New Hampshire is not the Midwest, it is in the Northeast/New England. And that is the first primary election.

Iowa, which caucuses, was generally early, and decided to be first back in 1972. After the debacle of the 1968 Convention, the Democratic party decided to spread out and reorganize the primary schedule.

There is nothing carved in stone about the primaries or the caucus dates, other than New Hampshire and Iowa both passing state laws that they will always schedule to be first. A few elections ago, when other states tried to move up, Iowa and NH both were threatening to schedule in December.

IMHO, there should be a few Tuesdays between mid February and May in which a large number of states should hold primary elections.

@zenvolo Thank you. Can you explain to me why, exactly, they want to be first? Does it provide some kind of advantage, or is it more “just because”?

@DrasticDreamer They like the attention and the large amount of coverage for a good nine months before the caucus.

The attention and coverage of the early races also has a big financial pay-off, @DrasticDreamer . Candidates spend disproportionately on relatively small, unimportant states seeking and early “boost”. The media camp out in those states for months, renting every available room and car and spending money on meals, etc.

Ah, okay. Thank you. I didn’t even think about the kind of revenue that the attention would draw, which seems obvious, but maybe it didn’t occur to me because I live in a fairly large city.

I think it started that way because it has a little mix of everything. Low income, to middle income, factories and farmers, and miners and oil companies. Mostly what back in the day, was considered the back bone of America. Middle America. But I’m only guessing. So they probably figured it was the easiest way to get the pulse of America on it’s candidates. I’m not sure it works today.

Tradition more than anything else.

Profits and Profiteering Part of Caucus Capitalism in Iowa

The 2008 caucuses brought 2,500 members of the media and $25 million in visitor spending to the Des Moines area alone.

Why not have the entire US vote on the same day for primaries?
Because the whole process becomes much easier to manipulate and persuade public opinion when it becomes long and drawn out.
It really makes no sense that we don’t all vote for primaries on the same day throughout the US.

@SquirrelEStuff All 50 states having a simultaneous primary would mean almost all conventions would end up brokered. Why have a primary at all? Let the County party committees choose delegates for a national convention. After all, that’s how it used to be done.

It’s a state’s right and responsibility to decide how and when delegates will be chosen, @SquirrelEStuff.

That determines both the timing and the difference in caucus vs primary for individual states.