#

In a win for Gov. Chris Sununu’s agenda, the New Hampshire House gave a preliminary vote of approval for full-day kindergarten. While some are calling it a bipartisan victory, the state Democratic Party is taking credit for the proposal getting passed.

Senate Bill 191 calls for providing $14.5 million during the next two fiscal years to help communities that want to implement full-day kindergarten.

In Sununu’s budget proposal, he provided $9 million a year to establish programs in the neediest communities of the Granite State. That original funding amount passed the Senate at the end of March on a 21-2 vote.

The House Education Committee changed the funding to the full $14.5 million to allow all communities, regardless of need, the opportunity to implement the program. About three-quarters of New Hampshire’s communities currently have full-day kindergarten, but the state only pays half the per-student amount for children in kindergarten. The House approved that funding on Thursday on a 247-116 vote.

“I applaud the House for taking this important step today to provide financial support to communities that choose to support and create full-day kindergarten programs,” Sununu said in a statement. “I believe strongly that this is the right thing to do and I look forward to continuing to work with the legislature as the measure moves forward.”

The roll call vote saw 87 Republicans join 160 Democrats in supporting the bill. Many education advocates cheered the bipartisan work of the House and Senate for getting the bill passed.

“With today’s vote, strong bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate are on record supporting increased state funding for full-day kindergarten,” said Mark Shriver, president of Save the Children Action Network. “We are encouraged that lawmakers from both parties have made investing kids in the Granite State a priority.”

The New Hampshire Democratic Party framed it another way. In their own press release, chairman Ray Buckley called Sununu’s original proposal of funding full-day kindergarten at $9 million a year a “half-baked plan.” He also highlighted that no Democrats opposed the bill and a majority of Republicans (115 of 202) voted against the legislation.

“Today, Democrats held him accountable for his broken promise by finally providing every child in the state full-day kindergarten instead of ceding to his half-baked budget proposal,” he said. “Democrats carried the bill across the finish line in the House, with every single Democratic House member voting for the legislation while a majority of Republican members voted against it. Sununu’s inability to lead almost cost us full-day kindergarten. Today was another example of why we need Democrats in the State House.”

Sounds like you're calling this a bipartisan victory for @GovChrisSununu | #nhpolitics @NHGOP @ChrisSununu https://t.co/aBDmfHonoP

— Drew Biemer (@DrewBiemer) May 5, 2017

House Republicans are pretty divided over whether the state should pay for full-day kindergarten.

On the House floor, Rep. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, said she opposed the bill because it removes local control from the communities and removes parental choice.

“It was never intended that 5-year-olds would be sitting at a desk for six hours per day,” she said. “We must allow districts to keep decisions regarding early childhood education as a local control issue so that we can fix Kindergarten and restore it to its intended purpose, which is to foster the individual talents and abilities of each child through exploration, creativity and movement.”

Other Republicans say the bill doesn’t mandate that schools offer full-day kindergarten, but simply allows communities access to funds to help pay for it.

“If Kindergarten is important, why don’t we fund it for everyone?” said Rep. Terry Wolf, R-Bedford. “This bill helps offset the downshifting of costs from state to local communities. Funding education makes a statement that we value education and support our communities.”

SB 191 was one to watch on Thursday because House GOP leadership did not take an official position on the bill or whip any votes. House Speaker Shawn Jasper was presiding over the session, so he didn’t cast a vote, but House Majority Leader Dick Hinch voted in favor of the legislation.

Leaders of the two conservative House caucuses voted against the bill, showing there isn’t widespread support among those factions for full-day kindergarten. Rep. Laurie Sanborn, R-Bedford, who is a leader of the House Republican Alliance, and Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, who is a leader of the House Freedom Caucus, opposed the bill.

SB 191 now heads to the House Finance Committee for representatives to look at the cost since the measure uses state revenues. In an earlier session, members of the committee refused to put any money for kindergarten in its version of the state budget.

After the committee makes a recommendation, the bill returns to the full House for another vote. If the House approves funding again at the $14.5 million-a-year level, then it will go to the Senate.

The Senate could then approve the bill at that funding level or the chamber could reject it in favor of their previous $9 million-a-year plan for targeted communities. If that happens, it’s likely a committee of conferences between the two chambers would be established to negotiate a compromise.

Regardless, the House’s approval of full-day kindergarten on Thursday is a good indication that a bill at some funding level will end up on Sununu’s desk, fulfilling one of his campaign promises.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

In an unusual move, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to review controversial comments made online by two lawmakers. Yet, Republican leaders aren’t expecting the committee to find that they violated any House ethics codes.

It started as an inquiry into Rep. Robert Fisher, R-Laconia, and comments he made in an online forum that were construed as misogynistic, but Republicans successfully added Rep. Sherry Frost, D-Dover, in the inquiry for tweets she wrote earlier this year that some found “offensive.”

Before the House met in their regularly scheduled session on Thursday, it was anticipated that House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff would bring up a motion for a House committee to investigate Fisher’s comments.

“At any time any member says anything or does anything that holds this body in disrespect, it affects each and every one of us,” he said on the House floor.

Fisher was identified as the creator of a a Reddit forum called “The Red Pill” in a report from The Daily Beast last week. His posts on the message board garnered criticism for being disrespectful toward women and normalizing rape culture. He admitted to the comments, which were made as far back as 2008, but said they were taken out of context.

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu and New Hampshire Republican Party Chair Jeanie Forrester have called for his resignation, but Fisher insists he will not step down.

Frost posted tweets earlier this year that said more terrorism is perpetrated by “white men who claim Christianity than by Muslims in the USA.” She also tweeted, “The people (read; men) telling me to ‘calm down’ & ‘not take it so hard’ are making me homicidal.”

The NHGOP criticized her for the tweets, calling her a “radical” and “a threat to her colleagues.”

“All representatives should be held to the same standard,” said Rep. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, who put forward the amendment to include Frost. “This body cannot pick and choose who they support and who they do not.”

The House voted 182-180 to include Frost in the inquiry and then approved of the investigation of both lawmakers by a 307-56 vote, with Fisher and Frost voting in favor of the review.

“I think the truth will be out at the hearing,” Fisher told the Concord Monitor. Frost said she has nothing to hide.

The Legislative Administration Committee’s reviews will be limited to comments made by the two lawmakers during the current legislative session, which means Fisher’s previous posts will not be included, but Frost’s tweets will be reviewed.

After that, the committee will make a recommendation to the full House for each lawmaker. The committee could recommend that no action should take place, or that the representatives should be reprimanded, censured, or expelled. The House will then vote on the recommendations.

“Referring this matter to the Legislative Administration Committee will allow for an investigation into Representative Fisher’s involvement with this forum since his election to the New Hampshire House,” Shurtleff said in a statement. “As elected officials it is our duty to act with honor both inside the State House and out, and I am confident that the Legislative Administration Committee will give this serious matter the consideration it deserves.”

His statement didn’t include any comments about Frost, though.

Some lawmakers criticized Republicans for including Frost in the inquiry, saying the two lawmaker’s comments do not equate to equal treatment. New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley took to Twitter to criticize the decision.

Misogyny rampant in @NHHouseGOP – voted to equate outspoken woman to a man praising rape. NH hangs its head in shame. #NHpolitics

— Ray Buckley (@ChairmanBuckley) May 4, 2017

Yet, House Speaker Shawn Jasper admitted that he doesn’t believe the committee will find that the lawmakers violated any ethics codes.

“I don’t think we’ve ever done anything quite like this,” he told the New Hampshire Union Leader. “Normally there would be something that falls under the ethics guidelines, and there’d be a complaint made by somebody and it would go to the ethics committee.”

Some lawmakers questioned why they spent time debating the issue.

@WMUR9 House votes to spend time investigating those who drop F-bombs on twitter. #nhpolitics don't we have more important things to do?

— Rep. JR Hoell (@NH_Braveheart) May 4, 2017

Rep. Keith Ammon, R-New Boston, motioned to table the matter, but it overwhelmingly failed.

“This is being used as a political football,” he said. “We need to have some more harmony in this body.”

Protesters lined the hallways of the State House and gathered outside on the plaza to protest Fisher’s comments. A protester’s sign said, “Rep. Fisher: This feminist says resign!” Another read, “Rape culture: He isn’t a symptom, he is a disease. Fisher must go.”

Fisher’s review hearing will begin on Tuesday, with Frost’s review to follow on Wednesday.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

It’s not often that you get a Republican governor, GOP-led Legislature, and Democratic minority to agree on anything. Especially after the contentious 2016 presidential and U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire, which saw numerous attack ads and damaging remarks, it wasn’t clear how the new dynamics at the State House would impact how policy gets done. Despite the expected political battles between the two parties, there have been some rare moments of bipartisanship in Concord.

In the past couple of weeks, there were a few bills making their way through the lawmaking process that saw bipartisan support.

Senate Bill 9 has seen some passionate testimony from advocates and lawmakers who want to strengthen New Hampshire’s rape shield law. It would protect a victim’s “sexual past, interests and predispositions” from being introduced as evidence at all stages of the judicial process, including appeals.

The bill was prompted by the rape and murder of University of New Hampshire student Lizzi Marriott in 2012, whose family had to appeal to the state Supreme Court to prevent details of her sexual past from being admitted during an appeal of the convicted murderer Seth Mazzaglia. The court originally ruled that the information could be made public because the rape shield law didn’t apply at the appeals level. Victim advocacy groups protested the decision and former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, and all four members of the Granite State’s congressional delegation, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider. The court eventually reversed its order.

It passed Tuesday in the House Judiciary Committee on an 11-4 vote. Four Republicans voted the bill was “inexpedient to legislate” because it was too expansive and could remove discretion from courts. Despite those four representatives, this bill has seen supporters from both parties as it makes its way to the governor’s desk.

Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, introduced the bill in the Senate, where it unanimously passed in the chamber. The night before the panel’s hearing on Tuesday, Gov. Chris Sununu urged the committee to pass the bill in a three-page letter to committee members.

“I encourage legislators to support Senate Bill 9, as passed by the Senate, to help ensure another family does not go through the painful and lengthy legal battle the Marriott family has had to undertake to protect their daughter’s privacy,” he wrote.

The committee was late to start the meeting because House Speaker Shawn Jasper and the House GOP leadership team caucused with the Republican members before the vote. He encouraged them to pass the bill as is without any new amendments.

With House GOP leadership pushing its passage, Sununu weighing in on it, and Democrats supporting the bill, SB 9 is likely to make it into law.

The other bill showing signs of bipartisanship is House Bill 640, which would decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.

The House has passed eight of these bills in the last 10 years, but they were always shot down in the Senate. With Massachusetts and Maine voting in November to legalize recreational marijuana, advocates say 2017 is the year for the state to catch up and it looks like the Senate will get it done.

HB 640, which would allow possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, was overwhelming approved last month by a 318-36 vote in the House. Last week, the bill moved over to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the members heard testimony on the bill.

Passage of the measure in the five-person committee is considered likely. The two Democrats, Sens. Bette Lasky of Nashua and Martha Hennessey of Hanover support the measure. Republican Sen. Harold French of Franklin also approves of it, but his GOP colleagues, Sens. Sharon Carson of Londonderry and Bill Gannon of Sandown, oppose the bill.

When it gets to the full Senate for a vote, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley said he predicts it will pass.

“I think when all’s said and done we will pass decriminalization and I think both sides, the advocates as well as law enforcement, will be able to live it,” he told NH1 News.

The committee is currently debating whether the amount should change from one ounce to half an ounce. Regardless of the amount, Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn said Democrats are willing to compromise.

“I’m certainly going to work to create a majority that can get something passed and get something turned into law,” he said. “I think the larger amount is fine with me but I’m willing to compromise to move the ball forward.”

It’s also expected that Sununu would sign the bill once it reaches his desk. He supported marijuana decriminalization during his gubernatorial campaign. He recently said he prefers the half an ounce amendment, but would let the legislature hammer out the details.

On some education issues, there has also been bipartisan work, especially when it comes to full-day kindergarten. Republicans also supported an effort to kill a school choice bill for the rest of the year. The move was applauded by Democrats, but it’s likely to reappear again in 2018.

This isn’t to say that New Hampshire Republicans and Democrats are working together on everything. Democrats fervently opposed a right-to-work bill that came up earlier this year, and they were also players in the House’s failure to pass a budget. Also, just look at the New Hampshire Democratic Party and New Hampshire Republican Party‘s Twitter accounts. They are often filled with mudslinging tweets at the opposing party. Yet, on several big issues at the State House, it appears both parties can be bipartisan.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

For the first time since at least 1969, the New Hampshire House did not pass its version of a state budget. The budget is the second major issue that House Republicans had split factions on, highlighting deep and unhealed wounds within the Republican Party. While many people are putting the blame on Gov. Chris Sununu for not leading the party, he stands to gain the most from it.

House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, did not mince words after the House voted to adjourn and recess before a budget could be passed by the Thursday deadline. He blasted those who opposed the budget.

“They were bankrupt in terms of ideas,” said Jasper. “There were really no ideas that they had other than to say ‘somebody else needs to figure this out.’”

Thirty-two Republicans did not support Republican’s leadership trailer bill, which failed by a 177-169 vote. That came the same day that 66 Republicans rejected the leadership’s $11.9 billion budget bill, which failed by a 220-134 vote. One of the key components of the leadership budget was $50 million in property tax relief for cities and towns.

Yet, for keen political observers the ultimate failure of the state budget was predicated weeks ago, as conservative House members did not like that spending increased over former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan’s budget and that the budget created by the House Finance Committee lacked tax cuts.

@keithammon #nhpolitics $12 Billion in spending & 0 tax cuts 4 R citizens $150million MORE than Hassan raised the budget Yep, I see trouble

— Rep. JR Hoell (@NH_Braveheart) March 24, 2017

Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, is the leader of the House Freedom Caucus. He led the charge against the House Republican’s leadership budget. He tweeted about how he could “see trouble” getting the budget passed two weeks before the vote.

“The Speaker pulled me out of the budget hearing,” Hoell told New Hampshire Public Radio before the vote. “We sat in the back of the room and talked and I explained that some of us wanted to see tax cuts. There are no tax cuts in this budget. I’ve left it up to the Speaker whether he wants to play ball and make these changes or not. That’s entirely up to him.”

The comparisons between the conservatives in the New Hampshire House derailing the budget and conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives blocking the Obamacare repeal because it didn’t go far enough are justified.

On Wednesday, the House failed to pass HB1 and HB2, which were created by the House Finance Committee and approved by the Republican leadership, by a 220-134 vote. After that budget was voted down, conservatives attempted to cobble together in an amendment their version of a budget, but that also failed on a 282-76 vote. House Democrats offered their own plan, but it lost by 34 votes, the closest any budget came to passing that day. The final vote was 196-162. The House then tabled the budget bill and recessed until Thursday morning.

A Wednesday deadline for new amendments to be brought forward to the state budget debate saw six amendments filed, yet none from House Republican leadership. They said it would be “disrespectful” to change the hard work and time the Finance Committee put in to create the budget.

When the House reconvened on Thursday, a trailer bill that accompanied the budget proposed by the finance committee failed, and the leadership saw no possible way they could get a budget passed, so they voted to recess, essentially not giving a budget to the Senate to work on.

Jasper condemned the 32-member conservative caucus who voted against the budget.

“This is just a movement of people who, I think, are totally disconnected from their constituents and totally disconnected from the facts,” he told reporters after the vote.

Yet, Jasper wanted to quell fears about the implication of the House not passing a budget.

“Don’t worry,” he said. “This is a step in the process, and while it is unusual, it really doesn’t affect anybody in the state because the Senate is going to move forward with their proposal.”

The Senate Finance Committee will begin drafting its version of a state budget on Monday, launching a weeks-long process of hearings and meetings before they present it to the full Senate for a vote. Senate GOP leaders said they will use Sununu’s budget proposal as a base and have also invited House Finance Committee members to present their plan, so they aren’t completely shut out of the process.

THE O’BRIEN FACTOR

There were outside groups influencing representatives before the state budget vote this week. It wasn’t the usual dark money organizations that try to sway elections. It was former House Speaker William O’Brien. Jasper defeated him in the 2014 speaker race with the help of the entire Democratic caucus. O’Brien was in contact with several conservative members ahead of the budget vote, encouraging them to vote their conscience.

“You have the critical mass to require a budget that fulfills the commitment that the NH Republican Party has made in its platform to: ‘[l]imit the growth of state spending to not more than the rate of inflation plus population growth.'” He wrote in an email to representatives. “If you ignore the threats, warnings, and ultimatums, and if you stand together and tough, you will prevail.”

After the budget failed, O’Brien sent a congratulatory email to members who voted against the budget and trailer bill.

“I don’t want to talk about individuals,” Jasper said when asked about whether O’Brien influenced the state budget vote. “But there were clearly outside influences who were ginning up members to vote no. There’s no question about that, and that’s unfortunate.”

JASPER SPEAKERSHIP IN JEOPARDY

With the recent budget failure, this marks the second important issue Jasper failed to get through the House. Right-to-work legislation, which Sununu called a top priority for the state, failed earlier this year in the House after moderate Republicans sided with Democrats to kill the bill.

With a 53-member majority, Jasper shouldn’t have that much of an issue getting bills passed, and if he can’t keep his party unified, there could be calls for him to resign as speaker in favor of someone else.

Rep. Laurie Sanborn, R-Bedford, challenged Jasper for the speakership in November, but lost. She’s a member of the conservative House Republican Alliance who voted against the leadership budget on Wednesday, but voted in favor of the trailer bill on Thursday.

“Unfortunately, we were shut down in many steps in the process,” she told WMUR. “I think we could have come up with a way to pass a Republican budget, and, unfortunately, that debate was shut down.”

She has no intention of challenging Jasper, but said she has heard from people who are not too happy with how Jasper is doing as speaker.

“Many folks are concerned about the leadership’s style because there’s a feeling that there hasn’t been a lot of give and take and listening, and they’d like to see more of that,” she said. “I’m hoping the speaker listens and learns from this experience so we can get together to get one Republican budget accomplished this year.”

DEMOCRATS BLAME SUNUNU

While fingers were pointed at Jasper for the budget failure, Democrats were quick to cast blame on Sununu for not effectively leading his party and getting a budget passed.

“[Sununu] has chosen to threaten rather than build coalitions, stay silent rather than making his opinions known, and stay distant rather making his presence felt,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley in a statement. “His sense of entitlement has led him to expect support rather than work for it. Sununu was supposed to be the leader of the party; instead, the tail is wagging the dog.”

Even Jasper said he didn’t want to comment on Sununu’s involvement in getting the budget passed.

“With all due respect I’m just going to keep my thoughts on that to myself,” he said. “I have enjoyed my working relationship with the governor. He did come into our caucus twice and I’m going to leave it with that.”

Yet, in a statement from the governor’s office, it appears Sununu is putting the budget failure in the hands of House leadership.

“While I’m disappointed that House leadership couldn’t get a budget passed today, I am encouraged that the Senate has moved swiftly to take up my budget as a starting point for their deliberations,” he said.

Although Sununu is essentially the face and leader of the Republican Party, he might actually end up getting what he originally wanted.

The House version of the state budget cut his full-day kindergarten proposal, scholarship fund, and funding for the Alcohol Fund. Those were key priorities he made during his budget speech in February.

Now, the Senate said they will use his budget proposal as a starting point and they’ve already passed a number of bills on issues related to Sununu’s budget priorities, which indicates they’re more likely to include several of the governor’s wish list items.

While Democrats are trying to paint Sununu as the loser of this budget battle, he actually poises as a potential winner for not having his budget slashed…yet.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Three months into Republican Gov. Chris Sununu’s term it already looks like he’s got a couple challengers in 2018. The first to announce in March was Jilletta Jarvis for the Libertarian ticket. Now, Steve Marchand, former Democratic mayor of Portsmouth is throwing his hat into the ring too.

Do these names sound familiar? Well, they both ran for governor in 2016. Jarvis was an Independent and Marchand came in second in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, finishing behind eventual nominee Colin Van Ostern.

“We can make New Hampshire the best place in America to start and raise a family, and the best place to start and grow a business,” Marchand wrote in a Monday email to supporters. “We will aspire to be the example of what America, at our best, can be. That’s why I’m running for governor.”

Last year, Marchand trailed behind his Democratic challengers in campaign fundraising and the polls, often coming in behind businessman Mark Connolly and Van Ostern, the former executive councilor. However, he managed a surprising second place finish, garnering 25 percent of the vote. Van Ostern received about 52 percent and Connolly took 20 percent.

On a Tuesday press call, Marchand chalked up his difficulty in fundraising to his timing and to entering the race late, but told reporters he enjoyed the experience.

“Keep in mind, last year, I got to second place in our primary despite very little time and consequently very little money,” he said.

Now, he’s not going to make the mistake of entering late again, and while it is definitely early to announce a run for the Corner Office in 2018 (more than a year-and-a-half out), Marchand said he couldn’t sit idly by under the leadership of President Donald Trump and Sununu.

“I realized there was an unprecedented passion unprecedented due to a lot of circumstances at the state and national level,” he said. “These are unusual times.”

Marchand has been quietly campaigning for the past few months, attending various Democratic meetings and doing meet-and-greets with his base. Already, he’s criticizing Trump’s and Sununu’s agendas. He pointed to Sununu’s first bill signing, which repealed required permits for concealed weapons.

“That’s not the direction we need to go in as a state,” he said. He also accused Sunnunu of wanting to weaken unions, suppress voter turnout, and privatize public education.

So what makes this campaign different than his last one?

He’s taking his job of fundraising more seriously, by hiring Nick Daggers of the CFO Consulting Group. Daggers specializes in fundraising for political campaigns.

Marchand only raised about $30,000 during his campaign last year, according to campaign filings with the secretary of state’s office. Van Ostern raised $1.1 million in just the primary election.

Daggers even wrote a blog post on his company’s website discussing the importance of early campaign fundraising.

“An early fundraising start will give the opportunity to build a solid infrastructure, allow the candidate more time to campaign, and most importantly give you the greatest chance at victory,” he wrote in 2013.

If Marchand can drum up a solid war chest before other candidates jump into the race, he could be a serious contender before he actually starts spending any of it.

Don’t expect too many changes in his platform, though. Marchand still supports legalizing and taxing marijuana and increasing the state’s business profits tax, which would supply millions of dollars to support state aid for full-day kindergarten and improve the state’s infrastructure, among other policies.

Yet, his record is already being criticized by the Republican Governors Association.

“From property taxes, to the gas tax, to the business profits tax cut, Marchand has consistently supported increasing the tax burden on New Hampshire families,” the group said in a statement. “While Steve Marchand may claim to be the most fiscally responsible candidate for governor, his campaign won’t be able to rewrite his record of supporting higher taxation on Granite State voters.”

Besides entering the race early, Marchand said he’s more committed to expanding his “knowledge base” and getting out to interact with voters on a grassroots level statewide.

“The more you go out and speak to groups and to people, the more you learn,” he said.

With this early momentum, Marchand also seeks to improve upon some mistakes his Democratic challenger made in the general election.

Van Ostern’s biggest struggle in his race was name recognition. A poll before the election found that only 10 percent of respondents did not recognize Sununu’s name, but about 28 percent never heard of Van Ostern. While Van Ostern benefited from a strong ground game from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and a bigger war chest than Sununu, the voters didn’t turn out for the Democratic nominee like they did at the top of the ticket.

By getting out of the gate early and meeting with voters now, Marchand is increasing his chances that come Election Day next year, the voters will remember who he is.

Yet, Democratic voters might also recognize Connolly’s name on the ballot. The former gubernatorial candidate is also mulling another run. He stirred some intrigue when he had a paid “sponsored post” on Facebook last week.

Connolly said Marchand’s announcement was too soon and that now is the “time to governor” and the “focus should be on the budget.”

“We should be working with our leadership in the Senate and House to get our best possible budget for the state,” he told NH1 News. “After the budget plays out… I’ll consider running again if the ideas I offered in 2016 aren’t being fully addressed. But certainly at this stage you don’t say if you’re in or you’re out.”

Marchand’s focus is on Trump and Sununu. He believes Sununu’s “full-throated” support for Trump during the campaign and still in his term, will ultimately be his downfall.

“It’s never too early to begin what’s going to be a long and difficult process,” he said. “It is difficult to defeat a first-term incumbent governor. I’m under no illusions. I will be a happy warrior. I will not be outworked. I know the magnitude it will take.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

After an unsuccessful run for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Ray Buckley wants to change the way the national party does its elections–yet how much influence and power he wields in the new DNC leadership is still largely unknown.

In an email to DNC members, Buckley, the chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP), laid out his proposal on how to improve campaigns and elections for officers in the coming years. He noted that an impressive $4 million was spent in the DNC chairman’s election, an unprecedented number of candidates ran, and the race was in the national spotlight in a way that it hasn’t been in the past.

“It is likely that the level of interest we saw this year will continue, and so it is a good time to examine whether any reforms or changes could improve the process, while insuring more fairness, accountability, and transparency,” he wrote.

His proposal includes campaign finance limits and full disclosure of receipts and expenditures. He suggested limiting contributions to $500 per donor and not accepting any “dark money.”

“As the party that opposes big money and corporate money in politics, I also would limit donations to individual donors, labor, and progressive organizations,” he wrote. “No donations from any business, corporation or their PAC [political action committee] or lobbyists would be permitted.”

He would also forbid DNC employees, consultants, or even employees of consulting firms that do business with the DNC from publicly or privately supporting a candidate for DNC officer.

WMUR was the first to report about Buckley’s plan.

It’s not immediately clear if any of his proposals would be implemented under the new DNC order.

Despite having the most party leadership experience of the lot, he was still a dark horse candidate. Buckley was vice chair for the DNC and president of the Association for State Democratic Chairs (ASDC), which led him to have many voting members as friends and allies.

The two frontrunners, Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison and Tom Perez, labor secretary under President Barack Obama, stole the headlines at the various debates and forums. It was essentially a Clinton versus Sanders match up again, since Ellison backed former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Perez was a supporter of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Buckley eventually dropped out of the election, shortly before the DNC chair vote in February, endorsing Ellison for the post. Ultimately, Perez won the chair and made Ellison a deputy chair.

The DNC chair race revealed deep wounds for the Democratic Party, which still had not healed from the hotly contested battle between Sanders and Clinton for the presidential nomination. Some Democrats claim the DNC favored Clinton when it was supposed to be neutral. The Wikileaks emails didn’t help the cause, revealing that former DNC chairs Debbie Wasserman-Schulz and Donna Brazile coordinated with the Clinton campaign during the primaries.

After his victory, Perez vowed to heal the party and bring a unified Democratic Party to defeat President Donald Trump’s agenda and beat Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections, but Buckley’s role in the national party has changed since he ran for the chairmanship.

He’s no longer a vice chair for the DNC and there is a new president for the ASDC, with Buckley’s position now listed as “president emeritus.” Although Perez made Ellison a deputy chair after the close election between the two, the position is largely symbolic and doesn’t have any official duties. Even though Buckley backed Ellison, and Ellison has a prominent position, it’s not clear if their agenda would be enacted.

Ellison was recently in New Hampshire for his first public appearance as deputy chair at the NHDP’s state committee meeting on March 25, where Buckley was reelected as state party chairman for a sixth term. Ellison and Buckley argued that the party has been too focused on the White House and not enough on the state legislatures and governorships.

“We’ve got to have a higher vision than just winning an election,” Ellison said. “When we set our sights as really agents and champions for the American people, people start feeling the flow.”

On top of that, Perez is launching a major overhaul of the party’s organization, requesting resignation letters from all current staffers. While it’s usually routine to see major turnover under new leadership, the mass exodus allows Perez to completely rebuild the DNC and determine how it should be structured in the future.

“It sounds good if you’re looking for change, but it’s not what people were clamoring for,” said liberal New Hampshire radio host Arnie Arnesen to The Boston Herald about the DNC shakeup.

“They weren’t angry at the people working within the base of the Democratic Party. They were furious with the leadership. I’m not sure that gets us to the goal,” she added. “I think it hurts a lot of little people. Is that what the Democratic Party is supposed to be known for?”

As for Buckley, it looks like he’s going to be focused on New Hampshire for a while. He’s going to focus on strengthening local communities and grassroots ahead of 2018, with the hopes of flipping the state legislature and taking back the corner office. Will he, or his platform, still be heard up the ranks at the DNC, though? Only time will tell.

“With all that we’ve accomplished, 2016 is a prime example of why we cannot afford to rest on our laurels,” he wrote in a Monday op-ed for the New Hampshire Union Leader. “We know that our economic and social progress means Democratic ideas are working, and our electoral success shows Granite Staters understand that. But we need now more than ever to put our nose to the grindstone and keep fighting.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

This week, the New Hampshire Democratic Party will hold its annual state committee meeting to elect new officers to serve through the 2018 elections. Judging by their honored guest and keynote speaker, the Democrats have failed to learn anything about the 2016 Presidential election and are instead doubling down on a dangerously extremist leftwing ideology.

On Saturday evening, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison will share his vision for America. It’s a vision that will no doubt make the likes of Annie Kuster and Carol Shea-Porter stand on their chairs and cheer. But it’s a vision that should make regular working Granite Staters shudder.

Ellison comes from the extremist wing of the Democratic Party – the wing that puts ideology over the needs and concerns of working families. Consider Ellison’s authorship of an “alternative” budget in 2015. Ellison’s budget called for a breathtaking $4 trillion in job-killing tax increases. He’d want us to believe these were just tax increases on the “rich.” But the truth is Ellison’s budget was no friend to American taxpayers. It advocated for an increased gas tax, increase taxes on retirement savings, restricted itemized tax deductions, jacked up taxes on savings and investments, and imposed a new carbon tax, among other terrible ideas. Ellison’s budget was a smorgasbord of loony leftwing policy ideas that would have put government in control of just about everything while crippling family budgets.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Ellison’s budget “offers a more liberal alternative than that proposed by either party or the President.” The President to which they were referring was Obama. Incidentally, Hillary Clinton was too conservative for Ellison, too. He called her a Republican while declining to endorse her in September, 2015.

Worse still, Ellison’s budget represents something of a conservative compromise for him. In it, he calls for a top tax rate of 49 percent. Elsewhere Ellison has advocated for tax rates as high as 63 percent. “There’s plenty of money,” he argued. “It’s just that the government doesn’t have it.”

It’s not just financial freedom that Ellison opposes. He’s against personal freedom, as well.

Rep. Ellison is openly hostile to the rights of gun owners. In Congress, he has proposed legislation to severely limit the amount of ammunition sold and called for a so-called assault weapons ban.

When asked by Bill Maher in a 2014 interview why the Democratic Party didn’t “come out against the Second Amendment,” Ellison responded, “I sure wish they would. I sure wish they would.” Understand Ellison here isn’t calling for gun control – he’s calling for the full repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What is the New Hampshire Democratic Party saying about itself by showcasing Rep. Ellison? It appears fully embrace this radical worldview, which is so belligerent to regular working folks. It’s an odd takeaway from an election in which working people walked away from the liberal policies of the Democratic Party in droves.

Ellison is a close ally of New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley. The Democratic National Committee rebuffed their alliance, which would have made Ellison the party’s national chair and Buckley a high-ranking party official. Apparently, their liberal worldview was too much for the national party to bear. Instead they chose a Clinton insider to head the party.

But this liberal tandem isn’t going away. They’re just bringing their goofy leftwing routine to New Hampshire in hopes of radicalizing the Live Free or Die state.

It’s official. New Hampshire is ranked the 2nd best state in the country. Well, according to U.S. News & World Report, which released Tuesday the findings of its “Best State” rankings.

To some, the rankings are looked at as a symbol of the progress the Granite State has made. For others, it’s seen as a waste of time and not reflective of what’s actually going on in the state.

That’s true, at least, for Louisiana, which came in last place, and whose governor told The Boston Globe that the list used statistics and indicators from before his term. A spokesman for Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat who took office in 2016 after years with Republicans in charge, said the ranking system could be helpful in guiding public policy, but it “lacks critical information.”

New Hampshire’s southern neighbor, Massachusetts, took the title as “best state” and state officials, on both sides of the aisle applauded the news.

Regardless if states agree with the rankings or not, it’s true that they do shape the public policy discussion and highlight issue areas where the state could improve.

Even Gov. Chris Sununu told reporters that the number 2 ranking “helps immensely” as he works to court new businesses from out-of-state.

“Though we have much work to do to ensure that our state continues to grow and thrive, this announcement is something that Granite Staters can be particularly proud of today,” he said in a press release. “It will also serve as useful information to those considering moving their home or business to New Hampshire.”

The survey was conducted by evaluating states across 68 metrics and tens of thousands of data points provided by McKinsey & Company’s Leading States Index. The seven different categories — healthcare, education, infrastructure, crime and corrections, opportunity, economy, and government — were weighted based on a national “citizen experience” survey asking people to prioritize each area in their state and their levels of satisfaction with government services. The combined ranking in each category determined a state’s order.

For New Hampshire, the state ranked 4th in healthcare, 3rd in education, 12th in infrastructure, 13th in crime and corrections, 1st in opportunity, 13th in economy, and 30th in government.

Photo Credit: U.S. News & World Report

As with any good news in the state, the second place ranking quickly became a battle over who should get credit for it. Can Sununu, who has been in office for only two months, tout it on his resume? Should former Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan receive the praise? Or how about the Republican-controlled Legislature which passes the bills and laws impacting these rankings?

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley said the state’s high ranking reflects the accomplishments of Hassan, who is now the freshman senator from the Granite State.

“Thanks to Senator Maggie Hassan’s steady leadership in the Governor’s office over the last four years, New Hampshire has been recognized as the number one state in the nation for economic opportunity and the number two-ranked state overall,” Buckley said in a statement.

“As Governor, Senator Hassan worked across party lines to balance two fiscally responsible budgets that protected critical economic priorities for our people and to pass and reauthorize our Medicaid expansion program that has strengthened the health and financial security of more than 50,000 hard-working Granite Staters,” he added. “She also froze in-state tuition at our universities and reduced tuition at community colleges, and cut taxes for our small businesses that are the backbone of our economy.”

Democratic politicians also said Hassan’s leadership deserves the credit for the high ranking. Sen. David Watters, D-Dover, said “Maggie Hassan made this happen.”

@Maggie_Hassan made this happen. In Concord, we must first do no harm to a thriving NH economy. @NHDems #nhpolitics https://t.co/IUtDmI2qYn

— David Watters (@SenDavidWatters) February 28, 2017

However, others said it doesn’t matter who is responsible for the high ranking. It should be on what the state needs to do in order to improve, said Greg Moore, state director for the New Hampshire chapter of the Americans for Prosperity.

Overrated: worrying about who's responsible for NH being #2 in state rankings. Underrated: worrying about why NH isn't #1. #nhpolitics

— Greg Moore (@GregMooreNH) March 1, 2017

For example, even where the state received high rankings, there are still some troubling statistics within those numbers. New Hampshire ranked 3rd for education. It came in first place for “Pre-K to 12” education, for its strong test scores and college readiness. Yet, it came in 39th for higher education due to high college costs and amount of student debt at graduation.

Sununu admitted to the high cost of tuition for the public university system. In his budget that he revealed in February, he didn’t increase funding for it either, but he revealed a plan that he believes will help solve the problem.

“I’ve put forth a plan for a $5 million scholarship program in the state, not to help 10 or 20 or 100 students, but over 8,000 students, [who] can really grab on to these funds and not just use them for our university system, but they can use it for community colleges, career schools, private schools,” he told NH1 News. “Whatever pathway they think will best provide them the tools to enter the workforce. We’re making those changes today and again I think we’ll see a lot of growth in those rankings as we move forward.”

Moore also said the state should focus on the business tax rate as a way to stimulate economic growth and encourage businesses to expand to New Hampshire. In the rankings, New Hampshire ranked near the bottom for GDP growth (32nd place). He pointed to the fact that the Granite State has a higher business profits tax rate (8.2 percent) than Massachusetts (8 percent). He is supportive of further reducing that rate.

“It certainly is fair to point out that that legislative leaders pushed for the tax cuts strongly, and that then-Gov. Hassan vetoed the budget over them, but thankfully we were able to make them a reality,” he told NH Journal. “If we want to be more competitive than Massachusetts, we need to continue to expand on the successful business tax relief efforts we’ve had to this point.”

By looking at the low rankings in the different categories for New Hampshire, lawmakers can figure out what they need to discuss to take the title of “Best State” away from the Bay State.

Although, New Hampshire is already technically the “Best State” since Massachusetts is a Commonwealth…if you want to be technical.

As a Mass ex-pat, I would point out that MA is not a state, it is a commonwealth, for what it's worth. Thus, NH best state. #nhpolitics https://t.co/uBKICQ4xVW

— Greg Moore (@GregMooreNH) February 28, 2017

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

As expected, it didn’t take long for Democrats in New Hampshire to point out what proposals they didn’t like in Gov. Chris Sununu’s budget speech last week.

“I am encouraged by statements of Governor Sununu in support of full-day kindergarten and funding for the developmentally disabled, but as we all know, the devil is in the details,” said House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff in a statement. “The Governor’s budget address made no mention of the successful NH Health Protection Program, leaving serious unanswered questions for the 50,000 Granite Staters who rely on the program for their health care coverage.”

But the more divisive statements came from the Senate Democratic Caucus and New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP). While they applauded Sununu for keeping several initiatives put in place by former Gov. Maggie Hassan, they criticized him for not fully funding the Alcohol Fund to combat the opioid crisis.

“And in the midst of a substance abuse crisis, we need to find out why Governor Sununu chose not to fully fund the Alcohol Fund, which supports our effort to combat this crisis,” said Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn in a statement.

NHDP Chairman Ray Buckley echoed Woodburn’s sentiments saying he was “disheartened to see that the governor did not fully fund the state’s alcohol fund, which would provide key resources to combat this epidemic.”

The Alcohol Abuse Prevention and Treatment Fund was created in 2000 by the Legislature, and it’s a mechanism that takes 5 percent of the gross profits from the sale of alcohol to support education, prevention, treatment, and recovery programs for alcohol and drugs. The fund has only been fully financed one time since its inception, which was in the 2003-2004 biennium — the first year it began. In his budget speech, Sununu proposed increasing the funds to 3.4 percent, double the 1.7 percent rate the previous budget had set.

In each budget after that, the governor or Legislature transferred the revenue to the general fund and only appropriated a small amount to the Alcohol Fund, which means Republican Gov. Craig Benson and Democratic Govs. John Lynch and Maggie Hassan suspended funding during their terms.

In the most recent budget, for the 2016-2017 budget biennium, Hassan and the House proposed suspending the funding formula. Hassan proposed giving the fund $9.6 million over the two-year period, but the Republican-controlled House dropped that figure to $3.6 million. Senators proposed bringing the formula back and lowering the cap to 1.7 percent, which would give the fund $6.7 million.

If the fund was fully financed for the whole biennium, it would have received approximately $19 million, still nearly $10 million less than what Hassan suggested. After the Senate put forward its recommendation for the budget, the NHDP called their budget “unbalanced and partisan” with “irresponsible gimmicks.”

It’s interesting that the NHDP would criticize Sununu for not fully funding the Alcohol Fund, when previous Democratic governors did not fully fund it either.

“We haven’t had a Democratic governor who has fought as hard as Sununu is fighting for it [the Alcohol Fund] right now,” said former state Rep. Joe Hannon, R-Lee, who made his mark in the Legislature by focusing on the opioid crisis.

“No one has taken the leadership on this, and the battle will be in the House and Senate Finance Committees,” he told NH Journal. “I’m always happy when the governor speaks about how he is addressing substance abuse treatment. He gets it, and that’s something I haven’t seen in awhile from leadership in the state.”

New Futures, a nonprofit group looking to curb substance abuse in the state, is a fervent supporter of fully funding the Alcohol Fund at 5 percent. They believe the money from the non-lapsing, flexible fund could be used for creative and innovative solutions to stop the opioid epidemic.

“We are encouraged by the fact that Gov. Sununu has increased the funding for the Alcohol Fund by doubling the current amount,” said Linda Paquette, president and CEO of New Futures. “However, we anxiously await the release of House Bill 2 in order to clarify the support in the budget for addressing New Hampshire’s substance abuse epidemic.”

Paquette said she was “very curious” what Sununu meant when he talked about “incentives” with the Alcohol Fund.

“First, I propose we double the Alcohol Fund, increasing these important resources by more than $3 million and creating incentives to ensure that those funds are truly spent,” he said in his Thursday speech.

Pacquette said she is hopeful that the Alcohol Fund will be a priority for the Republican-controlled State House because the funds are “not restricted.” New Hampshire is expected to receive federal money from grants and the 21st Century Cures Act, legislation approved by Congress and former President Barack Obama in December 2016, which gives $6.3 billion in funding to circumvent the opioid crisis and enhance medical research and development.

“The Alcohol Fund can be used to fill gaps where grant money and federal funds are restricted for certain uses,” Paquette told NH Journal. “It can be used for supporting recovery housing and investing in early childcare as a substance abuse prevention strategy. He [Sununu] clearly has made the opioid crisis a priority of his administration.”

Sununu presented his budget to the House and Senate Finance Committee in a Tuesday joint committee meeting. The House Finance Committee will take a look at his budget first and put forward recommendations to the full House later in the spring. After passage in the House, the Senate Finance Committee will review that budget and put it up for a vote to the full Senate, before returning to the governor’s desk for his signature or veto.

“We’re going to double that fund and get the money where we can have a lot of impact,” he said in the meeting. “Not just in the high-density areas, but really all across the state. None of our communities have been immune to that.”

The Senate Finance Committee recommended passage of Senate Bill 196 on Tuesday, which was amended to increase the Alcohol Fund to the 3.4 percent rate proposed by Sununu. If the House changes the formula or suspends it in its budget recommendations, this bill could override it and fund it at the rate Sununu proposed.

“This is a sound proposal that I and a majority of the Senate Finance Committee supported today by recommending a bill to do just that,” said Senate Finance Chair Gary Daniels, R-Milford, in a statement. “We have established a number of initiatives that serve to stem substance abuse, including the heroin crisis, and I know we can do more with the funding Governor Sununu has proposed as part of his budget.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

There are 19 groups in New Hampshire that have signed on to completely resist President Donald Trump, and they’re trying to take a page out of the Tea Party’s playbook.

A new national organization called “Indivisible” is going back to the basics: push back against Trump from the grassroots level. The group published a manifesto, essentially a manual on how to resist the Trump agenda, written by former Democratic congressional staffers.

“We examine lessons from the Tea Party’s rise and recommend two key strategic components: A local strategy targeting individual members of Congress; a defensive approach purely focused on stopping Trump from implementing an agenda built on racism, authoritarianism, and corruption,” they wrote.

Indivisible, which has more than 2,400 local groups registered with them, is advising voters to assemble at the local level and have members focus on their respective elected senators and representatives by speaking out at town hall meetings, asking their elected officials questions at local photo-ops and ceremonies, showing up at their district offices for meetings, and overwhelming their phone lines with coordinated calls.

“We can all learn from their [the Tea Party] success in influencing the national debate and the behavior of national policymakers,” the group wrote. “To their credit, they thought thoroughly about advocacy tactics.”

Many progressives are trying to recreate the circumstances that led to a wave of Republican victories in Congress and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, gained more seats in the Senate, and flipped several state legislative seats, mostly campaigning on conservative ideals and anti-President Barack Obama rhetoric. But liberals could find it difficult to implement a similar strategy and might find more success if they work with Trump when possible.

The Democratic Party enters the Trump presidency completely shut out of power, with Republicans in control of the White House, House, Senate, and even most state governments. And they’re already divided amongst themselves with progressives versus moderates, and whether they should oppose Trump or work with him on common interests.

Just after his first week in office, it looks like many Democrats and progressive activists want to resist him at every step. The American Civil Liberties Union already filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order that temporarily bars entry to refugees from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen due to terrorism concerns. A federal judge granted an emergency stay Saturday to stop deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the United States.

But if they continue that mentality, they might run into some trouble in the 2018 midterm elections and even the 2020 presidential election. Even though the party in charge usually doesn’t do well in midterm elections, many House seats will still favor Republican control due to gerrymandering. And Democrats have to defend 10 Senate seats in Republican-controlled states. The political terrain isn’t favorable for them right now.

By refusing to compromise, Democrats may be unable to influence policy even when the president’s agenda aligns with traditional Democratic interests. It’s true that rejecting compromise can reveal internal differences and struggles within the president’s own party, such as with the ongoing Republican debate on repealing Obamacare. More damage could be done by working with Trump and exposing the internal divide in the Republican Party that’s been there since the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009.

An area some Democrats and Trump could work on together is infrastructure spending, albeit with some disagreements on how to fund it. Trump will almost need Senate Democrats to help get it through Congress. Some of his ideas resemble the “big-government conservatism” of George W. Bush that upset many Tea Partiers. Working out a few deals with Trump could anger some Republicans, and it might do more damage to the president than being vehemently opposed to everything he does.

If the Democrats could unify around that message, they could be in much better shape to retake Congress and the presidency, and ultimately be able to govern themselves and the country better than before.

Uncompromising Democratic opposition is essentially saying the party wants to be more like the Republican Party, by trying to emulate what the Republicans did in 2009. But while the Republicans were “unified” by being anti-Obama anything, they didn’t take the time to rebuild as a party and create a clear message for the base. That was evident by the loss of Mitt Romney in 2012. And now, look at them. They ended up nominating a candidate who barely aligns with their platform. They have full control over the federal government, but they still are struggling to be unified over how to run it, as exhibited by disagreement over many of Trump’s policies.

While it’s understandable that Democrats and progressive activists would want to go about rebuilding their party the same way the Republicans did in 2009, it’s better for their party to engage with Trump in policy debates because those issues are ones they can build a campaign on, and not just on partisan rhetoric.

The Democrats have a prime opportunity to genuinely build their party from the grassroots level up. If the loss of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election taught them anything, it’s that they need to listen to the working class in Middle America again and create a message that appeals not only to their base, but also to disenfranchised voters who feel left out of the system.

It’ll prove to be difficult for them to do that though, especially with some major players on the national stage that see the party going in a different, more radical direction.

Just look at the confirmation hearing battles. Several Democratic senators who are looking to run for president in 2020 won’t vote for anything put forward by Trump out of fear from attacks to their left. John Kelly was confirmed as secretary for homeland security by a vote of 88-11. Some of those “no” votes came from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The more moderate Democrats might feel pressure to vote a certain way in order to follow suit, and especially when the media reports that former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Warren, and Booker voted one way, it could make it seem like the Democrats who don’t fall in line aren’t supportive of the party.

An unpopular Trump could win another four years if the next Democratic presidential leader is too far outside of the political spectrum.

And speaking of leaders, the race for the next chair of the Democratic National Committee is revealing to show how anti-Trump and against compromise the Democratic Party could be. While members of their party were participating in the Women’s March earlier this month, most of the 10 candidates for DNC chair were at a private fundraising conference held by liberal political operative David Brock. The message that could send to grassroots leaders is that the Democratic Party hasn’t learned its lesson from its recent defeat and instead, continues to listen to big money rather than voters.

The latest forums between the candidates have also shown that there aren’t many disagreements between them; they don’t have many new ideas to jumpstart the party, and they all have zero desire to work with Trump.

“That’s a question that’s absolutely ridiculous,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley at one of the forums, when he was asked about working with Trump.

If the Democrats try to imitate the Tea Party movement, don’t create a unifying message for its voters, and resist Trump at every turn, then they’re in for a long eight years.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.