“These early primaries really don’t mean a lot. The media hypes them for the sake of ratings, and there are some things that can be learned from them, but doing bad in a couple early primaries that account for relatively few delegates doesn’t mean a candidate isn’t viable.”
I keep reading here that the early primaries don’t matter. If they didn’t matter, nobody would contest them. They matter because of the momentum to be gained or lost, and the fund raising opportunities that go with winning. Rudy decided to skip the early contests and try to get all his delegates after Fl. Fred seemed to be taking that same strategy, but then with 3 weeks left before Iowa, decided to contest it. His 3rd place finish in a virtual tie with McCain, while certainly not the kiss of death, isn’t really much of a victory either. It gets Fred a ticket to the next couple of primaries, but he has to win SC. A 3rd place finish in SC won’t get it done.
Obviously some states have a greater chance of supporting certain types of candidates, so they mean more for some candidates than they do for others.
Rudy doing badly in Iowa isn't a big deal for him. Fred's weak third place is more of a big deal to him than Rudy's considerably worse showing.
NH is relatively liberal, but often more small town liberal. McCain plays well there. If he did poorly there, it would be a very bad sign for him. Since Romney is well known there, he is expected to do well there.
However, a poor showing for Fred doesn't mean much.
You are however correct that doing well in early primaries can often translate into campaign donations, so they do have some importance in that regard, and they do skew the nomination process some because of that, but you still can't say that if someone comes in low in the pack on the first couple primaries that the race is over for them.