By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

While I earlier criticized the Clinton campaign's work on revoting Michigan and Florida, let me reserve my most serious criticism for the work of the DNC on this, particularly Howard Dean. What I find hilarious is the notion that Howard Dean will somehow step in and "end the campaign," when he can not even step in and lead on this, where there is an obvious need for Party leadership. Instead, Dean says things like this:

[T]oday on CNN Howard Dean said the DNC wouldn't back any plan that isn't favored by both campaigns: "We’d like to do it in a way that’s fair, that both sides believe is fair. Fair to the voters but also fair to the campaigns."

So Dean will do nothing, lead nothing, help with nothing. What a disaster the DNC is.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Mark Penn has been an albatross across the neck of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Today he does it again:

Here is what Penn said. . . ."Obama "really can't win the general election." As you'll hear, he also says that "if Barack Obama can't win" in Pennsylvania, "how could he win the general election?"

Later, a reporter asks what he meant. Clinton campaign communications chief Howard Wolfson jumps in to say that "Mark did not say that." Then Penn says that if Obama doesn't win the Pennsylvania primary, it "raises serious questions" about whether he can win the general election.

What do you think the solid Howard Wolfson thinks of Penn? Probably the same as I do, that Penn is a dope.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Based on the lack of support the Clinton campaign has voiced for the Florida revote plan and its failure to propose, argue for or even discuss what to do about Florida and Michigan in concrete terms, it is my considered view that the Clinton campaign is not really interested in revotes in Florida and Michigan. Instead it appears that the Clinton camp merely wants to create some type of appearance issue against the Obama campaign.

It is foolish and it is wrong of the Clinton campaign to do this. Foolish because without revotes in Florida and Michigan, neither state will be perceived as a true win for Clinton and the popular votes cast will not be considered seriously in the popular vote calculation. These are two essential ingredients, imo, for a Clinton victory narrative.

More . . .

Via the AP:

The head of Florida's Democratic Party said Thursday the proposed vote-by-mail presidential primary is unlikely to go forward because of strong opposition and concerns about conducting the vote.

[Karen]Thurman will review comments from Democratic leaders and make a decision by Monday on whether to proceed with the re-vote. But she acknowledged that Obama has had concerns and the Democratic National Committee won't support a proposal unless both candidates also back it. She said there's a serious question over whether the state could legally verify the signatures of a privately run election. "If this becomes something that we can't do, then we can't do it," Thurman said.

One added note: This is not an open thread. Comments not related to the revote and Florida primary will be deleted.

By Big Tent Democrat

I was never good at math, but I think Andrew Sullivan and Mark Schmitt have a math problem here:

[I]t will take a colossal victory, almost 60%, for Clinton to get a 200,000 vote edge out of Pennsylvania.

Clinton won by 228,000 votes in Ohio with a 10 point margin. I presume that a 20 point win in Pennsylvania will likely produce a 450,000 margin at least for Clinton. Beware of candidate supporters and their math.

By Big Tent Democrat

A Marc Ambinder reader who purports (I do not question this, I simply can not confirm it) to be a former attorney in the DOJ Voting Rights Section says:

I was the DOJ attorney who discussed [allowing Internet voting] with the Michigan Democratic Party, reviewed the party's submission to DOJ, and recommended preclearance. DOJ approved the change and the state party's Internet voting in the 2004 primary election proceeded.

The do-over elections being discussed for Michigan and Florida would similarly be "changes affecting voting" since they would be new elections held on previously unscheduled election dates. Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, these changes must be precleared by DOJ . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I have the utmost respect for Jeralyn's opposition to a Florida revote. But I think Jeralyn does not ask herself the real question we face now. To wit, the choice is between a revote and not seating the Florida delegation. The original Florida primary vote result will not be honored by the DNC. That is a fact. The choice now is between no Florida delegation and a Florida delegation chosen by a revote.

The plan submitted by the Florida Democratic Party is the only one being offered, the only one viable. It must be supported. Not seating a representative Florida (and Michigan) delegation will be disastrous for the Democratic Party's chances in those two states come November.

In my view, there is no choice. We must support the Florida revote plan.

NOTE- Comments closed.

The AP has released new delegate totals. As a result of New York and Colorado releasing final numbers, Obama's delegate lead is the same now as it was before Mississippi. Here's what happened:

Obama won 19 of the 33 delegates at stake Tuesday, according to the Associated Press tally, which gives him an overall lead, including superdelegates, of 111.

Clinton, however, eliminated Obama's gain from Mississippi when she picked up five delegates yesterday based on final results from the New York primary and the Colorado caucuses, both held Feb. 5.

Thus, Obama's gain from Mississippi is no more.

Update: Comments Over 200, thread now closed

Here it is (pdf.)

Thoughts? Mine are we don't need a revote. The DNC needs to lift its penalty against Florida, award the delegates and seat them in accordance with the Jan. 29 vote.

Floridians voted in record numbers, the parties were all on the ballot, everyone got to see and hear both candidates in televised debates and in the news. The Republican-dominated legislature forced the early date.

The DNC needs to admit it was wrong in assessing the penalty and lift it. If they don't, I'm concerned that Floridians will blame the Democratic party and sit out the November election.

Let's not hand the election to McCain. Let's skip the revote plan and award and seat the delegates according to the Jan. 29 record breaking primary vote.

Update: How Florida voted on Jan 29 is below the fold. Obama did dismally. It's obvious why he doesn't favor a recount.

By Big Tent Democrat

Commenter Coral Gables, watching the Florida news wires for us, brings us this:

The poll, conducted March 10th and 11th by The Kitchens Group in Maitland, Florida, sampled 600 of the 1.7 million registered Democratic voters throughout the state who participated in the January 29th primary.

The respondents were asked whether (1) state leaders should maintain their position of insisting that the votes cast on January 29th be counted, though it risked rejection by the Democratic National Committee, or (2) hold a new Democratic primary election, at no cost to the taxpayers, through the use of a prepaid mail-in ballot sent to all registered Democrats.

Fifty-nine percent supported option (2). . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

So say his MI Campaign Co-Chair:

State Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, said a mail-in caucus "is clearly the wrong path. "We don't like it one bit," Hunter said. "It disenfranchises people who need to participate and there are many questions with regard to security."

Hunter said the Obama campaign will accept nothing but a 50-50 split of Michigan delegates between Clinton and Obama, who removed his name from the January ballot here in protest of the early date.

(Emphasis supplied.) I guess the Obama MI Co-Chair does not agree with Obama's previously held positive view on mail in voting, agreeing instead with Obama's newly minted distaste for mail in voting. Oh and a 50-50 split is the ONLY thing Obama will accept in Michigan. Hope we are clear now on how Obama feels about the will of the people of Florida and Michigan.

The University of Wisconsin Advertising project has released an interesting report (pdf)on ad spending in Ohio by the candidates and interest groups supporting them:

Obama outspent Hillary 2 to 1 on ads.

In the high-profile Ohio presidential primary campaign, the campaigns of the two Democratic candidates for president aired over 16,000 spots, spending approximately $6.8 million. Obama outspent Clinton by a margin of nearly two-to-one, with the Illinois Senator spending over $4.4 million to air just over 10,000 spots. Clinton spent $2.3 million and aired just over six thousand spots. Republicans were largely absent in Ohio; neither John McCain nor Mike Huckabee aired a single ad leading up to the Ohio primary.

The SEIU and United Food and Commerical Workers Int'l Union spent $1 million in Ohio on ads for Obama. The 527 group supporting Hillary took spent $80,000. [More...]