Look, I don't care for Penn.. but I don't like Axelrod either.
The winner always is advised by a "genius" and the loser by a "moron".
There is cause and effect, but not the way people think. Election results are pretty random.
Axelrod is just lucky---this time.
He's certainly as bad an influence on Obama as Penn is on Clinton.
First, just don't hold your breath; Penn will work again as did Shram after a million loses. Donna Brazile, the genius who ran Gore 2000 into the ground, is still working and will in the future.
You cannot appreciate Hillary's accomplishments without fully appreciating the huge media and A-list opposition to her in addition to inept advisors. Basically she ran and runs with very few mistakes, enormous intellect and downright bravery in an exceeding hostile environment. Although I am way to her left, it impossible to miss her superb potential as president.
Posted by koshembos at February 21, 2008 02:08 PMYou're wrong Turkana. In a sane, rational world you would normally be correct in your assestment of Penn's chances of getting more political work if Hillary flames out. However, we are talking about the modern Democratic party, which, according to Jerome and Markos, is in thrall to idiotic, inept consultants. As a partisan Democrat, I am completely frustrated by our D-List political strategists.
In the KY 3rd House District race of 2006, Democrat John Yarmuth was told if he wanted any money from the national Democratic party that he had to hire the idiot consultants "recommended" by the D.C. Establishment. Yarmuth refused, so he got little to no help from the national party. But lo and behold, Yarmuth went on to win against the loathsome Republican Anne Northup.
However, the consultants and money flowed to Democratic candidates in two other congressional districts in KY, and amazingly, THEY BOTH LOST.
Hiring top Establishment certified Democratic political strategists = Darwin Awards for Politicians.
Posted by merlin1963 at February 21, 2008 02:37 PMaxelrod is hideous, but he's winning.
Posted by Turkana at February 21, 2008 03:04 PMI'm wondering if anyone has numbers on what Obama's campaign is spending.
$8 mil is an awful lot of money, but the numbers on what Obama is spending may lend a bit of context.
Posted by Stranger at February 21, 2008 03:17 PMAs long as the Democratic Party is insistent on hiring managers/strategists based on friendship or insider status rather than election results Penn will have no fear of unemployment.
Posted by clio at February 21, 2008 03:26 PMNo consultant can change the overwhelmingly hostile media environment in which Clinton has had to try to communicate. Other than in the debates, when people can see her unfiltered, and in direct events, where people come out out to see and hear her, she has no way to communicate positively with the voting public. It actually is remarkable that she has done as well as she has done. Given how completely the media has been working in his favor, and against her, it is amazing that Obama has had to work so hard and didn't put it away right away.
This really is something everyone should think about seriously -- how, over the last few campaigns, the media has shown not only that it can, but that it is entirely willing to and has no moral or ethical concerns about pulling out all stops to defeat a particular candidate. First Gore, then Dean (who they presented with a t-shirt that said "We have the power" now Clinton. They've gotten better at it with each campaign. There is no "objectivity" to rely on, and they really don't want the choice left up to the voters.
Will Obama continue to be their choice? Only if he continues to dance to their corporate owners tune.
Posted by mary at February 21, 2008 03:43 PM
Turkana
Reading all the blogs and newspapers leaves me with only one conclusion, Hillary has rock solid support among partisan democrats. So where does Obama get his support young people who want someone hip to be the president and buys his youtube charms (hell way way ago one girl in our university told me she would vote for Barack but did not know why except that he was good-looking), independents who really do not like Clintons (but it would be nice to watch which way the sway when their darling McCain gets the Republican nod) and Republicans (many Republicans are switching to Obama in the open primary because they believe in the end he will be easier to beat). The narrative is also playing out well in the media. Chris Matthews suddenly goes all inquisitional on an Obama representative and David Brooks who once wrote about Obama's cross-over appeal is now decrying him as someone without a platform but empty rhetoric.
I have a bet going on with my girlfriend, I think Obama will eventually be the Democratic nominee but come November unless McCain does something horrible we will see a repeat of Reagan v Carter or Nixon v McGovern. I want to be proved wrong but only time will tell.
I've known that the people who've given Obama his primary wins have been independents, AA and crossover Republicans. Excluding AA, the majority of Democrats are voting for Hillary.
Obama is viewed favorably by 75% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, Clinton by 73%.
In states with closed primaries, Hillary has done very well.
Posted by Prabhata at February 21, 2008 07:15 PMAs someone who works in the market research trade, but who doesn't do political campaigns, I feel it's important to note that the paid amounts aren't solely for Penn's personal professional fees but include "pass through" costs. Under such a heading one would have payments to acquire respondents, billings for facility rental to host focus groups, buy airplane tickets, and pay for hotel rooms and food. I would guess that 40-50% of the billed amounts are pass through costs; of the firm's "keep", at least 75% are for employee compensation and fixed costs for office space and software. Maybe Penn made a decent salary off the residual, but his comp at WPP's Burson-Marstellar was probably significantly higher.
As far as what Hillary received for the money, well, her positioning throughout the campaign didn't seem shift at all. If we had the WPP-Y&R brand image numbers to review, it's my hunch that Hillary would have stayed in relatively the same location. Obama, on the other hand, was a completely unkown commodity so his handlers were relatively free to drop him at an optimal location both on the political spectrum and in his brand image. It's interesting to see some attribute association numbers in the WSJ a few days ago where Hillary is about 50% ahead on Obama on "tough" and 30-40% higher on "smart". These characteristics may play against her with some voter segments, but is it a positive aspect of Obama to have such low voter associations on these key attributes of leadership? Across the board, Obama is relatively undefined with no attribute associated higher than 50%. He does come out ahead of Hillary on "energetic".
Posted by DataDriven at February 22, 2008 06:34 AM