Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

Which of these two scenarios do you think is the most fair?

1.  You voted in a primary that you knew in advance wouldn't be awarding any delegates, and despite some unsuccessful attempts to legitimize the results after the fact, your vote will remain a symbolic gesture.

2.  You voted in a primary that awarded your candidate a certain number of delegates, but some of those delegates that you helped elect have decided to invalidate your vote after being convinced to switch sides.

Hillary Clinton is asking people to sign a petition urging the Democratic Party to count the symbolic votes in Florida and Michigan. "The delegates they elected won't be seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August," she writes, ignoring the fact that no delegates were actually elected in either contest. "That's just not fair to those voters."

At the same time, Clinton is suggesting that lobbying Obama's pledged delegates to switch their votes is fair game. "There is no such thing as a pledged delegate," she said today. Clinton dismisses the idea that pledged delegates must be loyal to the voters whose voices they were selected to represent. "The whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee," she said.

Like most people, I support finding a way for Florida and Michigan to have their votes counted. But I disagree with Clinton's assertion that it's "not fair" to voters in these states if for some reason no mutually-agreeable solution can be found. These people cast their votes knowing they would not award any delegates, so there are no surprises here.

But for people in other states who elected delegates to represent their choices, it seems incredibly unfair to actively encourage those delegates to break their pledges. If a pledged delegate switches sides, they are essentially overturning the votes of all the people who they promised to represent. Even if it is within the rules to do so, if Clinton believes that every vote should count, then how can she support disenfranchising voters in this way?

How would you feel if the delegate representing your vote was encouraged to switch their allegiance?  


P.S. -- This is my first diary folks, so kid gloves please.

Tags: clinton, delegates, Florida, Michigan (all tags)

Comments

91 Comments

Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

It's always been fair game in the past. When did it change?

As for Michigan and Florida, we will lose them for a generation as blue states if we don't count their votes. I have no idea why anyone with an IQ over 90 (aye, there's the rub) thinks it's reasonable to not count them.

by Little Otter 2008-04-03 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

That's not his point.  It is how can Hillary be for a revote in MI and FL because the voters would be "disenfranchised", but she is willing to effectively disenfranchise voters by convincing the pledged delegates people voted for to support a different candidate than the delegate promised.

by mefck 2008-04-03 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

Thank you. Yes, that is the apparent contradiction that I see.

I understand its within the rules, but doesn't it undermine her message that "every vote should be counted?"

by jdusek 2008-04-03 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

We've always counted all the votes before and the delegates have always been fluid before. Ususally they vote as you expect. But Ted Kennedy wanted some flexibility. I have no idea why this is even an issue.

If you want to change the rules, that's fine. But you don't get to change them in the middle of the election, and you don't get to bust Hillary's chops because she's proposing abiding by the rules we traditionally abide by.

by Little Otter 2008-04-03 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

"The rules" also say we shouldn't count FL and MI.

by animated 2008-04-03 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

Ouch.  :)

by fogiv 2008-04-03 10:12PM | 0 recs
Hillary is open to a revote.. Obama isn't

That is telling me Obama is a sleazy operator, isn't it telling you the same?  

by architek 2008-04-04 03:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

Sure, if you don't mind losing in November. Already a quarter of the Democratic voters in Florida are telling pollsters they won't vote Dem in November, if their votes aren't counted. What do we accomplish by following a recently cooked up rule that was created in response to a bill advanced by Republicans?

Fluid delegates have never hurt the party before. I have no idea why they would now. I do know that not counting Florida and Michigan will probably turn them into red states for a generation.

by Little Otter 2008-04-03 10:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

Fluid delegates?  You mean pledged delegates?

And, could you imagine the uproar if some pledged delegates went against their promise and changed their vote.  I think everyone agrees they are allowed to under the rules (just like everyone agrees that MI and FL's primaries don't count under the rules).

by mefck 2008-04-03 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

In her quote that I referenced in my diary, Clinton is encouraging pledged delegates to substitute their own judgement for the will of the people they promised to represent.

Is it legal? Yes. Is it right? I'm not so sure.

I imagine plenty of Clinton supporters would be upset to learn that their delegates switched to Obama after being pressured by his campaign to ignore their obligations.

Should candidates actively pursue each other's delegates? Or should the candidates treat pledged delegates as off-limits?

 

by jdusek 2008-04-03 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

Are you actually reading any of your responses? yes, it's always been legal, and specifically so since 1980. Teddy Kennedy is the one who created the legality - he pushed very hard for it.

The delegates are fluid - that is a fact. The rule was rather vaguely stated but in 1980, after Teddy lost the delegate count to Carter during the primaries (Carter went in to the convention with the required number of delegates for the nomination), Kennedy took an ax to the vaguely stated rule allowing delegates to shift and now we have a rule that specifically states that they can shift. You got that? Carter won the necessary number of delegates and kennedy kept fighting anyway. He got the rules changed in the aftermath of that election so that they now specifically say that delegates can change their mind. That is a fact and that is a rule. Obama won't have the necessary number of delegates either, so he too will be looking to talk delegates into switching. I have no idea why you would think this is a problem.

Florida and Michigan not being counted are a problem because it makes them less likely to vote Democratic in November, and they are already telling the pollsters as much. Do you really want to run that risk? What's the upside?

by Little Otter 2008-04-03 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

So basically, you support the 'rules' when it's good for your candidate, but you would overturn the 'rules' when to do so is also good for your candidate?

Just want to make sure I'm understanding your position.

by vadasz 2008-04-04 01:04AM | 0 recs
When people vote, you count it..

or revote..

People's TIME IS VALUABLE...

Any 'candidate' who has no respect for people who spend time voting, despite the demands of modern life is no friend of mine.

That is no different than Bush and it would be an Obamination.

by architek 2008-04-04 03:51AM | 0 recs
Re: When people vote, you count it..

If you encourage pledged delegates to switch, then you're not counting the votes of people that voted in legitimate elections.

If I go out and vote for Obama, or you go out and vote for Clinton, and that vote elects a delegate for Obama, or for Clinton, and that delegate switches sides, my vote wasn't counted. In fact, it was counted as a vote for the candidate I didn't want to win. That disenfranchises me.

Every pledged delegate who switches disenfranchises hundreds, thousands, of people, substituting their individual judgment for the judgment of many, many people.

Legal? Yes. Allowed under the rules? Yes. Ethical? No. Right? No. Democratic? No. Disenfranchising? Yes.

On the other hand, you do want to make sure that each and every vote from illegitimate elections count, right? No matter that tens of thousands stayed home because all the candidates had pledged to not participate and said that the votes would not mean anything. No matter that this skewed the demographics very highly (much more so than those caucuses some people rail about). No matter that, in one of the states, the voters had no opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate. But, no, we must count these as is; no compromise would be acceptable because that would "change" the election results.

So:
1) legitimate elections can be changed any which way, and thousands disenfranchised, and that's all right because the rules allow for it.

2) illegitimate elections must be preserved at all costs, even though they disenfranchise tens of thousands, and even though the rules don't allow it.

Is that what you're telling me? That you're standing strong for disenfranchisement and illegitimate elections?

Just making sure.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-04 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

My first TR on MyDD,

thanks for the initiation, zerosumgame!

by vadasz 2008-04-04 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

"Already a quarter of the Democratic voters in Florida are telling pollsters they won't vote Dem in November, if their votes aren't counted."

If you are thinking of the same poll I am I think you are misrepresenting what it found.  Those voters said that they were "less likely" to vote for the Dem because of the FL primary issue--they did not say they "won't vote Dem in Nov."  Moreover, many of those polled are undoubtedly Hillary supporters who will say such things in an effort to secure a revote and boost her chances.  of those who aren't, a good number of them who have been living on this planet for the past 7 years and see how poorly the Republicans have run the country will relent and vote Dem in the General Election rather than place the reins of state in the hands of another Republican.  

The polls show Obama running a respectable race in FL now and there is no reason to suppose that the issue of whether FL delegates should count at the Dem convention will be as big an issue in the GE as it is now when outrage is fresh and really matters (i.e. before the Dem convention).

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-03 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

The Clinton hissy fit will be extra strong in FL...

by NJIndependent 2008-04-04 05:34AM | 0 recs
I find it interesting

that to you its ok according to "rules" to convince pledged delegates to change their mind and vote against the constituency desires, but "rules" FL and MI do not apply.

Honestly, thats definition of hypocrisy.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-03 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I find it interesting

Neither candidate can win unless pledged delegates switch their votes. You do understand that, right? Obama cannot get the number of delegates necessary to win, so if he is to do so, he is going to need to talk Clinton pledged delegates into voting for him. How do you think he is going to win if he can't do that?

As for Michigan and florida, the reason to include them is to do everything we can to keep them in the Democratic column. Both states had record turn out for their primaries. There is nothing positive to be gained for the Democrats in rejecting those votes.

by Little Otter 2008-04-03 11:40PM | 0 recs
you are changing the subject

The point is!!!

you are ok with rules on pledged delegates vote change, but not the rules on FL/MI.

Hypocrisy.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-03 11:50PM | 0 recs
There is nothing gained EXCEPT IF YOU WANT THE GOP

to win..

by architek 2008-04-04 03:52AM | 0 recs
Why did Obama vote against the predatory lending..

law that would have made usurious bank loan interest rates of more than 30% illegal in 2006?

He doesn't get it.

by architek 2008-04-04 03:54AM | 0 recs
Umm yes they can

 they just need super delegates.

by Student Guy 2008-04-04 12:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it interesting

Neither candidate can win unless pledged delegates switch their votes. You do understand that, right?

This is completely untrue, and no one should think otherwise. Neither candidate can win solely via pledged delegates. However, there are hundreds of superdelegates. Either candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win if superdelegates side with them. Obama has an easier route here because he has considerably more pledged delegates, but either candidate can be nominated if the superdelegates break the right way.

There is no need for either candidate to support disenfranchising thousands of people by asking pledged delegates to switch their votes.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-04 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I find it interesting

You are wrong on the delegate counting by failing to account for the superDs, and you are a hypocrite on the rules.  Can you be more ignorant?

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-04 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

The nomination will be decided for Obama before the convention and the MI and FL delegations will be seated with big smiles on their faces.

And no state will ever screw itself so royally by attempting a stunt like theirs again.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 10:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

It's never been fair game.  You're incorrect.

by Mostly 2008-04-04 12:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

Poor cash strapped, in debt Clinton campaign, they'll say anything right now to get on the news just to keep things stirred up because they can't compete in campaign ads.

Reminds me of those 'dead enders' they know their time is coming, so they need to say anything to make the news in order to hang on to a perception of relevance.

It's very sad, very sad indeed.

by Wary 2008-04-04 03:07AM | 0 recs
Its SAD that Obama DOESN'T UNDERSTAND

something so BASIC about DEMOCRACY..

I saw her on Jay Leno last night and she didn't look desperate at all.

If she loses and Obama wins and loses in the GE, many people will be EXTREMELY angry at Obama for what he has done. I have a feeling his own backers will be the most effected over the next four or eight years by McCain-onomics and gas prices and will end up losing their homes in the desirable city areas. How will his huge ego feel then? Knowing that if the Democrats had won, millions of people would not have been made homeless?

by architek 2008-04-04 03:59AM | 0 recs
Oh, I forgot.. as a slumlord's lawyer...

Obama probably would not have helped them much either..

Wonder why poor people don't see that?

by architek 2008-04-04 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Its SAD that Obama DOESN'T UNDERSTAND

I saw Leno also and thought she did look desperate.  She was talking too fast and was obviously making sure she got in every single talking point she has in her arsenal. The conversation was not at all comfortable, just a political screed. And Leno didn't let her get away with it when she said Obama had taken his own name off the ballot. He pointed out the obvious fact that it was because they were all told the voting wouldn't count.  He said it with a little laugh like, well, duh! She backed off quickly saying "well, we don't need to talk about than now". She came off as a typical politician IMO.

by Becky G 2008-04-04 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Its SAD that Obama DOESN'T UNDERSTAND

And if Clinton pulls out the nomination, legitimately or not (and I'm going to categorically state that a nomination that involves any pattern of pledged delegates switching their vote, or is made the opposite of any substantial lead in pledged delegates, will be widely perceived as illegitimate), and goes on to lose in the GE (which is considerably more likely than Obama losing in the GE, since she's looking to get fewer EV, and those that she gets are lower-odds), many people will be REALLY HUGELY EXTREMELY angry at Clinton for what she has done.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-04 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Cha cha cha chan cha changes!

I am looking through my list of "things that are really unlikely to happen in politics" to find out if there is anything ranked lower than "Obama pledged delegates switching to Hillary".  Currently I am only able to offer you two:

1   Dick Cheney handing himself over to the International Criminal Court, and apologising for all the bother over Iraq, and

2   Alegra posting a diary about how Hillary's campaign has been dogs dinner of the first order, and how Obama deserves to win by beating her soundly at every available metric.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 03:45AM | 0 recs
When will an Obama supporter
ever admit that Obama plays politics just as much as Clinton? How about this- is it fair for a state and all of its voters to be de-legitimized by Obama's cynical maneuver of taking his name off of their ballot?
by linc 2008-04-03 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: When will an Obama supporter

I fully agree that both sides are playing politics with FL and MI and have been since before either state voted. But I disagree with you that Obama delegitimized Michigan. The primary was already stripped of its legitimacy before Obama and Edwards removed their names from the ballot.  

by jdusek 2008-04-03 09:55PM | 0 recs
What makes the idiotic DNC 'legitimate'?

after THAT?

by architek 2008-04-04 04:02AM | 0 recs
While that might be the case

tell that to the people in MI who think they live in a democracy.

by linc 2008-04-04 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: When will an Obama supporter

Think of this, Clinton's claim that 'delegates' can go and 'vote their conscience' why that runs both ways doesn't it?

Just 'waht if' those Clinton delegates go and change THEIR votes to OBAMA--now under Clinton's call that it's all 'fair game' she'd have to swollow very hrd and accept it now wouldn't she?

OR what would happen--then it'd be 'disinfranchisement'--who knows, it changes each and every day--it's all s sad and people are getting extremely tired of all of this childish behavior.

by Wary 2008-04-04 03:11AM | 0 recs
I want the Democrats to WIN

A symbolic victory counts for little when you are losing the war.

Nobody will remember the Democrats. Does anyone remember the Whigs? Or the Democratic-Republicans? other parties that have made themselves irrelevant in the past.. and faded from memory...

Maybe the Republicanists will take over the Democratic party, having destroyed their own brand with Reagan-Bush-Cheneyism.. and the former Democrats will start a new party, the Progressive party or something like that.. IT HAPPENS..

by architek 2008-04-04 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: When will an Obama supporter

The state and all its voters were de-legitimized by the DNC rules. If you're looking for someone in either campaign to blame, that person would be Harold Ickes.

Obama did what a number of candidates did, and pulled his name off the ballot in accord with a pledge they all signed -- to not participate in any illegitimate election. The election was already illegitimate before he pulled his name off the ballot; the voters were already de-legitimized.

Was there political calculation involved in removing his name? Of course. Was it the right thing to do? Of course. Was he pledged to do it? Of course. Should Clinton have removed her name too? Of course, she was pledged to not participate. Even had Obama's name been on the ballot, would Michigan's election be legitimate? No, of course not. Clinton herself made it clear that those votes would never count.

The mess in Michigan is due, in order, to:

  1. The Michigan Democratic Party, and Gov. Granholm, for moving the primary.
  2. The Michigan Republican Party, for blocking the revote (and blaming Obama along the way). Mind you, the revote wouldn't have worked anyway since a key requirement was obtaining voter records from the invalid primary, and that's been declared unconstitutional.
  3. The Clinton campaign, for delaying any serious discussion of revotes for 6 weeks or more while insisting that delegates resulting from the invalid primary be seated.
  4. The Obama campaign, for possibly objecting to the revote plan that wouldn't have worked anyway.

Put blame where it lies.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-04 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

Oh, and here's a piece about the 1980 convention that discusses Ted Kennedy's creation of the rule that they aren't absolutely bound. it's Ted Kennedy's doing. Blame it on him.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/n ews/op-eds/history-of-superdelegates

by Little Otter 2008-04-03 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

That's about superdelegates, not pledged delegates.

Pledged delegates are just that - pledged.  They have to sign an oath to follow the will of the voters to the limits of their conscience,  is I think how the rule is phrased.

by Mostly 2008-04-04 12:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

All of this discussion about Clinton's take on these pledged delegates seems odd. Is there any evidence that HRC could actually enact her plan to sway the pledged delegates for Obama? I mean, just because she says it is fair game (and maybe it is), doesnt mean her campaign and its surrogates actually have the gravitas to enable it. I say have at it...lets see what happens.

by Newcomer 2008-04-03 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

If she can bowl more than a 37 on 10 frames , maybe she can pull it off.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/ photo/080404/482/2c04d9650ccc4e4d8a4777 467090b0ca

Stay glued to Ellen on Monday folks.

by lori 2008-04-03 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

That 37 bowling score sure helped Obama raised his campaign funds as folks at the last minute sent in tons of $37 donations--LOL!!!

by Wary 2008-04-04 03:14AM | 0 recs
Its my understanding that if they get to the conve

convention and neither candidate has a clear majority, then even the so called pledged delegates are free to vote for whoever they think is best and will win.

At least that is what I have read COUNTLESS times in the last few weeks...

Ive also read that this exact situation is not that unusual, so stop trying to pretend that Obama is in some way special and immune to the same rules that every other Presidential candidate has had to live with, including Bill Clinton. It was June before that one was decided..

by architek 2008-04-04 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

I think it's more a talking point designed to give her supporters a glimmer of hope. The pledged delegates are among the most enthusiastic supporters of either candidate out there, it's highly unlikely they'd ever switch. If there was any switching, it would probably be the other way since momentum is on Obama's side.

by animated 2008-04-03 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

The Obama campaign is going out of it's way to make certain that their delegates are Obama die-hards (at least here in my California CD).

Little Otter is right.  Trying to get pledged delegates to switch isn't a new tactic.  Fortunately, the Obama camp appears to be completely prepared for the poaching game.

by fogiv 2008-04-03 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

No, it would be a completely new tactic.  It's against the rules of the party.

by Mostly 2008-04-04 12:16AM | 0 recs
Die hard..

So, they would rather the party lose the GE than change their vote?

by architek 2008-04-04 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Die hard..

Oh right.  Now I see.  You're among the "Obama can never win the GE" sect.  

by fogiv 2008-04-04 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

Didn't know that.  I've gotten the impression it's something that's been going on for some time (i.e. prior elections).

In any case, Obama seems to be entirely prepared for it, which is heartening and shows just how impressive his ground team is.

by fogiv 2008-04-04 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

I think the reason this is coming up again is because for the first time today we hear the candidate herself saying pledged delegates aren't special. In the past a campaign surrogate might float the trial balloon of poaching a delegate here or there and it would spark controversy. A day later her campaign would then dispel the frenzy with a statement saying "we didn't mean to suggest that, don't worry."

Now, for the first time Clinton herself is openly discussing the possibility. I think this is a reflection of how cornered her campaign has become. They know their backs are to the wall. They can no longer afford the cost of playing nice on this front.

by tessellated 2008-04-03 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

You literally have no idea what you're talking about. In 1980, Carter went into the convention with enough pledged delegates for the nomination. Teddy Kennedy took a machete to the floor and began trying to carve as many delegates away from him as he could. The end result of his effort was a permanent change to the rule making it easier for a losing candidate to do, legally, what Kennedy did in 1980.

Neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough delegates for the nomination. Someone's pledged delegates will be switching, or there will be no nominee.

by Little Otter 2008-04-03 11:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

From the DNC convention rules:

"Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

by Mostly 2008-04-04 12:19AM | 0 recs
What I hear is sort of like the siren song of

an absolutist regime after a much hated and feared dictator has suddenly been openly challenged by the people, and suddenly, his followers realize that the future has other possibilities than domination by fear.. They don't know what the future holds for them or him.

Welcome to Earth... Obama needs to deal with it.

Whoever wins, wins.

by architek 2008-04-04 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: What I hear is sort of like the siren song of

Obama is WINNING, and will continue to do so until he secures the nomination.

When will you learn to deal with that?

by fogiv 2008-04-04 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

What does that have to do with what I said?

All I am suggesting is that Hillary's willingness to openly talk of poaching pledged delegates is a good indication of her campaign's level of desperation. I didn't say that it was "illegal" if she were to do so. I am suggesting that it is considered impolitic by many, something you implicitly seem to agree with by your own description above when you talk about Kennedy using "a machete".

Comically, though, it appears you aren't the one who knows what you are talking about since you get it completely wrong with your claim that unless pledged delegates switch neither candidate can win. Well, that's flat out false. Even if every pledged delegate remained, errr, pledged one of the candidates will still gain a majority of total delegates by winning over enough super delegates to push their total delegates past the magic number of 2025.

by tessellated 2008-04-04 02:32AM | 0 recs
Look whos worried now..

It would be good if Obama asked his supporters to support the winner of the nomination whoever they are.. like Clinton has.

His failure to do that shows an ugly side of him that makes me wonder if he should be President.

Can't he admit to his followers that he might lose, like other human beings?

by architek 2008-04-04 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

If she legitamises switching - I actually see more going over to Obama.  This could backfire bigtime.   Plus the smell of desperation isn't what you want to have about your candidate.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-03 11:59PM | 0 recs
Switching is normal, its not against the rules..

if either candidate can't win, the delegates can switch.. otherwise, the convention could end up not having picked a candidate-

by architek 2008-04-04 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Switching is normal, its not against the rules

No need to shout - we get your point, we just disagree.  The maths shows it can - and I predict will - be done with just the supers.  Ne need for pledged dels to switch.  If the supers break in such a way that there is still a stalemate, the smart money (all $40m of it this month) is the Clinton pledged dels going to Obama.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 04:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

I think this is a great point. She's also suggested that the superdelegates could overrule the winner of the pledged delegates and the popular vote. Doesn't seem like keeping voters enfranchised is exactly her first priority.

by animated 2008-04-03 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

Take it up with Ted Kennedy. He's the one who wanted a rule stating that pledged delegates don't have to vote for the candidate that they are allegedly pledged too. He too an ax to those rules in 1980 and it has remained since then that delegates can vote for whomever they want when they get to the convention. No one has regarded that as disenfranshisement before. Why now? And why is teddy on the side that is proposing changing the rules he's responsible for creating?

by Little Otter 2008-04-03 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

I don't think anyone is suggesting a "rule change" regarding pledged delegates.  

The point is that the practice of poaching the pledged, while practically a political tradition, is a little distasteful and contrary to HRC's "every vote counts so don't disenfranchise" meme.

by fogiv 2008-04-03 10:23PM | 0 recs
Delegates are not the same as votes..

Its a two step process.. Delegates to a NOMINATING convention are there to be able to decide.. which may mean switching if they have to.

You Obamabots may not see it that way but I bet most of your DELEGATES would rather have someone in the White House that cares about states like Michigan and Florida being counted and not some fiend who is willing to bring the whole party down with him just because he doesn't get his way, and doesn't get to change the rules to fit him.

by architek 2008-04-04 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegates are not the same as votes..

Wow.  Powerful comment.  It in no way resonds to mine, and simultaneously manages to hurl a number of baseless insults.

Here's how it reads to people with an IQ above 40:

Huff, puff, huff, puff.

blah, blah, blah, MICHIGAN, blah, blah, blah, FLORIDA, blah, blah, blah, OBAMABOTS, blah, blah, blah FIEND, blah, blah, blah...

by fogiv 2008-04-04 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

But just as you've argued that yes, well, maybe by the rules Florida and Michigan shouldn't count, but if they don't, it'll be a big problem for the party because voters would have no say ... can you not also see the argument that yes, technically pledged delegates don't have to stay pledged, but it would be a big problem for the party because voters would have no say?

Come on, now.  Either we play by the rules, or we go for the "everyone's vote is important" path.

Frankly, I don't think any pledged delegates for Obama or Clinton will switch while either are in the race -- the campaigns control who they are, after all -- so it's an incredibly stupid meme for Clinton's camp to push, since it just shows the disingenuousness of the idea on the other hand.

"Florida and Michigan need to have their voices heard so they can democratically choose delegates who will ignore them and vote for me instead" is a pretty hard argument to sell, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put the two ideas together like that when your campaign's pushing them both on the same day.

Yeah, I agree -- Michigan and Florida not voting is a potential problem for the GE, moreso for Florida.  But if we can't come up with a solution that maintains the integrity of the contest and the party rules, then not counting them is the next best option.

If I had to guess, I'd think that one or both of these scenarios will occur:

1. Obama will gain the clinch with the states counting and will ask the credentials committee to seat them (that this would happen for one candidate, whoever it was, was obviously the hope for the DNC all along); or
2. the rules committee will reconvene and change the sanctions to something less onerous to allow representation of some sort.

Both of those solutions fall within the rules and ultimately grant the states their delegates.

by Rorgg 2008-04-03 10:32PM | 0 recs
at the end of the day

I honestly believe it's more likely that Hillary loses pledged delegates than the other way around. Look at the super delegates who are waffling. Cantwell, now Corzine most recently.

by highgrade 2008-04-03 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: at the end of the day

You're right. The irony is that Hillary is also telling her own delegates, super and regular, that they are are as free to abandon her as Barack's are to abandon him.

But which bandwagon will people more likely jump to, the one in front or the one behind?

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 10:38PM | 0 recs
In front of a train?

After the past few weeks, a lot of people are very angry at Obama. I hear people talking about it on the street.

by architek 2008-04-04 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

With the right hand Hillary says she wants all the votes counted. With the left hand (behind her back with fingers crossed) she says they don't mean anything.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 10:35PM | 0 recs
it's all about confusion

the more confusion her campaign can create, the more she can say "well we don't know till the convention' cause anyone can change their vote.

then the longer she can stall waiting for a miracle event that renders Obama " unelectable.

It's like th global warning deniers - all they need to do was create the illusion of debate about the topic.

by holder 2008-04-03 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: it's all about confusion

You're exactly right.

She has no intention of "delegate poaching".  Pledged delegates are exactly that - pledged.  And even if they weren't, it's unlikely to succeed.

She's doing this to sew confusion.  To make it seem like her odds of winning are greater than they are, and more importantly, to make people stop paying attention to the pledged delegate count, and instead look at the estimated popular vote, where she has a better chance of catching up.

Going by popular vote is impossible though, because a) there are a bunch of states that don't even keep track of those numbers, and b) it's another way of saying caucuses don't count.

by Mostly 2008-04-04 12:23AM | 0 recs
What do you see in Obama that makes him worth THIS

He's a player, a guy who wouldn't even vote against banks charging poor people 30 friging percent on home loans, a guy who misrepresents himself as having a solution on health care but who obviously doesn't care for the solutions that most people want and can afford. He is like a slippery snake on issues that matter to people. Don't you want to see a CHANGE in Washington from the sleazy politics of the last EIGHT YEARS? Obama isn't a change, he's more of the same under a different banner.

I'm sorry, but thats the truth.

by architek 2008-04-04 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: What do you see in Obama that makes him worth

Unlike Hillary, Obama's record is not one of collaborating with the worst of Bush's agenda.

That will have to be change enough for me in this election.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-04 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

so, the clintons demand loyalty from bill richardson but... pledged delegates., well, no so much.    they can be disloyal and be proud of it!

by soros 2008-04-03 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

Gee, I wonder why in the world Hillary's negatives are so high?  She always shows the highest concern for democracy and the will of the people.

by zadura 2008-04-03 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

It's really touching.  It's not about her, it's about the good people in Florida and Michigan!

Pay no attention to her campaign manager who voted to strip their delegates to begin with.

by Mostly 2008-04-04 12:29AM | 0 recs
People like you guys TELLING LIES about her..

isn't it obvious?

The reason you hate her isn't because she's bad, its because you are and she is so GOOD.

The common thread in your lies is that you keep trying to knock her down to your level..

Good luck.... it wont work. Even if she loses, we all lose.

Nobody will love OR remember you for it.

by architek 2008-04-04 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: People like you guys TELLING LIES about her..

Yes.  This is what we need more politicians and followers who have a good vs. evil view of the world.  

Have I seen this movie before?

by zadura 2008-04-04 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

Hillary Clinton either doesn't know the rules of her own party, or she's lying.

The DNC Convention rules state that "Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."  They aren't free to jump from one candidate to another barring extraordinary circumstances.

One thing I give her credit for is that she's much better working the press, and much more agile with things like this than Obama is.  If the situation were reversed, Obama would be telling Pennsylvania voters, "Hillary doesn't want your votes to count.  She wants to rig it so that when you cast your votes, you won't know which way they'll come out."

And he'd be right.

by Mostly 2008-04-04 12:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

I mean SHE'D be telling voters that about him.

by Mostly 2008-04-04 12:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

Not one person reading this diary has asked for a citation or a link.  Prove that this is what she is saying, then discuss.  Let us read her own words then we can judge for ourselves.  I find it very curious that people assume guilt without proof.  Just saying....

by moonheart 2008-04-04 02:43AM | 0 recs
*shrug*

It happened...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYZgA 7WteUb9U3JSyrUQKfAspQxQD8VQQTBO0

Clinton, who trails Obama in pledged delegates and is unlikely to overtake him, also hinted that she hoped to persuade a few of them to back her instead of him.

"There is no such thing as a pledged delegate," she said.

Both Clinton and Obama were to address the state convention of the North Dakota Democratic Party on Friday, where delegates to this summer's national convention will be allocated. Obama crushed Clinton in the state's Feb. 5 presidential caucuses, 61 percent-36 percent.

The former first lady said she was going to North Dakota to thank her supporters and delegates -- and wooing Obama supporters was fair game.

Pledged delegates are a "misnomer. The whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain," Clinton said. "And I think that process goes all the way to the convention."

... deal with it.

by kraant 2008-04-04 02:58AM | 0 recs
Re: *shrug*

Well, actually, I don't need to deal with it.  I wasn't implying that she did not say what was claimed.  Just voicing my surprise that no one asked for proof, and my surprise that the diary was written without a citation.  Shrug right back at you!  My feelings?  This is politics, whatever happens, happens. Just saying...

by moonheart 2008-04-04 04:09AM | 0 recs
Would you like a hug?

by kraant 2008-04-04 04:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Would you like a hug?

thank you, what a nice civil reply.  I don't need one now, but I will put it in the bank for another day, if you don't mind.  :-)~

by moonheart 2008-04-05 02:52AM | 0 recs
Maybe I am not remembering the past correctly

but haven't delegates had to switch at conventions in the past, or were they 'fixed'?

Why have a convention, then? Why not just tally them up?

by architek 2008-04-04 04:38AM | 0 recs
Stunning hypocrisy.

Shorter Clinton: "Count all the votes that favor me. Switch those that don't."

Under her model, why have elections? Just grab a random group of people off the street, call them delegates, and tell them to vote for her.

by MBNYC 2008-04-04 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Calls Pledged Delegates a Misnomer

why only option 1 or 2?

how 'bout just counting their votes and delegates?

by nikkid 2008-04-04 07:08AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads