Pledged Delegate May Lose Seat at Convention for Switching
A Clinton pledged delegate announced yesterday that he is changing his allegiance to Barack Obama:
That pledged delegate switching his endorsement may NOT be good news for Barack Obama or the delegate himself. It is important to point out that if a pledged delegate breaks the pledge, like the one Mr. Johnson took earlier this year there are safeguards built into Democratic Party rules that allow campaigns to protect their delegates.
Each campaign may review its delegate lists and scratch people off who they think are at risk of not upholding pledges.
When a delegate is elected at a district level organizing meeting, there are alternate delegates elected. The alternates are selected as back-ups in case the chosen delegate cannot attend the convention.
If the Clinton campaign presses the issue Mr. Johnson may be watching the convention on television.
Jack Johnson, county executive of Prince George's County, said he believes Obama has sealed the nomination and that Clinton has "fallen a little short of the line" needed to be the party's candidate in the general election.
That pledged delegate switching his endorsement may NOT be good news for Barack Obama or the delegate himself. It is important to point out that if a pledged delegate breaks the pledge, like the one Mr. Johnson took earlier this year there are safeguards built into Democratic Party rules that allow campaigns to protect their delegates.
Each campaign may review its delegate lists and scratch people off who they think are at risk of not upholding pledges.
When a delegate is elected at a district level organizing meeting, there are alternate delegates elected. The alternates are selected as back-ups in case the chosen delegate cannot attend the convention.
If the Clinton campaign presses the issue Mr. Johnson may be watching the convention on television.
Advertisement
I can't help but see the irony here.
But I cannot abide pledged delegates switching allegiance. When Clinton argued they could I thought it was wrong, I still do.
I'm an Obama supporter, but I consider myself fair minded. Although there may be no specific guidelines prohibiting the switch of pledged delegates in some states, I find it dishonorable.
May 15, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with BP...I thought it was funny because, you know, the Clinton's were saying the past couple of months that a person like Jack Johnson is just an "automatic" delegate and can switch if they want to.
May 15, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be contrarian, I'll point out that Jack Johnson probably knew that he could get replaced, and is giving Clinton a chance to do just that. Perhaps he just didn't feel comfortable any more voting for her. If he had really wanted to be mischievous, he would've bit his tongue now and just cast a vote in Obama's favor at the convention. Heck, for all we know, there are pledged delegates on both sides planning on doing this.
The only impact Jack Johnson's defection will have is psychological, although I don't suppose that can be easily discounted.
May 15, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but the point at which the campaigns have the opportunity to scratch names off the list is during the nomination procedure. Once a delegate is officially appointed, it is too late for the campaign to have second thoughts. And Johnson had already been officially appointed by the Maryland Democratic Party, according to the WaPo article about Johnson's defection:
According to the WaPo article, Johnson wants the entire Maryland Clinton delegation to be released, in the interest of party unity. His public stance is that it is not about him switching loyalty from one viable candidate to another, it's about the fact that Hillary's campaign is over as far as he is concerned and he wants to get off that train to nowhere. Whether his defection is political expediency, or a point of honor in not wanting to be associated with a destructive continuance of Clinton's campaign, is a matter of opinion.
An argument can be made that there is a distinction between a candidacy and a campaign. If the pledge is between a delegate and a candidacy; once that candidate is out of the running (whether he or she admits it or not), the candidacy that the delegate pledged to support no longer exists and he or she should be free to support someone else.
By that way of thinking, Johnson made a pledge to support Hillary's candidacy; he didn't make some sort of Bushian loyalty oath to support Hillary personally no matter what she (or her campaign) chooses to do. Once her candidacy is dead, even if she chooses to continue campaigning, he is no longer held by that pledge.
Usually a candidate who has withdrawn at some point makes a more or less official statement releasing his delegates, often urging them to support some particular formal rival. What happens when a losing candidate refuses to release his or her delegates even when the campaign is long past the point of viability? In this case, Johnson is arguing, the delegates themselves should mutiny.
There's more discussion (and a link to the WaPo story about Johnson) in this EC post and comment thread:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/pledged_delegate_for_hillary_s.php
May 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that's the case, then I denounce and reject my previous statement.
If his argument is that her candidacy is already over, then what's the point in switching? If he's attempting to shut down her campaign, then I'd argue her candidacy isn't already over. Don't get me wrong, her only chance of winning requires shenanigans of an undesirable kind, but I'd still give her at least a 1% chance of winning.
This is the point at which she should start acting like Huckabee did prior to McCain reaching the magic number. Last night (on CNN, I think) it seemed like she might just be doing that.
May 15, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not to argue too much on Johnson's behalf, but if Clinton's only chance of winning "requires shenanigans of an undesirable kind", as you put it, that may be reason enough to want her to stop now, even if he still would have preferred that she had won the nomination - if it were won in a more fair and honorable manner.
Not that he has handled this attempt to unhitch his wagon from her falling star all that gracefully.
This all reminds me of the scene in Pride and Prejudice in which Elizabeth's sister Mary, who is absolutely clueless about how little talent she actually possesses and of how little her audience is actually enjoying her performance at a party, looks like she will continue playing and singing all night. That in itself is embarrassing enough, but when their father intervenes by interrupting his daughter with a less than subtle "That will do extremely well, child. You have delighted us long enough. Let the other young ladies have time to exhibit," his rudeness just makes it worse.
May 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't resist quoting further from that scene in Pride and Prejudice:
May 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sympathetic with the point that a pledged delegat should remain loyal to the candidate he was elected to represent.
However, it's Hillary herself who opened the door to this kind of shenanigans months ago when she claimed that pledged delegates aren't actually bound to their candidate & are free to change & vote their conscience.
Hoist on her own petard!
May 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will be tremendous irony if the suggestions that she's made to the superdelegates come back to bite her in unexpected ways. Not undeserved, either.
May 15, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink