Official West Virginia Democratic Primary Discussion Thread...

[Mr. Morden]

Here is round 1 of useless exit poll info:

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

That AP story has been updated with more info:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

http://thepage.time.com/

Fox News on exit polls: 78% want Clinton to stay in the race, 17% think she should drop out.

[Mr. Morden]

Donna Brazille on CNN, perpetuating the myth that every state except FL & MI complied with the DNC calendar rules....no mention of IA & NH's rulebreaking.

[Mr. Morden]

Donna Brazille on CNN, perpetuating the myth that every state except FL & MI complied with the DNC calendar rules....no mention of IA & NH's rulebreaking.

IA & NH both applied for waivers to the DNC and received them.

Yes, but only *after* they'd already moved their contests.  They moved to Jan. 3rd and Jan. 8th respectively, which was earlier than the DNC allowed (the original DNC calendar said they could go on Jan. 14th and Jan. 22nd respectively), and said "We don't care what the DNC says, we're going to vote on Jan. 3 and 8 no matter what."  The DNC gave them a pass in December 2007, after their dates were already locked in.

[Mr. Morden]

Formally the DNC didn't give them a pass until December, but informally, both states had consulted with Dean before making their moves and it was widely understood that they'd be given the pass. Florida was the first to make a move on May 3, and, in order to forestall a chaotic rush, the Rules Committee decided to set an example with Florida.

When Michigan followed in August, they had no choice but to do the same. New Hampshire's constitution requires that its primary be at least one week before any other primary. Therefore they legally had no choice but to move 1 week prior to Michigan to Jan. 8. After consultations with the DNC both NH and IA were allowed to move.

I used to think Dean behaved unfairly, but now I'm not so sure. Which state moved first-- New Hampshire or Michigan?

You have something of a point in the case of Iowa.  But with NH, they said from day 1 that they were going to violate the DNC calendar, as they would never agree to voting after Nevada.  True, they didn't formally select their date until after Michigan did, but they said many times before that that they were going to vote earlier than Jan. 22nd, no matter what the DNC said.  In fact, Michigan used this to justify their own actions.  They said "Well, NH says they're going to break the rules, so why shouldn't we?"

Go reread this thread, in which you agreed with me on this point:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=72920.30

[Mr. Morden]

So I guess I'm still unclear on the Michigan excuse. It seems they were saying "We'll go ahead and break the rules because New Hampshire has caveated themselves from following them in the case that following them becomes contradictory to their preestablished state law... which only happens if we move to Jan. 15" Seems like a narrow reed to hang your move on, but perhaps there's more that I'm unaware of.

No, NH moving up their primary and breaking the rules wasn't dependent on Michigan moving to Jan. 15th.  They repeatedly said they were going to do that anyway, because they wouldn't accept voting after Nevada, as the DNC rules required:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250502,00.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was way back in February 2007.