How to neuter the Republicans: Can netroots bloggers do the job?

[WildEyedLiberal]

There's a must-read article about the liberal netroots in the new issue of the Boston Phoenix: http://www.thephoenix.com/article_ektid15735.aspx

Snip:

But the relationship between the party and the netroots is not as tight as it might seem. Although they need each other, they are not at all on the same page about what they can do — or want to do — for each another.

To many in the party, it’s all about money. Many of the National Journal respondents specifically cited the netroots’ ability to raise money for candidates. From the multi-million-dollar Web fundraisers for Dean’s 2004 presidential bid to the critical thousands directed to obscure congressional candidates, these online progressive communities can move grassroots dollars in a way not previously seen. And so the Dems came to the YearlyKos gathering in part to facilitate their efforts. And a few days later, back inside the Washington Beltway, Warner hosted a fundraiser — $250 a plate and up — for ActBlue, the Cambridge Web site devoted to funneling small progressive contributions to Democratic office-seekers.

Secondarily, the party sees the netroots as an attack-and-defend tool, able to respond quickly to lies and misrepresentations by the Republicans.

The netroots certainly intend to fulfill both roles, but they see themselves as much more important. They want to shape national debate; help form and implement national Democratic political strategies; select candidates and campaign themes; and get out the vote. In short, they want to lead, not follow. Direct, not just contribute. And if they feel marginalized, they’re not likely to be much help at all.

The rest of it is definitely worth reading.

[sandnsea]

1. Sales vs. Marketing

"As some progressives put it, Democrats were focused on sales — i.e., getting out the vote on Election Day — while Republicans mastered marketing. The result: total Republican control over the federal government."

That's it in a nutshell. Although we had a bit of marketing too, done by environmentalists, feminists, ACLU and the NAACP. The Democratic message was controlled by those groups instead of the party. Unless triangulating between them and Republicans is anybody's idea of vision.

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. This article also points out the disconnect

Between the "netroots" and the "heartland" - and speaking as a corn-fed heartland flyover state rube, I think they hit it pretty spot on. What attempt there is to understand and reach out to the Midwest and South usually amounts to awkward, obvious pandering - for example, Dean's "I want people with Confederate flags on their pickups to vote for me." Comments like that just illustrate how uncomfortable well-to-do coastal liberals are with blue-collar, salt of the earth type "heartland" people. There needs to be a real effort made to reach out to rural regions and take on issues that matter to them, and to do so in a genuine way.

[sandnsea]

3. Yeah, but there's this disconnect too

“In the ’90s, our policy agenda was re-oriented to the middle class, but our politics was always oriented to the upper class,” says Simon Rosenberg, a veteran Democratic activist, and president of the progressive (and well-funded) New Democrat Network.

Excuse me? Is that the choice? The top 20% or the top 2%? Where's the policies for the rest of the country because the actual 90's policies didn't do much for me. Certainly we had a better economy and that was great. But Clinton's policies were re-oriented to upper income voters, not the middle-working class. I wish somebody would re-orient to the low-median income working folks. Or do the liberal elite think that the rubes really don't care about the environment or global poverty or international trade. Because they do. Somebody just needs to make the relevant connections, that's all. Republicans did that to US small business and workers with "opening up global markets". We didn't respond with a strong enough case for the regulation to guarantee the playing field remained fair. Our lefties, the face of our "marketing", were busy saying no no no and nothing but no.

Americans are can do people and always want to progress. Fly-over country wants to progress with their own hard work. That's why things like Medicare for all and campaigns based on endless lists of social programs annoy them. They don't want to hear give schools more money, they want a plan and obviously will vote for even a stupid plan because it's better than more money for the existing plan that doesn't work. I think that's why they support Iraq, they still see it as the better than the stupid Clinton plan that gave us 9/11. We've got to convince them we've got a better plan on terrorism before they'll listen to a better plan on Iraq.

Bla bla bla bla, I blather too much.

[_dynamicdems]

4. Aw, I had hoped this post was literal.

snip

snip

:rofl: