{"id":4926,"date":"2012-01-10T10:30:42","date_gmt":"2012-01-10T15:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/new-hampshire\/?p=4926"},"modified":"2012-01-10T12:53:37","modified_gmt":"2012-01-10T17:53:37","slug":"why-candidates-are-spending-less-on-the-nh-primary-this-cycle-and-what-it-could-mean-for-the-future","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateimpact.npr.org\/new-hampshire\/2012\/01\/10\/why-candidates-are-spending-less-on-the-nh-primary-this-cycle-and-what-it-could-mean-for-the-future\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Candidates Are Spending Less On The NH Primary This Cycle–And What It Could Mean For The Future"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Alex Wong \/ Getty Images<\/p>

The 2012 Republican presidential candidates just aren't investing as much in the New Hampshire race as usual. StateImpact scours political coverage to find out why.<\/p><\/div>\n

There’s been a collective notion swirling among New Hampshire politicos and pundits that this year’s Republican primary just doesn’t stack up to past events.\u00a0 Candidates aren’t as anxious to go to town hall meetings and shake hands at nondescript diners.\u00a0 By and large, they’re not throwing astronomical sums of cash into unending TV ads.\u00a0 Yes, they’re here, touting the importance of the early New England vote.\u00a0 But they’re not entirely <\/em>here, mentally and spiritually grounded in the Granite State, outwardly embracing its quirks, touting its special place in electoral politics (except for Jon Huntsman, that is) <\/em>.<\/p>\n

In short, there’s a well-documented sense in the media that somehow, somewhere along the line, New Hampshire’s First In The Nation primary has fallen off its granite pedestal.<\/p>\n

The problem with nebulous sentiment, however, is that it’s tough to quantify.<\/p>\n

So instead, we’re going to take a look at some of the latest coverage concerning political spending and the decline of retail politics to get a more solid sense of what this perceived shift could mean for New Hampshire.<\/p>\n

What Primary Spending Looks Like Now<\/h4>\n

Let’s start off with a picture of early primary spending.\u00a0 Back in December, StateImpact pointed our readers<\/a> to an article by Bob Sanders at the <\/a>New Hampshire Business Review<\/a>.<\/em>\u00a0 Sanders wrote:<\/p>\n

“As of Sept. 30, the Republican candidates have spent a total of $4.6 million directly in New Hampshire — about 36 percent of the amount spent by candidates in 2008. Yes, there were races in both parties that year, with 13 major primary candidates, but this year there are 10 major GOP candidates — or eight, if you go by the deciders of debate participants. And that should mean at least more than half of the amount spent four years ago. Final spending figures won’t be available until after the primary.<\/p>\n

In 2008, when all was said and done, candidates in both parties spent $21.1 million in the state. Republicans alone spent $12.1 million, but almost all of that is spent on consultants, fundraising and staff.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, that only takes us up to the end of September (when there was also a larger slate of presidential contenders).\u00a0 Between October and Primary Day on January 10, one would expect TV ad buys, at least, to pick up steam as the contest heated up.<\/p>\n

Except, as NHPR’s Jon Greenberg recently reported, they didn’t<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>

goodbanta \/ Flickr<\/p>

This year's slate of candidates isn't relying as heavily on high-dollar TV ads as contenders of primaries past<\/p><\/div>\n

“In the closing hours of the primary, the campaigns are turning to the airwaves to make one last push for votes. \u00a0About a third of the electorate say they have yet to make up their mind. Some 60 television ads a day might help them decide. That might sound like a lot but the real story of advertising in this primary is, \u00a0there\u2019s so little of it.<\/p>\n

Two candidates have dominated the New Hampshire television market for several months. \u00a0Texas congressman Ron Paul, often cast as a firebrand, is now running an ad aimed at burnishing his image as a reliable leader…<\/p>\n

In these final days, combined, the two campaigns and their super PAC supporters account for more than half of all the political ads on WMUR at a cost of about a third of a million dollars. \u00a0That\u2019s small potatoes in the world of presidential politics.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Greenberg also cites Republican media consultants Pat Griffin and Brad Todd in his piece.\u00a0 Griffin cites the Mitt Romney’s continued dominance in the state as one deterrent to other candidates throwing money into regional media.\u00a0 And Todd notes that since the state is dominated by Boston-based TV stations (with the exception of WMUR), the cost of competing with Mitt Romney’s well-funded machine is extraordinarily high.<\/p>\n

Traveling NH On A Shoestring Budget<\/h4>\n

Related<\/h4>
Posts<\/h5>