Jonah, your “Iowa and New Hampshire become more important” scenario is plausible. But so is the scenario that says they become less important. They become more important if a serious but stalling candidate suddenly surges there, creating new enthusiasm and causing oceans of money to break loose. That’s the Kerry gambit from 2004.

But you have to think about this from a purchased-media perspective. There simply won’t be time to wait until Iowa and New Hampshire is over to raise the money to book TV-commercial time in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Orlando and Philadelphia.

Those ads have to be paid for up front. This is a serious concern. We’re talking tens of millions of dollars that must be on hand in campaign coffers. It will be the lavishly funded campaigns, like Giuliani’s and Romney’s, that will be able to get their ducks in a row in advance for this purpose. McCain’s fundraising so far has been disastrous, but he might be able to win Iowa and New Hampshire through the force of his personality and his visits there. What then? Can he get enough money together in time to do what is necessary?

Also, there’s the self-defeating factor of New Hampshire to consider. Which is this: If Romney continues to do well there, by the late fall the other leading candidates have good reason to abandon it entirely with the not-implusible claim that a popular Massachusetts pol is running in the Granite State and they can’t compete. If that happens, New Hampshire recedes in importance.