home

NJ Gov. Corzine: Popular Vote Will Determine His SD Vote

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:15:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Clinton supporter NJ Governor Jon Corzine adopts the proper standard for a Super Delegate, vote the will of the people as reflected in the popular vote:

This is the metric that supporters of both candidates will accept. And yes, let's revote Florida and Michigan please.

Similarly, John Murtha said:

Hillary Clinton simply cannot be the Democratic nominee if she doesn't win the popular vote, Pennsylvania congressman and Clinton-backer John Murtha said Wednesday. "Clinton has to win Pennsylvania," he argued in an interview. "She has to be ahead in the popular vote to have any chance at all of getting this nomination."

Good for Murtha. He is absolutely right.

< Hillary Agrees to North Carolina Debate | Chris Dodd Steps Back, Now Says Race Should Continue >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NJ Gov. Corzine: Popular Vote Will Determine His SD Vote | 46 comments (46 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    And barring a revote in FL and MI (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    ... the superdelegates will have to assume that the current vote tallies represent the will of the people. When you don't have perfect data, you use the data you have.

    That said, it's going to be a bit of a challenge determining how many people voted in the caucuses. The methodology for allocating delegates is not very useful for determining voter numbers, and, even assuming they could estimate the number of voters, the caucuses generally sounded like they were pretty disorganized.

    Fl and Mi and popular vote (none / 0) (#41)
    by fly on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:40:31 AM EST
    Nowhere in the Pledge to strip Fl and Mi delegates , i don't believe, did it say the popular vote would not be counted in our states....only stripping the delegates.

    So when Fl and Mi votes for Hillary are counted and they should be, we need to make it clear..the delegates are not the popular vote, i would think she would be close to the top , if she wins Pa and Kentucky, WV and possibly Indiana..and is very close in NC..

    Now people in those states working for Hillary need to get at those High Schools..because this is what Obama is doing..

    Hit the colleges and the High Schools..do not forget the HS's!!

    Parent

    Murtha is right. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    I do think she should win the popular vote, or come very close, in order to make her argument to the SD's.

    But no, it will not be the ONLY metric. What states can Obama win NOW? Is he electable? Do his caucus wins in red states mean he can deliver them in November? Can he win swing states against McCain?

    If the superdelegates don't consider those factors as well, they are not doing their jobs. After all, we are supposed to back a candidate that can win.

    Howard Johnson is RIGHT (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    I think that Jeralyn and Ben M have points, BTD. There is some muddying of the popular vote that has occurred.

    1. FL and MI: Included or not? Either way, the SuperD vote is considered tainted by the losing candidate's camp
    2. Electability: We can be fair, but that doesn't mean we will win. What is the Super D's job again?
    3. Caucus States: These don't really translate into the popular vote very well, do they? We've seen that in several instances.

    The Super D's aren't supposed to tie their votes to anything other than their own personal judgement. That can be the popular vote, the electability of the candidates, or the price of the homes in their neighborhood, whatever. I'd prefer it to be by national polls, but what do I know?
    replying to : blogtopus (none / 0) (#42)
    by fly on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:35:41 AM EST
    FL and MI: Included or not?

    I can not see how they could be excluded..because the delegates were stripped, i hsve not seen any language in the Pledge to strip the delegates that said the popular vote would not count.

    I believe Murtha and Rendel are now setting up that scenerio..and argument.

    I have been saying this and posting this for a very long time now..

    Our Fla popular vote was not sanctioned.

    Only stripping of delegates.

    And even if the pop. vote was..super delegates still need to look at the numbers of voters they will lose in these two states and they need to understand the electoral votes of these states and understand it will be very difficult to lose these states and win the White House!

    They also must realize that the vast majority of Floridians are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore...

    And the list of who we Floridian's are the most angry at ..Dean, Donna Brazile, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, and Dodd...and that anger is not going away anytime soon!

    I do not believe any Superdelegate is foolish enough to let these swing states go by the wayside, and count on Utah, Idaho, and the red states Obama won and let a state like Fl with 27 electoral votes just go easily to McCain..and that is exactly what will happen if Fla is not counted.

    I know many many dems in my area of Fla who are so angry right now at Dean and the DNC they are saying they will vote for McCain or stay home and not vote.

    SuperDelegates surely understand the peril of ignoring Florida..we just suffered Bush because of what was done in and to  Fla..

    Perhaps all superdelegates need to look at the electoral vote map and see how many votes each state carry's to the White House.

    Right now..Dean and Donna Brazile are just trying to cover their own rear ends..as is the leadership of Pelosi, but I assure you , the dems will lose their contributors and their base when they lose in Nov because of the dang stupidity of Howard Dean and Donna Brazile  and the lack of leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by nell on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    Does the popular vote count Florida and Michigan, or not? It seems this metric leaves a lot of room for flexibility.

    As for Corzine, I read the context as him giving Clinton a legitimate path to the nomination, not him backing off from Clinton. The media keeps screaming about the pledged delegates, and he is saying no, that isn't my metric, I vote for the popular vote winner....

    reply to :nell (none / 0) (#43)
    by fly on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    "As for Corzine, I read the context as him giving Clinton a legitimate path to the nomination, not him backing off from Clinton"

    reply from Fly..absolutely!!!!!!!!!!..as have Rendell and Murtha..they are setting up the scenerio..and this should be the biggest qualifier to the superdelegates!

    and understand this..superdelegates can change their endorsements as many times as they want until they make their vote clear on the floor of the convention..

    fly.. a 2004 elected Dem delegate for the State of Florida.

    Parent

    My problem with this is (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Iphie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    Clinton won by a very solid 10% in NJ, so if Corzine is basing his SD vote on the popular vote of his constituents, then there is no issue and no reason to float the idea of switching his vote. If he is basing this on the popular vote of the entire country, then his statement about MI and FL should have been stronger -- not that MI and FL "should" count, but that he will base his SD vote on the popular vote of ALL people. He didn't say that, and if he really is going to base his SD vote on the popular vote, then he needs to take every opportunity to stress the importance of the popular vote from 50 states, not just 48.

    totally disagree (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    electability in November is just as important and perhaps more so, considering how many non-democrats, independents and republicans, voted in the primaries and caucuses.

    Democrats should choose our nominee. The popular vote and delegates awarded include cross-overs. They should vote in the general election, not the primary.

    Superdelegates should vote their conscience and consider electability in November.

    This presents so many potential problems. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Faust on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:17:51 PM EST
    As it leaves everything open to interpretation. There are many people on BOTH sides that do not accept that super delegates should vote using a "wide panopoly of factors" to quote the donors in their letter to Pelosi.

    Super delegates that say they are voting with pledged delegates ONLY will be excoriated by some, cheered by others.

    Supers that say they are going with the popular votes INCLUDING FL and MI will be hailed by some excoriated by others.

    Supers that say they are going with the popular vote EXCLUDING FL and MI will be hailed by some and excoriated by others.

    Etc etc etc.

    Personally at this point I have come to the conclusion that I will go with whatever the super delegates decide WHATEVER THEIR REASONING.

    This is a VERY strange place that I have come to and I never imagined that I would come to this place. But there is so much dissent on proper criteria for the supers to consider that I find it quite dizzying.

    As a result I have gone to the rules. The rules say they get to vote however they want for whatever reason. If they put Clinton over the edge I'm for Clinton. Obama I'm for Obama.

    I seriously don't care anymore. Every option I see has valid critiques that oppose it. I tend to agree with BTD on revotes being best. But I don't feel quite as passionately about it as I do think that any redo will be highly imperfect.

    So in the end after thinking about this over and over for week or two, I'm with the supers. Whichever way they go.

    And I really never thought I'd say that. But that's where I'm at now.

    Parent

    Ok I do care. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Faust on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    It's an exageration to say that I don't care. But my desire to be behind democrats as a whole now outweighs my desire for any particular result.

    I think the process is inherently screwed so respecting the right of the supers at this point is the only place left to go in terms of respecting the process as it exists.

    Parent

    Speaking for me only (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:45:57 PM EST


    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:52:16 PM EST
    and of course you made that clear. I just wanted to weigh in.

    Parent
    Your two points are not really compatible (none / 0) (#9)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    So is it considerations of electability that should determine the nominee, or is it the popular vote as determined by registered democrats? Because historically those two considerations have actually been opposed to each other. Which one takes precedence?

     

    Parent

    "Registered Democrats" (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    if that's all you count, you disenfranchise States without partisan registration.

    Parent
    Just going by Jeralyn's own argument (none / 0) (#20)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:13:40 PM EST
    Which isn't consistent.

    Of course I think it's pure nonsense to exclude the votes of people who have already voted. If you want the votes to count, you can't make petty exceptions like that which disenfranchise literally millions of people.

    Parent

    Not just states (none / 0) (#26)
    by AF on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    Voters too.  

    Parent
    Not really incompatible, the way I read it. (none / 0) (#31)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:34:46 PM EST
    I think Jeralyn is saying that the popular vote isn't so important because the figures for popular vote include Republicans and Independents. In a Democratic primary, does it make sense to count Republican and Independent votes when considering who the nominee should be? Jeralyn is saying no: popular votes are tainted and vague, at best. The most solid criteria for deciding the nominee, and the factor that should be prominent in the superdelegates' minds, is which candidate is most electable in the General.

    I think Jeralyn's argument is consistent, and it doesn't seem to have the issues of contradiction that you read into it.

    Parent

    Do you also want to revote (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:30:48 PM EST
    the Caucus States where popular vote wasn't tabulated, but only delegate count to the next level?

    I would welcome it (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    But I doubt Obama will go along with that. IS there a point to your comment?

    Parent
    How will you know the pop vote winner (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    when so many States didn't count the metric?

    Parent
    They counted the votes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    We know what the popular vote is.

    Parent
    Not in iowa (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:19:01 PM EST
    I'm not sure which other states, but there are several.

    Parent
    Why (none / 0) (#35)
    by hlr on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:09:37 PM EST
    does everyone keep saying this?

    Each precinct turns in the sign-in sheets and the count/candidate to the IA Dems. Statewide, the totals are:

    Obama 93952
    Clinton 73666

    Parent

    Hey, I love to be corrected. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:23:52 PM EST
    How many did Gravel get?

    Parent
    The big zero (none / 0) (#39)
    by hlr on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:47:20 PM EST
    Not viable anywhere. The counts are taken after final realignment.

    Edwards 74377
    Biden 2329
    Dodd 58
    Kucinich 0
    Richardson 5278
    Uncommitted 345

    Parent

    So they're not true popular vote numbers. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:02:14 AM EST


    Parent
    Technically, (none / 0) (#46)
    by hlr on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    I'd agree -- after all, some supporters of non-viable candidates stood for Obama in the end, enhancing his numbers. At this point though, the only thing people are looking for is the relative spread between two candidates that were viable in most of the state's precincts, so I imagine that these numbers will be used as a good approximation without much fuss.

    Parent
    Not a big deal (none / 0) (#19)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:11:54 PM EST
    There are only five of them. The RCP average also has estimates.

    Parent
    Corzine slowly backing out of early endorsement (none / 0) (#5)
    by PastorAgnostic on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:40:05 PM EST
    The way I understood his words, and frankly I listened twice, it seems as though he is giving fair notice that he will switch from Hillary to Barack.

    I would expect them all to do so (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    if they genuinely believe that Obama will be the best candidate in November.

    I would also expect them to back HRC if it becomes clear that she is the one who can beat McCain in November.

    Changing their votes is their right as SD's.

    Parent

    He is doing no such thing (none / 0) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    He clearly said he doesn't think any of that will matter because Hillary will be leading in popular vote.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by nell on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:58:12 PM EST
    As I said below, I think Corzine was laying this out to give Clinton a clear path to the nomination. The media and the Obama camp keeps screaming about pledged delegates, but Corzine is making it clear that he has a different metric - the popular vote. When you include Florida and Michigan, it isn't that hard to imagine a scenario in which she catches him, especially if things go well in PA.

    Parent
    Let's game this out (none / 0) (#18)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:08:49 PM EST
    Obama will end the campaign with an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. There will most likely not be revotes in FL or MI. So then a couple scenarios come into play.

    1) If Obama wins the overall popular vote including FL and MI and the superdelegates overturn this vote, then the party will blow up itself up and we lose in November. This is absolutely guaranteed to happen and it will be a certain Pyhrric victory for Clinton. But since this is extremely obvious to everyone, the superdelegates will never overturn this vote and I doubt the Clinton campaign would attempt it.

    2)If Obama wins the overall popular vote excluding FL and/or MI and the superdelegates overturn this vote, then the party will only probably blow itself up and we will only probably lose in November. I think the Clinton campaign may attempt to press their case if this happens. This is the also our #1 disaster scenario for the general election as it may go all the way to the convention, and there's a good probability this will actually happen. I'm worried.

    3) If Obama loses the overall popular vote excluding FL and MI, and the superdelegates overturn Obama's pledged delegate lead, then Obama must have done very bad in the last few contests and Clinton will have the momentum going into the summer. Not sure how this one will play out. If it looks like Obama is permanently damaged and Clinton opens up a significant polling lead against Obama vis-a-vis McCain in the general election, then it should be fine for Clinton to clinch the nomination without hurting party unity too much. Since this scenario involves an Obama meltdown of some kind, Obama shouldn't be the nominee if that happens, anyway.

    Now it appears that Gov. Corzine wants FL and MI, as they are now, to count in the popular vote total. This is fair. But a case could also be made the other way. So if Clinton manages to eke a popular vote total including either FL or MI, there will be pandemonium. I fervently hope this does not happen.

    But (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by nell on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    What your analysis fails to take into account is that many of us will not consider Obama the legitimate nominee if Florida and Michigan are not accounted for in a way that reflects the will of the people. He has really hurt himself by refusing a do-over primary.

    If he refuses to count FL and MI in a way that enfranchises voters and reflects the will of the people, he has lost my vote in November no matter what.

    Parent

    Not following you (none / 0) (#27)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    If Obama wins the popular vote counting FL and MI, Clinton supporters have no leg to stand on. He will have won by all metrics and will be the unquestionable legitimate nominee.

    BUT, if FL and MI become decisive, as in my #2 scenario, that's when the problems start.

    Parent

    That's exactly what Nell is talking about (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:44:40 PM EST
    I expect that we will end up with that scenario, and we will not have a legitimate nominee.

    Parent
    reply to Nell (none / 0) (#44)
    by fly on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:26:33 AM EST
    "What your analysis fails to take into account is that many of us will not consider Obama the legitimate nominee if Florida and Michigan are not accounted for in a way that reflects the will of the people. He has really hurt himself by refusing a do-over primary.
    If he refuses to count FL and MI in a way that enfranchises voters and reflects the will of the people, he has lost my vote in November no matter what. "

    reply from fly..i 100% agree with you and I will sit out November. I was a delegate in 2004 for my state and i will stand with the delegates of my state, if they are not counted or the popular vote is not counted, i will stay home in November.

    It is encombant to not disenfranchise our voters..this is not about the candidates this is about the voters!
    This is about "WE THE PEOPLE" DEAN AND THE REST ARE OUR EMPLOYEES.. who told them they can shut us out??????????

    The voters certainly did not, and this has been a DNC manipulation from the get go!


    Parent

    All politics is local. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Iphie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    The local political issue of the moment in this neck of the woods is congestion pricing in Manhattan. After the City Council just voted in favor of it, and we moved one step closer to it, Corzine came out and threatened to sue over the issue. This is a huge issue for Corzine right now as he is pushing for some very unpopular measures to try to deal with NJ's fiscal crisis, and congestion pricing looks like another financial burden for New Jersey residents.

    I have heard nothing that would lead me to believe that Corzine might be trying to pressure Senator Clinton into pressuring her Democratic friends in the State Assembly (the only place left to kill the measure) to vote against it, but I do find the timing curious. Just thinking out loud.

    what is congestion pricing? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:01:58 PM EST


    Parent
    It means (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    commuters will have to pay an extra tax to drive into Manhattan.  They do something similar in London.

    Parent
    even if they work in Manhattan? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    is it to encourage using public transportation?


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    and I'm in favor of it, as a New Yorker.  Driving into Manhattan is the slowest mode of transportation, not to mention the environmental and traffic issues.

    Parent
    And to diminish the environmental impact (none / 0) (#38)
    by Iphie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST
    of all those cars idling in traffic. The London model has shown that it also is very beneficial for the economy -- the more people walk, even short distances, the more they window shop, the more they buy. Fewer cars make the area more conducive to more human sized activities.

    Parent
    BTD mischaracterizes Corzine's interview (none / 0) (#36)
    by digdugboy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:27:28 PM EST
    Corzine did not say he would cast his vote for Clinton if she is the popular vote leader. He said that he would find it extremely difficult to cast his vote for her if she wasn't.

    Corzine didn't say anything suggesting he was going to use the national popular vote as his decisive metric.

    Lucy, 'splain this (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:31:04 PM EST
    If the super delegates must follow the popular vote, why have super delegates??

    NJ Gov. Corzine: Popular Vote Will Determine His SD Vote | 46 comments (46 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment