Does South Carolina have too much, too little, or an ok amount of influence on who gets nominated?

[Frodo]

If anything, South Carolina should have more influence on who gets nominated as opposed to two lily white states that are no longer reflective of either the Democratic Party or the country.  Why should it remain fourth on the primary calendar?

Seems okay.  South Carolina is a Republican base state and a reasonably good microcosm of the party for their primary.

For Democrats, South Carolina is a test run for how the presidential candidates are doing with the black vote.  This is very important for us.  Is there some other state which could fill that role better?

In another thread, I suggested Nevada and South Carolina (in that order) should replace Iowa and New Hampshire as the first two states on the Democratic primary calendar.

It has had mixed results based on the poll I posted.  

[Frodo]

So Democrats here by a three-to-two ratio think South Carolina gets too much influence in the nomination process even though it is the last of the first four states before the Super Tuesday primaries.

Why is that?  Is it sour grapes?  

[Frodo]

So Democrats here by a three-to-two ratio think South Carolina gets too much influence in the nomination process even though it is the last of the first four states before the Super Tuesday primaries.

Why is that?  Is it sour grapes?  

Because there's, at a minimum, 46 states that have less influence than it?

And we are singling it out because...?