democrats acting like idiots

[Apotheosis]

Ok, so during the primary election process, the republicans seem to have their shit together (despite expected infighting). We all know that the nomination is likely going to McCain (based on the current structure/rule system, it's clear who will be ahead).

With the Democrats, it's pretty ridiculous that no one has come out as a clear winner, and now, after reading this article, it seems that even if members of the democratic party clearly decide on one candidate, they might not get the nomination after all.


It's like the 2000 general election all over again, except it's the democratic primaries.

They've lost some respect in my book.




http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

Clinton targets pledged delegates

By: Roger Simon

Richmond Mayor L. Douglas Wilder predicted riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.

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.

What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?

Wrong.

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.

But not this time. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides.

“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.”

Rules of good behavior, maybe. But, in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a “myth.”
See Also

* Economy prompts GOP defections
* How Hillary can still win
* Weak GOP-ers eager to stump with McCain

“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.

But one neutral Democratic operative said to me: “If you are Hillary Clinton, you know you can’t get the nomination just with superdelegates without splitting the party. You have to go after the pledged delegates.”

Winning with superdelegates is potentially party-splitting because it could mean throwing out the choice of the elected delegates and substituting the choice of 795 party big shots.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned against it. “I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.”

Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000 and is a member of the DNC, said recently: “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit [the DNC]. I feel very strongly about this.”

On Sunday, Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.

“There will be chaos at the convention,” Wilder told Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation.”

“If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse.”

But would getting pledged delegates to switch sides be any less controversial? Perhaps not. They were chosen by voters, but they were chosen to back a particular candidate.

And it is unlikely that many people, including the pledged delegates themselves, know that pledged delegates actually can switch.

Nor would it be easy to get them to switch.

If, however, after the April 22 Pennsylvania primary the pledged delegate count looks very close, the Clinton official said, “[both] sides will start working all delegates.”

In other words, Clinton and Obama will have to go after every delegate who is alive and breathing.

[oldanforgotten]

Wait, wait, more attempts by Hillary to subvert the will of the people and try to get the nomination against the will of the people?

Party at Ilvanes!
________
Honda VF500F history (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_VF500F)

[Gan]

This is where the money will talk.

[ElanthianSiren]

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.

What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?

Wrong.

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.

But not this time. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides.

“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.”

Rules of good behavior, maybe. But, in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a “myth.”
See Also

* Economy prompts GOP defections
* How Hillary can still win
* Weak GOP-ers eager to stump with McCain

“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.

But one neutral Democratic operative said to me: “If you are Hillary Clinton, you know you can’t get the nomination just with superdelegates without splitting the party. You have to go after the pledged delegates.”

Actually, McCain is doing the same thing with Romney's delegates. There's a good story running on the AP about it now, as he runs the risk of embarassing himself, should he not win upcoming primaries from Huckabee or should Huckabee take Romney's delegates, after basically declaring himself the candidate. The entire 2008 race, in general, is a clusterfuck imnsho.



McCain still short of nomination By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer
Mon Feb 18, 11:02 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Not so fast, Sen. McCain. John McCain's campaign issued a statement last week claiming the Arizona senator had surpassed the number of delegates needed to secure the GOP nomination for president, after Mitt Romney endorsed him.

John McCain sure looks like he has the nomination all but wrapped up. But he isn't there yet, and here's why:

It will take 1,191 delegates to secure the Republican nomination at the national convention this summer.

McCain has 908 delegates, including those won in primaries and caucuses as well as endorsements from party leaders who automatically attend the convention. Romney has 253, according to The Associated Press tally.

Together, that's 1,161 delegates, which could make it tempting for some to put McCain over the top Tuesday evening if he fares well in primaries in Washington state and Wisconsin. A total of 56 delegates will be at stake.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has 245 delegates, placing him behind a candidate who isn't even in the race anymore. Texas Rep. Ron Paul has 14.

GOP rules, however, say McCain still has work to do.

The rules vary state to state. But in general, Romney has little authority over his delegates after he releases them. The vast majority haven't been named. Once they are, most will be free agents at the convention, free to support whomever they choose.

Huckabee has said he won't quit until somebody reaches 1,191 delegates. And a few more Huckabee victories in upcoming primaries could prove embarrassing for McCain.

McCain's campaign is aggressively lobbying Romney's former supporters. At GOP conventions during the weekend in Louisiana and Michigan, McCain picked up at least 55 delegates.

Afterward, a McCain aide declined to say whether last week's statement was a formal declaration of victory in the race for the nomination.

John Yob, McCain's deputy political director, said Romney's former delegates are "inching Senator McCain close to the magic number of delegates. It will take some time to verify every delegate but the results from Michigan and Louisiana were significant steps forward."

Most of Romney's former delegates will probably follow his lead and support McCain, especially if McCain is the only candidate left standing at the convention. But 100 percent support is not guaranteed, regardless of Romney's endorsement.

Consider Michigan.

Romney won 23 delegates in Michigan's Jan. 15 primary. The delegates were named at the GOP state convention, and Huckabee picked up three of Romney's former delegates. McCain got 18 and it was unclear whom the other two would support.

The delegate numbers for Michigan are approximate because the state was stripped of half its GOP delegates for violating party rules by holding an early primary, and local officials have refused to say which delegates would be eliminated, if the penalty is enforced.

In Wyoming, Romney won eight delegates in GOP caucuses Jan. 5. Since Romney dropped out, three switched to McCain, one backed Huckabee and four said they were undecided in interviews with the AP.

Most of Romney's other delegates won't be named until state party conventions this spring. They will be selected by Romney's supporters. But they will, in general, be free to support whomever they choose at the national convention.

Many of these delegates were bound by party rules to vote for Romney at the convention, unless he releases them. For some states, Romney's public endorsement of McCain was sufficient to release the delegates.

But GOP officials in Montana, Utah and Alaska, where Romney won a total of 73 delegates, said they were waiting for official notification from the Romney campaign. None had arrived by late last week.

Until then, "The Alaska Republican delegate allocation will remain as allocated," state GOP Chairman Randy Ruedrich said in an e-mail.

In California, state election law says each delegate released by a Republican candidate after he withdraws "shall be free to vote as he or she chooses." Romney won at least six delegates in California's primary on Super Tuesday, a number that could grow as absentee ballots are counted.

McCain's campaign used projections when it claimed that Romney's delegates would have put him over the top last week. They included delegates from primaries where the vote tally is still incomplete, inflating the delegate count for both McCain and Romney.

Looking ahead, the earliest McCain could surpass 1,191 delegates would be March 4, when delegate-rich states such as Ohio and Texas vote. To do that, McCain would have to win decisively in just about every contest between now and then.

If McCain does well in Tuesday's primaries, Huckabee will need help from Romney's supporters to remain a viable candidate. It is unlikely he will ever get enough help to come close to McCain's delegate total.

But that's not a mathematical certainty. Not yet.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think Americans in general are disgusted with our candidates, regardless of affiliation. It's a sad testament of our times we cannot find a charismatic and knowledgeable leader out of our entire country, who is strong enough to unite the people.

I mean, love or hate Reagan, he did this. Kennedy did it.

Why do my formative voting years have to be dominated by douchebags. Bah. Disgusted.

[Some Rogue]

I don't think what McCain is doing is anything close to what is going on with the Democrats. Romney is out of the race and his delegates are free to vote however they want. The Democrats are trying to steal the delegates from a candidate still in the race.

[ElanthianSiren]

Both sides are essentially saying a pledge doesn't mean much and that bothers me. You can argue that Romney endorsed McCain, so Romney delegates can feel comfortable with the switch, but they're not the same candidate.

I don't really have a system in mind that would be better, but it seems messed up that people go out and vote for who they consider the best candidate and then those delegates are just free to go do whatever. Say you're a state that went mainly Huckabee and then you end up switching to someone like Paul (as a for instance). In either case, it seems convoluted. On the dem side, it seems petty.

[ClydeR]

Clinton and Obama both need to stop trying to change the rules.

The rule was that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count. Clinton wants to change that rule.

The rule was that super delegates get to vote however they want, without regard to the popular vote in their state. Obama wants to change that rule.

They'll probably pull an Al Gore and make a federal court case about it.

[oldanforgotten]

Clinton and Obama both need to stop trying to change the rules.

The rule was that Michigan and Florida wouldn't count. Clinton wants to change that rule.

The rule was that super delegates get to vote however they want, without regard to the popular vote in their state. Obama wants to change that rule.

They'll probably pull an Al Gore and make a federal court case about it.

Get your facts straight. Clinton wants the delegates from Florida and MIchigan seated, but neither side has said that superdelegates were unfair. Obama is merely saying the superdelegates have a moral obligation to vote in line with their congressional district.

They are both courting superdelegates, but Clinton is the only one trying to woo pledged delegates to vote against their own selected consticuency.

It is the media pointing out the unfair nature of superdelegates, and the the anti-democracy ways of the DEMOCRATIC national party. In short, the media is doing Obama's work for him, applying a rather intense scrutiny on superdelegates voting against the will of the people.

As has been illustrated and said before, more than anyone else in the election, Clinton would hypothetically inject innocent babies with AIDS for delegates. Everyone already knows it. She can and will lie, can and will steal, and otherwise do whatever is necessary to win.
________
Honda f20c engine (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_F20C_engine)

[Celephais]

She can and will lie, can and will steal, and otherwise do whatever is necessary to win.
http://www.filemanager.ca/Demotivators/Goals.jpg

[ClydeR]

Get your facts straight. Clinton wants the delegates from Florida and MIchigan seated, but neither side has said that superdelegates were unfair. Obama is merely saying the superdelegates have a moral obligation to vote in line with their congressional district.

Obama is wrong. Super delegates have no obligation to vote the same way their congressional district. The purpose of super delegates was to give party insiders an opportunity to overrule the will of the majority of voters in a close election. It is a dumb system, but Obama should not change the rules in the middle of the game.

If Obama is correct that super delegates must vote the same way as their congressional district, then there would be no point in having super delegates. They would all be pledged delegates.

[Daniel]

I'm pretty sure he was talking from a moral, and not a legal, standpoint.

[TheEschaton]

It looks like it's time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again. :(

[Peanut Butter Jelly Time]

ALL VOTE BILL NYE 2008! HE COMES WITH HIS OWN THEME MUSIC!

[Parkbandit]

Both sides are essentially saying a pledge doesn't mean much and that bothers me. You can argue that Romney endorsed McCain, so Romney delegates can feel comfortable with the switch, but they're not the same candidate.

I don't really have a system in mind that would be better, but it seems messed up that people go out and vote for who they consider the best candidate and then those delegates are just free to go do whatever. Say you're a state that went mainly Huckabee and then you end up switching to someone like Paul (as a for instance). In either case, it seems convoluted. On the dem side, it seems petty.


Actually, it's not even close to being the same thing. It's like comparing apples and staplers.

[oldanforgotten]

Actually, it's not even close to being the same thing. It's like comparing apples and staplers.

There is a prime difference here. Romney?s pledges are now free agents, and can vote for whoever they choose to, and are not ethically bound to vote for who they are pledged to any longer.

Clinton is talking about coercing pledged delegates to change their vote. That?s more along the lines of what people already expect the immoral opportunistic piece of shit to do anyway, so technically, it?s not really news. Everyone already knew she?s an an immoral liar, and that she and Bill pardoned terrorists who killed Americans on our soil with carbombs for Latino votes in NY; in short, anything for a vote, be it ethically obtained or not.

Apples to staplers indeed.

On a side note, it will be a good test of Obama?s will and character to see if he steps into the same game. If so, then people will call him full of shit, and simply the same as the Clintons. So far, he?s stayed above the Pigshit infested sewer of Hillary.
________
Honda Civic (Seventh Generation) (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_(seventh_generation))

[CrystalTears]

No really, OAF, tell us how you really feel about Hillary. :D

[Parkbandit]

Actually, there are no laws stating she is doing anything wrong at all. Super delegates are by nature 'super' and can vote anyway they want. There is no law that says they have to vote the way the regular delegates voted.. there is no law that says they cannot change their mind.

Welcome to the slimy, back alley world of American politics. The Clintons are not doing anything wrong.. they were merely playing within the rules of their party.

[Blud]

Actually, there are no laws stating she is doing anything wrong at all. Super delegates are by nature 'super' and can vote anyway they want. There is no law that says they have to vote the way the regular delegates voted.. there is no law that says they cannot change their mind.

Welcome to the slimy, back alley world of American politics. The Clintons are not doing anything wrong.. they were merely playing within the rules of their party.

Sad, but true. :(

[Some Rogue]

Actually, there are no laws stating she is doing anything wrong at all. Super delegates are by nature 'super' and can vote anyway they want. There is no law that says they have to vote the way the regular delegates voted.. there is no law that says they cannot change their mind.

Welcome to the slimy, back alley world of American politics. The Clintons are not doing anything wrong.. they were merely playing within the rules of their party.

Except the article talks about the regular delegates being persuaded to change their minds, not just the super delegates.

[TheEschaton]

Except that the rules don't bind even pledged delegates to vote for who the people in their primaries voted for.

[Parkbandit]

Except the article talks about the regular delegates being persuaded to change their minds, not just the super delegates.

They aren't actually forced to vote the way the people of their districts voted either!

AIN'T POLITICS IN AMERICA GREAT!?

[Parkbandit]

Except that the rules don't bind even pledged delegates to vote for who the people in their primaries voted for.

Fuck you.. Mr. Fast Fingers.

[Methais]

I think Americans in general are disgusted with our candidates, regardless of affiliation. It's a sad testament of our times we cannot find a charismatic and knowledgeable leader out of our entire country, who is strong enough to unite the people.

http://www.dennis-haysbert.com/Photos-Dennis-Haysbert/President-David-Palmer.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Um.. he's DEAD.

[Methais]

Um.. he's DEAD.

http://www.vwtech.com/tropichunt/24/Pictures/24%20-%20Hell.JPG

http://www.vwtech.com/tropichunt/24/Pictures/24%20-%20Religion.JPG

[Some Rogue]

They aren't actually forced to vote the way the people of their districts voted either!

AIN'T POLITICS IN AMERICA GREAT!?

Oh I know they're not but there is something infinitely slimier about stealing a pledged delegate vs persuading a super delegate to vote for you.

[Warriorbird]

This thread should be "Hillary acting like an idiot."

[BigWorm]

Obama does NOT want all the superdelegates to vote the way that their constituency has. This would be BAD for him, for example, in Massachusetts, where Clinton won, but Obama had the the support of superdelegates like the Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

[Tsa`ah]

Obama does NOT want all the superdelegates to vote the way that their constituency has. This would be BAD for him, for example, in Massachusetts, where Clinton won, but Obama had the the support of superdelegates like the Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Actually he does. Look at the pledged delegate count .... 1,140 to 1,005 in favor of Obama. That number will change (more in favor of Obama) come morning.

Superdelegates are not proportional by State. They are simply bound to the party and nothing else. It has been Obama's assertion that the superdelegate vote should be in-line with the general consensus of the people .... meaning they should vote for whoever has the pledged delegate lead/largest portion of votes.

Superdelegates are without a constituency in that specific role.

Even under your premise .... he would want it. Obama has won 24 states to Clinton's 12. If, by your statement, Obama doesn't want superdelegates residing in any given state to vote in the same direction of said state .... it would be moronic to say the least. He has already won the majority of delegates in 24 states, shouldn't he want the superdelegates in those states to also vote for him?

Hillary is banking on winning 2 more states to keep her in this thing ... Texas and Ohio. She's pretty much ignoring or can't afford to campaign elsewhere. By default she may get Rhoad Island, Vermont, and Pennsylvania. So let's run with that. She wins 5 states (and her wins are by a pretty narrow margin) putting her at 17 states and maybe a 55% take in total delegates from those states. That leaves Obama 33 states won .... this puts the race for pledged delegates pretty close .... you don't think Obama wants the superdelegates from those 33 states to vote for him?