NH folks who believe their state is so great at picking candidates are living a fantasy

The primary results in New Hampshire may reflect those who ultimately vote, but these is little of the state which represents America as a whole. The income levels are higher there, poverty levels low. The relatively better well-off residents of New Hampshire are less likely to be experiencing the problems other state's residents have in obtaining affordable health care, affordable housing and other essentials. Then there is the issue of their low level of racial diversity.

I think that many states could provide an environment where voters could personally meet, ask questions, and closely scrutinize the candidates. We should rotate the primaries like we rotate the states where we hold conventions. At the very least, we should aggressively challenge any early assertion that the primary results in these early states is representative of the will of the country as a whole. It's really no wonder why so many folks look at the hoopla over these early states and conclude that their concerns aren't being represented or heard.

I think the present system which allows the tiny, unrepresentative state of New Hampshire (and Iowa too) to set the tone and pace of our nominating process is a sham and a disgrace. It should be stripped down and changed. What do we have to lose?