I was reading the DLC/centrist Bull Moose blog, and found its most recent article to be absolutely fascinating. Essentially, the "nutmeg state" (Connecticut) turns out to be "nuts about Joe [Lieberman]," probably the most despised Democratic Congressman in the left-wing blogosphere since Zell Miller blasted John Kerry at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Among regular Connecticut voters, according to a February 16 Quinnipiac University poll, Sen. Lieberman's approval rating is now at 63%-25%. Even more amazing, Lieberman leads left-wing blogosphere favorite Ned Lamont by 55 points, 68%-13%. What on earth is going on here? How can the liberal/left-wing blogosphere diverge so wildly from regular Democratic voters? Here's the Bull Moose analysis, with which I largely agree:
It has long been the Moose's view that there is a gap between the loudest voices of the left-wing blogosphere and its like minded activists and actual rank and file Democratic voters. That was clear in the 2004 Democratic primaries as actual voters shunned the internet noise and rejected the favored candidate of the blogosphere.[...]
This Connecticut poll is evidence that the vital center of American politics is alive and kicking. There is a silent centrist majority. Immoderate centrists should be emboldened to speak the truth and not fear the wingnuts of the left or the right.
Joe Lieberman is one of those rare American politicians who do not trim his sails to satisfy the fever swamp. He even puts country before party. Imagine that! The Moose, and more importantly the voters of his home state, are bully on his future as the continuing conscience of the Democratic Party.
The reason I find this analysis compelling is that there's lots of evidence - besides the Joe Lieberman poll results - supporting it. First, look at the candidates supported by the #1 liberal blog - Daily Kos - and how they fared in 2004. Howard Dean? Lost. The "Kos Dozen" (actually 15 candidates)? All lost their elections, despite half a million dollars in Daily Kos donations.
Second, check out the huge disconnect between "Dean Activists" (very similar to the most active members of Daily Kos, as far as I can determine) and "All Democrats," as demonstrated in an April 2005 Pew Research Center study. For instance, a majority of "All Democrats" support free trade, while a strong majority (58%-36%) of "Dean Activists" oppose it. On "gay marriage," 91% of "Dean Activists" favor it, compared to just 38% of "All Democrats." On Iraq, 99% of the "Dean Activists" believe that the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong, compared to 26% of "All Democrats" who support the war. On church-state separation, "Dean Activists" strongly (69%-30%) believe that churches should "keep out of political issues," compared to 45%-51% of "All Democrats" - the reverse of the "Dean Activists" -- on this issue. We could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture.
What's going on here? Very simple, actually. The people who frequent political blogs - liberal or conservative - tend to be the most passionate partisans on their respective sides of the aisle. Not surprisingly, these folks frequent blogs where ideological soulmates of theirs hang out. With all these like-minded people grouped together, what you then get, not surprisingly, is an "echo chamber" in which partisanship and political ideologies are reinforced and amplified. Sometimes to near-hysterical levels, by the way, from what I've observed over the past two years. Next thing you know, there's a major disconnect between the partisan blogs and the "rank and file" Democrats or Republicans, who don't live and breath this stuff 24/7/365 like the "activists."
Is any of this healthy? I'm a political blogger myself, but I truly have my doubts. No question, the liberal and conservative blogs serve a purpose, partly as a means of getting out information not reported (or under-reported, or mis-reported) in the "mainstream media." They also act as another important "check and balance" in the system. And, at their best, they can be an excellent organizational, community-building, and motivational tool. That's all fine. But, to the extent that the partisan political blogosphere merely exacerbates the divisions already existing in this country, I strongly doubt there's anything good about that. And, to the extent the partisan political blogosphere pushes people away from the "sensible center"/Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism towards the extremes on either side, I don't see what's so great about that either.
Anyway, I find this Lieberman disconnect - overwhelming support among "regular" Connecticut voters, but absolute disgust for him in the liberal/Democratic blogosphere - to be fascinating. I also find it troubling, even a bit disturbing. What do you all think?