Kiplinger has an article about the Presidential primaries that attempts to explain the ins and outs of the front-loading that's going on. You can read it if you want, but it's 7th grade social studies stuff. I just thought I'd poke a few holes in it because it's so easy.
Kiplinger argument #1 - For presidential candidates, January and February will be do or die. How is this new? In 2004, by the time the New York primary came along, John Kerry had the race all but won, and the only people who had any reason to vote were the ones making personal political statements. I voted for Howard Dean anyway because I knew Kerry was the wrong man at the wrong time, Purple Hearts or no Purple Hearts. This time around, New Yorkers have a real reason to go out and vote on Feb 5th.
Kiplinger argument #2 - Iowa and New Hampshire will still go first. This could be the last time they do so. If front-loading the primaries results in a stronger nominee, you can bet there will be a national primary day next time, with more party control over the process. It's already happening, thanks to DNC chair Howard Dean. The state governments can pass all the laws they wants, but the party doesn't have to seat a particular state's delegates if they don't want to play by the rules. So there.
Kiplinger argument #3 - The early calendar is already giving the candidates migraines. If you can't deal with it, you don't need to be President of the United States.
Kiplinger argument #4 - Is it good for the democratic process? That all depends. That's a weasel statement if there ever was one. I would have to say yes to that. Remember in 2004, Howard Dean was leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He finished third in the Iowa Caucuses and faded fast after that. What happened? Club For Growth for one. If you are choosing the nominee on the basis of how well they do in one small state, like Iowa, you allow opposition groups like Club For Growth to concentrate their resources there for the simple reason that it costs a lot less to throw wrenches in Iowa (and it's a lot easier to hit your target in the back of his head) than in all 50 states at the same time. The $40 million we Deaniacs scraped together (which was a shitload of cash in 2004) came to naught.
There is also the usual whining about the loss of one-to-one contact and the decreased likelyhood that a "dark horse" might pull off an upset. Let's take these apart one at a time.
One-to-one contact is fine if you live in Iowa or New Hampshire. You get to shake hands or get served pancakes by somebody who just might be the next President of the United States. That's a story just cool enough to tell your grandchildren. If you live in one of the other 48 states, well, you're sucking. In New York, lots of people got to shake hands with Hillary Clinton because she's the junior senator there. I went to a Labor Day event in Watertown once where she was the keynote speaker. This sort of thing is an aberration, though. I would bet that since the 1940's, few New Yorkers have had the honor of meeting a future President of the United States face to face, and New York is a large state with lots of electoral votes (and lots and lots of Democrats). So how is having everybody vote on Feb. 5th any worse in that respect?
As for the "dark horse" argument, when was the last time a "dark horse" got nominated from either major party? Hmm? Can you name this candidate? Did he get elected President? Money talks and bullshit walks, and a national primary would change this in exactly zero ways.
Kiplinger argument #5 - A bigger question may be what happens after February. Nothing happens after February. The handful of states who didn't participate in the Feb. 5th Super Duper Free For All Tuesday will find themselves irrelevant, and the primary season will be over. The media will pack up and go home to cover the next Missing Attractive White Woman story, and the nominee gets to spend her (my money is on HRC to win) remaining primary cash going after the Republican presumptive nominee all the way up until the convention in August. Yep. Campaign finance reform really worked well this time.
So to sum up, national primaries would result in (1) greater party control over the process, (2) relevance for those states who lacked it before, and (3) possibly a stronger candidate who will be a better President. God knows we need one of those.