Plenty of diaries on Penn's latest theme and how ill-advised it is. But let's look at that a little closer. Penn has by and large dismissed states Obama has won as not significant, or not nearly as significant as the ones HRC has won (the big BIG ones).
Setting aside that Obama would win the same states HRC won that are likely going Dem regardless in the fall, let's look at how ill-advised that message of Penn's is.
From 2004, Kerry won:
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, DC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnestoa, California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Pennsylvania.
And, of course it wasn't enough.
So here's the problem I have with Penn's hubris. Of the states that went blue in 2004, I think the ones that are safe Dem no matter what are:
Mass, New Jersey, Delaware, California, Minnesota, DC, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island (?), Vermont (?), Oregon (?), Pennsylvania (?).
But there are states that Kerry got that I don't think are necessarily safe regardless, like Connecticut, Maine, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. States that Obama has won (or is favored to win) in this primary (or came close in, like in NH). States that most certainly "matter", even in HRC's world where only some states matter, because she will need those plus a few elusive others. To send the message to voters in those particular states that they don't matter is insane. If HRC comes out of this with the nomination (setting aside the fallout in those states if she gets it through Supers and thwarts pledged delegate public will), McCain and the repubs can perhaps use Penn's statement against HRC's campaign as an initial wedge to put those in play. They will if they are paying attention.
And that is aside from the fact that important swing states like Missouri, Colorado, and Iowa, have had their votes dismissed by Penn. Or that states which MIGHT be put into play like North Carolina (apparently Obama's) will have been dismissed by Penn. Georgia perhaps. Virginia perhaps. Maybe even Montana?
So, really, I am beyond confused. I don't understand why the HRC campaign hasn't said the right things about the voters in those states that she has lost as the campaign has gone by. The standard but necessary "I respect the voters' decision and will work hard if I win this primary campaign to win their votes this fall" is just fine. The simple message that all votes and states matter is desperately needed. Why not do that?
The slash and burn of Penn's approach is befuddling to me. I simply don't get it. And I especially don't get it from an electoral math perspective. It pre-supposes too much, and dismisses voters in states that the HRC campaign will need. Not to mention it is a sanction of a failed strategy, one that has cost this party two elections, and cost this party Congress until the 50 state strategy was employed successfully in 2006.
Bizarre.