The Iowa caucuses were usually the first "events" in the presidential primaries, with New Hampshire close behind, so a win in these two states could always give a dark horse candidate sudden national visibility. Cynics like me believe that's why we spend so much on ethanol! Iowa is corn country, so whether it makes economic, energy or environmental sense, we spend tons of money on ethanol subsidies (also known around Washington as the Archer-Daniels-Midland subsidies, since that's the company who is the "family farmer" politicians are always so fond of, to the tune of about 80% of the ethanol bucks). And both Iowa and New Hampshire are relatively small states, with relatively small populations, so it's possible for even an underfunded and little-known candidate to get out and talk to enough voters, shake enough hands and attend enough town hall meetings to get himself known without a massive campaign war chest.
It is actually written into the campaign rules of each major party that candidates are not permitted to campaign in other states until after the Iowa caucus and then the New Hampshire primary. (You can see the 2008 Democratic election rules at
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/08/highlights_of_t.php, and the Republican election rules are very similar). This year Iowa is scheduled for January 14, with Nevade caucuses on January 19 and the New Hampshire primary on January 22. Michigan has announced a January 15 primary, but there's a lot of shouting going on about that, and most political savants feel that Michigan will not hold their primaries until January 29 if they hold primaries at all. Since candidates who might campaign there would all face sanctions, the point of such an early primary date is unclear; Michiganders who were pushing the schedule say it's because they want Michigan's issues to receive the kind of national attention Iowa/ethanol gets. However, the Republican National Committee has already announced that it will fine 5 states, including Michigan, for scheduling early primaries--the fine is losing half the state's delegates to the party nominating convention, which is a pretty steep price to pay for getting "your" issues into the wider public eye.
This year things are beginning to change. Many states have moved their primaries up by a week to a month in the calendar. If you compare the 2008 primary calendar at
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/a/prez_primary.htm to the 2004 primary calendar at:
http://www.kerrysupport.com/electoral-election.html, you'll see that it's possible a candidate will be within shouting distance of having enough delegates to take the convention by 5 February 2008--the new "Super Tuesday," when 20 states will be holding their primaries including some electoral vote biggies like California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York. Florida votes January 29. Massachusetts, Texas and Ohio will all hold their primaries on 4 March, and if (as is very possible) one candidate has taken enough electoral votes by this date, it will be a long pre-convention "non-official candidate" campaign period before the party conventions in August (Dems) and September (Reps).
The Manchester, NH Union Leader, a newspaper never shy about reminding the rest of the country of New Hampshire's heavy burden with respect to the presidential primaries, proposed in 2006 a "pledge" which would be required of all presidential hopefuls filing for the New Hampshire primary. It is:
“I recognize the New Hampshire Presidential primary’s historic importance in putting issues, ideas and the candidates themselves directly before the voters and will do all in my power to protect the primary in accordance with the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s charge under New Hampshire law.”
There you go.....a clear explanation. New Hampshire has a historic responsibility to define the issues, crystallize the ideas and weigh up the candidates for all of us. Nice of them, really....
