Mark Penn, lead Clinton ‘08 strategist/pollster:
“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois?” Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”
The United States Of Insignificance:
Alabama
Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District Of Columbia
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Carolina
Virginia
Utah
Washington
And in all likelihood there is more insignificance to come.
Mark Penn in July of 2007 when he was annointing Sen. Clinton as the nominee and asking why Sen. Obama and Sen. Edwards were even bothering to contest this:
As observers like Charlie Cook have pointed out, Hillary has the coalition of support (women, strong Democrats, lower, middle-income and working families, Hispanics and African-Americans) that has traditionally won Democratic primaries.
She’s now down to 2 out of 7 of those groups under the guidance of Penn. A “microtrend”, perhaps?
Look, I may be beating up on Mark Penn at the moment, but I hate all the guys like this in campaigns. They either take too much credit (James Carville, Karl Rove) or massage statistics in order to make it seem as if they were always on the ball (Mark Penn, Dick Morris).
If he had used the term, ‘large states,’ it would have been a valid question to ask. He could have even pointed out that the only large state Obama has won so far is his home state.
But no, he had to insult half of America. Fucking retard.
And he’s making more than $5 million for that!
Good points Oliver but how could you forget Bob Shrum? He is so inept that the other candidates hire him for their opponents campaign. Doesn’t stop him from getting gigs though.
I’m not even sure how saying “large” state is valid, even if you discount the fact that Alaska is pretty damn large. The implication is the same no matter how Penn phrases it–”some animals are more equal than others.” It’s like watching the caricature of liberal elitism made flesh, and now it’s running for office.
This is the political equivalent of a fat one down the middle. It should take a competent speechwriter the duration of a light breakfast to come up with a response:
“My opponent seems to believe that only some of you matter. That some of you, based on your geography, or your history, or your economic standing, can be deemed ‘insignificant.’ But I am running for the office of President of the United States of America, and I believe all of you matter. I believe that the job requires me to respect all of you, not just the people who vote for me. I believe that the citizens of Virginia, Louisiana, and Kansas are just as significant as the citizens of California, New York, and New Hampshire.”
Etcetera.
Well, I would suspect that CS is talking about ‘large’ in terms of population, not geographic size.
I remember some Democrats using using the same kind of language after the 2000 election. “More of the nation voted for Gore than Bush, so Bush isn’t rightfully President!” Of course, we have an electoral college that is in place so that ’significant’ states like California and New York don’t decided elections. This sounds kind of the same. I’m guessing that Hillary’s overall vote totals outnumber Obama’s.
That being said, I don’t see how it matters in relation to the general election. It’s not like Obama is going to lose California and New York against a Republican candidate.
The extremely off-putting thing about Hillary Clinton supporters is that they whine. This isn’t important, caucuses don’t mean anything, Hillary didn’t even try to win those states, Hillary has more electoral votes in her states, wait until Texas…
Bad representation. They aren’t fighting they’re whining. Why is Obama winning? Because he’s fighting. Even in the states he’s lost, he’s fought and his supporters aren’t exactly whining, they are excited. He closed a huge gap, he won this vote, he squeezed out extra delegates…
Hillary has been playing the Prevent Defense since super Tuesday and it’s killed her chances. She hasn’t contested any state since and they’ve all gone to Obama.
Sorry, Jay, but Barack still squeaks out the popular vote by a hair even when you give Hillary her Florida and Michigan votes, as is detailed here.
And you’re right, I was being obtuse about the “large” thing. Still, HRC’s campaign isn’t going to make many friends trying to tell nearly half the nation that their states don’t mean squat.
Spider, your link doesn’t work, but I’ll take your word for it. That surprises me actually, and it makes Penn’s comments even that much more absurd.
I appreciate you taking my word, but for the sake of anybody reading who wants more, let’s avoid HTML entirely:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_leads_in_the_total_popul.php
Ah. I had no clue that URLS are automatically hyperlinked. So noted for future reference.
California (#1) is really the only large state argument Clinton has over Obama.
New York (#3) and Illinois (#5) cancel each other out as home states (and Obama did better in New York than Hillary did in Illinois, which actually is her home state).
There was no campaign in Florida (#4) and Michigan (#8).
Of the other states in the top ten: TX (#2), OH (#7), PA (#6), and NC (#10) haven’t voted yet. Obama won GA (#9). Hillary won NJ (#11). Obama won VA and WA (#’s 12 and 13).
I think you are making too much of this comment.
Yeah it’s dumb, much as a lot of the public comments that come from Penn, but it’s not hostile, it’s overly DLCish.
If we look at the 6/2007 GDP figures in millions per state we see for the top ten states.
CA $1,727,355 Hillary
TX $1,065,891 Leaning very Hillary
NY $1,021,944 Hillary 284
FL $713,505 (Hillary)
IL $589,598 Obama
PA $510,293 Leaning very Hillary
OH $461,302 Leaning very Hillary
NJ $453,177 Hillary
MI $381,003 (Hillary)
GA $379,550 Obama
Total $7,303,618 of $13,149,033 in all US.
The 2nd set of ten states represent $2,827,132
The 3rd set of ten states represent $1,716,042
The 4th set of ten states represent $861,851 (includes DC)
The 5th set of eleven states represents $440,390
You’ll note tiny Washington DC has a GDP bigger than 16 states! And look at the drop off in economic power. The inequality of power in this country is truly staggering.
BTW I love very much Oliver’s commentary.
Thanks to Mark Penn, ah’m proud to be an Okie from significant Muskogee. The thought that Penn could possibly play an important role in a Clinton White House solidifies my support for Obama.