Hillary: every vote should count when it comes to MI & FL?

O

Onceler

New member
HOWEVER, there is no such thing as a "pledged delegate". How can someone argue "for the voter," and then show such contempt for the decision of that voter in the next breath?

"There is no such thing as a pledged delegate. Pledged delegates are “misnomer. The whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain,” Clinton said. “And I think that process goes all the way to the convention.”"

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8804846

Could she be any more transparent?
 
Onceler said:
HOWEVER, there is no such thing as a "pledged delegate". How can someone argue "for the voter," and then show such contempt for the decision of that voter in the next breath?

"There is no such thing as a pledged delegate. Pledged delegates are “misnomer. The whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain,” Clinton said. “And I think that process goes all the way to the convention.”"

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8804846

Could she be any more transparent?
Click to expand...

Every vote only counts when it comes to the Clintons.

She has become the clown who doesn't know when the show is over and it's time to take off the big fake nose.
 
Onceler said:
HOWEVER, there is no such thing as a "pledged delegate". How can someone argue "for the voter," and then show such contempt for the decision of that voter in the next breath?

"There is no such thing as a pledged delegate. Pledged delegates are “misnomer. The whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain,” Clinton said. “And I think that process goes all the way to the convention.”"

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8804846

Could she be any more transparent?
Click to expand...

Obama is moving up in PA polls. I don't know if it's possible for him to beat her there, but if he should, she is buried and will withdraw that same night I believe. She might not want to, but she won't have a choice.

I know that's a long shot though. But I'm really hoping for it, because then there will be no ambiguity. If she creams him there, she'll never leave. If she beats him by a couple of points...then it become ambigious. I don't think she'll drop out then. I think anyone else would have to, but the rules appear to be different for her.

If he beats her by only one point though - then we are rid of her. At least the polls are moving in the right direction.
 
i think this may work itself out by june 3rd. All the primaries will be over and the supers will have allot of pressure to decide.

if i was hillary i wouldn't quit either.. shes so close to him that if something startling happens she could still overtake him.
 
Onceler said:
HOWEVER, there is no such thing as a "pledged delegate". How can someone argue "for the voter," and then show such contempt for the decision of that voter in the next breath?

"There is no such thing as a pledged delegate. Pledged delegates are “misnomer. The whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain,” Clinton said. “And I think that process goes all the way to the convention.”"

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_8804846

Could she be any more transparent?
Click to expand...

Maybe Gore is advising her. :)
 
I may not be the biggest Hillary fan. But seriously, this is some spin here.

Saying that all the votes should count and that each person should carefully consider when they vote are not contrary statements.
 
Damocles said:
I may not be the biggest Hillary fan. But seriously, this is some spin here.

Saying that all the votes should count and that each person should carefully consider when they vote are not contrary statements.
Click to expand...

You fail at reading comprehension.
 
Damocles said:
I may not be the biggest Hillary fan. But seriously, this is some spin here.

Saying that all the votes should count and that each person should carefully consider when they vote are not contrary statements.
Click to expand...

Huh?

I seriously wonder about you sometimes....
 
Damocles said:
Telling people that they must or must not vote one way because they "pledged" that way is not telling them their vote doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Dude, here's how it works: the voters vote in primary elections. Based on their votes, delegates are sent to the convention to represent them & cast their convention vote accordingly. If "pledged delegates" just vote however they want, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in having a primary vote, where voters show up and cast their votes.

Understand now?
 
Onceler said:
Dude, here's how it works: the voters vote in primary elections. Based on their votes, delegates are sent to the convention to represent them & cast their convention vote accordingly. If "pledged delegates" just vote however they want, there is absolutely no point whatsoever in having a primary vote, where voters show up and cast their votes.

Understand now?
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, much like the electoral college you vote for a representative who may vote how they please.

It would be pretty ridiculous forcing them to vote for... oh, let's say a dead guy for instance if they knew that the living guy had a better shot at the Presidency.

Saying that they don't HAVE to vote a certain way is not the same thing as telling people that their votes don't count. She's trying to play the, "I'm more electable" line. Of course, she isn't, but that doesn't change that the two statements are not contradictory.

It's kind of like voting for a supposed Conservative, then having him spend billions on welfare programs for one of the richest groups of the land....
 
Damocles said:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, much like the electoral college you vote for a representative who may vote how they please.

It would be pretty ridiculous forcing them to vote for... oh, let's say a dead guy for instance if they knew that the living guy had a better shot at the Presidency.

Saying that they don't HAVE to vote a certain way is not the same thing as telling people that their votes don't count. She's trying to play the, "I'm more electable" line. Of course, she isn't, but that doesn't change that the two statements are not contradictory.
Click to expand...


This is a completely disingenuous argument. You know that's not the argument she's making; she's not talking about Obama dying, and I don't even think she's talking about a dramatic event that seriously damages Obama between now & the convention. She's talking about convincing delegates that are sent to the convention to represent the WILL OF THE VOTERS to ignore that will & vote however they see fit.

Going back to the initial post...what is the point of having re-votes, or any votes at all, in MI & FL? How can someone make an argument that it would be morally wrong to "disenfranchise" the voters in those states, and then turn around and attempt to disenfranchise them by convincing the delegates that were selected to represent them, to vote an entirely different way?

Like I said, I seriously wonder about you sometimes.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, much like the electoral college you vote for a representative who may vote how they please.

It would be pretty ridiculous forcing them to vote for... oh, let's say a dead guy for instance if they knew that the living guy had a better shot at the Presidency.

Saying that they don't HAVE to vote a certain way is not the same thing as telling people that their votes don't count. She's trying to play the, "I'm more electable" line. Of course, she isn't, but that doesn't change that the two statements are not contradictory.

It's kind of like voting for a supposed Conservative, then having him spend billions on welfare programs for one of the richest groups of the land....
Click to expand...

I think they are contradictory. It is undemocratic to look to the elite of your party – who are in most cases the rich and powerful – to overturn the clear will of the voter, because they “know better” and can tell who would make the best candidate. I mean, I don’t know how you could argue that as democratic. It’s clear elitism.

But this is all moot. As much as you would like to see the superdelegates overturn the popular will and appoint Hillary as the nominee (that is after all how bush became president so we know republicans love it), they are going to do no such thing. So don’t get your hopes up, African Americans aren’t going to be told to sit down and shut up, the youth aren’t going to be told their vote doesn’t count. Hillary isn’t going to be appointed to shit.
 
Onceler said:
This is a completely disingenuous argument. You know that's not the argument she's making; she's not talking about Obama dying, and I don't even think she's talking about a dramatic event that seriously damages Obama between now & the convention. She's talking about convincing delegates that are sent to the convention to represent the WILL OF THE VOTERS to ignore that will & vote however they see fit.

Going back to the initial post...what is the point of having re-votes, or any votes at all, in MI & FL? How can someone make an argument that it would be morally wrong to "disenfranchise" the voters in those states, and then turn around and attempt to disenfranchise them by convincing the delegates that were selected to represent them, to vote an entirely different way?

Like I said, I seriously wonder about you sometimes.
Click to expand...
No, she is saying that "They should think about the electability of the candidate..."

I just don't think it is contrary to people in Michigan should have a say and that people who are delegates should vote for who they think would win.
 
Darla said:
I think they are contradictory. It is undemocratic to look to the elite of your party – who are in most cases the rich and powerful – to overturn the clear will of the voter, because they “know better” and can tell who would make the best candidate. I mean, I don’t know how you could argue that as democratic. It’s clear elitism.

But this is all moot. As much as you would like to see the superdelegates overturn the popular will and appoint Hillary as the nominee (that is after all how bush became president so we know republicans love it), they are going to do no such thing. So don’t get your hopes up, African Americans aren’t going to be told to sit down and shut up, the youth aren’t going to be told their vote doesn’t count. Hillary isn’t going to be appointed to shit.
Click to expand...
She isn't asking the elite to overturn the vote, she is asking for pledged delegates to vote for her over Obama.

If you guys don't like it, get rid of the delegates at all. I can't see any way that saying that delegates should vote for the person they think would win means that their votes don't count.
 
If Hillary were ahead of Obama in the delegate count, instead of the other way around, I wonder if she would be expounding so forthrightly on the reasons delegates should ignore their pledges. :D

It's hilarious to see Democrats pretending they are acting on high principles sometimes, as though they expected anyone to believe them....!!
 
Little-Acorn said:
If Hillary were ahead of Obama in the delegate count, instead of the other way around, I wonder if she would be expounding so forthrightly on the reasons delegates should ignore their pledges. :D

It's hilarious to see Democrats pretending they are acting on high principles sometimes, as though they expected anyone to believe them....!!
Click to expand...
Of course she wouldn't.
 
Damocles said:
No, she is saying that "They should think about the electability of the candidate..."

I just don't think it is contrary to people in Michigan should have a say and that people who are delegates should vote for who they think would win.
Click to expand...

Well, we completely disagree. It's no different from asking the electoral college to vote the opposite of how the voters in their states cast their votes, based on who they individually think would make the "best President." It nullifies the votes cast. It is no longer a representative democracy.

That's what she is arguing for. That's why it is contradictory to express concern about voter disenfranchisement while arguing at the same time that regular voters don't count, and that delegates shouldn't listen to the voters in their states.
 
"I can't see any way that saying that delegates should vote for the person they think would win means that their votes don't count."

You're being intentionally obtuse. No one is talking about the "will" of the "delegates". We're talking about the will of the voters who those delegates are supposed to represent.

Man, when you dig in your heels, it can get embarassing.
 
"I can't see any way that saying that delegates should vote for the person they think would win means that their (the citizens) votes don't count."

Damo if you can't see that, then I can't help you. I mean I guess you can't see an elephant sitting on your head either?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top