I think Nevada and South Carolina have only been early voting states for the last cycle or two. Geographic diversity is probably a concern, and in general, so is stopping all the states from rushing to be first. The DNC probably doesn’t want to piss off Iowa and New Hampshire, either, since those states go first by tradition and changing that would cause a lot of fuss.
There has to be some rules otherwise states will keep pushing their primaries up in some sort competioin to try and be early in the process.
“Tradition” is a bogus reason for keeping just about anything (except pitchers who bat, and no lights at Wrigley Field), and if it was just that, I’d be saying the hell with it, and deep-six that rule.
spoke-'s explanation is a bit more rational, and causes me to wonder why the machine Democrats didn’t make sure they controlled the DNC and just change the rule before they went ahead with the MI and FL early primary plans. If they’d been a bit smarter with their strategy, they might have been able to manage it. As it is, though, any future attempts to change the rule will be nothing but a headache.
Just more evidence that Hillary is a lousy executive. She can’t even pull off a proper election-rigging scheme. 
There is no authority that controls the primaries, and that’s true for both parties. The governments of Florida and Michigan voted to move up their primaries in spite of warnings from the DNC and the RNC.
But there does appear to be an authority that controls the seating of delegates at the convention. If the machine Democrats in MI and FL thought giving Hillary a leg up was such a great idea that they had to support their states’ moves, they would have been wiser to make sure it wasn’t going to bite them in the butt.
I know this was a joke, but we really wouldn’t be able to fault her for that anyway, given that
Stunning, isn’t it? Hillary Clinton is not the one in charge of her own campaign for President. Well just who in the hell will she put in charge of the government, were she to be the (figure)head of it, then, huh? What is the matter with the brain dead moron who tries to get away with putting forth this line of reasoning?
And is anything ever her fault?
Barack Obama got more good news today. Mississippi Superdelegate and Democratic National Committee Member Everett Sanders endorsed Barack Obama, as did North Carolina Superdelegate, Joyce Brayboy.
So far, since last Tuesday’s contests, Hillary Clinton has added no new Superdelegate support.
Maybe she’ll appoint a Presidential Czar…
Luckily, Clintonites don’t control all the levers of power. Howard Dean took a principled stand.
If Spitzer resigns in the wake of the just-unveiled prostitute scandal, then she’ll be minus one.
DemConWatch has my favorite superdelegate count, because it actually lists the superdelegates who’ve announced their support for each candidate, linking each name to a news source verifying that announcement. Underneath the columnar list of declared superdelegates at the linked page, there’s a chronological list of superdelegates who’ve declared on or after Feb. 22.
According to that list, Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) and DNC member Mona Mohib (DC) declared for Clinton on March 6, DNC member Aleita Huguenin (CA) did so on March 7, DNC member Mary Lou Winters (LA) ditto on March 8, and also DNC member Roberto Ramirez (NY) on March 10.
OTOH, 11 superdelegates have declared for Obama since the polls and caucuses closed last Tuesday.
There is great disorder under heaven, and the situation is excellent. 
Nonetheless, as I’ve already pointed out, we’re not a collective hive mind. If you want to be taken seriously (I’m OK with it if you don’t), you are obligated to keep track of specific Dopers’ positions, at least to the extent that you’re claiming that people are being inconsistent or contradictory in their positions.
Otherwise, all you’re saying is that Obama supporters don’t always agree with one another on everything. No shit, Sherlock. 
First, just so it’s clear I wasn’t guessing, I got my information from Mark Halperin over at Time.
However, just to clarify your site (which I also refer to from time to time, as well), those dates are not necessarily indicative of the dates the supers made endorsements, but the dates that the bloggers who run that site added them to the list based on finding online confirmation.
The linked article that supports an endorsement from Barbara Boxer doesn’t work, so I did my own search and found this:
So while this is certainly a superdelegate in her column as far as votes go, it definitely doesn’t qualify as an official endorsement, and certainly not one that came out after Tuesday’s primaries. Endorsements carry with them something entirely different and much stronger than simply voting for someone at the convention. They come with the person’s full support, campaign assistance, fund raising, etc. That’s not what Boxer has done, so based on that, this doesn’t count an announced endorsement since Tuesday’s primaries.
Mona Mohib is only quoted in the midst of their linked article as saying “I am pledged to Senator Clinton,” but there is no evidence of when that pledge was made. That’s certainly not something I would call an “endorsement” having come out on that date, either.
Same thing for Alieta Huguenin; no official endorsement, just a commitment to vote for Clinton at the convention because she won in her district, so this doesn’t count as an endorsement since Tuesday, either.
Mary Lou Winters “promised her vote to Clinton long ago” according to the linked article.
And lastly, Roberto Ramirez has been for Clinton since June 30, 2007 according to the link provided on your site.
So Halperin is right, no new superdelegate endorsements have been announced by Clinton since last Tuesday.
I do agree with you, however, the situation is most certainly excellent.
Spitzer is, indeed, resigning and could swear in his Lt. Governor as early as tonight. -1.
You are right. And once again, you’ve done your homework more thoroughly than anyone else in the thread, including me. I stand corrected.
I love that the girl in Clinton’s 3am ad supports Obama over hrc. LOL!
Hillary doesn’t fare well with America’s young people](http://youtube.com/watch?v=oW7s8TuvZ8U)
I was repling to your post not you, and my reply was directly at everyone here. If it had been meant 100% for you, it’d have been a PM.
Caucuses- no matter who wins them- are not slected by popular vote. They reflect the will of those party die-ahrds who went to the caucus. Superdelegate are very similar.
Small states certainly do have people with wills. But they also get extra delegates.
Here you are wrong- according to no less an expert than Dean himself: "“The states have two options, Dean says.
“They can come back to the DNC with a set of delegate selection procedures that do comply with the rules of the 48 other states, or they can appeal to the credentials committee at the Democratic National Convention,” he said." Italics mine. An appeal to the credentials committee at the Democratic National Convention is part of the system. I am suprised you don;t know that, I & others mentioned it many times, and I have quoted Dean at least 4 times that I know of. Again-an appeal to the credentials committee at the Democratic National Convention is perfectly legal and a part of the system. The “rules” say that the appeal is part of the rules.
By that logic, the winner of a primary is slected (sic) by party die-ahrds (sic) who show up to vote at the polls, and not by the couch potatoes who decide to stay at home.
And we already went over the small state thing.
That is categorically wrong.
Can you provide some evidence that the attendees at the Democratic caucuses this year have been largely “party die-ahrds [sic]”?
Ah, then I can show up at a library or firehouse on the appointed evening, and become a superdelegate?
Who knew?
Large states also have people with wills. You’d be surprised at how many people fail to die intestate.
But I had no idea that had anything to do with Democratic convention delegates.
Yeah, and I’ve responded to you here. You apparently don’t have anything new to say, so you are repeating the same old stuff that’s been addressed.
So what’s the prediction for Mississippi?