Sanders to try and flip Clinton's pledged delegates

[KingFlorez]

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]

1. Sounds like something Tad said before checking with Bernie.

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]

2. Tad Devine has never been on a winning presidential campaign.

So I wouldn't worry about it.

[geek tragedy]

3. This ought to come up when Sanders gets a media opportunity--why is his campaign trying to steal the

election?

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Hah. You might have to wait a while for this:

>>>>3. This ought to come up when Sanders gets a media opportunity>>>>

[geek tragedy]

10. true, maybe he and Kasich can do a joint presser nt

[JonLeibowitz]

4. If the DNC bylaws do not permit this, how does he expect to get anywhere with it?

If this is accurate, this doesn't sit right with me. The voters chose, and it was their mistake to make. :/

[still_one]

9. I am skeptical what comes across on Twitter, and the validity of this OP

[KingFlorez]

14. The information is from an LA Times reporter

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]

5. Golly, I wonder where he got that idea?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/02/clinton-seeks-flip-pledged-delegates

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>

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/hillary-wants-t.html

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]

11. they never tried it, for obvious reasons. If Tad Devine is indeed dumber than Mark Penn, I guess

this would be good evidence

[AtomicKitten]

44. It was dumb when she suggested in 2008 that pledged delegates can change their minds.

And it's a dumb suggestion today.

[Stand and Fight]

12. Your premise is disingenuous...

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]

27. They absolutely floated the idea.

The exact same idea I refer to in the title of my post:

Golly, I wonder where he got that idea?

[Stand and Fight]

31. You are being dishonest. They did not. Read the links YOU posted. It was heresy. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

36. You are in denial. They floated the trial balloon that pledged delegates can change their minds.

[Stand and Fight]

49. False. It's right in the articles YOU posted. I didn't post them. You did.

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]

62. Her quote:

"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]

63. Your talking point & the subject of your links & the quote are tenuous connections and false.

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]

58. Seems at least as credible as an unsourced twitter post. nt

[KingFlorez]

16. This is about Sanders in the present day

Not about some rumor in 2008 that wasn't even actually a strategy that Clinton pursued. Stay on topic.

[AtomicKitten]

33. They absolutely floated the idea, the "idea" is on topic.

[Stand and Fight]

38. Blatantly false and you know it. Try again. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

42. You are disregarding their quotes floating the idea that pledged delegates can change their minds.

[Stand and Fight]

45. You are taking quotes out of context and ignoring the fact that they denied it. Try again. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

48. Riiight. Who are you going to believe, her actual quote or your lying eyes?

[Stand and Fight]

54. A quote taken out of context... What's confusing about this for you?

[AtomicKitten]

59. Her quote:

"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]

61. The quote and the subject of the article are distinct things...

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]

89. And again, we are talking about Sanders in the present day

Anything that happened in 2008 does not absolve him of this desperate move.

[MaggieD]

46. Roger Simon is a right wing liar

"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]

57. She suggested pledged delegates can change their minds. Her quote:

"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."

[MaggieD]

66. No she didn't

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]

75. Yes she did and she says it in this video posted below by tom2thumbs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1508340

[MaggieD]

79. Next time watch the video before you post

You just destroyed your own false accusation. SMH.

[AtomicKitten]

83. @ 1:43 she says "the same" - i.e. mind changing - "is true for pledged delegates"

Could you be more obtuse?

[MaggieD]

85. Again, do you realize they are only bound on the first vote?

Do you even know the rules of the party at all???????

[Stand and Fight]

6. A reprehensible tactic from a candidate and campaign who claims to have great integrity.

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]

8. "A reprehensible tactic from a candidate and campaign who claims to have great integrity."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/hillary-wants-t.html

[Stand and Fight]

13. See my post (#12) above...

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]

15. Is it less reprehensible if it was done last election cycle and not this one?

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]

23. Supposition. The FACT is that they did not DO IT.

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]

25. I'm not arguing. Hillary is reported as having said this:

"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]

28. A quote taken out of context and now being used by you out of context. Try again. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Just reporting what the article said. Interpret it however you want.

[Stand and Fight]

34. I have. The facts are clear. Don't twist them to fit your agenda. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. I didn't twist the facts, I just quoted what I read in the article.

Like I said - draw whatever conclusions you want.

[Stand and Fight]

43. Cool. Glad you stopped that disingenous tactic. It is beneath you. Thanks!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. This is what Hillary told the Philadelphia Daily News:

"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]

60. She's stating the facts of what pledged delegates are... There is no need for interpretation.

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]

65. Here's the whole article. You may argue with their interpretation if you like.

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]

69. I read it. Did you not? This is not rocket science. It's right there. So again...

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]

53. The lies about Hillary will never stop

.... until they decide to enforce the GE TOS around here. Pathetic.

[Stand and Fight]

71. At this point it's laughable. Wish they would have some dignity.

[MaggieD]

73. Agreed

It's sad.

[Coincidence]

70. So you've already decided that this twitter post without any sources or attribution is...

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]

74. Not the same. This is a quote that addresses the subject of flipping delegates.

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]

84. posted <2hrs ago on some nobody's twitter acct, and Sanders should be on CNN addressing it by now?

[Stand and Fight]

87. It has been tweeted AT THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN. They've seen it.

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]

78. It's not reprehensible when a WASP does it

Hillary Clinton's supporters are just chock full of that double standard.

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. I suspect this is all on that fuckwit Tad Devine.

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]

17. Pathetic

And a new low from this desperate crew.

[restorefreedom]

64. its not from bernie

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]

18. The musings of a desperate, failing, flailing campaign. Not surprising.

Also not particularly relevant.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. The wheels are coming off The Political Revolution (tm)

[PonyUp]

29. Let's see how relevant the 'failing campaign' votes will be when needed. Nt

[Baitball Blogger]

19. The DNC hasn't exactly established itself as a pillar of ethical example, has it?

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]

26. Precisely. That's why I can't support BS if they're doing this unless he's running against a Repub.

[Baitball Blogger]

92. IF he's doing it, and IF it's illegal, then he's pragmatic.

Surely, no one believes in double standards anymore, right?

[Starry Messenger]

20. Sanders should have fired Tad Devine months ago.

[yardwork]

32. That's probably true. The Sanders campaign has made numerous missteps.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. They're still getting familiar with the bylaws...they're new to the organization, after all

[yardwork]

37. That's funny!

[seabeyond]

24. Hm, Democrat, non Democrat that hasn't given and trashes them? I am not concerned.

Besides, Sanders and his people do not go at it "diplomatically". From past experience I am confident this is not a threat.

[yardwork]

35. Hi seabeyond! I'm glad to see you here, and even gladder that you won't be alert stalked anymore!

[Stand and Fight]

39. +1 n/t

[seabeyond]

56. Ty. Nt

[seabeyond]

55. I know. I KNOW!! I am free, literally free, I tell you. Whole different world. That is leveling

that playing field we are all talking about.

[iandhr]

41. What's that about the will of the voters again?

[workinclasszero]

52. Oh that went under the Bernie bus I guess

The people didn't listen so.....

[mhatrw]

47. Well, if it was reported on twitter ...

[BainsBane]

67. I'm pretty sure it's superdelegates

and it's not going to work.

[Godhumor]

68. To be fair, I'm pretty sure this is simply poorly worded

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]

72. I'll just leave this here

[AtomicKitten]

76. thank you - lots of denial upthread about her saying pledged delegates can change their minds

[Stand and Fight]

82. No one denies that. Again, you distort the articles you posted.

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]

86. Look sweetie, I've posted her quotes, tom2thumbs posted the words coming out of her mouth.

FFS my dog is less obtuse.

You have just hit tilt and have earned a spot:

[Stand and Fight]

90. Obtuse? I know you can't see this, but... AK, you're the one who can't see my point.

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]

80. Facts:

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]

93. There is now strategy by Sanders to flip delegates

In 2008, Clinton never had such a strategy or attempted to do that.

[CalvinballPro]

77. Tad Devine has become disgustingly desperate in his quest to be involved with a winning campaign.

Sadly, his record is still 0-for-5 now.

[RandySF]

81. The death-rattle of a losing campaign.

[arcane1]

88. I've seen two posts about this but I have yet to see an actual quote from him n/t

[lunamagica]

91. Huh? what happened to "the will of the people"?

[Cheese Sandwich]

94. CNN and MSNBC have been incorrectly calling superdelegates "pledged" for weeks

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.