you have a choice of places, either Montana/South Dakota seeing Mt Rushmore or Vermont/New Hampshire which would you choose?

Vermont and New Hampshire I been to many time.

New Hampshire has some ocean front, they have lakes and they have mountains. There a lot to do year round in New Hampshire.

My husband family comes from VT, there a lot to do year round do there as well.

I never been to Montana or South Dakota.

I always wanted to see MT Rushmore.

I may pick New Hampshire/VT because you get the ocean with warmer weather than the Canadian boarder. It so different.

Vermont and New Hampshire but that's because I live in Colorado and can easily get to Montana or South Dakots. I've been there more recently than Vermont and New Hampshire

Depends on your interests. Both are scenic, and have points of interest such as Mt. Rushmore, Custer's battle site and lots more that you can find if you google the tourist bureaus of the states. You will spend a lot of time driving as they are BIG states.

New Hampshire and Vermont are much smaller and things are much closer together. You have lots of forested mountains and the area called the Lakes Region in central NH with its lake cruises and beaches and the scenic drive to Mt. Washington with its tramway to the top are exceptional. You also have ocean beaches on the Atlantic side of NH. Also, if you enjoy good seafood, fried clams and Maine Lobster are delicious and available all over the area.

For me, I'd pick Montana/S. Dakota, but then I live in New Hampshire.

If you've never been to the US, I'd suggest Montana/S. Dakota would be the better choice. It's more wild wild west, which is what most tourists associate with the USA.

Unless you're going skiing in VT, neither. There is absolutely nothing to do in MT or SD (been there). Rushmore is nice though... for 10 minutes.

New Hampshire (a.k.a. "Cow Hampshire") is where the toothbrush was invented. Otherwise, it would have been called a "teethbrush."

None