What I don't understand is why Hillary Clinton didn't protest the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan before the candidates agreed not to participate. Why did she sign that agreement at all? It was clearly not in her interest. If she'd protested early, she'd be in much better shape now, her opponents would have a much harder time painting her actions as a naked grab to fix the game in her favor, and there would have been a better chance of her actually succeeding in having Michigan and Florida delegates counted.
I can only think of two possibilities. On the one hand, maybe she just thought she had the election in the bag. Maybe she though she could win the nomination without those two states, and there was no point in raising a stink. Pride goeth before a fall.
The other possibility is she didn't believe the DNC penalty would stick. She assumed she'd get the delegates, even with Obama not on the ballot in one state, and was happy with the advantage of reaping the delegates without to campaign.
Neither of those explanations is flattering, but I can't honestly think of another. Either way, it was a bad miscalculation on her part.
My final question was sincerely meant; I honestly don't understand why the Clinton campaign didn't challenge the DNC decision earlier. Maybe it would have had a political downside in some way I don't understand. [ Parent ]
And no, this wasn't a bad decision on the DNC's part. It was the DNC that royally screwed this up. If they wanted to punish both Michigan and Florida for moving those primaries forward, they should have stripped those states of their superdelegates, since they as elected officials were the individuals who actually acquiesced to move the primaries in the first place. Instead, they get to keep their status, while the voters of both states are disenfranchised for decisions not of their own making. Go figure. [ Parent ]
Make a new account