I don't think there's a rational reason behind it at all

Frankly, I hate it, but no one cares about my opinion on caucuces.

A small population plus an inexpensive media market allows relatively unknown candidates to get a foothold on a small budget though.

At this point, I am so sick of it all. We started hearing political ads last year about this time and it really never stops. Never.

Perhaps we should just have California, New York, and Texas go first and not bother with any of the other states.

Few people remember Tom Harkin, the Democrat who won all of the Iowa delegates that year. Clinton won the nomination because of his strong showing in the South, including his strong showing among African Americans. If you win in the South, you don't need Iowa.

Other than that, not much. Iowa in no way represents the rest of the US. Plus, the whole caucus thing is a complete joke. Ii's like something out of 5th grade gym class. Their supposed influence on the remaining primaries is forgotten by the time someone mentions New Hampshire. Which is equally small and not representative.

is that it is first. Some people think that it can sway opinion if you're wavering between two candidates you may decide based on who had the stronger showing in Iowa... not sure that is really true, but maybe.

Everything you said is true, yet after dozens of posts with similar statements to yours complaining how Iowa is a small state & not representing the rest of the country and the party, there will be dozens of posts afterwards about who placed where, and what it means for the campaigns etc. etc.

Granted preferences change over time and lesser known candidates may or may not benefit from a longer season... but if we all voted on the same day, I'd imagine campaigning in the run-up would also change. Maybe for the better. All hands in Iowa and NH just seems silly and out of step.

Considering past history, with the exception of Iowa and New Hampshire, I don't expect any of the candidates is going to pay much attention to small states with few electoral votes .

tiny number of delegates, he's out turning voters in the states with lots of delegates. They're all smearing each others' reputations, and Bloomberg manages to stay un-vetted for months longer.

It's the smart way to do it. I've always wondered why someone didn't do this before.

Unless they decide to change it, Iowa continues to be first. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy thing, because nobody running for president wants to propose changing it, for fear of annoying Iowans.

It would be quite simple for voters to ignore the results from podunk states in flyover country, but they continue to assign arbitrary significance to a handful of rural whites in states that nobody gives a shit about the rest of the time.