Clinton PLEDGED delegate switches to Obama

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Pittsax, May 13, 2008.

  1. Pittsax macrumors 6502

    Pittsax

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #1
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  3. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #3
    ugly, confusing, and a terrible mess perhaps.
     
  4. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #4
    hey, obama started poaching before hillary did. she' just the first one to say something about it.
    i think it's totally mucked up that a pledged delegate would do that. just completely ignoring voting results.
     
  5. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #5
    i will agree that pledged delegates should only be allowed to go along with the voting results, the this is where things get confusing:

    so is he a voted delegate or not?
     
  6. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #6
    Wait a sec. You're coming down on a pledged delegate for ignoring voting rules. And yet you want the states that ignored voting rules to be counted. Isn't that more than just a little hypocritical, or are you ready to admit you seek your preferred outcome by any means necessary?
     
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7

    Clinton was the one who said, in fact, even encouraged the idea, that pledged delegates are free to vote for whoever they want. Obama has said nothing and certainly hasn't encouraged this, he has no control over what other delegates do.
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #8
    Ordinarily I'd be against delegates switching, especially on a large scale. But the handwriting is on the wall, and everybody except Bill, Hillary and stevento knows it, and it's time to put an end to this thing before it causes any lasting damage.
     
  9. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #9
    Normally, I would add James Carville to that list, but even he has come to his senses.
     
  10. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #10
    What I don't understand is why this guy has decided to defect. Is he just trying to get his moment of fame by switching sides, or does he hate to be on a losing team, or does he want some favor from the Obama team? I know what he is doing is still within the rules, but he is supposed to be representing people that voted for Hillary.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    You're correct. And I agree with you completely. I don't think pledged delegates should be behaving this way either. That's why I said this is going to get ugly.
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #12
    I've read two of Carville's books, and the man is pretty smart. Which is why, even knowing how tight he is with the Clintons, it was disappointing to see him defending her so much in recent weeks. I'm glad he finally realizes it's not gonna happen.
     
  13. VoodooDaddy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    #13
    edit - nevermind, I made a point about superdelegates and this was about pledged delegates.
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #14
    Not to mention how he thinks superdelegates should be able to overturn the will of the people if she loses the primary.
     
  15. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #15
    Well, technically that is within the rules set up by the Democrat party. In my opinion the whole superdelegate thing is a complete crock. To me, it is just a big banner saying "We don't trust the people to put forth a strong candidate so we'll do it for you."

    One thing I have been wondering about, will the Democrats change the way they choose their next Presidential nominee? I mean if they had winner-take-all contests in the primaries would they have a nominee by now? I think they would.
     
  16. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #16
    I'm pretty sure that if they are smart they will get rid of the super delagates. I'm not sure that they would have a winner if the primaries were winner take all, Obama has won a lot more states than Hillary, but hillary has won the big ones so without me taking the time to add them all up, I would think that it might even out to similar to the way it is now.
     
  17. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #17
    No, it's been reported multiple places and not even contested that if they were winner take all Clinton would be the nominee already. But since they weren't you can't assume that things would be the same if they were. Strategies would have changed, campaigning would have been done differently, and there's no telling how this race would be different if they were winner take all.

    In retrospect without changing the states won yes winner take all would have her winning, but who's to say she'd have won TX if it were winner take all? Obama might have done things very differently in his campaigning given a different set of rules. It's like rolling a 12 to land on boardwalk and saying, if the die didn't have 6s I wouldn't have gone bankrupt... true if everything remains the same but without 6s the game wouldn't have been the same to that point.
     

Share This Page