Sympathy For The Pollster

I know that Mark Penn is a rich target these days, and deservedly so - but still, you have to feel at least somewhat bad for a guy who writes an entire book arguing that "the era of big trends is over,” only to run smack into, well, something of a macro-trend in the most important campaign of his life. This scene, in particular, inspired a twinge of pity:

On the evening of Feb. 11, Mr. Penn—the architect of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign strategy from the very beginning—took a break from the rigors of the campaign to stump for himself at the Strand Bookstore in downtown Manhattan. Surrounded by white copies of his book Microtrends (already-purchased copies of which were not permitted on the premises), Mr. Penn stood at a lectern between a dark window and a small crowd of readers ...

As Tina Brown, the former New Yorker editor who is working on a Hillary Clinton book, took notes to his left, Mr. Penn emphasized his distaste for the microtrend he calls “impressionable elites”—supposed leaders of society who, as he sees it, show more interest in a candidate’s personality than policies.

Mr. Obama enjoys the support of this chattering class, Mr. Penn believes, while Mrs. Clinton speaks more to working-class people who really care about policy because policy really impacts their lives. Worse still, Mr. Penn sees the “impressionable elites” growing in number, so much so that he has considered turning “that trend into an entire book someday, because it is becoming more and more evident.”

At least one attendee was skeptical. “Obama strikes me as a macrotrend, not a microtrend,” said Kevin Costa, a 48-year-old government analyst and undecided Democrat, during the question-and-answer session.

I mean, okay, you don't have to feel all that bad.

Comments

Assuming Clinton doesn't win, thereby assuring Penn of a well-paid and highly influential position in the executive branch, I'm sure he'll get a gigantic advance to write another book explaining how the rise of Obama fits into his previous book's conceptual framework. And he'll continue to rake in gigantic sums of money as a political consultant. And he'll continue to paint himself, self-servingly, as a guy who backed the losing candidate because he just can't bear to watch elitists disregard the needs of working men and women.

Losing isn't fun for anybody, and very few people deserve no sympathy at all. But Penn is rich, successful and influential, and his ego seems to be surviving the Rise of Obama just fine. In fact, the excerpt above demonstrates that he's already developed a self-protective narrative in which irresponsible elitists are preventing him from making America a better place.

I think this guy will get along just fine without our pity.

Posted by Sympathy for the Devil | February 15, 2008 11:30 AM

#1. Mark Penn writing an entire book arguing that "the era of big trends is over” strikes me as the same kind of intellectual hubris as Francis Fukuyama declaring the end of history

#2.As far as “Obama strikes me as a macrotrend, not a microtrend,” This seems to be a projection of liberals rather than a accurate analysis.

Some on the right are already having a good time talking about the Obama messiah complex being generated by the left media. It strikes me that after eight years of Bush, an angry left was inevitably going to have greater enthusiasm in its primaries and therefore greater voter turn out.

Combine this with an un-scrutinized & platitudinous Obama moment whose bubble will burst soon enough. What you end up with is a momentary excitement that views Mosses/Obama as the "one" ready to lead his people out of subjugation and into the promised land.

I on the other hand "put not my trust in princesses” of either party.

Posted by Fitz | February 15, 2008 12:05 PM

Fitz, it all depends on whether or not Obama gets elected. When Bill Clinton took office, after all, all of a sudden a lot of Democrats discovered they were New Democrats, DLC-style Third Wavers after all. The middle of a primary campaign is probably not the best time to be able to judge whether or not a trend is a macrotrend.

Posted by Reality Man | February 15, 2008 12:33 PM

Isn't the whole concept of "microtrends" spectacularly ill-suited for helping elect someone President? Identifying small trends might help you sell special brands of cars or market indy movies, but becoming President is being in the 50%+1 of the Country business. That’s about as “macro” as you can get.

Posted by The Craig | February 15, 2008 12:43 PM

Some on the right are already having a good time talking about the Obama messiah complex being generated by the left media. It strikes me that after eight years of Bush, an angry left was inevitably going to have greater enthusiasm in its primaries and therefore greater voter turn out.

Combine this with an un-scrutinized & platitudinous Obama moment whose bubble will burst soon enough. What you end up with is a momentary excitement that views Mosses/Obama as the "one" ready to lead his people out of subjugation and into the promised land.

What you just described sounds like a macrotrend to me.

Posted by WillieStyle | February 15, 2008 1:54 PM

Call me stupid, but has anyone brought up the fact that Clinton didn't have a choice when it came to competing in these contests?
Let's remember that she was BROKE and had to lend herself money just a week or so ago. I'm not naive enough to think that she didn't know her financial condition days before that - Clinton's whole campaign is based on the controlling and/or spinning the media message.
Please let's not be gullible enough to actually think strategy came into this. Am I missing something here?

Posted by Rontrel | February 15, 2008 3:02 PM

There are some fairly low-cost things she could have done, though, Rontrel, like forgoing the Hallmark Channel infomercial in favor of some rallies, or in pulling hard to utilize grassroots support and volunteers in states where she couldn't afford to have a big operation.

“Impressionable elites”—supposed leaders of society who, as he sees it, show more interest in a candidate’s personality than policies.
As opposed to 'unimpressionable elites' like Mark Penn, who apparently can't figure out his own weaknesses.

Posted by Persia | February 15, 2008 3:40 PM

First of all . . . Oh snap, Kevin Costa. Well played, sir.

Secondly:

Mr. Penn emphasized his distaste for the microtrend he calls “impressionable elites”—supposed leaders of society who, as he sees it, show more interest in a candidate’s personality than policies.

I am overjoyed that Mark Penn disagrees with me on this.

A President's personality, intellect, management style, and personnel choices are way more important than whatever set of policy proposals happened to be popular when he/she was campaigning. A presidency is not like a policy playlist we can download onto the national ipod. Instead, presidents have to respond to unforeseen events, out-strategize the domestic opposition, negotiate with foreign leaders, and persevere with character during the inevitable periods of adversity. In all those areas, what sort of person a president is matters far more than what sort of promises he/she makes.

Can anyone seriously contend that it would have been wiser for voters to evaluate compassionate conservatism as it was presented rather than trying to determine what sort of man George W. Bush happens to be?

Posted by southpaw | February 15, 2008 8:43 PM

It's easy to blame Mark Penn for just about every and anything. But the truth is, there's no satisfactory end to any argument about which fool in the pride of fools who make up the Democratic consultancy is the bigger fool.

Clinton -- the first, the only, woman making a serious bid for the presidency to win a primary in ANY state to select delegates to a national convention of either party -- has always had history against her and has never had the support of many of the most important, and most cowardly, members of the Democratic party establishment.

Obama's establishment backers, and his Communications Director, Robert Gibbs, are the same people who financed and produced the Osama Bin Laden ad campaign, using Rovian talking points and fear mongering, against Howard Dean in Iowa. They represent some of the most cautious, temporizing, change and conflict averse elements in the party.

These are Democrats who are terrified of Republican bullying, terrified of looking "weak," and embarrassed about being labeled as part of "the mommy party." In 2004 they were afraid of Howard Dean because they feared his straight-forward criticism of the war would make Democrats look weak, especially with moderate, middle class male voters (whose votes they hunger after but never win). In 2008, Obama has been put forward by the same people -- but this time around it is their fear of having a woman at the top of the ticket, rather than their fear of a truth-telling opponent of the war, that made them open their wallets, trot out their endorsements and turn on the Rovian attacks.

Unfortunately, like with Kerry, Democrats, voting once again on a combination of fear of real (this time, unprecedent cultural) change and fear of Republican bullies, with a new soupcon of hopeful hysteria, won't see how weak their candidate is until the general election.

Kerry won the nomination based on two factors -- one that didn't apply and one that was easily turned against him in the general election. The first was fear (of Dean and war criticism), the second was the magical protection from criticism (and appeal to independent men) his war record was suppose to provide.

The Obama campaign, with Gibbs in charge, is a repeat of the same dynamic that won Kerry the nomination; fear (this time, fear of conflict like that experienced during Bill Clinton's administration and fear of a female at the top of the ticket) and the magical protection from criticism Obama's skin color and Democrat bashing "unity" message (meant to appeal to independent men) is suppose to provide.

Once Clinton is dispatched and we get to the general election it's going to be much more apparent how much Obama is like Kerry -- with a better speaking manner and darker skin, but no real rationale, or convincing argument, for his presidency (beyond personal ambition).

Posted by mary | February 16, 2008 11:13 AM

"The Obama campaign, with Gibbs in charge, is a repeat of the same dynamic that won Kerry the nomination; fear (this time, fear of conflict like that experienced during Bill Clinton's administration and fear of a female at the top of the ticket) and the magical protection from criticism Obama's skin color and Democrat bashing "unity" message (meant to appeal to independent men) is suppose to provide.

Once Clinton is dispatched and we get to the general election it's going to be much more apparent how much Obama is like Kerry -- with a better speaking manner and darker skin, but no real rationale, or convincing argument, for his presidency (beyond personal ambition).

Posted by mary | February 16, 2008 11:13 AM"

This is a great piece of projection. Never mind that some kind of black halo never extended to the likes of Sharpton, Jackson and Mosely-Braun when they ran. Never mind that it was Bill Clinton who played the "black candidate" card while Hillary Clinton repeats Republican talking points on the war, such as trying to emphasize how the president has to be ready to deal with a terrorist attack right away. Never mind that Obama hasn't played the gender card while Clinton has. Hell, before Obama jumped in this race and it was starting to look a bit like a Clinton-Edwards-random white Midwestern guys (with a small possibility of Feingold actually entering) race, I was backing Clinton because I felt we might as well choose the woman. After all, young female voters have been backing Obama and I doubt they are doing so out of any chauvinism. They don't remember Clinton ever standing up for women, but instead attacking women Clinton fooled around with or harassed as lying skanks (some feminist) while buying into the whole "Democrats have to act like Republicans on foreign policy to be taken seriously" line, thus embracing the mommy party-daddy party dichotomy as one of Democratic weakness. You're narrative hinges on Obama having one guy on staff who made a video that few remember back in 2004, meanwhile ignoring how Clinton dismisses Obama's less hawkish ideas like not pre-emptively nuking terrorist camps in Pakistan and talking with foreign leaders in actual negotiations instead of Bush-style "agree with me first"-style negotiations as insufficiently hawkish and thus naive.

You would be surprised how many young female voters want to have a female president and explicitly don't want that female president to be Clinton because they fear that she would damage the chances of future women running for president. After all, Pelosi has actually fought for stuff and had some real successes in DC and is nowhere near as near-universally hated in this country as Clinton. Never mind that Clinton has had no real theme for this campaign and no rationale beyond inevitability and thus has had to steal Obama's ideas (being for change, changing "Yes We Can" to "Yes She Can," etc.). When you're backing the hollow candidacy, enough educated people are well-versed enough in basic psychological ideas (such as how more people probably know what cognitive dissonance, projection, etc. are than knew decades ago), they can smell the particular stink on such arguments from a mile away.

"A President's personality, intellect, management style, and personnel choices are way more important than whatever set of policy proposals happened to be popular when he/she was campaigning. A presidency is not like a policy playlist we can download onto the national ipod. Instead, presidents have to respond to unforeseen events, out-strategize the domestic opposition, negotiate with foreign leaders, and persevere with character during the inevitable periods of adversity. In all those areas, what sort of person a president is matters far more than what sort of promises he/she makes."

Very true. After all, Bush showed all of the marks of someone who would not respond well to something like 9/11 even while he was talking about a "humble foreign policy."

Posted by Reality Man | February 16, 2008 2:49 PM

"This is a great piece of projection."

This is actually the exact argument (Obama's race protects him from attack) that several people in my Washington State precinct made for their vote for Obama. An argument that had been made, just the day before, on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

It is also an argument I have seen made by posters at TNR, TPM, and here at The Atlantic.

That's not projection, that's reporting.

Posted by mary | February 16, 2008 3:06 PM

"This is actually the exact argument (Obama's race protects him from attack) that several people in my Washington State precinct made for their vote for Obama. An argument that had been made, just the day before, on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

It is also an argument I have seen made by posters at TNR, TPM, and here at The Atlantic.

That's not projection, that's reporting.

Posted by mary | February 16, 2008 3:06 PM"

Umm, which argument exactly? The not voting for a woman one? Be honest. Who has basically said we need to vote like Republicans to be taken seriously on foreign policy? Who voted for the Iraq War and has had trouble admitting it is wrong? Who has assembled a foreign policy team composed of Middle East hawks like Albright, Holbrooke, Pollack and O'Hanlon?

Posted by Reality Man | February 16, 2008 3:24 PM

"(Obama's race protects him from attack)"

Wait, sorry, I didn't see this in parenthesis at first. Nice job avoiding 90% of the substance of my post to make it look like I was making the projection comment about race and not about how you're trying to spin a fair criticism of Clinton (using fear in foreign policy rhetoric to drive their candidacy) to all of a sudden be about Obama instead of the hawk. Nice bit of intellectual honesty you've got there. Really, why does Obama's race all of a sudden protect him in a way that it hasn't for every other black Democrat who has run for office? The fact that the media hates Clinton and loves Obama shows that Obama is simply more skilled at being a politician due to something called "charisma," which is the "It" factor that separates good politicians from bad ones that everyone outside of their base hates. I doubt enough people outside of your precicnt in Washington were making exactly that argument leading Obama to take every single precicnt. I don't remember Democrats having a hive mentality where we can read everyone's thoughts. Most voters don't read the New Republic (circulation of like 25,000, so less than most primaries) or the Atlantic. Also, since when is the plural of anecdote suddenly data?

Posted by Reality Man | February 16, 2008 3:30 PM

Oh for goodness sake, are you actually claiming that people like Kerry and Daschle, and other prominent Obama backers who were terrified of criticism of the war in 2004, when it was still possible to make significant changes in its course, only object to Clinton because of her Iraq war vote? The same vote they made at the same time? Or that Obama's Wall Street and energy industry supporters are backing him because they are anticipating he will provide some radical change in our foreign policy?

Yes, Obama made one anti-war speech 6 years ago when he had no skin in the game.

If he had ever done anything more than that he wouldn't now be enjoying the support of any of those people or interests mentioned above.

Posted by mary | February 16, 2008 3:41 PM

By the way, Reality Man, I never said I think Obama will be protected from attack because of his race. I think he will be attacked in exactly the same way as Gore and Kerry were attacked; as too liberal, too elitist, too weak, too inauthentic, too "outside the mainstream," not a "real American" or "one of us."

I also said, in my original post, that his moderate supporters expected both his race AND his "unity" message to protect him from criticism. A point echoed recently by Hertzberger in the New Yorker.

It is true that those who have most explicitly claimed his race would protect him from the usual attacks have been Republicans, including Rove and Peggy Noonan, among others. But it is exactly these kind of Republican arguments, from Republicans they fear, that these easily bullied "moderate" Democrats tend to, like Charlie Brown fooled again and again by Lucy's football trick, tend to react to and believe.

Posted by mary | February 16, 2008 4:41 PM

mary, you're not really making any type of argument anymore. If you're making a "he's only important cuz he's black" argument, then you're just disgusting. Besides, as a governor, Dean didn't have to vote on the AUMF, so I guess by your standard his anti-war stance didn't count either. Obama was also discussing his opposition to the Iraq War in 2002 on Charlie Rose. Besides, if Obama has always had his eye on the White House or has for many years like the Clinton's claim, then he was taking a risk by opposing a once-popular war, especially doing so partly on the idea we could probably never really win it. After all, in 2004 McAuliffe, one of the premier members of the Clinton inner circle, and major DLC'ers were talking about how only war supporters would be allowed to have real careers among Washington Democrats.

"Oh for goodness sake, are you actually claiming that people like Kerry and Daschle, and other prominent Obama backers who were terrified of criticism of the war in 2004, when it was still possible to make significant changes in its course, only object to Clinton because of her Iraq war vote?"

Umm no, I didn't make that argument about the likes of Daschle's support for Clinton, so you can't accuse me of making that argument without arguing in bad faith, which you have now done in three subsequent posts. Your style reminds me of people who can't argue over a position the likes of Ted Kennedy takes without bringing up that drowned woman as some sort of trump card. You would also be surprised how many people on Wall Street, especially younger traders, are very liberal on foreign policy and social policy. How are you making an argument for Clinton out of this anyway? He's not the messiah or Che, but nobody is making that argument. You seem to be having an argument with your own internal monologue or something.

Posted by Reality Man | February 16, 2008 4:43 PM

"I also said, in my original post, that his moderate supporters expected both his race AND his "unity" message to protect him from criticism. A point echoed recently by Hertzberger in the New Yorker."

You're so obsessed with an argument made by a handful of intellectuals that the average voter hasn't heard of. It's a bit odd. Chill.

Posted by Reality Man | February 16, 2008 4:47 PM

"By the way, Reality Man, I never said I think Obama will be protected from attack because of his race. I think he will be attacked in exactly the same way as Gore and Kerry were attacked; as too liberal, too elitist, too weak, too inauthentic, too "outside the mainstream," not a "real American" or "one of us.""

Who is the poster girl for someone whose reputation is in tatters outside of her base due to these types of attacks sticking to her? Hillary Clinton. Teflon candidates have attacks bounce off of them. Part of why Obama has done so well in the primary is that he has been able to do this to Clinton. Clinton is more like a paper rat trap where everything that is thrown at her she handles so ineptly that it sticks to her.

Posted by Reality Man | February 16, 2008 4:50 PM

When did I say I was talking about "the average voter?" I am talking specifically about a powerful element of the Democratic establishment. My point is that they are, actually, clueless about the average voter.

Posted by mary | February 16, 2008 5:05 PM

"When did I say I was talking about "the average voter?" I am talking specifically about a powerful element of the Democratic establishment. My point is that they are, actually, clueless about the average voter.

Posted by mary | February 16, 2008 5:05 PM"

Wait, that's your point now? I thought it was that Obama is somehow playing on fears of looking weak on foreign policy (which I guess is why he isn't talking about nuking Pakistan or dissing the idea of conducting diplomacy in good faith, unlike you-know-who) and that he's somehow playing the gender card against the "Jesse Jackson won there too!" candidate. Oh wait, I thought it was that Americans are too racist to vote for the black guy. You really seem to be all over the place. So in a matter of a few posts you've gone from saying there is no reason Obama is running to complaining about a few esoteric intellectuals.

By the way, Axelrod is Obama's closest campaign advisor, not Gibbs, which is why he was the one in the discussion with Trippi and Penn in that discussion about Clinton backers trying to make Obama look like a former drug dealer and where Trippi looked like he was waiting for Penn to rip off his own skin and reveal the lizard underneath.

Posted by Reality Man | February 16, 2008 5:21 PM

Reality Man,

Do you remember the point of this post? About consultants and their mistakes? Go back and read my original post.

Posted by mary | February 16, 2008 5:30 PM

"These are Democrats who are terrified of Republican bullying, terrified of looking "weak," and embarrassed about being labeled as part of "the mommy party."

Hillary Clinton is the epitome of this tendency.

Posted by R.E. Vamp | February 16, 2008 6:29 PM

This is not meant as an ad hominem attack, but I suspect I'm not the only person who thinks Penn is really, really, really gross. Just to clarify: I am referring to his personality, not his appearance (which is gross, admittedly).

So...how do people like that make it so far?

Posted by I do not feel bad for that dude AT ALL! | February 16, 2008 11:37 PM

"Mrs. Clinton speaks more to working-class people who really care about policy because policy really impacts their lives."

If he really said this at a book talk, then shame on him. He should save the professional BS-er shtick for the campaign trail when he's on the clock. He knows very well why those Democratic groups are supporting Hillary: history with the Clintons and retrospective approval of her general record. Not because they know much at all about her policies (they're actually less-informed voters). If they did they'd know that they're not much different from Obama's policies, in terms of how they "affect their lives". It's called retrospective voting, and it has nothing to do with current policy proposals.

He's like Frank Luntz. He actually buys his own BS, it seems, which is a deep irony.

Political consultants must have some value, or I'd guess people at some point would stop paying them. But they really don't understand why certain things work and others don't. Rove was a guy who stumbled upon a few tricks and had the depravity to implement them all. Until they stopped working, with disasterous consequences for the GOP.

"#1. Mark Penn writing an entire book arguing that "the era of big trends is over” strikes me as the same kind of intellectual hubris as Francis Fukuyama declaring the end of history"

Yes, the Fukuyama thesis was fairly far-fetched, and in fact wrong. But Fukuyama is still one of the better political intellectuals around (read his other books), whereas Mark Penn doesn't seem to really understand social scientific arguments very well.

Posted by Colatina | February 17, 2008 1:13 AM