That's The Type of Mistake You Don't Want a Manager to Make
From HuffPo:
Mark Penn Reportedly Dumber Than Previously Realized
The quote they chose to point out in the TIME article, which is muy importante:
As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified -- and let Penn know it.
If true, Hillary really hired the wrong guy initially, and should've been rid of him long before early April. Geez. That's a pretty dumb mistake to make to begin with, but combine that with non-adjustment of strategy, that goes from dumb to fatally dumb. Yes, there's still some strength in the idea of focusing on the larger states, if only because any percentage margin of victory there magnifies gains in delegates because of state size. But as the rest of the Feb 5th states, and the rest of February showed, you cannot ignore the smaller states, because relative to the large states, they still show a lot of strength in proportional distribution contests.
EDIT: Random Really Stupid Political Thought: In the whole Michigan/Florida seating delegations debate, I've wondered: why has Hillary been okay giving the "uncommitted" delegates to Obama? I mean, some of those people voted because they supported Edwards. Who says those people would automatically then accept Obama as the next choice? There could be an argument for giving Hillary 73 delegates because her supporters, and tossing out the other 55 delegates, for a net gain to Hillary of 73 rather than 18. Then Hillary would really catch up.
Well, I mean, besides the obvious facts that if they did that, there'd be even more opposition to the whole letting the Michigan delegation sit from the Obama side, and with really good reason. ::shrug:: I would've figured at least SOME Hillary supporter would've been screaming for this.
(Seriously, I still find the whole seating these delegations as voted stupid because of the ex post facto nature as I've said before. But if you're going to call for a stupid move, why not go dirty in spades to actually have a chance?)
EDIT 2: Figures.
Nevertheless, Clinton is urging not only that delegations from those two states be seated, but seated in full (and without Obama receiving any delegates at all from Michigan, where his name was not on the ballot).
Technically, I'm calling BS on that quote, because there's a reason why I called it the stupid move. That means the one person I wouldn't expect to hear that call from would be Clinton herself.
Mark Penn Reportedly Dumber Than Previously Realized
The quote they chose to point out in the TIME article, which is muy importante:
As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified -- and let Penn know it.
If true, Hillary really hired the wrong guy initially, and should've been rid of him long before early April. Geez. That's a pretty dumb mistake to make to begin with, but combine that with non-adjustment of strategy, that goes from dumb to fatally dumb. Yes, there's still some strength in the idea of focusing on the larger states, if only because any percentage margin of victory there magnifies gains in delegates because of state size. But as the rest of the Feb 5th states, and the rest of February showed, you cannot ignore the smaller states, because relative to the large states, they still show a lot of strength in proportional distribution contests.
EDIT: Random Really Stupid Political Thought: In the whole Michigan/Florida seating delegations debate, I've wondered: why has Hillary been okay giving the "uncommitted" delegates to Obama? I mean, some of those people voted because they supported Edwards. Who says those people would automatically then accept Obama as the next choice? There could be an argument for giving Hillary 73 delegates because her supporters, and tossing out the other 55 delegates, for a net gain to Hillary of 73 rather than 18. Then Hillary would really catch up.
Well, I mean, besides the obvious facts that if they did that, there'd be even more opposition to the whole letting the Michigan delegation sit from the Obama side, and with really good reason. ::shrug:: I would've figured at least SOME Hillary supporter would've been screaming for this.
(Seriously, I still find the whole seating these delegations as voted stupid because of the ex post facto nature as I've said before. But if you're going to call for a stupid move, why not go dirty in spades to actually have a chance?)
EDIT 2: Figures.
Nevertheless, Clinton is urging not only that delegations from those two states be seated, but seated in full (and without Obama receiving any delegates at all from Michigan, where his name was not on the ballot).
Technically, I'm calling BS on that quote, because there's a reason why I called it the stupid move. That means the one person I wouldn't expect to hear that call from would be Clinton herself.