As I mentioned in a comment a few days ago, Markos Moulitsas from Daily Kos recommended that Democrats vote for Romney in the open Michigan primary since Obama and Edwards were off the Democratic ballot and thus the race would be meaningless.
That campaign appears to have not been very successful. But wait, you might say, didn't Romney just beat McCain in the Michigan primary today? Yes but it was due to the votes of solid Republicans, who made up 68% of the Republican electorate. They voted for Romney 41% vs. 27% for McCain according to exit polls.
Turnout among evangelicals and conservatives was up. Less independents turned out (25% vs 35% in 2000) and Democrats either voted meaningless Democratic primary or stayed home. Part of the reason may have been the campaigning for supporters of Obama and Edwards to vote uncommitted (which could matter if the DNC relents and actually allows the Michigan delegates to be seated at the convention, because in every congressional district with at least 15% of voters uncommitted, the delegates won't be required to stand for the winner of the CD: Hillary Clinton). The Democrats who did turn out for the Republicans overwhelmingly voted for McCain.
I thought the campaign would be more successful, but what I take away from it is more just the cruel reminder that the vast majority of voters (to say nothing of Americans in general) don't read blogs much less participate in their grassroots campaigns. But I'm quite happy Mitt won, even though he pretty much bought the state. McCain was beginning to look unstoppable.
One more interesting thing was Hillary's weakness among key demographic groups such as the young and minorities who overwhelmingly chose "uncommitted" over Clinton even though she was the only legitimate candidate on the ballot. Foreshadowing of South Carolina perhaps?
That campaign appears to have not been very successful. But wait, you might say, didn't Romney just beat McCain in the Michigan primary today? Yes but it was due to the votes of solid Republicans, who made up 68% of the Republican electorate. They voted for Romney 41% vs. 27% for McCain according to exit polls.
Turnout among evangelicals and conservatives was up. Less independents turned out (25% vs 35% in 2000) and Democrats either voted meaningless Democratic primary or stayed home. Part of the reason may have been the campaigning for supporters of Obama and Edwards to vote uncommitted (which could matter if the DNC relents and actually allows the Michigan delegates to be seated at the convention, because in every congressional district with at least 15% of voters uncommitted, the delegates won't be required to stand for the winner of the CD: Hillary Clinton). The Democrats who did turn out for the Republicans overwhelmingly voted for McCain.
I thought the campaign would be more successful, but what I take away from it is more just the cruel reminder that the vast majority of voters (to say nothing of Americans in general) don't read blogs much less participate in their grassroots campaigns. But I'm quite happy Mitt won, even though he pretty much bought the state. McCain was beginning to look unstoppable.
One more interesting thing was Hillary's weakness among key demographic groups such as the young and minorities who overwhelmingly chose "uncommitted" over Clinton even though she was the only legitimate candidate on the ballot. Foreshadowing of South Carolina perhaps?
1 Comments:
I think it's a weak link to associate what DK says with overarching summaries on the impact of new media. What if it activates people on a local level (e.g. a Madison blog says "vote for x") or the Michigan Democratic Party does not read DK and it's mostly whiney liberals from Oregon(I kid, I kid)?
It was a very untraditional suggestion. What would be interesting is to study how a blog like Daily Kos influences the voting pattern and political preferences of a reader. That would tell us much more than linking one blog post to a low turn out in a cross-party GOTV effort.
Post a Comment
<< Home