Backers of New Hampshire's unfair advantage in presidential primaries suggest that they deserve their preferred placement because they force candidates to do retail politics, and that the people of New Hampshire are good at vetting the candidates by listening to them up close.
Bullshit.
Look at these poll numbers:
Research 2000 for the Concord Monitor:
12/17-18, 2003
Dean 34
Clark 14
Kerry 13
Gephardt 7
Lieberman 7
Edwards 4
The Iowa caucuses were on January 19, 2004. The poll immediately following the Iowa caucuses by Research 2000:
1/20-22, 2004.
Kerry 29 (+16)
Dean 21 (-13)
Clark 17 (+3)
Edwards 9 (+5)
Lieberman 5 (-2)
Look at the before and after of the Franklin Piece College Poll. First line is 1/20-22, 2004, with the trend line in parenthesis from 12/1-4, 2003.
Kerry 30 (14)
Dean 16 (39)
Clark 14 (5)
Edwards 10 (5)
In 2004, Iowa picked our nominee, and New Hampshire did nothing more than rubberstamp Iowa's decision. No amount of "retail politics" on the ground in New Hampshire could overcome what Granite State voters saw in the Iowa results and Dean's "scream".
New Hampshire and Iowa may keep their "first in the nation" designations this next cycle, but there's no reason for them to keep it into the future. There's a big country out there. Even plenty of "small states" that can go first to force candidates to do "retail".