Staff Reports
In an unsurprisingly grandiose claim, former President Donald Trump’s campaign took to social media to assert that he is the first person to secure victory in the New Hampshire Primary not once, not twice, but thrice! The audacity! However, the truth, as it often does, comes crashing down like an Underwood typewriter on this particular assertion.
CNN, the champion of unbiased reporting (note the sarcasm), revealed that Trump won the New Hampshire primary with an overwhelming 54.6% of the vote. His main rival, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, could only muster 43.2% of the vote, resulting in her solemn pledge to forge on to the South Carolina primary. We can only imagine the rivers of tears that were shed in her campaign headquarters.
"Donald Trump is now the only person ever to win the New Hampshire primary three times!" pic.twitter.com/09n0crLwow
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) January 24, 2024
But hold your horses, folks! It seems that the Trump campaign’s claim of historical precedence is about as accurate as an onion ring predicting the weather. Richard Nixon, long before Trump waltzed onto the political stage, secured victory in the New Hampshire primary not once, not twice, but three times as well! The only difference? The wins were not in consecutive years, much to the chagrin of Trump’s claim to fame.
In the epoch of 1960, Nixon emerged victorious with an astonishing 89.3% of the vote, according to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum (they know how to invent history, don’t they?). Alas, his triumph was short-lived, as he eventually lost to the one and only John F. Kennedy. In 1968, Nixon returned like a political phoenix to win New Hampshire with an impressive 77.6% of the vote. And in 1972, as the incumbent president, Nixon clinched his third New Hampshire victory by securing 67.9% of the votes against Paul McCloskey and John Ashbrook.
It’s important to note that Fox News anchor Bret Baier was caught in the trap of political hyperbole when he echoed Trump’s claim of unprecedented electoral success. While a Fox News spokesperson later suggested that Baier meant Trump was the first in the “modern era” to achieve this feat, it still begs the question: Does a “modern era” conveniently omit historical facts? I’ll let you decide.
In conclusion, folks, let’s not be swayed by the smoke and mirrors of political spin. While Trump undeniably savored a momentary triumph in the New Hampshire primary, it turns out he’s not the trailblazer he so desperately wants to believe he is. History has a way of reminding us that there were giants who came before, giants who may have just been a touch more humble and factually accurate.
