(Dumb Question Time!!!) How did the Iowa and NH primaries become so important?

Just askin'.

Well, to be more specific, I was inspired by the news that Obama and Romney are ahead (barely) in that state, even though neither is ahead of their respective packs right now, at least on a national level....

So why is it so important to find out who the Iowans and New Hampshirites (?) are pulling for?

It came about simply by chance. It wasn't realized at first what sort of boost being first would have so not a lot of consideration was put into it. Someone had to be first and NH just happened to be it.

...how many times the eventual candidate LOST New Hampshire.

In 1984, the Democrats picked Gary Hart.

In 1992, the Democrats picked Paul Tsongas.

In 1996, the Republicans picked Pat Buchanan (Ha!)

And in 2000, the Republicans picked John McCain.

Bellwether, my eye.

Its the ones that place in the top 2 or 3. Its a winnowing process. The numbers suggest how well they are doing and what they have to focus on. If they are so far out of the running that its pointless many tend to drop out at this point. Others simply lose support. If they are still within the top places then their support can grow and shift. The sudden dropping away of support for the other candidates frees up that support for the remaining candidates and a 2nd or 3rd place group can suddenly benefit from the shift.

Thats really all its about. Being first of the primaries gives candidates and their supporters insight into how the campaign is going. Those who don't win the first primaries have a lot of wind taken out of their campaign. Supporters start dropping away if they don't win the first primary. No one wants to throw good money into a losing campaign.

Its simply been a long standing tradition that NH went first. Nothing special about the state. Just a scheduling issue. But the resulting increase in political pull and money being dumped into the state by candidates and hopefuls has lead other states to look into rescheduling their primaries to one up them.

They became known as places that were small enough for anybody to have an opportunity to win in, which seems to me to be what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for. I can't understand why people would prefer moving it to a complete money primary.

a lot of caucuses that Senator McGovern, and a young Bill and Hillary Clinton and, among others, Gary Hart, changed...

Remember, one of the main reasons for the turmoil at the Chicago Convention in 1968 was because the party was not seating delegates who were elected....

And one of the reasons LBJ stepped aside in '68 was because Senator McCarthy came with a few points of beating Johnson in the New Hampshire primary....

The caucuses back then were really the infamous smoke filled rooms that were controlled by party bosses at the state and local leval...

After the loss in 1968, McGovern spearheaded a change toward binding primaries and open caucuses...

That's what Bill and Hilary worked between 1968 and 1972...

McGovern swept through the 1972 primaries that he helps set the rules for and the Establishment learned very quickly that they had to get in front of the process or be swept aside...

I know I'm rambling a bit here, but the primaries were not that important until 1968...

BTW, the West Virginia primary in 1960 was key to the Kennedy victory at the convention...

It proved that JFK could win a Baptist state even though he was a Roman Catholic...