I think they just put a lot more emphasis on the snowball effect than you do; they're banking that a couple of wins in those early primaries will sway voters in the second round. And that's not really all that insane because media coverage of new Hampshire and Iowa is about half of ALL the primary coverage.
Candidates are sluts for the cameras because at the end of the day, sadly, it's the candidate who works the media the best who'll win.

I've been thinking the same thing myself. They're stuck in an obsolete pattern.

"sadly, it's the candidate who works the media the best who'll win." Well, no, actually. The media can run all of the stories they like, but the winner is the one who has the most votes at the convention. Period. That's all that matters. If I was running, I'd be putting all of my energy into the big states. It's the end total that matters, and Iowa and NH have very few votes.

The thing is that Feb 5 is not really a "second" round. Since it's so close it really counts as being among the first round. There just isn't time for any media or additional contributions from wins in Iowa or NH to seriously affect the Feb 5 elections. Only two weeks or so. They used to matter when there was six months to build on them, but that's all over now. If you don't have a well organized campaign organization and funds in place in the other states two weeks before the elections, you're in trouble. Not when you're dealing with huge states like TX and CA that need very extensive organization and lots of time.

As someone who lives in California, I have to say I'm amazed and appalled at the way the state with the most votes is being ignored. If candidates think they can show up here a week before the election and find a lotta love, they're sadly mistaken.

The campaigns are making the very rational assumption that the Jan 29 and Feb 5 states will be caught up in the "momentum" generated by whatever comes out of Iowa and New Hampshire. That is in fact the most likely scenario, given the pattern of presidential campaigns since the McGovern-Frazier reforms: states a week or so after a big primary tend to vote in the same way as that primary.

It's also a collective action issue. No campaign is going to invest in later states until other campaigns start doing so. If no one else is focusing on later states, why bother? Everybody will be "even."

"The media can run all of the stories they like, but the winner is the one who has the most votes at the convention."
Awwww. That's so quaint: the spirit of the Lincoln/Douglass debates will last forever!
Riiiight. And people vote for candidates they know personally? Candidates they've seen in person? Candidates they've met? At a town hall meeting (Ha!)?
Nope: the vast majority of people vote for the candidates they've read about online or in print, seen on TV, heard on talk radio, or remember from a bumper-sticker: the candidates with whom they most associate "presidentiality." Trying to downplay the the effect of mass mediation on politics in the 21st century is a sad little waste of time.
And yet: "There just isn't time for any media or additional contributions from wins in Iowa or NH to seriously affect the Feb 5 elections." Really? REALLY? What are you? Like a thousand years old and just coming to terms with the Inter-tubes and 24/7 TV news?
It's marketing, stupid. The candidate is the brand, their campaign is the advertiser, and you're the consumer.
But don't take my word for it, wait and see (or just look at EVERY presidential campaign since TV brought Nixon/Kennedy into livingrooms across America).

Isn't there still some serious question about whether the Florida Jan. 29 primary will be recognized by the DNC? Last I heard they were threatening not to seat delegates elected in that vote. I'm assuming the next DNC meeting will resolve the calendar, but until then I can't blame candidates for not putting staff and offices into some of the iffy states.

thanks