Penn Again

Okay, this time I've actually read Ari's article -- it's a great execution of an article about Mark Penn's evident conflicts of interests and ties to corporate malefactors. It's a genuinely bizarre situation, right down to the fact that Penn isn't even on leave from his job as Worldwide President & CEO of Burson Marsteller. It's one thing to be recruiting people from the corporate world, but Penn is right now both advising Clinton and the CEO of a firm being bad vast sums of money to do PR for all kinds of corporations.

What Ari doesn't get into is whether, all that notwithstanding, Penn is just such a brilliant pollster that we should all be thrilled to have someone of his stature working for a leading Democrat. I would say "no." It doesn't take much of a genius to reach the conclusion that ceteris paribus candidates from left-of-center political parties can become more popular by being less left-wing, and Penn seems to have no particular sense of when this might be a bad idea. He also seems unusually averse to "big ideas" and ambition even for a pollster, which is saying something.

Comments

The aspect of Berman's article that I found to be a political blockbuster is Penn's deep ties to union-busting.

I've been worried that HRC would be able to convince most unions to remain formally neutral rather than actually endorsing Edwards.

Penn's resume seems to be an enormous gift for Edwards in that fight.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 11:36 AM

Compare that to Edwards' top advisor, David Bonior, who was labor's man for 26 years in the House.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 8, 2007 12:15 PM

(Well, top non-Elizabeth advisor, anyway)

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 8, 2007 12:16 PM

"Well, top non-Elizabeth advisor, anyway"

Bonoir doesn't advise Elizabeth?

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 12:20 PM

the CEO of a firm being bad vast sums of money

The CEO of a firm being paid vast sums of money?

Posted by rea | May 8, 2007 12:22 PM

Does Neil the Ethical Werewolf work for the Edwards campaign?

Posted by goosen | May 8, 2007 12:31 PM

"Does Neil the Ethical Werewolf work for the Edwards campaign?"

While I could be wrong, I believe US labor laws prohibit the employment of werewolves. I think it's an OSHA regulation implemented after some full moon incidents in the workplace.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 12:41 PM

Does Neil the Ethical Werewolf work for the Edwards campaign?

I don't think so. They should hire Neil and Petey to be official trolls

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 8, 2007 12:41 PM

Does Neil the Ethical Werewolf work for the Edwards campaign?

They thought about it, but there was some concern that I might eat other staffers and office equipment.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 8, 2007 12:44 PM

After the GWB disaster I think it's smart to be extra careful about candidates who surround themselves with amoral cronies. I like Obama's and Edwards's teams a lot better.

Posted by chris | May 8, 2007 12:51 PM

there was some concern that I might eat other staffers and office equipment.

Is that ethical?

Posted by captain goto | May 8, 2007 12:53 PM

Is that ethical?

If they were dead when he got there, sure.

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 8, 2007 12:56 PM

I'd forgotten the position -- apparently, it's also OK so long as the fellow staffers were raised in humane conditions.

Posted by Matt Weiner | May 8, 2007 12:57 PM

"They should hire Neil and Petey to be official trolls"

Come become an unofficial Edwards troll, Matthew. Jump in, the water's nice.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 1:04 PM

I prefer Edwards or Obama or Richardson to Hillary because odds are she will not win in a year where the Democrats have a good chance. Of course I would vote for Hillary against any Republican. Why more is not made of the conflict of interest of Penn and his anti labor, pro corporate clientel by the other candidates is a mystery to me. The only reason I can think of is that if Hillary wins the nomination, it will give the Republicans ammunition, but they will have that anyway (though compared to Penn, the Repub advisors are probably more pro corporate/anti labor.

Posted by Jim | May 8, 2007 2:12 PM

What's really striking to me about both Penn and HRC is that they're running a 1990's campaign in the 2000's. We're on the cusp of a potential progressive era, and they're doing the same minimalist, triangulating DLC stuff that Bill did. The difference is that Bill was facing a bitterly hostile Congress and a public that was much less enamoured of liberal positions than what seem to be the case now. So all HRC and Penn's maneuvering has done is anger liberals (who are the most likely Dem primary voters), while not increasing her appeal to the middle much at all. I frankly don't get it, but it's been very helpful to Edwards and Obama.

Posted by beckya57 | May 8, 2007 3:20 PM

And Matt, I haven't seen the decline in typos you promised us.

Posted by beckya57 | May 8, 2007 3:20 PM

How many people know that Mark Penn isn't the gregarious half of a witty magician duo still quite popular on the strip?

Posted by Linus | May 8, 2007 3:38 PM

Well, furthermore, there's growing evidence that, here and now, center-left candidates don't gain votes by moving right. That only works with a bell-shaped electorate, but more and more people are seeing that the US electorate right now is two-lobed, with a dip in the center.

Winning national elections isn't like "Let's Make a Deal," where you want to be one position closer to the center than the next-closest politician. Realistically, any given pol will draw people concentrically around her position - if you're a Dem centrist, you get lots of centrist voters, a fair number of center-left, and only a few, unenthusiastic lefties. As you move left, you lose centrists and gain center-left and lefties. So the question - one that pollsters could answer, but tend not to - is where's the hump? If the hump peaks at center-left - or even left-center-left, as it may be doing right now - then moving right costs you votes (except for Dennis Kucinich).

It seems that a good question any pol should ask of his pollsters is, "if the electorate shifts, will this person tell me?" Dowd's an unreliable narrator, but I believe his fundamental narrative that Bush fed the base after learning that "swing" voters didn't really exist in 2000. Bush was served well by his pollster; I'm not aware of any major Dems who can say the same.

Posted by JRoth | May 8, 2007 3:44 PM

What's really striking to me about both Penn and HRC is that they're running a 1990's campaign in the 2000's. We're on the cusp of a potential progressive era, and they're doing the same minimalist, triangulating DLC stuff that Bill did.

That's my view exactly. With a damaged Republican Party, a Senate schedule highly favorable to Democratic rule from 2008-2012, and solid polling support for various Democratic initiatives, it's time to play big. Hence my uncontrollable Edwards boosterism. (The fact that he's an electability dream is part of the deal too.)

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 8, 2007 4:50 PM

"ceteris paribus," dude?

Posted by Alan Vanneman | May 8, 2007 6:04 PM

I will never give my vote to HIllary. I don't trust or like her and it's like voting republican.
why our party is so determined to always shoot itself in the foot by nominating the candidate they least want to vote for. Then they wonder why they lost. Well, duh. If you nominate the worst, our own party won't come out to vote let alone attract voters from the indies and swing pool.
But, we keep doing the same stupid thing.
We need to start nominating the candidate we love. The one with ideas and excitement like Obama. He attracts them from all over. he would easily beat the republican.
but, no, we keep on shooting ourselves and keep on losing the white house and we will do so again.

Posted by vwcat | May 8, 2007 10:19 PM

You know, Matt, you really should do an article on why the democrats always insist on nominating the worst of the bunch time and again.
Why?
Cannot we not see that electing the Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, ect., types is the way to lose.
But, why do we keep doing it? When are the democrats gonna wise up?
YOu should explore this and figure out why we are so damn stupid.
Most of Hillary's supporters are not too thrilled with her and not all that happy but, they will support her not thinking that the majority of the party cannot stand her.

Posted by vwcat | May 8, 2007 10:22 PM