June 15, 2007
The limits of the netroots
Patrick Ruffini, newly liberated from Giulianiland, has a provocative post asking whether the Netroots haven't "stalled out."
<quote> Lo and behold, they aren’t the largest constituency in the Democratic Party. They aren’t even the largest constituency online.
[snip]
The core reason for Jerome’s alienation is that the netroots are losing a battle for relevance to a bunch of Obama-supporting, Facebook-addled college kids. When the second quarter closes, it will probably be announced that Obama has raised at least $15 million online, three times what Dean did at this point last cycle, and about twice Edwards’ total. Obama has done it with some netroots support, but the not inconsiderable difference between him and Edwards is due to a cult of personality that matters far more than anyone’s support on the blogs. </quote>
There's a limit to this critique. The leading liberal bloggers (not identical to the broader netroots, in any case) may not win, as Andrew Rasiej said to me a while ago, but they will be heard. Their influence with the congressional leadership isn't going away either.
But that central point — that the netroots aren't the dominant force in online politics, just its avant garde — is a way in which online politics is beginning to normalize back toward the politics of the real world, in which activists are important, but also limited by their relative numbers.
[Ruffini: <http://www.patrickruffini.com/2007/06/14/is-the-netroots- stalling-out/>]