Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
PENN THE CD. Union-busting aside, Matt snarkily wonders whether "Penn is just such a brilliant pollster that we should all be thrilled to have someone of his stature working for a leading Democrat" and pipe down about his apostasy and clear contempt for progressive goals and coalition members. Matt answers in the negative, and my reporting backs that up. Indeed, I've been rather stunned by how poor Penn's reputation is among other pollsters, acquaintances, and former employees.
As one fairly representative, prominent Democratic pollster complained, "the profiles all say Penn is acknowledged to be brilliant even by his enemies. That's so grossly incorrect. He's known more for being able to make the data fit his preexisting views than bring brilliant. But nobody knows what sort of value Penn adds, because he specializes in giving advice to powerful people and companies. Take Microsoft. If not for Mark Penn, would they really just be another run of the mill software company?"
And then there's Penn's ideology. Pollsters are, in some ways, the court astrologers of contemporary politics, their acres of data lending their subjectivity the appearance of science. And Penn is among the worst of all. Pollster Mark Blumenthal identifies his profession's mission as "bringing reality to the discussion, going out and measuring public opinions, and the political landscape, and bringing the answers back to your candidate. Ideology shouldn't affect that." But it's hard to believe Penn quite follows the mandate given the remarkable consistency the data has in his hands.
Some quick Nexising makes the case: In 1982, Penn wrote that "Democrats are unlikely to regain significant blue-collar support until they abandon their appeal to class resentment and economic fairness." After the 1986 election, he counseled that "virtually every successful Democratic candidate for the Senate made it clear from the start that he opposed wasteful spending on social programs, opposed using tax reform as a way to raise taxes and supported government policies to encourage economic growth and traditional American family values." In 1987, he welcomed the return of Gary Hart to the race because Hart appeals to the "young, upscale, better-educated Democrats who have rejected the party's traditional New Deal liberalism." And then, Penn disappears for awhile, just as Perot and Clinton prove the resilience of populist sentiment in America.
He resurfaces as part of Team Clinton in the mid-90s, and it's instantly back to the same old song. In 1998, Penn concludes that "Democrats benefited from an end to the politics of class warfare." In 2000, it turns out that "Al Gore used an old-style populism that limited his appeal rather than expanded it," despite the fact that Gore's poll numbers rose after he unveiled the "people vs. the powerful" message. In 2002, he tells the DLC that "[w]e have to caution not to turn against class-warfare and the old issues but to move forward with a message about the future." In 2004, we find that "The ability of the Democratic Party to reach the growing segments of the electorate, and particularly married voters with kids at home, is hurt by current perceptions that Democrats stand for big government, want to raise taxes too high, are too liberal, and are beholden to special interest groups." And in 2006, desperate to blunt what looked like a victory for populism and anti-war sentiment, Penn argues that, "Behind all the rhetoric, the reality is that swing is still king. The two or three or 10 voters who are the quietest in focus groups, who never demonstrate and who belong to no political party, will be the ones who determine the political course of America." "Swing," of course, is Penn-speak for centrist.
Indeed, it's remarkable anyone hires Penn at all, given the utter predictability of his advice. For fairly cheap, I'm sure someone could burn a mix CD of pro-corporate platitudes, toss in some grave warnings about the dangers of class warfare, and interested candidates could just throw the disk on random. What is a surprise is that the consistency of Penn's vision, the clarity of his ideology, and the conflicts of his private practice don't give anyone pause about the empirical basis of his counsel. Some suggest that's already assumed to be tarnished, but the media coverage of Penn certainly suggests he adds a bit more value than an utterly predictable centrist push. And let's not even get into his partner....
--Ezra Klein
COMMENTS (12)
"Indeed, my reporting..."
Is that what the kids are calling it now a days? Good gravy.
"But nobody knows what sort of value Penn adds, because he specializes in giving advice to powerful people and companies."
Excellent work klien. No body knows what the hell the guy does. Those moron powerful people and companies just keep hiring him. "nobody knows what sort of value Penn adds" but idiots like Bill Gates keep giving him work. There is no way they are hiring him because he does a good job. It's just not possible. Right klien? Good gravy!
If I was penn I'd think it's about time to contact the fbi. klien's personal jihad against penn is matched only by yglesias' penn madness.
Fortunately for klien and yglesias, not some much for us, they couldn't find their way in to a paper bag so there is no danger of them not being able to get out.
Hey klien, do yourself a favor. Get some professional help.
Posted by: hadenough | May 9, 2007 12:37 AM
Hey Sprezzatura...I mean, hey Hadenough, what's your deal? I mean, aside from the inexplicable fondness for the phrase "good gravy." If you post another comment, might we be lucky enough to receive a "whoopsie daisy"?
Ezra (or, as you might type, Erza) is right about Penn's advice, and backs it up. Your main point appears to be your inability to distinguish between something Ezra said and something he quoted from someone else.
As for me, I'm just waiting for Hillary to hire Chris Lehane. After all, if Penn's going to be her polling choice, then I think that she needs to hire the communications person whose candidates take off right after he leaves.
Posted by: JoshA | May 9, 2007 1:46 AM
Clinton and Perot were populist? I guess Perot was in the anti-immigrant and anti-foreign trade sense. Clinton though, was not liberal and not a populist. He was Mark Penn's ideal.
The fact that we haven't had a liberal President or even a liberal Congress in about 30 years proves Penn's point.
And no, the current Congress is not liberal, as the complete failure to pass a single piece of their agenda shows.
Posted by: Adam Herman | May 9, 2007 8:01 AM
JoshA,
Whew! Woow! That was a smack down. No, really it was. Here's why:
"what's your deal"
"liberals" like klien helped put bush in the white house. Twice. I don't like that. That's my deal.
"inexplicable fondness for the phrase "good gravy."
I don’t like typing in "good gravy." I also don’t like seeing “liberals” act like morons. klien’s incredibly irresponsible moronousity is not qualified to be in print. Based on his current work he is not qualified to stand on a corner with the "End is Near" crayoned on a cardboard sign.
“Ezra (or, as you might type, Erza) is right about Penn's advice, and backs it up. Your main point appears to be your inability to distinguish between something Ezra said and something he quoted from someone else.”
Klien “backs it up” with an anonymous from “prominent Democratic pollster” he copies and pastes. A moronic quote that makes no sense.
Here is klien making his case:
“I've been rather stunned by how poor Penn's reputation is among other pollsters, acquaintances, and former employees.”
And then he posts an anonymous quote from a “prominent Democratic pollster.” Klien uses a moronic anonymous quote to back up his point. A quote that says successful people and corporations keep hiring penn. Even though an anonymous “prominent Democratic pollster” says nobody knows what penn does. These successful people and corps sure don’t sound too smart. Klien uses a krazy quote to back up his case and you can’t understand why that’s fair game. Good gravy!
Klien says nobody knows what the evil penn does but idiots like Bill Gates keep hiring him. Is it possible klien’s anonymous “prominent Democratic pollster” is full of crap? I’d say at this point its more likely klien is making it up.
Nutty work like klien’s helped but bush in the white house. Twice.
Posted by: hadenough | May 9, 2007 8:12 AM
Sorry Hadenough - just because Bill Gates cuts a check for something doesn't mean that there's real value there. I'm a DC pollster who's watched Penn/Schoen for the last 7 years or so, and the hallmark of their polling style is designing bad research to prove either their client's or their own initial predisposition. Penn probably hasn't been surprised by any of his data for years now because he writes all of his polls to spit back the answer he wants to get. That's a useful thing for a corporate pollster because corporate clients never want to hear bad or even new/creative news. That's NOT helpful for a Dem candidate for president, especially when the pollster's idea of "bad news" is that economic populism is a smart, effective, liberal political message.
Posted by: Jeff | May 9, 2007 9:05 AM
Misspelling Mr. Klein's name is a real zinger, hadenough. I only wish I were half as clever.
You utterly fail to join his argument. He asserts that Penn's advice is predictable, seemingly immune to any contrary evidence, and conveniently always comports with the interests of his business clients and his apparent corporatist sympathies. Instead of rebutting the substance of this appraisal, you find that using anonymous sources as sufficient rebuttal.
Indeed, both Perot and Clinton could be characterized as running on a populist platform, albeit with very different emphasis. That election was a decisive rejection of the 12 years of pro-business, conservative, anti-worker rule. When Gore emerged late in the campaign as a full throated advocate for the working men and women in American and standing up to the powerful, his poll numbers took off. So when Mr. Klein suggests that Penn's advice has been wrong, and backs it up with examples of elections that demonstrate that, you resort to ad hominem attacks rather than join the debate.
If I did not know better I would think that you have an interest in this discussion that you are unwilling to openly advocate. Do you believe the Democrats need to pursue a more centrist, pro-business agenda? Do you believe that Mr. Penn is the savior of a party running off the tracks? Let's have that debate. But for some reason you seem unwilling to put that argument on the table. What is your interest in defending Mr. Penn, hadenough?
Posted by: dmh | May 9, 2007 9:47 AM
Penn is the new Schrum. His clients will have to lose 8-9 elections before anyone begins to question his ability.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | May 9, 2007 10:42 AM
dmh,
"You utterly fail to join his argument."
penn is ceo of the worlds 5th largest ad agency. A psosition he got after the worlds 5th largest ad agency bought his polling company. If klien wants to make the case penn is a fraud. klien has to make the case. a quote from an anonymous "Democratic pollster" doesn't do it.
Posted by: hadenough | May 9, 2007 5:52 PM
Hadenough, your celebrity logic is a little frightening. Wouldn't you say that celebrity worship is what put Bush in the White House twice? It's hardly Ezra Klein you need to worry about, dude.
Sight unseen, you just sound kinda astroturfy, is all I'm sayin, y'know?
Posted by: Michael | May 9, 2007 6:19 PM
Trolls like hadenough shoot themselves in the foot because their idiotic comments inevitably attract multiple intelligent smackdowns that further illuminate and support the original (Klein's) post. Congrats hadenough! You've just made it more likely that anyone who reads the Comments will be persuaded that "klien" is right! jackass.
Posted by: Jeff | May 10, 2007 10:33 AM
Lena Timonizes,levelness seaside relabel physically Moser
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 12:52 PM
involving veers!lien!Babka,parceled sensations?founded,
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 10:08 PM