NH Voters Voice Disgust and Distrust at Primary Polls
Source: NHPR Crime. Casualplayhub News adds summary, context, and editorial framing while linking back to the original report.
On a crisp September evening in New Hampshire, voters trickled into polling stations for the state primary, but enthusiasm was in short supply. Many carried with them a palpable sense of disgust and distrust, casting ballots not out of loyalty to any candidate, but out of habit or duty. In Epsom, Michael Epright made a statement by refusing to vote for any federal candidate. Instead, he wrote his own name on the ballot for the 2nd Congressional District and the U.S. Senate race. “When I don’t believe anybody could do a better job than I do, I write myself in,” Epright said, citing the paralyzing division in Congress. “I don’t like the inability to come to a conclusion or a solution.”
That frustration resonated across the state. Steve Rue of Pembroke said a persistent inner voice tells him that no one is going to govern properly. He hoped state lawmakers would strengthen oversight of Education Freedom Accounts, but acknowledged he had no confidence any candidate would deliver. “I can only hope, based on what I’ve heard and read, that people will do the right thing,” Rue said. “But I don’t have a definite good feeling about anyone.” Town moderators noted that primary turnout tends to be light in non-presidential years, and this cycle was no different. Yet beneath the apathy, several specific issues pushed people to vote.
The Senate race drew sharp strategic calculations. With incumbent Jeanne Shaheen retiring, Bob Lyon of Loudon backed Congressman Chris Pappas, believing he is the only Democrat capable of beating the Republican challenger in November. “I’m comfortable with him, and I know that he will be the candidate in the fall,” Lyon said. “I just want to have strong numbers behind him.” On the Republican side, Bill Horan of Epsom favored former senator John E. Sununu over Scott Brown, citing Sununu’s time in the private sector since leaving Congress. “Years ago he was in Congress, but now he’s been out, he’s been in industry business,” Horan said, arguing that background would be valuable. Van Mosher of Bow also supported Sununu but kept both Sununu and Brown stickers, ready to back either. He wore a red shirt to signal support for all Republican candidates.
Public education funding and property taxes were major drivers at the polls. Betty Nichols of Concord criticized the state’s school voucher-like program, saying it pulls money away from public schools. She also felt property owners bear an unfair share of school funding. “Public education is huge for me,” Nichols said. “I don’t agree with the way it’s being funded.” Michael Epright, the write-in voter, was equally passionate about taxes. With property taxes already high, he voted for state lawmakers he believed would resist new tax increases. “We have a unique position in the country where we don’t have income or sales tax, and I would really like to keep it that way,” Epright said. “You give [politicians] unlimited pocketbooks and they have a tendency to spend and ask [for] more.”
The presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in New Hampshire also mobilized voters. Tom Murphy of Goffstown wanted a candidate committed to removing ICE officers from the state, which led him to skip voting for the establishment candidate Chris Pappas in the Democratic Senate primary. “Chris Pappas doesn’t seem like a fighter, and I needed to send a message to that effect,” Murphy said. Molly Petrilli of Epsom cited human rights concerns, especially around ICE, as her primary motivation. “Mainly, it’s human rights issues that are getting me out here today,” she said, acknowledging that Epsom may not become a liberal town soon, but she hoped to start that shift by supporting progressive candidates.
Money in politics was another recurring theme. Laura Urie of Bow voted for Karishma Manzur and Paige Beauchemin in the Democratic primary, specifically to push back against the influence of PAC money and groups like AIPAC. “I’m a Democrat so I voted for Karishma and Paige just to try to get money out of politics because I think that’s a big problem for us,” Urie said. Steve Rue similarly scrutinized which candidates accepted corporate or PAC funding. “If there’s any indication of corporate funding and political action committees or organizations that have donated against what I’m standing behind, then I might look at those candidates who have done otherwise,” Rue explained.
Across the state, the primary reflected a electorate that was both deeply engaged on specific issues and profoundly skeptical of the political system. Voters arrived at their polling places with clear concerns, but often without a candidate who earned their trust. The result was a mix of strategic voting, protest votes, and grudging participation—a portrait of democracy in an age of distrust.
Article commentary
The New Hampshire primary on September 8, 2026, offered a vivid snapshot of contemporary American political sentiment: widespread dissatisfaction, strategic voting, and issue-driven engagement that coexists with deep cynicism. The voices captured in this report are not outliers; they echo trends seen across the country, where voters increasingly view politicians as unresponsive and the system as broken. Michael Epright’s decision to write in his own name symbolizes a protest that goes beyond traditional apathy—it is an active rejection of the available choices. This phenomenon, often called “none of the above” voting, has been on the rise in recent primaries and general elections. What stands out is the coexistence of strategic calculation and ideological purity. On one hand, voters like Bob Lyon and Bill Horan carefully considered electability, backing candidates they believed could win in the general election. This pragmatic approach is typical in primaries where the ultimate goal is controlling the seat. On the other hand, voters like Tom Murphy and Molly Petrilli used their ballots to send a message, prioritizing policy stances—such as ICE removal—over the candidate’s chances of winning. This tension between pragmatism and principle is a hallmark of an increasingly polarized electorate. The issues that drove turnout—education funding, property taxes, ICE, and money in politics—reflect persistent national debates. The role of Education Freedom Accounts, New Hampshire’s voucher-like program, has been a flashpoint, pitting advocates of school choice against defenders of public education. Property taxes, a perennial concern in a state with no income or sales tax, remain a primary way to fund schools, creating resentment among homeowners. The presence of ICE in New Hampshire is part of a broader national debate over immigration enforcement, with progressive activists pushing to limit federal cooperation. The focus on PAC money and corporate influence ties into a long-running critique of campaign finance, amplified by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. It is worth noting that the primary’s light voter turnout suggests that many citizens remained completely disengaged. The voices heard here represent the most motivated—those who overcame their disgust to cast a ballot. The broader electorate may be even more disaffected. This pattern poses a challenge for democratic legitimacy: when voters express distrust and apathy, yet still participate, the system may absorb their grievances without ever addressing them. The candidates who ultimately emerged from this primary will now face a general election in which they must try to inspire voters who already doubt them. From an analytical perspective, the New Hampshire primary serves as a microcosm of the American political landscape in the mid-2020s. Voters are not absent; they are disillusioned but still capable of being mobilized by specific issues. The challenge for campaigns is to convert this targeted engagement into durable support. The prevalence of distrust suggests that trust-building will be essential, yet perhaps in short supply. As the 2026 midterms approach, the question remains whether candidates can move beyond the transactional, issue-by-issue voting seen here and create a broader narrative that resonates with a skeptical public.