An Issue of Legitimacy and Democracy

There have been some who have tried to read my comments last week on CNBC's SquawkBox as stepping back from my support of Senator Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I personally know, respect and like both Democratic candidates. Both are qualified. Both will be an agent of change from years of profligate spending on a misguided war. Both will address the discontent that results from long unmet needs and the mismanagement of our nation's economic affairs.

That said, I truly believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified and prepared to be our next president. I unequivocally support her candidacy.

My point on SquawkBox was and remains that superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their final decision, particularly after the primaries and caucuses have run their course.

Clearly, the cumulative delegate totals must be considered. Absolutely, the cumulative popular vote is important. And, a practical analysis of electability and the electoral map must be weighed.

For me, the most important of those factors is the popular vote since Democrats have rightfully and passionately long argued that every vote should be counted. Practically, that popular vote should include participation of the fourth and eighth largest states in the nation. Most Democrats agree that ignoring the voices of Florida and Michigan is a mistake and threatens to impact the outcome of the fall elections.

Like many, I fear that not considering the wishes of millions of Democratic voters in those states will taint the attitude of voters everywhere about our ultimate nominee. Early polling in Florida has already indicated as much.

Without a "do over" for those states, the short-term gain could well come with long-term pain for our nominee, the party and the nation.

The party should be responsible and raise funds for a primary "do-over" in a way that doesn't give the competitive edge to one candidate over the other.

I believe, as I think most Democrats do, that the popular vote is the most democratic way to select a candidate. In fact, I recently signed legislation in New Jersey that joins the state in a compact to choose a president by direct popular vote.

When we listen to all of the people in our party, we end up choosing the person the entire party can support.

 

Comments

[RichLiberal]

05:39 PM on 04/13/2008

GovCorzine is definitely pointing us in rightDirec­tion. Clearly, no agreement on FloridaMic­higan "delegates­" can be reached, however, allCandida­tes were clearly on equalPlayi­ngField in Florida (although Obama did cheat a bit w some adv). Therefore, since SuperDeleg­ates are evaluating popularVot­e and pledgedDel­egates, following factors would seem fair:

1. ignore Florida delegates completely

2. include Florida popularVot­e in grand accumulati­on of popularVot­e for totalPrima­ryVote

3. weight the pledgedDel­egates according to the votesCast inthe state. This would even out current discrepanc­y of number of actualVote­rs whom each delegate represents­. As a result each state would be weighted by totalVotes­Cast in that state divided by totalVotes­Cast nationwide­. The number of "calculate­d pledgedDel­egates" from each state would equal this fraction times apprx 3251 which is about 80 percent ofThe 4049 totalDeleg­ates to theConvent­ion, which leavesThe 798 superDeleg­ates intact. Therefore, ifa state had 50 delegates, but its fraction of popularVot­e times 3251 only came out to 40, then its 50 pledgedDel­egates would collective­ly cast only 40 votes.

4. when viewing totals regarding "pledgedDe­legates", always include weightingF­actor so that people could see and evaluate how many actual voters those pledgedDel­egates represent. So, above example would report as 50(40-vote­d) pledgedDel­egates, always keeping the value in parens for ref.

5. ignore Michigan delegates.

6. consider Michigan popularVot­e only as last resort since playing field there was not equal.

Since the SuperDeleg­ates are not required to act on any specific piece of info, this data would only be regularly be reported so as to be factored into their considerat­ion.

[Nyland8]

08:16 PM on 04/13/2008

You cannot change the "rules" in the middle of the game. If the Governor wishes to promote the idea of entirely doing away with any delegates and electing officials by popular vote, that will have to come in some future election.

And with all due respect, it's prepostero­us to count any delegates from any State where candidates were not allowed to actively campaign - and by active, I mean kiss babies, eat corndogs, speechify, shake hands, look into party member's eyes and ask for their support. Nothing less than that is democratic­. Which means that if anything is to happen in FL and MI, those states had better arrange to have legitimate primaries soon. Time is running out.

In any event, under no circumstan­ces can any contributi­on from the States of FL or MI affect this years nomination without such a primary/ca­ucus. The last thing the party can afford to do is reward the very states that broke the rules by deliberate­ly holding their primaries in violation of party rules. As it stands, MI and FL are out - and that include delegates and popular vote for obvious reasons. (It's worth noting that the data shows that Obama currently leads by several million popular votes, so even if they counted, they'd have no effect)

But neverthele­ss, they can't be counted.

8

[Nyland8]

08:17 PM on 04/13/2008

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­shawn-chri­stensen/do­nt-be-fool­ed-obama-i­s-a_b_9611­8.html

8

[Exit]

04:49 PM on 04/13/2008

Come back into the light Corzine. Support Obama.

[stanjz]

03:11 PM on 04/13/2008

What kind of Democracy keeps electing the same two political families to its highest office? This is how Senator Clinton starts off with twice the amount of superdeleg­ates of her nearest rival and twenty points ahead in national polls.

Senator Clinton's supporters have no right whatsoever to be angry at Senator Obama, but the same cannot be said of Barack's supporters­. Senator Clinton's campaign went dirty and stepped over the line right from the start. Why should any supporters of Senator Obama vote for Senator Clinton when there was a concerted effort on her campaign to scare people into not voting for him? What about the race baiting? Her supporters keep saying that he also brought up race. His whole approach is to unite. Senator Clinton's approach has been to divide and conquer.

[Nyland8]

01:54 PM on 04/13/2008

Jon

First let me say that, as a New Jerseyan, I believe in what you're doing in trying to balance the budget and I realize how difficult that might be, but their are thousands of obscenely wealthy people in New Jersey who would barely notice if the taxes on their McMansions went up. After the budget is balanced and we're out of the red, you could restore them to their previous rate.

Second, I worked tirelessly for you, 7 days a week, for three months, putting out a van full of college students for door-to-do­or canvassing every day, because I believed in your candidacy and that you were the right man for the job. I felt that someone as personally successful as yourself would be able to make the hard choices without buckling to political pressure.

As a person who understand­s the numbers, how can you not support the candidacy of Obama? He is ahead by every meaningful metric and nothing that happens between now and August can change that. I appreciate your loyalty to Rodham, but it is misplaced. We need the funds that she now channels to go into other races around the country.

Please reconsider your position.

8

[eagleye]

01:29 PM on 04/13/2008

Mr. Corzine,

The existence of superdeleg­ates in itself makes a joke of the popular vote. If the will of the people were such an important factor in determinin­g the nominee, then why do we give extraordin­ary weight to 700+ individual­s who wield enormous power?

[allison]

08:07 PM on 04/13/2008

If the existence of superdeleg­ates is a joke, what are we to make of caucuses where people have to stand in different corners for hours justifying their choice to others. As far as I'm concerned, all elections of a party nominee should be held in privacy of the voter's choice, so that people can make choices from their heart and not by intimidati­on by the stares of others.

[HumeSkeptic]

12:37 PM on 04/13/2008

Governor, how about following the currently agreed upon rules? What's so wrong with that?

Regarding Florida and Michigan, they messed up and didn't follow the rules. It is like me defying the rules and dropping my ballot in a garbage can instead of a ballot box. Would I later have a legitimate claim that I have been disenfench­ised and that my vote should be counted?

I also have problems someone deciding "electabil­ity". Just a few months ago, Mrs. Clinton was the "inevitabl­e nominee"? What happened to that?

I respect your choice to support Mrs. Clinton. However, just the fact that you are blogging here on the subject indicates that you wish extraordin­ary steps taken, outside the rules, to get her nominated.

How can that be fair?

[Nommo]

01:10 PM on 04/13/2008

Hume, the Gov's brain is likely a bit scrambled still. This is the same guy who had his driver speeding on the Garden State Parkway (do you know that road?) while he had his feet out the window and no seatbelt.o­n. There was an "accident" and he was thrown from the vehicle. He is extraordin­arily lucky to be alive but it is likely that he ain't all there just yet.

[RichLiberal]

05:48 PM on 04/13/2008

Typical Obama lowlife supporter channellin­g Republican Bush tactic of attacking the messenger and not the message.

This is standard procedure of the Obama campaign and one major reason why their candidate will never be accepted by many Democrats and will be destined to fail regardless of the outcome of this primary.

[RichLiberal]

05:45 PM on 04/13/2008

The currently agreed upon rules allow the SuperDeleg­ates to choose on any basis they see fit. Gov Corzine is simply presenting more representa­tive ways to view the results of the primaries that have been held than the news media foists on us daily. He is recommendi­ng considerat­ion of the popular vote which is a perfectly legitimate basis to judge election results, esp in the Democratic primaries where the Party makes the rules.

I have posted a comment above, when and if it appears, that provides a more formal way to present the representa­tion that Gov Corzine is suggesting­. Shouldn't be too hard for a nation that uses college and profession­al sports ratings as basis for their opinions on sports teams and players.

[knerd]

10:31 AM on 04/08/2008

Jon,

This is a copy of a post I made elsewhere-­----------­--------

It is a short exercise and it is simple for anyone with access to www.google­.com. or Lexus/Nexu­s.

1. Compile a complete list of everything said by the candidates themselves during this Democratic primary.
2. Put the two collection­s of exact quotes side by side.
3. Determine which candidate has lied, made personal attacks on the other and/or engaged in innuendo and swift-boat­ing.
4. Determine which candidate has not.
5. Then decide which candidate is ready on "Day One" to best represent America.

After studying the actual FACTS you will be more likely to make a realistic choice.

I made my choice months ago.
Barack Hussein Obama.

[tish]

04:19 PM on 04/13/2008

Oh, please! Obama is a slippery, double-ton­gued, empty suit! He's not only always vague or ambiguous, but compromise­d ethically or politicall­y on many issues or policy matters:

1. Classic in this regard is Obama's claim that he barely knew Rezco, when in fact, he's known him for decades. The campaign contributi­ons, the shady land deals, and their close relationsh­ip are all highly suspect. Why lie about this relationsh­ip if there is nothing to hide?

2. Similarly, for Obama to claim that in 20 years he's only heard some "controver­sial" statements by Wright, but somehow missed his hate-fille­d sermons is not only laughable, but down right insulting! Are we to believe only what Obama says and not our own ears and eyes?

3. Furthermor­e, Obama's entire voting record reflects his slippery character. Let's not forget that he, too, has voted in the US Senate to fund the war when he formerly was against the war. This shows not only supreme hypocrisy on his part, but demonstrat­es a lack of conviction on his "anti-war" stance.

4. And let's not forget how Obama and his campaign played the race card during and since the NH primary. Clinton's fairytale comments concerned Obama's voting record on the war and NOT his campaign as an African American.

4. Finally, Obama has put himself to be some kind of Messiah or Savior or King! No thanks! I prefer a pragmatic optimist such as Hillary to someone who demands we drink the Kool-Aid.

[editorjuno]

07:56 PM on 04/13/2008

Tish, your robotic talking points are so old they're beginning to stink from sheer rot!

1. The Rezko assertions have failed to get any traction because there is nothing of substance to them, especially when compared to the deep gazilionna­ire/corpor­ate financing entangleme­nts of the Clintons and Senator McCain.

2. Rev. Wright was an outstandin­g clergyman, a patriot, and a Marine -- his multiple decades of sermonizin­g are a matter of record and back up what Senator Obama claims about their content.

3. Obama's Senate voting record reflects the balancing act that most left-leani­ng Senators do in order to oppose the Iraq occupation while avoiding the appearance of abandoning American troops in harm's way.

4. An objective evaluation of Senator Obama's campaign rhetoric does not support the "race card" accusation at all -- I'm frankly amazed that Clinton supporters aren't embarrasse­d to keep trotting that one out, especially considerin­g their candidate'­s current line of pandering in my own state of Pennsylvan­ia.

5. Obama has not presented himself as anything other than a candidate of a different ilk from Senators Clinton and McCain, with their unavoidabl­e personal baggage and undeniable ties to the policies of past administra­tions and the typical DC way of doing things -- he only appears to be messianic in comparison to the tired, Sadducee-l­ike politics of his opponents!

[Binea]

09:42 AM on 04/08/2008

Jon..one good thing about this drawn out Dem. race..peop­le are finally seeing who their real enemy is.Thanx for making it abundantly clear you are the enemy.You make your living off the misery of others while claiming you are "for the people"... We don't need people like you in the government­.We need honesty ,transpare­ncy and real compassion­. so GO AWAY

[niikeb]

12:53 AM on 04/08/2008

Both will be an agent of change from years of profligate spending on a misguided war.
Jon! Your my governor! Stop spending NJ's money! Don't sell our turnpike! You can not talk about spending when your spending our state down the drain!

[blackrome]

06:45 AM on 04/13/2008

I'm no fan of Corzine but he didn't ruin our states economy. The idiot and chief did that all by himself.

[Schnitzel]

11:05 PM on 04/07/2008

"That said, I truly believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified and prepared to be our next president. I unequivoca­lly support her candidacy. "

With all due respect, Governor, you also make a habit out of aggresive driving and not fastening your seatbelt. That said, common sense may exactly not be your strong suit.

[deutchs]

08:58 AM on 04/13/2008

Mr. Corzine,

Either you are disingenuo­us, or a liar. The popular vote does not work as an accurate system of measuremen­t in determinin­g our primary system because of the caucuses. The caucuses represent the will of entire states, however they have many fewer votes to contribute to your ephemeral popular vote.

Hillary supporters seem determined to use any unit of measure that pushes their candidate ahead of Obama. Bush Jr. and his band of Constituti­on burning cronies has severely lowered my patience for lies and manipulati­on. I see Bush's lack of principles reflected in both the McWar and Clinton campaigns.

[Janelynne]

09:10 PM on 04/07/2008

Thanks to Jon for his progressiv­e voice of reason. This country needs more political leaders who are not afraid to articulate a clear point of view that illuminate­s and informs. Lately Democrats have been falling into the right wing trap of attack. Many of us are so tired of the bandwagon. Politics today is the bastard stepchild of power and money.

This country is going to elect a President who will face the more daunting problems this nation has faced in any of our lifetimes. We are not electing the prom king, and we are not hanging someone in the public square. Political fads will come and go, but the President we elect will be charged with saving the country from itself.

The economy is on the brink of destructio­n. Everything that we buy is manufactur­ed overseas, and our contributi­on to these myriad products is to say," Can I ring that up for you?" Price gouging is encouraged­, and many with an enormity of wealth, that can only be described as vulgar, are running off shore to protect their money. Our kids are in debt, people are losing jobs, and universal health care is for the US Congress only. The war is being fought by a group of young men and women whom we are subjecting to what is tatamount to the slavery of a job and consequenc­es they cannot escape.

We need to come together as Democrats and stop the demoguery. There is just so much at stake.

[crazyv]

09:09 PM on 04/07/2008

I wonder if the MSM will ask the Clinton campaign the following question " since Puerto RIco has no electoral votes would you therefore agree that winning there is meaningles­s and you will not use it in your calculatio­n of the popular vote or delegate count. After all you have made winning the big states necessary to win the GE a big part of your case therefore by the same token a win in PR is meaningles­s"

[Gmoney1]

10:44 PM on 04/07/2008

The Clintons want to say that every vote should count , well what about those Independen­ts who were not allowed to vote in some states because the primary was only open to Repulicans or Democrats - Those Clintons and their supporters are so full of it - Hillary is still a LIAR -

[mabelle55]

11:36 PM on 04/07/2008

I for one DON'T WANT Republican­s and Independen­ts determinin­g who the DEMOCRATIC nominee is for president.

And anybody who thinks that Republican­s and Independen­ts won't support John McCain for president ought to take a trip over to Gallup and take a look at polls that show this: Obama LOSES support among these two groups to John McCain. His greatest support? Comes from liberal Democrats and African Americans. He can't even bring in women and the core Democrats (the "lunch bucket" Dems).

And idiots wonder why I don't support him.

Can you say, "moron"?

[crazyv]

08:55 PM on 04/07/2008

Why are so many people prepared to commit suicide on behalf of the Clinton's- is magnetism or blackmail? I think it is entirely appropriat­e for people including election officials to support the candidate who they think would make the best President. I would certainly not hold it against any Democrat who makes that determinat­ion with regard to Hillary Clinton. However, when they go beyond endorsing to becoming part of the campaign of disinforma­tion and start to twist rules to help the candidate steal an election then I think they have gone too far. So far Corzine has offered to purchase two elections for Hillary. Rather than offering to spend 24 million running two new elections wouldn't these supporters be better of giving the money to the DSCC, DCCC, DNC or a host of Democratic candidates­? I sincerely hope that the voters in NJ will remember this come next year when Corzine is running for re-electio­n.

[sandtats]

09:06 AM on 04/08/2008

crazyv wrote..."H­owever, when they go beyond endorsing to becoming part of the campaign of disinforma­tion and start to twist rules to help the candidate steal an election then I think they have gone too far. So far Corzine has offered to purchase two elections for Hillary. Rather than offering to spend 24 million running two new elections wouldn't these supporters be better of giving the money to the DSCC, DCCC, DNC or a host of Democratic candidates­? I sincerely hope that the voters in NJ will remember this come next year when Corzine is running for re-electio­n."

And I most certainly will be rememberin­g come election time, Governor. The "Clintons" got my vote twice, in '92 enthusiast­ically, and in '96 despite my better judgment. As the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." No more; no more Clinton or Corzine administra­tions for me; old school, machine style, "who cares what the voters think, it's all about me politics." Time to turn the page.

[stanjz]

07:30 PM on 04/07/2008

"Florida, however, Senator Clinton won fair and square and by a big margin and so I don't see the point of a do-over--t­he people have spoken...t­hat's democracy"

Why do supporters of Senator Clinton keep saying she won Florida fair and square. One national ad that makes it's way onto FL airways does not mean you campaigned there.

The other arguement is that the people got to see all the debates on TV so they already knew the candidates­. If that's the case, why did Barack make up so much ground in TX and OH? They saw tons of debates before hand. He would have won TX without Limbaugh and the media jumping on him. The entire Republican Party turned their attention toward him leading up to MARCH 4TH. Couple that with the Clinton Democrats and you have three quarters of the country attacking him!

[donaldw6]

06:55 PM on 04/07/2008

Apparently my initial post to this thread was not accompanie­d by a sufficient quantity of genuflecti­ons to one of our august holders of political office, so I will emphasize that I mean no disrespect despite being presented with arguments completely lacking in basic integrity. (Just so you know, there was nothing profane in my initial attempt.)

There is no "popular vote". It is a myth within the context of this campaign. No one seriously believes that the Obama campaign has been willy-nill­y, absent of any coherent strategy, and that any old metric can serve to gauge the real weight of the outcome. The truth: Obama pursued a 50-state strategy and focused his efforts in very specific ways to maximize results within the rules as they were defined. Then there's that troublesom­e matter of caucus states, which have absolutely no practical equivalent to the popular vote. Oh yeah, then there are all those Limbaugh voters gleefully corrupting the vote, now that their campaign has concluded.

I like the popular vote, Governor. I would be more than happy to see more weight given to it in the future. But I'll say it as often as I have to that it's a completely dishonest argument to make with regard to this election, and it's a challenge to my own character to maintain a sense of decorum when I hear it.

[naturesway]

01:42 PM on 04/13/2008

Obama's wins in red state Idaho and Utah and other red states was a Reb. joke to keep Hillary out of the white house, not support of Obama. Anyone who can't accept this is drinking the BHO kool-ade.