Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomination

[snapcat]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

B]I trust I made my point in my communication to you.[/B]

 

[syntax]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

I trust I made my point in my communication to you.

Of course. I acknowledged my transgression earlier in the thread and made apologies to the victim. We made plans to have a drink together. The finger-wagging comment here strikes me as gratuitous.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

Of course. I acknowledged my transgression earlier in the thread and made apologies to the victim. We made plans to have a drink together. The finger-wagging comment here strikes me as gratuitous.

Arse-boot-lutely!!!

Snap, you're buying.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

Since this pattern goes back to the turn of the last century, I think attributing it to Jackson and Sharpton like that is a stretch. I think it has more to do with FDR recasting the Democratic Party as the party of economic advancement, and that --along with civil rights of course-- advantaged blacks. That same element of economic advancement that Clinton made a cornerstone of his presidency (It's the economy, stupid) was, I believe, a big part of what made life better for African Americans with Clinton in the White House. I think the same would be true with Hillary Clinton as President.

But it's interesting you mention that because it sounds like what Jesse Jackson Jr is doing now to pressure blacks to abandon their support for Hillary Clinton and shift it to Barack Obama. Except that Clinton has supported policies that advantage big portions of the black population and modern Republicans haven't. Still, what's happening gives pause.

A historical tidbit: at the time of FDR, the Democratic Party was the party of pointy-topped white cloaks.

Jackson is just letting a bit more of his racism show.


It definitely does give pause that extremism is popping up so much... worse on the Republican side, certainly.
We could use a large dose of that diversity without division mentioned earlier.

 

[BlueD]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

Like this?

​

Yes, mine would be a better one though.

(you never fail to make me smile )

 

[TierraSimms]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

I lived in Miami for the better part of a year. Yes, there were different neighborhoods, but...

drive through a Democrat-dominated/owned black neighborhood, and you got stared at, spit at, even had thrown things at you, if you weren't black; drive through a mostly Republican Cuban neighborhood, and people came out to see if you needed directions, and if you asked for directions there was a good chance you'd get a glass of lemonade while you listened.

It was black Democrats who taught me racism. I was never racist till I experienced Miami, and got treated like the enemy because I wasn't black. And it was brown Republicans who taught me to rise above it.

But the interesting thing to me were the (Republican) Cuban neighborhoods where diversity was alive and healthy: Spanish Cubans, Mulatto Cubans, black Cubans, native Cubans, Chinese Cubans, each in their groupings, but also overlapping and blending. And when as a "gringo" I moved in among them, they didn't worry about the color of my skin or the kind of slang I used, or even how bad my Spanish was; all they worried about was how well I did whatever I did.

So judging from my experience in Miami -- and St. Louis, too, BTW -- and your posts, Musicman, it seems to me that the racism that blacks taught me is alive and well, so alive and well that it's taken for granted.

Where diversity means respect, and mingling, and working together, that's America. Where diversity means division... well, whatever it is, it isn't America -- and it isn't Clinton's Democrats a whole lot more than it's Huckabee's ReligioPublicans.

I agree with most of what you are saying EXCEPT the part about Cubans. I'm of Cuban descent (via my mother), and I can tell you for a fact Cubans have color issues probably just as bad if not worse than others when comes to race. I have Cuban relatives who said and express distain and borderline racist notions towards Mulatto Cubans, black Cubans, and even black folks in general.

 

[Lostlover]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

NOW Hillary needs 57% of the remaining votes/delegates just to TIE Obama.

Hillary just throw in the towel please. PLEASE.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080221/D8UUD8480.html

 

[frankfrank]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

I've heard NOBODY commenting on this.

What happens to the delegates that John Edwards earned? Is there any kind of poll, any indication, anything, about how they may go?

Do Democratic Party rules allow John Edwards to "give" his delegates to the candidate of his choice, or are "his" delegates forever out of the count, or what?

 

[snapcat]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

^ As I understand it - and I'm sure that people will correct me if I'm wrong - but even pledged delegates are free to vote for whomever they want. So, I would guess that the Edwards delegates can vote for whomever they like.

 

[construct]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

^ As I understand it - and I'm sure that people will correct me if I'm wrong - but even pledged delegates are free to vote for whomever they want. So, I would guess that the Edwards delegates can vote for whomever they like.

When delegates are pledged, they are pledged only for the first ballot. If the candidate is not selected on the first ballot, they are released from their pledge, and they can then vote for whoever they like. I would like to know whether under the rules Edwards can release his delegates from their pledge.

 

[snapcat]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

^ Well that's a good question. I wish I had the answer. The Democratic rules seem as complicated as the tax laws.

 

[JackFTwist]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

I've heard NOBODY commenting on this.

What happens to the delegates that John Edwards earned? Is there any kind of poll, any indication, anything, about how they may go?

Do Democratic Party rules allow John Edwards to "give" his delegates to the candidate of his choice, or are "his" delegates forever out of the count, or what?

Edwards delegates are individually free to go where they want. I have heard no speculation. How many are there? I suspect whatever number there are, they are waiting for Edwards to say something.

 

[snapcat]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

I keep wondering what Edwards wants. I'm sure that he must want something in order for him to endorse someone, but what is it that he wants?

 

[Lostlover]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

The 56% was before Wisconsin. How much would she need now? Go Texas and Ohio!

57% now... it just isn't going to happen for Hillary. She needs to stop being selfish and drop out.

She's only dividing the party by staying in this race this long.

 

[opinterph]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

Just to share some of my Google search results ...

As I understand it … even pledged delegates are free to vote for whomever they want. So, I would guess that the Edwards delegates can vote for whomever they like.

From My Lamppost Blog (purports to be balanced, opinionated, and fair):

It appears to be a state-by-state process but the sentiment is that Democratic pledged delegates are not forced to vote for the candidate that earned them, regardless of whether that candidate is in the race or not. [Link]

From National Public Radio (Alex Cohen):

What happens to these delegates now that their candidates have called it quits? After talking to some of these delegates, the only matter that becomes crystal clear is that there are few hard and fast rules across the board. [Link]

When delegates are pledged, they are pledged only for the first ballot. If the candidate is not selected on the first ballot, they are released from their pledge, and they can then vote for whoever they like. I would like to know whether under the rules Edwards can release his delegates from their pledge.

From MyDD (A group blog designed to discuss campaigns, the progressive movement, and political power):

Remember a couple of things. There is no first-ballot "vote for your candidate" rule at the Democratic Convention. Technically, any delegate is free to vote for any candidate on any ballot. (There may be state rules mandating a vote - we're still looking into that). Therefore, there is no such thing as a "legal" release of delegates. There is a political "release" - almost all delegates will vote for their candidate unless their candidate tells them they don't have to. But from a Rules point of view, a "release" of delegates mean nothing …


And therefore, it doesn't matter whether Edwards "ended" his campaign or "suspended" it as far as his delegates go. My guess is he will tell any delegates he has left that they can vote for who they want, or he could endorse someone and tell his delegates to vote for that person. But it doesn't matter from a rules point of view. They can vote for anybody at any time anyway, regardless of what Edwards did or say today or does in the future. [Link]

 

[construct]

Re: Hillary needs 56% of delegates left for nomina

Thanks for the correction, Opinterph.

In light of the sources cited in your post, do you think we have been putting too much emphasis on the distinction between pledged and unpledged delegates?