Previously, I linked to this post by the Mystery Pollster when I talked about turnout issues. I have also linked to the Instapundit, when he spoke about the netroots as a legitimate new power center in the Democratic party. I would like to revisit both in the context of this little piece of information from MP.
Call me naive, but I always equated political power in two ways, the ability to lead and sway public opinion on matters of public policy and in the raw way of raising money and getting people to the polls. In both respects, I find the liberal netroots lacking. This is not to say they can't improve, but right now, they are not there in the same way as say MoveOn.org or the New Democrats.
In teh case of Ned Lamont, the netroots did what I think they are best at--drawing attention to a candidate, who under most circumstances, would not have garnered a headline in the local newspapers. By bringing publicity to Lamont, the netroots legitimized his campaign and pointed otherwise disenchanted voters to an alternative.
The netroots also did something else they are quite effective in doing. Keeping one issue front and center in their echo chamber and, subsequently, Lamont's campaign and the national press. by continually harping on Lieberman's position on the war in Iraq and the global war on terror, the netroots kept the pressure on Lieberman.
But in the light of my two criteria for political power, influence and ground tactics, I am not convinced of their power. True, the netroots did raise money for Lamont, but Lamont had his own fortune to thank for his television and radio ads. Until the netroots can point me to the ability to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a non-self-funded congressional or senatorial candidate, I will withhold judgement on their power in this regard. True, they raised money for Howard Dean, but a presidential race is an animal of a completely different type.
Turning out the voters is also, to me a significant point of power in a political sense. Within the political world there are four groups that do this better than anyone: the unions, the Christian right, the AARP and the NRA. I am not suggesting that the netroots has to be able to mobilize voters like these well established groups (although that would certainly be impressive), but there needs to be more. Voter turnout in Connecticut was almost twice the normal level, but that can't be attributed to the netroots. If even half of the massive increase in turnout is the result of the netroots, Lamont should have won by a much greater margin than less than four points.
Finally, for me the power of a political group is the ability to sway the middle ground voter, the cohort in any population that remains undecided until near the end. (this is where MP's chart comes into play). A truly politically potent force can move the outcome of an election through message, means, cohesion, and the ability to persuade. The four groups I mentioned above, when properly activated, can sway the outcome of an election and have demonstrably done so.
But the netroots loses gas at the crucial end of an election. If the election were held in June, Lamont would have won in a landslide since most voters who supported Lamont decided to do so in June or early July. But those who supported Lieberman did so in the final three days. Why would this be so? Because the undecided 10 percent in any population, rarely decides on whom to vote for until the last three days. If the netroots were the political powerhouse some claim it to be, then more people in the last three days should have swung to Lamont, but they didn't. A week out from the election, the two men were splitting the undecideds. Lieberman picked up the pace considerably in teh last three days.
One could argue that the netroots had done their job early, swaying voters enough early on that they didn't need a push in the final three days. But that is not the hallmark of a proper political force. One can take nothing for granted in politics, and the netroots needed to shift its focus from publicity to pushing people to the polls. From all the evidence, I don't see how that was done in Connecticut.
The netroots is good a publicity and it is good at keeping their eye on a single issue. But this is not enough to make them a potent political force--at least not in terms of raw political power. Are they on the rise? Absolutely, no doubt about it. Whether that is good or bad for the Democratic party remains to be seen as will their development. But they are not a powerful force, no matter how much crowing the Kos Kids do.
No comments:
Post a Comment