In the 2016 general election, 732,267 presidential votes were cast in New Hampshire. President Donald Trump lost New Hampshire, and its four electoral votes, by 0.37% – just 2,736 votes.
Happily, President Trump didn’t need the state to win the presidency.
This year the national political landscape looks very similar to 2016. New Hampshire is still a battleground state and our four electoral votes could, as they did in 2000, decide the election. Even losing only two states – Florida (29 electoral votes) and Arizona (11 electoral votes) – which he won in 2016 would give him an electoral college total of 266, four short of the 270 needed to win.
In 2000, the last time a Republican presidential candidate carried New Hampshire, our four electoral votes provided the winning margin. Had Al Gore, the Democrat, won New Hampshire’s four electoral votes he would have won the election regardless of the outcome in Florida, whose results were delayed by the hanging chad controversy.
In 2000, George W. Bush was, after the Florida decision, elected with 271 electoral votes.
While the stakes are high in any presidential election, they couldn’t be much higher than they are this year.
Consider, for example, the Democrats’ plan to “pack” the Supreme Court by adding six additional judges to the nine stipulated 151 years ago in the Judiciary Act of 1869. (The Constitution doesn’t stipulate a specific number of judges.) By winning the presidency and majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, the Democrats could conceivably pass a law increasing the number of judges to the 15 they are discussing, giving the new president the ability to make six new appointments. The newly expanded Supreme Court would have the ability to turn the Constitution into a mere scrap of paper.
Recognizing that President Trump lost New Hampshire in 2016 by a cat’s whisker, the important role New Hampshire’s four electoral votes may play this year, coupled with the fact that this election may be a turning point in American history, it is difficult to understand how a politician with plenty of political capital can profess to support the president’s re-election but refuse to use his influence to advance the president’s campaign.
Shortly after the September Republican primaries, Gov. Chris Sununu appeared in television advertisements supporting Republican U.S. Senate candidate Corky Messner and Republican candidate for the 1st Congressional District Matt Mowers. Considering Gov. Sununu’s history of stinting support for his fellow Republican candidates, this is a surprising and very welcome step in the right direction.
A similar ad for President Trump has yet to appear. Perhaps Gov. Sununu needs to be reminded that a Republican presidential primary was held in February and that he’s had almost eight months to do more than the absolute minimum to help President Trump win in New Hampshire.
Perhaps someone should also point out to Gov. Sununu that his lack of support for the president’s re-election isn’t lost on many of the president’s supporters.
Recent polls show Gov. Sununu with a massive lead over his opponent. Short of a minor miracle, he will easily win re-election.
Failing to help the president and taking Trump supporters for granted should come at a political price. Gov. Sununu should quickly change his attitude and do what he can to help President Trump carry New Hampshire. Absent clear evidence that he’s done so, President Trump’s supporters should refuse to add to Gov. Sununu’s winning margin and remember where he stood when it mattered.
(Jim McConnell of North Swanzey, a Republican, is a former state representative from Cheshire District 12. He is not a candidate this year.)