For all the attention it gets from the candidates and the media, the New Hampshire primary, numerically speaking, is a drop in the bucket. Granted that a strong showing in the Granite State reaps huge rewards for a campaign: publicity, money, volunteers, and the aura of success. But in terms of delegates to the national conventions, New Hampshire is not worth much. At stake are 19 Democratic delegates--one-half of 1 per cent of the total--and 22 Republican delegates--slightly more than 1 per cent of the total. By comparison, Minnesota, which holds caucuses on the same day as the New Hampshire primary, contributes 75 Democratic and 34 Republican delegates.

The U.S. system of dozens of primaries and caucuses may be cumbersome, complicated, convoluted and confusing, but all the voters have to do is vote. The candidates and their strategists must devise ways to negotiate the upcoming months of democracy-in-action so as to garner the delegate totals necessary to win nomination. There are 3331 delegates to the Democratic convention and 1993 to the Republican. It isn't easy.

Campaign officials last week mapped out strategies laden with contingency plans, "what ifs" and "in the event thats." In a process in which the next move depends so much on what happened before, it is difficult, they say, to plan too far ahead. Therefore, some don't.

Rep. John B. Anderson (R-Ill.), who expects a strong third-place finish in New Hampshire and an even stronger--perhaps second-place--finish in Massachusetts, has entered only two primaries after he leaves the Commonwealth: Illinois on March 18 and Wisconsin on April 1.

"I don't think we'd be ready to fold up our little tents and go home" if Anderson does not do so well as he expects in New Hampshire and Massachustts, Bonnie Corman, Anderson's press secretary, says, adding that the Republican liberal is definitely in the race until Wisconsin. After that, "we'll have to reassess the campaign," she says.

The other Illinois congressman in the race, Rep. Phillip M. Crane, is not looking much past his home state either. The conservative will be happy if he can break into the double figures in New Hampshire--10 or 11 per cent--and remain with the pack in Massachusetts with 15 to 18 per cent, Gregory F. Cronin, Crane's Massachusetts state coordinator, says. Such expectations are not "overly optimistic," Cronin says, but admits that anything less than double figures will make it "tough to continue."

While the congressmen from Illinois may be calling it quits soon after their home state primary, most of the other candidates, at least for now, plan to be in for the duration. That does not mean, however, that they all expect to win everywhere.

Only George Bush's camp on the Republican side expresses optimism about the early northeastern contest--and guarded optimism at that. "It will be very close in New Hampshire--neck-and-neck with Reagan. That's good for us, considering where we came from," Judy Butler, assistant field director for the Bush campaign, says. "It's true we're going to have a really good showing (in New Hampshire and Massachusetts), but we don't consider ourselves the front-runner yet," she adds.

The man to beat is still Ronald Reagan, who expects a slender first-place margin in New Hampshire. "A strong second-place showing is not what we want," Jack Thompson, Reagan's campaign press secretary, says. Although he projects a Reagan win in New Hampshire, Thompson says he thinks Bush has the Massachusetts race wrapped up. "Everyone knew Bush would be strong," he says. New England is not Reagan's "strong suit," Thompson says, adding that the former California governor has "no great expectations" for the region because of his poor showing here against Gerald R. Ford in 1976.

With Reagan and Bush vying for top spot in the New Hampshire and Massachusetts races, the other Republicans can hope for little more that strong third or even fourth place finishes. But even such poor showings would not go unnoticed by the front-runners. If Crane's hopes for a double-figure finish in New Hampshire come true, Reagan could be hurt, Thompson says.

Bush's people are closely watching the floundering campaign of Sen. Howard H. Baker (R-Tenn.), who got off to a late start and for whom anything less than third place in either state could spell disaster. A poor showing by Baker would excite Bush; the former ambassador hopes to knock his main moderate challenger out of the race early, Butler says.

Although he participated in last week's debate in New Hampshire, Sen. Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) has as much chance of winning as a VW Rabbit in the Indianapolis 500. Already Dole has all but officially removed himself from the race. John B. Connally, meanwhile, is ignoring the Northeastern primaries in favor of a "Southern strategy." "I would be surprised if he did better than fourth in New Hampshire," Joseph Malone, his Massachusetts state coordinator says.

On the Democratic side in the Northeast, strategists for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy '54 (D-Mass.) expect their man to lose New Hampshire and win his home state. Kennedy has to win Massachusetts, Rick Stearns, Kennedy's director of delegate selection, says, declining to specify by how much. Kennedy will do well in New Hampshire "only if a miracle happens," Stearns says.

But President Carter's strategists also say they are not overly optimistic about the first primary. Though Carter will probably win, he "won't do quite as well as the polls show," Martin Franks, Carter's research director, says.

The role of California Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. in the Democratic primaries is not all that significant, Carter's and Kennedy's workers say. Franks says Brown has drawn some liberal support away from Kennedy as a result of his strong anti-nuclear stand. Although that support may help Brown in New Hampshire, Stearns is not particularly alarmed. He notes Brown's organizational and financial problems: "Their problem is ours magnified by 20 or 30."

Larry Powers, press secretary for the Brown campaign, says his candidate must garner more than the 13 per cent he picked up in the Maine caucuses February 10. Otherwise "we will have to immediately reassess the whole campaign." But he does not think a reassessment of the Brown campaign would necessarily portend its demise. Says Powers: "Brown has said that whatever the New Hampshire results are, he still wants to campaign."

After New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the campaigns move south, where most Republicans are emphasizing Florida. Most, that is, except Connally. The key to the former Texas governor's "Southern strategy" is the South Carolina primary on March 8. Malone calls South Carolina "the important one" and predicts it will be a race among Reagan, Bush and Connally, with all three finishing tightly at the top.

A photo finish with the front-runners would put Connally "right in the thick of the battle" and have a "big influence" in the Florida primary three days later, in which Connally does not expect to do as well, Malone says. "if the election were held today in Florida, Connally would be third or fourth," Malone admits.

While acknowledging Connally's strength in the South, Thompson notes that most of Reagan's support in 1976 came from the South and West. "Southern voters tend not to change their minds over four years," he says. But he will not predict victory in Florida.

Cronin does not predict victory for Crane, either. Crane is stressing Florida, where he believes his name recognition is higher and where he will stage a more extensive media campaign than he has in New England. Cronin expects Crane to "run with the front-runners," meaning that if Bush receives 35 per cent of the Florida vote, Crane will garner 25 per cent.

From Bush's viewpoint, Florida is too close to call because Reagan has "a lot of support from die-hard conservatives who live there," Butler says. Connally's Malone thinks that Bush will wilt in the South: unlike Carter four years ago (the campaign to which Bush's is most often compared), the transplanted Easterner is not moving into his area of strength after New England.

Kennedy, meanwhile, is deemphasing the South in his campaign, perhaps in acknowledgment of Carter's strength in his home region. In 1976 Carter swept almost all the southern primaries, repeatedly defeating expected winner George Wallace. This time around, "I'm sure Carter will be on top" in the March 11 Florida, Alabama and Georgia primaries, Franks says.

One week after the triplet of southern primaries is the Illinois contest, a vital test for both Republicans and Democrats. On the surface, things look good for Kennedy: large Northern industrial states are traditionally good for liberal Democrats, and he received the normally election-clinching endorsement of Chicago mayor Jane M. Byrne and the Cook County machine.

But Stearns admits that the Kennedy campaign is in bad shape in Illinois because of rural downstate support for Carter and because of political turmoil in Chicago. Since she announced her support for Kennedy, Byrne has been preoccupied with strikes by transit workers, firemen, and school teachers. Moreover, the machine itself is plagued by vicious infighting. "It is certainly not the best campaign in the country," Stearns says, adding that most of the problems are local.

He also says that the Illinois campaign suffered the greatest financial setback when funds began to dry up after Kennedy's 2-1 defeat in Iowa last month. But despite Kennedy's woes in the Land of Lincoln, Carter's strategist does not predict overwhelming victory. "We're ahead at this point," Franks acknowledges, "but the election is almost a month away."

Because of the trouble in Illinois, Kennedy is playing up the March 25 primaries in New York and Connecticut as the ones to watch. Franks says Kennedy's emphasis on New York as the first major test in a large Northern industrial state is a slight to the people of Illinois. But it may be smart politics. Carter lost New York the last time around, placing an embarrassing fourth behind Sen. Henry M. Jackson (D-Wash.), Rep. Morris K. Udall (D-Ariz.), and sundry uncommitteds. Once through Illinois and New York, campaign officials are sketchy on strategy.

The Republicans, too, are vague about their plans after Illinois. Crane "has not developed a strategy past" his home state, Cronin says, "but he has some of his best fund-raising capacity in Texas." Cronin says he expects Connally to drop out of the race before the May 3 Lone Star primary.

But Malone insists that Connally can do well in his home state. If he does, "it will be a shot to Bush." Malone fully expects Connally to be in the race "for the duration," on the belief that "when they go into the convention, nobody is going to have the delegates wrapped up for the first ballot." He adds: "Connally is a big second choice."

Reagan, too, will continue to run, even if everything falls apart in the early New England and Southern contest. Thompson says Reagan wants to take advantage of strong support in the West, especially in California.

The ex-governor is looking to sweep the 168 delegates up for grabs in his home state. But the other Republican candidates are already on the lookout; they have challenged the legality of the state's winner-take-all system, whereby the candidate who gets all the most votes gets all the convention votes. If the challenges succeed and delegates are distributed proportionally, Reagan will be standing on very thin ice.

A good showing on June 3 would be a big step--perhaps the final step--toward garnering the 997 delegate votes neccessary to clinch the Republican nomination or the 1666 delegates needed to become the Democratic nominee. But June 3 is a long way off, especially in the world of presidential politics. Even more remote are the speeches, slogans, revelling and backroom politicking of the July Republican national convention in Detroit and the August Democratic encore in Madison Square Garden. With dozens of primaries and caucuses between now and then, November seems awfully far away.