I watched a webinar earlier today in which an election expert (lawyer?) said that the DNC rules allow them to hold a virtual roll call vote, including legally binding commitments, to nominate Harris before the actual convention. The call would take place in early August, and Harris, if the nominee, could use the money immediately. As for…
I watched a webinar earlier today in which an election expert (lawyer?) said that the DNC rules allow them to hold a virtual roll call vote, including legally binding commitments, to nominate Harris before the actual convention. The call would take place in early August, and Harris, if the nominee, could use the money immediately. As for legal challenges, he said that the challenges would be turned down by the judicial system. He (smugly) said that they have thought all of this through, and it will be a done deal. The superdelegates would not vote, because Harris would win in the first round.
BTW, this was an investor webinar that (I thought) would be neutral, but came across as a partisan gloating spree.
Obviously a Dem election lawyer would say that the courts won't get involved. However, there are tens of millions of dollars involved and the rights of the donors. It only takes one to challenge the whole thing, and we know that not all may be on board. Wait and see. From the GOP perspective, the good thing is that this is months out--not after the fact.
I watched a webinar earlier today in which an election expert (lawyer?) said that the DNC rules allow them to hold a virtual roll call vote, including legally binding commitments, to nominate Harris before the actual convention. The call would take place in early August, and Harris, if the nominee, could use the money immediately. As for legal challenges, he said that the challenges would be turned down by the judicial system. He (smugly) said that they have thought all of this through, and it will be a done deal. The superdelegates would not vote, because Harris would win in the first round.
BTW, this was an investor webinar that (I thought) would be neutral, but came across as a partisan gloating spree.
Obviously a Dem election lawyer would say that the courts won't get involved. However, there are tens of millions of dollars involved and the rights of the donors. It only takes one to challenge the whole thing, and we know that not all may be on board. Wait and see. From the GOP perspective, the good thing is that this is months out--not after the fact.