A few hours ago,
The Dailykos / MyDD / Swing State Project Netroots page passed $1,000,000. That blows my mind. The people who make these blogs happen, the people who make thee blogs relevant--the readers--have shown their strength yet again. I bet that if we did a cross-reference between the roughly 10,500 people who have donated to Democrats on this page and the FEC database, that the total amounts given to Democratic candidates by these 10,500 people would be several times larger than $1M. Further, I can only imagine what the total donations to Democrats this year would be if you combined an FEC database search with everyone who has given to MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, and Act Blue this election cycle. In 2004, MoveOn.org alone calculated that their members gave $180 million to Democratic candidates in itemized donations over $250. Combine all three organizations, and count all of their donations, including the ones under $250, and in 2006 you are almost certainly talking about several hundred million dollars to Democrats from netroots activists. I would like to know what the exact number is, and then still see anyone seriously debate whether or not the netroots "deserve a seat at the table" in the Democratic Party. And that would not even measure the media buzz, campaign volunteer help, fresh strategy, and new infrastructure that the netroots provide. While some people were still debating whether or not the netroots deserved a seat at the table, those people somehow didn't notice that several of us had grabbed chairs and pulled up alongside the table without anyone ever asking us to do so.
There are two primary reasons for the improvement of Democratic prospects in 2006 compared to other recent election cycles: Republican implosion and the maturation of the progressive movement. Generally speaking, Democrats have not taken the advice of the three main narratives that followed the 2004 elections: talk faith, get right-wing on national security, and make it clear what they stand for. However, outside of Tim Kaine and Harold Ford, I haven't seen much of anything from Democratic candidates this election cycle when it comes to actually "talking faith." I also missed the point where Democrats moved to the right on national security, especially with
90% of Democrats favoring a timetable for withdrawal of troops in Iraq for almost a year now, and Democratic opposition to the Patriot Act increasing sharply. And if someone can tell me that the Democratic platform is clearer now than it was in 2006, I'd like to hear that argument.
The differences between 2006 and other recent elections is not that Democrats have started talking faith (we haven't), not that we have moved to the right on national security (we haven't), and not that we have a clear agenda (we aren't any clearer now than we were in 2004). I also don't think that the argument that we had a slightly more vicious DCCC chair than in the past works very well. Further, I don't think the argument that we have more appealing leaders in the past works very well, because nationwide almost no one knows who
Nancy Pelosi and
Harry Reid are. The difference is that Republicans are imploding and that we have a mature progressive movement.
For starters, just look at the financial improvement Democrats have made in 2006 (emphasis mine):
House campaigns raised $544 million (up 18% from 2004 levels) and spent $325.5 million (17% above the previous cycle). They reported a cash balance of $367 million as of June 30. Receipts by Republican House candidates increased 12% with increases for incumbent candidates (23%) and open seat candidates (15%) but a decline in overall receipts for Republican House challengers of 34% when compared with 2004. Democratic candidates' receipts were 26% higher than in the last cycle with a small increase for incumbents (4%) and larger increases for both open seat candidates (46%) and challengers, whose fundraising more than doubled when compared with 2004.
Given the numbers I listed above, where do people think all the new money to Democratic candidates is coming form this year? It isn't the business community. In August, I conducted a survey of corporate PAC money in 2006 compared to 2004. In the 2004 cycle, corporate PACs gave 66.0% of their money to Republicans. As of August 2006, they had actually given 66.6% of their money to Republicans in the 2006 election cycle, slightly increasing their pro-Republican contribution habits. By way of contrast, Act Blue alone has raised $9M more for Democratic candidates in 2006 than it raised in 2004, an improvement of over 1000%. Further, how much more has been raised for Democrats by email lists since the 2002 midterms? And who do people think are the Democrats receiving those emails and giving the money? It case anyone was wondering, those people are netroots activists. We are the reason why Democrats are more financially competitive in 2006 than in any other recent election cycle.
Now, let's look at candidate recruitment and party infrastructure. Democrats are running in more districts this year than they have run in a long, long time. While the Democratic leadership, including Rahm Emmanuel, deserves some credit for this, it didn't happen until the netroots started banging the drums of the fifty-state strategy in 2004. Howard Dean and the netroots demanded that we run everywhere, and then we went about making that plan a reality. We have filled thousands of vacant committee seats and precinct captainships the Democratic Party, paid for party organizers in all fifty states (
the DNC is primarily bought and paid for by the netroots and the progressive grassroots), and sounded the call to activists around the nation that we could and should compete everywhere with Paul Hackett's narrow loss in OH-02. The netroots and the progressive movement are the primary driving forces behind the fifty-state strategy. They are why we have candidates, organizers, and party officials in more places than at any time in recent memory.
This strategy has had, and
will continue to have, a significantly positive impact on the outcome of the 2006 elections.
And why is the press coverage for Republican so much worse these days? The obvious answer when it comes to Foley is that sex is involved, and sex sells. However, the longer-term answer over the past two years is once again the netroots and the progressive movement. New organizations such as CREW and Media Matters are putting more pressure on the media to cover Republican scandals accurately than ever in the past. The netroots are keeping stories alive, such as the Downing Street Memo, and eventually helping to push them into the mainstream. New progressive media is now directly reaching millions more people every day than it did in the recent past. This is not even to mention these new progressive medias, especially the blogosphere, are putting serious pressure on the established media every day on every issue on every news story. This simply was not around before 2004.
The national media is already spinning that if Democrats win in 2006, it will be in spite of the netroots and the progressive movement, and if they lose it will be because of the progressive movement. However, the truth is that almost every major improvement Democrats have made in 2006 compared to previous election cycles was primarily driven by the netroots and the progressive movement. Fundraising, infrastructure, fifty-state strategy, media--almost all Democratic improvements in those areas were driven by the netroots in particular, and the progressive movement as a whole. We are the primary difference between 2006 and the past five election cycles (
click here to see just how large that difference is right now). Even when it comes to Republican implosions, the progressive movement played a large role in making sure that those implosions were on display within the establishment media for the entire country to see.
The media narrative should not be that Democrats have a chance to win in spite of the netroots and the progressive movement. An honest appreciation of the situation reveals that most, if not all, of the significant improvements Democrats have made from 2004 to 2006 were generated primarily within the netroots and the progressive movement. If Democrats win in 2006, it will be because of the netroots and the progressive movement, not in spite of it. That Democrats are in such a good situation right now is largely because of the netroots and the progressive movement, not in spite of it. I'd really like to hear a counter-argument as to what improvements Democrats have made in 2006 that were not primarily generated by the progressive movement. An argument could be made that the nexus of new institutions surrounding Democracy Alliance is another major difference maker, but that is hardly an old-school development. The netroots and the progressive movement are far more organized and wide-reaching than they were in 2004 and before, and that is making a big difference in Democratic fortunes in 2006.
Just look at Colorado for a microcosm of this. Democrats are not winning in Colorado in spite of the progressive movement, but because of it. When Democrats gain seats in 2006--and Democrats will gain seats in 2006--that will be because of the progressive movement too.
