Penn's Bad Spin

Mark Penn's latest memo:

Change Begins March 4th. Hillary leads in the three largest, delegate rich states remaining: Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. These three states have 492 delegates - 64 percent of the remaining delegates Hillary Clinton needs to win the nomination.

Chris Orr notes that this only works "If Clinton wins all three states by margins of 100-0." Penn doesn't seem to really understand spin. The point of spin is to make the person on whose behalf the spinning is happening look better, not worse. There's no point in just saying any old thing. What's more, it's not really surprising that he's bad at spin -- he's a pollster. Spinning is a distinct skill-set. But for some reason he seems to be doing an awful lot of it, and not very well.

Comments

when you bust a union the workers tend not to have a chance to directly respond. when you advise corporations how to reduce benefits and keep a union from gaining a foothold workers tend not to have a chance to respond directly.

voters can't be fired.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | February 15, 2008 10:12 AM

This is what strikes me as so strange about having your campaign's pollster making these sorts of transparently bogus arguments. If he were to tell his boss those things it would be professional malpractice.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 15, 2008 10:12 AM

This would seem to run against the idea of trying to set expectations properly.

Posted by Jake | February 15, 2008 10:13 AM

So I guess now all the states that voted before March 4 don't count?

Posted by Ron | February 15, 2008 10:14 AM

Penn doesn't seem to really understand spin. The point of spin is to make the person on whose behalf the spinning is happening look better, not worse.

Easy to say that now, but his game has been fine until quite recently. How many people in the media simply accepted (a) the inevitability argument, and (b) the claim that HRC had significantly more experience than Obama? How much of a pass has HRC received on the last seven years? The image she is trying to fashion now is radically different than the one she spent a good part of that seven years constructing. (I have no opinion about which one is "real.")

Bitching about Penn now is like bitching about some player who has four turnovers in the second quarter. Maybe the player sucks, but maybe he's great and just had a bad second quarter.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 15, 2008 10:15 AM

Which is the campaign of false hope again?

Posted by John SFL | February 15, 2008 10:15 AM

see, how hard was that? no forced jokes, no lame reaches, simply rip the guy on the merits....

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 10:16 AM

What does it say about the candidate that picks people so incompetent to run her campaign? It's like picking Donald Rumsfeld to head the military. Only an idiot would think it a good idea.

Posted by MikeJ | February 15, 2008 10:17 AM

It took 35 years of experience to pick someone as sharp as Mark Penn.

Posted by Helter | February 15, 2008 10:19 AM

If Clinton doesn't compete in any other states besides those three she could win 70-30 in those three states and still not take the lead in pledged delegates. I'm not sure the Clinton campaign understands what proportional representation form congressional districts means. Obama will continue to blow her out in every other contest if she doesn't compete in them. But hey... they aren't important. Only big states deemed worthy by Penn are important...

If anything this management shakeup at Clinton Co. has shown, is that the number one problem with their campaign is Penn, and he's still on the payroll.

As it stands Hillary could very well take say Texas 59-41 and end up with fewer delegates from the state than Obama (just like how he beat her in Nevada).

Posted by Mark from NY | February 15, 2008 10:21 AM

Bitching about Penn now

Did we just start now? I'm ahead of my time, I guess!

Posted by Jen | February 15, 2008 10:24 AM

Now, be fair. She doesn't need to win 100%. She just needs to keep Obama below 15% in every district in order to win all the delegates. Much more doable.

Posted by KCinDC | February 15, 2008 10:31 AM

Hillary for you and me...bring back our Democracy!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hb63ruEt4I&feature=related

Posted by I heart Hillary | February 15, 2008 10:33 AM

Heh---skimming quickly, I first read Matt's penultimate sentence as "Spinning is a distinct shill-set." I was about to boo the unforgivable pun, but it looks like I'm solely to blame.

Posted by Jack Roy | February 15, 2008 10:47 AM

Is her campaign trying to throw the Wisconsin election to Obama?

I really think that she had a chance to begin to reverse the negative slide by trying to actually win there. But by waiting until tomorrow to show up after Obama has had a headstart is a real eye opener to the voters there.

The candidate who has to constantly reinvent themselves is not going to win.

Posted by swarty | February 15, 2008 10:49 AM

I heart Hillary,

I'm having a hard time distinguishing between the zealots and the parody-zealots today. Please tell me you're the latter. You don't seriously believe that Jackson 5 for the Hanna Montana set will help Hillary win over any undecided voters, do you?

Posted by Bragan | February 15, 2008 10:51 AM

What I also find amazing is Penn is saying things like, "Well, if these were winner takes all states, we'd be ahead."

Let's forget for the moment that that statement is inaccurate, since according to the NYT, Obama would be ahead. Much more important here is the absurd hypothetical. Hey, if money grew on trees, no one would be poor. If everyone in the world was peaceful, there would be no wars. How is Penn helping Clinton's cause with this absurdity?

Posted by evie | February 15, 2008 10:55 AM

Apparently last night on CNN James Carville (who, I think, is still working for the Clintons) said that if Hillary wins the Texas and Ohio primaries it will be "the biggest comeback in political history."

Now that's how you set expectations!

Posted by Jake | February 15, 2008 10:55 AM

Remember when Hillary put out the Sopranos ad? Then, she was being fresh and new. Since then she seemed to get frustrated, and didn't keep doing the same thing for us. I'm not sure the Sopranos ad is exactly the type of thing I would've made for her if I was working for her, but it was the general direction that was working.

If everybody in the world who was caring and loyal was twice as boring as everybody else, all the time, then no one would have any good friends anymore. Hillary lost the battle to be entertaining.

Posted by Swan | February 15, 2008 10:56 AM

HAHAHAHA.

Reminds me of his pre-Super Tuesday spin about how they were focusing on NY, CA, NJ, and AR because they were offering 44% of the delegates that day. HAHAHAHA. 44%!!!!! Not even a majority even without proportional allocation!!!!!!

That guy running a general election campaign in this day and age has disaster written all over it.

Posted by More Axe | February 15, 2008 11:00 AM

"It took 35 years of experience to pick someone as sharp as Mark Penn."

HAHAHAHAHA.

Posted by More Axe | February 15, 2008 11:03 AM

Remember when Hillary put out the Sopranos ad? Then, she was being fresh and new

Remember that the ad was about showcasing the fact that she chose a song by Celine Dion for her campaign theme. She was not being "fresh and new." She was being cliched and highly-rehearsed. This was what was playing to her advantage in 2007-- she was the inevitable, front-runner candidate who said all the expected things at the expected time. She was the candidate who didn't need to resort to gimicks and could concentrate on being well-rehearsed.

The problem was that she couldn't pivot due to changing circumstances and underneath the facade of a slick-operating campaign machine, she was hemorraging money like crazy.

Posted by Tyro | February 15, 2008 11:07 AM

Yeah, Jake has it. Carville is great at spin. There's a clip in The War Room of Carville telling reporters, "I don't think much of George Bush as a President, but as a politician he's second to none." Something to that effect anyway, while he is of course managing the ultimate politician. But as he said it, it came across as plausible.

The reason Penn is doing this particular spin, mind you, is that he - and Dick Morris who brought him to the Clintons, and subsequently the Clintons themselves - don't see a distinction between polling and spinning. In one sense, it's true: a poll can be spun. But in another, it's very untrue, primarily as a matter of baseline. When your pollster doesn't see a difference between polling and spinning, the results of the poll are going to show exactly what he wants them to show. By employing someone who takes this position regularly, the campaign continues to undermine itself.

I admit that I find Mark Penn's politics personally distasteful, so this isn't exactly objective. But it's hard to come away with even a cursory discussion of Microtrends or each of the oddly conservative niche positions Clinton staked out in the Senate (video games anyone?) without thinking this came from some discussion about how much we need to satisfy X segment of 1.2% of the population here, and Y segment of 1.8% there. They play to 50%+1 with a series of tiny incremental victories from wherever they can find them. This is easier in the short run, but in the long run it's more costly and nearly impossible to sustain a movement with.

To this way of thinking, discounting states you've lost is perfectly acceptable; your goal is to win Texas Democrats and Ohio Democrats, rather than Democrats. Why? Because those others can't get you to 50%+1 anymore. And this, I think, is ultimately why Obama's sympathizers bash the Clinton campaign machine on such a personal level. Taken as a whole, her policies are okay. It's her politics that people find untrustworthy, and I think there's good reason for it.

Posted by jhupp | February 15, 2008 11:21 AM

Incidentally, Clinton doesn't even use the campaign theme song the voters selected in her little contest. So much for the will of the people, huh?

Posted by Korha | February 15, 2008 11:23 AM

ARG has a new poll showing Obama leading Hillary 48-42 in Texas. Kiss your dreams goodbye, Evita!

Posted by Traven | February 15, 2008 11:30 AM

This would seem to run against the idea of trying to set expectations properly.

Uhh, when you're in the final stretch of the campaign, the expectations game doesn't matter. Penn's just trying to sustain morale in the lead up to what are, in fact, crucial states.

If it turns out that he has built up expectations too much and Clinton loses, well the game's over anyway so it wouldn't matter after March 4 anyway.

Penn is wrong abut the math. But I don't see anything especially absurd about the memo. What other arguments could he make? What's more, most people who read that are ready to believe that Hillary could still win this thing. And the press will report it in much the same way that Penn has written it.

What's more, she actually could win this thing. If she wins Ohio and Texas, she's doing quite well even if Penn's math is wrong, and it would come down to these super delegates. And in the context of just having won Texas and Ohio, well, she's as much in that game as Obama is.

Posted by Joe Strummer | February 15, 2008 11:31 AM

Loud noises!

Posted by Brick | February 15, 2008 11:34 AM

If anything this management shakeup at Clinton Co. has shown, is that the number one problem with their campaign is Penn, and he's still on the payroll.

Indeed.

Posted by Persia | February 15, 2008 11:46 AM

And this, I think, is ultimately why Obama's sympathizers bash the Clinton campaign machine on such a personal level. Taken as a whole, her policies are okay. It's her politics that people find untrustworthy, and I think there's good reason for it.

You know, I hadn't really give it all that much thought, but I think you're exactly correct on this.

Posted by Kevin | February 15, 2008 11:49 AM

They are spinning Wisconsin. Why is everyone missing this? An upset Clinton victory in Wisconsin would be huge, now, because everyone is buying into this spin. She is only down a few points there.

Posted by Mark | February 15, 2008 11:53 AM

Mark Penn -- The Bob Shrum of 2008 -- the can't the forest for the trees political "strategist" who appears to be despised by 99% of liberal blog commenters?

Posted by Bragan | February 15, 2008 11:56 AM

I really think that Penn is setting the stage for an argument that Hillary should be declared the winner just because. He wants to convince the super delegates, or as he calls them the "automatic delegates," that they should back Hillary regardless of the pledged delegate count.

If Hillary wins (no matter the percentage) in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania the spin will be something like this...

She has the momentum.
The voters have rejected the flaccid rhetoric of hope.
The voters know that pretty speeches do not compare to her managerial skills.
She has beaten back the insurgent campaign.
The voters have studied her detailed plans, they see her vast years of experience and have decided she must be the nominee.
Blah, blah, spin and spew, blah.

Posted by bjd | February 15, 2008 11:59 AM

Bragan: Parody-zealot.

Hillary for you and me. Take back our Democracy!!

Posted by I heart Hillary | February 15, 2008 12:09 PM

"Uhh, when you're in the final stretch of the campaign, the expectations game doesn't matter. Penn's just trying to sustain morale in the lead up to what are, in fact, crucial states."

I'm not sure sustaining morale by building up fantastic scenarios is a good plan. After all, anyone who is working on her campaign that will read or hear this spin will probably have some understanding of how delegates are awarded. When your campaign's main guy is so obviously bullshitting (hey, that's in Firefox's spellcheck!) his own people, it does not speak well to your own ability to manage expectations, which do matter to some extent. After all, if Clinton only takes one of the three of Texas, Penn and Ohio, then she did worse than expectations and Obama did better. If she wins two or three by a tiny margin, she just met them and if she wins big, she defied expectations and can make a better argument to the superdelegates.

Posted by Reality Man | February 15, 2008 12:10 PM

They are spinning Wisconsin.

Yes, absolutely!

Posted by kvenlander | February 15, 2008 12:57 PM

They are spinning Wisconsin. Why is everyone missing this? An upset Clinton victory in Wisconsin would be huge, now, because everyone is buying into this spin. She is only down a few points there.

No, I don't think so. I think the internal polling is showing something much different. I'd agree with your argument if Hillary were seriously contesting the state. However, she hasn't even visited Wisconsin yet, and has continually emphasized Texas and Ohio and marginalized smaller states in her rhetoric. She'd certainly get a huge boost for winning Wisconsin after more or less writing it off, but her blatantly dismissive rhetoric is counter-productive and suggests she has no realistic chance of winning the state.

ARG has a new poll showing Obama leading Hillary 48-42 in Texas. Kiss your dreams goodbye, Evita!

Hahahaha. What are Zogby's Texas numbers? Now, I think Obama could very well win Texas, but I'm not about to rely on ARG.

Posted by asdf | February 15, 2008 1:07 PM

Uh, dude, have you met many pollsters? Most of them are not just good at spin, they're extremely good at spin.

Posted by Junius Brutus | February 15, 2008 1:20 PM

Bragan, the title is "Hillary4Uandme" in the "texting" argot that is so popular among young people today. It has everything to "grab" the attention of young voters: an uplifting theme, energetic dancing, and a pop "hook."

By contrast, that boring Obama video was filmed in black and white in an apparent effort to reach older voters. And can you dance to it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hb63ruEt4I

Send it to all your friends!

Posted by Mark Penn | February 15, 2008 1:31 PM

BTW, I'm not defending Mark Penn. I think he's an asshole and not entirely honest and I'm not saying I think he is the master of spin, but Matthew made a blanket statement about pollsters. I've met several of them and most of them were extraordinarily good at spin.

Also, more than likely, whatever spin Penn is giving is the spin that that all the top people on the campaign decided upon. Penn, as the pollster, is in a strategically advantageous position to influence that decision, but the public message is rarely the unilateral creation of one person. Also, don't judge someone's analytical ability by what they say publicly.

Penn's problerm isn't inability to spin or analytical retardation. Penn's problem is his politics.

Posted by Junius Brutus | February 15, 2008 1:36 PM

He may end up eating those words. Right now Obama's only down 6 points in Texas, only TWO points with Texas Latinos.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/

A LOT can happen in the next 2-1/2 weeks but I DO sense that momentum is not in HRC's favor.

Posted by JR | February 15, 2008 1:41 PM

Tyro at 11:07, the ad was a different and entertaining kind of campaign ad. Not sure what your "point" was about her not being fresh and new. If your point is that she has a campaign theme song or that she picked Celine Dion, and that those things make her too stale and drive people away, you're going to have feel pretty lonely, because you're the only one who you can agree with on that, I think. You didn't respond at all to whether the ad itself was a different, more-entertaining kind of thing than we are used to seeing in general in political campaign ads.

Funny how Matt put up so many posts so far today after this one.

Anyway, I think my original comment on this post is great advice for any Democrats or liberals working in politics.

Posted by Swan | February 15, 2008 1:58 PM

Ready on day one!

For what? To lose the Democratic nomination as a de facto incumbent.

Mark Penn IS the Bob Shrum of 2008. Wait, at least Shrum got past the primaries.

Posted by Marlin | February 15, 2008 2:21 PM

Ready on day one!

For what? To lose the Democratic nomination as a de facto incumbent.

Mark Penn IS the Bob Shrum of 2008. Wait, at least Shrum got past the primaries.

Posted by Marlin | February 15, 2008 2:22 PM

Ready on day one!

For what? To lose the Democratic nomination as a de facto incumbent.

Mark Penn IS the Bob Shrum of 2008. Wait, at least Shrum got past the primaries.

Posted by Marlin | February 15, 2008 2:22 PM

Well, it will be interesting to see what the media does if in fact Clinton "wins" Ohio and Texas. I am hopeful the media will have moved far enough up the learning curve to immediately go to the pledged delegate count. On the other hand, even if they know better, they may just have too much of a vested interest in prolonging the battle to call it anything but a "comeback".

In any event, I am personally convinced it just doesn't matter at this point how interested parties (including the media) spin various events. Both contestants have too many victories behind them for "momentum" to be an overwhelming force, and the final pledged delegate count will not be spinnable.

Posted by DTM | February 15, 2008 4:38 PM

Thanks for the comment, jhupp. I'm predisposed to agree with what you're saying here, but I found it thought-provoking.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 15, 2008 11:15 PM