Clinton, Vilsack, Warner and Bayh are DLC because they are too cowardly to embrace what has made the netroots strong. It is a DLC leadership vacuum that is catapulting people powered politics and it goes against the laws of physics for the netroots to support any of the DLC candidates in 2008.

It would be interesting to see a survey that examined what sort of causal relationship exists there (i.e., are blog readers people who dislike Hillary Clinton because of political differences or does increased awareness resulting from blog readership cause this dislike).  The reason why this strikes me as interesting is because, if blog readership increases support for more progressive, populist candidates, it would be a worthwhile endeavor to make a big push to increase progressive blog readership.  On the other hand, if the reason for dislike of Clinton is simply that blog readers are predisposed to dislike Clinton because of her policies and/or rhetoric, such an endeavor would not be a great use of resources (which could be better used in issue specific campaigns, for example).  I don't know if you have any of this sort of data, but it'd be interesting to see.

So the netroots doesn''t support Hillary. I think we knew that already. And given all the abuse she gets from Matt, Kos, Arianna and others, it is hardly surprising.

However, Hillary's support and indeed her likely victory in the primaries is not dependent upon gaining netroots support. She has other constituencies that will support her with votes and money.

The point about the netroots is not that it is likely to be more significant than 2004 (almost certain to be true), but that it does not have a single candidate. There are likely to 3, 4 or even 5 candidates that will get funds and votes from the netroots. Unfortunately, it is this division that will prevent any one rival from taking down Hillary.

Democratic primaries are designed to favour insider candidates. Hillary is the ultimate insider candidate. She is also a star.

I could go at length about the huge holes in the candidacies of Warner, Feingold, Clark, Bayh, Richardson, Edwards, Kerry and even Gore. But I think I'll leave that for another time.

With luck, the netroots will help to take down Joe Lieberman. But beating Hillary Clinton in a democratic primary - I don't think so.

"This is what is known as a direct statistical correlation."

So, what's the correlation coefficient?

Excuse me but the Iowa poll is:

1. Edwards 2. Clinton 3. Kerry

and all the recent MyDD/Kos polls have been:

1. Feingold 2. Clark 3. Warner

So how do this indicate the influence of the netroots?

There is a wider point here and it is this: what happens if she wins the nomination?

Are we going to see another Nadar fiasco? Are progressives going to stay home instead of voting? The 2000 election was close enough for all sorts of things to have tipped the balance and one of them was people on the left not voting for Gore because he wasn't progressive enough for them. (now he's the dream figure - the irony!)

Hillary isn't George Bush. She doesn't go on tv criticising democrats like Joe. Her voting record is pretty impressive with the exception of the war. Sure she may not be your first choice, or indeed your second or third. But she's a lot better than John McCain or whoever else the republicans come up with.

In the autumn of 2008 we'll be reading blogs on MyDD explaining why the author isn't going to be voting in the forthcoming election because Hillary and McCain are just the same, because the democrats should have chosen Feingold or gone for a southern governor.

...and Gore hasn't even decided to run/agreed to accept a draft yet.  While deciding "how many candidates can dance on the head of a pin" is fun, we might be better suited to turn our energies toward the 2006 mid-terms first.  There will be plenty of time to decide which progressive candidate to back come January 2007.

I think Frank Luntz's look at the Dem Presidential candidates found the same thing, but that was awhile ago.  His study read, in part, that every Dem has an initial positive view of Hillary, but then the more they see the less they like.  Blog readers are also ridiculous news junkies (we're pretty much mainlining news at this point, or is that when we go to RSS), so we have seen a lot of Hillary.

All in all, I think this has to do with Hillary's main problem: charisma.  Would you jump off of a cliff for Hillary?  Could she talk you into it?  With Bill Clinton, I'd say yes, but with Hillary, I'm not sure.  And since she's a Dem, Hillary won't get the cocoon treatment that Bush gets. She may get Iowa with the insider backing, but New Hampshire will be brutal for her.

How can you be a "netroots activist" and not read blogs? Aren't they mutually inclusive?

One thing about that staw poll is that most Democrats don't know who is running.  Hillary Clinton is known nationally, so I think the more informed people become, which will happen as we get closer to '08, the more her numbers will come down.  If she could win a primary or election I don't know, but right now I don't give much merit to those straw polls.

So actualy, this just shows that MoveOn members who read blogs don't like Hillary. MoveOn members are hardly the only people who vote in Democratic primaries. And even among Move On members, fewer than half read blogs regularly.

Nice spin, but i hardly see this as the death knell for Hillary. All it really shows is that despite a concerted, long-term effort by netroots leaders to drag Hillary down they've failed to influence anyone outside their core readership.

The Clinton situation is relatively simple to me.  She has absolutely nowhere to go but down.  She isn't going to win over anybody new, all she can do is disappoint people who are supporting her currently.  She'll do this either by letting down her informed supporters or surprising her nominal supporters who don't know much about her actual politics.  Nobody's going to be swayed to her camp, but plenty of people could leave.

I won't take sides on the Billary issue, cos I think Billary would be a hell of a lot better than the Keystone Kops currently running the show..

However I cannot help but draw the obvious parallel between this poll and the famous one from a couple years back demonstrating a statistical link between misconceptions about the Iraq War and viewership of  Fox News.. only now Fox is in decline and the netroots are in ascendency..  

Here's a better question. Why, just five wonths before the 2006 midterm election when so many candidates are scrounging for $$$ to beat Republicans, is BlogPAC wasting money polling about  an internal Democratic battle that won't take place for two and a half years?

The most parsimonious explanation for this result would be that there is a demographic difference along the x axis, which correlates with Hillary support. The obvious factor is gender. If women support Hillary much more strongly than men do, and men are more likely to be in the "regular" group, then we'd see this pattern even if reading blogs has no actual effect on whether you support Hillary.

Without that demographic info the correlation is uninformative and possibly misleading.

You all seem to have short memories. Remember when Hillary announced her run for the New York senate seat and what the comments where? She will never make it. She is a carpet bagger. She has not got a hope in hell. Well, she won. Now she runs for re-election and the republican opposition is demolished. She is regarded as an excellent senator for NY and that is her job.

I read all the posts above and am surprised that the dislike for her seems to be based, not on what she does and how she votes but on the innuendo spouted by people who do not know her and who profess to dislike her personally. Democrats who rather have president Mc Cain than Rotham Clinton. What sort of democrats are you?

Let the primaries run their course and when she wins support her with all you got. You'll have probably a realistic exit strategy foe Iraq and no war with Iran. A secure social security system and a one payer universal health care system. And a president who is really for the people even if she will not be able, as no president can, to correct all the ills that have been wrought by the corrupt and inept leaders you have elected twice in your wisdom.

I am only a stupid foreigner who fears for the world if you do not get your act together.

I am so sick of hearing people on the left repeat the right's talking points about Hillary Clinton endlessly. Most of the time the sentiment expressed is a rather futile (and baseless) "I hate Hillary". Talk about some issues for godsake. Simply saying "uh she's polarizing because the extreme right hates her" doesn't cut it. I think she can win. I hope she is not felled by the "netroots". I can't help but think "I don't want a woman President" is a subtext in these complaints. The rest of the world is sick of the democrats losing. Hillary is intelligent, lucid, articulate and experienced in world affairs (she's already been in the White House).

What you seem to want is for her to repeat your "talking points" well here's a heads up, I'm anti-war (do you honestly think a President Hillary Clinton would have gone to war in Iraq, no! Of course she wouldn't have). So she voted for the war lots of people did, that's old news now, move on. Who was responsible for all of this - the neo-cons who drilled up hate, ruined anyone who disagreed with them by smearing them as unpatriotic (even if a vet), and generally manipulated public fears and the public bought it.

Anyone who governs has to govern from the center even if they're a liberal (it's called getting things done without launching a needless war to bolster your agenda). It may involve some compromise but this the only way to get the bills you want passed anyway. Simply screaming at the right that they're all morons will not win them over and while it's perfectly ok for the netroots to do it, please understand that your politicians can't, without becoming unelectalbe (i.e. insulting the electorate doesn't work). I find it better to post on Republican blogs...just thoughtful comments supported by facts to make them think. I find dialogue much more productive (even if I'm center left).

The rest of the world does not need another democrat to lose. Please stop with the anti-Hillary nonsense (or at least attack her on issues not Republican talking points.) Next you'll be saying John Kerry is "flip-flopper" while at the same time calling on Hillary to oppose the war, after having voted for it, and get swift-boated for it.

That is my belief.   Name the netroot victories.   Are you going to claim Tester?   In light of Morrison's problem, can you be sure the netroots carried him to victory?

Busby & Hackett (I donated to both) , the guy down in the Texas primary (name escapes me) all lost.   Lamont looks to be headed in that direction as well.   What is your claim with regard to Iowa?  That John Edwards is a netroots candidate now?  

As for Hillary effecting the primaries, do you really wonder if Hillary will have an impact?    Really?  Think about that 54% disapproval among regular bloggers.   That number will decrease as HilC spends 20 million or so, as names like Gore fail to throw their hat into the ring, and as guys like Feingold drop out after New Hampshire.

I think that blogs are great.  I think MyDD and the DailyKos are great.  I visit multiple times a day, and I have made decisions to donate to candidates based largely on what I have read.   That being said I think blogs are still a ways (maybe not a long way) from having a powerful impact on statewide or national races.

Several points.

Net use is growing fast, I think, from a small basis.  Thus the impact two years from now will be larger than now.  Saying that netroots will never matter in real politics is like saying that Walmart will never be larger than Sears (this analogy will mean something for the geezers here among the netroots)

I am not sure if there is much hate of Hillary, the way there is a hate of Lieberman.  But pro-war candidate lives on borrowed time when the war is unpopular.  Many somewhat decent people supported the war, but without a good explanation why (I was stupid, I was mislead, I am an imperialist but hey, nobody is perfect) this is a very serious demerit that makes a candidate vulnerable as the war goes nowhere and looks pointless (no weapons, no oil, not much by the way of democracy in ME etc).

I'm curious how this graph would look if you substituted Air America listeners for blog readers.  Would it be the same?  Is the correlation between blog readers and Air America listeners so high they are effectively the same people?

Net use is growing fast, I think, from a small basis.  Thus the impact two years from now will be larger than now.  Saying that netroots will never matter in real politics is like saying that Walmart will never be larger than Sears (this analogy will mean something for the geezers here among the netroots)

I am not sure if there is much hate of Hillary, the way there is a hate of Lieberman.  But pro-war candidate lives on borrowed time when the war is unpopular.  Many somewhat decent people supported the war, but without a good explanation why (I was stupid, I was mislead, I am an imperialist but hey, nobody is perfect) this is a very serious demerit that makes a candidate vulnerable as the war goes nowhere and looks pointless (no weapons, no oil, not much by the way of democracy in ME etc).

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80

81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119

150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
160

170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179

120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136

137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149