I didn’t know this:

MSNBC is reporting today that Hillary may try to get some of Obama's elected delegates to support her. I didn't know this was possible, but the DNC has supposedly put out a memo that says that pledged delegates, i.e., delegates who have to vote for a certain candidate is a myth. People who were elected to support a particular candidate are not legally bound to support that candidate at the convention.

I wonder if the GOP works the same way. I've always thought that delegates have to support the candidate that they are pledged to on the 1st ballot. Maybe not.

flaja wrote:

MSNBC is reporting today that Hillary may try to get some of Obama's elected delegates to support her. I didn't know this was possible, but the DNC has supposedly put out a memo that says that pledged delegates, i.e., delegates who have to vote for a certain candidate is a myth. People who were elected to support a particular candidate are not legally bound to support that candidate at the convention.

I wonder if the GOP works the same way. I've always thought that delegates have to support the candidate that they are pledged to on the 1st ballot. Maybe not.

No they do not. So Clinton will do what the Clintons have always done, lie, cheat, steal, or do ANYTHING to steal this nomination from Obama.

woiyo wrote:

flaja wrote:

MSNBC is reporting today that Hillary may try to get some of Obama's elected delegates to support her. I didn't know this was possible, but the DNC has supposedly put out a memo that says that pledged delegates, i.e., delegates who have to vote for a certain candidate is a myth. People who were elected to support a particular candidate are not legally bound to support that candidate at the convention.

I wonder if the GOP works the same way. I've always thought that delegates have to support the candidate that they are pledged to on the 1st ballot. Maybe not.

No they do not. So Clinton will do what the Clintons have always done, lie, cheat, steal, or do ANYTHING to steal this nomination from Obama.

I've always wanted to see a Democrat National Convention invoke the Marquiss of Queensbury's rules Innisfree style.

If I can paraphrase Sam Mussabini in Chariots of Fire when he saw Eric Liddell in person for the first time and a race official expressed concerns that the presence of a professional athletic trainer would disrupt the amateur character of the games: Convention? You must be joking. I've seen better organized riots.

MSNBC is reporting today that Hillary may try to get some of Obama's elected delegates to support her. I didn't know this was possible, but the DNC has supposedly put out a memo that says that pledged delegates, i.e., delegates who have to vote for a certain candidate is a myth. People who were elected to support a particular candidate are not legally bound to support that candidate at the convention.

I wonder if the GOP works the same way. I've always thought that delegates have to support the candidate that they are pledged to on the 1st ballot. Maybe not.[/quote


Why do you start a thread about something of which you don't have the facts? MSNBC repeated a story originally posted by Roger Simon of politico.com.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html


No one (except Roger Simon) knows who in the Clinton campaign proposed this and this story is already ancient history.

flaja wrote:

MSNBC is reporting today that Hillary may try to get some of Obama's elected delegates to support her. I didn't know this was possible, but the DNC has supposedly put out a memo that says that pledged delegates, i.e., delegates who have to vote for a certain candidate is a myth. People who were elected to support a particular candidate are not legally bound to support that candidate at the convention.

I wonder if the GOP works the same way. I've always thought that delegates have to support the candidate that they are pledged to on the 1st ballot. Maybe not.[/quote


Why do you start a thread about something of which you don't have the facts? MSNBC repeated a story originally posted by Roger Simon of politico.com.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html


No one (except Roger Simon) knows who in the Clinton campaign proposed this and this story is already ancient history.[/quote]

I generally don't use the internet as a source of news. I wouldn't know this Simon character from the man in the moon. What's so special about him? You have a crush on him or something?

Roxxxanne wrote:

flaja wrote:

MSNBC is reporting today that Hillary may try to get some of Obama's elected delegates to support her. I didn't know this was possible, but the DNC has supposedly put out a memo that says that pledged delegates, i.e., delegates who have to vote for a certain candidate is a myth. People who were elected to support a particular candidate are not legally bound to support that candidate at the convention.

I wonder if the GOP works the same way. I've always thought that delegates have to support the candidate that they are pledged to on the 1st ballot. Maybe not.[/quote


Why do you start a thread about something of which you don't have the facts? MSNBC repeated a story originally posted by Roger Simon of politico.com.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html


No one (except Roger Simon) knows who in the Clinton campaign proposed this and this story is already ancient history.[/quote]

I generally don't use the internet as a source of news. I wouldn't know this Simon character from the man in the moon. What's so special about him? You have a crush on him or something?

What, are you living in 1995?

You have a computer - you are using it right now - get some news from it!

Cycloptichorn

flaja wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

flaja wrote:

MSNBC is reporting today that Hillary may try to get some of Obama's elected delegates to support her. I didn't know this was possible, but the DNC has supposedly put out a memo that says that pledged delegates, i.e., delegates who have to vote for a certain candidate is a myth. People who were elected to support a particular candidate are not legally bound to support that candidate at the convention.

I wonder if the GOP works the same way. I've always thought that delegates have to support the candidate that they are pledged to on the 1st ballot. Maybe not.[/quote


Why do you start a thread about something of which you don't have the facts? MSNBC repeated a story originally posted by Roger Simon of politico.com.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html


No one (except Roger Simon) knows who in the Clinton campaign proposed this and this story is already ancient history.[/quote]

I generally don't use the internet as a source of news. I wouldn't know this Simon character from the man in the moon. What's so special about him? You have a crush on him or something?

What, are you living in 1995?

You have a computer - you are using it right now - get some news from it!

Cycloptichorn

What has 1995 to do with anything?

When I want news, political-themed websites are not the 1st or even the 2nd or 3rd place I go to. I heard this bit about the pledged delegates to the Democrat convention only in passing. If I hadn't heard of it when I did and how I did, I wouldn't be discussing it now.

Cyclo, he gets his information form "hearing" it. Why should he actually get the info first hand when he can listen to BOR, Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham on the radio? The ignorance of the electorate these days is alarming.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Cyclo, he gets his information form "hearing" it. Why should he actually get the info first hand when he can listen to BOR, Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham on the radio? The ignorance of the electorate these days is alarming.

Your arrogance is quite annoying and disrespectful.

The concept of "committed delegates" has been misreported for years and many so called experts were unfamiliar.

Only the true GEEKS like you would "fake" knowing this before the article was written.

You are the same person who when I asked you directly WHY you say McCain has no chance, your response was "LOL".

I think you owe FLAJA an apology.

I think you owe FLAJA an apology.

woiyo wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Cyclo, he gets his information form "hearing" it. Why should he actually get the info first hand when he can listen to BOR, Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham on the radio? The ignorance of the electorate these days is alarming.

Your arrogance is quite annoying and disrespectful.

The concept of "committed delegates" has been misreported for years and many so called experts were unfamiliar.

Only the true GEEKS like you would "fake" knowing this before the article was written.

You are the same person who when I asked you directly WHY you say McCain has no chance, your response was "LOL".

I think you owe FLAJA an apology.

The Roger Simon story was widely reported,only an ignoramus would not have known the source and the details of this story. If the fact that I am light years more knowledgeable than you or the flajas of the world makes me a geek, than I am a geek.

I don't have to apologize for your or flaja's ignorance.

Roxxxanne wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Cyclo, he gets his information form "hearing" it. Why should he actually get the info first hand when he can listen to BOR, Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham on the radio? The ignorance of the electorate these days is alarming.

Your arrogance is quite annoying and disrespectful.

The concept of "committed delegates" has been misreported for years and many so called experts were unfamiliar.

Only the true GEEKS like you would "fake" knowing this before the article was written.

You are the same person who when I asked you directly WHY you say McCain has no chance, your response was "LOL".

I think you owe FLAJA an apology.

The Roger Simon story was widely reported,only an ignoramus would not have known the source and the details of this story. If the fact that I am light years more knowledgeable than you or the flajas of the world makes me a geek, than I am a geek.

I don't have to apologize for your or flaja's ignorance.

Where was it "widely reported" and the net doesn't count because most people don't blindly search political websites to get the day's news.

And that last comment is the reason so many do not participate in the political forum. You cite cable TV as the oracle of political information. Not everyone has access to or can afford cable TV. If people have questions about politics, like Flaja did, where are they supposed to ask them, in the Food forum?

I don't know who Roger (Imabigshotinmyownmind) whatshisname is either, and I don't care who he is. I wouldn't rely on him for info about the convention delegates no matter who he is. I'd go to the source and read the info contained in the Convention Rules found on the DNC website and make up my own mind rather than depend on some cable TV News entertainer to tell me what to think about it.

Butrflynet wrote:

And that last comment is the reason so many do not participate in the political forum. You cite cable TV as the oracle of political information. Not everyone has access to or can afford cable TV. If people have questions about politics, like Flaja did, where are they supposed to ask them, in the Food forum?

I don't know who Roger (Imabigshotinmyownmind) whatshisname is either, and I don't care who he is. I wouldn't rely on him for info about the convention delegates no matter who he is. I'd go to the source and read the info contained in the Convention Rules found on the DNC website and make up my own mind rather than depend on some cable TV News entertainer to tell me what to think about it.

Good post. I had no idea who this guy was either (still don't), and I'm not going to waste my time looking.

Listen to the message, not the messenger.

Roxxxanne will never learn.