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

[naschkatze]

Governor Corzine, I am assuming that as a superdelegate you agreed to the schedule of primaries and caucuses as did your candidate. So for you to assume that Hillary Clinton should receive the votes and delegates as is when Barack Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan and she had overwhelming name recognition in Florida without any campaigning is just as egregious as what she is trying to do herself. I think it was a part of her strategy to have a fight over FL and MI as her firewall. I believe that the Democratic Party will resolve this issue AFTER the regular schedule of primaries goes to its natural end and neither the voters nor the states of FL and MI will be disenfranchised and that both will be seated at the convention.

I have every confidence that the person who played by the rules will be the nominee because otherwise the Democratic Party will destroy itself, and I have confidence that the disenfranchised voters of FL and MI, the ones who stayed home in good faith the night of the primaries because they believed the primaries were not valid, will also be satisfied with the outcome. At that time I suggest that you and the Clintons and the others who tried to steal the MI and FL primaries, if you are unhappy, form your own DLC party. We the grassroots will have taken the Democratic Party back from you.

[AreYouFibbing]

Every vote needs to be counted Nasch....not just those that benefit Obama

[NorVaGal]

Every vote needs to be counted FAIRLY, Fibbing. Not just the ones that benefit Clinton.

[mickeyrat]

That's right. Corzine is a blind hack. Anyone who disagrees with Obama is a blind hack. They're blind hacks and racists. And smear artists, too. Hell, they're not really Democrats, they're Republicans. Hell, they're not even Republicans, they're phonies. Hell, they' probably aren't even human. How could a human being not worship Obama.

Obamabots' "minds" at work. It's just gotta scare you.

[DazedandConfused]

It's really difficult for Hillary to argue that the votes should count in Florida and Michigan when Hillary also argues that the PLEDGED Delegates are free to change their vote. (No, I'm not talking about the Super Delegates. The Pledged Delegates -- the ones decided by voters.) So, in essence, Hillary doesn't really care about the voters. She just cares about winning. At any cost.
Bill was NOT good for the Democratic Party. He may have won his second term -- but look at the disaster he left. Gore should have easily won -- w/o Monica backlash. And the Dems lost Congress after 2 years of Bill. He's not solely to blame for this -- but I'm not giving him kudos either.
Hillary's election is really a referendum on Bill. Bill & Hill want to resurrect the Clinton presidency -- a "do over." Get over it We're beyond that now. No more Clintons or Bushes in the White House.

[frustratedinohio]

It took me a while to recognize your sarcasm. Very good impersonation of an Obama-rat.

[lenners]

hah! good one.

[FreedomLoverX]

Corzine is a blind hack:Part 1

Corzine is a blind hack is he thinks this country would do well to have a pathological LIAR as the president. Apparently he has learned nothing from the last 7 years. A million people are DEAD. Hillary voted for it. 80,000 people lost their jobs last month. Hilarry PUSHED NAFTA. People are being really killed by sniper bullets. Hllary LIED. The woman and child dead in the hospital had insurance. Hillary LIED. Mark Penn is still working for Clinton. The claims that he resigned are a LIE. Penn went behind closed doors to forge another free-trade pact with Colombia. Hillary LIES when she claims she didn't notice he was gone. And she LIES when she says:

"I don't think people should come to Ohio and tell the people of Ohio one thing and then have your campaign tell a foreign government something else behind closed doors," Clinton said then. "That's the kind of difference between talk and action and that I've been pointing out in this campaign."

Among Mr. Penn"s other public relations clients �. (are) Countrywide Financial, the nation"s largest home mortgage lender � (and) Blackwater Worldwide, the private security firm under investigation by numerous government agencies for the deaths of civilians in Iraq.

[CBS]

One thing you cannot get away from. Obama is living up to the agreement and Old Hill and Old Bill are not. They went into the race KNOWING and AGREEING that MI and FLA delegates would not be seated. But they are "special" and as they prove over and over the "rules" do not apply to them. Voters and Super Delegates are watching as they have sandbox tantrums. Sorry, governor, but I think you need to rethink your position on this.

[AreYouFibbing]

CBS...try reading the rules....they provide for a re-vote.

[elbowguts]

Reference please?

And what kind of re-vote is specified? Who funds it? How do the rules solve the problem of finding out who voted in the primary already held in Michigan?

Finally, this "not following the rules" is most likely referring to the position espoused by some Clinton supporters that the Michigan and Florida results should just be taken "as-is".

[FreedomLoverX]

Corzine is a blind hack: Part 2

Hillary is an offensive LIAR who should not represent anything that is good about this country. Her list of Offensive lies goes on and on, starting early in her career:

"Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?

'Because she was a liar,' Zeifman said in an interview last week. 'She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.'"

[TommyMcCarthy]

THERE"S GOOD ADVICE FOR OBAMA HERE TOO PART 1uite a number of people seem to misunderstand (deliberately??) the "electoral college" argument.

I'd guess most people would agree that the electoral college is an anachronism and that the popular vote either state-by-state or in the aggregate would a better way to select the president.

Indeed, after the 2000 debacle, many people, including Sen. Clinton (and myself) reiterated their belief that we should begin the process of phasing out the electoral college.

Trouble is,... the electoral college WILL be in place for the 2008 Presidential election.

As far as the Democratic nominee goes Obama supporters are correct in this regard:...
States like Cal., N.Y., Nj, & Mass. will be won by either Democratic candidate, even if he/she lost these states in the primary.

IIt's when the SuperD's are trying to determine which candidate has a better shot in the GENERAL election (given that neither will have the "magic Number" of pledged delegates) that electoral math comes into play.

As always, it will be the large SWING states that will decide the election. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, and to a lesser extent a couple of others.

This is why it's pretty disingenuous to cite Obama's "11 in a row" or the number of states won as a harbinger of a general election victory. to be continued..............tm

[jade7243]

The "electoral votes" have nothing to wih the presidential primary selection process. All states count -- except for those which violate the DNC rules knowingly as did FL and MI.

Keep moving the goalposts and creating false measures of Clinton's "success." In a race for delegates, it is the delegates that count. nothing else. Not the popular vote, not "electoral votes," not primaries in big states with funny names where Clinton used to live before she was dodging sniper fire in Tuzla.

To paraphrase: "It's the delegates, stupid!"

[mickeyrat]

ok, jade, what's the point in worrying about the nominee if they can't win the general election. You keep on talking about the nomination, but it is specifically the superdelegates job to look beyond the nomination to the general election. So whining about the nomination process and saying we just just ignore the general election upcoming just isn't very bright.

Obamabots at work. You gotta be worried.

[Benmyoho]

Except that now, lt's the SEUPERDELEGATES, stupid! Yes, those who vote their consicence out, stupid!!

[joselopez]

For those who understand how Democratic nominating process works, a revote in Florida and Michigan, is only a tactic being used by the Clintons to try and close the popular vote total against Obama, because Delegate wise, she is not going to gain much from a revote and the cost to tax payers will be approximately 20 to 30 million dollars.

Delegates nominate the Democratic candidate, so there is no need for a revote. Clinton can take the Florida results as is, but Michigan would need to be split 50/50 or even 55/45 in her favor, but the popular vote total will not matter.

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THIS WILL BE THE COMPROMISE AT THE END OF THE PRIMARY SEASON.

MARK IT DOWN!!!

[adzeman]

On the other hand Governor, the "conditions of contest" were clearly laid out before the calendar was set. The lawful representative of Clintons campaign signed off on the punishment of Michigan and Florida. They knew the rules and chose to ignore them.
Your situational ethics are pretty anti-Democratic Party. It is hard to believe that you would hold this position if it favored Obama instead of Clinton.
I started as a strong supporter of John Edwards. I actually believe he would be a better president than either of the surviving candidates. But I wont argue for manipulation of the rules and laws of the party to make that happen. Neither should you.
One last comment. Sen. Clinton was never disadvantaged in this election cycle. She started with the most money, she had her choice of staff, she had a HUGE advantage in field infrastructure in the states she chose. So any do-over for the campaign that pronounced themselves inevitable is in my mind is absurd.

[mrJJ]

Popular vote? Before anyone can say count the popular vote someone somehow has to come up with an agreed upon formula for all sides on what the caucus states votes should be. 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1

Does anyone think ANY of the "Grand Ole PooBahs" of the Democratic Party can or will come up with a fair and equitable formula before the convention? Oh wait caucus states don't count. I forgot.

OVERALL CONTESTS WON: Barack Obama – 30; Hillary Clinton – 15
PRIMARIES WON: Barack Obama – 16; Hillary Clinton – 12
CAUCUSES WON: Barack Obama – 14; Hillary Clinton – 3
BLUE AND RED STATES WON:
Barack Obama – 11 Blue, 16 Red
Hillary Clinton – 6 Blue, 8 Red

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5414045&mesg_id=5414045

[BrooklynLager]

I think 'elected delegates' already takes care of the "popular vote" part of it.

Otherwise, candidates would just run up the score in one or two big states.

[Mike O.]

Liberals again show their complete ignorance of the importance of primaries won, states won etc. The figures that you post are meaningless unless the population is considered.

For example:
If Obama wins 10 Primaries and Caucuses that represent a population total of 1000000 people
and Hillary wins 5 Primaries and Caucuses that represent a population total of 2000000 people, then Hillary is the stronger candidate. It's that simple.

Now, I know that the figures in the example above are purely fictional but they do represent the fallacy of your argument in terms of total Contests won.

Now the actual figures show that the two candidates are separated by little more than 1% of the total votes cast in all contests. That is the actual figure, people. It cannot be disputed. Therefore, the candidates are in a "virtual tie" when statistical error is taken into account.

There is no clear winner here yet and anyone who claims that there is (Obama supporters) are simply deluding themselves. The only logical explanation for this behavior then, is that the Obama supporters are aware of their candidate's utter weakness and inability to win if the primaries are played out.

Obama may get the nomination, but he will ultimately lose in the general election. Hillary can't win either.

[NorVaGal]

There is no clear winner here, in your opinion. IMO, there is a clear winner. At this time, whether a candidate is ahead by 1% or 0.001%, that candidate is in the winner. At the end of the primary season, that same dynamic will apply. Using your reasoning, Obama can't win in the GE, and Hillary can't either. So, Dems either go to the polls in November and try to change that prediction, stay at home, or vote for McCain. We don't all have to be as defeatist as you seem to be.

BTW, Obama is leading in the popular vote, and would be even farther ahead except for the Limbaugh republicans. Yes, popular vote is a major component to be considered. Especially, when those crossover repubs won't be cheating for HRC in November. So, if that is taken into consideration, Clinton is even farther behind in the popular vote than the numbers reflect.

[AreYouFibbing]

Bonnie Erbe has a column today spelling all this out....it was most interesting and eye-opening.

[Lee21]

Since when is the democratic party actually about democracy? When did the democratic party start caring about disenfranchising voters?

I specifically remember the democratic party purposefully sabotaging the green party and Nader in 2004. Democrats got Nader pulled off the ballot in lots of states and my own state of Arizona. I remember hearing democrat leaders on tv and the radio saying that people who want to vote for Nader shouldn't be able to vote, that we were stupid, and we ruin the election. I was a democrat, but in 2004 I just didn't want to vote for a candidate who voted for the war.

This election I'm going to vote for Obama, but I've seen the true face of the democratic party and it stinks. I won't consider the democratic party to be the party of democracy ever again. It doesn't surprise me one bit that FL and MI will end up disenfranchised.

[Rashomon]

Why would someone who cared anything about this country vote for Ralph Nader after the 2000 election! Talk about not learning from the past and throwing away a vote.
Also this isn't about disenfranchisment. It's about Clinton trying to change the rules. Remember there was a vote and that vote - right from the beginning - was understood by all that it would not count. And when it happened nobody said a darn thing.
It was not done on purpose by the party.
At this point it is also about neither FL or MI having the money or resources to do a revote.

[Lee21]

Voting green is a protest vote for me; its not throwing away a vote. You want real change? Stop blindly voting for whoever happens to be red or blue. Regardless, the fact that there are so many calling for the MI and FL votes to be counted before the voters there become disenfranchised is just full of hypocrisy. I guess Hillary's strategy that only the states or votes that matter are the ones that vote for her is the strategy of the democratic party in general.

[auntiecairo]

The popular vote is not what determines the candidate - delegates do. That's the rules as they now stand. An arragement will be made to seat the two states; unfortunately for the voters the elected officials broke the rules. No doubt Clinton agreed at the time because she thought she would be the candidate and as we now know already had money problems. But it is what it is. You can't argue Michigan was even a fair vote since she was the only name on the ballot and even then 40% voted for "other". The right thing to do would be to split the delegates - of course Clinton won't agree to that. And she won't agree to caucuses. Unless she wants to put some of her own $100M to revote I suggest she and her supporters move forward - believe it or not the election is now all about the Clintons - it's about what's right for the country and the party. What happens in the primary i snow what will happen in the general election. Neither she nor Obama is likely to win Florida. Michigan - who knows -- if the Democratic party works it out then all will be well. If not then we're looking probabyl at a third party - either way there are more important issues to address.

[Mike O.]

Why can't the votes in MI and FL be estimated? You were all trying to determine voter intent (clearly unconstitutional) in the 2000 election recounts. If you can count "hanging chads" in Florida, then why can't a reasonable assumption be made concerning the vote split in MI and FL?

-----------------------------------------------
Michigan:
-----------------------------------------------
The "uncommitted" vote should be split between Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Obama as the other candidates were listed on the ballot. For the puproses of this analysis I will neglect Richardson and Biden and award all "uncommited" to Obama and Edwards. The "uncommitted" entry garnered 40% of the MI vote.

Clinton received a clear 55.3% of the MI vote.

Using these figures, we can assume that Edwards would have received about 15%-20% of the vote, leaving Obama with the remaining 20%-25% of the "uncommitted" votes.

Clearly, Hillary trounced Obama by a huge margin. At least 30% of the vote.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/MI.html

-----------------------------------------------
Florida:
-----------------------------------------------
All candidates were on the ballot. The only issue is that of campaigning in the state prior to the election. Clinton received 49.7% of the vote and Obama received 33% of the vote. Using these results, we can see that Clinton again bashed Obama by a 16.7% margin.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/FL.html

-----------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
-----------------------------------------------
Clinton has won the popular vote.

[Lee21]

Clearly you are making up unsubstantiated numbers for MI, and you aren't counting caucus voters in the popular vote totals.

The Clinton campaign: full of imaginary numbers and thresholds.

[wesaypopnotsoda]

This situation reminds me of a tv movie where the judge orders the jury to disregard the damaging testimony as inadmissible and says to "strike it from the record". Can you honestly believe that half of the Democratic party will not think Hillary kicked Obama's butt in the 4th and 8th biggest states. That they wont think " hell, did he win any big Democratic states?"Even if they are not seated Obama will be a false, illegitamate winner without a real re-vote in those two states and the republicans will make sure they rub our noses in it daily.

[jojojo]

I support Obama, and i do think that Dean et al should try to find a way to re-enfranchise the MI and FL voters. The voters didn't do anything wrong.

The earlier votes, however cannot be used. Both candidates agreed that those votes would not count, so End Of Story on those.

Some kind of re-vote, particularly in MI where Obama wasn't even on the ballot and so the earlier vote cannot remotely be considered. That or 50/50 split.. Nothing will be perfect here, but the Party's screw-up can't be used to take the nomination away from Obama if he leads "legit" delegate votes and popular vote. If HRC climbs into pop-vote lead, we REALLY have a problem to figure it out!

I voted for HRC twice for senate, but no longer can support her after this campaign.

[kay]

Why didn't Clinton and her supporters contest the FL and MI decisions before all the candidates agreed to comply with the rules?

Hillary Clinton agreed to comply with the rules, as written, as did all the candidates.

If it was democratic then, why is it undemocratic now?

Because she needs the numbers to make her popular vote argument.

I have a suggestion for Senator Clinton: stop treating voters like idiots. This is purely political posturing. She sees a benefit, after the fact, and wishes to exploit this issue, and break an agreement she made.

Let's not drape it in sanctimonious moralizing.

[mickeyrat]

and let's not pretend that if the shoe were on the other foot you wouldn't be screaming to seat the delegates.

By the way, the word "sanctimonious" coming from the Obamabots, it's just so ironic I cannot help but laugh.

[AreYouFibbing]

mickeyrat....I like your style.

[NorVaGal]

Well, the shoe isn't on the other foot. I can't help but laugh, also.

[frustratedinohio]

You're right. LMAO at the Obama-rat comments here.

[savertime]

Your cynicism is frightening. There are people in this country that still believe in integrity, character, scruples and principles. It is obvious you do not. Obama supporters have had enough of the lies of the past fifteen years. It is not delusional to want something different, a change, even the possiblility of lifting the politics out of the gutter is better than more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton screwing the working and middle class people.

Why do I get the impression that you are part of the "establishment," and quite satisfied with the status quo? Even the idea of changing is to be feared and denigrated.

Wearing ones political agenda on ones sleeve is what we expect to get from the MSM.

[mutron]

Jon, aren't you bothered by Clinton's lying?

[AreYouFibbing]

mutron....aren't you bothered by Obama's lying?

[Overd0g]

If being a liar is a virtue, she is well qualified.