This is a useful article from the Nashua Telegraph on the differences between Iowa's caucusgoers and New Hampshire's primary voters. Though both electorates are disproportionately pale-skinned and well-educated, there are some politically meaningful divergences. New Hampshire's Democrats, for instance, are more likely to be in a union, which should in theory help John Edwards, though I'm not seeing any of that reflected in the polling. That may be because New Hampshirites are New Englanders, and less likely to regularly attend church or possess much cultural affinity for Southern-fried populism. New Hampshire also has more independents, and a far deeper libertarian streak, than Iowa, which may explain why the state's politics emphasize taxes, and why there's neither a sales nor income tax in the state (which raises the question of how they fund anything, a topic viciously explored by my friend Josh Bearman four years ago). Additionally, Iowans are tremendously concerned about health care, while Granite Staters tend to fear for more for the economy.Also, for those of us still working in the context if 2004, where Kerry's victory in Iowa catapulted him through New Hampshire, it's worth remembering that the Granite State actually has a history of blocking Iowa's winners, as they did to Bush in 2000. Kerry was himself a New Englander, and thus had latent support and appeal that made him a natural fit once he looked electable again. That's the sort of effect that could help Mitt Romney, if he wins Iowa, and harm Huckabee, if he loses it.Pohot used under a Creative Commons license from Impact Artistry. THE NEW HAMPSHIRITES.
This is a useful article from the Nashua Telegraph on the differences between Iowa's caucusgoers and New Hampshire's primary voters. Though both electorates are disproportionately pale-skinned and well-educated, there are some politically meaningful divergences. New Hampshire's Democrats, for instance, are more likely to be in a union, which should in theory help John Edwards, though I'm not seeing any of that reflected in the polling. That may be because New Hampshirites are New Englanders, and less likely to regularly attend church or possess much cultural affinity for Southern-fried populism. New Hampshire also has more independents, and a far deeper libertarian streak, than Iowa, which may explain why the state's politics emphasize taxes, and why there's neither a sales nor income tax in the state (which raises the question of how they fund anything, a topic viciously explored by my friend Josh Bearman four years ago). Additionally, Iowans are tremendously concerned about health care, while Granite Staters tend to fear for more for the economy.Also, for those of us still working in the context if 2004, where Kerry's victory in Iowa catapulted him through New Hampshire, it's worth remembering that the Granite State actually has a history of blocking Iowa's winners, as they did to Bush in 2000. Kerry was himself a New Englander, and thus had latent support and appeal that made him a natural fit once he looked electable again. That's the sort of effect that could help Mitt Romney, if he wins Iowa, and harm Huckabee, if he loses it.Pohot used under a Creative Commons license from Impact Artistry. 
