Over at Daily Kos, "Meteor Blades" has a 2008 Presidential poll that has now received 4,465 votes. The results are clear; Daily Kos readers want Al Gore to be the Democratic nominee in 2008, and it's not even close. The only problem is, Gore doesn't appear to be running for President. In spite of that, he's got 62% of the vote in the poll, with Russ Feingold in second place at 15%, 47 points behind Gore.Other 2008 hopefuls above single digits? None. Nada. Zip. In fact, the only others above 0% are Wes Clark (7%), John Edwards (4%), Mark Warner (2%), and John Kerry (1%). Not exactly much to write home about there, but at least these guy aren't at zero like Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton (37 votes total out of 4,465), Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and Tom Vilsack.
How does this Daily Kos poll correspond to the latest poll of Democrats generally? An early June 2006 Gallup poll has it quite differently, with Hillary Clinton at 36%, Al Gore at 16%, John Edwards at 12%, John Kerry at 11%, Wes Clark at 4%, Joe Biden at 4%, Russ Feingold at 3%, and Mark Warner at 2%. Not much similarity there, in other words, between Democrats in the country as a whole and Democrats in the liberal blogosphere.
The biggest differences? Hillary Clinton, with ZERO on Daily Kos and 36% (first place) among Democrats nationally. Also, Russ Feingold, with 15% on Daily Kos but just 3% nationally, and John Kerry, at 1% on Daily Kos but 11% nationally.
What are these huge differences all about? Does the liberal blogosphere know something that the general public doesn't, or vice versa? Is something else going on here, like an ideological disconnect? My theory: the liberal blogosphere's top priority is Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq. In addition, the liberal blogosphere looks for people willing to stand up to President Bush in a forceful, vocal way. For national Democrats, it's more about name recognition and perceived electability for 2008, with Iraq of less importance.
So, what's going to happen if Al Gore doesn't run and Hillary Clinton is the nominee? Will the liberal blogosphere get behind her or not? What if she chooses Russ Feingold or Wes Clark as her running mate, would that help? More broadly, how much influence will the liberal blogosphere exert in selecting the Democrats' 2008 Presidential nominee? Will this constitute a test of strength for the "netroots" at a time when its power appears to be growing rapidly (see Lieberman vs. Lamont)? What do you think?
P.S. I find it fascinating that Al Gore gets so much support in the liberal blogosphere despite the fact that he chose Joe Lieberman, possibly the most disliked Democrat in that same liberal blogosphere. This year, of course, Gore has stayed out of the Lieberman-Lamont contest, endorsing neither. Interesting.
Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign. The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.
If Hillary is the nominee (which I still think is unlikely), and the alternative is a Bush clone like Allen, the blogs will get behind her.
I wouldn't overstate the power of the netroots. Lieberman is in trouble because he's out of touch with the voters in Connecticut. The blogs were just the first to notice this and publicize it. Their greatest strength is to shine light into dark corners where the MSM refuses to look.
It's this kind of arrogance that bites political junkies in the ass. Residents of the blogosphere -- bloggers and readers alike -- are a tiny, tiny minority of the voting public. Not only that, we're also further from the center.
It is downright foolish to believe that blogs represent anything more than the opinions of the true believers, and that amounts to maybe 1% of the electorate... on a good day.
Take the DSCC report. How many Americans would have even read that unless they were listening to it on the radio, great invention, or the tv? The internet is just super in that regards. ( I hope our troops read RK).
Now folks can get the info probably quicker than an UPDATED newspaper story or a radio show. It is much quicker, almost as quick as the CNN reports that are endless all day. Depending on which blog you read, and I like to read many, you can get a different flavor, like flipping from CNN to Fox, etc (pretty limited). But you can get hundreds and hundreds of opinions from say Kos or RK or or TPMcafe or
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/frontPage.(Poor Lieberman).
He who laughs last................
kc.
Gore has a fantastic personality, and those responsible for making him as interesting and appealing as a tree stump during the campaign are largely responsible for Bush's election. If the voters could have seen the real Gore, I don't think the election would have been nearly so close.
And for those of you who haven't seen it, go see his movie. Even you Republicans - you'll find he's not as bad as you think and he has a very compelling message.
Although you've clearly made the distinction that this is a blog poll vs. public (and presumably statistically sound) Gallup poll, I'm not entirely convinced that it's even an reasonable representation of the blogoshpere.
With such a huge margin I feel comfortable saying that the active dKos community is in favor of Gore. But the rest, being more closely grouped, doesn't say too much.
There's a fundamental paradox here -- Dems fundamentally love leaders like the new Gore, who actually, well, LEAD --and yet we (or at least the Democratic establishment) seem terrified of actually naming such people to be our standard-bearers. Dems have shied away from nominating firebrands for a long time now, in favor of politicians who are cautious to the point of paralysis.
Is the tide turning on this, at least among the re-energized progressive base? Is it time to finally shed our fear and choose leaders who mean what they say, and say it forcefully?