This isn't about seating Michigan and Florida...

[Mr. Morden]

It's a very simple concept. You break a rule, there are consequences.

Unless you're Iowa or New Hampshire.  In that case, you break a rule, and the rules get rewritten for you.

[Mr. Morden]

The DNC effed this thing up from the start. It should never have stripped FL and MI and should never have encouraged the candidates to drop their names from the ballot in those states.

I must have missed the part where the candidates took their names off the ballot because the DNC told them to, rather than as a tactical decision re: whether it helps them to participate in a symbolic beauty contest that awards no delegates.  In fact, I must have completely missed the DNC making any comments whatsoever about whether candidates should pull their names from the Michigan ballot.

[Mr. Morden]

It did, however, secure from the candidates a pledge to not campaign or participate in any pre Super Tuesday primary not approved by the DNC (namely, Florida and Michigan).

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong on that too.  The DNC initially proposed to strip delegates from candidates who campaigned in states that broke the rules, but then they changed their minds.  The final rules just stripped the offending states of all delegates, but didn't say anything about campaigning there.

It was the chosen four states (IA/NH/NV/SC) who demanded that the candidates not campaign in FL & MI (the "four state pledge").  The candidates chose not to campaign in FL & MI in order to appease those four states.  Not to appease the DNC.  (Note also how, once those four states had already voted and she didn't need to pander to them anymore, Clinton suddenly decided that the FL & MI delegations needed to be seated, after being more or less silent on the matter up until then.)

[Mr. Morden]

The candidates chose not to campaign in FL & MI in order to appease those four states.

Nonsense. The candidates didn't sign those pledges to "appease" the small states. They signed those pledges because the DNC - by stripping FL and MI - gave them no reason not to. The candidates wouldn't have hesitated to campaign in FL and MI if those states hadn't been stripped of their delegations, the "four state pledge" be damned. Even with halved delegations, Michigan and Florida would still have been among the biggest prizes pre-Super Tuesday.

Well, OK, that is sort of what I meant, but perhaps I could have explained it better.  You said "It did, however, secure from the candidates a pledge to not campaign or participate....", which is not really correct, as the DNC didn't secure that pledge.  The DNC did *enable* that pledge by stripping the delegates.  And yes, if they hadn't stripped the delegates, then the candidates would never have gone along with the four state pledge.

But if it wasn't for IA/NH/NV/SC demanding the candidates' loyalty, I think there still would have been some campaigning in FL & MI, at least by Clinton.  True, no delegates, but if she thought she was going to win them, and she wasn't constrained by any promises to ignore those contests, she would have still made some kind of effort there, in order to make them seem important, so as to get some kind of momentum boost.  Same reason why so many candidates spend so much money on the Iowa straw poll, even though it awards zero delegates.

[Mr. Morden]

The (hopefully soon to be "ex")party leaders in FL and MI didn't think the DNC had the balls to punish them.

Too bad the DNC didn't have the balls to punish IA & NH too.

[Mr. Morden]

How many people who would've normally voted didn't just because they thought it "wouldn't count"?  I think most everyone thought that the votes would eventually count once the nominee was settled.

Right.  *Once the nominee was settled*.  In other words, once it's established that the votes won't actually influence the outcome.  In that case, what's the point of voting, since the outcome in the state is definitely not going to influence the choice of nominee one way or the other?