Cycloptichorn wrote:Is that why Michigan has tried the same nonsense twice before? Because of what New Hampshire did this cycle?
Nope. Michigan tried it before because they wanted to challenge a corrupt system.
Michigan didn't do it in 2004 because the DNC promised reform.
That reform changed the rules to make New Hampshire go after the Nevada caucus.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Bull. Michigan, like FL, wanted money. And that's it. Carl Levin wants money and influence. And that's it.
Nope. Michigan only reacted to New Hampshire being allowed to ignore the reforms and move ahead of Nevada.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't have to decree anything; I am merely describing the system which currently exists, and isn't going to change.
And no amount of childish puling by you will make it change.
The only thing childish is your insistence that the system isn't going to change.
It is going to change, and there is nothing you can do to stop change from coming.
You might be able to put forth a case that we should still have a system that puts small states first. But simply "stating that it is going to be that way" is a very bad way to try to make such a case.
And misconstruing the facts to cover up Michigan's unjust treatment only causes people to resist listening to any case you might present.