2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders to try and flip Clinton's pledged delegates
Not superdelegates, but pledged delegates.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/status/710205429595287552
Tad Devine, Sanders strategist, says they'll try to convince pledged delegates won by Clinton to vote for Sanders instead.
For the record, the DNC bylaws do not permit this. It appears that after all the talk about DWS and Clinton using superdelegates to override voter choice it's really the Sanders campaign that wants to attempt to grab the nomination contrary to what the voters said. This is a desperate strategy.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)I know the GOP has now started a meme that voters dont decide who their nominee is.
That the party does.
We will see how well that works out.
Renew Deal
(81,897 posts)So I wouldn't worry about it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)election?
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)>>>>3. This ought to come up when Sanders gets a media opportunity>>>>
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)If this is accurate, this doesn't sit right with me. The voters chose, and it was their mistake to make. :/
still_one
(92,502 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)And his Twitter account is verified. There was already talk of the Sanders camp courting superdelegates, so it's not a leap that they could go after pledged delegates. The math is not really good for Sanders now, so it's believable that he's desperate enough to do this.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Clinton Seeks to Flip Pledged Delegates?
By Jonathan Stein | Tue Feb. 19, 2008 11:35 AM EST
Politico's Roger Simon is reporting that the Clinton campaign will try to get pledged delegates that Obama has won in primaries and caucuses to abandon their commitment to Obama and vote for Clinton at the convention. This is primarily done, one suspects, by promising delegates tons of goodies in the upcoming administration.
On its face, this seems like an insane idea. People are already freaked about the possibility of superdelegates reversing a narrow pledged delegate lead, and thus taking the Democratic nomination out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of party insiders. The anger and resentment at Clinton would be far greater if she promised a few unscrupulous delegates some sweet Clinton Administration jobs and subverted the decisions of the people. This win-at-all-costs strategy is self-defeating, because it would undermine the Democratic Party's excitement about their nominee in the general election.
But how much credibility can we assign to the report? Simon cites a single, unnamed source. The only quote from that source is this:
"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... All the rules will be going out the window."
<snip>
In Monday's ed board meeting with the Philadelphia Daily News, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was asked about the basic math obstructing her path to the nomination.Specifically, she was asked her plans if, come June, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., remains in the lead with pledged delegates, how she would try to convince superdelegates to give her the nomination if Obama does end up the choice of primary voters and caucus goers?
"I just don't think this is over yet," she said, "and I don't think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."
Say what? This notion that the Clinton campaign will try to flip pledged delegates has been floated and knocked down before, but I'm failing to arrive at any other interpretation for what she means here other than: we will convince pledged delegates to vote for us, as is perfectly within Democratic party rules, despite the voters who elected them to support Obama.The Clinton campaign was just asked about this in a conference call. Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes said, "No delegate is required by party rule to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged. Obviously circumstances can change and people's minds can change about the viability of a candidate." Clinton campaign deputy communications director Phil Singer then added: "We are not seeking or asking pledged delegates for Sen. Obama to flip over . . . We are not engaged in any efforts (to flip Obama delegates)." Is the Clinton campaign's continual reminder to voters (and delegates) that they're allowed to flip not an effort? It all seems to feed into some negative memes for Sen. Clinton out there -- fairly or unfairly -- of ruthlessness, at the very least.- jpt
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)this would be good evidence
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)And it's a dumb suggestion today.
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)The first article is from 2008 and posed as a question and comes from Politico and ends with a STRONG DENIAL from the Clinton campaign; ergo, there is no one in the Clinton campaign that said they wanted to do this and they haven't. They certainly didn't in 2008.
The second article is the same thing and even includes a quote from the Clinton campaign... Clinton campaign deputy communications director Phil Singer then added: "We are not seeking or asking pledged delegates for Sen. Obama to flip over . . . We are not engaged in any efforts (to flip Obama delegates)."
In short, your logic is flawed and your post is based on a disingenuous premise. Please don't engage in such lowly tactics. It only serves to weaken your argument and your candidates appeal to those who may be undecided.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)The exact same idea I refer to in the title of my post:
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)The facts are there in black and white on your screen. You are denying the facts that you posted. That's sad and I feel sorry for you.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)Correlating this to your talking point and your candidate's reprehensible tactic doesn't mean that Hillary was talking about that. She was stating a fact about pledged delegates -- NOT saying they were trying to flip delegates. That's the subject of the article NOT her quote. What's confusing here?
Coincidence
(98 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Not about some rumor in 2008 that wasn't even actually a strategy that Clinton pursued. Stay on topic.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)Correlating this to your talking point and your candidate's reprehensible tactic doesn't mean that Hillary was talking about that. She was CLEARLY stating a fact about pledged delegates -- NOT saying they were trying to flip delegates. That's the subject of the article NOT her quote. What's confusing here?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Anything that happened in 2008 does not absolve him of this desperate move.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)"But how much credibility can we assign to the report? Simon cites a single, unnamed source. The only quote from that source is this:
"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... All the rules will be going out the window."
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The actual facts are that pledged delegates are ONLY bound on the first vote. Maybe you all should learn the rules of the party you want to take over prior to trying to take it over.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You just destroyed your own false accusation. SMH.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Could you be more obtuse?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Do you even know the rules of the party at all???????
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)I'm disappointed by this move and glad to see that even though I spent months undecided, my reading on Sanders really being an independent and not truly committed to Democratic Party rules, is stronger than ever now.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,976 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)The article you're referencing is from 2008, and apparently you failed to read the relevant portion. It even includes a quote from the Clinton campaign... Clinton campaign deputy communications director Phil Singer then added: "We are not seeking or asking pledged delegates for Sen. Obama to flip over . . . We are not engaged in any efforts (to flip Obama delegates)."
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,976 posts)Of course they denied it. Doesn't mean they didn't consider it. '"I just don't think this is over yet," she said, "and I don't think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates,"' she said.
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)Regardless of hearsay, the fact is that the RUMOR turned out to be false. No one from the actual campaign or her surrogates in 2008 said she was considering this. Actual members of the campaign said they weren't considering it AND they never did it. Your argument is flawed and weak.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,976 posts)"I just don't think this is over yet," she said, "and I don't think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,976 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,976 posts)Like I said - draw whatever conclusions you want.
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,976 posts)"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates." What do you think she meant by that?
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)Correlating this to your talking point and your candidate's reprehensible tactic doesn't mean that Hillary was talking about that. She was stating a fact about pledged delegates -- NOT saying they were trying to flip delegates. That's the subject of the article NOT her quote. What's confusing here?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,976 posts)In Monday's ed board meeting with the Philadelphia Daily News, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was asked about the basic math obstructing her path to the nomination.Specifically, she was asked her plans if, come June, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., remains in the lead with pledged delegates, how she would try to convince superdelegates to give her the nomination if Obama does end up the choice of primary voters and caucus goers?"I just don't think this is over yet," she said, "and I don't think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."Say what?This notion that the Clinton campaign will try to flip pledged delegates has been floated and knocked down before, but I'm failing to arrive at any other interpretation for what she means here other than: we will convince pledged delegates to vote for us, as is perfectly within Democratic party rules, despite the voters who elected them to support Obama.The Clinton campaign was just asked about this in a conference call.Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes said, "No delegate is required by party rule to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged. Obviously circumstances can change and people's minds can change about the viability of a candidate."Clinton campaign deputy communications director Phil Singer then added: "We are not seeking or asking pledged delegates for Sen. Obama to flip over . . . We are not engaged in any efforts (to flip Obama delegates)."Is the Clinton campaign's continual reminder to voters (and delegates) that they're allowed to flip not an effort?It all seems to feed into some negative memes for Sen. Clinton out there -- fairly or unfairly -- of ruthlessness, at the very least.- jpt
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)Correlating this to your talking point and your candidate's reprehensible tactic doesn't mean that Hillary was talking about that. She was stating a fact about pledged delegates -- NOT saying they were trying to flip delegates. That's the subject of the article NOT her quote. What's confusing here?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... until they decide to enforce the GE TOS around here. Pathetic.
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's sad.
Coincidence
(98 posts)a credible account of "reprehensible tactics"? Considering you've apparently seen this exact same accusation against your candidate, it seems you shouldn't be so quick to discount that this may be RUMOR as well. Of course if that's the case, it's your team who would be the ones spreading this rumor, so I can see how it's a tough call for you.
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)It's not a quote taken out of context in which the candidate is stating a fact about pledged delegates married to supposition that they were going to try to flip delegates. In the case of the quote -- from 2008 might I remind you -- it turned out not to be true and was disavowed by the Clinton campaign. I've yet to see the Sanders campaign disavow this on CNN, Twitter, MSNBC, or anywhere else. This isn't the sort of thing you just leave out there unanswered IF it's untrue.
Coincidence
(98 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)Twitter is instant. People are seeing it talked about on the News, why not respond quickly. Hillary Clinton's campaign did back in 2008 and that rumor was NOT on an instant communication platform...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Hillary Clinton's supporters are just chock full of that double standard.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Hardcore Bernie supporter notwithstanding, I strongly disapprove of this. Or of trying to flip superdelegates if Hillary goes into the convention with the lead in pledged ones., for that matter. The will of the people (or the applicable subset thereof, which is Democratic primary voters) must be the determining factor. Nothing to do with Democratic Party rules (couldn't care less...I'm not a Democrat), but with doing what's right.
Yes, Hillary and Bernie differ in areas I consider to be of paramount importance (and it's not even close). But any way to win that includes anti-democratic actions is unacceptable, even with the stakes this high. Bernie needs to ditch that assclown Devine ASAP.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)And a new low from this desperate crew.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i call bullshit. this is some rporter who thinks he has an inside scoop. sanders campaign has mentioned courting the supers a time or two, which apparently is permissible. but he would not try and steal a nominees pledged delegates.
this is just more shit stirring from those who need views/subscribers, etc
THAT, imo, is what is really pathetic, stooping to untrue smears for a tweet.
tritsofme
(17,435 posts)Also not particularly relevant.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,776 posts)Sometimes, leaders set the example. That's why we should be voting for the candidate that has a high integrity level. Corruption tends to trickle down.
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,776 posts)Surely, no one believes in double standards anymore, right?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)yardwork
(61,772 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)yardwork
(61,772 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Besides, Sanders and his people do not go at it "diplomatically". From past experience I am confident this is not a threat.
yardwork
(61,772 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that playing field we are all talking about.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)The people didn't listen so.....
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)BainsBane
(53,127 posts)and it's not going to work.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Devine has said on record they plan to try and flipped pledged Superdelegates if they can come close on pledged delegates. I think there was a key word (Super) missed in the Tweet.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)She's stating FACTS about delegates. No where in that video or in the articles you posted does she say they are going to try to flip delegates and they did not. Those are the facts. Stop being disingenuous.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)FFS my dog is less obtuse.
You have just hit tilt and have earned a spot:
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)I take it you've never taken class in logic and critical thinking... I'd hate to confuse you any further, so I'm glad you can't see my posts. You definitely will not want to see them in the days to come. Your little mind might explode! LOL
Stand and Fight
(7,480 posts)1. She's talking about the fact that superdelegates and pledged delegates can change their mind at any point.
2. She never says that her campaign is going to try to flip delegates -- super or pledged.
What's confusing about this to some people?
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)In 2008, Clinton never had such a strategy or attempted to do that.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)Sadly, his record is still 0-for-5 now.
RandySF
(59,695 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)They say superdelegates who are pledged to Clinton.
Probably some fuckery with words here because it's ridiculous to say say the actual pledged delegates can switch.
Everybody knows they can't.