshire, london venture primary and actually went on to become the democratic nominee. showing the importance of momentum and winning the early states. in 1980, i don't have too many things to play, but this a good one. 1980 was an important election because there was the kennedy-carter election in 1980 which really split the democratic party.
ted kennedy got 37% of the vote against the sitting president. it really wounded jimmy carter and made probably a major reason why he did not get reelected in 1980. but, ronald reagan comes up. he finishes second in 1976 to , gerald ford. he finishes second in the new venture primary. he ought to do pretty good here. he ends up winning by 50%-23%. here's a memorable moment from that primary. hopefully you can hear this. i will put it up. [video clip] >> the fireworks begin. questionrst [indiscernible]
>> i am paying for this microphone. [applause] prof. smith: that streak of anger there that reagan showed was something that really galvanized his campaign and made him look like a real forceful leader. it is arguably one of the tipping points. you can see, even 30 years later, it is a pretty impactful moment on a campaign trail. this is in a gym in nashua, new hampshire. a small town. can you imagine that being done now or any other than say, new hampshire or iowa? far less scripted than in other states. 1984, we have another really
interesting one. walter mondale, the democratic candidate, chosen democratic candidate lines up all of the union support and institutional support for the democratic party before he gets in. there is a little senator from colorado named gary hart who decides to run against him. he does second place in iowa. he claims he did much better than anticipated, so he comes to new hampshire where he had been campaigning and he thought he had a more favorable electorate and he wins new hampshire primary by 37%-28%. this really weakens walter mondale. the primary played out, mondale had to fight against the money from his own party for a long time. it gave the reagan campaign more ammunition. it is already better to take ammunition when someone in your party is shooting at you then somebody outside the party. it is more believable that way. mondale loses in in part because 1984, he got beat up by gary hart in new hampshire.
1992, bill clinton is dogged by accusations of womanizing, of using drugs, of dodging the draft. but, he runs in new hampshire, he does not win, loses by 33%-24% to a senator from massachusetts. he famously claims that he did a whole lot better than anyone anticipated calls himself the , comeback kid, and goes on from there to win. so, he is able to take advantage of those expectations. the other important thing about 1996 is this the first time that a candidate gets elected president without winning new hampshire's primary. in the modern primary cycle. always first, always right. a chink in the armor after 1996. 1996, on the republican side, pat buchanan. pat buchanan ran in 1992 against george bush and lost in new hampshire, bush one. but he wounded bush and arguably
caused bush not to be reelected in 1992. he comes back in 1996 running against bob dole. bob dole is not the best liked guy. he did not win in new hampshire in all the times he has run for president. but, pat buchanan be bob dole by 1%. he really wounded bob dole. the campaign plays out all the way to the convention were pat buchanan gives a speech about the cultural war in the united states, causing republicans a lot of problems. leading to a fairly easy win for bill clinton in the 1996 presidential election. in 2000, we have more historic things. we have got john mccain, running the town hall campaign. he did not have the kind of money that george w. bush had. bush got all of the institutional support and financial support from the republican party and john mccain had shoe leather.
up, campaigned a lot held a lot of events with , 100-200 people and his campaign did a good job organizing these events. he would answer a lot of questions and he seems like a straight forward guy, willing to interact with people, whereas bush at that time was missing the debate, not wanting to interact with people, seemingly afraid to get out there and mix it up with the real people and real voters in new hampshire. so that set up this idea that bush was not tough enough. mccain wins new hampshire, but he was not able to overcome the institutional support that the bush people had. similarly, what mondale was able to do in 1984. bush becomes the second person to win the presidency without winning new hampshire. there is also a historic primary on the democratic side. bill bradley is running against the sitting vice president, al gore. if it had not been for all of the attention that the mccain victory got, it might've been a very different outcome on the democratic side, because al gore
only beat bradley 49%-45%. a very close race. 2004, howard dean, from a neighboring state of vermont. running against john kerry from the neighboring state of massachusetts. you notice there's a pattern here. by the fall of 2003, and early winter of 2004, howard dean is winning. he is doing things that are making voters little bit nervous, but he goes to iowa and he really banked on winning iowa. he spent a tremendous amount of money and time. he had kind of the get clean for gene strategy, but he did not send his workers out there eooking like get clean for gen guys. they had beards, tattoos, nose piercings, wearing orange, hunting hats. he that it might appeal to people in iowa.
people were answering the door and say i'm not so sure about , talking to these people. he loses iowa, and he has a historic scream at the end of his speech at the iowa caucus. he really collapses here. his support dropped 14 points and one day in our polls. he was going along, but his support was weak, and he dropped. that is important, because what it shows is that voters in new hampshire and in most primaries do not make up their minds until right near the end. and last-minute campaign events, such as this, can have a huge impact on what actually happens. similar things in 2008. mccain wins again on the republican side. but clinton rebounds from losing to obama. up in a debate on saturday night and then, on monday morning, she is at a coffee shop in portsmouth, and she chokes up and talks about how important this was for her. and that gets played over and over again in the press that day.
the one group that shifted in its opinions from the pre-election polls to the postelection polls, the exit polls, where women who seem to think that hillary clinton was getting eaten up on by the boys. -- beaten up on the boys. they shifted and she wins this historic election and goes on to pull things. he will talk about the impact of last-minute changes in make up their minds at the ends. this is an indication of how that plays out in new hampshire. the campaign in new hampshire is not over until it is over, really. last-minute things matter. so, the things you want to talk about in new hampshire each , primary really has its own stories and its own themes its , own rhythm and own cycles. there are certain trends that occur throughout the history of the new hampshire primaries. the first trend is, you cannot ignore new hampshire. candidates to decide not to campaign in new hampshire, and make it be known that they do not plan on campaigning in new hampshire, do poorly. most really, we saw rudy
giuliani's campaign fall apart. he was the front runner in all of the national polls throughout 2007, and he finishes in fourth place in new hampshire. ron paul almost beat him in new hampshire, and he goes on to fade away. he may run again this year, there's still a chance he can get in. if he does, i'm sure he will run a better campaign than he did in 2008. i'm sure he will not ignore new hampshire this time around. you cannot ignore new hampshire. the second thing is, we have seen with the 2008 campaign and 2004 campaign, voters make up their minds at the ends. there is really little difference between the candidates within a party's primaries, on issue positions. they are almost identical or at best, shades of gray of difference and policy position. you look at other things like personality, their history, do they look good on tv? do they interact with you while? -- well? and the other thing you pay
attention to is last-minute campaign events. the last week is when voters really start paying attention. i use the analogy of going to the store to buy ice cream. if you leave the house with your kids or your parents and you go get an ice cream cone, you do not leave the house saying, well i will go out today and get a black cherry ice cream cone. no, you go to the store and look at what is on special. you see somebody else walking out with a butter pecan and say, i have not had one of those for a while, i will have one of those. the thing about it, if you go to the ice cream store you know , that it does not matter what kind of ice cream you eventually choose, you'll be happy with it. you'll be happy with it. you vote for a candidate in your presidential primary. it does not matter who wins. you're going to vote for that person in november. you're going to support that person. you're going to be happy with the outcome eventually. so, we tend to make the mistake
that primaries are just slightly different varieties of general elections, when in reality, they're completely different animals. another thing that we see, is new england candidates do much better than to candidates from other parties. they are better known, they know the state, and they fit an -- even -- in ideologically better with the state of new hampshire. the final point is, perception is more important than reality. it is not necessarily matter if you win or lose, it is the expectations that you set for yourself and how big your going to win by or not win by. we have covered a lot of ground here today. the readings have a lot of this material in it. the people that we will be bringing in for the rest of the course will be able to help you answer these things and they will flesh these things out. what i wanted to do today was make sure you had a good background and understand the names of the people, the events, so it is all familiar to you when you hear this from other people. any questions that you have, so far today?
you get the microphone. i just had a question concerning the voter turnout in iowa compared to new hampshire. we are a 50-60 and you say they are 20-30. do you think that we as a rich tradition, for both states, in terms of holding the caucus, do you feel like it has more to do with the general level of political engagement in new hampshire, or is it more a factor of the structure of a caucus versus the structure of a primary? prof. smith: an excellent question. i think a little bit of both. iowa has a caucus system. it is a democratic caucus that requires that you go to the caucus and go into a room with a few hundred other people from your precinct or word -- ward,
and essentially you are in there for 3-4 hours. they have a weird system where you talk and give your speech is about why you should vote for your candidate, and then they want you to go to different parts of the room and line up with people in public, no secret ballot and line up with the , candidate that you support. the candidate that you like it does not get 15% of the vote in the room, you have the opportunity to go align yourself with somebody else. it takes a long time. that would depress turnout. why would somebody want to do that? go after work and spend four hours hanging out with people they do not know and being publicly identified as to which candidate they support. on the republican side, they essentially have a primary. they walk in, fill it a secret ballot, put it in the box, and leave. there is no reason that the republican turnout should be that much lower than it is in new hampshire, from a procedural matter. but, it is considerably lower than it is in new hampshire.
in 2008, it was difficult to calculate the specific numbers of who voted in what primary, but the estimates for the republican primary somewhere in the 11%-19% range in 2008. so considerably lower than what we saw in new hampshire. i think part of it is that new hampshire has a history and a tradition of a primary that is longer. it is also -- it has become something that you do in new hampshire. it is a habit. as i mentioned, there are more people who vote in the new hampshire provincial primary than vote in the midterm election. the midterm elections should be more important, you are choosing governors and congressmen and senators. but more people come out and vote in the presidential primary. there is something about the events, the circus of the new hampshire primary, and if any of you have been in manchester or concorde, the week before the primary, you'll really appreciate that circus, where every tv network, not only in the united states, but from around the world are lined up.
every politico that you have ever seen on tv, or elected official is there. you can meet former presidents of the united states on the street because they are all out there campaigning. it is a real circus. it is easy to do in new hampshire because it is a more compact space. in a state like iowa, it is a bigger state. you are not exposed to the circus quite as much as you are in new hampshire. other questions? both of the articles that we have read have addressed that new hampshire is not been choosing candidates quickly for a couple of elections result. prof. smith: we have lost three of them. >> i was wondering what you thought -- what factors make that happen? one of the articles addressed that new hampshire was not as diverse as the rest of the country. do you think that plays a role in lately as a country that is in newverse and
hampshire, are they not up to par in terms of diversity, does that play a role? prof. smith: i think there is an issue of diversity, but not ethnic diversity but ideological diversity. the new hampshire republican electorate is a moderate public and electorate. it is a northeastern republican electorate. what we used to call rockefeller republicans. after nelson rockefeller. it will illustrate that new hampshire republicans, likely are more pro-choice on the issue on abortion than the country of a whole -- as a whole. they are slid on the issue of gay marriage. whereas other states are strongly opposed. we have a second least religious state in the country. on the republican side the new , hampshire electorate is very different than the iowa carolinae or the south electorate or some of the other , southern states that are very strong parts of the republican party. so a mitt romney or rudy giuliani or a george h.w. bush or george w. bush, if he did not
run as a conservative in 2000, they can win in new hampshire. they can do well appear, where is a staunch conservative candidate, particularly a social conservative candidate will have a much more difficult time winning in new hampshire. that does not mean that a candidate from a party can really -- acquire the institutional support of the party like al gore in 2000. or walter mondale in 2004. or george w. bush in 2000. they can get that steamroller together which means that you , can roll over somebody from new hampshire. who wins new hampshire but does not have that sort of organizational strength. so, i think diversity is a problem, new hampshire democrats tend to be more liberal than democrats in other parts of the country. they are high income, high education democrats. more like a liberal elite democrat. that is not the case in states like iowa or other states with a much stronger union, blue-collar democratic base. there are some differences between the new hampshire
electorate and the electorate in other states which i think is , more important than any sort of racial or ethnic differences between them. i have kept you past time. just a reminder, secretary of state gardner will be on thursday. if you have any questions about the readings from his book, please be prepared to ask him. thank you very much. thank you to the folks at home for watching. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] every weekend on american history tv we feature programs that tell the american story. here are some of the highlights from this presidents' day weekend. margaret oppenheimer talks about , who was born into
poverty and became one of the most -- richest women in new york city. >> what brought these two celebrities together? on both side of the altar, the undoubted attraction was money. him a big will give pot of money to spend. jewell had motivations for the marriage. on the one hand, she would soon have to begin settling her first husband's estate. , with knowledge of the law could help her protect assets. the main attraction of the marriage for her was the opportunity to enter social circles that had been previously closed to her. war, on00 on the civil
the reactions of southerners and northerners to john brown's raid on harpers ferry, his subsequent execution, and a nation's divided sentiment. 2:00, afternoon at historians explore the history of the death penalty in america, including the case that affirmed the constitutionality of capital punishment. swansont 3:30, james compares the assassinations of abraham lincoln and john f. kennedy. their personal similarities and differences in their terms in office, the backgrounds of the assassins, and the state of the country at the time. he talked about the experience and reaction of the windows. >> jackie was very conscious of history. jfk was very knowledgeable about lincoln, so jackie did have very
much in mind the lincoln precedent for the funeral. >> for the complete american tv we can schedule, go to c-span.org. >> president's day on american history tv, vietnam hearings 15 he -- 50 years later. the senate foreign relations committee chair and -- chaired -- in hearings that were televised live to the nation. here's a preview. >> from your perspective as a historian, what is the value in somebody watching these 50-year-old hearings? >> we live history from the beginning forward to the end but we read history from the end back. we know how the vietnam war ended. we remember the pictures of americans being evacuated from the roof of the embassy in 1975.
we know that north vietnam took over south vietnam and made it a communist nation. we know that everything we fought the war for, the opposite happened. , thato recognize vietnam president clinton got huge crowds cheering him when he went to vietnam. it is a very different country. the majority of the smes were born after the war. it is part of their history. they fought a war with china more recently than i fought a war with us. it is a bit of a different situation, we know all of that. of the testimony that was given in 1966, none of them knew how it was going to end. they projected the ending. they thought the north vietnamese would give up and decide it was not worth the fight. they would go back to their country and let the south vietnamese live themselves. that is his vision.
saying, we have to get out of there in the most face-saving way possible. general gavin is saying we need to create enclaves and not try to take back everything. general taylor is talking about what are the realities of the government in south vietnam. none of them know what we know and in fact, some of the books that are written by historians as we now know, because they do know the end. when america went back to had to confront many of these issues and had to rethink his policies. he came to the conclusion that the war had been a mistake, at least the way they thought that fought the war. this takes us back to that period, gives us a chance to see the people involved and senators
who had to decide whether or not they should support or oppose that policy. >> watch much more of the vietnam hearings from 1966 on president's day at 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. eastern. next on the presidency, university of washington history president are great america talks about her book "pivotal tuesdays, four elections that shaped the 20th century." she begins with 1912 and explores 1932, 1968, and 1992 elections. archives posted this hour-long talk. margaretspeaker is