home
Dean Supports Letting The Voters Decide | 157 comments (157 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

At least (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM EST
he's willing to let the voters in all the states have their primaries first. Unlike Leahy who today called on Hillary to concede now.

and dodd, yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Turkana on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08:01 AM EST
made clear he wants to shut it down.

[ Parent ]
They're being good surrogates (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:25:53 AM EST
I don't begrudge them that.

[ Parent ]
I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#32)
by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:29:31 AM EST
Nobody associated with the Obama campaign should be calling for Hillary to drop out.

[ Parent ]
No question it's a bad strategy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:37 AM EST
but they're carrying the message given. . .

[ Parent ]
Not necessarily true (none / 0) (#46)
by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM EST
Nobody else is saying it.  

Big-shot surrogates tend to go off on their own from time to time.  See Ferraro, Geraldine; Richardson, Bill; Rendell, Ed.

[ Parent ]

Quit? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by flashman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:48:59 AM EST
Nobody else is saying it.

Except for the pro-Obama MSM and netroots.  With thousands of demi-surrogates talking up the point, Big-shot ones aren't quite as necessary.

[ Parent ]

Please, let's stop (none / 0) (#126)
by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
Blurring the distinction between the campaigns and their unaffiliated supporters.

[ Parent ]
Not My Intention (none / 0) (#164)
by flashman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:19:13 PM EST
to blur those lines, but the fact remains that very powerful news organizations, having much influence on the perception of the electorate, has been calling for Hillary to quit prematurly.  I don't think it's wrong to point that out in a discussion about how voter's should decide.

[ Parent ]
Possible (none / 0) (#50)
by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:40:50 AM EST


[ Parent ]
But shouldn't they be good Democrats first? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:50:33 AM EST
...At least Dean is seeing that. And if the Democratic leadership wants me to be a good little soldier and vote for the candidate I don't now support...they need to lead by example.

[ Parent ]
I (none / 0) (#118)
by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST
begrudge anyone who claims to be a Democrat and then works to thwart democracy.  Of course, it's not hard to figure out why Dodd is sweating bullets.  He voted with the Republicans to impeach one of his own.  Traitor.

[ Parent ]
Who did Dodd votet to impeach? (none / 0) (#152)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57:18 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Leahy would know a thing or two about (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by tigercourse on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:15:26 AM EST
concession.

[ Parent ]
Exactly! (none / 0) (#23)
by doyenne49 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Sort of, (5.00 / 0) (#16)
by HeadScratcher on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:17:19 AM EST
Considering that Sen. Clinton is pushing the notion that pledged delegates aren't really pledged at all it doesn't seem necessary to have any voting to begin with since the delegates should choose the candidate regardless of the vote...

[ Parent ]
"Pushing the notion"? You don't know (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:19:34 AM EST
that it's true?  It is.  A pledge is not binding, and no delegate is bound to vote against their conscience and judgment as to the best candidate.

So your comment says nothing about Clinton or the rules, but it sure says a lot about someone's bias and ignorance.

[ Parent ]

Actually, a pledge is binding (5.00 / 0) (#35)
by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:31:30 AM EST
If you are a person of your word.  A pledged delegate cannot in good conscience vote for anyone but the candidate she promise to vote for.

[ Parent ]
Except in IA apparently. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Bunk (5.00 / 3) (#97)
by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:07:20 AM EST
You're clearly told (and more than once) when you're elected a caucus delegate that your vote is bound for the first ballot and you're free to vote however you want after that. That's what you promise.

I was a Dean delegate 4 years ago, my wife is a Clinton delegate now.

[ Parent ]

So you agree (none / 0) (#125)
by AF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EST
That pledged delegates are bound on the first ballot.

With two candidats left and the overwhelming desire among super delegates to get this resolved before the convention, it's hard to see this going to a second ballot.

But sure, if it does, all bets are off.

[ Parent ]

Nope -- pledged is not bound (5.00 / 2) (#100)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
And rules say that "delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them" -- which do not stop voters from changing their minds owing to intervening events and their delegates from reflecting that.

Plus, even pledge rules only apply to the first or second rounds of voting, depending upon state rules.

[ Parent ]

Silliness. See above. (none / 0) (#101)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM EST
Or we would not have had our 1952 nominee -- or might be in a situation of nominating a dead candidate, a convicted candidate, etc.

[ Parent ]
His language indicated bias (none / 0) (#165)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM EST
with "pushing the notion," and I called it out.

Additionally, there is a danger in this widespread questioning of Clinton telling it like it is -- as if the convention does decide on a nominee other than Obama, the lack of knowledge that it is perfectly fine for delegates to do so only would feed the meme about a "stolen" nomination.

And it would feed the frenzy created by those, like Donna "Walk Out" Brazile, who are telling untruths and threatening disruption at the convention.  I do not attribute those motives to anyone here, but they ought to know the process is not a "notion" being "pushed" by a candidate.  It is the party process.

[ Parent ]

Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by tek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:25:07 AM EST
isn't "pushing the notion."  Howard Dean said straight out the "pledged" delegates can vote however they want.  He's no Hillary shill!

[ Parent ]
Pledged delegates 'switching...' (none / 0) (#51)
by sweetthings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:41:13 AM EST
Is a ludicrous argument. No matter which camp it comes from.

Pledged delegates tend to come from two different pools:

  • Political professionals: These are people who's livelyhood is made in the political arena. If they were to vote against their pledged candidate, it would literally destroy their career, as nobody would ever trust them again.
  • Ultra, super partisans: Just drinking the Kool-Aid isn't enough to be a delegate. You have to live the Kool-Aid, be the Kool-Aid. These are not people who think...'You know, I like both candidates, I just like candidate X a little bit more.' These are people who are ready to donate a testicle if candidate X asks for it.

Out of thousands of pledged delegates, you might get one or two outliers who would be willing to switch. That's it. There is simply no chance that any significant number is going to defect.

[ Parent ]

I'm sure that will give them comfort (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:30 AM EST
As they watch their candidate sink into a GE morass of Wright, Wright, Wright, and more Wright.

Hopefully they aren't so stubborn or blind as to support a candidacy that has just hit an iceberg. We'll see if the rising waters convince them; they won't be able to just wash their hands of the matter.

[ Parent ]

Dean was asked about pledged (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:52:04 AM EST
delegates switching their allegiance in unlinkable AP interview.  He sd. its a very technical argument.

[ Parent ]
It is highly unlikely, of course. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by Cream City on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:10:33 AM EST
but the ludicrous statement here is to say that it's not allowed.

[ Parent ]
Not true (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:24:16 AM EST
mostly because most of the caucus states haven't selected convention delegates yet. In WA State, the Legislative District level conventions are in a week or two, followed by the Congressional District conventions, followed by the state convention. Each level elects pledged delegates to the next level and the state convention elects the national convention delegates.

At each level, the delegates from the previous level are pledged only for the first vote, and in my experience, the first vote is just a formality - kind of like taking attendance. After that vote, delegates can vote however they want.

At least through the state level, the delegates are ordinary people - some are professionals or ultra-partisans, most are not. I think there's a good chance that if I hadn't successfully evaded being elected a delegate at this year's caucus, I could go at least as far as the state convention, and maybe to the national. I'm neither a professional nor ultra-partisan.

It's conceivable, and within the rules, that either candidate could lose all of their delegates moving through the process. It's not likely.


[ Parent ]

It is puzzling (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by eric on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
how Sen. Leahy made such a bold statement.  He wasn't even close to this direct with AG Gonzales when it was obvious that he should quit.  When did he grow a spine?

In my view, there is only one explanation - the fix is in.  The establishment has chosen its candidate, and its not Hillary.  How else could Leahy make such a statement about a fellow Senator?  Normally, these people are so concilliatory and deferential to each other.

[ Parent ]

i know this sounds outrageous (none / 0) (#133)
by sancho on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:41:58 AM EST
but it is not clear to me that Leahy or Pelosi want to serve in a majority under a Democratic president. I think they fear Hillary making them be responsible for their votes as Bush made Republicans in Congress responsible for theirs. Remember, Bill could not get the Dem congress on his side either. And if Obama is unelectable, as some folks here think, then these "dem leaders" know it too.

[ Parent ]
Leahy (none / 0) (#10)
by Andy08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:14:06 AM EST
said that? What a dissapointement; it's depressing
to see him behave like this.  What need does he have of losing the respect of so many people after all these years?

[ Parent ]
Leahy's inability to lead (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by pluege on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
has been thoroughly demonstrated since he became chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee - talk about all hat and no cattle - what a disappointment. His foolishness and lack of statesmanship regarding Obama and Clinton is no surprise.

[ Parent ]
meant (none / 0) (#11)
by Andy08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM EST
"disappointment" --

[ Parent ]
hey (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by tree on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:28:58 AM EST
I kinda liked "dissapointement". Putting the "diss" in disapointment.

[ Parent ]
On behalf of the state of Vermont (none / 0) (#138)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:47:20 AM EST
I apologize for Senator Leahy's statement!


[ Parent ]

Dean Supports Letting The Voters Decide | 157 comments (157 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft