Off The Grid #5: Wither The Netroots

I'm off the grid for the rest of the week. Twice a day, I'm posing questions to which I do not know the answer. I will read through your submissions and post the best answers when I return.

Friday AM question: When will the conservative rightroots get its act together? Did the Democratic netroots influence the presidential race this cycle at all?

This blog has been nominated for a Golden Dot in the category of "Best Political Blog." I humbly seek your vote, being the candidate of, well, typos and just darn good political dope. Please vote here.

Comments

Republicans, in my experience, are not early adopters in the field of computer technology. Witness Henry K.'s "I don't know what a blog is" moment at Powerline's function honoring NPod. So it will be a generational/slow transition to the online world. Even the WSJ does not offer free content online yet, and Fauxnews' website is atrocious from a design standpoint (though CNN/MSNBC are not much better in truth).

Conservative netroots have a long way to go and the political leanings of youth are not helping them - all those Republican/conservative kids are getting MBAs or Real Estate Management or Communications degrees, not Journalism or Computer Science (I know incredibly few true nerds who are Republicans).

----

I believe the Dem netroots are still a little too far away from the centers/levers of power in the Democratic party to influence the Presidential race. Many of the biggest blogs (dkos for example) pulled for John Edwards and he didn't make it (nice guy though). They have started influencing congressional races however. Witness Tester or Donna Edwards (another Dkos darling). And the politicians are starting to come and court them on a regular basis. So it's not here yet, but the "dream" of a people-powered Democratic party is coming. One thing that has done it is probably McCain-Feingold - witness Hillary's money troubles vis a vis Obama's massive contributor list (helps that he seems to have spent his money more wisely). Politicians are starting to realize that there is a lot of money out there amongst the plebes (like me, I make ~50k and have given ~600 to Obama thus far), if only they can reach them. And blogs are a good way to do it - I read blogs during the day at work and at night, far more than I watch television. So they can get to me through the "Internets", also at great length and depth than a TV soundbite affords them. And like all things with the Internet, it will only be moreso in five more years - I'm not even a heavy Facebook or Myspace user! (missed that boat by about a year, my younger sisters are as ridiculous in my eyes as I probably am to my parents).

Posted by N M | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM

(1) perhaps as soon as 2009, depending on how the Republicans behave if they're in opposition. But perhaps it may take a long time ... what happens if the party becomes less anti-immigrant? Less anti-choice? Less all-war-all-the-time? How will the rightroots (and other activist institutions like Rush Limbaugh, CPAC, etc.) respond?

(2) Yes. Without the existence of the Democratic netroots to funnel a lot of eyeballs towards candidates, I don't think Obama could have built the small donor army he built. That alone has an impact; Obama has held zero fundraisers since South Carolina, while Clinton is spending precious time raising money. In addition, John Edwards leveraged parts of the netroots to promote his universal health care agenda, without which you could imagine Clinton and Obama both coming up with incrementalist proposals. Obviously they're not "kingmakers" in any sense, but they're now significant players.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 15, 2008 10:21 AM

No, I think the netroots by themselves are powerless. And that includes the Democratic netroots.

They are trying to take credit for Edwards and they probably did help in giving her some money and attention so groups like Emily's List, SEIU, and the League of Conservation Voters could come in and do the heavy lifting. In the end, though, I think her win had to do with the fact that she did a better job of claiming the mantle of Barack Obama. You had a bunch of new voters coming in for Obama and when they got to the polling station, they saw flyers touting an Obama-Edwards ticket. That got her many more votes than the netroots.

Posted by Mike | February 15, 2008 10:31 AM

This will be the last presidential election where the marketing mix is dominated by TV.
By 2012 all successful candidates will communicate effectively across channels.

In 2010, the Dems may well still be ahead.

Posted by Kim | February 15, 2008 10:38 AM

in regards to the second part of your question, the netroots aren't influencing the course of the democratic primary in a "they're controlling the conversation about and interest in obama" kinda way. however the system that they built up to gain some traction in 2004 and big wins in 2006, are what coming to fruition with the obama campaign.

to me, obama's campaign is the extension of what the dean campaign hinted at in 2004.

Posted by gcp | February 15, 2008 11:12 AM

The influence of the netroots is felt in what they've previously made comfortable for people. Moveon and the Deaniacs created a huge comfort zone and expansion for people's on-line donating and involvement.
They haven't done much that we can point at this cycle except move-on's endorsement immediately preceded the feb 5th explosion of fundraising for obama: maybe they helped trigger that.

Again by changing a huge piece of the game for years ago and even further back with Moveon, they've heavily influenced obama's campaign.
And my girl Hillary definately missed that opportunity by having the least stickiest web sight in the world.

Posted by Michael C. | February 15, 2008 11:37 AM

Did the Democratic netroots influence the presidential race this cycle at all?

They didn't try. They're more interested in Congressional elections.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | February 15, 2008 12:30 PM

The rightroots will never be anything other than an echo chamber. Conservatives believe in hierarchy not equality in politics just like they do in economics, spousal relations, and everything else. The rightroots will always echo the VRCW and never lead it.

Posted by Ron | February 15, 2008 12:42 PM

I think the netroots have had some first-order impact and significantly more second-order impact.

The netroots is learning how to pick their spots and makes the most impact in the primaries. The netroots played a role in Tester winning his primary and Edwards winning hers. Ned Lamont won his primary, Lieberman just ran as an independent.

The netroots can provide money and publicity to candidates, but they also provide validation. The netroots is patient with candidates who run good races and has come to the conclusion that to oust an incumbent often takes two tries, the first to build up name recognition and the second to discuss issues. The netroots gives candidates who lose the first time out assurances that if they try again they will get money early in the process when they really need it.

Another aspect of the netroots is the people they influence. My friends and family don't read the blogs, but they know I do and value my opinion accordingly. I've changed their minds on some candidates because of the amount of information I have. I've also gotten my Mom to donate to some candidates, like Edwards, even though she lives 1000 miles away.

Posted by Kineslaw | February 15, 2008 12:59 PM

N M:
Shouldn't they know how to use a computer if they get an MBA? Another commenter has it right. The right is an echo chamber. Look at a great majority of the blogs on the right. They don't have a comments section. Why is that? Also, the Republicans are the party of Wall Street. It is beneath them to grovel to the little people for money. The Republicans rely on order and hierarchy. From the top down. It will take them a long time to catch up. Just look at their lame success trying to copy ActBlue.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 15, 2008 1:14 PM

Part of it depends on how you define 'netroots'. Ultimately, I think the netroots did play a major role on the Dem side, most importantly, they forced the media to be ever-so-slightly more honest in its coverage of the Democratic candidates. They obviously didn't play a king-maker role, but that's because the 2008 netroots has expanded profoundly beyond its circa 2003 boundaries.

A stronger brand of netroots activism is emerging on the GOP side, but it reflects the main source of GOP offline activism: religious conservatives and libertarian anti-taxers. The corps of online activists developed by Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were quite remarkable and definitely proved that the GOP has the potential to build a robust participatory online political culture on par with the Dems. They just need to nurture it, and there-in, re: Patrick Ruffini, lies the problem.

Posted by dry_fish | February 15, 2008 1:17 PM

While N M is correct that the onlne support didn't push John Edwards to the nomination, it did provide him a soap box to push his agenda. It is remarkable how much Clinton and Obama had to respond to Edwards on policy.

On the GOPer side, the party still has that top down orgainization feel to it, and I don't see the netroots breaking through on that side anytime soon.

Posted by Tiparillo | February 15, 2008 1:32 PM

Three Texas polls out today, with very difficult results ranging from Clinton +16 to Obama +6.

Posted by Dan | February 15, 2008 1:44 PM

The nutroots lost one House primary, despite the best efforts of FDL et al.

As for the right side of things, I've posted several suggestions at FreeRepublic asking people to do things like leave comments at liberal/libertarian sites. They've gotten dozens of replies at FR, but few were willing to even click over to the targeted site and even just leave a comment. I've also suggested going to campaign appearances and asking the questions the MSM (and Ambinder) are afraid to ask, but none have done so AFAIK. It seems to be more a matter of temperment: those on the right side aren't as activist as those on the left. (It probably also has to do with FR purging those who were of a more activist bent for personality conflicts and the like.)

Posted by TLB | February 15, 2008 2:43 PM

I believe the majority of the netroots were active for Ron Paul early on. Many of the technical discussion sites (Slashdot, reddit, etc.) I frequented were riddled with Ron Paul posts, while only a few for Clinton and Obama. However, as Paul's chances dimmed and Obama's momentum increased, there has been a shift of support.

We geek/nerds certainly have our own list of issues (i.e. net neutrality, patent & copyright reform, open standards) and are finding that Obama is very close in many respects and this is increasing his support among us.

Obama's campaign utilized the internet to raise campaign contributions and did it extremely well. However in my opinion, if his campaign had better publicized his stances on technical issues early on, he might have been even more well known before Iowa and New Hampshire.

One can say it didn't help Ron Paul much but comparing the amount of free publicity Paul received on the web vs. his vote count in the primaries, I don't believe voters ignored him because they hadn't heard about him or what he stood for.

Posted by Michael Fisher | February 15, 2008 2:47 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

My offerings on this two part question:

"When will the conservative rightroots get its act together?"

Granted, it's an open-ended question. My answer would be, that it won't be during this cycle. That does not mean that the Democratic nominee is guaranteed victory. But it does mean that McCain is not likely to benefit from a Dean/Obama kind of financing and buzz. It would drastically improve his chances of victory if he could benefit from something like that, given that the single biggest obstacle he faces right now is that the Democratic opponent (regardless of how long HRC and Obama battle) is going to be far better funded than McCain is, if current trends continue.

Nor is this problem limited to McCain. Any of these five candidates (Mitt, McCain, Rudy, Huck or Fred) would have been badly outgunned by Democrats - given that the Republican campaign who inspired (by a huge margin) the largest online presence was Ron Paul.

"Did the Democratic netroots influence the presidential race this cycle at all?"

I would submit that those who followed the Democratic side meticulously, will provide the best answers to that question. My answer, off-the-cuff, is "yes," given that the Obama campaign's stupendous success at raising money online has to be at least partially related to the netroots that blossomed in the 2004 cycle for Democrats.

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | February 15, 2008 4:42 PM

I think the Democratic netroots definitely had a hand in the stand the Democratic candidates took against Fox News.

Posted by rikyrah | February 15, 2008 11:52 PM