Jonathan Chait has a very interesting piece on the radicalism of the Kossacks. He does an excellent job of getting under the notion that the Kossacks aren’t radicals because they endorse some moderate candidates:
I realize that the new, counterintuitive thing to say about the left blogosphere these days is that it’s not really that radical. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga says nice things about Mark Warner, which means he’s really just a pragmatist (or easily co-opted, but the effect is the same). All this is mostly true. What this interpretation misses, however, is that the radicalism of the lefty bloggers lies not so much in their ideological platform but in their ideological style. They think like sectarians. And that style is on perfect display in Kos’s attack on The New Republic.
Kos announces in his headline, “TNR’s defection to the Right is now complete.” If this sounds vaguely familiar, it’s because it is. More than two years ago, Kos launched what he called his “anti-TNR campaign,” in which he declared us to be enemies of the people. Wait, sorry, wrong jargon–I meant, enemies of the people-powered movement. Some examples of the anti-TNR campaign can be found here, here, and here.
He has refused to link to our stories–except of course the minority that attack the left, all the better to display our enemy status–and declared us irrelevant and buried in the dustbin of history. Except now, two years after having unleashed his most terrible weapons, he has to bury us all over again. And so, he urges his readers, “If you still hold a subscription to that magazine, it really is time to call it quits.” This is like the Catholic Church digging up the heretic it had already burned at the stake so it can excommunicate the corpse a second time.
Indeed, that first paragraph is key. Chait is quite right, what makes the Kossacks such a drag on the Democrats isn’t necessarily that they’re raving ideologues (although many of them are), it’s that even when they’re taking pragmatic actions they sound like raving ideologues. Let’s be honest here, but the average Joe or Jane Sixpack in a room with a “netroots” activist and they’re going to think the guy is nuts. It’s not enough that they disagree with their political adversaries, it’s that their political adversaries are by definition the very symbol of evil. Dissent from the party line is tantamount to treatchery, and the “progressive” movement isn’t a political movement, it’s a fight against evil itself.
The left-wing blogosphere takes their rhetorical cues from Ann Coulter, and writers like Duncan “Atrios” Black, Jane Hamsher, and other popular leftybloggers are strong on snark, but poor on making factual arguments. Indeed, it’s quite certain when you’ve been linked to be a popular leftyblog when the ratio of intelligent comments to trolls falls precipitously. The level of rhetorical quality on the left side of the blogosphere tends to be about the same as you’d see on an elementary school playground, except even more vicious. Granted, there are plenty of right-wing bloggers who aren’t much better, but that hardly constitutes an excuse.
That’s why this whole “netroots” idea should have serious and thoughtful Democrats scared as hell. The radicalism of the “netroots” is a net loss for the Democrats. The average American voter is actively turned off by the sort of radicals that constitutes the “netroots.” I believe one of the biggest factors that led to Howard Dean’s meltdown in the Iowa caucuses were the yellow-shirted activists whose radicalism offended the sensibilities of moderate Democrats. I believe that those activists may have even helped Bush win in Iowa. I firmly believe that in 2004 groups like MoveOn.org and the Kossacks alienated more voters than they attracted. Radicalism in American politics just doesn’t sell.
And make no mistake, endorsing a few semi-moderate candidates doesn’t make up for the juvenile attacks, the arrogance, and the lack of class and tact that comes from the “netroots” these days. If anything, it just exposes the fact that the “netroots” is really little more than a well-orchestrated mob.
Fortunately for the Democrats, Kos and his ilk can produce a lot of money for Democratic candidates, but they’re not yet on the radar of the mainstream American voter. But you can bet top dollar that the GOP would love it if they were. The more that Democrats embrace the Kossacks, the more they risk guilt-by-association – and all it takes is a few ads to get some undecided voters to wade into the fever swamps for themselves. Furthermore, the more politically active these “netroots” activists become, the more contact they have with average voters, and the more they alienate those who might be swayed. The “netroots” may not be the cause of the Democrat’s strong leftward shift, but they are certainly exacerbating it.
The Democrats are embracing the “netroots” for the funding they give them and the activist’s zeal they bring to the table – but as the old saying goes, lie down with the dogs, wake up with fleas. If the Kossacks actually could purge moderates like the DLC and The New Republic from the Democratic Party, where would that leave the 85% of Americans who aren’t self-described liberals? Sooner or later the Democrats will have to distance themselves from the radicalism of the “netroots”, and smart Democratic politicians are already doing so.
I was getting a little nervous there…..8 a.m. had come and gone without a single Kos-bashing post to be seen. Better late than never I guess.
“The average American voter is actively turned off by the sort of radicals that constitutes the “netroots.—
Actually, the average American voter has no clue what the “netroots” is…and will think you’ve been out in the sun too long when you breathlessly refer to them as the scariest beings that the species has ever produced.
“I firmly believe that in 2004 groups like MoveOn.org and the Kossacks alienated more voters than they attracted.”
You’re delusional. I can assure you that the Daily Kos website did not compel a single would-be Kerry voter to Bush. MoveOn.org was higher profile in 2004, but are you really suggesting Kerry would have won the election if not for their “radical” ads? The only “radical ads” that very evidently did cost a candidate votes came from your boy Mark Kennedy in Minnesota, who busted right out of the starting gate comparing Patty Wetterling to Osama bin Laden. Kennedy turned what would have a 20-point incumbent rout to a contested 7-point victory….and appears to have permanently tarnished his reputation going into this year’s Senate race as he was recently rated the least-trusted politician in Minnesota. Even night in my prayers, I open with the request that Kennedy’s first TV ad for this Senate race draw the very obvious parallels between Amy Klobuchar and Osama as well.
“Fortunately for the Democrats, Kos and his ilk can produce a lot of money for Democratic candidates, but they’re not yet on the radar of the mainstream American voter.”
Wait a minute….I thought “the average American voter is actively turned off by the sort of radicals that constitute the ‘netroots'”. Which is it?
“The more that Democrats embrace the Kossacks, the more they risk guilt-by-association – and all it takes is a few ads to get some undecided voters to wade into the fever swamps for themselves. ”
Considering the GOP takes its marching orders and greases its financial wheels from James Dobson and the increasingly unhinged Pat Robertson, even the angriest and fringiest “Kossacks” seem downright centrist in comparison. If you wanna play chicken with swing voters in regards to which party’s wingnuts are the wingnuttiest, I’ll take that challenge any day.
“Sooner or later the Democrats will have to distance themselves from the radicalism of the “netrootsâ€, and smart Democratic politicians are already doing so.”
Such as?
As I mentioned, when Dean activists went door-to-door in Iowa, it actively hurt Dean. Most voters have no clue who Kos is, but when one of the Kossacks show up at their door, the effect will be the same.
Then you lose, as I know of several people who were actively turned off by the radicalism of the Democratic Party. 1 out of 10 registered Democratic voters ended up voting for Bush in 2004 – and I’d guess a significant number of those voted for Bush based on the radicalism they saw within their own party.
Which he did not. Just like the ad that supposedly “compared” Max Cleland and bin Laden, anyone with a lick of sense would see that no such comparison was being made.
The “netroots” aren’t on the radar of the average American voter, but when they pop up, they actively hurt their cause – as they did with Democratic primary voters in the Iowa Caucuses. The Dean campaign’s activist base convinced a good number of Democratic voters that Dean was an unelectable candidate. Even though the average voter doesn’t read blogs, they do see the effects of their activism, and that doesn’t help Democratic candidates.
Except that isn’t remotely true. It’s like saying that Fred Phelps controls the Democratic Party because he’s a registered Democrat. Groups like Focus on the Family and the 700 Club are busier enriching themselves than they are in helping out candidates for public office. They motivate some Republican voters, but they’re not expressly political groups like MoveOn.org.
As much as it pains me to say it, Hillary Clinton. Despite her high negatives, she’s setting herself up perfectly for 2008. Getting booed by radicals at the “Take Back America” conference was one of the best things to happen to her politically. Unlike most of the Democrats, she understands that winning elections and embracing the “netroots” are mutually exclusive things. That was her Sister Souljah movement, and she’s triangulating herself to be the “moderate” candidate in 2008. With all the glowing press she’ll receive from her allies in the media, the negatives she has now won’t mean a single thing in two years.
“As I mentioned, when Dean activists went door-to-door in Iowa, it actively hurt Dean.”
I don’t believe the “Dean activists” played much role in Dean’s Iowa flameout. The Dean insurgency of late 2003 was more hype than anything else, and Iowans had a front-row seat of the multiple candidates making stump speeches and giving televised debates. Eventually, they came to the same conclusion I did a few months earlier…..Howard Dean was not an electable candidate for President. By your logic, should we also assume that Richard Gephardt’s simultaneous meltdown in Iowa was entirely the product of his “door-knocking activists” rather than his underwhelming performance in the debates and on the stump?
“I know of several people who were actively turned off by the radicalism of the Democratic Party.”
And what do all of these people have in common? They would have never voted against Bush in 2004 no matter which candidate was nominated by Democrats and which obscure Internet web log was raising money for him.
“1 out of 10 registered Democratic voters ended up voting for Bush in 2004”
And the vast majority of them are senior citizens in the South who registered as Democrats before the Civil Rights Era and haven’t voted for any Democratic Presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy in 1960.
“anyone with a lick of sense would see that no such comparison was being made.”
Whatever way you wanna spin it, the incumbent Kennedy underperformed George Bush by eight points in the solidly Republican Congressional district where he was an incumbent….facing a lackluster political neophyte. Areas of the district that went for Bush by double-digit margins were too disgusted by Kennedy’s vicious ads to pull the lever for him. And given that he remains the least-trusted politician in Minnesota, it appears the reputation he built for himself with those ads is sticking with him.
“Groups like Focus on the Family and the 700 Club are busier enriching themselves than they are in helping out candidates for public office. They motivate some Republican voters, but they’re not expressly political groups like MoveOn.org.”
Considering that the blogosphere left and religious right serve up both bombastic criticism of their opponents and enthusiastic support for their political allies, you’re gonna have a hard time selling that “nuance” to voters who have connected the dots between the GOP’s dependence upon evangelical voters and Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo via TV screen from more than 1,000 miles away.
“Hillary Clinton. Despite her high negatives, she’s setting herself up perfectly for 2008.”
Well, except for the fact that even her staunchest supporters no longer believe she has a prayer of getting elected.
“she’s triangulating herself to be the “moderate†candidate in 2008.”
And that will last right up until the hour she’s nominated at which point the Republicans will advance a multi-billion dollar smear campaign painting her as the most liberal candidate in the nation’s history to be nominated for President…..which the 45% of Americans who hate her guts will continue to believe.
“With all the glowing press she’ll receive from her allies in the media, the negatives she has now won’t mean a single thing in two years.”
You don’t really believe this. You just want the Dems to nominate Hillary because she’d be the easiest candidate to beat. Has there ever been a candidate in history who has brought their negatives DOWN in the heat of a fierce and hotly-contested campaign?
I was in Iowa the week before the caucuses – and the Dean yellow-shirts did have an impact in convincing people that Dean just wasn’t electable. In fact, the same thing happened here in South Dakota when the Democrats brought in a huge number of out-of-state activists to “help” Daschle. Instead, they ended up hurting him.
Except for the fact that Gephardt didn’t have any “door-knocking activists”…
Actually, no. Several of the liked Edwards, and nearly all of them would have voted for a Lieberman or another more moderate candidate. There are plenty of people like that – social libertarians who have been drawn into the Democratic fold primarily by the radicalism of the Democrats and their fecklessness on the war issue.
You offer absolutely no proof of that, and I completely doubt it’s true. First of all, it’s not at all surprising that Kennedy didn’t poll as well as Bush. That’s typical in strongly contested Presidential races but less contested Congressional races. Furthermore, Kennedy has been polling even with Amy Klobuchar in most reputable polls, and there’s absolutely no evidence that I’ve seen that supports the content that A) Mark Kennedy is the least-trusted politician in Minnesota and B) there was any backlash against his ads. The fact that he underpolled the President in a safe race is not evidence of anything other than that election followed the typical model for situations of its kind.
If the Democrats have to reach back to Terry Schiavo for help, they’re in deep trouble. Furthermore, given that 60 million American voters are evangelicals, I don’t think appealing to evangelicals will be a political negative for the GOP.
Don’t be so sure. In two years the political winds can shift dramatically…
Yes, and his name also happened to be Clinton.
Clinton wouldn’t be the easiest candidate to beat – not compared to the other members of the field, Dean, Gore, or Kerry…
“when the Democrats brought in a huge number of out-of-state activists to “help†Daschle. Instead, they ended up hurting him.”
And I’m sure the “yellow shirts” are what sealed Daschle’s fate.
“Except for the fact that Gephardt didn’t have any “door-knocking activistsâ€â€¦”
Wrong. Gephardt had the backing of most of the labor unions in Iowa. I know from my dad’s experience that the AFL-CIO is actively involved in door-knocking efforts for their endorsed candidate. The same effort was employed on behalf of Gephardt in Iowa.
“Actually, no. Several of the liked Edwards, and nearly all of them would have voted for a Lieberman or another more moderate candidate. There are plenty of people like that – social libertarians who have been drawn into the Democratic fold primarily by the radicalism of the Democrats and their fecklessness on the war issue.”
Obviously, a small number of otherwise Democratic voters couldn’t stand Kerry and voted against him, but I got news for you. Just as many if not more would have felt the same about Edwards, turned off by his “ambulance chaser” credentials or his “boyishness” or “lack of gravitas”. Far more Democrats would have voted against Lieberman because, you know, he agrees with George Bush on every major issue. It’s understandable that your definition of a “sane opposition party” is one that votes in lockstep with the Republicans, but those stubborn people who are actual Democrats just don’t see it that way.
“First of all, it’s not at all surprising that Kennedy didn’t poll as well as Bush.”
Why would that be? Kennedy was reapportioned to an almost entirely new district in 2002 and beat challenger Janet Robert by 20 points. Two years later, AFTER a term of incumbency, his margin shrunk to less than half even with coattails from a President winning by 15 points. Generally, the more entrenched an incumbent becomes, the LARGER his or her margins become. Why should Kennedy be exempted from that rule in your opinion?
“Furthermore, Kennedy has been polling even with Amy Klobuchar in most reputable polls”
Please direct me to a single poll where Kennedy is polling even with Klobuchar.
“there’s absolutely no evidence that I’ve seen that supports the content that A) Mark Kennedy is the least-trusted politician in Minnesota”
Why don’t you feast your eyes on this….http://www.mnpublius.com/2005/12/klobuchar_most_popular_public_1.html See which Minnesota politician is at the top of that trustworthiness list? That’s gotta smart.
“Furthermore, given that 60 million American voters are evangelicals, I don’t think appealing to evangelicals will be a political negative for the GOP.”
What’s your source for 60 million Americans being evangelicals? Given that evangelicals broke for Bush by an 85-15 margin, that would mean more than 80% of Bush’s vote came from evangelicals in 2004. It would also mean they constitute a near majority of the 120 million voters in America. Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. And it was after the Schiavo incident that Congressional Republicans’ approval ratings began to freefall. Underestimate its’ significance at your own peril.
“Yes, and his name also happened to be Clinton.”
Clinton’s negatives went down in the final months of the 1992 election? With all the draft-dodging, womanizing, and Whitewater mojo working against him? Perhaps that would be more believable if he’d won the election with more than 43% of the vote.
“Clinton wouldn’t be the easiest candidate to beat – not compared to the other members of the field, Dean, Gore, or Kerry…”
Right when I think you’ve found a new bogeyman to obsess over (Kos), you go back to poking your needle into the Howard Dean doll. Sorry to disappoint you, but Howard Dean will not be running for President in 2008. Kerry has lost his relevance and has arguably made himself at least AS unelectable as Hillary, but I disagree with you in regards to Gore. But even low-lying fruit like Tom Vilsack strike me as more electable than Hillary given her blisteringly high negatives and shrill-even-when-she’s-not-trying-to-be demeanor.
They certainly didn’t help him, and in a race where a handful of votes can make a difference, every little bit counts. The out-of-state activists hurt Daschle with conservative South Dakota voters.
I should have been more clear – Gephardt did indeed use union activists, but they weren’t nearly as vocal nor as radical as the Deaniacs. Plus, the political power of unions is nothing like it once was.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Kennedy won big in an off-year election where the Democrats were trending downwards – so Democratic turnout was less. 2004 was a Presidential year in which Democratic turnout was much higher. Kennedy not only faced higher Democratic turnout, but Republicans knew Kennedy had a safe seat, which tends to depress Republican turnout. And let’s face it, seven points is hardly a squeaker.
If you have a Presidential-year election with high Democratic turnout for an election with a seat generally regarded as safely Republican, you’ll see similar results as were seen in 2004. There’s nothing particularly surprising about that.
How about this one? Klobuchar’s lead is within the MOE. Klobuchar and Kennedy have been polling neck and neck in every reputable poll I’ve seen.
Odd how that page doesn’t exist…
Evangelicals make up just over one-quarter of the American population, being the largest religious group in America.
Indeed they did. Clinton’s negatives soared in January of 1992 and then gained throughout the summer.
Again, trying to judge where things stand two years out is a fool’s errand. Hillary has several major advantages: she’s got the media in her back pocket, and she’s a damn smart politician. None of the Democrats on the national stage have those advantages yet.
Hillary’s negatives are up because she’s not on the national stage and so her opponents have the edge – but once the Hillary media machine cranks up those negatives will plummet. Again, two years can change everything in politics.