Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2008, 12:18 PM
 
413 posts, read 910,455 times
Reputation: 60

Advertisements

Pledged delegates, as it turns out, are not forced to vote for the candidate they are supposed to represent. That is, if Obama gets 50 delegates from a state, and Hillary gets 40, Hillary can defy the mandate of the votes and try to get those pledged delegates to change their votes.

Clinton Targets Pledged Delegates

Quote:
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.
This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.
This campaign is almost as ugly as 2000 or 2004.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2008, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
5,238 posts, read 8,804,164 times
Reputation: 2647
Wow. That would get real ugly real fast. In order to get enough delegates to switch, I wonder what kind of promises she would have to make to those people?

I love this line:

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.”

He swears it's not happening now? Seems like an odd thing to say. And no rules? What does this say about her adviser? And her campaign?

And how does winning through the superdelagates split the party, but taking pledged delegates away from their pledged candidate doesn't? That was the implication. It seems worse than getting superdelegates.

I'm understanding why the Republicans hate the Clinton's so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2008, 12:49 PM
BVH
 
Location: Pennsylvania
944 posts, read 607,614 times
Reputation: 79
Actually, Hillary's campaign has already stated that they will NOT do that and asked Obama to make the same pledge. This is just another attempt by the MSM, MSNBC specifically, to further muddy the waters.

Although this is in fact possible, the Candidates hand select their delegates to assure that this doesn't happen.

The Fact Hub (broken link)
We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2008, 12:51 PM
 
413 posts, read 910,455 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVH View Post
Actually, Hillary's campaign has already stated that they will NOT do that and asked Obama to make the same pledge. This is just another attempt by the MSM, MSNBC specifically, to further muddy the waters.

Although this is in fact possible, the Candidates hand select their delegates to assure that this doesn't happen.



The Fact Hub (broken link)
We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.
It was Politico, not MSNBC, that reported this.

Well, the Hillary website says one thing, and Politico says another.

Where's Snopes when y'need 'em? When I see what they have to say about this, I'll readily offer up an apology, if warranted. Just remind me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2008, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
2,290 posts, read 5,549,892 times
Reputation: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVH View Post
Actually, Hillary's campaign has already stated that they will NOT do that and asked Obama to make the same pledge. This is just another attempt by the MSM, MSNBC specifically, to further muddy the waters.

Although this is in fact possible, the Candidates hand select their delegates to assure that this doesn't happen.

The Fact Hub (broken link)
We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.
Thank you, BVH, for clarifying this.

You're right; the MSM is becoming less and less credible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2008, 12:58 PM
BVH
 
Location: Pennsylvania
944 posts, read 607,614 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by burnt View Post
It was Politico, not MSNBC, that reported this.

Well, the Hillary website says one thing, and Politico says another.

Where's Snopes when y'need 'em?
Sorry! I have been busy today and only listening to MSNBC in the background so I hadn't read it on politico yet. Like the OP quoted a "senior Clinton adviser", I think in the end of this race BOTH sides will be pulling out all the stops.

This is purely another attempt by the MSM's to divert our attention from the REAL issues facing this country. We get it, the delegate system is all convuluted. Why can't they just let us get through the primary cycle without accosting us with more BS? lol

Hell, Obama has paid the superdelegates over $650,000 and Hillary has paid $195,000 just to get their votes. I still stand by my original assertions: This whole election is a good old fashioned MESS. Both sides buying delegates, both sides trying to change the rules, both sides slinging mud. Good old fashioned politics.

I hope that after this election is over, the DNC will convene and update the rules and leave their crack pipes at home and decide the rules while sober.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2008, 01:01 PM
 
413 posts, read 910,455 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVH View Post
Sorry! I have been busy today and only listening to MSNBC in the background so I hadn't read it on politico yet. Like the OP quoted a "senior Clinton adviser", I think in the end of this race BOTH sides will be pulling out all the stops.

This is purely another attempt by the MSM's to divert our attention from the REAL issues facing this country. We get it, the delegate system is all convuluted. Why can't they just let us get through the primary cycle without accosting us with more BS? lol

Hell, Obama has paid the superdelegates over $650,000 and Hillary has paid $195,000 just to get their votes. I still stand by my original assertions: This whole election is a good old fashioned MESS. Both sides buying delegates, both sides trying to change the rules, both sides slinging mud. Good old fashioned politics.

I hope that after this election is over, the DNC will convene and update the rules and leave their crack pipes at home and decide the rules while sober.
I'm not sure about the numbers you quoted, but it's not uncommon for a major presidential candidate to dole out lots of money to gubernatorial and congressional campaigns of the same party--even when superdelegates aren't at issue. I guess since Hillary's campaign was nearly bankrupt, and Obama's was breaking more grassroots fundraising records, it stands to reason that his campaign would feel it could afford more help to the congressional campaigns.

A sober decision would be nice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2008, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
5,238 posts, read 8,804,164 times
Reputation: 2647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVH View Post

Hell, Obama has paid the superdelegates over $650,000 and Hillary has paid $195,000 just to get their votes. I still stand by my original assertions: This whole election is a good old fashioned MESS. Both sides buying delegates, both sides trying to change the rules, both sides slinging mud. Good old fashioned politics.
I don't see that like you do. As Presidential candidates, Obama and Hillary raise a ton of money and are expected to share the wealth with fellow democrats, especially ones up for re-election. Yes, they are superdelegates, but they are also fellow Democratic office holders - Governors, Congressman, and Senators. Obama has given more because he has raised more. I remember Kerry was criticized for being stingy with the money he was raising.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2008, 01:08 PM
BVH
 
Location: Pennsylvania
944 posts, read 607,614 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art123 View Post
I don't see that like you do. As Presidential candidates, Obama and Hillary raise a ton of money and are expected to share the wealth with fellow democrats, especially ones up for re-election. Yes, they are superdelegates, but they are also fellow Democratic office holders - Governors, Congressman, and Senators. Obama has given more because he has raised more. I remember Kerry was criticized for being stingy with the money he was raising.
This is true. Just remember, NO politician ever gives anybody money just to be nice! Doesn't John Kerry STILL have his Presidential campaign open?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2008, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
5,238 posts, read 8,804,164 times
Reputation: 2647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVH View Post
This is true. Just remember, NO politician ever gives anybody money just to be nice! Doesn't John Kerry STILL have his Presidential campaign open?
I know he did for awhile there. He also has like $750 million dollars of his own now (or his wife's - their's, whatever). I hope he gave up the donated cash. Some of that was mine!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top