Rasmussen's latest national primary poll, taken during the heart of the flap about Edwards, McEwan, and Marcotte, once again shows just how little blogger "scandals" hurt Democrats associated with them. 2/5-2/8, 435 LVs, previous numbers in parenthesis:
Clinton: 28 (34)
Obama: 23 (18)
Edwards: 13 (10)
Gore: 8 (10)
Keep in mind that Obama made up this ground
without the huge media buzz surrounding his announcement. It makes me wonder if next week's poll will show Clinton and Obama tied, or even show Obama slightly ahead. Still, it would be wise to wait for other, non-Rasmussen polls before assuming that Obama has once again pulled nearly even with Clinton. After all,
we have previously seen evidence that Clinton is sliding that later turned out to be outliers.
But I want to return to the point of this post, which is how the blogger "scandal" didn't hurt Edwards at all. This poll was conducted during the heart of the flap over the issue, from last Monday until last Thursday. Not surprisingly (at least from my perspective), it turns out that the advice of the conventional, establishment consultants who thought McEwan and Marcotte should be fired was completely wrong. Instead of facing any negative repercussions, Edwards actually ended up with a slight bounce in the polls. Maybe we should call it the Marcotte and McEwan bump, since the progressive netroots is chock full of Democratic primary voters.
Once again, Republican attempts to make Democrats look bad though guilt by association with us crazy bloggers were a
miserable failure. The reason why is simple: the vast majority of voters will have no idea this "scandal," ever happened, and most of those who know it happened will have forgotten the next day. Bloggers, even the most prominent ones, have national name recognition numbers in the single digits. Even after 300+ newspapers picked up one of more of the various wire reports surrounding the flap, and even after numerous cable news network segments on the story, I still bet that less than 10% of the country knows this happened. Further, I bet there are basically no undecided, general election voters among that 10%. Anyone who knows about the story is already locked down hard into one partisan camp or another. As such, there is simply no way that this story will, in the long run, have any measurable, negative blowback for the Edwards campaign.
The development reminds me of all those press releases and fundraising letters Republican campaigns and national committees put out trying to describe how evil Markos is and how supposedly powerful he is within the Democratic Party. Good tactic, that. Are the people who put these press releases and fundraising letters aware that
only 11% of the country knows enough about John Boehner to form an opinion? Try to extrapolate from that just how low Markos's national name ID is, or mine, or Amanda's and Melissa's. If you are going to attack Democrats for associating with evil bloggers, you better be prepared to back up that attack with a two hundred million dollar national advertising campaign to explain who that blogger actually is. Otherwise, you will just receive a lot of blank stares. Hell, last Friday, it took me five minutes to try and explain the story to some friends of mine when we were hanging out at Happy Hour.
This is actually one of the great things about how the blogosphere cuts low-information voters out of its equation. By speaking directly to the members of the electorate who are the most politically active and intense consumers of news, we can wield a lot of influence while simultaneously not playing the idiotic games of "gotcha" and faux outrage that have been used to try and sway low-information voters for the past several decades (no wonder low-information voters are dismissive of politics, considering how stupid people often assume they are). In essence, we focus on the middle tier of influence in American politics--the several million political activists--rather than just focusing on how the few thousand elites in the top tier are portrayed to the tens of millions of low information voters in the bottom tier. It is a type of triangle that explains the reach of blog power just as
Peter Daou's triangle explained its limits. I can see how established consultants who are used to bypassing the middle tier altogether would want to fire junior staffers out of fear that it will result in backlash from the bottom tier. I can also see how many long time residents of the elite tier would view something as influential as the netroots as potentially vulnerable to attacks in the same way that actual members of the elite tier are vulnerable. After all, if you ignore the middle tier for so long, you might forget how it operates. The truth is that we are a different entity entirely, as our numbers and our activism allow us to boast influence without the baggage of name recognition.
How sweet it is. Being both powerful and anonymous is a beautiful thing.
Update: Another good example was the Lieberman onslaught against Jane Hamsher int he week before the Connecticut Senate primary. As a GQ reporter said in the documentary "Blogwars," I bet that influenced all of ten voters, even though Lieberman held multiple press conferences on the subject.