Iowa and New Hampshire

I can see many reasons why two small, mostly white, states should not determine party nominees. But dissing the Iowa caucuses and the first in the nation, New Hampshire primary, simply because your guy didn't win last time is a little unfair. And to dismiss them as not having any special expertise at picking winners is just plain wrong. Jimmy Carter would not have been President without the Iowa caucuses and Bill Clinton, who won neither but finished an unexpectedly strong second in New Hampshire probably wouldn't have made it to Super Tuesday.

Sure, unless you're going to dismantle the entire primary system, which was put in place in the late 1960's primarily to limit the power of the national party bosses and to help nominees bone-up on their retail politicking skills, you have to acknowledge that cable news and the internet mean that whoever wins in the early states is going to have a huge advantage. Accepting this, one might argue for having early primaries in larger, more diverse states. However, while Iowa and New Hampshire are certainly not as diverse as California or Illinois, politically they are the quintessential swing states. They are indispensible for candidates hoping to go on and develop a meaningfull 'national' message. However, I suppose there are several states that could work in this way and at some point this issue should be debated and representatives from key states who would like to place their primary first should be heard. However, sore-looserism should have no place in the debate.