New Hampshire to vote Jan. 10
November 2nd, 2011
11:13 AM ET
11 years ago

New Hampshire to vote Jan. 10

Concord, New Hampshire (CNN) - At long last, New Hampshire's secretary of state has set the first-in-the-nation primary for Jan. 10, restoring order to the primary calendar and preserving the state's early voting status for another presidential cycle.

Bill Gardner praised New Hampshire's traditional first primary in front of a room packed with cameras and reporters in his long-time state house office.

"The New Hampshire primary has really been for those - regardless of their status, whether they have fame or fortune - that they have a chance here," Gardner said. "People in this state care deeply about who they choose and that it be right, that it be right for the country. They put a lot of time and effort into this."

New Hampshire voters will head to the polls in 68 days - a week after the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.

The new Jan. 10 primary date is more than a month earlier than New Hampshire's original date in mid-February. The primary calendar was thrown into flux when Florida moved their contest to Jan. 31 forcing four other states, sanctioned by the party to vote early, to change their dates.

South Carolina moved their date to Jan. 21. Nevada then said they would hold their contest on Jan. 14, causing Gardner to re-think his date as well. Iowa scheduled its caucus for Jan. 3 which further boxed New Hampshire in, as by state law it holds the first primary in the nation and must be separated from any similar voting event by seven days.

In response to the moves by the other states, Gardner vowed to protect New Hampshire's early status and warned he could be forced to move the primary into early December.

After weeks of intense pressure on Nevada's GOP, the state party capitulated and moved back its caucus date to Feb. 4. That cleared the way for a January primary in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire voters pride themselves on thoroughly vetting presidential candidates at town hall meetings across the state. They have a history of delivering unlikely victories to candidates, propelling them to later success.

Several presidential candidates had pledged not to campaign in Nevada if it continued to threaten New Hampshire's status. The three candidates with the highest fund-raising numbers did not join that pledge.

Also see:

Cain shows inconsistencies in foreign policy understanding

Five candidates offer ideas on strengthening U.S. manufacturing

Cain raises more than $400k in one day; supporters call allegations 'high-tech' lynching

Filed under: 2012 • New Hampshire
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. Karl

    Where there's smoke, there's fire

    For Cain it's simply smoking now, but the fire is burning hot below the smoke. He must wait for the real explosion before he starts to rejoice. The truth is out there and it's coming out. His lying about his sexual innuendos and changing of stories do not spell well for him, and he knows it.

    The women involved will eventually be allowed to speak and what a shallacking that will be to his campaign? This is only the beginning of sorrows...he who laughs last, laughs best.

    Cain has disappointed his supporters, but what's new? Isn't he one of those 'holier than thou' republicans. There's the smoke, the fire is right there.

    November 2, 2011 11:28 am at 11:28 am |
  2. Democrat Party - leftist "progressive" socialist communist losers hellbent on destroying the USA

    We can ALL hardly wait to get the process started to replace the buffoon in the Whitehouse! LET'S ROLL!!!!

    November 2, 2011 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm |
  3. Bryan

    I wouldn't trust Cain in the same room with my child.

    November 2, 2011 12:01 pm at 12:01 pm |
  4. Whome

    All the primaries should be held on the same day by having separate primaries only allows the parties to push through their choice not who the people want. When the parties see it's not going their way they gang up on whoever is ahead if it's not their guy.

    November 2, 2011 12:02 pm at 12:02 pm |
  5. John B

    I find it laughable that these states can bicker on who gets to go first. Why can't you idiots just put all the places that want to go first into a hat each year and draw a name? Or take turns? OMG when will our government just grow up.

    November 2, 2011 12:02 pm at 12:02 pm |
  6. Robert

    Oh thank goodness, for a while there I was worried someone else might get a say in things for a change.

    I understand that not every state can be first every year and that it is impossible to try to hold a nationwide primary for financial reasons, but New Hampshire and Iowa's protected standing makes no sense in a country otherwise built on giving everyone a voice.

    November 2, 2011 12:05 pm at 12:05 pm |
  7. Rudy NYC

    I think the original push for date changes reflect the neo-con influence and takeover of the Republican Party. I wonder if the pull back from the aggressive early dates and competition to be "first" are a sign that "old guard" Republicans haven't totally lost control of their party to the hard right extremists.

    November 2, 2011 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm |
  8. king

    i am going to do somthing that the repugs are expert at. say a talking point and get every one in the party to repeat it with pasion every time they open their mouth and the people will beleive eventually. So TAX THE RICH AND ALLOW THE MONEY TO STAY HERE AND CIRCULATE AMONGS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT TAKEN TO CHINA TO BUILD CHINA EVEN BIGGER. I know cnn wont post this blog because they hate when i talk like this.

    November 2, 2011 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm |
  9. Davin

    What if they just move their primary to the January following a presidential election year to ensure they go first? This is really getting silly. I so envy the Brits and their election procedures only being the 30 days prior to the election.

    November 2, 2011 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  10. Ralph in Orange Park, FL

    A primary date lottery would be fair. The GOP would not do it, but it would be fair.

    November 2, 2011 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |