So which is it?

The left-blogosphere is a diverse crowd, and not everyone agrees with each other.

or

The blogosphere isn't a cross-section of the party, it's a constituency.

At the least, I'd appreciate an expansion on this seeming contradiction.

Another question: do you count DFA 2.0 as part of the lefty blogs?

I read this and re-read it and still come to the conclusion that you're still scraping the surface of things and claiming to have dug deeply.

Perhaps that has more to do with Matt's caution towards Blogometer? I couldn't say, you'd have to ask him.

Or at least touched on several times, that there's no ideological unity among the netroots, and that's probably true to some extent in that there isn't continuity on every issue.  What DOES cut through everyone though is passion.  Or more to the point, being ideological.

We don't necessarily demand that "Candidate A" have the "right" stance on everything, but that they speak and carry themselves like they're in it because they can't stand not to be.  Like they aren't saying what they think will play well or what will get them the most face time on the news, but that they're in it because the world needs to be made better and if nobody else is gonna do it then dammit, someone has to.

Others may want to correct me if they feel I'm off base, but for all the discussion of strategy and how best to "win," we're gonna go for candidates who aren't running because they want to win, but because of what they think they can do for the country after they win.  We see ourselves as, ideally, the mechanism that, at some point, becomes powerful enough that we can handle the nuts and bolts of elections and let these candidates focus on more important things than making fundraising calls all day.  Is it pie-in-the-sky? Probably to some degree. But that's the aspiration- To find candidates who want to do the job for the job's own virtues, and to have a functional mechanism in place that allows them not to get bogged down in all the superfluous mess that seems to go along with it.

So why the anti-establishment bias? Equal parts pragmatism and idealism.  On the one hand, if the party establishment keeps running out our candidates, we never get to develop, in function or influence, beyond a certain point.  But also because we know (or think we know) that the ones behind the curtain making the picks for the DCCC or DSCC or whoever isn't so ideologically pure.  They're cynical and calculating and aren't concerned with anything but winning a numbers game.  We recognize the importance of that on the one hand, but aren't interested in giving the party and the country entirely over to that sort of soulless leadership strategy on the other.

Specifically, we think it's the system- created and operated by the "establishment"- that forces candidates who might otherwise be in it for the right reasons to either drop out in disgust and/or a flame of perceived overemotion (Dean, Hackett) or abandon their original plans to do it the "right way" in the desperate quest to get re-elected.  We want and have to believe that if democracy is really going to work, then there has to be the possibility for a bottom-up network that can get people elected without stealing their souls.  Because otherwise, what's the point?

You don't satisfactorily, if at all, address this point:

Apparently Democrats are getting into Club for Growth-style primary challenges. And as I'll get to below, I think that could be a mistake.

You do, as you wrote above, simply describe that some challenges have been mounted and the long shot odds against those challenges, but do not explicitly address why it is a mistake to challenge Dems in the primary that do not support a National Democratic platform.

On a more general point, I have a problem on how the so-called "netroots" is almost treated as a completely separate animal from the Democratic grassroots.  I understand that for working journalist, specially those that reside in the Beltway, it is easier to tag and ID distinct groups (constituencies); because, once a group has been categorized (labeled) it more easily lends itself to story narratives (that is, pitting one group's interests against another group's interests).  

The fact is that the so-called netroots are not a distinct constituency, we are broadly speaking, simply the grassroots of the Democratic party.  Visitors and posters in the better known liberal blogs are the activists, the organizers and the election-year volunteers of the Democratic party.  Most of us are close observers of politics.  We're not a separate animal from the base of the Democratic party; we just happen to be vocal about our opinions.  Moreover, thanks to this medium, now a broader audience has access to the collective voices of the grassroots of the Democratic party -- something that was not technically feasible before.

Now, it's very telling that some in the elected leadership of the Democratic party establishment, and some members of the journalistic class don't know what to make of the so-called netroots.  I simply take this to mean that these individuals are utterly disconnected from activist grassroots, the base, of the Democratic party; and, as far as the party establish goes, this appears to be utterly incompetent in connecting with its base in a passionate and inspiring way -- instead, they appear to be more concerned with managing us. (Now, as I wrote above, those that post in blogs are simply the most vocal about our opinion; we are certainly not representative of the average Democratic voter.)

In spite of all this, like the overwhelming majority of liberal blog posters, I'm a pragmatist and will continue to vote for the Democratic party candidate; which is why the party establishment does not see a need to "address" the demands of the activist base of the party.  However, it is precisely because of the former that primary challenges are essential if the party establishment is to ever be responsive and reflective in a meaningful/substantive way of the values/principles voiced by the activist grassroots of the party (much like social conservatives have managed to do in that other party).

You're right, I didn't touch on that again specifically.

As I wrote in my original piece for the Examiner, targeting incumbents and frontrunners in primaries is risky enough when you're the party in power. But when you're in the minority, the margin for error is much smaller; in 2006 Democrats really can't afford to lose any of these close races if they're to have any chance of taking back the Senate. Supporting Brown over Whitehouse (even now) and Tester over Morrison will make it less likely they'll knock off the GOP incumbents in those races (because of the obstacles listed).

The same would be true in PA if Pennacchio was more of a threat or in CT if Lieberman (who knows, maybe Lamont) had a more credible challenger. But in general, I don't think the party is in so much trouble that it needs to undertake this kind of revolution just yet. Once you're back in power, that's the time to start enforcing party discipline.

Moreover, the Club for Growth chooses its targets based on black and white criteria (votes on taxes) whereas the netroots often chooses targets based, as Lucas O'Connor writes above, on "passion." That criteria is much more subjective, and I imagine would make it harder to rally support for that challenger.

As to the extent that the netroots are part of the grassroots, I am sure there's considerable overlap -- but I also would guess that the nature of the medium means there are some differences. For example, netroots participants may not quite be the "young professionals" of Benjamin Wallace-Wells' Kos profile, but they are a bit younger than the notch babies who never miss a primary.

I also wonder if the consistent high placing in dKos/MyDD straw polls of Russ Feingold and Wesley Clark would differ somewhat from the overall grassroots -- but I haven't seen any polls recently that weeded out the casual voters (who choose Hillary based on name ID).

Yet even though Club for Growth has not (to my knowledge) managed to unseat an incumbent, they play a significant ideological role. It seems to me that  the blogosphere can legitimately assume that role on our side of the fence.

Tom O  

I was not fully informed when I wrote that that no national groups had endorsed the strategy of targeting incumbents -- I was not aware that the AFL-CIO was already backing Ciro Rodriguez.

And the League of Conservation Voters also endorsed Ciro, two days before your op-ed was published.

That said, 0-15 is still notable.

Why, why, why? You can't just SAY something is notable without explaining WHY it's notable. (And no excuse on word counts here.)

There were exactly two out of those fifteen I really thought had a good chance at winning - Carson and Knowles. The rest all ranged from "expanding the playing field" to "longshots at best."

If anyone gave money to Richard Morrison, Jeff Seemann, Sam Barend or Jim Newberry because their first and foremost goal was seeing those people win, then they were sadly misinformed. (And only by themselves - Markos was very clear about his goals in putting people on that list.)

If Markos wanted to pump up his stats, he could have put Chuck Schumer and Jim McDermott on that list. But he didn't - he specifically picked challengers to incumbents or Republican-held open seats.

Let me put things another way: In 1994 - a landslide year - 85% of Republican challengers to Democratic incumbents lost. Boy, what sucky performance, huh?

There is no "block" when it comes to the blogshere, especially when speaking of what constitutes the blogs; readership. Blogs provide a platform for a HUGELY DIVERSE group of people, nothing more. There may be some direction that is collective, but it is discreet individuals that form the direction. I myself am a moderate with views that differ greatly from other progressives on many issues.

As for your presumption of primary challenges; "primary fights leave bruises, money is stubbornly finite, primary campaigns need time (and more money) to regroup for the general election and the Republicans will be ready to outspend them when they do." Thank you for the poli 101 lesson, I would never had dreamed that asking my party to represent my (and millions of others) ideals would leave us bleeding and vulnerable, guess I should remain silent and thankful.

Now for your assertion that the "blogs" are fueling an "anti-establishment project", get your facts correct. Most blogs if calling for anything are calling for pinpointed primary challenges on at most four seats. I see only a concerted effort focusing upon the Cuellar and Lieberman primaries, not an "anti-establishment movement". It is all about individuals now having a platform from which to begin to project the power that we have been denied by the party structure.

It occurs to me that Tester is in no way a primary CHALLENGER.  Conrad Burns is still the senator from Montana.

Would you prefer that the Democratic party abolish primaries?

"Matt also disputes my stating that "No candidate supported by Moulitsas has yet won a seat in Congress." I'm afraid my phrasing was imprecise -- I was talking about the "Kos 15" from 2004."

Say it: you were WRONG. The statement is either true or false. It isn't "somewhere in between but not quite accurate."

I HATE when people use the word "imprecise" when they've been caught saying something false.

Doesn't apply for the Wisconsin Senate primary.

The progressive blogosphere is greater than the sum of its parts. You are ascribing a minority view to the whole blogosphere. I have written very harsh diaries against Lieberman, Biden, the DLC, Al From, Beinart and the Robust Liberal Hawks, etc.

It shouldn't be necessary for me to point out that I am not a front page poster for a number of good reasons, among them being that my views of the Democratic Party are harsher than the majority opinion in the progressive blogosphere.

My chief criticism of your viewpoints on the progressive blogosphere is that you oversimplify and mischaracterize. The claim that the progressive blogosphere is ineffective because Markos has a 15-0 record is a perfect example. You are using the typical M$M horserace analysis to determine effectiveness. That grossly understates the impact that progressive political blogs have and will have on the political structure and not just on the Democratic Party.

I've got to head out now, but I want to thank Matt again for the chance to engage this debate. It's forced me to think harder about some of the conclusions I've drawn, and hopefully some of the arguments I've made will be useful in considering how the netroots directs its resources in the midterms this year. But if not, it's at least been fun.

If anyone has further questions or arguments to carry forward, you can drop me an e-mail through the Blogometer.

Let me pass on a few operations.  

First off, you seem to be buying the right wing spin that bloggers like Atrios, Markos, and Chris are out of the mainstream, far left.  By what standard do you conclude this?  To me they all seem rather moderate by historical standards, and on issues over perceptions seem rather reflective of where most people are.  Anti-Iraq, prochoice,proeducation, prohealthcare are rather mainstream opinions once you separate the fly shit from the pepper.

Second, I really don't see much of a heterodoxy in either the left or right wing blogosphere.  The Hackett dropout had bloggers all over the board.  Similar treatment is given Hillary Clinton.  That said, your article implies that we should show heterodoxy, which contradicts your articles premise that we show too much.

I see primaries as a means to get our best candidates to the forefront.  In the case of running against an incumbent, like Lieberman, the consensus is he's not doing such a great job for our country, and has gotten too cozy with the failed policies of this administration.  This isn't based on a single vote or that he was the first one to give Bush a standing ovation at his Lies Of The Union speech.  It's based on his overall record on things like bankruptcy, the Iraq war, being too cozy with the insurance lobby, etc..  I'd almost prefer a Wicker style Republican over him, if that one seat wouldn't change the majority.

As for the blogosphere forming a constituency, so what?  It's a hell of a lot more populist and grass roots than the ineptitude shown by the party leadership.  With few exceptions, the inside the beltway leadership have behaved like cowards.  They always seem to be on the defensive, and incapable of formulating an inspirational message.  How long should the rank and file put up with crappy leadership?

One other thing.  You might want to take a look at how well Move On did in the '98 midterms where they targeted the House Managers.  We got some first rate politicos in that one, like Rush Holt.