National Trends

The New Hampshire primary proved nothing at all about the relative “popularity” of Nixon and Kennedy. Contrary to the mumbo-jumbo that has appeared in some of the daily papers, we are still very much in the dark as to how they might fare against each other in terms of personal appeal to uncommitted or “independent” voters. This is nearly always the case with uncontested primaries: unless cross-voting is permitted (as in Wisconsin) or cross-filing (as in California), such primaries are a test of organizational prowess. They show 1) how strong the candidate is with his party organization, and 2) how strong the organization is. So judged, both Kennedy and Nixon “won” in the New Hampshire primary — impressively.

For his part, the Vice President’s showing confirmed the view so often advanced by his partisans that his strength with the Republican organization is more than a matter of “contacts” and the usual deference to the party leader. Nixon is liked by the people who make up the organization—the precinct workers as well as the top leaders. They work for him enthusiastically, and the result is that they “get the vote.” Indeed, New Hampshire put a sturdy leg on the hypothesis that Nixon now has a greater pull with party workers than Dwight Eisenhower ever did. There seems to be no other way of accounting for the fact that Nixon corralled 65,000 votes, as against Eisenhower’s 56,000 in the 1956 primary—and that he did so without appearing personally in the state.

LB

About the Author

L. Brent Bozell Jr.

Featured Tags

Presidential Election

The New Hampshire primary proved nothing at all about the relative “popularity” of Nixon and Kennedy. Contrary to the mumbo-jumbo that has appeared in some of the daily papers, we are still very much in the dark as to how they might fare against each other in terms of personal appeal to uncommitted or “independent” voters. This is nearly always the case with uncontested primaries: unless cross-voting is permitted (as in Wisconsin) or cross-filing (as in California), such primaries are a test of organizational prowess. They show 1) how strong the candidate is with his party organization, and 2) how strong the organization is. So judged, both Kennedy and Nixon “won” in the New Hampshire primary — impressively.

For his part, the Vice President’s showing confirmed the view so often advanced by his partisans that his strength with the Republican organization is more than a matter of “contacts” and the usual deference to the party leader. Nixon is liked by the people who make up the organization—the precinct workers as well as the top leaders. They work for him enthusiastically, and the result is that they “get the vote.” Indeed, New Hampshire put a sturdy leg on the hypothesis that Nixon now has a greater pull with party workers than Dwight Eisenhower ever did. There seems to be no other way of accounting for the fact that Nixon corralled 65,000 votes, as against Eisenhower’s 56,000 in the 1956 primary—and that he did so without appearing personally in the state.