Hillary said there is no such thing as pledged delegates

She said the delegates are selected and then they decide who they think would make the best president. I hope people don't fall for this crap. I have said many times that I want her out of the presidential race. Now I wish she would just fade from the democratic party. I honestly can't stand her. She is putting her political ambitions before the party anyway. Ughhhhhhhhh....Two more long months before hopefully the super delegates completely shut her out......

You'll go far...:eyes:

Which makes me wonder about the Edwards and Kucinich delegates. What do they have to bring to this game?

The rules for whether a pledged delegate needs to vote for their candidate vary from state to state. For example, in PA, some of the delegates are required to vote for their candidate - but only on the first ballot.

The candidates are careful to select loyal people to serve as their delegates. Therefore, I'd be amazed if her strategy worked - even if it wasn't undemocratic.

...her strategy is to "switch" the pledged delegates. The vast majority of "pledged" delegates will vote for who they are supposed to.

I think she's just trying to get the superdelegates to think she's still viable, particularly if she narrows or takes the lead in the popular vote.

"Democratic" party? They'll be gone if the delegates they elected vote for the other candidate.

We need a strong voter turnout to win more congressional and Senate seats as well. Anything that would negatively impact voter turnout, such as disenfranchising the significant numbers of newly registered voters, would be a bad thing.

Delegates are expected to vote according to their judgement in a way that best reflects the will of those that elected them.

IF, the candidate of choice becomes unviable at convention, they DO have the latitude to change... but nothing is engraved in stone until Convention.

To change their pledge prior to the time of Convention, if their candidate has not withdrawn, WOULD be dishonorable and possibly, a violation of the rules. I think this is a generality and rules vary from state to state.

This latitude is given them because of candidates withdrawing or at convention, no candidate having enough delegates.

But, there is the brokering aspect. The platform policies of their candidate are to be pursued... and a vote is not simply transferred. It should be "sold" for compromises and pledges on the part of the candidate to whom the delegate is switching.

There ain't no something for nothing.

electing her would be the same as electing a bush who limps slightly to the left.

:eyes:

the issue of pledged delegates and I start off with a question. 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.

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.

After the April 22 Pennsylvania primary the pledged delegate count looks very close,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.

us obama folks, we be a bit slow.

...or even a close loss in PA - then he cleans her clock in NC - the SuperD's may pull the plug in short order after that.

"Give me my nomination!" demands the G.o.P.