Hey! Name Recognition!

Let me recommend Neil Sinhababu's critique of this Mark Penn memo about how Hillary Clinton is a super-strong candidate. Obviously, Clinton pays Penn money to produce this kind of analysis, so it's not surprising that it isn't especially sound. Still, it's almost insultingly unsound. Virtually everything Penn says about Clinton vis-a-vis other Democrats is clearly attributable to name recognition, a concept Penn would evidently like you to believe he's unfamiliar with.

I don't really understand how releasing this kind of thing is supposed to actually help Clinton's chances -- it's just sort of making me mildly annoyed.

Comments

Clinton needs to leave her team of experts and pollsters behind. Triangulating is not going to get her where it got Bill.

She came out against the Iraq war only last week; nice way to read the public mood, which is now at 68% against the new escalation.

Posted by Max Power | January 20, 2007 8:57 PM

You're right it is about the name recognition. LOL...name recognition and support, comparatively speaking, is like apples and road tar. I love artificial buzz...

And who knew of her hubby at the same point in the run up to '92.

Posted by Porn Stor Owner Dude... | January 20, 2007 9:30 PM

The critique of Mark Penn's memo by Neil Sinhababu doesn't look much better than Penn's memo itself. Penn stretches Hillary's popularity out too far, but Sinhababu stretches John Edwards out even farther by suggesting that he's a serious contender although he's at 12-14% among Democrats.

In fact, Hillary is in a commanding position vis a vis the other Democrats at this point. Hillary is well ahead of both Obama and Edwards in the polls and she has several pluses. Hillary does have universal name recognition and she is associated with the best of the Clinton administration. She also has credibility as an intelligent, serious, and tough-minded person who's been through the political ringer and emerged stronger. Hillary is in this favorable position despite the embargo she placed on presidential speculation among her friends, almost universal media skepticism about her "winnability," and the hostility of progressive bloggers like Arianna Huffington. If she proves to be a strong campaigner, Hillary will be very hard for Obama to beat and untouchable for Edwards and the third-tier guys.

Obviously, Hillary does have weaknesses. Her negatives are high (45% the last I saw) and she doesn't project a lot of personal charisma. But she's still in the driver's seat.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 21, 2007 12:25 AM

A big job for Clinton staffers is to do their part to convince the netroots that the Hillary candidate is someone we should like. If they can't do that, they'll try to convince us that her inertia is unstoppable. This will be fun to watch. And read.

Posted by dc | January 21, 2007 1:36 AM

She has opposed the war since 2004.

"Virtually everything Penn says about Clinton vis-a-vis other Democrats is clearly attributable to name recognition"

Just part of the article. And our last VP candidate has no name recognition? Sounds like a reason to think he's not going to do well in the primaries. I'm not that happy about her running, but I think she's pretty likely to be the nominee (based on her name, her gender, her ties to important groups in the party, her money). So I don't much care about that part of the article anyway.

Posted by rilkefan | January 21, 2007 1:45 AM

"I don't really understand how releasing this kind of thing is supposed to actually help Clinton's chances -- it's just sort of making me mildly annoyed."

Damn, she just announced and her campaign already has an epitaph.

Posted by aleks | January 21, 2007 5:44 AM

With all due respect to Somerby, her answers to Russert and Blitzer come off like a dodge. She still couldn't contort her lips to form the words "I would have voted against it" and had to rely on the formulation "There never would have been a vote." Yes, and if no bills or resolutions ever crossed the Senate floor, her record would be positively sterling. And then in 2005, she came back from Iraq, and, although partly critical, she managed to pass off the violence is a sign the insurgency is failing trope. When it comes to Iraq, I have no patience for needle-threaders.

Neil (Sinhababu? Really?) has long been very pro-Edwards, so his particular slant isn't a surprise, although it doesn't invalidate his points (namely, that Penn ignores her unfavorables, and the dodgyness surrounding the "only dem to beat mccain and guiliani" claim.) Edwards does have name recognition, which clearly helps him in the polls as well, but clearly six months as the VP nominee doesn't get you as much name recognition as eight years as a very active First Lady.

I think Hillary's name recognition and war chest make her a formidable candidate and the presumptive front-runner, but I also think it's far, far to early to rely on polling data to anoint or dismiss any candidate. Momentum will swing at least twice before we have our nominee.

Posted by Royko | January 21, 2007 6:31 AM

Ric Caric, I don't understand your critique of Neil's critique, and by claiming that Edwards is not a serious contender, you've made yourself sound, uh...uninformed. Hillary's gonna have get herself, or buy, some better netroots fans.

As for this, "Hillary is well ahead of both Obama and Edwards in the polls": Not the the ones taken in the early caucus-primary states--the ones that matter, that is.

Friends, as the primary season progresses, and we crash heads on a million thread like this one, maybe we can all agree to agree on several points.

1. National polls mean next to nothing
2. Saying "Hillary" as opposed to "Clinton" isn't sexist
3. If Sharpton runs, he'll do well in the debates
4. With the Internet, any serious candidate can raise serious sums
5. The new meme that "Hillary has nowhere to go but up" lacks logic
6. Neither Clinton nor Edwards not Obama is the Messiah or the Devil
7. Russ Feingold would make a kick-ass AG

Posted by david mizner | January 21, 2007 9:41 AM

I recommend this short movie mocking Kim Jong Il and his secret agent buying Hennessy XO wine from Chinese black market :=)

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EE52D9ED01495685

Posted by booted cat | January 21, 2007 10:25 AM

With all due respect to Somerby, her answers to Russert and Blitzer come off like a dodge. She still couldn't contort her lips to form the words "I would have voted against it" and had to rely on the formulation "There never would have been a vote." Yes, and if no bills or resolutions ever crossed the Senate floor, her record would be positively sterling.

Of course they were a dodge. But the important thing to note is that they were a bad dodge. That is, if you say that the war wouldn't have even been proposed, you are clearly calling the war illegitimate.

Stupidly, Democrats thought "it never would have happened" was fundamentally different from "I would have voted no" and they could fool everyone into thinking the same--and now, stupidly, we're buying into that logical difference and condemning them for it.

Sure, it's wimpy rhetoric, but that's the sort of thing the Republicans are going to scold them over--do we have to do the same?

Posted by cg | January 21, 2007 10:39 AM

Sure, it's wimpy rhetoric, but that's the sort of thing the Republicans are going to scold them over--do we have to do the same?

Of course we do. Look, Clinton wants to run for president, and she's bizarrely making electability her selling point for an election where she'll be pitting her history of embarrassingly tangled rhetoric on Iraq against the most important issue of the day. The fact is that in an election where we're going to want a strong anti-war voice - both on the merits and for electability reasons - Clinton is standing on incredibly weak ground. We need someone who sounds like they mean it when they say the war is wrong and they want to get out, not someone who sounds like they're trying to get out of being punished.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2007 11:20 AM

Theoretically, anybody can catch fire, but Edwards' chances don't look good. Hillary and Obama both have a star quality that Edwards lacks. Now that Hillary and Obama are both in, they'll be sucking the air out of the room. Meanwhile, the gaggle of third-tier wannabes with small constituencies is going to make it hard for Edwards to grow. So, he's going to be pushed down from the top and pulled down from the bottom by Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack. Democrats might be getting a little tired of hearing Southern accents these days as well.

The national polls might not matter here, but I'm sure they're keeping track at Edwards headquarters. Being ahead doesn't mean that Hillary is a lock. She's going to have to make good on her early numbers against stiff competition in Obama. But Edwards' only real opportunity will come if Hillary or Obama falter.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 21, 2007 11:25 AM

"But Edwards' only real opportunity will come if Hillary or Obama falter."

Unless, of course, he simply gets more votes than any other candidate in Iowa. If he does that, he'll have a real opportunity without needing any help from the missteps of others.

Actually winning early caucuses and primaries is an excellent way of becoming the nominee.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2007 11:32 AM

"I don't really understand how releasing this kind of thing is supposed to actually help Clinton's chances"

There are people who declare that they would never vote for a woman for president. The last poll I saw was 20 odd percent. Now some of these people won't vote for anyone and others would only vote for a Republican, but this number arouses a fear that should Clinton become the nominee, some people who would otherwise vote for a Democrat will not vote for her and so the Republican will be elected. This fear may prompt some Democratic primary voters who would otherwise prefer Clinton to vote for someone else, someone more "electable." One might have thought that John Kerry's campaign would have minimized the number of people whose primary vote is based on "electability" but presumably Clinton's pollsters have found it's still an important element. So the campaign has consultants write op-eds which point out that she is, in fact, "electable."

Always remember that the Clinton campaign has data and that its actions are based on that data. No doubt there's an element of wishful thinking in their interpretation of their data. Politicians are, perhaps, more inclined to "plan for success" than others. But they do have data. And we don't.

Posted by jim | January 21, 2007 11:54 AM

"Always remember that the Clinton campaign has data and that its actions are based on that data. No doubt there's an element of wishful thinking in their interpretation of their data. Politicians are, perhaps, more inclined to "plan for success" than others. But they do have data. And we don't."

You must not be familiar with the concept of "spin", which is what Penn is furiously doing.

Clinton has electability problems, so Penn throws cherry-picked data points out there to try to confuse the debate.

This is not about Team HRC deluding themselves. This is about Team HRC attempting to delude outsiders.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2007 12:02 PM

Is Petey saying that Edwards is most electable because he's a white guy?

Posted by Ric Caric | January 21, 2007 12:20 PM

Is Petey saying that Edwards is most electable because he's a white guy?

Care to tell me where you got that from either of his previous comments? Nice way to be inflammatory without being substantive.

Posted by Christmas | January 21, 2007 12:25 PM

"Is Petey saying that Edwards is most electable because he's a white guy?"

What the fuck?

Where did I say anything even vaguely related to race or gender?

But I gotta say that I love when the person arguing the opposite side from me seems to have trouble with basic reading comprehension. It tends to reduce their credibility.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2007 12:30 PM

We need someone who sounds like they mean it when they say the war is wrong and they want to get out, not someone who sounds like they're trying to get out of being punished.

If the opponent is someone like McCain, is there really a huge difference between slightly watery and strong anti-war rhetoric? At that point the Democratic candidate - no matter who it actually is - will be the anti-war candidate.

I understand the desire for the purest candidate who's been "right" the longest, but I don't think we should throw Hillary's candidacy out the window when her actions on the war as President could very well be the same as Edwards' or Obama's.

Posted by cg | January 21, 2007 12:34 PM

"Nice way to be inflammatory without being substantive."

Get used to it. That seems to be how the HRC crowd is going to play.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2007 12:39 PM

Richardson's announcement today, one day after Hillary's, smells like a deal between those two. Reminds me of all the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of circa 1995, and I have to admit it brings up negative, irrational, emotion. That is, I feel like someone from the 1980's who had an ill-defined distaste for Disco. I don't like her, and I expect this sentiment is echoed by a large portion of the traditionally Democratic community.

It strikes me that her primary opponent(s) must start early with a Netroots fundraising machine, like Dean and Lamont before them, in order to stand a chance. She has too much money, and controls too many levers of the traditional Democratic fundraising/voting machine, to be considered anything other than the favorite. Eventually we may see an Independent candidate, if it becomes clear that there is no "level playing field" in this election.

Posted by DC | January 21, 2007 12:47 PM

Unity08 will not be providing your independent candidate, but they sure wish they were.

Posted by cg | January 21, 2007 1:15 PM

O happy day! I am Mattlinked.

Indeed, Royko, I'm a Sinhababu... Do you know a family member of mine or something?

When people ask me why I think Edwards can win the nomination, the first thing I go through is the primary calendar. IA-NV-NH-SC is just beautiful for him. He's leading in most Iowa polls and the unions will probably deliver Nevada, which will give him the prominence to unite the Hillary electability skeptics and the lefties in NH, and then he has the state he won in 2004. That'll make him the frontrunner at the time you most want to be the frontrunner.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 21, 2007 1:28 PM

It was in context. Petey made a comment about Edwards being the most competitive Democratic candidate and then someone else posted about 20% of voters not being willing to vote for women. Putting two and two together, I decided to raise the question.

As for Hillary, I favor her at this point but I'm pretty excited about Obama too. In the larger picture, I think that a Hillary/Obama primary battle will produce a really strong presidential candidate.

As for Edwards, his time has passed. If he couldn't beat John Kerry in 2004, he's not going to beat HRC and Obama in 2008.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 21, 2007 1:44 PM

"Petey made a comment about Edwards being the most competitive Democratic candidate..."

Petey made such a comment because the overwhelming majority of general election polling has shown Edwards running better than HRC or Obama.

This whole thread is about Mark Penn's attempt to throw sand in the eyes on that precise point.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2007 1:51 PM

and then someone else posted about 20% of voters not being willing to vote for women. Putting two and two together, I decided to raise the question.

People give Petey enough shit for things he says that I have to stand up against giving Petey shit for things other people say. If this goes on unchecked, Petey will eventually hold a monopoly on global shit reserves.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 21, 2007 1:52 PM

Hillary is a Fleetwood Mac cover band without any soul. I'd rather vote for the candidate who's seeking a cure for what ails Kid A.

Posted by DC | January 21, 2007 1:56 PM

"I don't really understand how releasing this kind of thing is supposed to actually help Clinton's chances -- it's just sort of making me mildly annoyed."

At first read, my reaction to this was 'meh'. Who cares if Penn's memo attracts Matthew, who is not a particularly likely Clinton primary voter, and who is more aware of the details of the matter than the average bear.

But on second thought, I find I agree with him totally.

The electability argument is not somewhere Team HRC should want to go.

The polling really does consistently show Edwards running better against McCain and Giuliani than HRC does. The question has been asked for a while now, and the gap has been persistent.

Now, the idea that Edwards would grab some more voters than HRC in a November election is obviously important in terms of electability. But it also says something else significant - Edwards is more popular among the larger electorate while running to the left than HRC is while running to the center.

Even if HRC could win a general election, (which under the right circumstances, I think she could), this all has implications about how much more to the left Edwards would be able to run a general election, how much more to the left Edwards would be able to govern, and how much more to the left Edwards would be able to move the national dialog.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2007 2:09 PM

A note on electability. Obviously, the Democrats have to worry about electability at this point. But electability won't be much of a problem by August 2008. There's three reasons for this. First, the Republicans are not going to be enthusiastic about any of their candidates. Second, the Republican presidential candidate will be further crippled by association with the failed surge. Third, the Republican candidate will have the heavy burden of living down the legacy of the unpopular Bush administration. Personally, I think the Democrats could win with a Jim Webb/Bob Casey potted plant running for the Presidency. It's going to be that good of a year for the Democrats.

Posted by Ric Caric | January 21, 2007 2:31 PM

Apropos of nothing other than I just read the piece, I second Josh Marshall's recommendation of Joshua Green's HRC profile. It's good stuff.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2007 2:59 PM

the unions will probably deliver Nevada

The unions were supposed to deliver Iowa to either Gephardt or Dean, if I remember correctly.

Posted by Chris | January 21, 2007 5:00 PM