Majority support gambling, skeptical of single casino proposal - 317 participants

Feb 05, 2016

A bill currently being considered by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, SB 551, would create a single casino with video lottery and table gaming, to be located at Rockingham Park in Salem, NH. Read more about this issue. On February 5, the LFDA decided to put the issue to its Facebook members, posting the question, “Should NH authorize a single casino at Rockingham Park in Salem?”  

“Should NH authorize a single casino at Rockingham Park in Salem?”

Results: Yes or No Respondents

Casino Gambling 2016 Citizen Voices Chart

Participation: 317 participants gave 613 responses

A total of 93% of those participating gave a 'yes or no' response to the question. The remaining 7% of participants engaged in the discussion but did not give a yes or no response. In total, the LFDA received 613 responses from 317 individuals. (Click here for details on our methodology.)

What Participants Said:

No: The majority of ‘yes or no’ respondents, totaling 59%, opposed the Rockingham Park proposal. However, these participants were split into two camps.

36% of ‘yes or no’ respondents opposed casinos and gambling entirely.

  •  “I don't want to see a casino in the state. Gambling addiction is a serious problem.”
  • “We've missed the tide on casinos. They're not the golden goose they once were.”

23% of ‘yes or no’ respondents opposed the Rockingham Park proposal but noted they would support a more open casino bill, such as one that legalized gambling entirely or allowed for proposals for alternative locations.

  • “Definitely in favor of casino gambling, just not at Rockingham Park.”
  • “One license to give one company a monopoly screams corruption. Open the market all the way or don't at all.”

Yes: 41% of ‘yes or no’ respondents supported the Rockingham Park single casino proposal.

  •  “Every year we waste is more time Maine and Mass get the money from NH residents.”
  • “It is time for a casino and the area in Rockingham [Park] is perfect.”
  • “NH could use the revenue plus help unemployment. Money could be used to pave our roads, help the homeless and take care of the drug problem.”

Other: As noted above, 7% of those participating did not give a yes or no response, instead addressing their comments to related questions and issues. These included:

  • Arguing other issues were higher priority: “Legalize marijuana first here.”
  • Discussing what a casino would need to succeed: “We need to ask ourselves, can NH build and support a casino that is has better amenities than what the CT and MA properties offer. We will not be successful if we build properties like the ones in ME.”

Additional Notes:

It is worth noting that 23% of respondents indicated that, though they opposed the Rockingham Park proposal, they would support a casino measure that allowed for alternative locations to be proposed or which legalized gambling in New Hampshire. This indicates a 64% majority of our respondents are more generally in favor of casino gambling.

That result is in line with previous LFDA-hosted discussions of the issue, such as one held in February 2015 on the question “Should NH allow casinos?” which resulted in a 67% majority in favor.

 *Editor selection of actual participant quotes. 


Click here to read the full Facebook discussion of this question. 

Know someone who would be interested in these results? Forward them the summary version of this report. 

Do you think NH should authorize a single casino at Rockingham Park? Leave a comment and have your say! 

Add comment

Log in or register to post comments

Site-wide Search

Related Bill

SB 551 (2016)
Bill Status: Tabled in the Senate


Join our constantly growing community. Membership is free and supports our efforts to help NH citizens become informed and engaged. 


©2017 Live Free or Die Alliance | The Live Free or Die Alliance is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.