and moved in reaction to MI.

FL I have slightly more sympathy for but they still broke the rules.

Yes, because the DNC which was until recently led by Terry McAuliffe, and the Rules and Bylaws Committee which is packed with Clinton supporters, would totally want to skew the contests in Obama's favor.

And the best way to do that would be to not remove all the delegates from Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.  Even though Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada are, demographically, Clinton territory.

God, I need some of whatever y'all are smoking.

But litigate away.  Waste our time and our money.  You remember that Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada right?  (Well, Obama got the delegate edge in Nevada, but not by much.)  Convince the R&B committee to remove all the delegates from those four states.  It doesn't change the math.

Nothing skewed to Obama until Clinton lost. Yes, the other 4 get special treatment. It had nothing to do with Obama.

Small question if this election was going the way Hillary planned and it had all been over by Super Tuesday would you sincerely care about MI and FL or who went first or who didn't.

The Hill people lost both times.  Once in December, and once just today.  Try to keep up.

what about the other states that broke the rules?  Why are they not being punished, why were they given waivers?

They were given waivers, so they didn't break the rules.  That's why they aren't being punished.

Fail.  Thanks for playing...

Why don't you people get it?

First of all, there is nothing to litigate.  The Democrat primaries and caucuses are NOT elections.  It is a private political party polling members and (if they choose, nonmembers) about who they want to support as the party nominee for president.  It is a non-government, private political organization.  It can do whatever it pleases. Make whatever rules it wants.

That being said.  It was a lot of Hillary supporters who decided most of the current rules.

Yes, other states changed their primary and caucus dates, but these other states did not violate the DNC's rule that Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC go first, and in that order.   Indeed, the rule was, besides those 4 states, every other state could hold their primary or caucus NO FUCKING EARLIER THAN Feb. 5.  

Therefore, California and a host of other states moved their primaries and caucuses up to Feb. 5.

They were being good little states, and obeying the rules.  Florida and Michigan did not behave.  They broke the rules, and deserve punishment.

Put down the Kool Aid.

Now read this:

Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them--most notably strategist Harold Ickes--voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.) -- Slate

You got that? The Clinton campaign supported this ruling, and did this willingly. Do you think they would have done that if they thought it would skew the primaries in Obama's favor?

Do you think they're that dumb? Really?

Did MI and FL even ask for waivers at the time?

I don't know the answer ... I actually want to know.

If ignorance is bliss you must be a very happy person.

OH, now we are inferring intent into the rules...if that was the intent...

1. Then no waiver would have been needed
2. It should have been explicitly included in the rules as a remedy for states who break the calender rules

What don't you get about the fact that the other 4 states only moved in response to Michigan and Florida?  Michigan and Florida cheated, so the other 4 had to "cheat" to move the order back to what the DNC originally wanted.  I thought only Republicans value the letter of the law over the spirit of the law?

And again you ignore the crux of the problem: why did FL and MI get penalized, while the other four states didn't?

The answer is that those four states were approved by the DNC to go before February 5.  FL and MI were not.  Those are facts.

The Democratic Party is being consistent: Any state given permission by the Party to put its primary date before February 5 would not be penalized for moving their date to keep it first.  Any state not given that permission is penalized simply for moving their date to before February 5.

You didn't answer the other two objections either.  Should voters in FL and MI who didn't vote be disenfranchised and punished for taking the DNC and the candidates at their word?

And what happens in four years - well, more like two years - when there's a mad rush to be first, and the DNC is powerless to stop it?

You really can't make that case, not after the YouTube from last week with the Democratic party chair in FL making it obvious that they wanted the early date.  This was done in concert with FL Democrats.  

Do you guys and gals that are against FL being counted realize that this is something a Republican governor and legislature did to us?

Here's FL State Senate Democratic leader Steve Geller:

Yeah.  It's all the Republicans' fault...

The "yes" vote was almost unanimous in the legislature.

Probably ought to tell that to alegre then. :)

and get all your friends to do so as well.  Put up a comment at No Quarter and Hillis44 calling for people to come TR it.

Is it?  I doubt they could have changed the law in the limited timeframe they had (November to January) even if they were willing to do so.

The point is that Michigan pushed, not NH/NV/SC/IA.  Those four states had no need to push.

I've seen it on some other pages too...  But not all of them.

I explained why they were given the waivers, to correct what the rule breakers broke. Those four states getting the waivers only got them because of the rule breakers.  

In MI, Dems did the same thing. My in-laws in MI are mad at their state legislature and gov. They think its crappy what happen but also say that changing the rules now is more unfair. They realize their state broke the rules and now have to pay the penalty. And no, they aren't Obama people.

The primary wasn't "invalidated"--it was still held, and it was still a primary.

It was just a primary for zero delegates, because that's how many delegates the state of Florida was assigned by the DNC.

But the Republicans didn't invalidate Florida, and the Republican state government moved up THEIR primary.

So the SC Democrats had four options: primary with the Republicans on the 26th, caucus on the 29th, caucus after February 5th, or lose their delegates.

The first two both required a waiver, since the rules only allowed for a primary on the 29th.  The last two defeated the whole point of scheduling a demographically-balanced January in the first place.

So to save their schedule, the DNC gave them a waiver, and while they were at it let them have the 26th, because the only significance of the 29th was to put them exactly a week after NH on the 22nd, which wasn't even there anymore.

So what you're saying is, Hillary Clinton compromised her deeply-held convictions because she wanted votes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Seems like FL and MI could have used her as a champion back when it would have been politically dangerous but potentially effective instead of now when it is completely harmless but also totally symbolic.