Thursday, June 14, 2007
|
|
Is the Netroots Stalling Out?
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
10:26 PM
|
|
The Democratic race has gotten a whole lot less interesting in the last few days. Obama has stalled, and the wave of publicity that kept Edwards in the game after a disappointing start has receded. Hillary is looking a lot more like the prohibitive frontrunner. At the same time, the Republican race is more dynamic than ever, with four candidates with legitimate (and roughly equal) shots of getting the nomination.
Jerome Armstrong gives voice to the nutroots' frustration. He correctly perceives Barack Obama as an image candidate who talks the talk but won't really engage the "movement." Edwards, putatively the neroots frontrunner and riding on the wings of Joe Trippi, godfather to the online left, is stuck in the teens. This is a teachable moment, and a significant one at that. Netroots power is at a high ebb. They are so much bigger than they were in 2003 when they propelled Dean to the top of the polls. And where is their main candidate? Stuck a distant third in the polls, in Web traffic, and in online fundraising, getting about the support one would expect from a golden boy from the last Presidential ticket. If the netroots is all it's cracked up to be, shouldn't Edwards be far ahead in the online metrics and be more competitive in the polls? Instead, Obama is ahead on those metrics, and he's the one who HASN'T engaged the movement.
The netroots footprint on this primary is limited in scope and well defined. Lo and behold, they aren't the largest constituency in the Democratic Party. They aren't even the largest constituency online. See, Barack Obama has mobilized people, even if he hasn't mobilized the netroots. He's brought in students, African Americans, and apparently, young females. These are groups that are relatively apolitical. That's why when you loosen the likely voter screen just a little, Obama does a lot better. But for all that they celebrate bringing new people into the process, the fact remains that Obama's voters are not the netroots. Demographically, the netroots are older (45 is the median), whiter, and more academic. They are fairly conventional liberals and "supervoters" -- turning up in every general and most primaries. Obama's voters are not. Not only is Obama not talking to the netroots; like Hillary, he has made a calculation that he does not need the netroots.
The core reason for Jerome's alienation is that the netroots are losing a battle for relevance to a bunch of Obama-supporting, Facebook-addled college kids. When the second quarter closes, it will probably be announced that Obama has raised at least $15 million online, three times what Dean did at this point last cycle, and about twice Edwards' total. Obama has done it with some netroots support, but the not inconsiderable difference between him and Edwards is due to a cult of personality that matters far more than anyone's support on the blogs.
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. Paradoxically, I wonder if this won't be a better year for the rightroots after all, and for the same reason that 2003 was good for the netroots. People don't much like the candidates and are generally pissed off. With the candidates so evenly bunched, won't the small edge that the rightroots can provide matter more? The netroots may be larger in absolute terms, but their task -- toppling Hillary -- is many, many, many times larger. Jerome's exasperation shows they may not be up to it.
|
|
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3279653&page=1 Hugh and Dean will blame this story on MSM fear of Mitt Romney's ability to destroy any of the democratic candidates. Or an underhanded attack by McCain. They never explain while Mitt Romney polls so poorly in general head to heads, but hey, why worry.
It is not like Hugh has ever been wrong on anything. |
|
Thanks for the insight.
If they end up with Hillary, it is really quite the comedy.
This is someone who voted for the Iraq War.
Then repeatedy lied about that very same vote, while never apologizing for it.
The Clinton history is laughable as well, for the Clinton Administration actually made it their policy to 'lie' about the Genocide in Rwanda.
The Clintons seem to represent everything the 'Liberal Progressive' arena doesn't like.
Maybe Clinton peddling of Pardons to the 'rich' is just too darn appealing to the Democrat Partisan.
Something suggests, the front runner will not quite remain at the top...
Unless the 'machine' in the background, has been payed off in grand fashion.
Even with the vivid corruption, Hillary Clinton's persona is simply far too shrill, even for the Democrat Faithful.
Not certain if they can go through another 'i don't like our candidate, but' Presidential campaign effort.
Kerry was hard enough to get excited about, for even the most die-hard Demo...
And Hillary wants to take things away from Americans.
Yikes indeed. |
|
The "rightroots" have been completely irrelevant, not just during this Presidential campaign, but for their entire existence to date. They raise no money, attract no votes, and hold no offline events- they just spit out lies and petitions every so often, which are then ignored. (And that's before pointing out that they've attached themselves to a party with an explicitly top-down modus operandi.)
And, just by the by, there is no "netroots" candidate. There is no candidate with majority suppport from them, as evidenced by MyDD's straw polls, contrary to your claim that Edwards is "their man." But they've still raised millions for all Democratic candidates, even no-hopers like Kucinich and Gravel.
Kos and the other "netroots" will still have more impact each day than this blog, or all the other "conservative" blogs, will during the entire cycle. |
|
To me this is interesting analysis. It is very important if the nutroots lose power to other forces. Obama has the Daly Chicago machine behind him. He also has the MSM press. It it were only Edwards and Hillary, Edwards would be the anti Hillary but with Obama in it, Edwards is old news.
Further, Obama is generating a lot of interest and getting some new people into the process which is important. I personally am not impressed with Obama so far. However, he is raising amazing amounts of money and much of it from small donors. I do not think he will get the nomination. However, Hillary is duller than faded paint. Obama is at least a fresh face.
The most important point is that this is the year the right roots take over the party from the rich elite class of Reps who have run it for decades. That is very important. The immigration battle is driving that. Romney and Thompson's campaigns are driving it also as they use the net. Even Rudy's campaign is driving it.
The Rep party has to break (at least selectively) with Bush or they cannot win in 2008. We have to have a new brand with a new positioning to win in 2008.
The Bush brand is not repairable with the immigration battle. He deserves to go below 20 % approval and that gives you a very good understanding of how many Republicans actually agree with what he has done to the Republican party. It is time to let Bush know it is not his party any more. He has run it into the ground. |
|
Patrick is so far inside he cannot see the forest for the trees. Here's my prediction: IA, NH, and SC will prove to mean next to nothing this year. Americans will see their own voting day within reach and decide to take ownership of the nomination process back from the pundits and the corporate media and the beltway crowd. In January and February, the country will be riveted on Presidential politics, and people won't countenance being told their candidate "doesn't have a chance" or hearing that Hillary is "the prohibitive favorite." They'll determine that stuff where it should be determined: at the ballot.
A plurality of support may not do it. Even if Hillary wins with 35% or so, that will not be enough to convince Democrats that she's the winning horse. Democrats want to win next year, most of all. After Republican misleadership,it is almost a sacred duty--to restore our country's power and prestige abroad, and to bring equity and competence to government here at home. Look for Gore/Obama, my friends, and tremble at the prospect.
On the Republican side, widespread dissatisfaction at the lack of depth in the field. Ron Paul will emerge, and maybe one of the cultural conservatives. Romney will be seen as a weasel. McCain as doddering. Rudy as anti-life and a fraud. FDT as a Hollywood phony--kinda like Cheney pretending he has gravitas.
The media and the pundits and beltway types will swoon over the Republican, ans when not swooning, be cowed and intimidated by their operatives. They will ridicule and nitpick the Democrats. But in the solemn silence of the voting booth, where all the noise and stupidity and flimflam cannot intrude, Americans, that race of tough customers, will decide in their heart of hearts that the time has come to put an end to Republican governance. And they will ignore those who say it cannot be done. It should be done. It must be done. And it will be done.
|
|
First to Patrick: Four Republican candidates with a legitimate shot?!! Who? Thompson, Guiliani, Romney and who else? Huckabee, maybe? Certainly you can not possibly include that clueless amnesty fossil, McCain, now can you?
Second point to Ron Paul trolls and Kos trolls: Kindly give it a rest. No one takes you seriously. Ron Paul trolls especially. You guys need to get a life. |
|
about to legalize 12-20 Million felons (SS Fraud, conspiracy to violate US Border laws, Income Tax Evasion, Interstate Flight To Avoid Prosecution, and other crimes)???
Out President has lost his mind. Or maybe he's getting the same advice his father got when he agreed to make a deal with the only non-hero son of Ambassador Kennedy.
"Read my lips. S.1348 is not Amnesty"
Yeah. And I'm the Duchess of York.
Americans are warm-hearted, generous, and understanding; but when someone comes up to you and demands money, the first reaction is to teach them some manners. Especially if they broke your back fence and crapped on your wife's prize roses and ate all of the zucchini you were planning to raffle off at the church bazaar...
We don't like thieves, sneaks, liars, cheats, or people who take cuts in line without so much as a thank-you.
My family immigrated legally over the last two hundred years or so. Some of my wife's family is still standing in line. Bush, Reid, Kennedy, and McCain think allowing uneducated felons (who require massive amounts of government aid) to receive legal status is more important than experienced engineers who will pay taxes.
Sometimes I wish Bush had been impeached.
Not for war crimes. Just for incompetence. Brown at FEMA, Miers for SCOTUS, Dubai Ports. Now it's Amnesty...
May God have mercy on us... |
|
A post about the nutroots and the first comment is that Romney is a fool. Great discourse. The guy who says the rightroots are nothing and refers to them as "conservative" - why the quotes again? Geez. My swim coach always used to say "it's tough being a legend." With Mr. Ruffini blogging on the regular, Mr. Barnett and the namesake Mr. Hewitt continuing what they do, this blog has become a much more important read: hence more trolling.
Anyways, back to the Topic: Patrick great analysis of the situation. Furthermore the internet has been substantially more "figured out" since 2004 race, which means the barrier to entry of running an effective web campaign is much, much lower. Which means.... you don't need to pray at the nutroots alter to be effective on the Web.
This in turn means the right roots should become more powerful as pure news and commentary providers which shape the general public's understanding of the race and candidates. The right roots never wanted to be kingmakers, so not being able to doesn't undermine their mission, the nutroots did, and they risk becoming irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
We need some way to circumvent the oligarchy and get Conservatives into WH and Congress!! |
|
Even a blind hog finds an acorn sometimes, and Liberal Patriot stumbled upon one with Gore. Gore is the only one who can upset Hillary, and Gore/Obama would be a formidable ticket.
Patrick nails it here, though. The netroots want so badly to matter, so it must hurt not to. The primary is the only place they can possibly matter, since they will line up behind whichever D wins the nomination anyway. The voters each party needs to appeal to in the general (independents and the apolitical types who bother to vote) can be swayed if dissatisfied, but personality plays at least as large a role in who they choose. The D's are pathetic if they can't win in '08 given W's and the R "leadership's" troubles with Iraq and split with the base over spending and immigration.
As much as I disliked Hillary in the past, I would rather she win over Obama or Edwards if a D wins this thing. I just don't see her flipping enough states to beat Fred or Rudy. |
|
I see that someone has already beaten me to this, but unlike the previous poster, I *agree* that McCain is one of the four candidates with an equally real shot at grabbing the nomination.
Hugh and Dean, however, will probably be calling you into their office momentarily.
As I said in the comments to your earlier post that dared to say something not outright negative about McCain, it's been a pleasure reading your comments here at hughhewitt.com. We'll miss you, Patrick. Best of luck in your next venture, where openness to the possibility of a President McCain, and a desire to see the best candidate who can lead the War on Terror actually win the nomination, isn't seen a betrayal of True Conservatism. |
|
In Nov 2006, the number of folks involved in the effort to win back the Congress from the Greedy Old Patriots increased dramatically in the 30 days before the election. In fact, progressive voters often commented how great it was to be contacted by like-minded activists. There is no doubt in my mind that this well-organized effort using coordinated internet-and-phone with volunteers who could be quickly deployed to the races where most needed was largely responsible for succesfully getting out the voters to return the Congress to mainstream America.
This was a great dress rehearsal for the 2008 election. If you had seen it from the inside, you would have no doubt as to the outcome of the
coming race. In fact, you guys are wasting your time worrying who the God's Own Party nominee will be. Any Democrat will beat any Republican
because Republicans are out of touch with the majority of the public. You guys should just save your money for 2016. If you return to the principles of freedom and democracy instead of repression, cronyism and corporate welfare, you might have a chance then. |
|
patrick a couple points to make on your prediction and analysis. first, the netroots does not have the monolithic goals you suggest. even within the community, there are many differences! secondly, your assumption that the power of the netroot is waning is most curious. point in fact it is expanding as evidenced by the wonderful victory of 2006 ... people like dkos, jerome and others did a great job of presenting the different candidates and much discussion went on to determine whom to support; additionally, the netroots was a key player in the democratic efforts of GOTV.
i will predict, the influence of the netroots will continue to grow during the next couple campaign cycles. if for no other reason, the democratic party is much more vibrant, electric and alive ... the stunning sweep in 06 will feed the machine. |
|
|
|