Maybe “weakness” isn’t the right word.
But many (most?) of the blogs on both left and right have belittled HRC and McCain.
DKos polls have always had HRC at around 10%. Now that it’s a 2 person race — she’s STILL there.
The Democratic party as a whole is in the range of 50-40 for HRC and Obama, respectively.
But to the extent that Kos is representative of “netroots” — obviously not the case, but I believe it’s the single most popular site — the online Dems are 76 to 11 against her….way out of touch with the whole party.
Similarly, on Pajamas Media, McCain has ranged from many weeks at 1% to a current high of 18%. The Republican party as a whole has him at around 48%.
Jeff Cohen wondered about this back in September.
Patrick Ruffini did same in June.
For people like Kos and Jerome to be big, the space they’re operating in must be claustrophobic. But this race features larger than life personalities in Hillary and Obama, and the netroots kingmakers just can’t keep up. The smallness of the 2003-04 race, with its seven dwarves, none of whom could crack 15%, is what made that year such a fertile environment for the netroots.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, it’s not just the blogs, but talk radio is also proving unable to sway the party away from a centrist.
What do you make of this?
Did Tip ONeil once say “All blogitics is local?”
joeltpatterson says
And we have some limited success in politics. We helped to get Lieberman out of the Democratic Party, if not the Senate. And for narrow winners like Tester and Webb, the netroots were necessary.
<
p>unions and churches are another social network, and they’ve had more success in politics (though they’ve been around longer).
<
p>Some day the netroots might really be decisive in a wide number of races, obviously not this year.
<
p>What I’m curious about is the social networks that high level pols like Hillary and McCain have. How does that get built up? Anybody ever read a book on it? Bill Clinton’s “My Life” mentions so many different people he’s met over the years that it becomes sort of obvious how he built himself a plurality of voters, but the social connections are not laid out in an obvious organized way.
<
p>I bet John Walsh knows a lot about this, but he’s probably too busy to write a post on it.
wahoowa says
Joel,
<
p>One thing about Lieberman and using one of Charley’s points below. The netroots were incredibly important to Lamont’s success in the primary, but I think too little was made of how unpopular Lieberman was amongst party insiders, especially on the local/town committee level, and how much that mattered as well. One interesting aspect of the Lamont campaign was that a number of town chairs actually endorsed Lamont over Lieberman in ’06. Being from CT originally, I know there were many in my town who were the epitomy of insiders who really did not like Lieberman. The reason was largely that Lieberman was never around for the town committees and a sense amongst local Dems that he though he was too good for them as was busy on the national stage.
<
p>So in ’88, you saw Joe all the time at fairs, picnics, fundraisers…all the nuts and bolts of local politics. After he beat Weiker, you never saw or heard from him again. Chris Dodd, John Larson, Dick Blumenthal. They could be counted on to come to a picnic fundraiser or some local event. But not Joe.
<
p>I guess my very tangential argument is that, at least with Lamont, it’s hard to say that the netroots alone gave him that win. Did they help? Of course. Could he have one without the netroots? Maybe, maybe not (he did have a lot of his own cash so he wasn’t so reliant on the netroots for fundraising).
<
p>Maybe your Tester and Webb examples are the answer to the question. The netroots might just be a really small place that can move a small number of people to either give large amounts of money or might make that little difference that puts someone over that otherwise wouldn’t make it.
charley-on-the-mta says
that whenever you look for one cause, one influential person, one pressure group, one website, or even one movement as the reason for a candidate’s success or failure — you’re gonna be wrong. (nb the “BMG Kiss of Death”)
<
p>It stands to reason that whatever power the netroots have (or the religious right, or whatever) will be proportionally more pronounced in smaller races, particularly Congressional seats in special elections. But even then, the support of blogs isn’t decisive, and can’t overcome regional party loyalties or the inherent qualities of the candidates. The “netroots” might take credit for, say, Jim Webb’s victory in VA if they like. But the fact is that people in VA had to vote for the guy.
<
p>The limits of influence are even more apparent at the scale of a presidential race, where there are so many other currents involved: Most notably TV/cable/print news, but also the web of alliances with journalists/commentators, other politicians, wealthy donors/”bundlers”, regional/ethnic/class affinities, and special interests.
<
p>Anyway, it’s easy to point to one purported node of power, demonstrate that it doesn’t always get its way, and conclude that it’s not a node of power at all. In reality you haven’t demonstrated anything at all, since you can’t know what would have happened in an alternate reality where that node never existed.
<
p>The upshot of all this? People make up their own minds, and woe betide the talk show host/pundit/blogger who forgets that.
hellofitchburg says
If it ends up being a Clinton / McCain race, I suspect that many in the GOP (even netroots diehards) will swallow their disdain for McCain in order to deny the Clintons the presidency. I’m not so sure that the same is true of Democrats. I’m a huge Obama supporter, but that support won’t automatically transfer to Clinton. I can’t see myself
notvoting, but I also can’t see myself voting for either of them.ryepower12 says
Honestly, if anything, most of Hillary’s domestic plans are more liberal than Obama’s. And they’ve both voted to fund the war – their records are almost identical in that department. While I my support moved from Edwards to Hillary after he dropped out, if Obama goes on to win the nomination – as much as there are lots of things that bother me about him (such as his oft right-wing rhetoric), I’d vote for him in a heart beat over McCain or Romney.
hellofitchburg says
Policy != persona. Let’s be serious – if we supported candidates based on policy concerns alone, Dennis would probably be the Democratic frontrunner.
<
p>I lived in the rural south for 7/8ths of the Clinton administration, and I’m confident that Hillary’s nomination would have a galvanizing effect on the republican party. Combine that with the Clintons’ affinity for bare knuckle politics (as evidenced by this primary season), and the next 4-8 years become another political bloodbath. Frankly, I’m sick of it. We need leadership, not oneupsmanship.
<
p>I’m not saying that I wouldn’t (reluctantly) vote for Clinton in the general election, but I can say with confidence that I will not be canvassing or fundraising or otherwise working my ass off to get her elected. I find it hard to imagine her election (like McCain’s or Romney’s) contributing much to the spiritual or emotional health of this country.
ryepower12 says
Do you really think any Democrat that goes in there isn’t going to be facing a blood bath? I’d rather someone who’s actually been a target of those partisan wars, not a neophyte to them. And, yes, I’d rather someone who knows how to hit back and isn’t afraid to go after the Republicans (and someone who certainly won’t go out of their way to praise them).
<
p>The Republicans will go after Hillary or Obama hard. We’re going to have a real tough time winning Southern states with Hillary or Obama. Furthermore, they’ve both been absolutely horrible to each other – Obama’s been just as bad as the Clinton campaign (where Bill’s done most of the heavy lifting). Michelle Obama’s been just as nasty as bill, too.
<
p>I really wish Obama was everything you think he’ll be. Who knows, maybe he’ll win and I’ll be proven wrong. However, the odds of that happening are almost zero. I hate to break it to you, but if he is elected, be prepared to be disappointed.
joeltpatterson says
No bull.
mcrd says
ryepower12 says
I think the route of the problem is this: the lefty netroots is only one institution for which progressives, or those who progressives support, can gain an edge. Sometimes, it’s proven enough to start a bigger ground swell of support, sometimes it doesn’t. I will say this: the times when the netroots have been successful has been when they were unified and had enough time to get the word out, like they were for Lieberman, like they were for Tester and Webb.
<
p>This election cycle, when there were 3 candidates – and no online consensus – we had a tougher time building that ground swell and having an impact. Because of that, the netroots, during this election cycle, was more of a news outlet than the base of a movement that could will change.
<
p>What progressives need if they want to become more successful is more progressive institutions. The netroots has been great – and we’re making decent waves on the radio – but we need something to counter Fox Noise. Olberman’s been doing a fine job, but like is the case with Air America and other liberal stations, there’s a long way to go. Furthermore, we need to find our own, new institutions to counteract social conservatives before we’ll be able to will the populace toward progressive candidates, or at least candidates who progressive support.
historian says
The obvious answer to the question is yes.
sabutai says
Hillary has never gotten any real traction at the top-line blogosphere (though now MyDD seems to be adopting the refugees from the autocracy of Obama-think at DailyKos), yet she’s been the favorite all along. Well, perhaps outside the two days after Iowa.
<
p>It’s not a failure of the netroots, just an acknowledgment that the netroots represent a portion of the wider left that is not always representative. However, I reserve the right to change my mind after Tuesday.
bolson says
of the parties are not activists. They’re just average partisans, loyal to the party and the party’s establishment. The party really is good enough, what’s all the fuss about? Let’s just get our regular guy selected and out there past the primary to get on with beating up their guy.
<
p>Or at least, that’s my best guess.
yellow-dog says
I did recently, however, go there to read a post on Hillary staying on the Michigan ballot or some such thing. The diarist was bonkers suggesting there was a Clintonian plot afoot to recapture the DNC from the Deaniacs. In spite of a million daily hits, DailyKos dwarves in comparison to other to the mainstream media that sets the narrative and tone. What it and other bloggers provide is context for the news and sometimes a check on the excesses of the MSM and the Democratic Party itself.
<
p>As Peter Daou writes,
<
p>Mark
lasthorseman says
Let’s get ahead of the curve and start planning the civil disobedience avenues right now rather than argue about which Manchurian will be selected. The only difference here is which business interests will be enhanced at the expense of which other business interests.
<
p>I would surmise netroots got disgusted after 2006 and just simply left politics and took up survivalist interests instead.
<
p>I could say McCain is the Lieberman of Republicans or Hillary is the Rove of Democrats. My guys, Dennis and Ron Paul are out and I’ll cut my arm off before I vote for another mainstream type status quo Manchurian.