Mark Penn: States won by Obama not significant...

[Mass]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Political Genius Walking Among Us

A quote from Mark Penn that should go over extremely well: "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.

What raises serious question for me is somebody who thinks that 22 states + the country capital are not significant! :banghead:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Penn is a load. If Hillary wants to salvage this thing, maybe she should

ditch his sorry fat ass.

[tekisui]

2. She should have done that a lot earlier. Maybe on Feb. 5th.

[beachmom]

8. Did Bush ditch Rove? Nope. Hillary will never ditch Penn. nt

[roguevalley]

44. he needs to shut up. People have long memories.

RV, who lives in an 'insignificant' state: Alaska

[bluestateguy]

3. Penn: Only large, blue states count

That's a great way to run a campaign if you are only trying to get 150 electoral votes.

[RiverStone]

40. And Obama has proven he can win where Dems....

Traditionally have not.

That seems for more compelling then proving he can win the obvious blue states.

IMO, if there was no early voting, Obama would have had this thing locked up a long time ago.

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. gee, and Camp Hillary wonders why nobody outside it's narrow little base likes it

maybe because from the top down they're not very likeable.

[ProSense]

5. Mark Penn is an arrogant jerk

Mark Penn's arrogance

[Botany]

6. not significant states

AL


AK


CO


CT


DE


DC


GA


ID


IL


IA


KS


LA


ME


MD


MN

MO


NE


NM


NC


ND



SC


SD


UT


VIRGIN ISLANDS


VA


WA



WI

[beachmom]

7. As somebody said yesterday, how do you think that makes Hillary voters feel,

who, you know, actually live in those states, and voted for her? Pond scum, I suppose.

[ClintonTyree]

9. Maybe you should stop banging your head.

it IS a legitimate question. The states he's "won" are mostly low population (and even lower Democratic population) states. Yes, he's "won" 22 states, but the combined population of those states is low, and the number of Democratic voters in those states is even lower. I doubt he could carry the popular vote in those states in a Presidential election. thus gaining their electoral votes.

[Mass]

10. Well, he got as many popular votes as she did, and he got some significant states.

in the sense those are swing states. Which state did Hillary Clinton win convincingly that can be considered as potential swing states?

Also, a nominee that is popular in these so-called red states can help win races down the ticket and increase the lead in the house and in local state houses. This is how you build a party.

[Apollo11]

14. I think Florida counts as a potential swing state

Hillary won Florida without even actively campaigning there! B-)

[AlertLurker]

11. Thanks for the sanity check.

Twenty-two states, all over the country, red state, blue state, etc. is SIGNIFICANT, however.

Eight for eight. Also significant.

To WIN, however, he's going to have to take EVERY REMAINING STATE by over an 80-20 margin, and THEN get more than 2/3 of the superdelegate vote.

Check the numbers, check the FACTS, ignore the hype.

It COULD happen, though.

[janetblond]

13. DNC about to "give" Hillary Michigan & Florida

Dem Delegate Fight Pits Sharpton Vs. NAACP
February 13, 2008 9:24 AM

Interesting development in the Democratic delegate fight -- one that pits civil rights leader against civil rights leader.

As you know, the DNC stripped the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties of its delegates as punishment for moving up their primaries to earlier in the process than the national party wanted them to.

With no candidate campaigning having taken place in those states, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, cruised to early victories in Michigan on January 15 -- where hers was the only name on the ballot -- and in Florida on January 29, and is now claiming those delegates. Needless to say, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, disputes this.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/dem-delegate-fi.html

Can someone explain to me WHY the Dems are arguing about this NOW?

[Mass]

16. Can you post the numbers correspondant to your brilliant analysis.

He is ahead in pledged delegates and total delegates at this point, and this even if she has a solid advantage in superdelegates.

Check the facts. They are your friend.

[janetblond]

27. I didn't write the article ...

so, you'll have to check with the author ...
or check the numbers yourself.
As far as I know, the FACTS only .. Clinton "won" the majority votes in Michigan AND Florida.
At least according to Google.
:>)

[Mass]

30. I was not talking to you. I know Hillary won the 2 contests that were not authorized by the DNC.

I was answering to somebody else, but thanks anyway.

[madrchsod]

36. who did she win against in michigan?

[CreekDog]

46. She beat nobody in Michigan

So I guess she's more popular than nobody. :shrug:

[AlertLurker]

31. You are absolutely correct. FACTS are my friends.

I am NOT a mathematician, but here goes:

He's currently got 1120 delegates, with Hillary at 991.

If he needs a supermajority of 66%, however, with the remaining states, there are only 1078 delegates up for grabs. If he gets 80% of those, he gets 862 to Clinton's 216.

1120+862=1982 delegates.

as a percentage of the total (without Super Delegates) 3587, it gives him only 54%.

The S-Ds are currently 242 to 141 in favour of Clinton, with 413 unpledged. If he gets 80% of those unpledged, he has 330 to add to the 1982 to equal 2312.

As a percentage of the total, he would then have only 53% of the entire 4322 delegate count (including SuperDelegates). If he gets every single one of the 796 S-Ds, he STILL only would have 64%.

So, in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EVENT of Obama getting 80% of ALL remaining delegates, Obama LOSES. In the even more EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EVENT of Obama getting 80% of ALL remaining delegates and 100% of all Super Delegates, Obama LOSES, too.

Do your own math, next time.

[Mass]

32. I am not genius, but he is ahead, which means he only needs 50 % of the remaining delegates to win.

1120 delegates + 539 = 1659.

He alsready has 141 superdelegates: 1659+ 141 = 1800. (in fact CNN has different numbers, but I will use yours).

So, he need to get 362 superdelegates out of the 413 remainings (and that is with 50 % of the remaining pledged delegates). If he has a majority of pledge delegates, no doubt it will happen. (and that is with your numbers).

[AlertLurker]

37. You are correct again. You are not a genius.

Neither am I, however. (I just put that in the title of this post just to give you a nice sense of outrage when checking your replies - heeheehee - sorry...)

There's really no way to know definitively HOW the S-Ds will vote in the case of a simple majority, but I believe that the "fix" could already be in for Clinton. I'm an incredibly cynical pragmatist (caveat). A supermajority will be necessary. I do not know that EITHER candidate is capable of providing one, however - hence my fear.

I firmly believe that Obama CAN win, but ONLY if he can post spectacular numbers on March 4.

50% + 1 is NOT going to do it (nor should it) for Obama. If he cannot win by a large margin (like by around 80%), then we will ALL just have to wait and see how the Super Delegates vote.

With Michigan and Florida in question, the waters have been muddied enough, already. I'm not optimistic regarding his chances.

[CreekDog]

47. Post your math for Hillary to win so folks can compare

hers looks even more difficult by your logic.

[AlertLurker]

50. Not "my logic." Just "logic," period.

You are essentially correct, however. If we apply the same formulae to Hillary, she comes out slightly worse than Obama.

In the interest of "fairness", here it is:


Hillary 991 + 862 (80% of remaining delegates) = 1853

1853 / 3587 (total delegates)= 52%

242+ 330 (80% of undeclared superdelegates) = 572

(1853 + 572) / 4322 (total delegates, including S-Ds) = 56%

If she gets 100% of ALL SDs,

(1853 + 796) / 4322 = 61%


What a strange, strange (arcane) process this seems to be. With MI and FLA both FUBARed, this just gets weirder and weirder.

I know I have posted this in the past, but Jeez, can't we just flip a coin?

[CreekDog]

45. combined population of states Obama won is 89 million

Is that low to you?

[SoxFan]

55. The Dukakis Factor

A ham sandwich could carry most of the "important states" for the Democrats. Dukakis, who ran the most inept general election campaign of the 20th century, carried Illinois, New York, Mass, New Jersey, for god's sake.

Obama has shown an ability to win in places without an entrenched party machine. He fared well in rural Nevada and Iowa, nboth swing states that could be absolutely critical this fall.

[Mass]

56. He was beaten by Mondale and McGovern.

Mondale did not even carry MA and NY.

Dukakis won a few more states than you quoted, but your logic is correct. In addition, Obama can get people elected down the ticket in red states, while Hillary will make them run away, which is probably why governors and senators from those red states endorse him.

[sfam]

12. While Hillary hasn't fired this guy yet I'll never know...

He's worked really hard to bring out her absolute worst instincts while working equally as hard to hide her best character traits. Why she still has him on staff I'll never know. He really shoulda been fired after Iowa, if not months before.

[Apollo11]

15. C'mon Obama fans! Meet the Mark Penn challenge!

What would you say are the most significant States that Obama has won, outside of Illinois?

Minnesota? :eyes:

[rox63]

22. Ther are several swing states on that list

Those states could give the Dems a significant advantage in November. The include CO, CT, IA, ME, LA, MN, MO, VA, WA and WI.

[Apollo11]

28. Why is Wisconsin on your list?

Did Obama win Wisconsin already? :eyes:

[rox63]

38. I was working from the list posted by Botany in #6 n/t

[Apollo11]

39. Sorry, I thought you were answering my post #15

My mistake ....

[mmonk]

17. Hear that voters?

[BenDavid]

18. "If Hillary wins the states she has won and Obama wins the states

he has won, do the math and tell me who is the more viable candidate.
Hillary - 205 Electoral votes (FL, NH, AR, NV, MI, NY, NJ, TN MA, OK, CA, AZ)
Obama - 110 Electoral votes (IA, MO, GA, SC, ID, NM, AL, IL, AK, KS, UT, DE, ND, MN)"
-- Larry Johnson,

The whore press and talk radio and the cable Nazis and the Obamaniax don't care.
Obama is their man and they don't want to hear about things not adding up.

and the dems once again will walk away from another losing presidential election by betting on the "pony".

[Hawaii Hiker]

20. In a general election, Obama would EASILY win

CA, NY, NJ, MA...There is no chance that those states will turn red...

[stahbrett]

24. Obama is the more viable candidate

He'll win states Clinton would win (the solid blue states) in the general election, plus have a much better chance to win the battleground "purple" states.

[Arugula Latte]

51. I agree. He'll flip the purples blue. ... And Hillary would have a hard time doing that.

[theboss]

49. Do you honestly think Massachusets will go for McCain?

Really?

I mean....really?!?!?!?!

[jefferson_dem]

19. Fuck off, scumbag Penn.

I hate you.

[Dawgs]

21. Okay, let's say Hillary wins. Is that the kind of quote we want to be giving McCain?

:eyes:

[City Lights]

23. Is Penn planning to win in the GE with only "significant" states?

How's he plan on doing that? :shrug:

HRC has shown extremely poor judgement this primary season.

[Vinca]

25. A good part of Obama's success is that he's running a truly

national campaign. Penn might think all the "little" states are insignificant, but they appear to be giving his candidate a run for her money.

[Tweed]

26. No significant states and yet you are STILL losing

Man that's GOTTA hurt!

[Apollo11]

29. It would be reasonable to conclude that Hillary is not amused

[BumRushDaShow]

33. So what is the (artificial) "cut-off" for a state to count?

Edit - thank you for whoever gave me a heart! :hi:

State populations (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population):

Where does Penn draw the line for what "counts" as "significant"? If Georgia doesn't "count" then New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Tennesee, Nevada, Arizona, or Arkansas can't possibly "count" either. If Massachusetts "counts", then by this twisted logic, Washington and Virginia must count even more... except when Penn says they do. :eyes:

California 36,553,215
Texas 23,904,380
New York 19,297,729
Florida 18,251,243
Illinois 12,852,548
Pennsylvania 12,432,792
Ohio 11,466,917
Michigan 10,071,822
Georgia 9,544,750
North Carolina 9,061,032
New Jersey 8,685,920
Virginia 7,712,091
Washington 6,468,424
Massachusetts 6,449,755
Indiana 6,345,289
Arizona 6,338,755
Tennessee 6,156,719
Missouri 5,878,415
Maryland 5,618,344
Wisconsin 5,601,640
Minnesota 5,197,621
Colorado 4,861,515
Alabama 4,627,851
South Carolina 4,407,709
Louisiana 4,293,204
Kentucky 4,241,474
Puerto Rico 3,941,459
Oregon 3,747,455
Oklahoma 3,617,316
Connecticut 3,502,309
Iowa 2,988,046
Mississippi 2,918,785
Arkansas 2,834,797
Kansas 2,775,997
Utah 2,645,330
Nevada 2,565,382
New Mexico 1,969,915
West Virginia 1,812,035
Nebraska 1,774,571
Idaho 1,499,402
Maine 1,317,207
New Hampshire 1,315,828
Hawaii 1,283,388
Rhode Island 1,057,832
Montana 957,861
Delaware 864,764
South Dakota 796,214
Alaska 683,478
North Dakota 639,715
Vermont 621,254
District of Columbia 588,292
Wyoming 522,830
Guam 173,456
US Virgin Islands 108,448
Northern Mariana Islands 84,546
American Samoa 57,291

[AlertLurker]

53. "Population" is NOT a significant factor. ELECTORAL VOTES are.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. landmass/states don't vote people do.NYCity alone is = to the total combined Pop. of 12 Obama states

[Apollo11]

41. Good point!

Well made! B-)

[theboss]

48. New York City doesn't count

Everyone there is crazy.

(See how easy this is).

[skipos]

35. Only the Dukakis states matter! nt

[slick8790]

52. Eventually it'll come down to "Only Mondale states matter!" n/t

[Scriptor Ignotus]

42. Mark Penn is like a cross between a dumb Karl Rove

and an incompetent Bob Shrum.

Hillary would do well to get rid of this toad, but it's probably too late now.

[rudy23]

43. Questioning the significance of Louisiana after Katrina and Rita----no wonder this guy's

running such a horrible campaign.

What a slap in the face. On top of Hillary's obliviousness to our problems down here.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

57. all the "chocolate" survivors" Katrina were strategically dispersed...your asinine comment is note

rendering NO a non Democratic contender

[TheDonkey]

54. WOW, this is why Clinton will lose the GE. With doucebags like this as her closest advisor