« How Blogs Blow Things Out Of Proportion | Main | Library Of Congress' Blog Caught In Copyright Fight »

The Myth Of Blog Campaign Power?

Every four years since the information age began and presidential campaigns started toying with the Internet, technology evangelists have predicted that this cycle -- 1996, 2000, 2004 -- will finally be the one where the Web makes the difference.

The 2008 campaign is no different. Book after book, article after article and now blog post after blog post have been written on the revolution to come. But will it ever come?

Barry Casselman of Preludium News Service is skeptical, to say the least, and the imagined power of the blog is at the top of his list of early myths about Campaign 2008. Casselman tackled the perceived blog myth in a Washington Times op-ed today.

He cited last year's campaign victory by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., in spite of blogs as proof that blogs lack power -- but he conveniently ignored that victories by two Senate Democrats heavily touted by blogs, Jon Tester of Montana and James Webb of Virginia, as plenty of proof to the contrary.

After dismissing the power of Democratic blogs, Casselman then oddly touted the power of Republican blogs -- Minnesota Democrats Exposed, in particular.

The site "has emerged as the most powerful political Internet presence there," he wrote. "Its carefully researched campaign against comedian Al Franken's putative effort to win a Senate seat there in 2008 has devastated Mr. Franken's public image almost before he began to run for the seat, and has seemingly cemented the idea that the entertainer is an angry, foul-mouthed parvenu instead of a serious-minded candidate.

"This blog is Mr. Franken's worst nightmare, and it has provoked many Democratic strategists to try to find another candidate against popular incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman."

Again, Casselman excluded pertinent information -- namely, that the GOP Senate candidate backed by Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed last year, former Rep. Mark Kennedy, was defeated. If Lieberman's win proves that Democratic blogs can't make a difference in campaigns, then Kennedy's loss surely says the same thing about GOP blogs.

Casselman's thesis falls on its face at that point, and he is exposed as a mere partisan rather than someone trying to objectively gauge the political power of blogs.

Posted by Danny | 08:24 PM

Comments

It really wasn't blogs that helped out Jim Webb, it was the Washington Post.

RW | 05.05.07 03:35 PM

I appreciate Mr. Glover's discussion of my op ed,
but I think he has treated what I said very
selectively and unfairly. First of all, he is correct that Senator Tester and Senator Webb were
supported by the liberal blogosphere, but I think
(and most commentators seem to agree) that their victories were primarily due to the ineptness of their GOP opponents. I also said that the blogs
did have impact in the Democratic primary in
Connecticut, but could not produce a victory for
Mr.Lamont in the general election despite all the
self-hype of the blogs. In fact, their efforts backfired. Similarly, I am suggesting that the blogosphere (in this case, a conservative blog) is having impact in the DFL nomination battle in Minnesota. Mr. Glover is correct in suggesting that the blogosphere had little impact in the 2006 senate race in Minnesota. Again, Senator Klobuchar clearly outperformed her GOP challenger, and that produced her victory. I also stated that the blogosphere does have considerable impact in fundraising and volunteer organizing for candidates. What I am questioning is the ability of the blogosphere to produce votes in a general election. Finally, Mr. Glover contends that I am a partisan, and not "objective." As an opinion journalist, I do not claim to be "objective," but I do try to be fair. If Mr. Glover had been reading my political
writing over the years, he would know that it is the unnecessary partisanship in the media on both the right and the left that I have consistently deplored.

Barry Casselman | 05.06.07 11:27 PM

as one actively involved in the Jim Webb campaign, and knowledgeable about the role of blogs in quite a few other campaigns, Casselman should be arrested by the DEA for what he is smoking.

Let's start with Lieberman. Let's not forget that he LOST his primary to Ned Lamont,whose campaign was largely organized through blogs. I'd say that had an effect.

Webb was talked into the campaign in large part by bloggers, including Loweel Feld and Josh Chernila of RaisingKaine. When he was first resistant, they put up a site to recruit him and fairly quickly got over a 1,000 people to pledge money to support him. Once he got in, blogs were an essential part of outreach and fundraising. Jim himself blogged on both RaisingKaine and on dailykos. The campaign raised millions online. It was a blog, NotLarrySabato, that first publicized the existence of the Macaca tape. And it was bloggers, myself included, who made an issue of the "making aspersions" remarks by Allen at one debate. Allen's attempts at blogging, hhis so-called A-team, were a joke in comparison to the support Webb had.

Blogs played a role in primary victories of a number of other people against Democratic establishment supported candidates. That goes back to putting Obama in a position to win in IL in 2004. It clearly applies to helping Tester win his primary, and in the general helping publicize some of the foot-in-mouth of Conrad Burns. Remembering that the margin in that race was only about 3,000 votes (and Webb's was 9300) I think it is clear the role blogs played in that victory.

In California, Jerry McNerney was not the choice of the Democratic establishment, because of how badly he had lost the last cycle. Blogs organized support for him in the primary, and in the general the strong support of dailykos enabled him to draw field support and money to win a race the pundits thought was unwinnable against Pombo. In New Hampshire, both House races benefited from a strong local Democratic blog effort, there were well-known bloggers in key roles of both campaigns. I could go on and on, including a couple of races lost narrowly, such as Eric Massa in NY-29 and Charlie Brown in CA-04, both of whom are already running again, or Larry Kissell, a full-time school teacher, who lost by just over 300 votes with no meaningful party support at the national level but tons of blog support. Many of these candidates regularly came to national blogs. themselves. Others who won include Gillebrand and Hall in NY, Murphy in PA, Walz in MN. The last two recognized very much the influence of blogs by showing up on the night after being sworn in for a netroots celebration.

Or look at Yearlykos, the convention that is an offshoot of dailykos, and also draws people from other blogs like THeNExtHurrah, MYDD, Firedoglake, and so on. Last year in Las Vegas the following Democrats chose to appear: Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Tom Vilsack, Brad Murphy, Joe Sestak, Mark Warner, Bill Richardson, Wes Clark,etc. At a fundraiser in DC recently for the forthcoming event this summer in Chicago we saw the presence of Brad Miller, John Hall, Earl Blumenauer, Jerry MCNerney, Jon Tester and Russ Feingold. Among those who blog themselves just at dailykos are Jon Conyers, Louise Slaughter, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Jim webb, Earl Bluemenauer, Brad Miller, Tom Vilsack, and a couple of dozen others.

Blogs are playing a key role in the Democratic efforts. And clearly either Casselman does not know about what he is writing or else he is deliberately slanting his efforts for partisan purposes.

teacherken | 05.07.07 05:23 AM

Thanks for visiting Beltway Blogroll and defending your position, Mr. Casselman.

I don't believe I treated your op-ed selectively or unfairly. It's true that you said some positive things about blogs, but the overall tone of your op-ed struck me as rather dismissive of their electoral impact. It also set up the straw man of bloggers and others promoting the notion that they will determine the outcome of the 2008 presidential election so you could knock it down as a "myth." I've not seen any such suggestion, and I scan/read dozens of the top blogs every day.

Your opening also dismisses the idea that the blogosphere has "changed presidential politics unalterably." I don't know whether the change is unalterable, but the change is real and substantive. Candidates are hiring bloggers (and sometimes getting burned by it), connecting with bloggers on a regular basis and even blogging themselves.

Fred Thompson also started guest-blogging and writing regularly online almost as soon as his name surfaced as a potential GOP candidate -- and over the weekend, he granted an interview to a video blogger rather than to any of the many mainstream media outlets that would have loved to have talked with him.

Now to some of the specific points you made in the comments:

1) Tester and Webb won because of the ineptness of their GOP opponents. Perhaps ... but their perceived ineptness was in large part perpetuated by blogs, and the MSM ran with that blog-driven "meme."

2) Lamont couldn't win despite the blogs -- and was hurt because of them. Lieberman, a senator who won the popular vote to be vice president in 2000, was nearly driven from office by a candidate who rose to prominence because of blogs. It doesn't really matter whether Lamont won; the fact that he was even competitive is a testament to the electoral influence of blogs.

3) The involvement of blogs in Connecticut "backfired." Now that is what you call a myth. Lamont was a virtual unknown before blogs embraced him. He won the primary, and he stayed competitive in the general election. How is that backfiring? True, there are both pros and cons to candidates embracing blogs, just as there are with negative advertising and other campaign tactics, but there is no electoral evidence that blogs hurt Lamont.

4) The blogosphere had little impact in the 2006 Minnesota Senate race. You misinterpreted my point. The blogosphere only had little impact in Minnesota if your thesis is right ... but your thesis is wrong. I believe the blogosphere had an impact in Connecticut, Minnesota, Montana, Virginia and other places. My point is that the impact simply isn't based on win-loss records.

As to my comment about being objective, I didn't mean that in the journalistic sense of not taking sides. I was referring to the fairness standard you referenced. I don't happen to think your article was fair to the blogosphere as a whole because it elevated the impact of Republican bloggers and downplayed the impact of Democratic ones.

The correct analysis would have concluded that while blogs won't be the deciding factor in the 2008 presidential election, there is every reason to believe that they will have a significant impact on the race -- whether they are Democratic or Republican. Their power in politics is not mythical; it is real and substantive.

Danny | 05.07.07 09:46 AM

TeacherKen,
I could not have said it better. I think what Cassellman gets wrong is that Blogs were powerful last year, they were not all-powerful.

I would argue that without them Webb would certainly not have run, and George Allen would still be our Senator after severely slamming Harris Miller in the 2006 election.

thegools | 05.07.07 01:38 PM

I am very familiar with Casselman's work, and he is a partisan shill despite protestations otherwise. I read the full column quoted here, and it parroted the standard GOP talking points for nervous donors well.

Brodkorb's blog alone, isn't what makes the difference in how Franken gets covered in Minnesota - it's the combination between Brodkorb's blog, and Brodkorb's excellent media relationships that makes him successful in getting the MSM to parrot his spin in their stories.

Will the race end up being "Al Franken has a foul mouth" vs "Norm Coleman is a flip flopping chamelion" - or will it get to substantive issues. I hope for the sake of the state of Minnesota, it will get to substantive issues.

Eva Young | 05.07.07 11:53 PM

Post a Comment