[lbo-talk] so much for the new coalition...

shag shag at cleandraws.com
Fri May 9 09:44:43 PDT 2008


At 12:33 PM 5/9/2008, shag wrote:
>At 12:13 PM 5/9/2008, Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
> >My understanding is that, like the earlier Dean campaign, the impetus for
> >the Obama campaign came from the bottom up, from from Democratic party
> >supporters at the "netroots" bitterly opposed to Clinton for her stance on
> >Iraq and by temperment inclined to look for candidates from outside "the
> >establishment" - where the Clintons stood at the apex.
>
>oh horseshit. the netroots folks didn't get on board with obama for quite
>some time and remained ambivalent even through early february of this year:

doug also posted an article, not too long ago, which pointed out, as below, that it was facebook friending (or whatever they do) that was behind his online support. i remember posting it at the blog b/c i was thrilled to hear that netroots got a kick in the pants, as described below. which is to say, they are not a movement of anything except a bunch of white male brats who want someone to fund their desire to blog in their p.j.s for a living.

http://www.patrickruffini.com/2007/06/14/is-the-netroots-stalling-out/

Jerome Armstrong <http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/13/223057/676>gives voice to the netroots' frustration. He correctly perceives Barack Obama as an image candidate who talks the talk but won't really engage the "movement." Edwards, putatively the netroots frontrunner and riding on the wings of Joe Trippi, godfather to the online left, is stuck in the teens.

--

The netroots footprint on this primary is limited in scope and well defined. Lo and behold, they aren't the largest constituency in the Democratic Party. They aren't even the largest constituency online.

See, Barack Obama has mobilized people, even if he hasn't mobilized the netroots. He's brought in students, African Americans, and apparently, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU>young females. These are groups that are relatively apolitical. That's why when you loosen the likely voter screen just a little, Obama does a lot better.

But for all that they celebrate bringing new people into the process, the fact remains that Obama's voters are not the netroots. Demographically, the netroots are older (45 is the median), whiter, and more academic. They are fairly conventional liberals and "supervoters" ­ turning up in every general and most primaries. Obama's voters are not. Not only is Obama not talking to the netroots; like Hillary, he has made a calculation that he does not need the netroots.

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.

http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list