It was a long night for those of us who followed the results of the Iowa caucus until it was called for Mitt Romney…barely.

With the first Republican primaries in our rear view and most candidates and reporters on their way to New Hampshire, I’ve seen a lot of people asking, including even @cspan: Did Iowa matter?

And I would add another question to the mix: did it matter more? Not in terms of whether it will impact the eventual Republican nominee or if it mattered more than New Hampshire or South Carolina or any other state…but did it matter more than it did four years ago?

I think the answer depends on what you’re measuring… if you’re measuring who won or who lost, the jury is still out.

But if you’re measuring the impact it will have on the media environment, the answer is yes.

Four years ago, when I wanted the latest coverage of the primaries, I turned on cable news or browsed stories on CNN.com.

But yesterday, despite the saturation of reporting from the mainstream media, I went directly for Twitter for the most recent updates and on-the-ground reporting from folks, including BuzzFeed’s @ZekeJMiller who just started the job. What Twitter offers isn’t cable news’ carefully packaged narratives, but off-the-cuff observations and knee-jerk analysis that really gave you the sense of what it’s like to really be in Iowa, media circus and all. It makes fun of the cable news hysteria.  And in 140 characters, there’s little room for partisan subtext and subtly – you know where they stand.

Another reason Iowa mattered more is because it was really the first glimpse we have into how election results will be reported. There’s still a hesitation to call an election too early…can’t shake 2000…but with Twitter you can see exactly who has the results when and who has them first.  Twitter is driving the cable news cycle, not the other way around.

But what I think is most significant…why Iowa matters most…is because it shows how far mainstream media has slipped in terms of relevance with ordinary Americans. Rick Santorum got the least coverage of all the candidates vying for the Republican nomination, yet he effectively tied the front runner. Just goes to show you that the only ones who will really decide the elections in 2012 will be the American people.

I predict that in four years, most folks will be getting, or at least complementing, their news with a Twitter feed or whatever comes after Twitter.  With Ben Smith moving to BuzzFeed, more candidates buying advertisements on Twitter…this is where it’s heading.

And I think that on balance, it’s a great thing for America. While we tend to tune into only cable news shows and read the papers that fit into and reinforce our worldview, I follow a lot of people on Twitter with whom I frequently and feverishly disagree. A variety of opinions, dissenting viewpoints, information without filter? Now, that’s democracy.