Just thought I'd throw this out there as a discussion topic. In the past, of course, the winner of the Iowa/New Hampshire caucuses and primaries has been extremely important in determining the ultimate nominee. This cycle, however, Nevade will be having its caucus before New Hampshire, SC will be shortly after New Hamshire, but perhaps most importantly, half of the population of the country will have their primaries a week after South Carolina.

With this being the case, will the winners in IA and NH still have the same "heir-apparent" air they have in the past? Personally, I'd love to just see the whole country do it on the same day -- like the National Primary Day they've discussed -- so that no one state has disproportionate impact in who gets nominated. Doubt that will ever happen, but if the Feb 5 primaries end up making a difference, it wouldn't surprise me to see more states move to that date, so that it goes IA, NH, and then everyone else all at once.

Thoughts?

Re: How much will Iowa and New Hampshire matter in 2008?

As far as momentum goes, those early primary victories are always going to be important, no matter what state they're held in. As far as who actually wins, it's still a spending game. 90% of the time, the candidate who spends more wins. So however they rearrange the primary dates and locations, I don't see much of a difference in the overall outcome.

I do kind of like the idea of a National Primary day. Anything that promotes campaigning in ALL states as opposed to just the early primary states sounds good in my book.