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.
