Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Pledged Delegate Switches Allegiance -- Why?
From the Washington Post via Demonwatch:
What on earth is going on here? I can't imagine the Obama campaign was in favor of this switch (and according the the Demconwatch post, Plouffe has said as much) -- and I furthermore can't imagine that the Democratic party would have much use for someone who's violated the intent (though not the letter) of the convention system. But operating under the assumption that politicians support their own self-interest first, what could Jack B. Johnson hope to gain from this positioning? Seems like he's trying to play the roll of a superdelegate but without that authority. Anyone have insight here?
Prince George's County Executive Jack B. Johnson, a Democratic convention delegate pledged to support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said yesterday that he thinks Sen. Barack Obama has "in a real sense" won the Democratic nomination and that he now plans to support Obama at the August convention.
Advertisement
Comments (16)
1) He just made national headlines -- perhaps hoping to get to a chance for a large audience for an upcoming election campaign he will jump into
2) He is hoping to curry favor with the Obama camp -- and find a position in the administration
3) His significant other is an Obama supporter and has withdrawn sex until he switches
4) It really is a vote of conscience
May 13, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typically his job would be to fight for the interests of those who elected him, whether that's the nomination or just more say on the party plank. Of course it's going to turn into a free-for-all, so have at it. It gives Hillary an easier time justifying movement in the other direction if she can carry it off.
May 13, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
1,2 -- Again, I'm probably exhibiting naivete, but I can't imagine this earning anything but notariety. (I suppose he could be working from the idea that no publicity is bad publicity, though). 3 -- possible. 4 -- but... he's supposed to represent voters, as Desidero says, and there are other delegates to represent the voters who chose Obama. So at least that's not what my conscious would tell me to do.
May 13, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
conscience. not conscious. with knowledge.
May 13, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good chance he has an election coming up and he did out self preservation. I agree something he probably shouldn't have done it just look bad.
May 13, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose I'm just naive (that's why I ask you people questions), but assuming this particular person is in some sort of elected position, I'd expect a move like that to reduce his popularity among voters.
May 13, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Timing? Could he just be an Obama supporter who wants to mute the outcome of today's primaries as much as he can?
May 13, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know the campaign picks their own pledged delegates, right?
May 13, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, this guy was selected by the Clinton campaign.
Why did the Clinton campaign make an Obama supporter one of their pledged delegates? That just doesn't make any sense...
The Clinton campaign is a train wreck.
May 13, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you know you called it Demonwatch, CaliforniaPaige?
May 13, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! Nope, that was a typo.
May 13, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an excellent one! It'll certainly confuse the lurking wingnut trolls. ;-)
May 13, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It'll certainly confuse the lurking wingnut trolls. ;-)
May 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies for the double post. "Internal server error" my ass.
May 13, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Knowing the Clinton's tactics, maybe they initiated this.
On the face of it, it does appear that they're losing a pledged delegate.
But here's what they gain:
National news about a pledged delegate that switched sides makes it seem more legitimate or common in people's minds. It might make it easier for Obama pledged delegates to switch to Hillary without feeling like traders. It opens up another reason for Hillary to convince her supporters to stick with her. Because even pledged delegates still have time to switch sides.
The concept of non-loyal pledged delegates is something the Clintons have been shouting from the rooftops for a few months now.
"There's no such thing as a pledged delegate", said Hillary a month ago. "They can switch sides any time they want" she added.
The media picks up every word or move the Clintons make now, so they can plant this notion just as people have begun saying she'll never catch up in pledged delegates.
In my opinion, the Clinton campaign has demonstrated that they won't conduct themselves in a manner that doesn't attempt to hurt Obama.
They continue to explicitly raise false doubt about Obama's general election chances.
By the way, I've realized that there's a way you can measure just how vicious the Clintons will be. The nicer and more pleasant and softspoken Hillary sounds, the more vindictive she'll be.
I don't have a link to it, but she had a video on her site thanking all her donors and supporters in such a synthetically-sweet way.
Check it out if you get a chance and see if you think there's one scintilla of sincerity in her voice.
May 13, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'd be mad if my pledged delegate swapped on his own initiative. That makes the whole voting thing seem pointless...except that most of the voting from here on out is pointless anyway.
Still, I was secretly hoping Hillary's plea to the pledged delegates to go against the voters and vote their conscience would bite her in the ass. Now it has. Oh, well.
She started this particular ball rolling herself.
May 13, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment