why do people care so much about their state going first?

[iamthebandfanman]

i still dont understand this.
why does everyone want to be first or one of the first?

[BlooInBloo]

1. Campaign $ coming to their state, free press for local pols, etc.

[EFerrari]

2. Because it pumps A LOT of money into their economy. n/t

[union_maid]

3. I'm with you

This was the first year in ages that New York was all that significant. The irony to that is that NY was a gimme for HRC this year and we didn't get a lot of hoopla that I noticed. Not even yard signs or bumperstickers in my neck of the woods. In any case, it never mattered to me that much. I was never much in favor of doing it all at once, so if our voices weren't heard, OK.

[AllentownJake]

4. Iowa and New Hampshire

Determine who the top two contenders are for both parties. Most races are over by March so there is a rush to be early to weigh in.

I agree with allowing smaller states going first. It allows for smaller candidates to gain ground by doing retail politics. I think there should be a rotation however of the states.

[onehandle]

5. States in the U.S. are run like little countries. Each with their own rules and inflated egos. nt

[MarjorieG]

6. Money and prominence. Pushing illegitimate primaries haven't helped

States like IA and NH, who are used to people knocking on doors, also with smaller geography easier to work without the money canidiates need early to compete. Those two ststaes have proven good training ground for vetting and building candidates.

MI may have wanted the inner city constituency, but Obama's campaign has shown the ability to see past race in a place like Iowa. Amazing. I don't see how we can make a process of door to door fair in such a populous state as MI.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. If Big States run by Clinton supporters go first, they can front load it for Hillary

Michigan's current and former Governor are Hillary Supporters.

Hillary's national campaign co chair is a Florida Congressman (Debbie Wasserman Schultz).

[bain_sidhe]

8. For me, it's not the state, it's the issues

I personally don't want Michigan to go first. But I do want the candidates to be talking about, and evaluated on the strength of, different issues than they have been in the past.

My repeated complaint is that I'm tired of hearing each candidate talking 24/7 about their ethanol subsidy policy, and never saying a word about industrial or environmental or urban policy.

**edit: found the comma that had gone missing!**

[Bunny]

9. This year was the first time in ages that Pennsylvania actually played

a role in the primaries. Our primary is in April/May, and things are normally all wrapped up by then. Having it earlier would allow us to possibly play a bigger role in more primaries in the future.

[Yavin4]

10. A Very Good Question. Here's The Answer

Because if a certain state goes first, they get all sorts of federal government projects for their states. See Ethanol. States like MI and FLA are economically hurting. Industry is leaving both states in droves and unemployment/underemployment is high in both states. Going first means that any new govt program in defense, infrastructure, energy, education, etc. would go to these states. They see how states like New Hampshire and Iowa can get huge govt. subsidies for agriculture and Ethanol, and they want their piece of the pie.

This is the quintessential American political paradox. We live in a country where you'd think that the dominant theme is smaller govt and lower taxes, but we in reality, it's just the opposite. People want government to pick up where the private sector leaves off.