What the?

Seriously, if this is true Clinton has lost any chance of my support in any election ever full stop.

UPDATE BY BRENDAN: In fairness, the Clinton campaign promptly denied the report in question, and pledged not to try and "poach" Obama's elected delegates. The Obama campaign has also ruled out "poaching."

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean Hillary's supporters in Michigan won't try to poach "Obama's" Uncommitted delegates at the district conventions on March 29...

Comments

[Angrier and Angrier]

If this is true, don't be surprised if regular Clinton delegates start changing their support over to Obama should he win Texas and Ohio.

[yea]

survey usa now has clinton up 9 in ohio. new texas polls have clinton up 2 and 6 respectively. as expected, these states are moving closer as the election approaches and obama becomes more known to those states.

if obama has a big night tonight, we might see clinton's last stand during the next 2 weeks. im expecting extremely tense and entertaining debates and probably some dirty hit pieces right before election day.

[dcl]

I'm not sure. It seems like every time Hillary pulls out the hatchet she loses popular support. There is, to a certain degree at least, dirty tricks fatigue in this country. I think people are just tired of it.

[Alasdair]

Well, damn !

You gotta admit, Karl Rove sure is slick ! Pulling off a stunt like this ... WOW !

(grin)

[Joe Loy]

Since we're on the subject of Pledged Delegates: boys & girls, can you spell P-r-e-s-i-d-e-n-t-i-a-l E-l-e-c-t-o-r-s ? ;0

(And in pre-emptive reply to the Objections which my Mind's Ear can already Hear being hollered, let me very Oratorically intone: YES THEY CAN! [see, it's not Plagiarism cuz I Changed a word ;] )

Look. If we really want to ensure that the almighty Popular Vote can never be Contravened by party Convention or electoral College, either via random statistical Accident OR fickle human Design, we have to entirely Abolish the Conventions and the College. Then all we'll have left to do is: (a) Decide & Define what we mean by "the popular vote Winner" with respect to our brand-new revolutionary National Primary and Nation Election; and (b) figure out how the hell ~ and by-When-&-by-Whom the hell :} ~ the Counting and Recounting and re-reCounting shall be done. ;>

Now as regards this horrifying Bombshell revelation :} that Pledged delegates Aren't Really :>, Wikipedia notes one of the several significant systemic deterrents to Pledgling disloyalty (emphasis added):

...Pledged delegates reflect the preferences of the voters, but are not actually legally bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged for. However, since candidates may remove delegates who they feel may be disloyal, pledged delegates generally vote for the candidate they represent.

Here are some of the pertinent provisions of the "Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention" (click on the link to PDF of same in Footnote 4 at the top of this page, excerpted from Section 12 on PDF pages 12-14) ~ emphases added ~

Section 12

A. All candidates for delegate and alternate in caucuses, conventions, committees and on primary ballots shall be identified as to presidential preference or uncommitted status at all levels of a process which determines presidential preference.

B. All persons wishing to be elected to a district-level or at-large delegate position must file a statement of candidacy designating the presidential or uncommitted preference of the delegate candidate and a signed pledge of support for the presidential candidate (including uncommitted status) the person favors, if any, with the state party by a date certain as specified in the state’s Delegate Selection Plan. Persons wishing to be elected as pledged party leader and elected official delegates shall comply with Rule 9.C.(3).

D. Prior to the selection of national convention delegates and alternates, the state party shall convey to the presidential candidate, or that candidate’s authorized representative(s), a list of all persons who have filed for delegate or alternate positions pledged to that presidential candidate. All such delegate and alternate candidates shall be considered bona fide supporters of the presidential candidate whom they have pledged to support, unless the presidential candidate, or that candidate’s authorized representative(s), signifies otherwise in writing to the state party by a date certain as specified in the state’s Delegate Selection Plan. 1. Presidential candidates shall certify in writing to the Democratic State Chair the name(s) of their authorized representative(s) by a date certain...

E. National convention delegate and alternate candidates removed from the list of bona fide supporters by a presidential candidate, or that candidate’s authorized representative(s), may not be elected as a delegate or alternate at that level pledged to that presidential candidate (including uncommitted status)...

I. No delegate at any level of the delegate selection process shall be mandated by law or Party rule to vote contrary to that person’s presidential choice as expressed at the time the delegate is elected.

J. Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

[dcl]

bit of a croc that one can't define what the popular vote is. Also, if they can figure it out in India, you seriously think we can't do it in the US.

[Joe Loy]

dcl, admittedly (and I'll try to put this Delicately :) I'd rather be a Delhigate Alligator ;} than get bit by a Croc :> but No, what I Seriously Think is that they can't Do it in India either, and if you think they Can I'd like to see some empirical Evidence thereof, from which you may kindly Exclude their aggregate official Results because they don't prove anything more than Ours (of which I could show you Various equally-plausible Versions) do, namely: Squat.

But in any case, Dane, I didn't say "one can't define what the popular vote is" [although, that actually IS contentious as regards Eligibility & Access & VoterID & Provisionalballotstatus & all suchlike Voterlist-related issues; but none of that pesky stuff is what I Said, nor Meant]. / What I said&meant was, if we go to a Pure PV we'll need to "Decide & Define what we mean by 'the popular vote Winner' with respect to our brand-new revolutionary National Primary and National Election; and (b) figure out how the hell ~ and by-When-&-by-Whom the hell :} ~ the Counting and Recounting and re-reCounting shall be done. ;>"

Now, lately I've noticed that my beloved Cablenewsies ;] are quick to dismiss these kinds of questions as being Pickypickishly situated "In the Weeds." (Usually they do this as soon as some Guest Talkingpointster starts griping either (a) that Barack doesn't tell us enough Specifics or (b) that Hillary gets really Boring when she goes all PolicyWonkish on us. :)

Trouble Is: at least when it come to the Plantation of viable Process reforms, all of the sturdy Seeds must be sown Precisely in the Weeds.