Matthew Yglesias (February 14, 2008) - Penn: None of You Count! (Politics)

I live in Connecticut. We've been insignificant since the day Joementum won as an Independent Democrat. I used to live in Seattle, Idaho, DC, Savannah, and San Francisco. That's one significant place, at least.

Posted by NHCt | February 14, 2008 9:42 AM

"Could we possibly have a union-busting prick getting paid upwards of five million bones to make a series of idiotic decisions? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Clinton."

Posted by norbizness | February 14, 2008 9:42 AM

As a college educated white male, who lives in Virginia and voted for Obama, I guess I couldn't matter less!

Not like we're a possible swing state or anything...

Posted by Colin | February 14, 2008 9:42 AM

I'm increasingly convinced the Clintons are fighting the last war. This spinning about some states not counting, and other, more favorable states, being "all-important" might have worked in 1992, but we're not falling for it now.

Posted by JohnMcG | February 14, 2008 9:43 AM

I do have to admit to personally maintaining an ambivalence about when my state, Georgia, "counts". When it comes to matters affecting our population, well, I'd like to think someone could bear us in mind; when it comes to idiot, backward Republican right wingery, I don't mind being ignored -- rather, I appreciate it.

Posted by El Cid | February 14, 2008 9:44 AM

"An awful lot of us live in the states that Penn has just flagged as insignificant. It kind of rankles."

Dude, you don't even live in a state...

Posted by Petey | February 14, 2008 9:45 AM

He keeps saying it. And not in a 'we can pick up some delegates from those states,' or 'we'll all rally behind Hillary eventually' way. No, he's flat out saying those states don't count. What the fuck is wrong with him? And what the fuck is wrong with Hillary for letting him?

Posted by Persia | February 14, 2008 9:48 AM

I live on the border of Delaware and Maryland. Having campaigned in both for Obama, I am saddened to know that both victories do not count. :(

Posted by KevinQ | February 14, 2008 9:48 AM

I know you'd prefer it if Penn just said "I know, we're losing and we suck," but it really is the man's job to try to spin things as best as he can. Get over it.

Why does it bother you so much? Let the campaigns say what they want--they're supposed to be advocates for their candidates, not impartial sages for crying out loud.

Similarly, I refuse to get upset about the Obama people trying to ignore my parents' votes in FL--why shouldn't they spin things their way? As I've said before, I'm tired of Democratic candidates who don't want to win (see Gore, 2000 and Kerry, 2004). In this regard I'm very pleased with both candidates this time around.

Posted by gustav | February 14, 2008 9:48 AM

Petey writes "Dude, you don't even live in a state..."

Unlike Petey who lives in the State of Denial Hillary's going to be crushed by Barack. LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 14, 2008 9:49 AM

Keep up the good work.

Being annoying is a minor thing, Penn should be fired for saying those type of things publicly. (If it was in public.)

All states are important, all voters count, every citizen is qualified to participate.

Posted by kim, livonia, michigan | February 14, 2008 9:51 AM

I can't figure out if Penn says this shit because his $10 million a year is safe regardless of what happens to Hillary, or because he's facing a serious professional setback if she loses. Thoughts?

Posted by Marshall | February 14, 2008 9:52 AM

Hillary Clinton: no bridge to big to burn, no spin to shameless to sell. The circus of utter ridiculousness carries on.

How much is she willing to humiliate herself to win this nomination? My guess is, A LOT. Sit back and crack open a cold one, folks. This is going to be fun to watch.

Posted by SDinIA | February 14, 2008 9:52 AM

Someone else in the Clinton orbit had an even funnier quote about how it was a problem that Obama couldn't win states that Democrats traditionally win. As if Democrats were in danger of losing California or Massachusetts.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 14, 2008 9:52 AM

Come on, guys. Penn has THE MATH. Quit yer bitchin'.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 14, 2008 9:52 AM

gustav, you just don't understand how funny Matthew is. I laugh at every one of his jokes about Hillary because he's so funny. He should become a stand up comedian if his day job as a blogger does not work out. LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 14, 2008 9:54 AM

I live in Colorado. I wonder if we'll become significant by the time the Democrats have their convention here this summer.

Posted by Tom Nawrocki | February 14, 2008 9:55 AM

>I know you'd prefer it if Penn just said "I know, we're losing and we suck," but it really is the man's job to try to spin things as best as he can. Get over it.

No, what I want him to say is that many, many voters have not yet had their say and we look forward to making our case to them.

I don't appreciate him saying that those voters that have already participated and voted/caucused for Obama are not important.

Posted by jehrler | February 14, 2008 9:56 AM

Gustav, people are bothered because Penn could spin things in a million ways that didn't indicate that black people, residents of states where Clinton lost, etc. 'didn't count.' For some reason many people feel pissing off the electorate is poor campaign strategy. If Hillary Clinton wants to win the general, you'd think she'd treat voters there with a modicum of respect.

Posted by Persia | February 14, 2008 9:56 AM

If by some reason HRC wins the Democratic nomination Penn's ridiculous comment could come back and bite them. All of these insignificant states will be necessary for her to win the general election. Writing off more than 20 states and the voters who live there is not a sound strategy.

Do those voters who voted for her in the states she lost consider themselves insignificant?

Posted by Stephanie | February 14, 2008 10:02 AM

State of Denial

Heh

Posted by Josiah | February 14, 2008 10:06 AM

I am certainly not tired of the meme. Matt's right, as long as they keep saying it the joke is fair game. Honestly every time I hear that sort of thing from the Clinton campe I just can't can't believe the person who wants to be our nominee and her camp keep saying that. Seriously.

Posted by David | February 14, 2008 10:06 AM

Well, I live in Wisconsin and I imagine that we don't count either. I mean we have an open primary so that eliminates us even if we weren't a "small" and "insignificant" state. I think Hillary told Obama to meet her in Texas yesterday so that answers my question.

Posted by Jessica | February 14, 2008 10:09 AM

Gustav, I know it's spin. But it's revealing spin. They have to spin this issue because they really didn't put resources into the smaller states. They had a four-state strategy for Super Tuesday. It's an extension of the way the Clintons campaigned and governed in the 90s. They worked to maintain a 51% edge, not to build the grassroots or extend the party's reach around the nation.

Now, for all I know that was the best we could do in the 90s. But it's no longer the best we can do, and we need a candidate who will aspire to do more.

Posted by Ted | February 14, 2008 10:09 AM

Super delegates are now
"Automatic" for the Clinton's.

Posted by bjd | February 14, 2008 10:11 AM

Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?

Did we ever figure out what Penn's working definition of "significant state" is? If Georgia is too small to be counted that gives us eight states by population:

1) California - fine
2) Texas - hasn't voted yet
3) New York - "home" states don't count
4) Florida - no campaign, no delegates
5) Illinois - "home" states don't count
6) Pennsylvania - hasn't voted yet
7) Ohio - hasn't voted yet
8) Michigan - no campaign, no delegates

So because Hillary won California, it should give us pause about Obama's candidacy. Penn's logic is laughable.

Of course, back in the real world, Obama's won 11 of the top 25 states, Clinton's won 6, 6 haven't voted yet, and 2 were boycotted by the party. It's not over, but Obama's winning.

Posted by right | February 14, 2008 10:11 AM

"I can't figure out if Penn says this shit because his $10 million a year is safe regardless of what happens to Hillary, or because he's facing a serious professional setback if she loses."

Professional setback? The Democratic Party loves embracing losing campaign managers. There's a reason I keep seeing Bob Schrum and Donna Brazile on my TV set. My guess is that if Penn does a bad enough job, he'll have his own show on MSNBC before too long.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 14, 2008 10:14 AM

Now, for all I know that was the best we could do in the 90s. But it's no longer the best we can do, and we need a candidate who will aspire to do more.

Thanks Ted, that's a key point about this election. Team Clinton is firmly planted in the 90s and they're not going to budge. It's why I think that after a long hard fight, Obama will win this nomination.

Posted by Sharon | February 14, 2008 10:17 AM

He could have made the same point using "bigger"
instead of "significant" and it would just be
standard spin.

What this shows is
a) If Penn's job is spinning, he needs to get
better at it fast.
b) Matt's favorite hobby these days is to throw
chum in the water and watch the feeding frenzy.

Atrios made the exact same point Matt did but
without, you know, sounding like a Republican
circa mid-90s.

Posted by DJ | February 14, 2008 10:19 AM

I wonder if stuff like this is the beginning of the slow-motion train wreck that ends her candidacy. Don't those "insignificant" states have superdelegates that, um, she desperately needs 'cuz it's the only way she can eek out a victory? Wouldn't locking up Colorado as a blue state (which it's been trending toward for the past few years) definitively put the Republicans out of contention for the Presidency?

Hillary's new slogan: "Stupid, Venal, and Tone-deaf! She's got it all!"

Incidentally, Obama should really be paying the people in the Hillary campaign who provide him with so much rhetorical ammunition. First it was "false hope." Now we get this.

Cue the Obama speech: "They say your vote is insignificant. That you don't live in a part of the country they care about. That you don't count their cynical 50%+1 strategy for winning. Well, that was George Bush's strategy: to create divisions, to pit one American against another. But it's not our strategy. We don't believe in red states or blue states. We believe in the United States. Etc."

I mean, shit, this stuff just writes itself now.

Posted by jw | February 14, 2008 10:20 AM

But Clinton is routing Obama in the OH and PA polls.

Posted by M | February 14, 2008 10:21 AM

Team Clinton is firmly planted in the 90s and they're not going to budge. It's why I think that after a long hard fight, Obama will win this nomination.

Well, just don't forget that a lot of the DNC is still firmly planted in the 90s right along with them.

I'm still planning to be pleasantly surprised when Obama gets the nomination. The Clintons have made it very cear this fight is going down to the superdelegates, majority will be damned.

At the least, I hope Obama jumps all over Penn's stupid comment. (He could have at least substituted the word "big" for "significant.")

Posted by Bill | February 14, 2008 10:24 AM

"I know you'd prefer it if Penn just said "I know, we're losing and we suck," but it really is the man's job to try to spin things as best as he can. Get over it."

Yeah, but he sucks at it. I want Democratic public faces that don't suck at spin. If Clinton wins, he'll be easier to parody on SNL than Begala ever was. The man looks like he eats turds for breakfast and thinks like he has turds for brains.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 10:24 AM

I got you all beat. I'm (1) African-American, (2) male, (3) live in a red state, (4) that is also a black state (South Carolina) and (5) voted for Obama in the primary. I'm not even 3/5 of a person in Hillary land..more like 0/5. That's the math for you.

BTW, wasn't Clinton "routing" Obama in Missouri?

Posted by CMR | February 14, 2008 10:24 AM

Look, I enjoy getting drunk on outrage just as much as the next liberal, but this is ridiculous.

Penn (and Clinton's people more generally) aren't saying that "insignificant states" don't literally count or aren't important any more than Obama's website implies that states that don't vote for him are lands of benighted darkness.

What they're doing is trying to draw more attention to their wins by saying that they're more predictive of general election success. Is that bullshit? Probably in most cases, but it's not claiming that "black people don't count" or any other such nonsense.

Matt's outrage on behalf of "An awful lot of us [who] live in the states that Penn has just flagged as insignificant" is especially ridiculous given that he lives in DC and has said in the past that DC isn't very representative of the nation at large.

That's not to say that they, or any other place, "doesn't count." It's garden variety spin that Matt, for one, usually isn't so fast to react to.

Posted by gustav | February 14, 2008 10:25 AM

But Clinton is routing Obama in the OH and PA polls.

First of all, those polls were taken before the Potomac primaries. So we'll see if that changes anything. The other interesting thing about those new polls is that Clinton and Obama both do relatively the same against McCain in head-to-head matchups. I think the conclusion to be drawn is that people are voting for either Democrat against McCain in equal numbers, so even though 20% support Clinton over Obama, they still support Obama in a matchup against McCain. I think that's telling. That signifies to me that Clinton is winning out of name recognition, not because people think Obama is a poor candidate. Obama has a good opportunity in both states to make his case and pick up a good number of votes.

Who knows, though. If Clinton beats Obama by 15-20% in those states, then I think it's a real toss-up for the nomination.

Posted by Craig | February 14, 2008 10:26 AM

As folks mentioned above, this, and Clinton's spin in general, can't possibly go down with superdelegates from, say, Kansas. Or Missouri. Or anywhere other than New York, California, Florida and a couple other states. And is somebody like John Edwards, who's supposedly vacillating, really going to be swayed by the suggestion that Louisiana and the South in general doesn't matter?

If she doesn't swamp him in Texas and Ohio, the knives are really going to come out. So far she's got a comfortable lead in Ohio, of course. But we'll see....

Posted by NoahB | February 14, 2008 10:29 AM

It's not just annoying, it's stupid. The two most "significant" states are Dem locks. It's not worrying that Obama didn't take them, because the chances of losing them in the general election are more or less none. Obama's ability to energise voters in "insignificant" states is much more of a positive than his failure to beat Clinton in "significant" states is a negative.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | February 14, 2008 10:29 AM

M, those polls are weeks away from the elections. When Barack trounces Hillary in Wisconsin and Hawaii, those polls are going to take a 180 degree turn. Barack is a great closer, and most people who choose their vote in the last minute go for Barack. Barack's message of hope and change will resonate with citizens of Ohio, especially after they see him in person and feel his charisma, who are tired of the divisive partisanship we've been having for the last few decades.

Posted by TLM | February 14, 2008 10:30 AM

Mark Penn knows Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, Minnesota, and Colorado are swing states...right? right? right?

Even if you like Hillary (which I do to an extent), it should really give you pause before you vote for someone who is going to be bringing that guy as a strategist for the general election. That has disaster written all over it.

Posted by More Axe | February 14, 2008 10:31 AM

Yeah, it's a good riff. Reminds me off the long forgotten outrage about NH and NV, where the Obama forces poisoned the well of voter fraud claims in the general for tactical gain.

Same deal here.

Er, last I checked the popular count was 47%/47% (and no, I'm not making a "change the rules" argument.)

So how about the other half of the Democratic base?

If the Obama forces want to make the rest of us feel disenfranched when and if he wins, they are proceeding in exactly the right way.

Not saying, of course, that I'd "have to think" about supporting Obama in the general -- unlike Michelle.

Obviously, I'd prefer any Democract to the sociopaths in office; even one that is going to govern from the center right.

Posted by lambert strether | February 14, 2008 10:34 AM

I'm a 60-year-old white Jewish woman from New York who makes $35,000 per year. I'm the only one who counts!

Too bad for me. I'm actually a college-educated 30-year-old white male from New York -- I so do not count.

Posted by jim | February 14, 2008 10:35 AM

Professional setback? The Democratic Party loves embracing losing campaign managers.

Jayhawk, the only reason I don't agree with you completely is that Penn is not a campaign manager. His millions come in part from corporate clients of his PR business, and I suspect they might look elsewhere if 1. he looks like an idiot after comments like this (and his book) and 2. he is not plugged into an Obama administration.

You're probably right that he cannot possibly be punished for anything he does, but I see a slightly different dynamic than with Shrum and Brazile.

Posted by Marshall | February 14, 2008 10:35 AM

Unlike Petey who lives in the State of Denial

Petey has assured me several times now that Obama has no path to the nomination - therefore, Obama can't win the nomination. If and when I see Obama giving his acceptance speech at the convention, I'll have to assume that it's some monstrous figment of my imagination.

Posted by Christmas | February 14, 2008 10:39 AM

It really is obnoxious. It's fine to spin their losses and put the emphasis of the campaign on the states to come (there are, after all, quite a few contests still). But repeatedly insisting that certain votes are irrelevant, certain states are meaningless/not significant/don't count... well, aside from being really tacky, it doesn't strike me as a wise course of action. At all.

But aside from the fact that they're sending a message to Democrats in red states or small states that "Your state and vote aren't worth shit," (which is a disastrous message to send in an election where we not only have the capacity to do much stronger across the board in the past but where we'll be heavily reliant on reaching out to independent voters and swing Republicans here and charging up the core Democratic constituencies to hold endangered Democratic House/Senate seats and WIN a lot of Republican House/Senate seats), it's a telling worldview into their overall view of the country and the election and it's not flattering. It tells us that they still see nothing flawed in the strategy they've run upon in the primary and that they'll run the same way in the general -- they'll go for the "significant states" and hope for a 50%+1 off the backs of those population centers. The problem with 50%+1 is it only takes a small percentage swing for you to lose. And so far, well, that strategy's not proving to be all it's cracked up for.

And while I know states like Delaware, Maine, and Connecticut aren't all that large and don't have all that many electoral votes, I'd still like to think our presidential nominee will consider them important and significant. And while I know we probably won't win Kansas, Idaho, Alaska, and North Dakota, I'd certainly like to see us try. Run for every state. Clinton tells us we won't win them unless there's a tsunami; Obama says "Let's create a tsunami." I know which message I like better, and I know which message I want our standard bearer giving to Democrats across the country.

Anyway, even ignoring all that, if Penn thinks Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, Missouri, and Minnesota aren't "significant" states in a GE, god help us all.

Posted by jbryan | February 14, 2008 10:40 AM

right says:
1) California - fine

wrong! california is at least 50% women. of course hilary won there. it doesn't count.

2) Texas - hasn't voted yet

right. and besides, texas is another one of those 50% women states. i mean come on.

3) New York - "home" states don't count

home state *and* 50% women. it's amazing she didn't kill him worse there.

4) Florida - no campaign, no delegates

thank god there are no delegates. it's ~50% women, so hillary would have a huge advantage.

5) Illinois - "home" states don't count

wow. hillary lost her home state, one with about 50% women. how the fuck did she lose that one?

6) Pennsylvania - hasn't voted yet
7) Ohio - hasn't voted yet
8) Michigan - no campaign, no delegates

i think you get the point.

Posted by minority report | February 14, 2008 10:41 AM

Good thing for President Kerry that the Republicans only won three "significant" states in 2004.

Posted by Tel | February 14, 2008 10:49 AM

Yeah, it's a good riff. Reminds me off the long forgotten outrage about NH and NV, where the Obama forces poisoned the well of voter fraud claims in the general for tactical gain.

Can you point me to any quotes by Obama or anyone in his campaign that alleged voter fraud in New Hampshire? Any at all?

As for Nevada: no, your assertion is not correct. Obama's lawyer put together a list of issues and problems with the caucuses as they occurred in the state, but he specifically did not allege fraud and he outright stated that the campaign WAS NOT contesting the results.

So unless you can produce some quote from Obama's people (or Obama himself, since Sen. Clinton has often made the same point as Penn, that lots of these states don't matter), I'm not seeing any equivalency here despite your best efforts. So do you agree with the message Clinton's team is sending or not?

Posted by jbryan | February 14, 2008 10:53 AM

If I were McCain's campaign strategist, I'd send Penn a big old bouquet of flowers (or cigars, or whatever it is men send each other as thank yous) for practically writing my first ad against Clinton if she's the nominee. I wonder how the good people of Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, etc., will vote when they are constantly reminded on the tv that Clinton thinks they are not significant?

Posted by Jennifer | February 14, 2008 10:53 AM

wrong! california is at least 50% women. of course hilary won there. it doesn't count.

I'm actually amazed that people haven't made this analogy more often. Why is it that states with large black populations don't count, while states with large female populations do count? You can even say large white female populations if you want. What is the difference?

We all know, though, that it really just comes down to this: the states Hillary loses don't count. If she had lost California, we'd be hearing that California is too liberal and full of brown people to count or something.

Posted by jim | February 14, 2008 10:55 AM

lambert,

You keep saying he's going to govern from the center right, but what are you basing this on?

I understand you don't like Obama, you deride the "unity pony" (which is absolutely not what he proposes), but really why is he center right to Hillary?

Hillary has sponsored a bill on flag burning, she voted for the bankruptcy bill, she voted against a ban on land mines, she sated that lobbyist are welcome in her administration, she has made no commitment to open government.

Can you please explain why you think she is more liberal or progressive than Obama?

Posted by bjd | February 14, 2008 10:56 AM

Does being the chief strategist of a losing presidential candidate count?

I guess we're about to find out.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 14, 2008 10:58 AM

JW is right - this is great fodder for Obama to make a positive pitch to voters in WI, CO, and other "insignificant" states.

M - as for the polls in OH showing HRC routing Obama, he hasn't done any on-the-ground campaigning there yet. Just wait until he fills The Ohio State University stadium in Columbus, goes to Cleveland, and does a few town halls in smaller towns and cities. Seeing him in person helps raise those poll numbers.

Posted by SN | February 14, 2008 10:59 AM

NY Times sums up the clown brigade that is the HRC Penn/Wolfstrom/Solis-Doyle campaign:

In Idaho, for example, Mr. Obama’s campaign started setting up nearly a year before the Feb. 5 caucus. By the day of the caucus, he had five offices in the state and 20 paid staff members. A few days before, Mr. Obama himself showed up in Boise, drawing 14,000 people to the Taco Bell Arena, the biggest in the state.

Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, sent one of her supporters, Senator Maria Cantwell of neighboring Washington State, to drop by just before the caucuses.

“Idahoans are not used to having attention paid, so when someone does, it’s a huge deal,” said Chuck Oxley, a spokesman for the state’s Democratic Party. Turnout in Idaho was four times what it was in 2000. Mr. Obama won Idaho by 62 percentage points and took most delegates.

In Minnesota, “the Clinton campaign was in triage mode,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. He said Mrs. Clinton appeared to have allocated her dwindling resources to New York and California, the biggest prizes in the Feb. 5 contests (and which she won), investing almost nothing in media advertising in Minnesota and leaving her campaign there “like a M.A.S.H. unit.”

Clearly, this team deserves a shot at the general election (?!?!).

Sweet jesus, at least Obama didn't let this clown troupe waltz into losing November for us.

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | February 14, 2008 10:59 AM

This kind of talk is rather typical of the Clinton campaign, and I believe it is an indicator of a failure to grasp something very important that Obama gets, and they don’t.

The Clinton understanding of the country is preponderantly analytic. Penn and Clinton see a country of groups, subgroups and microgroups exhibiting group-based trends and microtrends, preferences and micropreferences, hatreds and microhatreds. They see a country of black men, white men, black women, white women, latino men, latino women, latino women with black husbands who drive pickup trucks, divorced white women making over $62,000 a year, single black men with fewer than 2.7 first cousins in prison, etc. Their approach to politics is to identify the preferences of each of these groups, and then come up with just the right combination of focus-group and poll-tested policies to manufacture the maximum electoral bang for the political buck.

Debates with Clinton supporters frequently turn into a discussion about some ethnic, class geographical or gender group. Their rhetorical ploys and talking points of the day typically seek to mark out some of these groups, and to rake in votes from one group by agitating them against another group – to find some novel way of intensifying and exploiting inter-group electoral dynamics. But in the end, like a person sitting too close to the screen, they see a lot of pixels and miss the big picture.

Obama sees the world with a more intellectually balanced combination of analytic and synthetic intelligence, and he recognized something about the country that most others missed, especially Clinton. He noticed that in addition to the many unquestionably real things that currently divide people, there were also a number of equally real things that many different kinds of people had in common, and that were not currently addressed by our politics.

The most important of them, I think, is this: People blame George Bush for a lot of things. But one of the things they blame him for the most is dividing the country. Even some of his ardent supporters blame him for that. This division affects some of us on a very personal level. I have friends and family members with whom I’ve had so many heated arguments about politics and the war that I can now barely talk to them. From my perspective, some of these people have been turned into hard-right fanatics. But perhaps they think I’ve been turned into a fanatic too. In any case, it sucks. This is a fundamental social fact about quality of life in contemporary America, and a lot of people want an end to it. So while Clinton has gone around accentuating divisions, animosities and antagonisms, Obama has offered the prospect of repairing significant ruptures that people want repaired.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 14, 2008 10:59 AM

Penn isn't saying that "black voters don't count", or "well-educated voters don't count" specifically, he's just saying that states that don't vote for Hillary don't count.

he's also, under that same blanket, saying that all of the Hillary supporters who came out for her in states that Obama took don't count. couple this with her speech after the Potomac primary during which she completely neglected to thank all of her supporters and organizers in those 3 states, and you've a couple of big pillars on a case for the idea that the Clintons just don't care about voters. period.

Posted by BA | February 14, 2008 11:04 AM

oh, and i'd just like to know, in all seriousness...

does this kind of framing not BOTHER any Clinton supporters here? does it make you uncomfortable, or do you just shrug it off?

Posted by BA | February 14, 2008 11:07 AM

"If I were McCain's campaign strategist, I'd send Penn a big old bouquet of flowers (or cigars, or whatever it is men send each other as thank yous)"

Well, it is DC, so I would say probably hookers or drugs.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 11:11 AM

Let's be honest. A victory is a victory. Whether it's a primary or a caucus, and nomatter the demographic composition of the electorate.

But as for Obama's wins in so-called "red states" like Nebraska, Kansas, and North Dakota... he's simply not going to win those states in the general election. Active Democratic caucus-goers in those states are not representative at all of their states general election electorates. We're talking about ultra-liberal activists and party die-hards. Let's face it, if you're a loyal and committed Democrat in Kansas, you are a rare bird.

Nor is Obama going to win Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama in the general election. Obama wasn't competitive with the Southern White vote in any state other than Georgia (where he was marginally competitive with that group). And those were Democratic white voters. How do you all think he'll do among the larger pool of Southern Whites? Not to mention the Black vote will go from half, or nearly half, of the electorate to barely to more like a quarter.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 11:12 AM

Let's be honest. A victory is a victory. Whether it's a primary or a caucus, and nomatter the demographic composition of the electorate.

But as for Obama's wins in so-called "red states" like Nebraska, Kansas, and North Dakota... he's simply not going to win those states in the general election. Active Democratic caucus-goers in those states are not representative at all of their states general election electorates. We're talking about ultra-liberal activists and party die-hards. Let's face it, if you're a loyal and committed Democrat in Kansas, you are a rare bird.

Nor is Obama going to win Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama in the general election. Obama wasn't competitive with the Southern White vote in any state other than Georgia (where he was marginally competitive with that group). And those were Democratic white voters. How do you all think he'll do among the larger pool of Southern Whites? Not to mention the Black vote will go from half, or nearly half, of the electorate to barely to more like a quarter.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 11:13 AM

Hey Mark Penn: I live in Georgia. In case you didn't notice, more people live here than in Massachusetts or New Jersey. We're the ninth most populous state in the country. You lost by 36 percent here. 36 percent. That isn't easy to do.

I like Clinton, but these comments really piss me off.

Posted by Liberal Chris | February 14, 2008 11:14 AM

As a resident of KY, I can assure you that I'm very glad that KY doesn't count. The backward, uneducated voters in this state -- when they take a minute away from obsessing about "Big Blue basketball" -- continually elect Republican & Democratic criminals. You don't want us to be relevant at any level of national politics....

Posted by Steve W | February 14, 2008 11:21 AM

Tim K, your argument proves too much. Dems aren't going to lose in NY or CA either, so why should Hillary's victories count their either? What is undeniable is that places like Colorado and Virginia are going to be very competitive in the general election, and Obama has demonstrated that he can really generate Dem turnout in those states.

Posted by jw | February 14, 2008 11:21 AM

What they're doing is trying to draw more attention to their wins by saying that they're more predictive of general election success.

NY and California are "predictive of general election success"? Does that really make sense? Think about it...

Posted by John Althouse Cohen | February 14, 2008 11:29 AM

I just remember dear ol' Petey proclaiming Iowa didn't matter because it's next to Illinois. Then the Clintonistas said South Carolina didn't matter because it was mostly black. That I felt was a huge insult to our fellow black citizens.

As some commenters have said, I think this is the Clinton's Plan C spin. They are in triage mode.

First they cultivated the idea that Hillary was invincible and inevitable, with the media's help. Then Iowa happened and Obama effectively split New Hampshire and Nevada and won South Carolina big.

They expected to knock him out on Super Tuesday, but Obama withstood all of their "hardball" tactics and gained steam.

Now Obama will have a win streak of 10 primaries with no losses going into Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania. If Hillary doesn't win those with at least 60% votes, I can't see how they spin it.

Posted by Peter K. | February 14, 2008 11:29 AM

Aren't there any "shadowy 527s" friendly to Obama? This theme would really be a great one to hammer in, I dunno, some relatively cheap radio ads in some upcoming states or something. It could be done in a half humorous way. Just a laundry list of all small demos that have been said to "not count", followed by how Dems can't "count" on Clinton, but they can sure "count" on Obama. The sheer ludicrousness of it (and every quote properly sourced) will sell itself.

Posted by JMS | February 14, 2008 11:30 AM

"Tim K, your argument proves too much. Dems aren't going to lose in NY or CA either, so why should Hillary's victories count their either? What is undeniable is that places like Colorado and Virginia are going to be very competitive in the general election, and Obama has demonstrated that he can really generate Dem turnout in those states.

Posted by jw | February 14, 2008 11:21 AM"

Very true. Clinton's electability depends very much on winning Ohio, the only possible decently-sized swing state that could go for her in the general. After all, the nearest state of that type that she won a contest in was Arizona, which is McCain's home state.

Also, Obama's win in Utah doesn't count because Mormons are white people or something about magic underwear, whatever Penn's spin of the day is.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 11:30 AM

JW:

I never said Hillary's victories in NY and CA should count more for that reason. California should count more than Utah because it's about 100 times more populous, but not because of winnability. My point was that winning in a primary in a state is not predictive of the general election outcome, and a caucus even less so.

Colorado will be competitive in the general election, but Obama's win there was a caucus. The general election isn't going to be a caucus. Maybe Obama would be a stronger GE candidate in Colorado, but the caucus results don't illuminate that particular point.

As for Virginia being winnable, I'll believe that when I see it.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 11:33 AM

"I like Clinton, but these comments really piss me off."

Agreed. I think Clinton could be a good candidate and president, but the campaign choices and people she's chosen to surround herself with do not speak well of her. And at some point you have to come to the conclusion that the problem is with her judgement.

Posted by greg | February 14, 2008 11:33 AM

By the way, I also hate all this "Obama can't win in State X" crap. That argument assumes another 50-50 election. It isn't always that way. Reagan won 49 states against Mondale.

I agree that if we assume that this will be a 50-50 election where the candidates target a handful of swing states, states like Utah and North Dakota that Obama won won't be targetted. But states like California, Mass and New York that Clinton won won't be in the mix then either.

Even assuming a 50-50 election, Obama may be able to lift some states that aren't normally swing states to that status. Are you so sure he couldn't bring Virginia or Kansas on board, even in a tight election?

Posted by Liberal Chris | February 14, 2008 11:34 AM

I count... I live in CA, but I voted for Obama... so now I'm not sure.

Posted by Gully | February 14, 2008 11:39 AM

This isn't going to be a landslide election. Even though I'm a strong supporter of Hillary's I still think Obama should be able to win the general, but I don't think it's going to be a big victory. Just as I don't think Hillary's victory would be very large either. We're probably looks at a 4-5% win and maybe 350-370 electoral votes if it goes well. I'm not entirely sure Virginia won't be in play, but I am sure Kansas won't be.

It haven't seen any reference to this, but Rasmussen has released favorable/unfavorable ratings this past week that show Obama with a 52%-45% rating. Even after all the laudatory press coverage he has received, and very little real criticsm.

Don't any of you kid yourselves into thinking his unfavourables won't rise once the inevitable attacks come his way.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 11:46 AM

Maybe Obama would be a stronger GE candidate in Colorado, but the caucus results don't illuminate that particular point.

Would your opinion be swayed by yesterday's polls showing Obama beating McCain by 7 points and McCain beating Clinton by 14 points? Or is your opinion that even though a majority of Americans want Obama to be the nominee, obviously Hillary is still the best general election candidate? At what point do you drop that argument? New Rasmussen poll today shows Obama beating Clinton by 12 points nationally. Please explain to me why that poll is wrong, and why only Hillary can beat McCain in November.

Posted by Craig | February 14, 2008 11:48 AM

Tim K:

Yours is not the worst example of it by any means, but this fear of what the Republicans are going to do is total bullshit. This snivelling diffidence is a real turnoff and despite Hillary's hints that she will go negative, that she knows how to fight, etc, she is still living in the paradigm where what the Republicans do and say is the most important. That lets them set the terms of debate. Exp: Senator McCain winning the nomination means the election will be about National Security. Oh, yeah? Well, fuck McCain and fuck the Republicans. That is why Obama is the better candidate. He has his own narrative and it is compelling.

Posted by David | February 14, 2008 11:54 AM

Craig:

It shouldn't be obvious to any one - any thinking person, at least - who the most electable general election candidate it. Especially not based on opinion polls more than 8 months before the election.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone what polls said in 1988 this far out from the election, or in 1992, or in 2000, or in 2004.

The majority of Americans haven't gotten to know Obama - warts and all - like they have Hillary Clinton over the past 16 years. Clinton has been as well known to Americans as Obama is now since 1992. We have no clue whether Obama's image will better or worsen after that added scrutiny. If history is any guide, his negatives will rise more than his positives.

There are information asymetries at work here. So it's the fog of war. But I'm pretty sure that Hillary will get between 46-51% of the vote, nomatter what.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 11:57 AM

Dear New Hampshire voters,

I recognize that I would probably have dropped out and conceded to Barack by now if you hadn't voted for me. However, the reality is that not only did I lie to you about not counting the Michigan and Florida delegates, but I also regard your votes and meaningless and utterly trivial. Lucky for me, it's too late for you to take them back.

Have a nice day,

Posted by Your friend, Hillary | February 14, 2008 11:59 AM

David:

Obama's "narrative" is, quite frankly, vacuous. It is almost totally evacuated of content. I've even read that Obama's volunteers are encouraged to share personal conversion stories with voters and avoid discussing issues. Elections are about public policy, that aren't some kind of motivational seminar. Obama doesn't emphasize his policy positions because they are either conventionally liberal Democratic policies, or simply unambitious (ie healthcare plan) and unremarkable.

His promise to "do politics differently" is a familiar commitment that he has given no reason to believe he will be able to deliver on.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 12:03 PM

I'm just saying, Tim, your argument is impenetrable because you are assuming that after the nomination, Obama will start getting attacked and his numbers will dive. I can't deflate your assumption or deny you your ability to read the minds of Americans, only you can do that and I'm wondering what it will take. You say that Americans haven't gotten to know Obama, yet when they do they are enthusiastic at the best or ambivalent at the worst. So my question is: what will it take to disprove your assumption? You are in essence saying that even though Obama continues to climb in polls, even though he is winning the popular vote and delegate count, even though he does better in head to head matchups against McCain - even though all that is true, we should really elect Hillary because we don't know what will happen in a general election. It's starting to smell like denial more than reason.

Posted by Craig | February 14, 2008 12:06 PM

Dear District of Columbia voters,

Remember how the day before your primary my candidate said that it was exciting that your votes mattered for once? Well, she only said that to keep the blowout below 70-30%. You failed us and now you officially don't count. Plus, let's not kid ourselves, a city full of black people, white yuppies, and young staffers and students, was never going to count anyway.

Muwahahahahahahhaha,

Posted by Mark Penn | February 14, 2008 12:06 PM

Tim K:

Ha! Elections are about "policies?" No wonder we keep getting creamed year after year. Jesus.

Posted by David | February 14, 2008 12:10 PM

Virginia is winnable. Two Democrat governors in a row since 2002; one of two Senators is a Democrat; and a rapidly increasing population in Northern Virginia. Jerry Falwell recently passed into the Great Beyond, so he won't be there to rally the base. The hardcore Christians in the southwest part of the state aren't particularly enthusiastic about McCain. (They'd turn out against Hillary, but Obama does not inspire the same level of distaste).

Posted by Tel | February 14, 2008 12:10 PM

Tim,

Please tell why Obama's "narrative" is vacuous. Did you read his books and come to this conclusion? Explicate.

Posted by bjd | February 14, 2008 12:15 PM

Tim, all the campaign narratives are vacuous. Hillary's campaign narrative is schizophrenic (she's a strong woman who is the victim of big bad men, she's running on her own so don't blame her for Bill's foolish comments, yet she repeatedly reminds people of what she did with her husband during his Presidency, she's the candidate of change, yet she's also the voice of experience). McCain and Obama are, generally, consistent, although I think McCain has disproven that consistency with his past 4 years of far right pandering.

"Similarly, I refuse to get upset about the Obama people trying to ignore my parents' votes in FL--why shouldn't they spin things their way?"

I'm not sure how Obama going along with what the DNC wanted is the same as Hillary's campaign guru pissing away millions of voters for no apparent reason. The fact that so many Hillary supporters have to take the time to explain away this man's constant foolish statements - and that he is making them at a time when her campaign is supposed to be in the middle of a shakeup for the better - is telling of what is waiting for her if she gets the nomination.

I also don't know if anyone defines center-right Democrat better than her husband's 8 years in office.

I do think that this is a long campaign and since Hillary seems to be called the Comeback Kid every time the media wants to get more of a story, I expect if she comes within 10% of Obama in HI or WI, we will hear that she is on the way back and he is going down. I also think she will win TX/OH/PA. The question is by how much.

Posted by Carl | February 14, 2008 12:15 PM

Craig:

You really are not absorbing my point, which means I have not been sufficiently clear.

I will try again.

No one knows who will win the general election. Any one who claims to know is either being disingenuous or simply ignorant.

Given that we cannot know the answer of who is more electable, (arguments can be made on both sides)voters shouldn't be basing their decisions based on guesswork and half-witted analyses.

It should be based on who one thinks will make the best President.

And, by the way, there is no evidence Obama is as popular among the general electorate as he is among liberals.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 12:15 PM

"And, by the way, there is no evidence Obama is as popular among the general electorate as he is among liberals."

True, Obama does not have AS much support among the general electorate as among liberals. John McCain does not have AS much support among the general electorate as among warmongering Neocons. Hillary Clinton does not have As much support among the general electorate as among women of a similiar age and socioeconomic background to Hillary. So? The point?

But if you meant to say that there there is no evidence that Obama is popular among the general electorate, then you are wrong. Polls have shown this. Also, get this, Tim, my whole extended Red-State conservative-ish family (that is my grandparents and parents and some cousins) asked me about Obama while I was home for Christmas. Unprompted. They all were really interested in him and thinking of voting for him. This is happening all over. People don't vote on policies. They don't.

Posted by David | February 14, 2008 12:25 PM

And, by the way, there is no evidence Obama is as popular among the general electorate as he is among liberals.

Heh. Ok, Tim, I've got things to do now.

Posted by Craig | February 14, 2008 12:25 PM

Tim K, not only does your last statement seem to contradict your previous statements in several areas, I still have no idea what your damn point is.

Posted by Persia | February 14, 2008 12:28 PM

Penn's comment seems to indicate that if Clinton wins the nomination, she's going to follow the Kerry "thread the needle" strategy and aim for 280-290 electoral votes only. I see no other explaantion as to how he can regard Virginia, the 12th largest state and one clearly trending blue, as not "significant."

Posted by ChuckE | February 14, 2008 12:33 PM

I am a human being! I do too count!

Posted by Jewish Banjo-Playing Clown | February 14, 2008 12:36 PM

Since anti-war liberal women seem to support war hawk Hilary Clinton fairly strongly, it is quite clear that a candidate's stated policies and past performance are absolutely meaningless. It's all about image.

Posted by vanya | February 14, 2008 12:37 PM

vanya,

Yes, or a "cult of personality."

Posted by bjd | February 14, 2008 12:41 PM

Tim K,

A fair enough point about Colorado being a caucus state. But here's what the latest polling says (via Sully's site):

Barack Obama (D) currently holds a seven-point advantage over John McCain (R), 46% to 39% [in Colorado]. However, if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, McCain will begin the race with a fourteen point advantage, 49% to 35%.

Sixty percent (60%) of Colorado voters currently have a favorable opinion of Obama while just 36% hold an unfavorable view.

McCain earns favorable reviews from 55% and less flattering assessments from 42%

Clinton is viewed favorably by 44% and unfavorably by 54%.

Posted by jw | February 14, 2008 12:48 PM

JW:

I will repeat the point that polling this far out from an election is close to being meaningless. Even more so for Obama since his image is less well defined.

And as for Obama's popularity among the electorate at large, I will once again point out the Rasmussen poll that gave him a 52%-45% favorale unfavorable rating. Not bad, and better than Clinton, but not by much. Certainly not evidence of some avalanche of support.

Furthermore I remember polls last summer that showed Rudy Giuliani popular among Christian Evangelicals and leading in South Carolina. The point: when voters have incomplete information on a candidate how they say they will vote months in advance means little.

I'd be interested to see a comparison of Barack Obama's performance in these states compared with a generic Democrat. I would conjecture that their results would mirror each other. Voters are projecting all of their fondest hopes onto his candidacy.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 1:03 PM

The point: when voters have incomplete information on a candidate how they say they will vote months in advance means little.

You're absolutely right. That's why it's telling that Obama seems to do better in states where he campaigns actively-- unlike Guiliani, who actually did much worse as voters 'got to know him.'

Posted by Persia | February 14, 2008 1:30 PM

Voters are projecting all of their fondest hopes onto his candidacy.

And going into an election this is somehow a bad thing?

Posted by bjd | February 14, 2008 1:31 PM

Penn is a tool.

That said, I don't hear him or anyone else on the Clinton campaign actually saying that certain states "don't count". That language was invented by snarkers like MY. Politicians routinely explain away their losses in primary states, essentially saying that they didn't expect to win in this or that state anyway.

The only candidate I know who went out of his way to say a state didn't count was Barak Obama and the state he was talking about was Florida. And he was not being figurative either. For those of us who live in FL, well, as MY said, it "rankles".

There is this very unsightly process going on where a certain, very loud group of people has determined that HRC and everyone on her staff is insane and/or evil, and every action by her or her campaign is spun in such a way as to prove this point.

I well recall the many posts about how the Clinton campaign was in full panic mode and that HRC was due to be institutionalized at any moment, just before the NH primary.

I'm coming around to liking Barak Obama, in spite of his realpolitik approach to my state's votes, but his vocal supporters are just unbearable.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 14, 2008 1:37 PM

Rob Mac, this is what Penn said this morning on NPR:

During a conference call on Wednesday, Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn focused on the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, ignoring the primaries that came before.
"We expect change to begin March 4," he said. "We start off there. I think, with … voters who believe, as Sen. Clinton does, that she is in the solutions business and that's a sharp contrast to an opponent who is in the promises business."

"We start off there" is pretty dismissive of previous primary voters-- even the ones who voted for HRC!

Posted by Persia | February 14, 2008 1:46 PM

Persia:

Obama is doing quite well campaigning in the Democratic primaries... no one denies that. When I say the electorate doesn't know him very well I don't simply mean he has low name identification. His name ID is actually about as high as Hillary's or McCain's by now. But the problem is those perceptions are almost entirely based on the extraordinarily positive press he has received to date. It is based on the fact that he has been subjected to almost no negative advertising. The new Clinton ad in Wisconsin is one of the tamest attack ads I have ever seen.

Obama's claim that he has been subjected to rough treatment by the Clinton's should give all of you pause. If he thinks this has been rough treatment he has something else coming.

The Clinton campaign has to worry about blow-back from negative campaigning much more than McCain and the Republicans will. Republican voters aren't going to care if Obama is roughed up the same way many Democratic voters care. Hillary can't call Obama "America's most Liberal Senator" because its a Democratic primary.

Many Democrats are making the usual mistake... assuming that because somebody is popular among other Democrats it means they will play as well with the electorate in general.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 1:48 PM

"The only candidate I know who went out of his way to say a state didn't count was Barak Obama and the state he was talking about was Florida. And he was not being figurative either. For those of us who live in FL, well, as MY said, it "rankles"."

Funny that Clinton took part in the three-way promise between herself, Obama and Edwards to abide by the DNC's decision until she realized she could win there if the other two didn't campaign.

"Elections are about public policy, that aren't some kind of motivational seminar."

Vote Dukakis!

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 1:51 PM

Rob Mac,

No, the DNC decided not to count Florida. Edwards, Obama and Clinton all agreed. Clinton's campaign manager said:
"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

Now that it is politically advantageous Clinton has changed course. Obama said he stands by his commitment.

I'm sorry if you find this comment unbearable.

Posted by bjd | February 14, 2008 1:52 PM

"Many Democrats are making the usual mistake... assuming that because somebody is popular among other Democrats it means they will play as well with the electorate in general.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 1:48 PM"

Clinton is one of the most unpopular politicians in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if someone more congenial and more liberal like Russ Feingold would stand a better chance of getting elected in the general. Really, we can't predict with 100% accuracy what will happen in November, but from my own experience I've heard Republicans who think all Democrats are traitors express warm feelings for Obama. My Republican dad, for instance, has gone from thinking he was a communist two years ago to saying he would possibly vote for him in the general, which is something he's never said about a Democrat. The truth of the matter is that Obama has shown some ability to draw in independents and some Republicans, which are constituencies that we need to win and that also hate Clinton. Of course we don't all own time machines here, but arguing that we shouldn't take electability into account or that Clinton will somehow become electable (especially after pissing off key supporters like African-Americans) is simply silly pseudo-pomo nonsense. Clinton only appeals to committed Democrats. Everybody else hates her. McCain appeals to a lot more people, possibly more people than any Republican not named Colin Powell. Running one of our most hated politicians (and one who buys the conservative line on foreign policy at the very time that line is losing legitimacy) against one of their most loved in a year that should be great for us is just suicide.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 2:04 PM

The idea that Barack Obama is such a courageous politician is just irritating.

Obama doesn't want Florida to count because he lost Florida. Not because of some high-minded commitment to keep his word.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 2:07 PM

Obama's campaign's insistence that the votes of Florida Democrats are "meaningless" has angered the majority of Florida Democrats to the point where his chances of winning Florida (and no doubt Michigan) are next to nothing in the general election.

Clinton is the most electable because she has a shot in these two states. Obama does not. It is sad that the first viable African American candidate is betraying Dr. King's legacy by supporting the disenfranchisement of millions of people who voted in good faith. The DNC's rules are wrong, and Michigan and Florida are standing up to an archaic nomination process that no one else has the courage to protest. There were a lot of people who fought for voting rights in the face of unjust rules and laws. Obama's politics as usual and doing anything to win, including demeaning the value of my vote, is depressing.

Posted by Ian | February 14, 2008 2:07 PM

Umm, what Reality Man said.

Posted by David | February 14, 2008 2:07 PM

Obama's claim that he has been subjected to rough treatment by the Clinton's should give all of you pause.

If he claimed that, I would pause. A candidate is not the same as his or her supporters.

Posted by Persia | February 14, 2008 2:08 PM

Reality Man:

That's quite a sign-on for someone who is clearly hallucinating.

Barack Obama stands a good chance of being elected President if he wins the nomination, which now appears likely. I don't quibble with that.

What I take issue with is the idea that somehow he is going to win with 56% of popular vote and 400+ electoral votes and 40 states (or thereabouts), and sweep in a filibuster proof majority in the Senate on his long coat-tails. Once there it's imagined that he is going to disempower lobbyists and special interest groups, engage the public in decision-making and consultations as never before, and usher in a new era of bipartisanship.

That isn't going to happen. And if you'd like to know, I'll tell you exactly why it won't happen.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 2:14 PM

Yes, Persia, that thoroughly dull and innocuous comment would certainly sound dismissive to someone who was picking over every word to find something to be mad about.

I heard earlier today that Penn ordered a chicken salad sandwich on white bread. Clearly that was a coded message to southern racists. What else could it mean?

bjd, you can't explain away that fact that Obama called Florida's vote "meaningless" and meant precisely that, while no one in the Clinton campaign has actually said that any of the states Obama has won don't or should not count.

Reality Man, the fantasy world in which everyone is going to love Obama all through the general election exists only in the heads of Obama's supporters. The reality, man, is that from April to November, Obama will be shackled to his neighbor Rezko and his very odd preacher mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I don't hold either of these associations against Obama, but when the right-wing attack machine gets through with him, a good 30 to 40 percent of the population will think he is pure evil. Your Republican dad will no doubt wonder what the hell he was thinking. Not to say that Obama can't win. I think he almost certainly will (as would Hillary). But he's not going to have a stroll through the park you are predicting.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 14, 2008 2:23 PM

"Reality Man, the fantasy world in which everyone is going to love Obama all through the general election exists only in the heads of Obama's supporters. The reality, man, is that from April to November, Obama will be shackled to his neighbor Rezko and his very odd preacher mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I don't hold either of these associations against Obama, but when the right-wing attack machine gets through with him, a good 30 to 40 percent of the population will think he is pure evil. Your Republican dad will no doubt wonder what the hell he was thinking. Not to say that Obama can't win. I think he almost certainly will (as would Hillary). But he's not going to have a stroll through the park you are predicting.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 14, 2008 2:23 PM"

Nice strawman there. Did I say everyone was going to love him? Nope. However, vis-a-vis Clinton, he does show a greater chance of picking up independents and Republicans, which he has done in open primaries. The fact that Clinton has thoroughly been unable to do this is not evidence that she will somehow be able to do this in November. However, having a track record of being able to do this does mean that one has a greater chance of doing so in the future. Obama has established the beginning of a relevant trend that can end, yet Clinton has never established this trend. It's like when conservatives get interviewed on "The Daily Show" and reply to something Jon said with "I bet if I looked some stuff up and thought about it, I could think of an argument against what you said" and then act all self-satisfied.

The line from Clinton supporters - that some random possible slime will sink him (yet Clinton hasn't been able to use this effectively, which she tried to do with Rezko but failed) - is bizarre, especially considering how she is so associated with scandal in the broader American mind. Obama, for instance, hasn't hit her on relying on street gangs in Chinatowns extorting local businesses and families to give money to her campaign, yet the Republicans would as well. Scandal is a huge reason most Americans don't like her. Someone has to win in November and Obama looks like he has a better chance of being it.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 2:32 PM

Honestly, I wish they would include Florida's count somehow, and I'm an Obama supporter. Everybody's votes deserve to be counted. Both candidates' names were on the ballot. Hillary's supporters turned out in Florida along with Obama's, even though everybody knew the vote wasn't supposed to count. She had more people to show up anyway. That says to me that she had more - and stronger - support in the state. As far as I'm concerned, she won it fair and square.

The state should face some consequences for moving its election in defiance of party rules. I think the Republicans actually had the right idea here - the number of delegates awarded ought to be cut in half. If they want their votes to count fully, follow the rules next time. Don't like it? Write your state party leader.

That said, there's no way they the Democrats should include Michigan's results. One name on the ballot is not a democratic choice.

Posted by Tel | February 14, 2008 2:34 PM

Of course it was dull, Rob Mac, it came from Mark Penn!

I heard earlier today that Penn ordered a chicken salad sandwich on white bread. Clearly that was a coded message to southern racists. What else could it mean?

He's boring off the campaign trail too?

while no one in the Clinton campaign has actually said that any of the states Obama has won don't or should not count.

I have heard some fairly unpleasant words about 'caucuses,' though. And-- do we really have to go through this again?-- all the Democratic candidates agreed that Florida wouldn't count, until Hillary won there and needed the votes. I know Hillary supporters say that she can play hardball with our enemies, but so far she's only played hardball against the people who should be her allies come November.

Posted by Persia | February 14, 2008 2:49 PM

By the way, speaking of states that don't count ... has anyone heard about when the other 24 delegates from Maryland are going to be awarded? All the results I've seen only list it as 28-18 Obama, but Maryland's supposed to get 70 delegates and 29 superdelegates for 99 total. Only 46 are showing up in any of the figures - what happened to those other 24?

Posted by Tel | February 14, 2008 3:06 PM

"That's quite a sign-on for someone who is clearly hallucinating."

Classy.

"Barack Obama stands a good chance of being elected President if he wins the nomination, which now appears likely. I don't quibble with that.

What I take issue with is the idea that somehow he is going to win with 56% of popular vote and 400+ electoral votes and 40 states (or thereabouts), and sweep in a filibuster proof majority in the Senate on his long coat-tails. Once there it's imagined that he is going to disempower lobbyists and special interest groups, engage the public in decision-making and consultations as never before, and usher in a new era of bipartisanship.

That isn't going to happen. And if you'd like to know, I'll tell you exactly why it won't happen.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 2:14 PM"

First you argue that we can't tell what will happen in November. Then you say you can tell me exactly why some possible scenario won't happen. You can either argue that predictions can be made or that such knowledge is impossible. Consistency isn't your strong point.

I'm not arguing that Obama can 100% definitely pull this off and I never made to 40+ states claim. However, getting a veto-proof majority and an electoral mandate is required to make broad changes, especially in a way that can help make the Democrats the default party for a generation for most voters like we had during the New Deal coalition (interrupted only be a Republican presidency of a guy the Democrats tried to get to run on their ticket and worried about the military-industrial complex) and how Reagen did so for the Republicans. Obama probably has a better chance of doing this than any Democrat I've seen in my lifetime, which isn't the same thing as saying he will definitely do it. However, this is a goal you have to shoot for (especially when we won't have the smaller goal of just trying to get Bush out of office like we did in 2004), otherwise there is little point in trying in our system as it is set up with the filibuster and checks-and-balances.

Meanwhile, with Clinton as president (assuming that she could even win), we would get deadlock while she would cave to the right wing on major issues, especially foreign policy (due to a fear of looking weak and her general hawkishness). There would be electoral benefits to Republicans who would refuse to work with her. There would be electoral benefits to a Democrat who would be willing to work with a President McCain, just as he did with Feingold and Kennedy. There would be probably more electoral benefit to a Republican who would work with a President Obama, especially vis-a-vis a President Clinton.

In addition, even if Obama doesn't win in states like Kansas and South Carolina, his primary strength based on high turnout would probably force the Republicans to campaign there to shore up their support in addition to campaigning in the normal swing states, just like how the Kerry campaign had to waste time worrying about New Jersey instead of being able to focus on Ohio. The Democrats who would vote for either Clinton or Obama in a primary just about anywhere would likely vote for Obama while he would have a better time leaching off Republicans and independents than Clinton could. Meanwhile, Clinton would also be stuck trying to once again shore up her lost support among African-Americans. If she did it in a way that demagogued Mexican immigrants like she did in the debate, she would then also risk losing Latinos and failing to win back African-Americans (who could just not vote), especially when campaigning against one of the more pro-immigrant Republicans.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 3:10 PM

Tim K.

The idea that Barack Obama is such a courageous politician is just irritating.

Obama doesn't want Florida to count because he lost Florida. Not because of some high-minded commitment to keep his word.

It's not courageous or high-minded, it's just following through on a pledge and following the agreed-upon rules. It's just something people are expected to do. If they don't, like Hillary, it's a bad sign.

As someone pointed out above, New Hampshire Hillary voters got played. Some apparently consider this cunning, hardball politics on her campaign's part. I consider it cheezy and cheap and would like to think it played a part in Obama's stunning streak of recent victories.

Posted by Peter K. | February 14, 2008 3:11 PM

Persia:

He's boring off the campaign trail too?

No doubt.

And-- do we really have to go through this again?-- all the Democratic candidates agreed that Florida wouldn't count, until Hillary won there and needed the votes.

So you admit that at this point the only candidate actively saying that a particular state's votes should not count is Obama? That's refreshing at least.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 14, 2008 3:36 PM

Reality Man,

I can see subtlety isn't exactly your strength.

Forecasts aren't impossible, they are just difficult. And it's all based on conjecture and pure speculation.

I made the point repeatedly that we cannot take the polls at face value without their proper context, and I stand by that. I believe the support Clinton receives in these trial heats is more reliable because voters know more about her and have hardened perceptions. It's true she is a relatively polarizing figure in American politics. This not only means that more people dislike her than any other candidate, and strongly, but also more people really like her. I already made the point that I think Obama's support in these trial heats is probably roughly comparable to a generic Democrat ballot test. As Obama is subjected to more scrutiny and more serious questioning his image will come into sharper relief, for better or for worse. That's my interpretation, and it's consistent with what we yet know. Others will have their own interpretations.

I'm much more confident of my predictions on how little success Obama will have "bringing change to Washington" because it's based on over 200 years of history. Washington was built to resist change. The Framers of the Constitution designed a system of checks and balances that would prevent public policy from being overly responsive to changes in public opinion. That's why there is a bicameral legislature, why the Senate has staggard terms, that's why small states are disproportionately powerful, that's why the President has a veto, that's why is very difficult to change the Constitution for any reason, and that's why the Supreme Court in empowered to strike down laws with judicial review. Innovations like the filibuster have only deepened that systemic resistance to change. That doesn't even approach the power of organized interests, the tendency for public opinion to change in response to setbacks, and the often cynical and fickle nature of the press.

A President Obama would find that if he takes the time to consult and tries to practice a "different kind of politics" he will allow the forces of opposition to gather against him. If he tries to enact too much change his agenda will collapse under its own weight. It won't be long before political enemies will try to demonize him just as they did President Clinton.

That is what some of you don't seem to understand. Conservative Republicans don't hate the Clintons because the Clintons are bad people, they hate them because they won. There are real divisions in American society and "the politics of hope" won't change that.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 3:42 PM

"I made the point repeatedly that we cannot take the polls at face value without their proper context, and I stand by that. I believe the support Clinton receives in these trial heats is more reliable because voters know more about her and have hardened perceptions. It's true she is a relatively polarizing figure in American politics. This not only means that more people dislike her than any other candidate, and strongly, but also more people really like her. I already made the point that I think Obama's support in these trial heats is probably roughly comparable to a generic Democrat ballot test. As Obama is subjected to more scrutiny and more serious questioning his image will come into sharper relief, for better or for worse. That's my interpretation, and it's consistent with what we yet know. Others will have their own interpretations."

When was the last time you heard this much conservative warmth expressed about a Democrat? Clinton has been tested in the public eye and lost. She only does well when she recedes from policy and the public scene to hide behind Bill. In addition, Obama has shown an ability to work with Republicans in a way that Clinton has only been able to by enabling their war mongering.

Tim K, that's the huge insight you were promising, that our system has checks and balances? You're arguing against a strawman and don't even know it.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 3:50 PM

Reality Man,

Well you're about to have a first-hand civics lesson as soon as Obama is inaugurated, if he even wins.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 3:55 PM

In addition, Obama has shown an ability to work with Republicans in a way that Clinton has only been able to by enabling their war mongering.

This is just silly. Working with Republicans is, in my opinion, the problem, not the solution to any of our problems. To the extent that either Obama or HRC do so, that is a mark against them.

But I do think Obama is showing us how he will "bring the country together" and I'm beginning to think it is very shrewd and might be very effective. He has learned from Bush that if you declare yourself to be X often enough, eventually a lot of people will think you are X, even if there is no evidence of it. Obama talks a lot about reaching out to "our friends in the red states", but I've come to realize that this is just rhetoric. He'll likely fight hard for progressive causes and then declare those who oppose him to be opposing bipartisanship. And it might just work.

Reality Man, everyone who disagrees with you seems to be arguing against a straw man. Are you, in fact, made of straw?

When was the last time you heard this much conservative warmth expressed about a Democrat?

Well, there's Joe Lieberman for one. Al Gore also had a lot of conservative support before he became VP. Numerous dull and tedious fence sitting Democratic senators get praised by conservatives for being bi-partisan, by which they mean voting with them. But be careful, Reality Man, that conservative warmth you feel could just mean that they are farting in your general direction.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 14, 2008 4:06 PM

"bjd, you can't explain away that fact that Obama called Florida's vote "meaningless" and meant precisely that, while no one in the Clinton campaign has actually said that any of the states Obama has won don't or should not count."

Rob Mac,

Obama said that about Florida and Michigan because there were no delegates to compete for, because the DNC stripped away Florida's delegates for violating the Democratic Party's rules about scheduling primaries and caucuses. He has never said that about the states where he has lost WHEN DELEGATES WERE ACTUALLY AT STAKE. Those states, along with the states where Obama has won, followed the rules. Your state and Michigan did not, and paid the appropriate price; their votes in the Democratic primary became meaningless, no matter which candidate won.

If you are really so concerned about having your vote count in the Democratic nomination, then have your state do your Democratic primary over in accordance with the DNC's rules.

Posted by eltoro | February 14, 2008 4:21 PM

For the record, I think that the votes for Obama in Florida should also count. I think it would be fair to give Obama a percentage of the uncommitted delegates based upon polling data around the time of the state's primary.

If Obama continues to oppose giving Florida and Michigan voters a voice in this selection process, there will be protests at the convention that will hurt the party's chances to win the general election. I expect that members of the DNC Credentials Committee will get a taste of that during their meeting this summer.

It is very clear that the way we select our nominee is broken. Thanks to the internet and a 24-hour news cycle, retail campaigning is no longer limited to Iowa and New Hampshire. The media has not adjusted to this, and pundits seem shocked when their predictions about momentum and which states are make or break for candidates do not come true.

It must be difficult for people who have not been told that their vote is "meaningless" by the Obama campaign over and over again to understand how disenchanting it really is. As a Floridian who grew up in Michigan, it really hits twice. Whenever I see Obama speak, all that I can think about is how this man wants my vote to be meaningless because it will help him fulfill his personal ambitions.

This is not about rules. Obama was running ads throughout Florida through a national ad buy weeks before our primary. I never saw one Clinton ad. People in Florida are following this race very closely, and the results of our primary election were based upon educated choices made by an electorate that has been every bit as engaged as voters in states with much smaller populations and a disproportionate amount of influence.

Posted by Ian | February 14, 2008 4:21 PM

Conservative Republicans always have nice things to say about Democrats until they become a threat to their agenda.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 4:22 PM

"Reality Man, everyone who disagrees with you seems to be arguing against a straw man. Are you, in fact, made of straw?"

Well, considering that Tim K's argument was about how I don't understand the nature of the filibuster and checks and balances after I said you need enough support to get past those things, then yes, Tim K was making a strawman argument. You made a strawman argument when you claimed that anyone here claimed everyone would learn to love Obama. When you make a strawman argument and get called on it, it doesn't mean you didn't make a strawman argument.

"Reality Man,

Well you're about to have a first-hand civics lesson as soon as Obama is inaugurated, if he even wins.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 3:55 PM"

Once again, what a classy way to argue against a strawman.

"This is just silly. Working with Republicans is, in my opinion, the problem, not the solution to any of our problems. To the extent that either Obama or HRC do so, that is a mark against them."

Is Ted Kennedy any less of a liberal for working with Hatch to pass S-CHIP? Is Obama not a liberal for working with Lugar on securing Russian loose nukes?

"But I do think Obama is showing us how he will "bring the country together" and I'm beginning to think it is very shrewd and might be very effective. He has learned from Bush that if you declare yourself to be X often enough, eventually a lot of people will think you are X, even if there is no evidence of it. Obama talks a lot about reaching out to "our friends in the red states", but I've come to realize that this is just rhetoric. He'll likely fight hard for progressive causes and then declare those who oppose him to be opposing bipartisanship. And it might just work."

I agree with you here and it's a big reason I'm supporting him.

Posted by Reality Man | February 14, 2008 4:23 PM

Reality Man,

I never said you don't know what the filibuster is. You just don't seem to understand that the Democrats are not about to win a filibuster proof majority this year. I never said you are unaware of the existence of checks and balance, you just seem to lack understanding of the significance of those checks and balances and what they will mean for Obama's agenda. As Fmr President George Mitchell said of Clinton's election in 1992... "he is not a king."

Obama won't be king, either.

Posted by Tim K | February 14, 2008 4:29 PM

"It must be difficult for people who have not been told that their vote is "meaningless" by the Obama campaign over and over again to understand how disenchanting it really is. As a Floridian who grew up in Michigan, it really hits twice. Whenever I see Obama speak, all that I can think about is how this man wants my vote to be meaningless because it will help him fulfill his personal ambitions."

Ian,

Obama does not want your vote to be meaningless; he's merely stating the facts. If the DNC has ruled that Florida and Michigan cannot be allowed to have delegates because they broke the DNC's rules, then the Democratic primary votes in those states are indeed meaningless, regardless of which candidate won the beauty contest. The same would hold true if Illinois or New York had violated the DNC's rules.

If you want your vote to be meaningful, then have your state redo the Democratic primary in accordance with DNC rules. It as simple as that. It's not Obama's fault that the DNC stripped away your delegates (at least any more than it is Hillary Clinton's or John Edwards' fault).

BTW, Hillary Clinton is only pressing to have Florida's primary votes count in order to fulfill HER personal ambitions. She wouldn't give a damn about your vote or Rob Mac's vote if Obama or Edwards had won the state.

Posted by eltoro | February 14, 2008 4:35 PM

This is what Florida Democrats were told last October by party leaders:

... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a round-table discussion with reporters in Washington that the Democratic National Committee can try to enforce its rules, but the party's authority essentially ends when the convention begins.

"The reality is if you want to know if Florida is going to be seated, ask the Democratic nominee as soon as one emerges," Pelosi said.

Dean agreed.

"At the end of the day, the nominee will make a decision, essentially about who gets seated," Dean agreed.

------------------------------------------------
This is no longer about rules. It is about whether the nominee supports enfranchising voters or not. We're going to have a bloody fight on our hands at the convention that could cost our nominee Michigan and Florida in the general election. Clinton can win both thanks to her position on seating delegates. I understand that Obama is in a catch-22, but hopefully he will agree to seat Michigan and Florida for the good of the nation, even if it means that Clinton gets more delegates.

Posted by Ian | February 14, 2008 5:06 PM

Well, you know, all those states are just part of a vast right wing conspiracy to bash the Clintons because they're all gay and can't get the same kind of good blowjobs and cigar hanky-panky that Bill can.

Or it's all a vast right wing conspiracy to hate female politicians no matter how corrupt they are.

Or it's all a vast left wing conspiracy to elect a Muslim black guy who will make Louis Farrakhan the Congressional chaplain.

Or something.

In any event, noise like this is just one more reason why Clinton shouldn't be nominated.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 7:11 PM

New Mexico doesn't count because it took too long to count for it to count. Besides, the weather was nice, so Obama supporters were stuck on the golf course.

Posted by anonymous | February 14, 2008 9:08 PM

"This is no longer about rules. It is about whether the nominee supports enfranchising voters or not. We're going to have a bloody fight on our hands at the convention that could cost our nominee Michigan and Florida in the general election. Clinton can win both thanks to her position on seating delegates. I understand that Obama is in a catch-22, but hopefully he will agree to seat Michigan and Florida for the good of the nation, even if it means that Clinton gets more delegates"

It is all about rules, and will still be about rules when the Convention occurs. If you want to have a say in selecting the Democratic nominee, then do your primary over according to the Party's rules.

Obama does support that option, so he does support giving Michigan and Florida a voice in the nominee selection. He sees no reason, however, to reward these states for breaking the rules. Neither do the people in the other 48 states who managed to follow the rules somehow, when Floridan and Michigan could not.

What I don't understand is why you are opposed to the idea of doing your primary over. If Hilary Clinton truly is the choice of the voters in your state, she will win again. Moreover, no one will be able to argue that she won her delegates in Florida and Michigan unfairly. Why aren't you pushing your states to do your primaries, instead of bellyaching about how mean Obama is.

Posted by eltoro | February 15, 2008 11:12 AM

You know, this whole phony debate would be 1000% less retarded if anyone took the two seconds to do some grade school math. Obama is ahead double digits in pledged delegates even if you not only count Florida and Michigan, but give him none of the "Uncommitted" delegates.

Posted by Some dude | February 15, 2008 1:47 PM

Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise voters were also rules, and they were unjust. People marched and died to end those rules and make sure that every voter has a chance to be heard. Votes count, or they don't. Obama can't have it both ways.

Posted by Ian | February 22, 2008 10:52 AM

Penn: None of You Count!

Comments (130)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories