Corzine on CNBC - MI, FL Redo but says Pop vote calls (Updated) the race

Gov. Corzine, a Hillary Super - is on CNBC right now. Said three things:

1. Hillary needs a "BIG" win in PA or she is out;

2. "If a candidate can not win the popular vote, they should not get the superdelegate vote."

3. There should be MI, and FL redos paid for by the Democratic party - said FL set their primary prior to the DNC set its calendar - think this is wrong but I won't quibble.

3. Super delegates should decide this soon after the last primary.

This man is an unapologetic Hillary supporter and he damn near just put a stake in the campaign.

Sorry I have to run to a set of meetings for the next three hours. So this is short but had to note this.

Update: Came back after my shower and heading out. Corzine said the candidate must win at least the popular vote but that the pledged delegate totals should be heavily considered.

•  tip jar, contribs for redo, super deleagte votes

  by tjlord on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:30:31 AM PDT

•  Pretty sure

  ...that Corzine is full of shit when he says Florida had their primary calendar decided before the DNC.  Can one of us more nerdier types with time on their hands find that out?

  In any case, it seems to be a moot point.  Neither FL or MI are working with Dean to hold new contests.

  by The Crusader on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:38:34 AM PDT

  •  FL voter here and DNC sched WAS known

    before the FL date was set.

    There was a diary yesterday on the subject of whether or not the FL Rethug legislature "forced" the date. That diary included a video of the Dem saying that they "objected" to moving the date forward.

    The "objection" was delivered with a chuckle and wink-wink-nudge-nudge air that said they actually wanted the date change while "objecting" for the record.

    by Juan4All on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:24:20 AM PDT

•  You're right. It is wrong. The

  FL and MI state parties knew the calendar and the issue.  This is disingenuous.

  At the same time, Corzine wants to bring in the popular vote, without considering the caucus votes (apparently).  That would absolutely require revotes in both states with massive re-registration issues for many voters, who, assured that a democratic vote would not matter, voted to determine their Republican candidate of choice.  These people could not now come back and vote on the Dem side without special consideration.

  I don't see the re-vote happening.

  Good to see, though, that some Clinton SD's are winding down their expectations, and moving toward the inevitable.

  by oxon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:38:44 AM PDT

  •  Revotes in MI and FL would cost $20 - $40 million

    A total waste of money, just before the GE campaign begins.  I'm betting the delegations will be seated with either a fraction of a vote allowed to each (ala the Republican solution), or a 50-50 allocation, or a combination of fractional vote allowance, distributed in FL according to the unsanctioned vote there.

    There is no way to make such a distribution in MI.  Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Unless this is the Soviet Union, that election doesn't count for shit.

    I realize that HRC (Her Royal Clintoness?) would disagree. Every vote who votes for her counts, all the rest don't.  But I think this is the way they'll work it out.

    The entire DNC must know that if unsanctioned votes or bought-off superdelegates overturn the victory Obama has EARNED, there will be hell to pay.

    by MsCasey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:53:34 AM PDT

    •  Redos Foolish

      I agree its a waste of time and money.

      If Pennsylvania is within 5 points its over.

      by optimist on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:18:03 AM PDT

•  Tipping you for the diary

  thanks -- not for the redos.  Sorry, until folks vote for leadership in their states who don't break rules, I don't support the idea of a re-vote.

  by gchaucer2 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:39:18 AM PDT

  •  Seems like it's too late

    Both states basically didn't want to do it, or gave up. Given that the passage of time was and is a crucial factor, to try to jump start this re-vote process now is just not going to happen. Floridians didn't have confidance in a re-vote if they had seriously started the process 1 or 2 months ago. Starting now? What is Corzine thinking?

    by bejammin075 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:46:39 AM PDT

    •  And we can't afford it

      This state is damned near broke due to the state legislature.
      And for my fellow Floridians who didn't vote because they were told their vote wouldn't count:  Tough Shit, morons.    

      I'm beginning to get a bit pissed at this whole situation.

      by donnamarie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:50:43 AM PDT

      •  May I ask, who are you most pissed at?

        Who deserves the blame, in your opinion? I'm not in FL or MI. As an outside viewer, I'd probably put most blame on the state-level politicians, both D and R, but I'm curious what people from those states think.

        by bejammin075 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:56:20 AM PDT

        •  The blame

          goes to the state legislators both Dem and Repub.  But ultimately, it's the voters in this state that put these fools in office.

          by donnamarie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:09:35 AM PDT

      •  Blame Jeb for the broke thing. n/t

        by manwithnoname on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:56:39 AM PDT

        •  Blame the people of FLorida

          for voting for a $300 property tax cut at the expense of bankrupting the state.

          by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:09:35 AM PDT

          •  That too n/t

            This is a very low-info voter state from what I can see.

            by donnamarie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:21 AM PDT

  •  Me neither

    For the reasons you mentioned.  And I'm a Floridian.  Keep at it fellow Floridians and keep voting in the same Repubs and Dems who made this fiasco possible.

    by donnamarie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:47:59 AM PDT

•  And how does he count the caucus votes?

  When the campaign started, it was a race for earned delegates. The popular vote doesn't count several states with caucuses. Does he address that?

  by bejammin075 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:43:47 AM PDT

•  when he talked about popular vote

  I'm sure he was including FL and MI in that statement. So in his mind, if Obama wins the popular vote without counting MI/FL beauty contest votes or redo votes, then that's not a true popular vote win (whatever that means).

  by CaptUnderpants on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:50:19 AM PDT

•  shoot if you go by the popular

  vote of a state alone, it could be very embarassing (not to mention unpleasant) for Bill Richardson when he must vote for Hillary Clinton, as she won NM.

  by LIsoundview on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:53:56 AM PDT

•  Wah?

  So, uh, Mr. Corzine, what happens if Hillary doesn't get a "big" win in Pennsylvania but gets HUGE wins in KY, WV, and PR and wins the popular vote?  Or what if she loses PA but manages to win the popular vote somehow?  

  by Aaron Michael on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:01:21 AM PDT

  •  i'd bet "big" is whatever she wins by (EOM)

    by Osaka on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:21:29 AM PDT

•  "Popular vote"

  Has NEVER been used in a presidential primary as a valid statistic. The argument does not hold water.

  by B P Pgh on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:08:46 AM PDT

  •  Oh, the argument holds water, it just isn't

    the way the system is set up. I can understand the reason for delegates and the electoral college 50 - 100 years ago, since communications were so slow.

    In today's world, election by popular vote is possible and more equitable. We need to change the system to reflect modern realities.

    by Juan4All on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:30:14 AM PDT

    •  Nope it does not hold water

      Show me one time it has been used prior to this election cycle. Anyone can make up a stats as well that supports their candidate, if thats all it takes. This stats was never used before because it is meaningless with the primary system in place for 2008 as it was in all other presidential primaries.  Next you cite bald people or big states it's just funny all the items.

      Try the truth!

      by B P Pgh on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:53:20 AM PDT

      •  The Truth I'll tell you is ...

        that the vote of the people is the measure deciding who is elected.

        The Truth is that delegates and electoral votes were used as an approximation of the popular vote. Communications and information processing were, in the past, too slow to be effective in determining a winner.

        The Truth is that that is no longer the case.

        You state that popular vote is invalid because it has never been used.

        It has never been used because the infrastructure made that impossible.

        The infrastructure now exists to use the popular vote for the determination of a winner.

        The popular vote of ANY election is to determine what the popular choice is.

        Using that popular vote to determine a winner is now possible, given our information and communications infrastructure.

        It more than "holds water" to take popular vote into account, it embodies the point of the entire process.

        The fact that "it has never been done that way" is not a valid argument in the face of our new ability to Do It The Way It Was Designed To Work.

        by Juan4All on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:09:32 AM PDT

        •  The truth is you can't change the rules

          in the middle of the race.
          The truth is the last democratic convention detailed how this election was going to be run.
          The truth is they set rules that it would be the delegates on a proportional basis.
          The truth is you cannot show me an example of "popular vote" being used in a prior election.
          The truth is infrastructure has been available for years.
          The truth is she made it up.
          The truth is she is a liar.
          The truth is if you want popular vote to count you need to inform the states that hold caucus before hand to allow them to switch their process if they want.

          by B P Pgh on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:32:13 AM PDT

          •  The truth is you aren't paying attention

            The truth is that in this and other posts I have said that the rules, as they exist, should rule for the good of the party and the nation.

            You seem to be fighting a battle that I have not entered. You are fighting a windmill, and I'm not it.

            You run along now and swing your sword at the enemies you imagine ... pay no attention to anything others say.

            Your work is clearly set in your own mind ... enjoy your world, I'd prefer not to be there.

            by Juan4All on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:45:45 AM PDT

            •  I don't accpet your premiss then.

              The party set the rules you now wish to toss.
              The will of the people will be overturned by using "a popular vote total" that has not been used in any primary prior. Each state was not given the right to run a primary to count in any "popular vote" stat you now wish to use. Your entire argument is bogus.

              by B P Pgh on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:52:58 AM PDT

              •  Maybe I wasn't clear

                I categorically do NOT want to toss the rules. They are what they are and should be adhered to.

                The point I argue is a hypothetical one. That is that the will of the people can, by definition, NEVER be mis-represented by a fair and true polling of the will of the people.

                ... said my piece, done with this discussion

                by Juan4All on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM PDT

                •  Well if you tell the states you will use the stat

                  then fine next time use it then everyone has a fair chance at getting counted it the stat. But using it without telling them first is breaking the rules.

                  by B P Pgh on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM PDT

                  •  No shit Sherlock - pay attention

                    Engage brain before mouth.

                    by Juan4All on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM PDT

                    •  geeze what a Putz n/t

                      by B P Pgh on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:10:07 PM PDT

•  Unfortunately, I do not think this race will...

  unless Hillary does bad in PA or the FL/MI delegates are somehow seated...

  by dvogel001 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:13:24 AM PDT

•  maybe Obama floated the Secretary of Treasury

  job when he was in the New York Area last month. He is certainly hedging his bets with that comment.

  by calalaila2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:47:24 AM PDT

•  A lot of republicans are really

  disturbed that FL & MI might not have their primary votes counted.

  by nupstateny on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:11:25 AM PDT

  •  They should have thought of that when, in FL

    they are the ones who proposed moving the date forward in violation of Democratic party rules.

    Yes, I agree that FL Dems went along willingly with a wink/nod objection for the sake of the record. But, Rethugs proposed the change.

    by Juan4All on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:33:09 AM PDT

•  Notice OTHER aspect of Corzine's remarks...

  the aspects about HRC needing "big win" in Pa to continue and that the race should be decided "soon" after last primary in any case.  If Corzine (prominent HRC backer and dem party heavyweight) sees things realistically this way, it's likely that a large swath of her remaining support among key party insiders & movers and shakers are coming to see it this way, and are likely to start exerting lots of pressure behind the scenes (and not so behind the scenes) for her to drop out, unless she's somehow able to substantially improve her case for the nomination above the current apparent trajectory of things.  In the end, her own key supporters within the power structure of the democratic party are going to be the ones to convince her that a convention fight will be political suicide and posion - for her own future political prospects and influence, not just the party's overall prospects in November.

  by cmoreNC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:13:55 AM PDT

  •  Hillary is not going to the convention

    There is just no way she can do that. Many superdelegates that support Clinton have made that clear in their statements.

    I would be careful if I were real Clinton supporters and I say big PA win, cause shes not going to win that big. Obama has cut the lead and will cut it even further.

    by optimist on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:21:35 AM PDT

•  invite the delegates but don't let them vote

  Florida and Michigan broke the rules and now they have to pay. That would be my first choice. Second choice split them 50/50. This way they get seated and no one has an advantage.

  by MarcoNYC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:31:12 AM PDT

  •  As a FL voter ... the rules are the rules

    I agree with you. Rules in the Democratic party are as important as the Constitutional "rules" that set Separation of Powers and Individual Rights.

    ... of course, we know what became of those quaint Constitutional rules, don't we?

    by Juan4All on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:36:50 AM PDT

•  This is a big development

  Corzine is beyond a supporter.  If I recall correctly, he was tapped to help fund the revote in Michigan.  Therefore, this is a remarkable development and, along with Senator Maria Cantwell's comments indicating a possible switch to Obama, may be signalling that the tide of Clinton supporters is turning.

  by jazmen8 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:43:02 AM PDT