He's Gone!!!

Mark Penn is gone.  Thank god.  I am unwavering in my support for Sen. Clinton, but Mark Penn was the single biggest idiot on that campaign.  In fact, I could have run that campaign better then Penn.  Not much more to say than that, but thank god.  

Hopefully now someone with actual knowledge can take control.  Carville anybody?  Begalla?  Hell, I'd take anyone at this moment over Penn.  Hillary's chance's although still slim, just went up with Penn not there to screw every thing up.  Hillary can finally now be...Hillary.  

The Path to the Presidency in the Eyes of Ickes and Penn (from hillaryclinton.com)

Today, Clinton campaign members Harold Ickes and Mark Penn released a memo concerning last night's victories for Clinton and the race ahead.  To read the full article, you can click here. But here are a few excepts that I think contain some important, key points:

__________________________________________________

-Ohio is the barometer: Hillary was successful in Ohio, the state that for the last quarter century has picked our president. As everyone knows: As Ohio goes, so goes our country. Historically, it’s one of the bellwether states and it decided the last election. And the demographics of the upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky closely mirror those in Ohio. Hillary looks strong in all four states.

-In recent years, every President has won two of the three following states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Hillary has already won two of those and, according to all polls, is leading in the third – Pennsylvania.

-In the primaries, Hillary has demonstrated that she is the best positioned candidate to carry the core battleground states essential to a general election victory -- particularly the large industrial states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and the critical swing contests in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Jersey.

-Several of Hillary's base constituencies (women, Hispanic, labor, elderly and under $75,000) are key to a Democratic victory in November. Senator Obama has not brought these voters out in the same numbers.

-Steward of the economy: Hillary Clinton leads both John McCain and Barack Obama on the economy and healthcare. In the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll (1/22), Hillary leads McCain 52/28 on health care and 43/34 on the economy.

(NOTE: Bold emphasis added by me.)  

Hillary Best To Beat McCain Says Penn

Mark Penn, longtime political analyst and current chief strategist for the Clinton campaign, released a memo today explaining why Sen. Clinton is best to beat John McCain come November.  In the following except, he lists many of the same reasons I have been arguing for months----Sen. Clinton is vetted; Obama is not.  The Republican slime machine would crush him.  With McCain as the GOP nominee, there will be many debates over foreign policy and national security. Sen. Clinton is well educated and experienced in these areas; Obama can not say the same.  If Democrats want to win a foreign policy debate with Sen. McCain, they need to nominate someone who can match his expertise; Clinton is that person.  Here are Penn's words:

"If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, Hillary is the Democrat who can beat him -- because she has the strength and experience a president needs to get America on the right course and to defend it against future threats.  She is the hands-on leader that America needs as we slip into a worsening economic crisis.  Her ability to be both a strong commander-in-chief and steward of the economy are what make her the favorite against Sen. McCain...

Based on recent polls, there is nothing to support Sen. Obama's arguments about his prospective performance against Sen. McCain - both Sen. Obama and Hillary start off within the margin of error against Sen. McCain. Yesterday's Fox poll showed both in a statistical tie with Sen. McCain. And Hillary's negatives are fully factored in, whereas the same cannot be said of Sen. Obama because he is - by his own admission - not as well known.

Sen. Obama's support among independents comes from Democratic-leaning independents, voters who are likely to back the eventual Democratic nominee. He has no overall advantage in the polls against Sen. McCain. But such voters have very little information about Sen. Obama.  And once the Republican machine begins to methodically attack him, he will lose independent support.

So in a head to head against Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama has no advantage with swing voters. The 2004 election was determined by two key groups - women concerned about security and Latinos - and against Sen. McCain those groups could again prove decisive. President Bush won 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004 and Sen. McCain, unlike other Republicans, has been supportive of immigration reform.  These are two groups that enthusiastically support Hillary.

As voters look to the future, they will be looking at who can put the country on the right path and who can defend it against future threats.  While Hillary is seen as strong on defense and has served on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Obama has limited experience on these national security issues that would again be front and center.

So if Sen. McCain is the nominee, Hillary is the one well-positioned to beat him. Already well vetted, she is ready to stand up to Sen. McCain on national security and put together a winning coalition of voters that will take back the White House."

Des Moines Register's Latest Poll Analysis

Mark Penn, chief strategist for the Clinton campaign, has a new post up at hillaryclinton.com where he tackles the latest Des Moines Register poll.  The latest DMR poll shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Clinton 32-25%, and this has sent the Obama campaign and many liberal Obama bloggers into a frenzy.  However, what Obama, his surrogates, and his supporters fail to mention are other polls that show a slightly different trend.  

-An Insider Advantage poll conducted 12/28-29 shows Clinton leading Obama 30%-22%.

-A Zogby poll from 12/27-30 has Clinton with a 4 point lead over Obama

-An American Research Group poll from 12/26-28 has Clinton at 31%, followed by Obama at 24%.

And to top it all off, two of the latest polls, conducted within the same time frame as the DMR's poll, shows Clinton, not Obama, coming out on top:

-A CNN poll shows Clinton in the lead with 33%, compared to 31% for Obama.

-A Reuters/C-Span poll has Clinton winning 30%-26 over Obama.

So why the clear difference in the DMR poll from other recent polls?  Here is Mark Penn's analysis:

"The Des Moines Register poll adopts an unprecedented new turnout model for the caucuses, and its new poll is out of sync with the other polling done in the race.

When you look at Democrats who last time were 80% of the turnout, Hillary wins with that group by 6%, 33 to 27 for Obama and 25 for Edwards. And as David Yepsen points out, had their pollsters used the 2004 turnout model, Hillary would lead by 29 to 27, figures in line with the other polls.

The Des Moines Register Poll this time has 40% independent voters and 5% GOP voters in the poll when past independent participation has been 15% in 2000 and 19% in 2004, and the GOP has generally made up 1% of the vote. So they are depicting an unprecedented departure from historically established turnout patterns in the caucus. Under their model, only 55% of the caucus goers would be Democrats.

So we do not see this poll as accurately reflecting the trends we are seeing in other polls, on our nightly canvasses or in our own polls, and voters should understand this is a very close race, and that their participation on caucus night could make all of the difference."

So, while the DMR poll certainly has to be taken into account, it should not be taken to mean that this race is all but over, with Obama being the victor, as many have exclaimed.    The DMR poll, although historically accurate, has factored in some rather unknown and unprecedented variables.  That's why the poll must be analyzed in context with other historically accurate and recent polling.  

Bottom Line: This race is still extremely close and anyone of the top three Democrats could win the Iowa caucus and hence the nomination.