The headline did not mince words. “Donald Trump is a loser,” read the title of the opinion piece, which ran in the New Hampshire Union Leader one day before the 2024 New Hampshire presidential primary.

The man who wrote it, former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, is no stranger to opposing Trump.

In 2016, Sununu, the brother of former Gov. Chris Sununu, endorsed former Ohio Gov. John Kasich for president. And in 2024, he backed former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley in her effort to block Trump’s path back to the White House.

This year, Trump is president, and Sununu is exploring another run for U.S. Senate. And he is shrugging off the importance of Trump.

“Look, this is going to be about New Hampshire,” he said in an interview with WMUR Wednesday confirming that exploration. “New Hampshire voters, New Hampshire values. Putting together a strong campaign.”

Sununu has personal experience with the Senate seat; he defeated current-Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in 2002 and held the seat for one term before Shaheen ousted him in 2008. Shaheen has kept the seat since; Sununu has worked as a board member and policy adviser for banks and lobbying firms in the meantime.

But as Sununu contemplates an entry into the race, Trump’s potential influence looms large — and two of Sununu’s would-be primary rivals are actively vying for the president’s support.

Trump has not made an endorsement, which lands in an election year where Republicans hold a bare majority and are looking for any opportunity to flip a Democrat-held seat and expand control.

Competing for Trump’s eye

Republican candidate Scott Brown, the former Massachusetts senator, has sought to align himself with Trump’s agenda this year, praising Trump for policies on border enforcement and trade.

That bond has some history: In Trump’s first term, the president appointed Brown as ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa.

But Brown also sharply criticized Trump in May 2021 for his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, saying that Trump “absolutely” bears responsibility for the riots and that “his presidency was diminished” because of them.

State Sen. Dan Innis, another candidate in the race, has centered his campaign around the contention he is the most pro-Trump person in the running.

On Wednesday, he reiterated that contention.

“Let’s be honest, there are bad eggs in this race,” Innis said in a statement Wednesday afternoon touting a recent drop in egg prices. “I’m the only pro-Trump conservative in this race, and I’ll never back down.”

Representatives for Brown and Innis did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday about the possibility of Sununu entering the race.

The candidates are seeking the Republican nomination for the Senate seat currently held by Shaheen, who is not running for reelection. U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas and Karishma Manzur are both competing for the Democratic nomination.

In a statement Wednesday, Pappas called Sununu a “corporate sellout” and charged Republicans with starting a “scramble to find Donald Trump’s perfect candidate.”

State Republicans see game-changer

While his potential rivals are positioning themselves for a Trump endorsement, Sununu did not appear to be in a hurry Wednesday. He told WMUR he would be conducting listening sessions around the state to gauge support for his potential candidacy. And he said he hopes to receive endorsements from a broad array of people, not just Trump.

To some state Republicans, Sununu could be a formidable challenger in the race, even with his comments about Trump.

Responding to Sununu’s announcement, House Majority Leader Jason Osborne posted on X: “This would change the whole game.” Matt Mowers, a Republican who unsuccessfully challenged Pappas in 2020 and 2022, also called a possible Sununu entry a “game changer,” writing that “John Sununu puts the race on the map and starts as immediate front runner.”

Lou Gargiulo, a former Republican state representative, is a longtime supporter of Trump, serving as a state co-chair of the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2020.

But Gargiulo has been an advocate for John E. Sununu for even longer, supporting his campaigns in 2002 and 2008. And on Wednesday, he argued that Sununu’s past opposition to Trump would not necessarily limit his prospects.

“He’s a fiscal conservative, I think he’s socially conservative, I think he’s good on the Second Amendment, I think he’s good on taxation — I think … that the base would be happy to see a guy like him in the race,” he said in an interview.

Gargiulo has not made up his mind on the GOP primary, he said.

But the most important factor for Sununu, Gargiulo argues, is not Trump, but Sununu’s viability as a candidate and ability to raise money. Against the financial advantages held by Pappas, that will matter most, he said.

Still, Sununu’s Trump positions could create some headaches, Gargiulo conceded. His advice: Sununu should reach out to the president and make his case.

Trump could also choose to be pragmatic, he added.

“It depends on who talks to the president about him,” Gargiulo said. “I think at this point, we want to pick up some Senate seats. And if he could deliver a Senate seat, then I think the president will be somewhat forgiving.”

A family history

Kathy Sullivan, who served as New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman during Sununu’s campaign for Senate in 2002, also doubts that Sununu’s anti-Trump positions will hold him back, at least not if he is seen as a front-runner. If that happens, his past statements won’t matter, she argued.

“As long as John E. Sununu is a member of the Republican Party, he’s a Trumpist,” Sullivan said.

Even if Sununu avoids talking about Trump, Sullivan argued he will run the risk of either being seen as not loyal enough by Trump’s base or lumped in with the president by independent voters.

“I don’t think he can hide from Trump,” she said. “He may say a thing here and a thing there to try to separate himself from Trump, but that’s not going to be much and it’s not going to help him.”

To Dante Scala, professor of political science and international affairs at the University of New Hampshire, John E. Sununu’s predicament with Trump is a familiar one for his family. As governor, Chris Sununu perfected the art of accepting Trump while leaving room for sporadic moments of disagreement.

“The Sununus never seemed content with that, with toeing the line,” he said. “Even when they bent the knee to Trump, they never wanted to come off as such, as just kind of Trump clones.”

But John E. Sununu is running for U.S. Senate, a body much more tied to the politics of the White House than the governor’s office, Scala noted. That affords him less cover to pledge neutrality or avoid conflict, he said.

It means Sununu will need to proactively define himself and his vision for Republican politics, Scala said — especially because his term, should he win, would extend beyond Trump’s final year in office.

“Chris Sununu really wanted to move his party beyond Donald Trump. He failed, but he did have that ambition. He probably still does,” Scala said.

“I wonder what kind of ambition John Sununu has, in terms of the direction of his party?”

On Wednesday, speaking to WMUR, Sununu said the state needed someone who had its values, “that’s not going to vote a party line, that’s willing to take risks and get things done.”

As for Trump?

“I would want to win support, if I were to run, across the entire spectrum, and obviously that includes the president,” he said. “We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.”

A week after President Donald Trump issued an executive order eliminating federal support for gender-affirming care for minors under 19, New Hampshire hospitals are taking a “wait-and-see” approach before changing any policies.

The New Hampshire Hospital Association “continues to review” the order, its president Steve Ahnen said in a statement on Jan. 31.

And Dartmouth Health, the largest hospital system in New Hampshire, says it has not changed its policies around gender-transition surgeries and other services such as hormone therapy and puberty blockers. Gender transition surgeries for minors are rare and almost non-existent, a 2024 Harvard study found, though medications are more common.

“Dartmouth Health Children’s is committed to providing the best possible care, including gender-affirming care, and our current clinical operations have not changed,” a spokeswoman, Audra Burns, said on Jan. 30.

The lack of action comes as hospitals, LGBTQ rights groups, and attorneys watch to see how the federal government carries out the executive order, and as many anticipate a legal challenge.

“This executive order is clearly an attempt to use every avenue available to the president to try to target transgender people and exclude them from public life,” said Nora Huppert, staff attorney for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights group, in an interview Monday.

Lambda Legal is one organization that could bring a lawsuit against the federal government to block the executive order and others relating to trangender rights; in a statement reacting to the Jan. 28 executive order, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel and health care strategist for the organization said “we stand ready to fight back.” Huppert declined to comment Monday on whether and when such a challenge might be filed.

The order, signed by Trump Jan. 28, does not directly ban gender-affirming care for minors.

Instead, it directs federal departments to cease federal financial support for that care. That could mean the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stops reimbursing for the care via Medicaid and Medicare. It could also mean the federal government reverses insurance requirements in the Affordable Care Act. And – most significant for hospitals – it could mean hospitals that continue to provide the services are punished by no longer receiving research and education grants, a significant source of funding for hospital systems like Dartmouth Health.

The order also directs the federal Department of Justice to “prioritize enforcement of protections against female genital mutilation.”

One case before the Supreme Court could influence reaction to the new policy: U.S. vs. Skrmetti. That case was brought by plaintiffs challenging a Tennessee state ban on gender-transition surgeries and other care for minors, using the 14th Amendment right for parents to direct the upbringing of their children. The conservative-leaning court heard oral arguments in December and is expected to issue a ruling in June; that ruling could establish the constitutionality of similar laws, like the executive order.

For now, rights groups are attempting to strike a balance: Raise the alarm, but don’t create panic.

“This executive order is unconstitutional, and I want people to know that it will be challenged in court, and we do expect that it will be enjoined,” said Chris Erchull, staff attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. Erchull called the order an “unlawful use of executive power” that targets federal funding that should not be withheld, but he said he is not sure whether GLAD would directly wage such a lawsuit.

In the meantime, he urged New Hampshire hospitals not to act too quickly.

“Because the order directs agencies to take action, it will take time for agencies to evaluate the executive order and make determinations about what they feel is in their power to do,” Erchull added. “… So even without a court injunction, there still will be a period of time before anything will happen in terms of funding. GLAD law is encouraging hospital administrators, clinic administrators not to panic and to consider that there’ll be time before any big changes happen, and the wheels of justice are starting to turn.”

Regardless, across the country, some hospitals have taken decisive action in response to the order. Children’s Hospital of Richmond and VCU health, both of Virginia, Denver Health in Colorado, and Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C., were among the first hospitals to stop providing gender-transition surgeries to people under 19, according to the Associated Press.

Huppert argues that outcome is intentional. “I think that that was exactly the goal that this executive order was intended to effectuate,” she said about the hospital policies. “Coercion of medical providers and panic that results in the cessation and pausing of gender-affirming care for people under 19.”

In New Hampshire, the response has been more muted, noted Ahnen. He expressed support for children’s health, while not directly mentioning gender-affirming care.

“Our member hospitals and health systems are firm in their support of the health, safety and well-being of children and young people and want to ensure that they receive the high-quality care and support necessary for their unique physical, emotional and developmental well-being,” Ahnen said in his statement.

“Recognizing the individuality of each child is essential in delivering optimal health care, and that requires all parties – specially trained doctors and health care professionals, patients and families – working alongside each other, with the child’s unique health needs always at the forefront of all discussions and decisions.”

In many cases, Granite State hospitals don’t need to make a major policy change because they weren’t providing the services to begin with. Spokespeople for other New Hampshire hospitals, including Androscoggin Valley Hospital in Berlin and Concord Hospital, said Monday there had been no policy changes in response to the executive order. Those hospitals were not carrying out many of those procedures in the first place, the spokesperson said.

But worries about a lack of federal funding could force those hospitals to adopt policies that more explicitly prevent that kind of care, LGBTQ advocates warn.

Dartmouth Health, the hospital system in the state most active in providing the care, said in its statement that it would not waver.

“We await further clarity on the implications of this executive order, and we will communicate with affected stakeholders when more specific directives are received,” Burns said. “We will continue to support our patients and their families throughout.”

New Hampshire Bulletin is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a local white supremacist group, NSC-13, did not violate the state’s Civil Rights Act when it displayed a banner reading “KEEP NEW ENGLAND WHITE” from an overpass.

In a 4-0 decision released Friday, the court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the state against leaders of the group under the Civil Rights Act. Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald wrote that the state went too far in applying the civil rights statute and impinged on the activists’ free speech rights.

“The overbreadth of the State’s construction of the Act creates an unacceptable risk of a chill on speech protected by Part I, Article 22 of our State Constitution,” MacDonald wrote.

The case stems from an incident in July 2022 in which 10 members of NSC-13 hung the banner from the overpass. They were stopped by Portsmouth police, who informed them that they were violating a municipal ordinance to hang banners from overpasses without a permit. After that instruction, they removed the banner and departed the bridge within 25 minutes.

The Attorney General’s Office attempted to bring a lawsuit against the NSC-13 members under a provision of the state’s Civil Rights Act, RSA 354-B:1, that protects residents from “actual or threatened damage to or trespass on property when such actual or threatened conduct is motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability.”

The state argued that because the activists were trespassing on a public roadway in order to display the sign, and were motivated by race to do so, they were violating the act. But the defendants said that was an incorrect reading of the statute, and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire helped provide them legal support.

Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff sided with the group, finding that the state’s strategy of using the anti-trespassing language was overly broad and violated the state constitutional free speech rights.

MacDonald concurred with that ruling. The Supreme Court opinion narrows part of the Civil Rights Act, holding that moving forward, the state must show that defendants knew they were violating an anti-trespassing law in order to punish them for trespassing under the act.

“We hold that, to state a claim for a violation of the Act predicated upon actual trespass on property, the State must establish that the actor, with knowledge that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, enters land in the possession of another or causes a thing or a third person to do so … and that the trespass was ‘motivated by race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, or disability.’”

The state had argued that those conditions were met, noting that the NSC-13 members had worn masks and refused to identify themselves to police, an indication they knew they were breaking the law. But MacDonald disagreed with that argument.

The decision was signed by Associate Justices James Bassett, Melissa Countway, and Patrick Donovan. Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi is on administrative leave from the court as she faces felony charges related to alleged improper interference with an investigation into her husband, Geno Marconi.

New Hampshire Bulletin is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com.

First grader Iris Turmelle didn’t have the words to come out as a transgender girl to her parents – nor a lot of time, frankly. But she had a blanket. So she fashioned a skirt with it, tromped down the stairs, and made every attempt to head off to school.

It was a daring but unsuccessful ploy, her mom, Amy Manzelli recalls now. But it was also a wake-up call. Manzelli at the time didn’t know any parents of transgender children. But she knew something was happening with her child. And after a discussion with Iris, a weekend shopping trip at Target, and a conversation with a teacher, Iris began arriving at school with new clothes and a new identity.

Seven years later, Iris, now 14 and an eighth grader, has faced a whirl of environments few children ever see. There were the multiple hospital visits where she received examination and then guidance, first in New Hampshire and then at the Boston Children’s Hospital. There was the New Hampshire district courtroom, where she finalized the necessary maneuvers to change her birth certificate from male to female.

And on Monday, there was the House Education Committee, where Iris arrived to speak out against legislation that would bar transgender children like her from certain sports. Walking to the microphone, decked out in a splashy multicolored coat and sparkly sequined boots, Iris moved quietly, commanding the room.

“My name is Iris Turmelle,” she said. “I am an eighth grader and a trans girl from Pembroke. This is who I am, and nothing can change who I am.”

The testimony came in a year with no shortage of state bills regulating gender.

House Bill 1205, titled the “fairness in women’s sports act,” would require that all interscholastic or intercollegiate sports teams be designated either “male,” “female,” or “coed,” and states that those that are designated for “females,” “women,” or “girls” would not be open to those whose biological sex at birth is male.

The bill defines “biological sex” as “an individual’s physical form as a male or female” and bases that determination “on the individual’s reproductive biology and genetics (chromosomes) at birth.” It also prohibits any athletic association, government entity, or licensing organization from opening any investigation or entertaining any complaint against a school that has separate teams for female players.

The legislation has a counterpart in the Senate: Senate Bill 375 would block students of the “male sex” from female sports teams, female bathrooms, and female locker rooms, defining sex as “the biological state of being female or male, based on an individual’s nonambiguous sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous hormone profile at birth.”

And it joins other bills seeking to change the laws around gender identity in public spaces. The House will vote again Thursday on House Bill 396, which would amend the state’s anti-discrimination laws to allow public facilities such as schools to enforce separation of bathrooms and locker rooms based on biological sex.

Supporters say that the efforts are driven by safety concerns.

“Our biological females in New Hampshire need protection and safety in sports,” said Rep. Louise Andrus, a Salisbury Republican and the sponsor of the bill.

Iris’ breakthrough

Iris doesn’t remember when she first felt she identified as a girl. “It’s always felt like I was in the wrong skin, kinda,” she said.

Her mom remembers one early sign: The toy Hess trucks. Every year, Iris’ grandmother bought her the green and white model trucks, and every year, Iris said thank you but left them alone.

After the blanket skirt attempt, Manzelli was intentional: She didn’t want to steer her child in any direction. And if her daughter was transgender, she didn’t want to make her feel uncomfortable.

The breakthrough came after Manzelli brought home a number of books to read aloud together – some that featured transgender characters, and some that didn’t. They didn’t discuss the books. But the next morning, Iris had an announcement.

“She said, ‘Mom, I’m tra –, I’m tra –,’” Manzelli recalled. “She couldn’t say the word. And I said, ‘Are you trying to say transgender?’ ‘Yes! I’m transgender.’”

Manzelli, her heart fluttering, kept her emotions level. “My reaction was like, ‘OK, thanks for letting us know. What would you like for breakfast?’” she said.

The first part of that new reality was not so difficult. The hospitals were supportive and understanding, with Iris’ pediatricians beginning the process at that age with clarifying questions and conversations. And the birth certificate amendment process – which Manzelli and her husband Chad Turmelle began in 2019 – was also surprisingly smooth, she said.

But the other part has been bumpier: school. And it’s an area where Manzelli has much less control.

Iris has lifelong friends who are supportive, even though she prefers to keep much of her transition private. But she also has encountered bullies – those who remember her before she transitioned and have held it against her. Amy and Chad have filed bullying complaints with the school and have had varying levels of response. Early on, the school appeared slow to act; recently, the school has undertaken proactive investigations, Manzelli says.

Throughout her time in school, Iris has played sports, first on the town soccer team and then with Girls On the Run, an exercise program that seeks to empower girls with leadership skills. Neither team has caused her any problems, she said. And no one has ever questioned who she is.

“It was fun,” she said. “Besides the running part.”

Legislative divide

Supporters of the school sports bill say they are not trying to target trans students but are instead looking for fairness. In the crammed committee room Monday, a string of supporters raised concerns that students who were born biologically male will dominate female sports competitions with higher testosterone, stronger muscles, and different body structures.

“I just want to say: I’m not anti trans, and I don’t like any kind of prejudice against anyone,” said Betty Gay, a former Republican lawmaker from Salem. “But the reason I’m here supporting this bill is that the best male athletes will always be the best women athletes. And it’s only fair to keep level playing field.”

Stephen Scaer, of Nashua, also said his support of the bill was based in physiology.

“The problem is that bodies compete, not gender identities,” he said. “Our current policies right now are teaching young women that they’re second-class citizens whose needs are subordinate to male needs and desires.”

But some critics of the bills counter that those concerns are unfounded, pointing to research suggesting the majority of transgender female students do not perform better than their cisgender female peers. Jennifer Smith, a transgender woman from Pembroke and former physician, said that any transgender girl who had begun hormone therapy before puberty would likely already have decreased testosterone, putting her on the same playing field as her peers. And Smith noted that some biologically female girls have higher-than-normal testosterone levels, but would still be allowed to compete.

“If you want to find a way to advantage girls that’s great,” said Smith. “But please don’t do that at the expense of transgender girls. They do not have either skeletal or hormonal advantages because they started out with an X and a Y chromosome. It’s just not true.”

Others argue the language in the bill conflicts with Title IX, a portion of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of sex in U.S. schools, and say that it could open the state up to a federal lawsuit if passed.

“If New Hampshire law and federal law are in conflict, that’s going to create a lot of problems hurting after schools again for the Human Rights Commission,” said Chris Erchull, staff attorney for GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.

And some say enforcement could put schools in an impossible position. The bill does not dictate how a school must prove that a child is not biologically female, a scenario opponents say is even more challenging if the child has already changed their birth certificate.

“How are we going to determine what someone’s biological sex is?” said Deb Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire, a teachers union. “They might not be out to their school community. And we also have constitutional protection for privacy. Do you really want the schools making intrusive inquiries into someone’s past or medical situation?”

To Iris, the question of her gender has already been long decided.

“Legally, I am female,” she told lawmakers Monday. “I have a female name. I have a birth certificate with my female name and gender marker. I have a court order that says I’m female and orders my female name. My passport says I’m female and has my female name. My insurance card says I’m female and has my female name. My name is Iris, and I am female.”

New Hampshire Bulletin is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com. Follow New Hampshire Bulletin on Facebook and Twitter.

New Hampshire’s presidential primaries appeared to deliver a near-knockout blow for opponents of Donald Trump and Joe Biden Tuesday night, even as former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley – Trump’s sole remaining opponent – says the fight is not over.

And in many ways, the first-in-the-nation primary grabbed the same spotlight it always has, drawing in record numbers of voters, throngs of national and international media, and decisive results that will affect the races for both parties.

But as the signs come down and the campaigns pack up their headquarters, there are some lessons to be learned. Here are four takeaways from Dante Scala, professor of Political Science and International Affairs at the University of New Hampshire.

Haley supporters a key wildcard for general election

To Scala, one major factor ahead of the November general election in New Hampshire is what happens to the Haley voters if and when she drops out of the race – particularly the ones who are wealthier and independent-minded.

“With Trump, again, I do wonder about those upscale, suburban voters: They may come back to haunt him in the general election,” he said.

“They just can’t stomach Trump, but can they stomach Biden?” he said. “They have to make a choice.”

Exit polls indicate that Haley voters report doing well economically. That could suggest they have fewer qualms with Biden should Trump win the nomination – even if they lean Republican normally.

“I think it’ll be more difficult for Trump to appeal to them on the economy to make up for the fact that they dislike him,” Scala said.

Both Biden and Trump got the victories they needed

Trump is now the first non-incumbent Republican to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and is in a position to maintain his momentum into the coming early states.

“Winning Iowa and New Hampshire is no small feat for someone who’s not the incumbent,” Scala said.

Biden – who did not campaign in the state and did not put his name on the ballot – also accomplished what he needed: His write-in campaign secured at least 60 percent. That doesn’t mean major margins, but it does mean that Biden avoids embarrassment.

The primary goal for Biden’s supporters, Scala argues, was to avoid an outcome where he did not win a majority of the ballots, or even was defeated by a candidate on the ballot due to low turnout. Lyndon Johnson in 1968 barely hit 50 percent of the vote after his supporters mounted a write-in campaign; that result, while technically a victory over Eugene McCarthy, helped convince Johnson not to run again for president at all.

“The write-in effort was fine,” Scala said. “Biden didn’t have a spectacular showing. But it wasn’t bad.”

Sununu’s influence hits its limits

As Haley swept the state in the primary’s final weeks, one prominent figure spent significant hours beside her: Gov. Chris Sununu.

Haley did well among moderate voters, a result that could be in part credited to Sununu. But Sununu has his own limitations. He’s tried to unite a Republican electorate that appears to be increasingly splintering, Scala said.

“There’s part of the Republican Party that’s really in the past,” Scala says. “And then the present and future of the party.”

The split lies between a more traditional faction of the Republican Party, and a newer brand of Republican that hews closely to Trump. In recent years, Republican nominees for U.S. House and Senate seats in New Hampshire, such as Karoline Leavitt, have reflected the newer brand. Leavitt, who lost a bid to defeat Rep. Chris Pappas in 2022, is now a spokesperson for the Trump campaign.

While Haley did better among New Hampshire conservatives than she did in Iowa, she performed the best with the older guard. And despite a bevy of town hall events and rallies, Sununu and Haley struggled to pull the two factions together.

Some of that was a referendum on Sununu. “I wonder with Sununu, despite his age, does he really reflect the future of the Republican Party?” Scala said. “Part of the party would like that. But not the majority.”

In the end, an endorsement can only go so far, Scala said.

He added: “Sununu was fine as governor, but a lot of voters weren’t about to take his advice about what to do for president.”

High turnout a selling point for the struggling primary

According to a New York Times analysis Wednesday, New Hampshire’s primary broke turnout records – similar to the projections from Secretary of State Dave Scanlan.

The extra participation wasn’t enough to help Haley topple Trump with undeclared voters. But New Hampshire’s continued high voter engagement could help bolster the state’s first-in-the-nation primary brand.

Many candidates made an effort to adhere to primary traditions. Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and other candidates, most of whom dropped out, had committed to restaurant visits, town halls, and house parties – a move that kept those traditions alive in the face of large campaign rallies earned by Trump.

Still, Scala says the campaigns still could all have done more, pointing to relatively sparse road signage and poll-side advocates. Many of the campaigns could have moved to build their campaign infrastructure earlier, Scala said. “Haley was here a lot but didn’t try to build an organization until late,” he said.

As the state vies to keep its primary at the top, those campaign decisions could matter, Scala said.

“I wonder whether campaigns will think about this past cycle and say, ‘Maybe we need to build the local grassroots (organizing) – do we really think we can do without that? Can we just rely on social media and TV and so on.’”

“You had an engaged electorate, I think,” he added. “The Trump people: They’re engaged. No question.”

New Hampshire Bulletin is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com. Follow New Hampshire Bulletin on Facebook and Twitter.