The Netroots Election? Not So Fast

Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel say they are happy to share credit for the Democrats' electoral success, but not everyone in the party is feeling as generous. Progressive bloggers, who often promote and criticize the Democratic Party with equal vigor, want their props. MyDD blogger Chris Bowers concluded that netroots activists were crucial to victory--long before the votes were counted. Last month, he wrote that "most, if not all, of the significant improvements Democrats have made from 2004 to 2006 were generated primarily within the netroots and the progressive movement." Yet the election results suggest the netroots' scorecard is decidedly mixed.

The blogs' most famous candidate and top fundraising beneficiary, Ned Lamont, lost his bid to unseat Senator Joe Lieberman. One of the campaign's senior advisors, former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis, said the victory "proved the blogosphere is all wind and very little sail." Bloggers tell a different story: the unusual, three-way race should not be judged strictly by who won but also by its success in helping "make Iraq the center of this electoral season," as Joel Silberman wrote on FireDogLake. If Lamont's loss is counted as a symbolic effort that beat expectations, his performance fits a pattern. Many of the netroots' most popular House candidates beat expectations this week, but ultimately lost.

While there is no single, authoritative list of netroots candidates, ActBlue.com, a Democratic fundraising clearinghouse, lists the candidates nominated by top blogs and ranks them by total donors. Looking at their top 20 Democratic House candidates, so far ten have lost, three have won and the other seven are in races that are still too close too call at the time of writing. The netroots' lost races include national names, such as FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley in Minnesota and New York's Eric Massa, the popular former aide to Gen. Wesley Clark. Winners include attorney Paul Hodes in New Hampshire and two veterans, Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Tim Walz in Minnesota. (Bloggers also provided critical early support to long-shot Senate challengers Jon Tester and Jim Webb, who were locked in races that were also still too close to call on Wednesday morning.)

Yet regardless of the remaining results and recounts, the fact is the netroots' favorite candidates did not perform as well as the Democrats targeted by party leaders. And they were never supposed to. Many of the bloggers' picks were aggressive Democrats in long-shot districts who were neglected by the Beltway establishment. There is no doubt that bloggers leveraged money and political buzz to make races more competitive and put Republicans on the defensive, but it was simply not the decisive factor in the elections

John Aravosis writes AmericaBlog, which raised over $100,000 from about 1,900 activists this cycle, but on election night he resisted attempts to measure the netroots' impact. "It's too hard to define who did what. We could have defined quite easily that John Kerry lost it for us if he had not shut up after two days, but to know whether blogs [had a bigger effect than] unions is like saying was Rahm Emanuel more effective than Howard Dean? I don't know," he told The Nation. That sentiment is probably shared by many netroots activists, who are more focused on the Democratic victory than parceling out credit.

The more interesting question, Aravosis argues, is how will the blogs adapt to working with "Democrats who actually have power." In the short term, he hopes to hammer home the message that the election proves Americans think conservatism is "inherently wrong," rally support for voting rights reform, and support the House Democrats' new agenda. Other bloggers are more interested in crafting the agenda: Arianna Huffington's top blog on election night chastised Howard Dean for backtracking so far on Iraq in a CNN interview that he sounded like he was pitching "the president's plan."

Mr. Davis, a self-described "liberal Democrat" who repeatedly tangled with bloggers during his work on behalf of Joe Lieberman, said on election night that the blogosphere must evolve in order to have a broader impact. "If the blogosphere is to have an impact on changing the country as opposed to talking to each other, the Lamont campaign is a lesson in exactly what not to do. They came out of a primary and they continued to wage a primary," he said, "but they weren't talking to unaffiliated voters and moderate Republicans." Davis told The Nation he has a new proposal that the blogosphere establish voluntary rules for "fairness, accuracy and accountability," requiring writers and commentors to provide their real names, phone numbers and addresses, and forbidding anonymous comments offering misleading or personal attacks. He argues that Democrats cannot change the minds of people voting against their "economic self-interest" by offering "words of hate" or "anonymous attacks."

Benjamin Rahn, President of ActBlue.com, believes online activists have already cleared that hurdle, because they are part of the offline political dialogue across the country. "In many ways the netroots are just the most visible part of the nationwide grassroots movement. The conversations happening online, in the blogosphere, and by e-mail from friend to friend to friend, are also happening in bars and coffee shops and PTA meetings. We just don't happen to mike them and put the audio online for everyone to hear," he explained via e-mail. "And the people who used ActBlue to fundraise are also the people who made phone calls with MoveOn's call to change, and waved signs at street corners today, and helped out at polling places. And those are the people who are going to wake up tomorrow and say "Damn, that felt good. Let's do it again."

Comments (73)

1. ROFLMAO!!!!!

   "the unusual, 3-way race should not be judged strictly by who won"

   Uh...okay....so do we not judge the REST of the Congressional races by "strictly who won"?!?!?

   Lamont's defeat shows Davis was right. The Blogosphere got Ned the nomination, but couldn't get him out from under a TEN point (sometimes 20) loss to Lieberman from the primaries onward.

   Hillary is probably feeling pretty safe tonight that EVEN IF Daily Kos, MyDD, and the rest come "gunning for her" in the Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire primaries....she's got little to worry about.

   (I'm leaving out "Move On.org" for one reason....WHO was Move On originally established to defend...and who's he married to?)

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 09:26am

2. you seem angry today mask

   is it because your prediction of a 3 seat majority in the house was as usual... bullshit?

   Posted by Will C. at 11/08/2006 @ 09:29am

3. Posted by WILL C. 11/08/2006 @ 09:29am

   Think I was still predicting "Speaker Nancy", WILL...if low-balling the majority she'd have.

   And with conservative Democrats in the House...I STILL might not be that off...hehe!

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 09:38am

4. Mask, if even if you get a three seat majority.. you get speaker pelosi. But congradualations on predicting the obvious

   and now with the rubber stamp officially boxed and shelved, any conservative democrats voting with the stamps will surely be offset by moderate republicans

   Posted by Will C. at 11/08/2006 @ 09:49am

5. LOL!

   "will surely be offset by moderate republicans"

   Posted by WILL C. 11/08/2006 @ 09:49am

   Wait a minute...so the "moderate republicans" who were rubber-stamping BEFORE the Dems took Congres...will now STOP rubber-stamping to "off-set conservative Dems"!?!?!?

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 09:56am

6. Wait a minute...so the "moderate republicans" who were rubber-stamping BEFORE the Dems took Congres...will now STOP rubber-stamping to "off-set conservative Dems"!?!?!?

   Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 09:56am

   you poor little guy, they won't stop rubber stamping to a offset conservatives dems. They'll stop rubber stamping because they are no longer rubber stamps

   Posted by Will C. at 11/08/2006 @ 09:58am

7. Posted by WILL C. 11/08/2006 @ 09:58am

   "they won't stop rubber stamping to a offset conservatives dems. They'll stop rubber stamping because they are no longer rubber stamps"

   Why is that, WILL? The moderate Repubs are going to join with the liberal Dems NOW to off-set the conservative Dems....but they didn't when it was a REPUB Congress?!?!? Why?

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 10:07am

8. you've done a wondeful job of not defending your position today.

   but you don't seem to have re-thought anything.

   Is it because you're a mindless hamster?

   Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2006 @ 6:55pm

   Sorry to jump threads... looked like comments were turned off on our litte rant from yesterday.

   I did a decent job of stating my position - which was not an unreasonable one - and a poor job of citing specific examples to support it.

   I did an even worse job convincing you of anything, which is fine, as that's not a goal of mine anyway.

   Shockingly enough, I have rethought some things, but not in regards to the issue we were discussing - more about how to interact and communicate.

   And no, this is not because I'm a mindless hamster, although that is such a cute name. I'm not sure I even qualify to be labeled as a hamster as I'm not a registered Republican.

   Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 10:50am

9. I've never tried to influence anyone here as to with whom they can associate.

   If you want to have a beer with the guy, have a beer with the guy

   likewise if he takes a shot at me, I'm going to take one back

   but that isn't really what's important to me here. The enemy that you see isn't the one that's dangerous. The fire breathing hamster isn't the one you have to look out for. It's the one that appears reasonable.

   From my experience here, it's just a mask they wear. It's the gentle hand that gives their policies the illusion of thoughtfulness and caring. It's the con job that makes them appear benevolent... right before they they start hurting people.

   Posted by WILL C. 11/07/2006 @ 9:49pm

   Beers are on me whenever you're in Columbus.

   No masks here, my friend. What you see is what you get. I have no agenda, other than to learn.

   Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 10:52am

10. .

    ISRAEL RESPONDS TO THE AMERICAN ELECTION RESULTS WITH THIS:

    Israeli artillery fire kills 19 women, children, in Gaza Strip Malaysia Sun Wednesday 8th November, 2006

    Palestinian witnesses say artillery shells from Israeli tanks struck seven houses in Beit Hanoun in the pre-dawn hours, Wednesday. Hospital emergency rooms in Gaza City say more than 50 people were wounded in the attack - most of them women and children who were struck by the shells as they slept.

    "We pulled out bodies, all women and children, dismembered, without heads or hands," Khaled Abu Saada, a Palestinian ambulance driver who evacuated the wounded to hospitals, told Ynet News.

    http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/1bf6 f3fd02c2d11a/cs/1/

    CAN SOMEBODY IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY IN THE US GOVERNMENT STEP UP TO THE GODDAMN PLATE AND CONDEMN THIS RACIST GENOCIDAL BULLSHIT?

    .

    Posted by plunger at 11/08/2006 @ 10:54am

11. Hey, MASK . . thats a very subtle evolution in your babbling. Six months ago it was the "futility of out of touch liberals ever beating the Republicans" and now it's "the Democrats didn't REALLY win". Your political genes are still bitterly Republican, aren't they, you cameleon?

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 11:16am

12. Sounds to me like Ari Melber is more interested in exterminating the new media, slightly-too-liberal wing of the Democratic Party than reporting on it. He is, I think, horrified that the election has revealed a non-net connected Democratic grassroots that is even more progressive than the Daily Kos muppets and he's just aiming his fire at the most visible target.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 11:24am

13. Am i the only one that cannot get to the other comment blogs? looking forward to one of the best lunch breaks in 2 years. Waaa.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2006 @ 11:55am

14. Am i the only one that cannot get to the other comment blogs? looking forward to one of the best lunch breaks in 2 years. Waaa.

    Posted by CRABWALK 11/08/2006 @ 11:55am

    No, I've had trouble as well - couple blogs didn't have comments available; have gotten several "server error" msgs. Sleepy webmasters...

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 11:58am

15. " The Unstoppable Harold Ford"

    oops. Guess not.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2006 @ 11:59am

16. Emmanuel was a blight on the party. A blight with a LOT of money.

    Posted by ZERO 11/08/2006 @ 11:41am

    Here is an example of a race, my district [tinyurl.com], that the Rahm Emmanuel's ignored until a full month after the NRCC recognized the seat as in danger and started pouring major money into it. The DLC types showed up in the last three weeks to claim the credit that was largely due to grassroots efforts financed from outside the DLC moneybags.

    McNerney is just a run of the mill liberal, something considered untouchable be the DLC elite. The Rahm Emmanuel's are the poison in the Democratic Party.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 11:59am

17. Thanks, TK. Being a neo-Luddite, I usually assume I haven't used the right stone tablet.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2006 @ 12:00pm

18. Am i the only one that cannot get to the other comment blogs? looking forward to one of the best lunch breaks in 2 years. Waaa.

    Posted by CRABWALK 11/08/2006 @ 11:55am

    When I go to KVH's "A New Morality" I get automatically signed out.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:01pm

19. Thanks, TK. Being a neo-Luddite, I usually assume I haven't used the right stone tablet.

    Posted by CRABWALK 11/08/2006 @ 12:00am

    LOL. You can tell you're using the wrong stone tablet if there's a Windows logo anywhere on it (such as the company issued Dell I'm typing on presently).

    It'd be great if the Dem's first offical act as majority power would be to mandate Macs for everyone. I might even vote Dem...

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 12:06pm

20. So, we celebrate here!!

    There really is only one entity to thank, not lib bloggers, not Rahm or Howie (although they get some cred), not Michael Moore or Hanoi jane.

    It is the new (now old) republican party and their being exposed as the morally corrupt hypocrites they are.

    Thanks again for being yourselves.

    And thanks to the sheeple of America who are finally coming out of their fear induced catatonic state.

    and thanks to Chimpy for handing the dems the House.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2006 @ 12:12pm

21. Posted by CRABWALK 11/08/2006 @ 12:12am

    You're welcome. Good luck.

    Who's Chimpy?

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 12:14pm

22. "When McNerney comfortably defeated Steve Filson and Steve Thomas in the June 2006 primary, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee considered his views too liberal for him to seriously challenge Pombo and decided against spending serious dough on the race." [tinyurl.com]

    And now he's trounced Pombo. The DCCC tried to force unheard of Filson on the local Democrats and they showed him the door in the primary.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:15pm

23. Why is that, WILL? The moderate Repubs are going to join with the liberal Dems NOW to off-set the conservative Dems....but they didn't when it was a REPUB Congress?!?!? Why?

    Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 10:07am | ignore this person

    Mask,

    Much is dependent upon the leadership of Congress, and how the legislation is crafted and for what purpose. The Republicans were good at placing legislation which would make Democrats vulnerable to oppose, as their vote would then be used cheaply against them during campaigns. For example, the Homeland Security Bill that was twisted to present some Democrats as unpatriotic when in reality, they opposed the Republican version-not the concept. Or consider, the war vote; kerry and others voted for the war, but certainly they would not have taken such a postion on their own initiative. They voted out of fear in an unfavorable political climate.

    Democrats will now have the power to place legislation on the plate that will be dangerous for many moderate Republicans, as well as conservative Democrats to oppose.

    Posted by Oustbush at 11/08/2006 @ 12:16pm

24. Posted by TKACG 11/08/2006 @ 12:06am

    Mine has a fruit logo, with a bite missing. No snake around, though.

    I have made my imac/intel uncrashable system puke more times than I can count! Must be my magnetic personality.

    but, I agree. Glad my truck does not run like my office computer (all Windows). I would need a tech strapped down in the back. That vote may guarantee a dem pres!

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2006 @ 12:16pm

25. Who's Chimpy?

    Posted by TKACG 11/08/2006 @ 12:14am

    Yeah . . who is Chimpy? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:16pm

26. Who's Chimpy?

    Posted by TKACG 11/08/2006 @ 12:14am

    Chimpy McFlightsuit, The Commander in Chimp. Dumbya. The The Googler. the worst president in history. The Deciderererer. The Nookyular President.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/08/2006 @ 12:18pm

27. who is Chimpy

    well, it rhymes with tush

    and it's been given a push

    and if we get two more seats

    smoosh

    Posted by MyParadigm at 11/08/2006 @ 12:19pm

28. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 12:15am

    The DCCC considered McNerney's politics too liberal in a majority Republican district and he just trounced Pombo. How out of touch is the DCCC? Way out of touch.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:20pm

29. Posted by CRABWALK 11/08/2006 @ 12:18am

    Re: Chimpy. Ah. I get it.

    If only I'd been blogging during Lewinsky-gate.

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 12:28pm

30. If only I'd been blogging during Lewinsky-gate.

    Posted by TKACG 11/08/2006 @ 12:28am

    Commander-in-Chimp offers such a target rich enviroment for the Dems. It's like shooting a 3-legged deer.

    Posted by tkacg at 11/08/2006 @ 12:29pm

31. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Adds Jerry McNerney to "Red to Blue"

    California Political Desk

    October 27, 2006 The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee today added Jerry McNerney to its prestigious Red to Blue program.

    http://tinyurl.com/so8f5

    Ten days before the election! To the DCCC, he's an ugly stepdaughter. The progressives in the Democratic Party need to face facts. If the Democratic Party elite can't win with sellouts they don't want to win.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:31pm

32. Posted by OUSTBUSH 11/08/2006 @ 12:16am

    By now you've noticed WILL stopped replying to me. He got a little ahead of himself, claiming that the Repub Congress was a "rubber stamp", then deciding that "moderate Repubs" (who were part of that "rubber stamp") would save the liberal Dems from the conservative Dems because they...uh...hmmm?

    BTW...I hope you're right.

    If a piece of legislation is too "dangerous" for conservative Dems and moderate Repubs to oppose...it means it's pretty moderate and not some radical left-wing agenda.

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 12:32pm

33. Commander-in-Chimp offers such a target rich enviroment for the Dems. It's like shooting a 3-legged deer.

    Posted by TKACG 11/08/2006 @ 12:29am

    By the way, did Cheney swallow his shotgun yesterday? Just hoping for the best.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:32pm

34. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 12:31am

    So FRB...how soon will Speaker Nancy and Majority Leader Harry....

    gut funding to Israel unless they agree to a referendum in "historic Palestine" on their continueing existance???

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 12:33pm

35. Sounds to me like Ari Melber is more interested in exterminating the new media, slightly-too-liberal wing of the Democratic Party than reporting on it. He is, I think, horrified that the election has revealed a non-net connected Democratic grassroots that is even more progressive than the Daily Kos muppets and he's just aiming his fire at the most visible target.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 11:24am | ignore this person

    I agree. This position, by Melber, is far too simplistic. The Lamont campaign was far from a toy or pawn of the bloggers. I spent some time volunteering with the Lamont people and I can assure you that bloggers, while they may have been channeling some funds, were not relevant to the real work necessary for any political campaign. Phone calls, door knocking or GOTV is the only thing that really matters. Blogs are useful in disseminating information, circumventing corporate media and raising money, but this article is over-reaching in its assessment of lamont and his so-called dependence on the blogs.

    Posted by Oustbush at 11/08/2006 @ 12:34pm

36. BTW...I hope you're right.

    If a piece of legislation is too "dangerous" for conservative Dems and moderate Repubs to oppose...it means it's pretty moderate and not some radical left-wing agenda.

    Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 12:32am

    Keep hoping MASK . . you're toast. Why don't you start posting from the House basement LOSER?

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:34pm

37. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 12:31am

    So FRB...how soon will Speaker Nancy and Majority Leader Harry....

    gut funding to Israel unless they agree to a referendum in "historic Palestine" on their continueing existance???

    Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 12:33am

    Say that again, MASK . . the connection must be bad. Are you posting from the House basement or from israel?

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:37pm

38. MASK

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

    Hey, MASK, how about some new and improved political forecasts? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:41pm

39. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 12:37am

    Odd?...you're LAUGHING at the inevitable push by Pelosi and Reid to force Israel, via massive aid cuts, into the bargaining table for its self-destruction?!?!?

    Why FRB....don't you know that the Dem victory was..."all about slapping down genocidal Israel"!?!?

    (I mean, everybody else is claiming it was a referendum on THEIR particular issue....why not you?!??)

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 12:43pm

40. Someone let me know when Ari is done fellating Rahmbo. Here's the numbers on Rahm's Recruits:

    # of "Fighting Dems" recruited by Rahm Emanuel: 59

    # who won: 3

    # who won that aren't in Rahmbo's home state: 1 (Tim Walz in MN01)

    That represents a lot of DCCC money pissed down the toilet. Rhamese I has some 'splainin to do.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 11/08/2006 @ 12:46pm

41. frb: i think we agree on emmanuel. the shocking thing, for me, is that so little attention got paid to emmanuel by even so-called "left" media during this election.

    Posted by ZERO 11/08/2006 @ 12:44am

    The internal enemies of those who vote Democratic must have their real loyalties exposed. The "liberals" shrink from the fight but, unless they change, it will only result in their own eventual failure.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:50pm

42. Why FRB....don't you know that the Dem victory was..."all about slapping down genocidal Israel"!?!?

    (I mean, everybody else is claiming it was a referendum on THEIR particular issue....why not you?!??)

    Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 12:43am

    What's your particular issue, MASK? Changing the subject from your LOSER status and from your 180 degree wrong idiot political forecasts over the whole last f'n year?

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 12:54pm

43. GRYO

    I did sincerely congratulate the DEMS for the win on Katrina's blog, though there seems to be a problem with posting on it for now.

    To sum up, i hope that the spirit of bi-partsianship is not just empty rhetoric, that Speaker Pelosi mentioned.

    Though i dont think that will last for very long.

    But as a conservative leaning type of guy, i am not depressed at all.

    Many DEMS who won election won by going to the right. And portraying themselves as such, Harold Ford is a good example. even though he didnt win he made a strong showing in a normally strong RED state.

    A Montana DEM is NOT a NE DEM. As i said, Pelosi did well by backing candidates who were conservative DEMs. This is all but an admission that she knows extreme liberal views cant win national elections.

    Many conservative ballot initatives were passed, than were defeated.

    Lieberman won re-election in the NE and he is a staunch advocate of the war.

    So again, i truly and sincerely hope they do a good job for the country and not just their party. It is not a super majority but now the have to produce. I wish them well, and will support the will of the people.

    I really do not want the DEMS to fail, because if they fail it is bad for the country.

    I think they will be fairly conservative in their agenda. Minimun wage increase is not a radical policy shift. I hope THEY can come up with an alternative plan to make Social security stable or better....they didnt have one before.

    If they go too far to the left and allow the extreme members of their party to take over...well, they will pay the price in 08

    Posted by CPT at 11/08/2006 @ 12:54pm

44. CPT - Lieberman won because he received most of the repubican vote in the state while holding on to a decent amount of dems who voted for him since he first ran for the senate in the late 80's.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 1:00pm

45. I'm posting this here because I can't post it over at KVH's "A New Morality" thread. It's funny to see social neanderthal OKSPORTSGUY fulminating his homophobia as compensation for being a body slammed LOSER. Why don't you get together with your "red state" friends, those few that are left, and burn some gays at the stake tonight?

    And 7 states in all which include Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin all passed ballot initiatives that defined marriage as a union or one man and one woman and furthermore each state will not recognize same sex marriages of people that were married in other states.

    Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 11/08/2006 @ 08:33am

    The "gay San Francisco" that you neanderthals are always babbling about is, to a great degree, populated by your own. The children of the residents of those states will still continue to emigrate to states that treat them like human beings regardless of their private, personal preferences. And you can celebrate with glee over introducing your inquisition-style preferences into someone else's bedroom rather than just minding your own business.

    Maybe it's time for more enlightened states to stop recognizing marriages from any state that doesn't recognize all marriages.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 1:00pm

46. If they go too far to the left and allow the extreme members of their party to take over...well, they will pay the price in 08

    Posted by CPT 11/08/2006 @ 12:54am

    That is most likely true. Republicans allowed Bush to take them far to the right, and if not for 9/11 he would have been out in '04.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 1:01pm

47. GRYO

    He still won, in big blue state, where Lamont ran solely on the fact that he was anti-war candidate.

    So I interepert that plus the rest of the election data to mean that the fringe DEMS have not taken over the WHOLE of the DEM party, although their leaders sure seem to be skirting the border of the fringe.

    Posted by CPT at 11/08/2006 @ 1:04pm

48. Lieberman won re-election in the NE and he is a staunch advocate of the war.

    Posted by CPT 11/08/2006 @ 12:54am

    I can't wait to see him holding hearings in the basement with the Republicans.

    Nice to see your newborn bipatisanship, CPT. I'm sure that won't have any effect on your advocacy of indiscriminately shooting unarmed Iraqis, though, will it?

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 1:05pm

49. GRYO

    But again, kudos to the DEMS they won last night, i hope they do well for the country...it is still a dangerous time in thw world and their needs to be some bi-partisanship.

    Posted by CPT at 11/08/2006 @ 1:06pm

50. Hey, CPT, how does bipartisanship fit in with your advocacy of torture?

    Get lost.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 1:06pm

51. FRB

    You never change do you, i never advocated INDISCRIMINATE killing of anyone.

    Only those who shoot at us first and help others to do so.

    Posted by CPT at 11/08/2006 @ 1:09pm

52. I'll share one comment I experienced while volunteering at the polls in my conservative district located in the Shenandoah Valley, VA--regarding our anti-gay marriage amendment.

    red-neck guy (typical Republican), stops and spews out: "How do I vote if I don't want the queers to marry?"

    Posted by Oustbush at 11/08/2006 @ 1:09pm

53. FRB

    You see you are the DEFINITION of the fringe of your party.

    An angry hate-filled little activist, but your hate is selective toward those who are in a position of power or superioity.

    Posted by CPT at 11/08/2006 @ 1:12pm

54. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 12:54am

    Poor FRB....greatest victory in years for the Left....

    and he can't enjoy it.

    He knows that neither Speaker Nancy, nor ML Harry, or anybody else in the Dem Congress is going to take up his call for the destruction of Israel.

    Sure he'll nod approvingly at minimum wage hikes, lobbying reform, maybe even some "Murtha Plan"....but "evil AIPAC will be pulling the Democrats' strings", as they refuse to destroy Israel for him!

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 1:19pm

55. FRB

    You never change do you, i never advocated INDISCRIMINATE killing of anyone.

    Only those who shoot at us first and help others to do so.

    Posted by CPT 11/08/2006 @ 1:09pm

    You spent half a day claiming that the Iraqi family shot to death with 50 caliber machine guns sped toward a checkpoint when there never was a checkpoint. All they did was unknowingly drive by the front gate when their "liberators" were driving out. Liar.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 1:26pm

56. FRB

    You see you are the DEFINITION of the fringe of your party.

    An angry hate-filled little activist, but your hate is selective toward those who are in a position of power or superioity.

    Posted by CPT 11/08/2006 @ 1:12pm

    How f'n embarrassed I am. By the way, to be a big guy, like you, do I have to be a LOSER like you?

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 1:28pm

57. Poor FRB....greatest victory in years for the Left....

    and he can't enjoy it.

    He knows that neither Speaker Nancy, nor ML Harry, or anybody else in the Dem Congress is going to take up his call for the destruction of Israel.

    Sure he'll nod approvingly at minimum wage hikes, lobbying reform, maybe even some "Murtha Plan"....but "evil AIPAC will be pulling the Democrats' strings", as they refuse to destroy Israel for him!

    Posted by MASK 11/08/2006 @ 1:19pm

    It really sucks to LOSE, doesn't it LOSER?

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 1:30pm

58. How much more laughable can it get? CPT babbling about bi-partisanship when six months ago he was calling liberals "traitors".

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 1:32pm

59. And, MASK, who six months ago couldn't talk about anything except how futile it was to try to unseat the Republicans and now all he can say is, "Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to destroy israel, though".

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! I'm gonna bust a rib!

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 1:35pm

60. Posted by CPT 11/08/2006 @ 1:04pm

    What happens when two democrats split the democratic vote, one democrat gets a vast majority of the repubican vote, and the republican takes a small fraction of his party's vote?

    See CT's Senate race yesterday for your answer.

    If Lieberman didn't selfishly run, Lamont would have won easily.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 1:38pm

61. FRB

    You see you are the DEFINITION of the fringe of your party.

    An angry hate-filled little activist, but your hate is selective toward those who are in a position of power or superioity.

    Posted by CPT 11/08/2006 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person

    Those who maintain power are not necessarily in such positions due to superior intellect, ability, ethical ideology, or merit. You see, 'America', is an abstraction consisting of many diverse, competing struggles, classes, ideas, objectives, and needs. The dominant or superior powers you allude to project their own specific interests as "national interests". Struggling Americans do not share the same goals as military contracting executives, or investment bankers seeking foreign markets safe for their own money-making ventures,and so on. These are the people with vast majority of resources, power, and decsion making influence molding domestic and international events. They may be comfortable to function from the base of economic abstractions that remove human and social considerations, but others, such as FromRedbird are not so convinced that this trashing of the nation, as well as the planet in pursuit of individual greed, or policies that benefit a small, aristocratic minority at the expense of everyone else, is behavior that should be tolerated, much less endorsed.

    Posted by Oustbush at 11/08/2006 @ 1:40pm

62. FRB

    You see you are the DEFINITION of the fringe of your party.

    An angry hate-filled little activist, but your hate is selective toward those who are in a position of power or superioity.

    Posted by CPT 11/08/2006 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person

    Those who maintain power are not necessarily in such positions due to superior intellect, ability, ethical ideology, or merit. You see, 'America', is an abstraction consisting of many diverse, competing struggles, ideas, objectives, and needs. The dominant or superior powers you allude to project their own specific interests as "national interests". Struggling Americans do not share the same goals as military contracting executives, or investment bankers seeking foreign markets safe for their own money-making ventures,and so on. These are the people with vast majority of resources, power, and decsion making influence molding domestic and international events. They may be comfortable to function from the base of economic abstractions that remove human and social considerations, but others, such as FromRedbird are not so convinced that this trashing of the nation, as well as the planet in pursuit of individual greed, or policies that benefit a small, aristocratic minority at the expense of everyone else is behavior that should be tolerated, much less endorsed.

    Posted by Oustbush at 11/08/2006 @ 1:41pm

63. How much more laughable can it get? CPT babbling about bi-partisanship when six months ago he was calling liberals "traitors".

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 1:32pm

    There is a double-standard being applied by many conservatives and republican posters here in that when dems/libs are in the minority it's just too bad but now that the shoe is on the other foot dems/libs are suppose to reach out.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/08/2006 @ 1:41pm

64. I'll be back later. Right now, I'm going out for a late, "hate-filled" breakfast. Hee, hee, hee.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 2:06pm

65. "Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to destroy israel, though".

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 11/08/2006 @ 1:35pm

    Oh, I'm sorry...Speaker Nancy DOES want to destroy Israel like you do?!?!?

    Missed that in her press conference (the one where she talked about bipartisanship and working with the Republicans and the President?).

    Posted by Mask at 11/08/2006 @ 2:23pm

66. The Republican version of bi-partisanship:

    The Republican Congress held 140 hours of hearings to investigate who was on the Clinton White House's Christmas card list. For the Abu Ghraib torture scandal they held 12 hours of hearings and swept it under the rug.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 2:56pm

67. Keep up the inventive nattering about israel, MASK . . you're hell'a funny for a LOSER.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 2:58pm

68. Rumsfeld sent down the s*** chute.

    What a shame . . it's hard to find dimwitted, ideologically demented, draftdodging, Republican twits to lead the Pentagon. What will CPT do without his Fuhrer? Get a life, maybe?

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 3:03pm

69. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN ENDORSES JERRY MCNERNEY FOR CONGRESS

    October 29, 2006 United States Senator Dianne Feinstein has endorsed Jerry McNerney and praised his campaign for change.

    http://tinyurl.com/y83tfo

    Gee, why didn't she just wait until a week AFTER the election?

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/08/2006 @ 3:10pm

70. There are many soldiers in this battle, and you deign to disparage some?

    Posted by phef at 11/08/2006 @ 5:19pm

71. Lanny Davis has revolted me since he made a tour of the talking head programs asking the audience to "Repeat after me. It's all about sex." Condescending aristocratic attitudes are not, alas, confined to the Repugnicant party.

    Posted by ash at 11/08/2006 @ 5:29pm

72. So you are acknowledging that netroots had an important role in early support for Webb and Tester, which in the end are the two seats which will give the Senate to the Democrats. Maybe not every netroot candidate has won, but most of them were long-shots that the DNC rejected to help, and yet ten of them may end up winning their seats against all odds. I would say netroots have had a *very* important role in these election. They have also contributed a lot in GOTV.

    Posted by isaaccp at 11/09/2006 @ 02:33am

73. According to an exit poll at the CBS News site, 70% of Lieberman's votes came from Republicans and 33% came from (quite possibly low-informed) Democrats. His victory was a Republican one, not one for the Democratic Party.

    If the intent is to remake the Democratic Party into Republican Lite, then Lieberman is the guy to do it.

    Bloggers also provided critical early support to long-shot Senate challengers Jon Tester and Jim Webb, who were locked in races that were also still too close to call on Wednesday morning.

    This is true. Webb was the netroots candidate in the primary against the lobbyist Harris Miller and Tester was the netroots candidate against John Morrison. The margins of victory were narrow for both Webb and Tester, but does anyone think that either Miller or Morrison could have even won?

    As has been pointed out, many netroots candidates were longshots that were not embraced by the DSCC or the DCCC. Webb didn't even get any attention from the establishment Dems until the "Maccaca Meltdown" was shown on the web and was then picked up by MSM. This allowed Webb to raise $1 million in a few days and attract the attention of the DSCC.

    On the other hand, Dem elite candidates, like the one in my district, lost. After receiving $600,000 for her primary race, she beat a netroots/grassroots candidate. She would not even discuss the possibility of recrafting the trade agreements that have so devastated job prospects in my state but she did excoriate us to work harder (if we were lucky enough to have jobs) and to get more education so that we could seek employment in jobs that no longer exist in this country. After receiving $3 million in funding from the DCCC, money that could have been used in close races by netroots candidates, money that could have given them victory, Emanuel's girl lost. Ah, but at least she didn't attack the Repub/DCL "lift all boats" free trade myth.

    The DLC darling, Harold Ford, lost. The economic populists (Webb, McCaskill, Casey, Brown, Cardin) won. At least three of them (Webb, McCaskill, Brown) were netroot favorites and received a good portion of their funding online.

    Posted by Old Dem at 11/09/2006 @ 04:09am