Comments on: What’s The Significance Of A Lamont Win For The Netroots?

By: Tano

Tano — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:19:28 +0000

I find it to be so bizarre how so many people speak of the "netroots" as if this were some strange, bizarre new factor in politics that one must poke and probe and speculate about, as if it were some unknown new creature that washed up on the beach. The "netroots" is simply a electronic version of good ol' political activism. OF course the netroots will deserve great credit if Lamont wins - they have been the loudest, most passionate, most exicted and activist part of his campaign. That type of a faction has always driven campaigns, even those of the 18th century. The fact that it is done electronically rather than in the park in front of the courthouse, makes no real difference.

Another thing that is a real head scratch - how so many people are so out of touch with the mainstream of American thought. One would think that the political junkie class - those who read every poll, follow not only the news but reams of political analysis from the experts and the amateurs, that these people would be experts at surfing on the twisting changing currents of political thought. But they seem rather to be static dinosaurs who glom onto a picture of political reality, then hold on for dear life, even if (or especially if) the landscape starts shifting again.

I refer especially to this notion that a Lamont victory would somehow represent a leap off the lefty cliff for the Democrats. Hello people. Do you not realize that Bush-thinking is now firmly rejected by a large majority of the American people? That an equally large majority of Americans (to say nothing of NewEnglanders) views the war as a mistake, the administration as guilty of authoritarian overreach, and have greater confidence in Democratic ideas than Republican ideas on EVERY issue - even the WOT? So by what bizzare calculation can one conclude that voting for Lamont, who is dead center in the middle of the American mainstream, is a risk for a party, when the alternative is someone who stands up for policies that the American people are in the final stages of firmly rejecting?

By: lily

lily — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 03:37:01 +0000

I think it was Matt Stoller on MYDD who gave the best explanation of the limited power of blogs. he called it the virus method. Basically his theory is that blogs expand word-of-mouth, letting people who don't have the money for media buys contact a lot of other people. So, he said, blogs have power in a stealthy way as in Tester's win in Montana, or the early days of Busby's campaign in California. However, once the media notices a race, and the big money starts pouring in, the blogs are over matched.
This makes sense to me and it certainly explains a lot abut the Lamont/ Lieberman race. Blogs helped to make Lamont's campaign be more effective than it would have been without them, but are not competitive against the huge amounts of money Leiberman's masters are able to throw into the campaign. If the election was in another two weeks, I think a Lieberman win would be likely.
Right now, who knows?

By: dom

dom — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:16:45 +0000

I think this post is quite right. I lived in CT for a long time - and I hope Lamont wins - but the idea in much of the blogosphere that (a) his potential win is entirely the making of the liberal blogs or (b) that it has deeply significant and broad meaning for the entire Dem party seems a bit much.

Sites like DailyKos are certainly due some credit if Lamont wins, but in this case they've tapped into existing sentiment. CT is a very blue state. Lieberman is a Democrat who is to the right of the national party. I think the Lamont "insurgency" signifies that many CT Democrats no longer feel Lieberman represents their views - sometimes it's really just that simple.

By: Len

Len — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:55:24 +0000

James, I think Gore's selection of Lieberman six years ago was a huge mistake. It was done to appease some people that it ended up not appeasing at all. Lieberman did not help Gore in that campaign one iota. Many Democrats don't look at this from the perspective that we're tossing Joe. We think he's tossed us. If you're not going to represent the people who elected you, what good are you? We'll see tomorrow what the Democrats of Connecticut think. Lamont has already said he'll support the winner of the primary. I hope Lieberman turns out to be man enough to do the same.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:39:51 +0000

Len: I think very few "right wing bloggers" are "fighting for Lieberman." We're mostly interested in this from both the standpoint of bloggers influencing a party primary in a way none thought possible and from the perspective that it's simply insane to toss aside a guy who was the VP nominee six years ago. Of course, the irony that the Republican punditocracy did essentially the same thing eighteen years ago to drive Lowell Weicker out and put Joe Lieberman is in at least mildly ironic for those of us who've been around that long.

By: Len

Len — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:24:51 +0000

Greg forgot to mention that a Lamont victory tomorrow will also be viewed as a defeat for the right wing bloggers. They've been fighting very, very hard for Lieberman. So hard, in fact, that if I didn't know better I would think old Joe is a Republican.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:51:23 +0000

Any celebration of the netroots prior to the general election would be premature. If they succeed in knocking Lieberman off in the primaries, but Lieberman stays on as an independent to win the general election, then there impact will at most be limited to influencing the democratic party to commit party suicide in 2008. Pushing an unacceptable to the general voting population candidate through the democratic primary is not a sign of strength, just an indication of a pair of hands pushing forward the stick as they try to get control of the air plane.

If a real shocker happens and the republicans manage to win because the democratic vote is split between the two L's (least likely scenario, but one you can't dismiss), then they will be in the cross hairs of every democrat (especially if the democrats pull out a miracle of winning five other seats, lose none of their own and lose Lieberman's seat in the scenario I described).

Even if Lamont wins, I suspect they will not be as happy with Lamont as they are now as he looks to get his 2.5 million back by attracting the usual suspect money into his campaign. Most candidates 'loan' their campaign money so that if they win, other donors can contribute and let them call the loans back (with interest?).

We are also talking about an extremely blue state. If the netroots could come in here and make a serious run at knocking Kay out of the Texas race, then I would say that they are having a big impact. Of course the chances of that are even less than for a democrat to win a state wide election here in Texas.

By: walter66

walter66 — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:51:09 +0000

seems like a lot of interest on the right about the Lieberman Lamont thing.....why is that?

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Joementum: Liebs narrows Lamont’s lead on eve of primary

Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:47:14 +0000

[...] Update: Greg Tinti looks on the bright side: If Lamont wins tomorrow, there will be much self-congratulation among liberal bloggers. And, to some degree anyway, it will be warranted. But even if one thinks that Lamont owes everything to the netroots, all his win will demonstrate is that liberal bloggers can help you win a Democratic primary in one of the bluest states in the country. The question will then remain as to whether the netroots can help a candidate win a general election or possibly help the candidate lose. And if Lieberman loses tomorrow, we might see the answer to that question play out. [...]