Mark Penn: Hey, Guess What -- The National Polls Matter Again!
After months and months of touting the national polls when Hillary led in them, followed by a period of relative silence about them when Obama took the lead, Hillary pollster Mark Penn is back to trumpeting their significance again.
Penn is out with a new memo claiming that Obama's national lead has been "evaporating," and he's pointing to this as proof that he's been right all along in claiming that Obama's support would decline once he were thoroughly "vetted" (read: attacked relentlessly)...
The Gallup daily tracking poll shows Hillary leading Sen. Obama among Democrats by 7 points, and the latest Zogby/Reuters poll has Sen. Obama’s lead down from 14 points last month to just 3 points now. This suggests a strong swing in momentum in the race to Hillary since the Texas and Ohio primaries earlier this month.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.
It's key to keep in mind that these arguments about electability are not directed at the public or at rank-and-file Dems -- their real target is the super delegates. These claims appear to be part of the larger strategy of bloodying up Obama enough to sow sufficient doubt among the super dels about Obama's electability that they don't feel obligated to follow the winner of the pledged dels.
We'll bring you Obama's response as soon as we get it. Full Penn memo after the jump.
To: Interested PartiesFrom: Mark Penn, Chief Strategist
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2008
Re: Polling Memo – The Shift to Hillary
There are some pretty big changes happening out there with the voters. Barack Obama recently declared himself the frontrunner in the race, although there are 10 contests remaining and MI and FL have not yet been decided. But a look at the polls shows that Sen. Obama’s lead nationally with Democrats has been evaporating. The Gallup daily tracking poll shows Hillary leading Sen. Obama among Democrats by 7 points, and the latest Zogby/Reuters poll has Sen. Obama’s lead down from 14 points last month to just 3 points now. This suggests a strong swing in momentum in the race to Hillary since the Texas and Ohio primaries earlier this month.
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. Just a month ago, the Obama campaign claimed that the polls showed Barack Obama doing better than Hillary against Sen. McCain. Now such numbers are a lot harder to find.
In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, Hillary leads John McCain by 5 points (Hillary 51 / McCain 46) while Sen. Obama is only 2 points ahead of Sen. McCain (Obama 49 / McCain 47). This is a reversal from February, when Sen. McCain led Hillary by 4 points. The latest CNN poll also shows that Hillary leads Sen. McCain by a bigger margin than Barack Obama.
In several key states, Hillary is a stronger general election candidate than Barack Obama against John McCain. For example, the latest Survey USA poll has Hillary leading Sen. McCain by 6 points in Ohio while Sen. Obama trails Sen. McCain by 7 points. In Kentucky, Hillary’s margin against Sen. McCain is 26 points better than Barack Obama’s. In Missouri, Sen. Obama lags John McCain by 14 points while Hillary comes within 2 points of Sen. McCain. In Florida, the latest PPP poll shows Barack Obama losing to John McCain by 11 points while Hillary comes within 4 points of Sen. McCain. Last week's University of Central Arkansas poll showed Hillary leading Sen. Sen. McCain by 15 points in that state while Sen. Obama trails Sen. McCain by 16 points. And the latest Rasmussen poll showed Hillary leading Sen. McCain by 11 points in New Jersey while Sen. Obama trails Sen. McCain by 2 points.
Moreover, 24 percent of Florida Democrats say that if Florida's delegates are not counted at the Democratic convention in August, they are less likely to vote for a Democrat in November, according to the latest St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9/Miami Herald poll. Since Florida is the single largest and most important swing state in the country and nearly 1.8 million Florida Democrats voted in the January primary, Democrats must find a solution to allow Florida's delegates to count if we are to have any hope of winning in November.
And in the crucial state of Pennsylvania – the next Democratic primary battleground and the biggest state which has not yet voted – the latest Quinnipiac poll shows Hillary doubling her Democratic primary lead over Barack Obama from 6 points to 12 points. In Pennsylvania, Hillary improved among men, maintained her 24 point advantage among women, and improved among younger, older, more educated and less educated voters. She leads in every region across the state (NE, SE, NW, SW, Central, Alleghany) with the exception of Philadelphia.
Ultimately, this Democratic nominating process is meant to select the candidate who will: a) be the best president – the best commander-in-chief, steward of the economy, and exercise leadership; b) defeat John McCain; and c) promote and defend core Democratic principles such as universal health care. On all three fronts, Hillary is the best choice for the Democratic Party.
Hillary is the runaway leader on most qualified to be commander-in-chief. In the Ohio exit poll, 60 percent of Democratic primary voters said Hillary was most qualified to be commander-in-chief, compared with 37 percent for Barack Obama. In Texas, she led by 16 points, and in most other states, she led by 10 points or more. She also won among those who said the economy was the most important issue – by 12 points in Ohio, for example. And in the latest CNN poll, more voters say Hillary would do a good job on the economy than Barack Obama or John McCain. Finally, in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, Hillary leads Barack Obama on strong and decisive leadership, managing the government effectively and having a clear plan for solving the country’s problems.
CHECK OUT HRC'S MEMBERSHIP TO THE FELLOWSHIP, TRULY A CULT LIKE RIGHT WING BIBLE GROUP.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
March 20, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh that is really pathetic indepdnentmeans.
Your guy is scandalized so now you are turning over every rock to try to find a way to smear Hillary's beliefs and connections.
That is not only pathetic and desperate, it is disgusting. And unfortunately, it it typical of you immature Obama supporters. Do you reall think this type of thing is going to take the nation, the world's attention off of Obama and his connections with Wright, Farrakhan, etc.??
March 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
wow. so RaeK is on the record as saying that Wright is a bigger threat to this country and the progressive movement then the christian right.
I wonde how many people around here agree with that?
March 20, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, my exuberance killed my spelling. but i guess the points the same.
March 20, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You calling anyone immature is just too rich. Pot, kettle, black.
March 20, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, what do you know, I agree with Rae. It is disgusting and reprehensible to try to slime a candidate by saying "some of the folks with whom s/he prays are wierdos." It is disgusting and reprehensible when folks do it to Obama, and just as disgusting and reprehensible when folks do it to Clinton.
Seriously, I thought that the reason why folks like Obama is because he is above this sort of nonsense. I know that is part of the reason I like him. I am hard pressed to understand why my fellow Obama partisans want to perpetuate this sort of nonsense. Better, it seems to me, to dismiss it as the nonsense it is than resort to the same level as bozos like Rae and her fellows over at FOX News.
March 20, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with your sentiment, did you see Rae K and Lalo35adm doing Sean Hannity's dirty work below in this very thread by posting Fox YouTube attacks?
What say you of their acts?
March 20, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have thought that the "bozos like Rae" line in my above post would make clear what I think of her and her ilk. It is a shame that a candidate so worthy as Clinton must be tarred with the idiocy of some of her supporters on this board, Rae K chief among them. I am not really trying to make out as if these brats are anything better than you consider them; I am just pointing out that Obama's supporters should be better than that.
March 20, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I'm just so disgusted that fellow Democrats would post some anti-Hillary book as the first poster did AND disgusted that other Democrats would post links to Hannity attacks on Obama.
We're going to need to come together SOONER rather than later, and folks on both sides are resorting to more and more disgusting tactics against the same team.
In response to one of Rae's posts I found the LEAST offensive Hillary attack YouTube to point to the fact that Hannity and Rove and Coulter and Ditto-Heads are going to attack our fellow Democrats REGARDLESS of who our nominee is. To think that because she was 'vetted' in the 90s that the attacks won't continue is naive in the very least. C'mon folks... Fox is going to attack us both, why help them???
March 20, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, excuse me folks. Those links to those videos are not Hannity videos.
And my point was on electability. If you want to continue to live in blissful ignorance while you replay Obama speeches and gaze at only positive stories about him, then you are all in for a rude awakening.
What is more important to you? To see him win the nomination or to see a dem back in the White House? Because I'm starting to think it is the former. It is looking like you Obama supporters would rather win the nomination, at any cost: Even if it means the dems will lose in the general just so you can crown your guy winner of the nomination. Him winning the nomination won't mean sh*t if he doesn't win the general election. Why are we wasting all this money? Just for a nomination??
This thinking is so crazy its beyond words.
Rae
March 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, I'm with you. But the dilemma is that Kerry also ignored Swift Boat and paid the price for it. You take high road and lose or you fight and win. For all the crap we get on Clintons, they understand it very well. They lived through it.
March 20, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, almost thought Greg was in agreement and a cut above, ... but then the 'bozo' commment. tsk tsk....
Rae
March 20, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, I am in agreement with you on this point. Even bozos like yourself can make worthwhile observations now and again. Independant Means' argument is both flimsy and despicable. On this much we sincerely agree.
As regards the "tsk, tsk," well, your credible standing to lodge such criticisms crumbled weeks ago...
March 20, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before somebody accuses Greg of pro-Clinton bias in posting this, please notice the snark.
Greg, are you guys going to do anything on Hillary's schedules?
March 20, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The funny part about this though is that if after three rough weeks, including one HORRIBLE week, the lowest Obama goes is the current polls, I would say it is a encouragingly high baseline (especially since most of those polls take 25% of Hillary voters away from him in the GE, which is an unreasonable assumption for November so there is a lot of room to grow on - from that baseline).
March 20, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"..."vetted" (read: attacked relentlessly)..."
Either you survie or you wilt away like a flower.
What do you think will be happening between the convention and November? Dancing with the Stars?
March 20, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think will be happening between the convention and November?
The GOP attack machine will be relentlessly attacking Obama. And Hillary's attacks on Obama will feature prominently in their ads.
It's one thing to have the GOP attack machine say that McCain is ready to be Commander in Chief and Obama isn't. It's quite another for them to be able to say that and show that statement coming directly out of the mouth of a prominent Democrat like Hillary.
March 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
To think that the GOP will lack in ideas on how to attack Obama only shows your kindergarten understanding of what American politics is like.
They have an army of paid consultants digging up the dirt as we speak.
This is what happened to the Clintons EVERY DAY since 1992. What's happening to Obama is EXACTLY the same, and it's only the beginning.
What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.
March 20, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think you're digging a grave just a little too early.
March 20, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better get ready now than follow John Kerry's example
March 20, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'll go back to disavowing these polls in another week when Obama's gets back the momentum.
March 20, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
These videos are just the beginning of the offense against Obama by the republicans, one of them by the maker of the swiftboat ad against John Kerry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9spTfX7LoaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4
There will be more. It will continue.
It is becoming more and more apparent, that: Obama is now un-electable. Democrats need to win in November.
We cannot afford to risk the election with this guy.
Rae
March 20, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since when do Democrats take their orders from right-wing attacks?
What are we supposed to do when the Right trains their attacks on Hillary?
Run to McCain?
(actually, that's probably EXACTLY what you hope)
March 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that we already bought into everything they told us about Hillary. We have already agreed with them on Hillary. Look around the site and you'll see. Re-read your own posts, and you'll see
March 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
RaeK is not a Democrat.
March 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, absolutely. Because they totally won't have anything at all they can use to attack Hillary if her cunning plan to steal the nomination succeeds.
March 20, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your logic is infallible. Certainly they won't attack Clinton but run screaming away in fear of her vast experience.
March 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my god
March 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really don't think they have just as much material to do just as many stupid ads on Hillary ? Seriously ?
At least we now know which angle they will use on O.
March 20, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is disgusting that you're spreading Sean Hannity's Obama attacks here.
However, if you suddenly think that Hillary is immune to attacks from the Right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRUJ-VSl8hM
Think again.
March 20, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jaysin,
That video is comical, even cute, in comparison to the ones against Obama. Is that the worst we have to fear?
March 20, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect that this line was shorter than the one above because she really was sniggering too hard to type much more. Nonetheless, I am impressed that she was able to get even this much out before she collapsed from laughing at the absurdity of her own remarks.
March 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rae.
Trust me on this. I REFUSE to link to the truly awful stuff re: Hillary on YouTube.
My point was simply that it took me a matter of seconds to find a goofy one re: Hillary.
How hard do you REALLY think it would be for me to find an awful one?
Maybe somebody else will point you to something abhorrent, I will not do that to a fellow Democrat.
The point is that the Fox-crowd is going to attack Hillary and Barack alike. Instead of helping them do their job, we should BOTH be outraged at Fox and attackng THEM. NOT FELLOW DEMS!!!
March 20, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to aid their efforts while trying to appear you're actually on the Democrats' side. Folks like you make me sick.
March 20, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Riiiiight. Because a Clinton candidacy spells sure victory. Man, I am at least impressed that Rae was able to get that post out without sniggering so hard as to be unable to type.
March 20, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is absolutely, no doubt in my mind, that Hillary will win if she gets the nomination.
March 20, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is absolutely, no doubt in my mind, that Hillary will win if she gets the nomination.
But I have news for you Missy, no one really gives a rat's ass about the doubts in your mind or my mind?
If certainity in your mind was all it took, why these daily half dozen hatemongering posts on TPM ? Hmmm? Hmmmm?
Get Real!! We can never be absolutely certain who will make a better candidate, until last week polls suggested Obama was a stronger candidate- by the way numbers at no stage thus far indicate Hillary beating McCain. But we never know.
March 20, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baaaaah!
Raek's mind is a very, very strange place. No facts. She just spews outrages and unsupported conclusions.
The clintons can't win in november. The facts are against them, the polls are against them, and they actually are shooting themselves in the foot all over the place. If they get the nomination, a substantial number of dems will vote for mccain or not vote. Ah, why bother going through this with someone in a very, very bizarre place.
The clintons can't win in November. Baaaaaahhhhhh!
March 20, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you don't think they can do the same, and worse, to clinton, you're delusional. if the only criteria we have in picking a candidate is someone who is immune to right wing attacks, hillary is not it. actually, if that is the criteria, we should just give up now and not put up a candidate for the general.
March 20, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, he convinced me. We should scrap the Nomination process and just pick our candidate based on National Polls.
But, uh, just one question Mark:
Which poll do I use?
March 20, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Greg, good post. Not biased... just the facts. Mark is spinning. Call it like you see it, that's all I ask!
March 20, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
He forgot the CBS National poll that shows an Obama lead over Clinton.
March 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That one doesn't count.
March 20, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
March 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh noes! Only three points lead for Obama! Clinton has won!
I thought the first thing Williams did was forbidding Penn to make any public statements any more?
March 20, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arguing that we should pick our candidate based on what the right-wing attack machine will do is probably not the best tack in making a case for Hillary... It's not like they're going to strew flowers in her wake.
March 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fox News video on YouTube is showing Wright talking about Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton, swaying his hips. Then cuts to Obama inside the church, during the cermon, smiling.
I wonder if this is an edit from different events or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xb7AVw_no0&feature=related
March 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding right?
Look at that clip, slow it down if you must.
That's CLEARLY Obama working the crowd at a campaign stop.
The giveaway??? The crowd is mostly non-black and the Secret Service guy over his shoulder.
If your hopes for November depend upon Sean Hannity and Fox, you really need to start thinking about what you can do to get Obama elected in November, because Hillary has NO chance if that's the best her campaign can come up with...
March 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you are right. My point is - what will an average view think, not the news junkie like us (will they slow it down)?
March 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The AVERAGE democratic voter isn't watching Fox. Obama's supporters thusfar are more computer literate than to be persuaded by a YouTube clip with the FoxNews logo floating in the lower left hand corner.
My problem is that Hillary supporters are pushing these clips to fellow democrats to build support for their candidate.
If you have sincere policy differences, that's fine. Let's discuss the differences.
You want to link a Sean Hannity hitjob and expect anything more than pity, you're asking to much.
I respect most of your posts.
This attempt was not one of them.
Democrats NEVER use Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck or Coulter as Talking Points against one another. NEVER!!!
March 20, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think my point was lost you on. Think about general elections, soccer moms reading their emails in October and following the links from John McCain 527-style groups.
They know Clinton has female vote. This is a good example of how they will drive a wedge between Obama and that vote.
They will use Wright against EVERY demographic.
March 20, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it will fail.
March 20, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope so, if he's the nominee. What makes you so sure? Precedent? History?
March 20, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you think that Obama and his team is incapable of the same type of viral emails that disarm such attacks?
You don't think that the Philadelphia speech won't disarm the majority of 527s?
I guess where we differ is that I don't think that a motivated Democratic base (which by itself is enough to win the election) is going to be swayed this time.
Gaining the independents would nice, but I don't think they're necessary.
This time, 2008, is different.
Radio like Randi Rhodes, Ed Schults, Stephanie Miller have enough listeners to get into the ears of soccor moms to provide a context to the e-mails.
TV like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Keith Olbermann have enough impact on younger voters to provide a context to the 527 attacks from the Right.
We are not going to be scared. NOT THIS TIME.
Your post wasn't lost on me. I patently disagree with it.
I have faith that the American electorate is smarter, braver, more connected than you may be willing to give them credit. I believe that the million of fervent Obama supporters represent such a large motivated well-financed group that there is NOTHING that Hannity, Murdoch, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and their ilk can do to pry off even a fraction of his support.
When Hillary drops out, the majority of her supporters will likely join the cause. Why? McCain doesn't support women's views, Obama does. McCain is being pushed to support a constituional ammendment against choice. Obama will not support that. McCain's track record on legislation supporting children, veterans and families is, in a word, PATHETIC.
Democrats will defeat scare-tactics. Democrats will defeat ANY efforts to tear us apart. You speak of Hillary's toughness, having been through this before. Great. Then there's NO excuse to use it against fellow Democrats and there's NO excuse NOT to support the fellow Democrat 100% with the nominating process is over.
March 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
How will this play with soccer moms in New Jersey between 30 and 35 years of age who drive Korean import mini-vans? I have no idea. Nor do you, come to that. I dare say that if a spliced together hit job like this becomes an internet sensation, that putting together a response should not be that difficult a task. Remember that Dan Rather handed Bush a gift by reporting a largely true story using bogus evidence. The result was that everyone came away with the conclusion "oh, the whole thing about his draft dodging must just be a fabrication" such that subsequent reports proving the claim fell on deaf ears. I dare say that by creating such a transparently false attack, FOX & al are setting up the Obama campaign for an opportunity to do the same to this story.
March 20, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I love your example! It's the best proof of the effectiveness of Republicans, at attack and damage control. We have nothing comparable to this. As always, we just roll over and die. I know that we are senscere in our hope for new politics. But I also know that Republicans control the media, the money, the Supreme Court, other judiciary, the goverment, etc. And they will all fall in line. Because of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, they have the advantage in taking money for campaign HQ directly, not into uncoordinated 527s.
So you can call me panic-monger all you like, I just think we have to be READY
March 20, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"their real target is the super delegates."
Does Penn think these individuals are that stupid or his he?
March 20, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder what Penn thinks about the CBS poll (March 15-18): "Obama has the highest favorable rating of the three candidates - 44 percent - followed by Clinton at 39 percent and McCain at 38 percent. Clinton, meanwhile, has the highest unfavorable rating at 41 percent, followed by McCain at 31 percent and Obama at 28 percent. "
March 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 20, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
i continued to be mystified by Clinton devotion to the porcine, sneering Mark Penn.
March 20, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded re porcine, sneering.
March 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rasmussen confirms yesterdays' result (one point shift in each direction which is statiscally insignificant) 46-43 against 47-42 for him yesterday.
However the big winner is McCain that is up 49-42 against Ob and 51-41 against Hillary.
March 20, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn will grasp at anything he can to claim that Hillary Clinton is still relevant. Sooner or later, they'll have to face the facts that she has next to no chance of getting the nomination. Mark Penn and the rest of the campaign BLEW IT. They should face up to the facts and realize that it is either just about over or over.
While Obama may be down some in the polls now, it has been a relentless attack -- and Barack Obama has responded very well. He's shown that he can take the difficult and potentially explosive situation of dealing with Pastor Wright and turn it into an important and challenging situation from which the country (and his candidacy) can benefit. Who else has shown this sort of leadership in the campaign?
He's shown he's tough enough to take all kinds of punches and clearly he will be the Democratic nominee unless something earth shaking occurs in the next month. If Hillary had the good will of the Democratic Party in her mind and not just her own ego, she would start packing her bags now.
March 20, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, basically, on Tuesday, Obama once again bet that the American people are smarter than people like Hillary and Penn will ever give them credit for, and today, Penn once again bet that people are so are so staggeringly stupid that they won't even be able to recall what he was saying a two weeks ago.
And there you have it. The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the views of their supporters, in a nutshell.
Obama, his campaign and his supporters believe people are smarter than we give them credit for, are fed up with being treated like idiots, are heartsick at having allowed themselves to be played for idiots, and are ready to see our politics elevated.
Hillary, her campaign, and her supporters look at the fact that Bush won and was briefly even popular and conclude that people are just a mob of drooling imbeciles, so stupid as to be beyond reason, that they can only be moved by the cynical manipulation of base emotions--fear, greed, anger, ethnocentrism--and that the only way to win is to be better at that manipulation than the Republicans have been.
Evidence can be found to support both models. A bare preponderance of the evidence since 1980 supports Hillary's theory, the overwhelming preponderence of the evidence since 2004 supports Obama's. This fact along fuels the bitterness of our arguments when, actually, it should give each side reason to respect the potential validity of the other's.
If each worldview is supported by substantial evidence, it comes down to a simple choice: which country would you rather live in? The one Obama says we live in or the one Hillary says we live in?
March 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And not a tough choice (at least not for me).
March 20, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. When it's put in terms like that, the choice couldn't be easier for me.
March 20, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may be wrong in assuming that all of the anti-Obama trolls on this site are Hillary supporters. But a consistent argument among the Hillary supporters has been that media spin and the gullibility of the electorate mean you have to conduct politics in a Rovian fashion (i.e., character assassination, distortion and oversimplification) to win, and that Obama is doomed because he is running a more high-minded campaign.
And, no, I don't think he's perfect. He hasn't lived up to his stated ideals in every respect, and his criticisms of Hillary have been occasionaly tin-eared and/or unfair. Nevertheless, he's far less guilty of smear, distortion, and overall negativity than her campaign has been.
I really wonder why Hillary supporters are so resigned to this form of politics, when it has been so devastating to the country at large and Democrats in particular.
We have the power to change this, by voting intelligently and not repeating the smears and the spin when it serves our purposes. I mean, if not now, then when? If not us, then who?
March 20, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it maybe because many Clinton supports remember very well how she was smeared on a daily basis by the Republicans for the viewing pleasure of American publics. Clinton supporters lived through this hell and they know what it means.
Of course they will attack her if she is the nominee. There will be cigars and all kinds of dirt. But she's been through all of that for so long that she has some kind of immunity to it now.
We have a choice now:
- act like Kerry and not respond
- respond and take the initiative
Boils down to the question: what do you want to do? Win? After you win, you can engage in change. If you don't win, you can engage in more talk.
March 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I'm 46 years old. I've lived through alot more than the Clinton smears. I am old enough to remember that the Clinton presidency was not exactly salad days for liberalism, and to recognize that his wife is running on an alomst identical platform to her husband's, even though we have (had?) the Republicans on the ropes.
And is you honestly think she's going to beat McCain by going negative, then I don't think you have any knowledge of the dynamics that have been in play the last 40 years.
A strategy of dueling negatives only ends up depressing voting from the soft middle that can be persuaded to vote Democratic. The right always manages to fire up enough of their base to achieve their 50% + 1 majority, so if the Democrat has been sufficiently tarnished, they win. And nobody will fire up the conservative base like Hillary Clinton.
Plus, as has been noted on this blog by other commenters many time, Clinton ability to assist in the downticket races will be nil, and likely hurt many Dems in swing districts.
Bottom line, a Hillary victory to me looks like we put a triangulating, conservative Democrat in the White House, and lose our margins in Congress. A lose-lose situation if you ask me, no matter whether she's able to out-negative McCain in the general or not.
March 20, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. This is why the "Hillary is a fighter" line cuts no ice with me. Once we turn the election into a "fight," we cede home field advantage to the Republicans. Theirs is the platform which eschews nuance and treats on charicatures. Ours is the platform which requires that people think in order to see its appeal. We need a candidate who can make the race into a "debate" or a "conversation," not a "fight." Once it comes to that, Rove & al. win it every time. If Clinton gets the nomination I will vote for her, but it will be a case of spitting into the wind because McCain will win in a cake-walk.
March 20, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...so resigned to this form of politics, when it has been so devastating to the country at large and Democrats in particular...."
Maybe because it's been so devastating?
You won't change it until you win. You cannot wish or will the voters into being superintelligent and overeducated. You have to win with the voters you have, not the voters you prefer.
March 20, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thus proving my point about the difference between Hillary and Obama supporters worldview.
March 20, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have to agree with Penn that Hillary is the 'runaway' leader, especially leading her followers to also run away from the truth about her lack of substance.
She runs away from full disclosures that would vet her as a candidate, runs away from the falsity of her Ohio claim that she was 'silently' anti-NAFTA at the time of its passage, runs away from disclosing her 2000-2007 income tax records, runs away from disclosures that her two brothers made money advocating for Clinton pardons, runs away from the quid pro quos of her earmark requests, runs away from the truth of her non-involvement in CinC decision-making during her husband's term, runs away from giving specific checkable data to study her paltry Senate record, runs away from her involvement in 'secret' power sharing through a psuedo-religious Washington group shared with Santorum, et al, runs away from her deceptions that tore apart the NH democratic party, runs away from her MI supporters designing a re-vote that disenfranchises thousands of Democrats and Independents, runs away from disclosing the sources of the Clinton's income rise by tens of millions of dollars since 2000, runs away from utilizing Rush Limbaugh and other rightwing nuts to tear down a fellow Democrat, runs away from the fact that she and McCain are connected through their top advisors, runs away from her Rose Law Firm action of dissing a 12 year old sexual victim.............and this list isn't complete. All this running away is significant but all together does not begin to match her most egregious act of running away which is running from the responsibility she shares for enabling the loss of 4,000 American lives and uncountable other continuing negative consequences for America because of her AUMF vote.
Yes, Mark Penn, she is the runaway one.
March 20, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Penn is the new Rove.
Obama's numbers will continue to tank.
Its the God damn America radicalism stupid.
He should drop out so we can have a nominee.
March 20, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Penn is the new Rove"
Is that meant to be a compliment?
March 20, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No worries. Rove is an overrated tool that we shouldn't be afraid of. He lost the majority in 2006, he missed getting indicted by a whisker in the Libby trial and is avoiding a Congressional subpoena as we speak.
Comparing Penn to Rove is NOT a compliment.
March 20, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Radicalism was the name Republicans gave to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. As a result, the Democratic Party lost the entire American South as electoral base.
With this scandal, we can kiss good-bye to the 50 state strategy of Howard Dean.
March 20, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the NYT reported today, we have a nominee. And it ain't Clinton.
March 20, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Mark Penn, guess what? Rasmussen's latest (just put out two minutes ago) shows Obama maintaining a 46-43 lead over HRC.
Hey, guess what, RaeK? You're a hatebot hardly worthy of the candidate you support. Do her a favor and restrain yourself. "Farrakhan connection?" What the hell are you talking about? Spit your vile at the real enemy for a change--the Republicans. Or are you one in disguise? You sure sound like one.
You're a disgrace to Hillary Clinton. Do her a favor and talk like an intelligent grownup for a change.
March 20, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't know about Obama's Farrakhan connections then I suggest you go do some research.
March 20, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A friend of a friend?
March 20, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO!
March 20, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was very well said, Steve. It was interesting, watching the reactions to the speech. Obama treated his audience like intelligent adults, discussed the context of racism, asked his listeners to have empathy for the anger of both sides, called on people to understand. He spoke to what is best in us, and decried the politics that distracted from these issues. The Fox News people and, alas, the Clinton supporters who seem to have embraced them instead seized on exactly these politics--HE DISRESPECTED OUR FOUNDING FATHERS! HE DISRESPECTED THE CONSTITUTION! HE THREW HIS GRANDMOTHER UNDER A BUS! Don't pay any attention to the message, manufacture controversy, outrage...Distract, distract. Americans are stupid, they're reactionary, you can NEVER imply there was slavery involved in the founding of this country!
Again, Obama is appealing to our highest instincts. Fox News appeals to our lowest, and, unfortunately, some Dems have embraced that. I'm not going to run from Obama because of Fox.
March 20, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean, what IS it with the HRC supporters on this site? I feel like I'm at Free Republic or something...seriously, the tone and level of the rhetoric is about the same. Absolutely hateful.
March 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine what it's like to be Mark Penn? Having to be so blatantly dishonest on a day to day basis? You'd think it'd really eat into a person after a while. It's the same feeling I have for car salesmen. I equally loath and pity them.
March 20, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is used to it, just look at his and his company's track record.
March 20, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In unrelated news, Mark Penn just said diets don't matter.
March 20, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
By this argument, there never should have been a civil rights movement because of what republicans used it for?
If you are truly concerned about the 50 state strategy, Hillary is not your candidate. She is a firm believer in the older, Terry Mc strategy, her goal is 50 plus 1 and she has indeed insulted a bunch of red states without a concern for what that might do downticket.
March 20, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh??
My point is that 50 state strategy is a myth by Howard Dean who has no record of success in politics.
50 state strategy should start when we have BOTH Congress and White House, when we can influence Supreme Court and Goverment. And even then it will be a slow slow process.
March 20, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? We should start the 50-state strategy to win the presidency after we win the presidency?
All Howard Dean did was get Congress back to a Democratic majority for the first time since 1994. What a loser.
March 20, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 50 State Strategy took back both houses of Congress two years ago, asshat.
What do you think the Republican Revolution of 1994 came from? Do you think a whole bunch of new Republicans just popped up from nowhere?!
Republicans were able to retake Congress in 1994 because they saturated the politics of a vast number of states, at every level- they got on the school boards, they got on the city councils, they got into the state legislatures. They didn't just focus on 'liberal states' or 'conservative states,' they went to every state and found districts where they could get their people elected.
The Democratic Party must do the same. Howard Dean recognizes that, while you seem to prefer to shove your head even further into the sand, or maybe just further up your anus.
March 20, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harrier: It took Republicans 30 years to get to the "revolution", since Barry Goldwater's manifesto. That's when they all got together and said - let's put our differences aside and win. They put an all-out effort and they had the White House at the same time, and it took a while.
We didn't win in 2006. They lost. Tom Delay? Mark Foley?
Why do we get so heady and blind so quickly, every time?
March 20, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
More likely they'll bring flowers TO her wake.
March 20, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A commentator I heard yesterday on MSNBC kept insisting that not one single national poll of any kind matters right now, because they're all theoretical match-ups. Wait till after the conventions and the campaign begins, he said. I agree, but everyone's obsessed with numbers and the horse race.
March 20, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn wallows in his own shit. Why anyone would give credence to this revolting pig-fucker is beyond me.
March 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, sorry Lalo, I misunderstood you. Well, I actually think the 50 state strategy was a roaring success in 2006. I agree it's a slow process--but I think it started then.
March 20, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn assumes that the Democratic party is and will remain a regional party and a weak one at that, stuck in a few East Coast and West Coast urban states. His assumption is firmly based on the a past reality created by Ronald Reagan. Penn like all of the DLCers, refuses to grow beyond the Bill Clinton 1990s model of the Democratic party.
His world view is essentially pessimistic. Penn's America is a dark and forbidding place dominated by Fox News and Right Wing Talk Radio.
God, I am not sure I want to live in Mark Penn's America any more. Do you?
One of the reasons Penn and Clinton have been getting their hats handed to them by Obama all over the country is that they are completely out of touch with what has been happening on the ground. Instead of designing polls based on his preconceived notions, he should be out talking to people.
Being out of touch is probably Team Hillary's greatest weakness. It is the reason they are losing.
March 20, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't call Lalo an asshat. There are so few HRC supporters here willing to do anything but spew Rush Limbaugh talking points...
March 20, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Fucking Penn is the No.1 reason why Hillary Campaign feels like fith. This fat bastard would call his own mother a slut if that's what it takes to win an election.
He and Rove are twin angels from Hell.
March 20, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Do you reall think this type of thing is going to take the nation, the world's attention off of Obama and his connections with Wright, Farrakhan, etc.??"
'Connections', huh?
Obama has precisely the same 'connections' with Farrakhan as Iraq had with al Qaida, which is to say, none of consequence. Are you, RaeK, Karl Rove in disguise? You seem to have the tactics and language down pat.
March 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink