Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Sanders campaign had a call today with press access and there have been reports that Tad Devine floated the idea that they will try to flip delegates. Not just superdelegates, but PLEDGED delegates.
If this is really the case, this is truly incendiary. In some states, pledged delegates are legally obligated by campaign law to support the candidates they were elected to support.
Plus it's just such complete and utter hypocrisy. They have been complaining that super delegates in states that Bernie won should have to support him to follow "the will of the people." But they have no problem with the idea that might try to disenfranchise those very same people by trying to convince pledged delegates to ignore the votes.
I will be continuing to watch this to see what happens - also a report they are trying to walk this back. Maybe sanity prevailed instead ideas of a suicide mission.
Since this is just a twitter post, I'm skeptical of it's veracity. I hope this isn't true; it destroys his credibility if it is because it's dishonest and shady.
Since this is just a twitter post, I'm skeptical of it's veracity. I hope this isn't true; it destroys his credibility if it is because it's dishonest and shady.
well, the call had press access and 3 separate reporters have mentioned it that I've seen so far. I'm hoping that it will get picked up and reported as a full story.
ok, this has a transcript of what they are saying Tad Devine said.
Quote:
“My point is that a front-runner in a process like this needs to continue to win if you want to keep hold of delegates. The delegates we have on the Democratic side fall into two categories. Un-pledged delegates – who are free to vote for whoever they want – and pledged delegates, who usually and traditionally have voted for candidates for whom they have been elected, but who under our rules are not bound to do so. The standard of pledged delegates is the standard of fair reflection that is embodied in the rules of the delegate selection process and also in the call for the convention. So if a front-runner wants to keep those delegates in place I believe you need to continue to win. And if you don’t win, you know, you are then going to be under pressure from your own people and your own delegates. And I think the pressure is going to build in the weeks and months ahead, particularly if Bernie Sanders has the kind of winning streak that I believe he can get on.”
That's so malicious of the Sanders camp. It's a really vicious maneuver. Let me guess, they're gonna use money to lure the delegates over to their side? Hmmm, now we know where all that donation money is going...
well, the call had press access and 3 separate reporters have mentioned it that I've seen so far. I'm hoping that it will get picked up and reported as a full story.
I heard about it too, but nothing has been confirmed. It would be too easy to get caught, wouldn't it? I read one of the comments from the story that was funny. It said, since Bernie isn't really a Democrat, he should probably give Hillary his pledge delegates.
I just wanted to follow up on this story. Although I can only find confirmed stories that his campaign wants to woo superdelegates, I am still confused. So explain this to me.
MovingOn and other Sanders' supporters were complaining from the start that the superdelegates gave Clinton an unfair advantage.
"MoveOn.org, for example, has endorsed Sanders, but has also already collected close to 200,000 signatures on a petition to get rid of superdelegates".
Now, after Hillary is ahead in the popular vote and pledged delegates, the Sanders' campaign has decided that winning some of Clinton's superdelegates might help Sanders get the nomination, even if Clinton is winning without them.
"his campaign says there’s a longshot strategy that lets him regain momentum and win the Democratic nomination by relying on superdelegates even if he comes into the Philadelphia convention still trailing Clinton."
So, in other words, even if Hillary Clinton is winning by both the popular vote and the pledged delegates, the ones elected by the people, they still want a shot at winning the nomination with the superdelegates they've been saying are unfair and should be eliminated.
What's wrong with removing superdelegates all together? And instead just count delegates from the people's vote.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
