Truthfully though, given Iowa and New Hampshire's purple status, I don't know if I would cut them out as many people suggest... if a party does, they might turn a purple state to another color.  It sounds silly, but a lot of people in those state parties I have met are really proud about the first caucus/primary thing.

If I had to pick 3, I would go with COlorado, Nevada, and Arkansas and put them into the Iowa and New Hampshire mix.  Should give a good cross section of the population.

I am all for a little more diversity in the early goings of the dem primary.  I was quite disturbed at how Kerry seemed to be able to lock up the whole thing after winning only Iowa and New Hampshire.  However, I think that having caucuses is the entirely wrong approach.

Also, can we please scrap the idea that we have to have early primaries in small states?  It is a silly idea to believe that underfunded candidates have any chance.  The game has changed substantially since Carter, and like it or not, money matters a great deal these days.  We should not let this outdated mode of thinking limit us to having primaries one state at a time in the early going.

We need to have Iowa, Colorado (or New Mexico), South Carolina, and New Hampshire all on the same day to start the primary season.  This provides for adequate geographical and racial diversity.

I think John Tester in Montana is a good example of a candidate whose message resonates with midwestern folk.  I wish we had a couple of him in Kansas.

Ethanol in Iowa is the same way.  90% of the country would not consider ethanol in the slightest when deciding which candidate to select, but in the earliest state of all, it is the most important thing.  States with strong issues well out of proportion with other parts of the country should not dominate the primary season.

I mean no disrespect to Nevadans, but there are two issues in Nevada that are disproportionately important to voters there: gambling and Yucca Mountain.  If you're not backed by the gaming industry, or if you support Yucca Mountain nuclear disposal, you are shot in Nevada.

I'm not pushing any particular policy preferences, but these two issues so dominate Nevada politics that making Nevada an early primary/caucus would create a litmust test out of two issues that are not particularly important to voters elsewhere in the country.  I have no ill will toward Nevada, but I do fear skewing the winner this way.  Momentum is everything in the primaries, and a win in Nevada could propel someone who shouldn't be the nominee based solely on these two issues.

I'd back Colorado like nearly everyone else, a potentially close Southern state (NC, VA, AR, LA, TN), and a close blue state (MI, PA, WA, OR, MN, WI, NJ).  This creates three footholds.  First, Colorado begins the Western strategy.  Second, a close Southern state helps find a candidate with the potential to appeal to Southerners and (in theory) puts those five states in play.  Third, the close blue state should help shore up the vote and millions of dollars for use elsewhere.

I would add in New Mexico and perhaps Montana as early primary states, for geographic diversity, and keep South Carolina early on.