> "johac" remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:jhachmann-DDC967.22084814052008@news.giganews.com...

>> In article 75-104-215-88.cust.wildblue.net>,
>> "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
>>

>>> johac wrote:

>>>> In article 75-104-215-88.cust.wildblue.net>,
>>>> "Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> johac wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> If I remember correctly from past conventions, the "pledged"
>>>>>> delegates
>>>>>> are bound to vote for their candidate only for the first round. If
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> one round of voting, neither candidate receives the required number,
>>>>>> they are free to voye for whom they please.

>>>>> That doesn't appear to be true now. At least not this go round.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rules for the two conventions are adopted each election cycle so
>>>>> they're something of a moving target...

>>>>
>>>> I was watching the returns tonight and I believe that such may be the
>>>> case. One of the commentators on MSNBC was discussing the possibility
>>>> of
>>>> Hillary "stealing" pledged delegates from Obama before the convention
>>>> and no one said anything about it being illegal. I beleive that their
>>>> definition of "pledged" is very different than mine.

>>>
>>> Heh, "pledged" in the sense of "I promise, really".
>>>
>>> But that's why they use "pledged" rather than, oh, "committed". And from
>>> the stand point of a party, you don't really want your convention locked
>>> in. Suppose, say, something egregious and campaign destroying emerged
>>> about John McCain over this summer (something really awful like sex
>>> tapes with poodles).

>
> You mean *that* hasn't emerged yet!!
> How do they keep the poodles from yapping?

>
> Smiler,
> The godless one
> a.a.# 2279