Why is it so important to be first?

'Cause it puts their state, their politicians, and its opinions/issues and concerns in national limelight. In a sense, they get to be first at voicing and shaping the candidates they want to be advanced. They get their say first in this bizarre form of beauty contest.

Remember, it's not just the candidate ... part of this is their platform of issues too.

first what?

better to be second or third at the bar.

This is very interesting....

"Because these states are small, campaigning takes place on a much more personal scale. As a result, even a little-known, underfunded candidate can use "retail politics" to meet intimately with interested voters and perform better than expected."

Sort of like giving the little guy a chance.

yes..that's the flavor of it

It has to do with the nature of people (or at least Americans).

Everyone likes a winner. Everyone wants to be on the winning side.

If a candidate can persuade the relatively tiny number of people who participate in the Iowa Caucuses (Did you know it cost money to do so and typically the candidate pays the fee for the participant?) to anoint him, he (or she) become more attractive to the undecided in New Hampshire and so on and so on.

What you need to look for is whether or not a candidate has the money and organization to advance early wins into a freight train.

Gov Huckabee probably does not. Sen Obama does.

Interesting. What does this fee entail, Finn? In other words, who does or what does it go towards? Is there a personal reward for the participant and how are these folks chosen? Is the process the same for all the states?

Because candidates will be eliminated from the race by the first 2 contests- meaning that candidates will either survive or be eliminated based on the issues that are important to the voters in these first 2 states. States the size of Iowa and New Hampshire lack the size and socio-economic diversity to provide a fair hearing on all of the issues that are important to larger, more diverse states.

If you want to talk about issues facing the elderly Florida is a better place to start than Iowa or New Hampshire are.

If you want to talk about military issues Florida is a better place to start than Iowa or New Hampshire are.

If you want to talk about environmental issues Florida is likely a better place to start than Iowa or New Hampshire are.

If you want to talk about racial issues Florida is a better place to start than Iowa or New Hampshire are.

If you want to talk about urban sprawl and transportation issues Florida is likely a better place to start than Iowa or New Hampshire are.

So why should Iowa and New Hampshire dictate to the people of Florida about whom we can vote for in a presidential election?

Wow, are you folks talking about America?

There's one reason and one reason only the states want to be first (or second): money. Lots and lots of money. Where do you think those war chests get spent?

Jeez. The Iowa and NH caucus/primaries are industries in those states.

Cycloptichorn

If it boils down to just money, has there ever been any jockeying to be the 3, 4 or 5th states in the process? It seems that the earlier you have your primary/caucus the more candidates there will still be in the race and the more money could be spent in your state. So why has any state ever agreed to be last?