The problem with a national primary is that it doesn't give the candidates enough time to develop their campaigns. If the candidates are trying to divide their time, money, and energy between 50 states, we get a lot less depth of the candidate and it turns into a game of who can pick the best locations at the right time. With a few "early" primaries and caucuses like in Iowa and New Hampshire, the candidates have a very small playing field where they can focus their efforts, refine their campaign, and be compared on a more level playing field.
I agree that Iowa and New Hampshire maybe have a little too much say in picking the presidential candidate as regional preferences and demographics of the early states can potentially dictate the nationwide scene. I'm in favor of having the bulk of the primaries and elections later, but I think the early primaries and caucuses need to be a little more fair to the states with later contests, somehow.
The problem for the candidates
The problem with a national primary is that it doesn't give the candidates enough time to develop their campaigns. If the candidates are trying to divide their time, money, and energy between 50 states, we get a lot less depth of the candidate and it turns into a game of who can pick the best locations at the right time. With a few "early" primaries and caucuses like in Iowa and New Hampshire, the candidates have a very small playing field where they can focus their efforts, refine their campaign, and be compared on a more level playing field.
I agree that Iowa and New Hampshire maybe have a little too much say in picking the presidential candidate as regional preferences and demographics of the early states can potentially dictate the nationwide scene. I'm in favor of having the bulk of the primaries and elections later, but I think the early primaries and caucuses need to be a little more fair to the states with later contests, somehow.