In her post “Florida, Michigan Democrats: Half a vote” made to The Swamp today, Christi Parsons included this gem: “Meanwhile, backers of Hillary Clinton took the ruling hard because it doesn’t fully restore the voting rights of states whose primaries she technically won.” I’m sure Mrs Clinton thinks this is true, but Ms Parsons should know better. It would make a lot more sense to say “it doesn’t fully grant voting rights to states which held primaries that didn’t technically happen, but which Mrs Clinton clearly won”. The DNC can’t possibly “restore” those votes; because the elections in question took place outside the rules, those votes never existed. There’s no point in saying that Mrs Clinton “technically” won those primaries, she flat out won them. The elections in those two states were held, and they were called primaries by the state parties, but they were not part of the process created by the national party. Some might say they weren’t “technically” part of that process, but the truth of the matter is that they simply weren’t part of it at all.

I know the DNC doesn’t much care about the opinions of monarchs, but I would have recommended giving visitor passes to the “delegates” from those two states. Well, most of them. I would have barred those who were in positions of authority in the state parties, those who scheduled the non-events, from even that.