These primaries and caucuses are confusing. Yikes! To gain some insight, take a look at the results from the Iowa primary. Note how many delegates Romney, Santorum, and Paul garnered. How many do they need to be nominated?
Here is your assignment:
1) What the primary results from New Hampshire on CNN, MSNBC or whatever US-based network you wish starting at 6:00 PM.
2) What is the significance of the New Hampshire Primary?
3) What do the candidates stand for and do they use any language from the Revolution or from Jackson’s era?
4) Finally, do you prefer how party leaders are nominated in Canada or the United States?
Here is a great resource from Al Jazeera demonstrating the road to the the election in November:
Henderson Hallway 
The results from the New Hampshire primary were Romney had 39% of the vote, Paul had 23%, Huntsman 17% followed by Santorum with 10% and Perry with 1%. Men and women voters were almost even, however men had 8% more voters. Ages 45-64 had the highest number of voter and 18-29 had the least. The New Hampshire primary is the first primary election. It is important because it gives everyone an idea of who are the front runners are in the election. It also gives people a chance to voice their opinion on the different candidates. The results may change in the Iowa caucus but the New Hampshire primary is important because it is first. Jackson believed in expanding America. However, he did it at the cost of indigenous people. Mitt Romney wants to “not spend more than we take in” this is similar to Jackson because he wants the economy to grow. He also wants free enterprise. This is when private businesses profit with little control of states. Ron Paul has an ad that focuses on having low taxes and the fact that he is consistent. He is similar to Jackson because he is a peoples person. He seems like he is a normal man who wants what is best for his people. Being a common person was how Jackson was portrayed. Huntsman’s views are focused on sustainability and innovation. He is similar to Jackson because he want to do something for the benefit of america, just as Jackson believed in manifest destiny and expanding. I believe that the way party leaders are elected in Canada is simpler. However I like the primary and caucus system in the U.S because it requires that the candidates visit different states. I think this would be very effective and help people reach their decision. Both systems have the population voting for designated people to vote for a leader. This is something I dislike. I think we should vote for our leader. In Canada you have more choices as to what party you want to elect. In America you only have two choices. Because I think Canada’s way is simpler and you have more choices I think I prefer Canada’s way. Jane M.
The results from the New Hampshire Primary showed Mitt Romney in first place with 39.3% of the vote Ron Paul in second with 22.9% of the vote Jon Huntsman in third with 16.9% of the vote and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum tied for fourth with 9.4% of the vote each. The significance of the New Hampshire Primary is that it is the first in a series of elections to choose candidates for either the democratic or republican party’s presidential race. It gets massive media attention and is considered “the testing ground” in the early stages of a presidential race. So candidates who do well in the New Hampshire Primary can go on to become serious contenders and ones who don’t do well sometimes just end up dropping out. The previous three presidents all finished second in the New Hampshire Primary before being elected.I think Canada’s electoral system is better because than the U.S. system because in Canada the people directly vote for and choose their elected politicians. In the U.S. the voters elect who is going to choose for them rather than directly voting for a candidate. Sarah
Ah, election prep in the U.S. is there anything more convoluted? Nah, I don't think so. The obvious significance of this is marking the beginning of "election fever" in the States. This is the gateway for television channels to be flooded with ads, billboards and newspapers will promote candidates, and we're more than likely to see an internet ad or too. Hopefully this hasn't set a trend, as the votes didn't go spectacularly. They weren't awful either. Almost all of the candidates are flimsy and untrustworthy. They have ulterior motives, and with the case of Rick Perry, motives that are plain to see, but just as alarming. The U.S.A. needs a hero. A hero who stands for what America was first about. One who does right instead of giving in to pressure. That hero is here. Ron Paul is exactly what the United States needs! Ron Paul doesn't have an alarm clock, each morning he wakes to the call of FREEDOM! When tyranny goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul! He is one of the best republican candidates since the founding of the country! Ron Paul is the ideal president for the people. Finally, I am torn. In Canada, the process is much more efficient and direct, but the American approach is more out there. I'm almost out of time so I need to cut this short. VOTE RON PAUL 2012!~~Sam
The Result from the New Hampshire Primary showed that Mitt Romney had 39% of the votes, Ron Paul had 23%, Huntsman had 17, Santorum had 10%, and Rick Perry had 1%. The significance of the New Hampshire Primary is that, according to Wikipedia, the three most recent presidential election winners, finished second in the New Hampshire Primary before later being elected to the presidency, while the previous 4 before, won the New Hampshire Primary. Also a win in New Hampshire increases a candidate's share of the final primary count in all states by 27 percentage point (also according to Wikipedia). Andrew Jackson believed that they should expand America (Manifest Destiny) and he did it, but the natives suffered a lot. Mitt Romney says the “we should not spend more than we take in”. That is, to some extent, similar to Andrew Jackson’s philosophy. Mitt Romney, like Andrew Jackson, stated something so that the country could benefit, but he did not explain how, or who this is going to have an effect on. It is obvious that the country would benefit economically from not spending more than they take in, but the people who would suffer from this were not stated. For example, since the U.S.A is in a crisis right now, Romney’s philosophy is helpful, but it’s not any different from the presidents before him. They also though that they should not spend more than they take in. But all of them failed to explain how they will be able to do that. The U.S.A is a great nation, so if they do not want to spend more than they take in, they are going to have to “take in” a lot in order to make up for that.I personally think that the way the Canadian elections run are much simpler, but the way the United States does it is a lot more “out there”. They visit around many state, and get their word across, and the people vote based on that. The only problem I find with the way the U.S.A runs their elections is that the people elected other people who elect the president; I think that the people should be able to elect their president right away. -Paul Istasy
The results were what everyone mentioned, so I don’t think I have to re-type them.The New Hampshire Primary is the very first primary, so it gives people a general idea which people they should seriously consider, and which ones not to. All the primaries are important, and so are the caucuses, but this specific primary is very telling to the people because it is the first. I agree that the results may change, but this one is also the most important because the first impression is always the biggest impression.Mitt Romney had a similar view as Andrew Jackson when he said that he does not want to spend more then they take in, which is just like Andrew Jackson’s view because he wanted to grow economically also.I like how we get more parties to choose from and that our votes matter as opposed to the American votes that do not TECHNICALLY make a difference. They get to vote on who they want their state representative to choose, but the representative doesn’t have to agree with the majority. I do not like this one bit, because at the end of they day, the leader is going to lead us all, not just lead the representatives so it isn’t fair at all that the normal American person’s vote could be completely disregarded.BILAL SHAIKH
Like everybody else said, Mitt Romney had 39% of the votes, Ron Paul had 23% of the vote, Huntsman had 17, Santorum had 10%, followed by Rick Perry with only 1% of the vote. The New Hampshire Primary is very important because it is the first primary election. Historically, the candidate that has the most votes at the New Hampshire Primary ends up winning the election. There are many similarities between Andrew Jackson and the current candidates. Mitt Romney talks a lot about sustaining our economy by not spending more than we can. He says that with him the economy will improve but really, who doesn’t say that. He also believes in strong federal government and less control from the states. The same was said by Andrew Jackson about maintaining our economy. Ron Paul believes in lower taxes. He wants to lower these taxes but having less of a military presence in other countries and have the U.S. troops inside the U.S. border. He believes in giving less money in the military and this in turn will lower taxes for the citizens. I strongly believe with Sam and agree that Ron Paul is the best candidate. He thinks very logically about his decisions and is not afraid to give his opinion of issue opposed to some other candidates that appear to say stuff that will please the most voters. I believe that the candidates should say what they believe in so that if they are being voted for what they believe in and what they will do if they become president. This is why I believe Ron Paul is the best candidate for the job. I think both the Canadian and American voting systems have flaws. The main flaw that I see in the systems is the fact that we vote for people to vote for our leader and not just simply vote him/her in directly. It is as if they do not trust the average person to vote for their leader when they are being directly affected by their decision. Our leader makes decisions that affect us every day and I think that we should have a bigger say in who gets to make these decisions. I like the American system for the fact that the candidates go to many places and this would probably increase the involvement in the voting process. The positive of the Canadian system is the variation of options. Since there are more parties in the Canadian system, there can be many a bigger variation in views on politics rather than the American system which only has two parties and therefore less variation. My ideal voting system would be a system with the positive for each system plus a system where we can directly for our leader. At this point, I can’t choose which is superior because quite frankly I don’t like either of them and until they make changes I will not like either system. Vote Ron Paul (even though we can’t)Gavin
The results from the New Hampshire Primary were Mitt Romney had 39.3% of the vote and he was in the first place, Ron Paul got 22.9%, Jon Huntsman had 16.9% of the vote, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both got 9% , Rick Perry in sixth got 1%. New Hampshire Primary is the beginning of the election. Voters have the highest turnout in national elections of any state's voters. New Hampshire is an independent state that votes both democrat and republican and every presidential election in the state will become the focus of attention. Candidates all want to run in front of others because a win in New Hampshire increases the final primary count, and people say that “do well in New Hampshire or go home.” Jackson was in the Democratic Party who wanted to build a stronger political party system, against the state, central bank, and also against the expense of the taxpayers to achieve the modernization of industrial development. He wanted the expansion of new agricultural land. I think Ron Paul has the similar idea as Jackson. He opposes tax bill, he does things all for people, like the term “democracy” states. I believe Canada’s election system is better and it’s much simpler like most people said. America’s election is held in every separate states, the winner then is going to compete with others from other states. Presidents are elected indirectly. That is too complicated. It’s better in Canada because voters have more choices and they can choose the one they support most in the country directly.
The results for the New Hampshire Primary:Mitt Romney 97,532 votes 39.3% – 5 delegatesRon Paul 56,848 votes 22.9% – 3 delegatesJon Huntsman 41,945 votes 16.9% – 2delegatesNewt Gingrich 23,411 votes 9.4%Rick Santorum 23,362 votes 9.4%Others 2,676 votes 1.1%Rick Perry 1,713 votes 0.7%Buddy Roemer 945 votes 0.4%As you can see there are only really three contenders for the republican presidential candidate; Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman. To win a candidate needs more than 50% which is 1245. This means that their journey has barely started. The main significance of the New Hampshire Primary is that historically, the candidate that wins it becomes the presidential candidate for the party. The delegates use some similar language to people in Andrew Jackson’s time but they also talk about getting back to the old America. The delegates talk about how they want an America with cooperation and through that they will become strong. In my opinion the main, the main difference between the past and present politicians is one is moving forward the other is moving back. Almost all of the candidates talk about restoring America to her former glory. Like Gingrich said “the America we know and love”.I think that neither way of choosing party leaders is that great. In the US, it is a long and complicated process that wastes millions of dollars but the process tries to get the opinion of everyone in the US of the party. In Canada, members of the party go to a convention to vote in the leader. This is simpler but there is less involvement from all of Canada.Bryce
The New Hampshire primary is really a telltale sign of the rest of the primarys, historically whoever wins this primary becomes the leader of their party, and sometimes even president, having said that the ratings between some of the candidates are close enough that it’s still anyone’s game. On another not I have to agree with Sam, Ron Paul is the lesser of all evils. Ron Paul is so tough he sneezes buck shot. He completed a 1000 piece puzzle with 300 pieces. I’m hoping that Ron Paul wins but no one can know for sure. Soon negative ads and attacking politicians will flood the media in its entirety till the end of the race. I think as long as Rick Perry doesn’t win everything will be ok. Thirdly I like the Canadian system more than the American one simple because of its efficiently and cost effectiveness Carson Milberg
The results have been stated a few times before so I don't think I have to. The significance of the New Hampshire primary is that whoever wins the Primary usually goes far in the election race, the same goes for the people who come in second and third. The candidates stand for smaller governments, more power to the states and less taxes. Its almost uncanny how much resemblance there is between the Republicans and the anti-federalists. I prefer the way the way party leaders are elected in Canada just because it is less complicated but I like how their system forces the candidates to go to almost all the states.
Mitt Romney had 39% of the votes, Ron Paul had 23% of the vote, Huntsman had 17%, Santorum had 10%, followed by Rick Perry with only 1% of the vote. As stated by everyone else. The importance of the New Hampshire primary is that it is the very first "election". The New Hampshire primary allows the people to get to know the candidates. The primary also helps us distinguish who will esentially make it farthest in the election. In past history those who do well in the New Hampshire Primary usually end up close to winning. Personally, I like Canada's electoral system better than the American one. I feel like that it's much more straight forward and easier to understand which is a plus. But beyond the simplicity I like that in Canada we are able to vote directly for our MP, but in America there is no such option. I think that Canada's electoral process is slightly superior.-Nicole Vishnevsky
Previously in the comments before the results have been posted so I believe it is unnecessary for me to post these again. However, the results of the New Hampshire Primary are normally thought to be, and often are, accurate predictions of who will go far in the election. Historically a few of the most recent presidents of the United States of America have finished in either second or won the New Hampshire Primary. So far Mitt Romney with roughly 39% of the votes is in a good position for winning in the election as well as Ron Paul who has around 23% of the votes. Though this does not mean they have won historically speaking it is looking good for these Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.Jackson was a part of a group of people that believed there should be a stronger political party system. He was also opposed to the idea of a centralized bank as well as the expense of tax payers. Jackson had a few thoughts that were some what similar to the ideas of the current candidates. Mitt Romney seemed to point out that given the current economical position that America shouldn’t spend anymore than they can. Jackson discussed this as well while he was in power.I think that Canada’s system is slightly better only because it is very simple and much less expensive. Though given the population differences, America having about a ten times larger population than Canada, I think that even though complex America’s system may be necessary for such a large population. Canada also has many choices to choose from as well. This giving Canadians a better opportunity to vote for a party that really does stand for what they want.–Aidan C.
The results have already been stated. The significance of the New Hampshire Primary is to show which of the candidates can be considered contenders in the election and to weed out the others. It is also the first primary so it gives the opportunity for the candidates to give a first impression to the people. Mitt Romney and Andrew Jackson had similar views. Mitt Romney said that he does not want to spend more than they take in, which is like Andrew Jackson because he wants the economy to grow. I think that the Canadian election is better because it is simpler that the American way. In the American system, the votes do not technically make a difference. They vote for the representative and the representative chooses. I disagree with this because the representative does not have to choose what the majority of the vote is. Tim
Mitt Romney won, he had 97,532 votes(39.3%) Ron Paul had 56,848 votes(22.9%) Jon Huntsman had 41,945 votes(16.9%) Newt Gingrich had 23,411 votes(9.4%) Rick Santorum had 23,362 votes(9.4%)Rick Perry had 1,713 votes(0.7%)Buddy Roemer had 945 votes(0.45)The one that wins goes to Candidate Selected. The tops usually goes further in the election. First Primary tests each candidate, and the outcome, percentage influences the vote in the primaries that follow. That's why it's important.I agree with Aidan's point that America has much larger population than Canada. Every country has their own system. Using the Canada system in America does not work and using the America system in Canada does not work. But I prefer the way Canada does because it's more simple.
As other classmates in class had already mentioned the primary results from New Hampshire, Im going to skip this. The significance of the New Hampshire Primary is it allows for candidates regardless of national standing or financial capability to begin their launch into presidential politics by winning or doing well in New Hampshire. Andrew Jackson believed that they have to expand, he succeed. The cost of this expansion was the suffering and death of natives. Mitt Romney said that they should spend more than what they take in. They both said things that could help the United States' economy and could benefit the country. However, he didn't say how he is going to do that. All of the presidents on American History would like to improve its own economy, but how many of them had succeed? As America likes to be a hero, rescuing other countries, having military exercise with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc…… and sending army to Iraq which cost a lot of money. Moreover, he said they have to take in than how much they spend, which means they have to take in a lot. Although I am Canadian since I was born, this is my first year to study here. Since that, I'm not very familiar with the system of Canada. Though, I think the way how Canadian elects is more suitable to Canada because Canada has much less population compare to America. I think the citizens should be able to elect their president directly which makes a democracy country.Ngai Nikolaus
The importance of the New Hampshire Primary is that it is a way for the people and the candidates in general to get a vague understanding of the type of support they can expect to get in the real election, and to see how much (if at all) they need to change their campaign. This is important because it is sort of like a trial for the candidates, and if it doesn't work out well they can change a particular aspect of their campaign to make it work better. It also gives the populace a general idea of who is in the lead.The candidates stand for many different things, which is fairly surprising since they are all Republicans. Rick Santorum is almost definitely the most right winged of the bunch, as he is firmly against homosexual marriage and abortion, among other issues, however he is closely followed by the two Ricks, Perry and Santorum. Huntsman supports civil unions between homosexual couples but not gay marriage(!?), and is right wing on monetary policies and such. Ron Paul, in my humble opinion, is the best candidate for the election, as he wants to cut taxes and spending yet is a libertarian (more or less) in terms of social policy, which is more in line with my views than any other candidates for presidency this year.I believe that the system of election in the US is antiquated and based on tradition, being overly convoluted and confusing (strange, since the Canadian system is older; it was used in Great Britain years before the US became a nation). They need to throw this system out the window, because it doesn't make sense, and most Americans do not understand fully how it works-Mitch