PDA

View Full Version : Is the Clinton campaign seeking "steal" Obama's elected delegates?


jAZ
03-10-2008, 10:16 AM
Hillary: Pledged Delegates Can Switch Candidates
By Eric Kleefeld - March 9, 2008, 11:00PM
A few weeks ago the Clinton campaign shot down a report that they would seek to entice Barack Obama's pledged delegates into flipping over. Now the idea is being floated again ó by Hillary herself.

"There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and super-delegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose," Hillary told Newsweek, when asked how she can win the nomination despite the current delegate math.

"Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process."

(Via Mark Halperin)

Late Update: Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer e-mailed Election Central to say that his previous statement on this ó that the Hillary camp has not and will not pursue Obama's pledged delegates ó is still operative and that there's been no change of position. It's worth noting that in the Newsweek interview, Hillary didn't say outright that she would be pursuing them, and merely stated what the rules governing the delegates are (which can be read as implying possible pursuit of them later, of course).

Despite the denial, her comment doesn't appear to be off hand or unintended. Her campaign manager for delegates said the same thing out of no-where.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Ickes_Pledged_but_not_bound.html

Ickes: Pledged, but not bound


On a conference call with reporters, Clinton aide Harold Ickes noted that pledged delegates aren't formally bound to vote for the candidate they're elected to support.

"That binding rule was knocked out in 1980," he said. Ickes didn't actually suggest that the Clinton campaign would court pledged delegates, something they've disavowed; he just stated the rule. Still, an interesting note.

He also rejected my suggestion that Clinton needs to damage Obama, or prove he's not viable, to win.

"This is not a question fo trying to damage somebody Ė this si a question fo trying to fully understand all the particular aspects of each of the candidates," he said. "We think that she has been vetted for the last 15 years. Thereís not another shoe in her closet to drop. It is clear that too much is yet unknown about Senator Obama."

ALSO: Ickes can't resist a little jab at Mark Penn, also on the call.

"Iím not going to make any predictions. Iíll leave that up to Mark," he says.

Mr. Kotter
03-10-2008, 10:21 AM
Yes. Yes they are.

pikesome
03-10-2008, 10:34 AM
This doesn't seem like an option she wouldn't take.

Depending on how much ruthlessness you think our Supreme Potentate needs, maybe this is a mark in her favor for the nomination.

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 10:36 AM
Is there a reason she wouldn't/shouldn't try to steal them? :shrug:

jAZ
03-10-2008, 10:36 AM
Depending on how much ruthlessness you think our Supreme Potentate needs, maybe this is a mark in her favor for the nomination.
When did "ruthless" become a valued quality in an elected leader?

jAZ
03-10-2008, 10:37 AM
Is there a reason she wouldn't/shouldn't try to steal them? :shrug:

Ask them, they seem to be denying the strategy.

pikesome
03-10-2008, 10:43 AM
When did "ruthless" become a valued quality in an elected leader?

Besides the not-obvious-enough dig at Hillary, there is a certain amount of drive El Jefe (or La Jefa in this case) needs. Once it gets to the point you'd call it "ruthless" it's probably gone too far however.

HonestChieffan
03-10-2008, 10:46 AM
Delegates are free to change

Cave Johnson
03-10-2008, 10:48 AM
Is there a reason she wouldn't/shouldn't try to steal them? :shrug:

If you're cool with fracturing the party and turning what should have been a cakewalk in November into an almost certain loss, then no, there aren't any arguments against this.

pikesome
03-10-2008, 10:51 AM
Delegates are free to change

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/jeopardy4.jpg

Alex, I'll take "What is disenfranchising voters?" for $500.

HonestChieffan
03-10-2008, 10:51 AM
The real point is that the delegates have an obligation to the party first. Doing what they believe is the best thing for the overall good and the ultimate success in the election. Over the past few weeks the bloom is off the Obama rose...the delegates can see that under presuure the golden halo is not gold...he is shallow on his plans and the press is seeing that. The Texas and Ohio effort shows how strong Hillary really is and how good a campaigner she is when the focus is on issues and content.

Cochise
03-10-2008, 10:52 AM
Is there any party rule that says they are required to go with who their state votes for? I didn't think there was.

All this hand wringing about what Clinton is doing that is within the rules, about delegates and superdelegates... if you guys don't like it, maybe you should pressure the party fat cats to give up their final say over who gets the nomination.

DaKCMan AP
03-10-2008, 10:57 AM
The real point is that the delegates have an obligation to the party first. Doing what they believe is the best thing for the overall good and the ultimate success in the election. Over the past few weeks the bloom is off the Obama rose...the delegates can see that under presuure the golden halo is not gold...he is shallow on his plans and the press is seeing that. The Texas and Ohio effort shows how strong Hillary really is and how good a campaigner she is when the focus is on issues and content.

Your and idiot.

In other news, Dewey defeats Truman!

memyselfI
03-10-2008, 11:28 AM
Is there a reason she wouldn't/shouldn't try to steal them? :shrug:

No kidding. Those delegates are not bound by a damn thing until they actually cast a vote. They can pledge a different candidate daily if they wish.

I actually don't agree with the stealing characterization. She's being a POLITICIAN. All is fair in love and war in that game. Obama will have to decide to keep his image in tact and not play the game and face losing or he'll ditch his carefully crafted (IMO false) image and decide to play to win. Either way, he's not going to win easy.

HolmeZz
03-10-2008, 11:34 AM
mmmm democracy never tasted so gooood

We'll defy the will of the people; Hillary '08!

pikesome
03-10-2008, 11:37 AM
mmmm democracy never tasted so gooood

When do we get to the "democracy" part?

memyselfI
03-10-2008, 11:38 AM
If you're cool with fracturing the party and turning what should have been a cakewalk in November into an almost certain loss, then no, there aren't any arguments against this.

BS argument. Hillary has consistently polled as winning more registered DEMS than Baaaarack. Don't cry to me about a fractured party of newly registered Dems or CONS/Indies masquerading or deciding to vote Dem.

Cave Johnson
03-10-2008, 12:10 PM
BS argument. Hillary has consistently polled as winning more registered DEMS than Baaaarack. Don't cry to me about a fractured party of newly registered Dems or CONS/Indies masquerading or deciding to vote Dem.

You're deluded if you think that won't be the result. It's stunning to think that the party that fought for every FL vote to be counted in 2000 would reverse course 8 yrs later and allow super and pledged delegates to be bought and sold by the loser of the actual election. Or the party that railed against Ken Blackwell conspiring to steal the 2004 election in OH.

The kindest way I can characterize your notion that new D's or indies don't matter is batshit-crazy. Last time I checked, less than 50% of the population is registered D. Ergo, you do in fact need indies and new party members to win. But winning 50% of the electorate isn't what the Clintons are about, is it.

HolmeZz
03-10-2008, 12:26 PM
BS argument. Hillary has consistently polled as winning more registered DEMS than Baaaarack.

I know information isn't your strong suit, so let me help you out.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

memyselfI
03-10-2008, 12:27 PM
You're deluded if you think that won't be the result. It's stunning to think that the party that fought for every FL vote to be counted in 2000 would reverse course 8 yrs later and allow super and pledged delegates to be bought and sold by the loser of the actual election. Or the party that railed against Ken Blackwell conspiring to steal the 2004 election in OH.

The kindest way I can characterize your notion that new D's or indies don't matter is batshit-crazy. Last time I checked, less than 50% of the population is registered D. Ergo, you do in fact need indies and new party members to win. But winning 50% of the electorate isn't what the Clintons are about, is it.

I'm not deluded. I'm a lifelong Dem who knows other lifelong Dems who don't have a vested interest in EITHER of these candidates. When a campaign is this close and there is no clear winner (meaning enough to clinch the nomination) then the process must play itself out and it might be painful and it might be difficult but it must be done.

Democrats are not completely sold on EITHER candidate and there are still a number of states who have not voted. No pledged delegates are set in stone they are merely promised AT THIS POINT. If this process goes on another three months they could change AGAIN as they did in the previous two months from the beginning of Jan to the beginning of March.

And that is what the Baaaarack people are afraid of. Time is NOT on their side and the only thing they can do is hope their guy can protect his lead and try to make the contest look corrupted when in actuality it's built in as part of the process.

The Obamessiah people have only ONE person to blame if he can't or hasn't cemented the nomination and it's NOT Hillary Clinton. Likewise, her folks have only one person to blame as well.

Those of us not smitten with either candidate can see this contest is still open and competitive and NEITHER candidate deserves nor should be crowed the winner because they or their camp feel they should be.

memyselfI
03-10-2008, 12:30 PM
I know information isn't your strong suit, so let me help you out.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

I know truth isn't your strong suit so why don't you check the individual results over the past couple of months and see where DEMOCRATS have voted in those races. Not the crossovers. But exit polls have indicated Hillary has consistently won the Democratic vote whereas Obamessiah has been helped by the crossovers.

RedDread
03-10-2008, 12:33 PM
You're deluded if you think that won't be the result. It's stunning to think that the party that fought for every FL vote to be counted in 2000 would reverse course 8 yrs later and allow super and pledged delegates to be bought and sold by the loser of the actual election. Or the party that railed against Ken Blackwell conspiring to steal the 2004 election in OH.

The kindest way I can characterize your notion that new D's or indies don't matter is batshit-crazy. Last time I checked, less than 50% of the population is registered D. Ergo, you do in fact need indies and new party members to win. But winning 50% of the electorate isn't what the Clintons are about, is it.

Nailed it.

HolmeZz
03-10-2008, 12:35 PM
I know truth isn't your strong suit so why don't you check the individual results over the past couple of months and see where DEMOCRATS have voted in those races. Not the crossovers. But exit polls have indicated Hillary has consistently won the Democratic vote whereas Obamessiah has been helped by the crossovers.

1) Explain why Obama is winning head-to-head Democratic polls.

2) Crossovers have done a good job padding Obama's victories. And contrary to your retarded beliefs, you need crossovers to win in the general. The party needs to be expanded if you have any hopes of winning in the Fall. Trotting out another traditional party figure won't change that.

Carlota69
03-10-2008, 12:39 PM
Those of us not smitten with either candidate can see this contest is still open and competitive and NEITHER candidate deserves nor should be crowed the winner because they or their camp feel they should be.

I saw poll on CNN last night that shows Dems are basically tied, Obama with 45% and Clinton with 44% nationally. This thing is far from over.

You're deluded if you think that won't be the result. It's stunning to think that the party that fought for every FL vote to be counted in 2000 would reverse course 8 yrs later and allow super and pledged delegates to be bought and sold by the loser of the actual election. Or the party that railed against Ken Blackwell conspiring to steal the 2004 election in OH.


It is ironic that FL is in play the way it is. What to do? In 2000 we complained that the popular vote is what really matters, but if Obama doesnt win the popular vote, but the delegates (the electorate as Bush did in 2000), what do we say then?

Boy did the DNC **** up good.

Carlota69
03-10-2008, 12:52 PM
Also, where does it say she is going to "steal" delegates? It doesn't at all. What they are talking about is within the game rules.

I'm a Obama supporter, or at least, I am going to vote for him, but this hypocrisy within the Obama camp is a complete turn off.

Cave Johnson
03-10-2008, 12:58 PM
I'm not deluded. I'm a lifelong Dem who knows other lifelong Dems who don't have a vested interest in EITHER of these candidates. When a campaign is this close and there is no clear winner (meaning enough to clinch the nomination) then the process must play itself out and it might be painful and it might be difficult but it must be done.

My vested interest is in having someone in the White House who will recognize the gravity of our need to retool our education system to compete in the global economy, invest in an alternative fuels "space race" program that will generate irreplaceable jobs and free us the whims of OPEC and the Middle East, rebuild a crumbling American infrastructure, etc. The best candidate to effectuate this kind of meaningful change in our national trajectory isn't the one adopting Rovian tactics and cynically trying to court Obama supporters by raising the possibility of him as VP while, almost simultaneously, shaming him and questioning his fitness as CIC.

My suspicion is that you and your "lifelong Dem" friends are unwilling to embrace these necessary changes. So rather than select the candidate best able to reach across the aisle and enact meaningful reform, you dither. It's what boomers do best. Push problems down the road for Gen X to take care of. You're also so in love with the win-lose, I'm right, you're wrong mentality that you'd rather vilify your opponents rather than recognizing the legitimacy of (some) of their beliefs.

HolmeZz
03-10-2008, 12:59 PM
Also, where does it say she is going to "steal" delegates? It doesn't at all. What they are talking about is within the game rules.

Uh, overturning pledged delegates that Obama won due to the actual vote is 'stealing'. I don't know what word you want to use for it. It being allowed as a loophole doesn't make it right, just as the superdelegates overriding a significant pledged delegate lead isn't right, despite the fact it's legal as far as rules go.

Carlota69
03-10-2008, 01:05 PM
Uh, overturning pledged delegates that Obama won due to the actual vote is 'stealing'. I don't know what word you want to use for it. It being allowed as a loophole doesn't make it right, just as the superdelegates overriding a significant pledged delegate lead isn't right, despite the fact it's legal as far as rules go.


I'll agree the rule is ****ed up, but they did not say they were going to do any 'stealing". You are implying that, and that's my point.

HonestChieffan
03-10-2008, 01:07 PM
My vested interest is in having someone in the White House who will recognize the gravity of our need to retool our education system to compete in the global economy, invest in an alternative fuels "space race" program that will generate irreplaceable jobs and free us the whims of OPEC and the Middle East, rebuild a crumbling American infrastructure, etc. The best candidate to effectuate this kind of meaningful change in our national trajectory isn't the one adopting Rovian tactics and cynically trying to court Obama supporters by raising the possibility of him as VP while, almost simultaneously, shaming him and questioning his fitness as CIC.

My suspicion is that you and your "lifelong Dem" friends are unwilling to embrace these necessary changes. So rather than select the candidate best able to reach across the aisle and enact meaningful reform, you dither. It's what boomers do best. Push problems down the road for Gen X to take care of. You're also so in love with the win-lose, I'm right, you're wrong mentality that you'd rather vilify your opponents rather than recognizing the legitimacy of (some) of their beliefs.


So, explain to me how you see Obama doing any of that. Talk about delusional. Point to one thing as a state senator that he did that addressed Education in Illinois. We can wait as you look. "Irreplaceable jobs"...thats sweet as can be. Id enjoy seeing a list of those. If good old barak has that energy solution, he should let someone know...inquiring minds want to know.

Cave Johnson
03-10-2008, 01:07 PM
I saw poll on CNN last night that shows Dems are basically tied, Obama with 45% and Clinton with 44% nationally. This thing is far from over.

It depends on what numbers they're citing. Properly excluding MI and FL , he's up by an estimated 700K votes, or a little under 2%.

Obama: 13,335,159
Clinton: 12,629,468
(margin: 705,691 votes)

If you don't include results from Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine, which haven't officially released popular vote totals, his lead drops to 592K.

It is ironic that FL is in play the way it is. What to do? In 2000 we complained that the popular vote is what really matters, but if Obama doesnt win the popular vote, but the delegates (the electorate as Bush did in 2000), what do we say then?

Boy did the DNC **** up good.

Good point. The system's not well designed for 2 equally strong candidates. Personally, I don't see Barry losing his popular vote lead, though.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4449

plbrdude
03-10-2008, 01:11 PM
My vested interest is in having someone in the White House who will recognize the gravity of our need to retool our education system to compete in the global economy, invest in an alternative fuels "space race" program that will generate irreplaceable jobs and free us the whims of OPEC and the Middle East, rebuild a crumbling American infrastructure, etc. The best candidate to effectuate this kind of meaningful change in our national trajectory isn't the one adopting Rovian tactics and cynically trying to court Obama supporters by raising the possibility of him as VP while, almost simultaneously, shaming him and questioning his fitness as CIC.

My suspicion is that you and your "lifelong Dem" friends are unwilling to embrace these necessary changes. So rather than select the candidate best able to reach across the aisle and enact meaningful reform, you dither. It's what boomers do best. Push problems down the road for Gen X to take care of. You're also so in love with the win-lose, I'm right, you're wrong mentality that you'd rather vilify your opponents rather than recognizing the legitimacy of (some) of their beliefs.


regarding the first paragraph of your post, where do we find such a person who really wants to do what you have listed. i'm not sure any that are running are interested in all that.

Carlota69
03-10-2008, 01:15 PM
It depends on what numbers they're citing. Properly excluding MI and FL , he's up by an estimated 700K votes, or a little under 2%.

Obama: 13,335,159
Clinton: 12,629,468
(margin: 705,691 votes)

If you don't include results from Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine, which haven't officially released popular vote totals, his lead drops to 592K.



Good point. The system's not well designed for 2 equally strong candidates. Personally, I don't see Barry losing his popular vote lead, though.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4449

I believe the poll was just reflecting the overall support as of yesterday? Not sure, but they did show those percentages. They may have nothing to do with actual popular vote numbers. But they also showed that both DEM candidates can easily beat MCcain. Obama by 8 points and Clinton by 6 points. How accurate are these polls? ANd how often do the polls change? Exactly, not accurate enough and change too often.


I dont see him losing Popualr vote either, but what if he did? What a (hypocritical) mess we DEMS would be in....

patteeu
03-10-2008, 01:37 PM
Someone probably already pointed it out, but it can't really be stealing if the rules say it's OK.

Cave Johnson
03-10-2008, 01:38 PM
regarding the first paragraph of your post, where do we find such a person who really wants to do what you have listed. i'm not sure any that are running are interested in all that.

I'll deal with the first area first. Maybe I'm biased, because I thought Friedman's "The World is Flat" was such a clarion call for the new economy reality, but he seems to best get the fact that we'll have to work harder in the future to compete. Here's excerpts from a 2005 speech.
_______________________________________

"As Tom Friedman points out in his new book, The World Is Flat, over the last decade or so, these forces - technology and globalization - have combined like never before. So that while most of us have been paying attention to how much easier technology has made our lives - sending emails on blackberries, surfing the web on our cell phones, instant messaging with friends across the world - a quiet revolution has been breaking down barriers and connecting the world's economies. Now, businesses not only have the ability to move jobs wherever there's a factory, but wherever there's an internet connection."

"It has been government research and investment that made the railways and the internet possible. It has been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools - that has allowed all of us to prosper. Our economic dominance has depended on individual initiative and belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity - that has produced our unrivaled political stability."

"What if we prepared every child in America with the education and skills they need to compete in this new economy? If we made sure college was affordable for everyone who wanted to go? If we walked up to those Maytag workers and told them that there old job wasn't coming back, but that the new jobs will be there because of the serious job re-training and lifelong education that is waiting for them - the sorts of opportunities Knox has created with the strong future scholarship program?

What if no matter where you worked or how many times you switched jobs, you had health care and a pension that stayed with you always, so that each of us had the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business?

And what if instead of cutting budgets for research and development and science, we fueled the genius and the innovation that will lead to the new jobs and new industries of the future?"

"None of this will come easy. Every one of us will have to work more, read more, train more, think more. We will have to slough off bad habits - like driving gas guzzlers that weaken our economy and feed our enemies abroad. Our kids will have to turn off the TV sets and put away the video games and start hitting the books. We will have to reform institutions, like our public schools, that were designed for an earlier time. Republicans will have to recognize our collective responsibilities, even as Democrats recognize that we have to do more than just defend the old programs."

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050604-remarks_of_us_senator_barack_o/

As for his specific plans, the major bullet points are a proposed 4K college tax credit and his support of charter schools. There's a variety of other proposals as well.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

Cave Johnson
03-10-2008, 01:48 PM
regarding the first paragraph of your post, where do we find such a person who really wants to do what you have listed. i'm not sure any that are running are interested in all that.

As for the alt. fuels issue, he's for investing investing $150 billion over 10 years in R&D for renewables, biofuels, efficiency, "clean coal," and other clean tech. http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/30/obama_factsheet/

The infrastructure thing is a direct proposal.

HonestChieffan
03-10-2008, 01:52 PM
well hell thats the answer.

spend money. If that wont work, spend more.

Cave Johnson
03-10-2008, 01:55 PM
So, explain to me how you see Obama doing any of that. Talk about delusional. Point to one thing as a state senator that he did that addressed Education in Illinois. We can wait as you look. "Irreplaceable jobs"...thats sweet as can be. Id enjoy seeing a list of those. If good old barak has that energy solution, he should let someone know...inquiring minds want to know.

I feel a bit like a Pavlovian dog, but here's one accomplishment.

Obama co-sponsored legislation to create a National Teaching Academy of Chicago that recruits, prepares and develops quality teachers for high-need urban school districts. He co-sponsored legislation that created the Future Teacher Corps Scholarships to provide financial aid for undergraduate & graduate students studying to become teachers. He was chief sponsor of a bill creating the Certified Teacher Retention Bonus Program that provides grants to reward high quality teachers in low performing schools.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Education.htm

HonestChieffan
03-10-2008, 02:02 PM
Now, go see if they passed and then if funding was given. Obamas name was a sposor or co sponsor of every freaking thing he could get his name on in his short time in the senate...and he accomplished zero. The national Teaching Academy....a new way to piss away money while he has Northwestern and UIUIC and a host of other schools in Chicago begging for additional funding.

memyselfI
03-10-2008, 04:38 PM
My suspicion is that you and your "lifelong Dem" friends are unwilling to embrace these necessary changes. So rather than select the candidate best able to reach across the aisle and enact meaningful reform, you dither. It's what boomers do best. Push problems down the road for Gen X to take care of. You're also so in love with the win-lose, I'm right, you're wrong mentality that you'd rather vilify your opponents rather than recognizing the legitimacy of (some) of their beliefs.

No, me and my lifelong Dem friends see him as a wimp, or as Edwards says 'a pussy', who would rather make friends than necessary and difficult choices.

HolmeZz
03-10-2008, 04:48 PM
No, me and my lifelong Dem friends see him as a wimp, or as Edwards says 'a pussy', who would rather make friends than necessary and difficult choices.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2AE847UXu3Q"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2AE847UXu3Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

here's your boy making the difficult choices

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HY6BZgkI0kI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HY6BZgkI0kI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

jAZ
03-10-2008, 06:58 PM
The kindest way I can characterize your notion that new D's or indies don't matter is batshit-crazy.
Denise has a thing against Obama and normally that's ok... but it seems she's projecting that hatred onto the very voters that BOTH candidates and BOTH parties will be wooing and will be CRITICAL to win over in November.

I don't get that.

memyselfI
03-10-2008, 09:25 PM
Denise has a thing against Obama and normally that's ok... but it seems she's projecting that hatred onto the very voters that BOTH candidates and BOTH parties will be wooing and will be CRITICAL to win over in November.

I don't get that.

You know, in the general campaign I don't have a problem with the fake Dems. But when I've been a lifelong card carrying Democrat and others like me are not on board the Obandwagon and we see our party is being infiltrated to get the lesser qualified candidate elected in order to set my party up to fail then HELL YES, I'm hating it.

If we elect Obama in November and lose then the Dems will be finished and they will deserve it. IMO, when this goes to the General lots of those new 'Dems' will not be showing up to support the Savior.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-10-2008, 09:57 PM
Denise has a thing against Obama and normally that's ok... but it seems she's projecting that hatred onto the very voters that BOTH candidates and BOTH parties will be wooing and will be CRITICAL to win over in November.

I don't get that.

It's pretty easy when you realize that she's a completely worthless misanthrope of a human being.

HolmeZz
03-10-2008, 10:00 PM
IMO, when this goes to the General lots of those new 'Dems' will not be showing up to support the Savior.

If you give enough of a shit to pay attention and then vote in a primary or go caucus, you aren't going to sit on your ass come November. But then again you're out of touch with the rest of the country so that's all understandable.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-10-2008, 10:01 PM
You know, in the general campaign I don't have a problem with the fake Dems. But when I've been a lifelong card carrying Democrat and others like me are not on board the Obandwagon and we see our party is being infiltrated to get the lesser qualified candidate elected in order to set my party up to fail then HELL YES, I'm hating it.

If we elect Obama in November and lose then the Dems will be finished and they will deserve it. IMO, when this goes to the General lots of those new 'Dems' will not be showing up to support the Savior.

God forbid a candidate comes along who actually understands the need to build a coalition in order to get things passed and affect change, rather than triangulate in order to win re-election.

You are so goddamned stupid I can't even comprehend it. It's like looking into a black hole of idiocy and seeing the singularity.

After the last 16 years, you really want someone who will do anything to win, including alienating your own party and strengthening the republican party (as Bill did), over someone who can win through legitimate support and won't have to betray your own party's ideals.

Oh but Hillary was against NAFTA...after she praised it in her run for Senate.
She was against the war....after she voted to authorize it.

This revisionist history and pathological lying is just ri-god-damn-diculous.

Boyceofsummer
03-11-2008, 03:05 AM
it won't matter who gets elected. There will be no revenue to invest in anything worthwhile for AQmerica. The masses know that we should withdraw. Why can't our elected officials follow through on this? You always here from these same career politicians about "our national interest." Prolonging this sad and dysfunctional mistake is all about vanity and misplaced pride. A true patriot understands. The vote to go to war in Iraq trumps everything in this election. Don't forget it!

patteeu
03-11-2008, 07:50 AM
it won't matter who gets elected. There will be no revenue to invest in anything worthwhile for AQmerica. The masses know that we should withdraw. Why can't our elected officials follow through on this? You always here from these same career politicians about "our national interest." Prolonging this sad and dysfunctional mistake is all about vanity and misplaced pride. A true patriot understands. The vote to go to war in Iraq trumps everything in this election. Don't forget it!

We need a website like those Presidential Selector sites that can tell us where we really want to live. I think France would score high for you, Boyce. It's a second rate player in the world, it has a lavish social support system, it refuses to pay the full cost of it's own defense, and it's fashionable to hate America there.

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 08:08 AM
Hey! Does anybody know if a registered FL Republican can change their registration to Democrat to participate in the Florida revote? :D

I reckon those of us who didn't see our guy win in the R primary, can stem the tide here on how the unauthorized first vote went here for the Dems.

jAZ
03-11-2008, 09:22 AM
"There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and super-delegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose," [...]

"Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to." [...]

...the Hillary camp has not and will not pursue Obama's pledged delegates...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182722.php

03.11.08 -- 1:11AM // link | recommend (29)

About Those 'Caucus' Delegates

Before New York State politics was turned upside down and shaken all around today, we had noted that Hillary Clinton had hinted at the possibility of trying to woo Barack Obama's pledged delegates over to her side. She also trotted out the neologism or seldom phrased "caucus delegates" in order to contrast to "pledged delegates." But an old pal of mine gave me a call today that gave me an idea of something else that may be afoot here.

"Caucus delegates" are different from primary delegates. But not quite in the sense that people are saying. Not in the sense that they're any less legit or meaningful than those produced by primaries. But they are less fixed.

Here's what I mean. Caucuses rarely if at all vote directly for national convention delegates (I'm going to hedge here a bit because I don't know the ins and outs of every states rules.) Generally speaking, they choose delegates to a state convention, which in turn chooses delegates to the national convention. In some states I think there are even intervening county conventions. But the key point is that unlike in primaries where the delegates really get picked on primary night, that's not what happens with caucuses. When you have a caucus in state such-and-such and they say Obama got X number of delegates, that's just an estimate. He doesn't really have them yet. What it really means is that he got X number of delegates and if they all go to the state convention and vote for Obama then he'll get the estimated number of delegates, or something very close to that number.

The point is that there's a lot of potential haggling and funny-business possible between what's actually set in stone now and what people are expecting come convention time. TPM Reader AO sent in this AP article from February which notes that back in 1984 Gary Hart actually lost delegates through the course of this sifting process.

In Nevada, Obama won 13 delegates and Clinton won 12.
But if one side is unable to rally its supporters at any step along the way, it risks losing national delegates, much like Gary Hart did in 1984.

Hart fared well in initial party caucuses when he ran for the Democratic nomination in 1984, only to see some of those delegates go to Walter Mondale at the state conventions, said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who counted delegates for Mondale.

People often ask me if national convention pledged delegates can switch candidates. And the answer is yes, they can. But in practice, it's highly, highly unrealistic because the people who the candidate chooses to be their delegates are the staunchest of supporters, the absolute campaign true believers. So as long as that candidate is still in the race, the idea that they're going to get wooed away is highly unrealistic.

But way down at the county convention level we're talking really big numbers of delegates. You don't know these people quite as well. Some of them may be new to politics. You've got to be certain they all show up at the different conventions. As the same AP article notes, if at any point one campaign or another can't manage or control their delegates, they can lose some national delegates.

Don't get me wrong. Hillary isn't going to come out of Kansas with more delegates than Obama. Any changes would be small. But every little bit helps at this point. I heard twenty or thirty possible new delegates tossed around as a possibility today -- a number that strikes me as a tall order. But I'll defer to people who know more about the mechanics to decide whether that's credible or not.

The key point to remember is that on balance, the party regulars tend to be Hillary supporters, at least disproportionately so. And they're the ones most familiar with the process, possibly most likely to show (though that's very debateable). On the other hand, it would be surprising if the Obama campaign which has proved so skillful at working caucuses would drop the ball in the subsequent stages of the process. It's not the biggest part of the equation. But it's another moving part you should have your eye on.

Late Update: This post at Daily Kos has some anecdotal evidence (of course unconfirmed) that some of this shaking out is already happening.

--Josh Marshall

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:42 AM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182722.php

03.11.08 -- 1:11AM // link | recommend (29)

About Those 'Caucus' Delegates.

...

--Josh Marshall

Good post jAZ. That makes a lot of sense. Josh Marshall occasionally makes himself worthwhile.