Actually, I think my overall point is that regardless of the reasoning used for why such and such a state should go first, it boils down to interstate competition and politics in the purest sense of the word. Meaning people jockeying for position.
How the states get chosen has nothing to do with neutral states or sway states or 'what makes sense'. Politicians have to campaign and historically, it just turned out that these two states have a habit of going first.
There is no centralized nationwide planning body that decides which states go first so you can't call some voting commissioner and tell them your arguments for and against. States themselves compete amongst one another.
I think that's why some of these arguments for the 'logical' reasons why the Iowa and New Hamppshire should go first annoy me because they don't seem to reference the fact that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or what actually makes sense or even what is best for the country or the election.
Iowa and New Hampshire didn't get chosen because they are the best choices and now detractors are left with the burden of proof to show otherwise. It's a vagary of timing that turned into tradition which in turn becomes a fulcrum of power for those particular states and something they are going to protect. States elect themselves and eventually those two states WILL get knocked down for their pedestals soon. People nationwide are getting more interested in how leaders get chosen and want to feel enfranchised, younger people are getting more involved, and the nature of campaigning has changed in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. And that's what you call the American democratic process at work.
And please, don't hate on CA just because we were the first state with both a female senator and congresswoman, numerous celebrity politician sightings, and all you can eat avocadoes for $1 a pop.