Corzine And Rendell To Raise 15MM For MI/FL ReVotes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:26:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

The excuses for Barack Obama to object to ReDo primaries in Florida and Michigan are becoming harder and harder to come by. Joining James Carville, Governors Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Jon Corzine of New Jersey have offered to raise $15 million for revotes in Florida and Michigan:

Two of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s biggest supporters, who are also two of the Democratic Party’s most successful fund-raisers, have offered to help raise millions of dollars to stage new primaries in Florida and Michigan. Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania said Sunday that they would be willing to raise half the $30 million it would take to run new contests in those two states. Mr. Corzine and Mr. Rendell submitted their proposal to The Washington Post.

So money is clearly NOT an issue here. There is no reason now not to do this. Oh by the way, there is no reason NOT to do them via primaries, full blown ones. With absentee balloting, early voting, all the works. Let's count the votes. The Will of the People and all that.

< Obama 's Inadvertent Political Successes | The Trouble With A Personality Based Movement >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Corzine And Rendell To Raise 15MM For MI/FL ReVotes | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

How would you elect to spend $15 million? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Peter G on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:45:49 AM EST

What a waste of a ton of money. When I think of the schools, the shelters, the mental health facilities, the drug programs, all starving for a million here or there. Sickening.

Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:47:02 AM EST

Why spend money on elections? Who needs democracy?

Screw the will of the people. Sheesh.


I'm somewhat amused... (none / 0) (#40)
by deleg8 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM EST

...by your repeated calls for the process to honor "the will of the people." To my mind there were problems with the process from the get go, but all candidates got involved knowing full well what the so called "rules" were. By your measure does the concept of super delegates come anywhere close to reflecting, "the will of the people?" Does doing a PR muscle job on the supposed delegates won by your opponent reflect, "the will of the people?"

I'm just wondering how you expect the process to reveal the idealistic, "will of the people" when, and let's be honest, the entire process was flawed way before the situation in Florida and Michigan reared it's collective ugly head.


No (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:11:45 AM EST

I am amused that you seem to have never read me on the subject.


I just did. (none / 0) (#48)
by deleg8 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:18:19 AM EST

Yes (none / 0) (#50)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:01 AM EST

I imagine you think that is the full extent of my writings on the subject.

Believe that if you wish.


Careful with your imagination (none / 0) (#52)
by deleg8 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:43:57 AM EST

I doubt I have read everything you've written on the subject but that last post is definitely not the only piece of yours that I have read. If I could be so bold I'd wager we are not so far apart on the re-vote concept for I believe that is the only fair way to go. But, contrary to how the process is set up I do not believe delegates should have free reign on who they vote for. They should truly vote the choice of the voters they have pledged to represent. Further, the super delegate concept does nothing to get closer to fulfilling the will of the people.


No need to imagine it (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:00:53 AM EST

Your comment reveals that you are not familiar with my writings on the subject.


: Taken from another of your postings (none / 0) (#55)
by deleg8 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:18:24 AM EST

"Here is my rule - the will of the people. Expressed in the popular vote. That is my rule of who should be the nominee."
O.K. I'm down with that. Too bad it's not set up that way.

Did you donate (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by rooge04 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:49:11 AM EST

money to the Obama or Clinton campaign? What a waste! Sickening!! Or is just the idea that now there is no excuse for Obama to oppose it that's got you all riled up?


FWIW, Corzine could write a check (5.00 / 4) (#22)
by scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:03:06 AM EST

from his personal funds for the amount. Remember, he spent $60 mil of his own money on becoming a Senator, and then walked away from that job with a couple years left on his term so as to become Governor of NJ.

The point(s) in Obama not wanting the revote are threefold:
(1) he'll likely lose (at least in Fla.), so there's no incentive to go into a campaign where he'd likely lose.
(2) HRC winning either or both further validates her "big state" narrative
(3) The sheer work of putting on the revotes is a party-unifying exercise - everyone has to come together to pull this off. IMHO, Obama doesn't really care about party unity if it's not unified behind him. Nor, for that matter, does he care about helping Dems down the ballot, which would be necessary to win in Nov. It's all him, all the time.

That either or both revotes will not appreciably change the delegate split is, by now, irrelevant. The important thing to be gained from the exercise of revoting is building party unity, i.e., to heal (not just paper over) the fissures this campaign has opened in the Democratic party.

I don't think that's tenable with the personalized devotion Obama's fans have for him and him alone. And he's not going to disabuse them of that.


I'd say that representative democracy... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:05:34 AM EST

... is one of the better ways to spend $15 million.


Yeah, (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:51:48 AM EST

Petty cash for Corzine. A little work on the phone for Ed.

No problem. Ball's in O's court now.

Put up or shut up. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:42:26 AM EST

Let's get these re-dos underway so we can decide a candidate.

On the edge (1.00 / 2) (#5)
by scoopenator on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:44:18 AM EST

This is as close as it gets to buying votes!

If FL and MI are destined to be counted (re-counted) then the monetary funding certainly should not come from the supporters of a particular candidate!

The voters are not getting the money (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:44:52 AM EST

Your comment is ridiculous.


I think (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by rooge04 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:49:49 AM EST

we just found the new excuse.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:51:31 AM EST

The natural retort then is that Obama should put up half the money.


Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:52:17 AM EST

Oprah will offer to help.


: next Big Give = FL & MI revote (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:57:26 AM EST

And I imagine (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by rooge04 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:52:45 AM EST

then we'll just hear about "the rules" again. Except I think that particular excuse is wearing thin and no one is buying it.


funny (none / 0) (#60)
by CentristDemocrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST

Funny thing that Obama the candidate of "change" has now become the standard bearer fo the "established rules."

"Change" so long as it helps you huh?


: This is not at all new for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:25:08 PM EST

as it is how he began his political career a dozen years ago, running opposed after clearing away competition by last-minute enforcing of rules.
Note: Timing matters. Watch for last-minute stuff, leaving no time for defense, as happened then in Illinois.

Half and half (none / 0) (#18)
by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:53:10 AM EST

As I understand the plan, the two campaigns are to share the costs. The Clinton campaign has offered to pony up their 15 million.


Bought (none / 0) (#36)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:51:52 AM EST

Under that theory all votes are bought. Clinton's supporters challenged Obama to do the same in fund raising. This goes back to the other item.... Obama can use this as an effort at party building. I would donate to this effort. I'm not buying a vote.


Heh (none / 0) (#1)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:29:35 AM EST

Rendell was probably like, "Whaddya asking me for? Corzine has that much between his sofa cushions!"

I just hope John Kerry is not the surrogate who gets sent out to cry poverty.

: are you kidding? (none / 0) (#2)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:31:28 AM EST

I hope they send out Gore!

What (none / 0) (#3)
by rooge04 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:37:48 AM EST

will be the excuse this time? I'm thinking the whole "But, but they broke the rules!" line will be in full effect.

11th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 17th (none / 0) (#4)
by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:40:09 AM EST

What effect will this have on the FL DNC lawsuit is to be heard on March 17, 2008 with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? Or vice versa?

: IT would moot it (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:45:14 AM EST

It sounds like this is likely to happen now? (none / 0) (#6)
by HadIt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:44:29 AM EST

I mean, unless O or B decides they don't want a vote. What could be gained, if all other things, like $$ are taken care of, by refusing to have a vote?

I mean, I get why one might not want the vote to happen (changes in the math?), but to actively block a vote? Can't look good.

Bottom line, though, on NPR I heard a discussion that even with MI and FL, neither one will clinch the nomination (barring a blowout somewhere). However, I still like that people are addressing a systemic problem.

Well, repairing some damage, anyways.

Clinotn wants a revote (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:46:16 AM EST

Not just for the delegates, but for her big state narrative.

Obama is the one who does not want a revote.


Obama's and CLinton's statements contradict yours. (none / 0) (#23)
by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:04:38 AM EST

Clinton told Newsweek she would refuse a caucus.

While Mark Brewer has misrepresented Obama's position as you have, Obama's campaign has said, essentially, "Whatever the DNC approves is fine with us":

A statement from the Obama campaign, however, suggested Brewer overstated its position. While the campaign is adamant that results from the Jan. 15 primary must not be recognized -- Obama had his name stricken from the ballot, to protest the unauthorized early primary -- it is open to a "fair solution."
"Our campaign will support whatever the DNC rules are, including a fair remedy to this problem," Obama spokeswoman Amy Brundage said. "However, allowing Sen. Clinton to change the rules and award her the nonexistent delegates when there was no campaign in the state and Obama's name was not on the ballot is not the answer. Whatever the resolution, we are looking forward to building a winning campaign in Michigan in the general election."

You need an update and a clue (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:07:54 AM EST

Clinton wants a redo PRIMARY. Obama wants nothing. IF a redo must be done, he wants it to be an Iowa caucus. Have you NOT been reading this stie on the MI/FL question?

The point now is they will be primaries and Obama will be looking to get out of it.

Come Wednesday, I betcha Clinton endorses redo primaries.


Did the Obama campaign tell you... (5.00 / 0) (#37)
by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:55:25 AM EST

... that they don't want a re-vote?

The only person I can find saying that semi-authoritatively is Mark Brewer. Everone else is citing Brewer as the source for that statement.

Considering that he is Granholm's state party chair, and Granholm is a Hillary partisan, I shouldn't be surprised that he would misrepresent the Obama campaign's position.


Uh (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:20 AM EST

Brewer has been the chair of the MI Dems since LONG before Granholm was elected.

Prior to the January primary, Brewer worked as hard as anyone to get the word out that if you favored a candidate who is not on the ballot, you should vote uncommitted.

If he's any kind of a partisan it's news to me. I find it far more likely that the Obama campaign is trying to have it both ways than that Brewer would lie about what they told him.


My common sense tells me (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13:42 AM EST

Try it some time.


: Common sense should also tell you (none / 0) (#53)
by corn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:47:45 AM EST

that Clinton doesn't really want a re-vote. Bird in hand...
She's just squeezing him, and doing it well.

States must submit (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:56:24 AM EST

The states must submit a plan to the DNC. The DNC checks in with the campaigns. If the campaigns feel the plan is 'fair' the DNC will approve it. It's circular logic. If one campaign keeps stalling, it is possible there would be no time for a vote.


Um (none / 0) (#28)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:21:37 AM EST

how do you know the Michigan Dem Party Chair misrepresented what he was told by the Obama campaign? Were you there in the room or something?

It's at least as likely that once Brewer went public with what he was told in private, the Obama campaign decided to walk it back for PR reasons.


Common sense tells us (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST

and this is not vile or anything, that Obama does not want to give Clinton two more big big state win to feed her narrative.

IF the shoe was on the other foot, Clinton would be doing the same thing.


There's no way that eith MI or FL... (none / 0) (#39)
by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:04:32 AM EST

... would give Hillary the sort of victory margin she would require to overcome her current pledged delegate deficit. Their primaries would be proportional, just like all the rest.

All they would give her is propoganda. Just words.


: Popular vote (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:13:22 AM EST

500,000 margin at least.
Clinton can win the popular vote and the nomination with it.

I quoted the Obama campaign... (none / 0) (#35)
by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:51:40 AM EST

... and provided a link to the Detroit News story quoting the Obama campaign.


That doesn't matter (none / 0) (#41)
by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:09:34 AM EST

Whatever the Obama campaign said to Brewer is irrelevant. What has Obama publicly stated about re-votes?

Obama isn't going to pony up 15 Mill for a re-vote. Just not going to happen.


It's not irrelevant (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:05 PM EST

If Obama is publicly proclaiming that he's open to whatever the state parties may happen to decide, but behind the scenes he's working to veto proposals from the state parties that he doesn't like, of course that's relevant.

We have people calling Mark Brewer a liar because the Obama campaign issued a statement that's different from what Mark Brewer said they told him in private. Brewer is a good Dem and I feel obligated to stick up for him. It's highly unlikely he misrepresented what he was told.


: Thank you for doing so (none / 0) (#63)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:28:32 PM EST

as this is what I appreciate -- those on the ground, in the know about their states (not just in this comment but also upthread), clarifying for us amid all the clutter of campaign propaganda.

A mailin primary it is (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:33 AM EST

And Obama's refusal to pony up WILL be an issue.


: It will only be an issue (none / 0) (#49)
by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:20:01 AM EST

if he doesn't pony up and they have a primary anyway.

: Sadly, I think not -- as what will be (none / 0) (#64)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:31:16 PM EST

the issue will be the problems in states trying to put together new election systems without the time to do so properly. The potential for problems is huge, per studies of election fraud, suppression, etc.
Oregon, the paragon of the mail-in system and rightfully so, had years to put it in place and prepare properly. It cannot be done well in weeks.
So I am suspicious of this and can foresee how it and the results could be spun.

money (none / 0) (#19)
by wiredick on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:56:45 AM EST

should not be the deciding factor. I fully suspect that the peoples right to vote and be counted will once again be overturned by the interest of the few. Once again will we throw one more shovel of dirt on the grave of democracy. It seems more and more each day that Democrts are no different than Republicans at doing what is right. Please prove me wong.

: Um what? (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:59:00 AM EST

Obama will get smoked in both Mich. and FLA. This (none / 0) (#26)
by DemBillC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:15:29 AM EST

is why he is opposed to letting the people in these states vote. Florida already voted and should count. Period. They were both on the ballot and neither side campaigned there, except or Obama's national ad which was blatent cheating. A redone primary is called for in Michigan where Hillary will destroy Obama now that he has been exposed as a whiny man of no substance, by a press that was in his pocket, but now is finally asking him some questions. Once these two states are counted after PA. Hillary will have a resounding popular vote lead which will bring her to the nomination.

Obama's ad was not cheating (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:16:40 AM EST

Did it conform to the pledge? Who knows. Careful with the candidate insults.


Legally speaking (none / 0) (#29)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:26:48 AM EST

it did not conform to the pledge. The pledge references the DNC's definition of "campaigning," which in turn includes "electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state."

Obviously the point is academic, as there is no "controlling legal authority" who will be dishing out punishment for violations of the pledge. (At the time, the Obama campaign justified its actions based upon the okay of SC party chair Carol Fowler... who is now an Obama superdelegate. Heh.) If the case came before Judge Steve, though, I'd have to know whether it truly was impossible for the Obama campaign to purchase a national ad buy that excluded MI and FL, which would impact the equities of the situation.


OR you could argue the pledge (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:28:50 AM EST

banned national advertising.

But I am not comfortable with the word cheating.

I will not have that start against either candidate.

Not at this site.


: I agree (none / 0) (#34)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:47:54 AM EST

The blogs have defined down "cheating" to the point where it now includes "persuading superdelegates with an argument I find improper." It's silly.

Even assuming (none / 0) (#42)
by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:11:08 AM EST

that Obama's actions were a gross violation, what exactly is the punishment?

It's non-issue and that's why the Clinton campaign isn't harping about it.


: Like I said (none / 0) (#58)
by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:02:13 PM EST

there is no "controlling legal authority" to dish out punishment.
In fact, that's exactly what I said!
My comment was simply designed to settle the issue, just between us wonks, of whether there was a violation of the pledge. It has no significance beyond this blog.

The pro-Obama ad aired Nationwide, (none / 0) (#59)
by DemBillC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:48:59 PM EST

including in Florida, on MSNBC and CNN, and the Clinton campaign correctly,in my view, charged that it violates the oath against purchasing print, Internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state.


Why hasn't Obama "united" everyone (none / 0) (#32)
by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:42:03 AM EST

on this issue?
This is an opportunity for Obama to prove his "unity" ability.

BTW (none / 0) (#44)
by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:05 AM EST

funny how just one month a different song was being sung here.

Speculating: since there were (none / 0) (#51)
by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:40:39 AM EST

important non-Dem. primary issues on the FL ballot, will FL voters turn out in the same no. and proportion a second time?

Obama will not (none / 0) (#61)
by Foxx on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:55:36 PM EST

ciontribute any money, much less 15 million.

Revote is dead unless Clinton puts up all of it.