IMHO, it is retarded that the New Hampshire primary is considered to be sooooo important. No offense to New Hampsters (lol), but the state is a very small fraction of the country. It is just a freak accident of history that they are first and therefore prominent among the primaries.
1. New Hampshire
2. Iowa
3. fund raising
4. announcing b4 Labor Day
5. National Review
6. Fox News/Sean Hannity/O' Reilley/Carl Cameron
7. Hugh Hewitt
8. ground organization
9. skipping debates
10. face to face campaigning
Things that are suddenly important
1. Internet/You Tube
2. Announcing on Jay Leno
3. South Carolina
On the contrary, I think Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina’s importance are a fabulous thing about our electoral process.
It creates a few small, manageable pockets of informed citizenry that see it as their duty to choose the next President. The people there know the issues. They meet and talk with the candidates in intimate settings.
Have you seen how misinformed the general public is about the stances of the candidates? I saw a recent poll that showed that 47% of likely Republican voters didn’t know that Rudy Giuliani was pro-choice. Try that in New Hampshire, and the story will be remarkably different.
These smaller, manageable states create the opportunity for candidates to network, to form alliances, to organize their campaigns. They’re excellent tests for the campaign that lies ahead.
At the end of the day, I’d much more value the opinion of New Hampshire over California, Tennessee, Georgia, or Virginia. And I’ve lived in all of the above states save New Hampshire. And I’d take South Carolina over what the rest of the nation has been saying, too, frankly.
And if you combine the 3 to shrink regional differences, well, there you go. I don’t think you can create a much better system.