Most of us are/were pretty peeved about how downplayed the WY victory was. But I can see how it was easy to ignore them as the least populous state and due to the odd caucus system they used (mostly party insiders and/or major activists) However, their 12 delegates were as many as NH awarded.
But Nevada should count, however we're already seeing how downplayed it is in the national media coverage.
They're covering it for the Dems, but relatively ignoring it for the GOP. Figures, since most think Romney will win it and win it big. But it's the same day as the SC primary and that is monopolizing the media's coverage.
But is SC inherently more important than NV for this nomination?
OK, so we know that in recent history, no GOP candidate has won the nomination without winning SC. But this year is very different with at least three candidates still with very credible claims to taking it all, and two others who are still considered "top-teir" candidates. Usually, someone has established themselves after IA and NH and races into SC with the mighty momentum. Or, the race has been winnowed down to two people and SC has been the final elimination round for one of them.
But lets look at them objectively.
Both on Jan 19th
NV: 34 delegates up for grabs
SC: 24 delegates up for grabs
NV: Important swing state/purple state (i.e. we need someone who can show strong in such a state for the general election)
SC: Solid Red state . . . whoever the nominee is will win SC and most of the south.
NV: First western/mountain state on the docket (and much of that region are swing states)
SC: 1st southern state primary . . . and the south is pretty much locked up for the GOP.