« Obama moves up in Gallup Poll | billysumday's Blog | Pro-Clinton Bloggers are Giving Up on Their Gal »
Mark Penn: "Hey, remember when I said polls mattered? I was KIDDING!!"
Recently, Mark Penn stated:
Well, Penn has been proven, uh, correct? Today's Gallup poll shows that Obama leads Clinton by 3 points, 48-45.
So I think that without any uncertainty, we should be able to deduce that Mark Penn thinks that Obama has been vetted, the damage has been done, and now that the voters have had a chance to reflect, they have come to the conclusion that they like Obama and prefer him over Clinton. Right?
Come on, Mark, we're waiting for an answer. Is this poll as insignificant as Richardson? As insignificant as red states, caucus states, the popular vote, and Illinois?
On a serious note, I can honestly say I've never seen a political operative as short-sighted as Penn. I sincerely believe he doesn't consider the impact his words will have in the next day's news cycle, let alone the impact they will have in a week, or a month. He is a walking gaffe-machine and it is amazing that Clinton keeps paying him his millions.
The more that the voters learn about Barack Obama, the more his ability to beat John McCain is declining compared to Hillary. For a long time we have explained that poll numbers for a candidate who has not yet been vetted or tested are not firm numbers, and we are beginning to see that clearly.
Well, Penn has been proven, uh, correct? Today's Gallup poll shows that Obama leads Clinton by 3 points, 48-45.
So I think that without any uncertainty, we should be able to deduce that Mark Penn thinks that Obama has been vetted, the damage has been done, and now that the voters have had a chance to reflect, they have come to the conclusion that they like Obama and prefer him over Clinton. Right?
Come on, Mark, we're waiting for an answer. Is this poll as insignificant as Richardson? As insignificant as red states, caucus states, the popular vote, and Illinois?
On a serious note, I can honestly say I've never seen a political operative as short-sighted as Penn. I sincerely believe he doesn't consider the impact his words will have in the next day's news cycle, let alone the impact they will have in a week, or a month. He is a walking gaffe-machine and it is amazing that Clinton keeps paying him his millions.
Advertisement
Mark Penn is so addicted to the spin of the day that he doesn't care if his comments make logical sense on a day to day basis. Not only do his pronouncements lack all integrity, but they also lack even a shred of credibility. How can Hillary Clinton believe that having this clown speak for her is in her best political interest? Penn's continued role causes me to question Clinton's basic judgment.
March 22, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you insignificant?
March 22, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Mark Penn is more of a buzz word than any of his memes.
March 22, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of Senator Clinton's ability to "govern", Mark Penn is Exhibit A, and it's not pretty evidence. He's been wrong so many times that it's amazing he still has a role in the campaign. Second, he continues to inflict damage on Clinton--yesterday's awful comments about Richardson, for example.
I remember when he was interviewed on NPR about "microtrends". I didn't know, then, that he was Clinton's chief campaign strategist (his preferred title, apparently). I thought he was, not an idiot, but someone so caught up in his own story (about the importance of microtrends) that he lacked any objectivity about it. Microtrends? And that is how he's running this campaign.
And Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to appreciate that it's not really working. So what does this say about her judgment and experience, and what it portends for her performance as CIC?
And Billy, you could have included Penn's comments about the Des Moines Register poll. The one that nailed the outcome, but was completely dismissed by Penn.
March 22, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thing is, it sometimes works - it's simply that it doesn't work when you are competing against a candidate who does not rely on microtrends.
This "microtrend" strategy mirrors almost perfectly the "Gentleman's Wars" of the 17th and 18th Centuries - two nobles or nations decide they have to duke it out, choose a battleground, raise armies, line up their men on opposite sides of the battlefield, and whoever has the biggest army wins.
Similarly, microtrends "work" if both you and your opponent are microtrending, and you happen to be the one who captures the microtrends who just happen to turn out to vote a little more often. If Obama had gone with microtrends, he'd be losing badly to Hillary, but he didn't - he instead decided that no voter is unattainable, and he's proven easily that that is true.
When a microtrender is faced with that sort of strategy, the "get as many niche votes as possible" approach doesn't work. Your niche voters abandon you wholesale because, well, you treated them like a niche. If both sides treat you like a niche, you'll choose the one you mostly agree with, or prefer for emotional reasons.
But when one side treats you like a niche, and the other side treats you like a worthy, thinking human being, well, it's pretty obvious where those votes go.
March 22, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good analysis. Thanks.
March 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the sentiment that Penn says things that are outrageous and unconsidered. The sad truth though, is that 99.5% of the electorate has never heard of him, and unless something he says gets major play (like a Ferraro or Wright level), he could probably say something douchy 5 times a day, and it'll never hurt the Clinton campaign.
(beyond the inside baseball types like us)
His words seem to have little to no impact on the daily/weekly news cycle.
March 22, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, don't worry.
Everyone in the country will know his name by heart by November. The Republicans will see to that.
The one comment about 22 states not being "significant" could kill his boss in the general election all by itself, but he's confirmed over and over that it wasn't a slip of the tongue. It encapsules everything about the way he thinks and everything that salt-of-the-earth Republicans hate about the Democratic party.
Clinton should have tossed him overboard long ago.
March 22, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
When something comes out of a douche, the net effect is a cleasing. Mark Penn is an anti-douche.
March 22, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He is a walking gaffe-machine and it is amazing that Clinton keeps paying him his millions."
He's also an inveterate liar. Why call it "spin" when you can call it what it is? And what does having an inveterate liar play a leading role in her campaign say about Senator Clinton?
March 22, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, give Hillary a little credit. At least she is consistent in appointing incompetent loyal cronies to important positions. Remember Patti Solis Doyle? The complete screw up that blew through 30 million in Hillary's UNCONTESTED senate reelection campaign? Solis Doyle lied to donors about amounts raised and left her donors incensed.
So what does Hillary do? She makes her her campaign manager! They were completely broke after Iowa (hence the loan) Boy Hill, didn't see that one coming did ya?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle
The judgement on day one? That is is biggest fairy tail I have ever heard.
March 22, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great article, thanks for the link.
This whole obsessing over loyalty aspect of her leadership style really reminds me of the Bush administration's management style of rewarding cronies over those with actual skill.
March 23, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it me or does Mark Penn say something stupid every time he opens his mouth? I think that after this campaign he should retire with the millions Clinton has paid him and move out of the country because I can't imagine anyone hiring him after he's made a complete joke of her campaign. Plus he makes a nice scapegoat for the failure of the inevitable candidate.
March 22, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Penn is as disconnected from reality as Bush, don't you think?
March 23, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well i have gone through the article and as the matter of fact i must tell that the you are not up to the mark as to what to say.. totally insignificant..
==============
eva
Did you see it? One more time? You won't get faked out here!
http://www.SelectWealthSystem.com/?t=wc
July 25, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink