OP, just a heads up: you'll soon learn that MA and NH have a symbiotic relationship.

The metro Boston economy is the lifeblood of all of northern New England, with its universities, hospitals, tech companies, investment companies and research labs. The area offers lots of social activities and cultural opportunities.

Southern NH is a bedroom community with tax free shopping and good schools. Neighbors know each other. People have actual land. With real grass.

Northern NH has all the outdoor activities you could ever want in a place where seasons are actual seasons, and a very relaxed vibe.

Pay no attention to the MA haters on the thread. They've just got a chip on their shoulder or a general bad attitude. These are both great states and we welcome you!

Not the commenter you responded to, but I think they're overstating the problem a bit. Some of these places are purely used as second homes. The owner only lives in them for a very limited part of the year, and the rest of the time they sit empty. They're also used as investment properties. Maybe a company buys them to sit on the unit(s) for several years hoping to flip and sell, or they could be foreign purchased units....

Ultimately, if you're not earning money from a commercial or residential tenant then they're not "making money" off the property . . . until it's sold. And I *think* that's the point the other commenter was making.

You have to stretch So Far to (incorrectly) interpret the post that way you may actually be a sentient rubber band.

I don't think NH should have the first primary, but that doesn't mean South Carolina should get it. There are plenty of states with diverse populations who are far more invested in the success of Democrats than there. It's an extremely conservative state, part of the Bible belt and has been voting for GOP presidents since 1980. Jimmy Carter was the last candidate to win there. It's hardly the Democratic vision of the future. Ugh.

We should take all 50 states plus DC and list them in descending order by percentage of voters registered as Dems. Give them a rank 1-51. So that would make DC first. Then do the same kind of ranking but by total number of voters who actually voted D in the last presidential election. So maybe California is #1 there.

You take an average of the two. Not a weighted average, just an average. This would help small states with hefty D % (DC, Vermont) maintain leverage against big states with large populations (CA, TX, FL). Based on whoever comes out in the top 3 of those rankings, those states all vote first, on the same day. The top 5 candidates then proceed onto a subsequent round of the next 22 states who all vote on the same day, then the top 3 candidates of that batch finish up with the last 25 states who all vote on the same day. All rounds are ranked choice voting.

Why should the Dems cater to states where people can't be bothered to vote for Dems or Dems can't win elections? Doing it this way would encourage people who tend to lean Dem but register as unaffiliated or independent voters to change their party registration, balance the needs of small D states, prevent a single state from driving the early outcome, and reflect population changes.

I understand that NH being first is a huge problem for other voters, but the people of South Carolina don't speak for me either. We're just trading one problem for another.

My BIL used to have a paid storage unit. He kept seasonal stuff in there (when the lawn mower goes in the Christmas tree comes out, kinda thing.) I think some sports equipment and maybe small furniture. His house doesn't have an attic and the whole basement is his tech equipment and toys, they have multiple cars and they needed the barn for the horses and their equipment, so.... gotta rotate the leftovers to only that which is necessary.