website statistics

Archive for the 'Guest Bloggers' Category

Matt Stoller Fails to Consolidate the Netroots

Published by Not Paul Begala on January 31, 2008 in Barack Obama, Comment Sections, Democrats, Guest Bloggers, Netroots, Online Polling and Straw Polls. 2 Comments

[Note: It's been awhile since we've heard from Not Paul Begala, but he's back today, for at least one more post.]

Matt Stoller, on Edwards’ departure from the race:

It’s entirely unclear who the Edwards voters are going to turn to, but we do know that Clinton picked up no activist support in the blogosphere. Obama has fully consolidated the netroots, from last month when there was a split with Edwards. I expect to see internal pressure from heavily creative class dominated institutions who emerged from 1998-2006 to move into Obama’s camp.

To paraphrase Dan Akroyd: Stoller, you ignorant slut. Or at least, you misreader of Internet polls. While dKos straw polls have consistently shown big leads for Edwards and Obama, with shifts to Dodd and Richardson, the full survey results of MoveOn.org — a measure the netroots once used to figure out what blog readers looked like — was always very different, showing stronger support for Clinton and Kucinich, but not Dodd and Richardson.

MoveOn December 2007 poll

Stoller of all people should know, you can’t use a straw poll on one blog to claim the collective wisdom of the netroots. And it’s become all but tradition for the first comment on a Stoller post to call him out:

What does this mean?

“heavily creative class dominated institutions who emerged from 1998-2006 to move into Obama’s camp.

Sheesh, can you be more obtuse? Also, re-read your post. There was no split with Edwards, better re-write to be clear. That doesn’t mean Obama has “consolidated” the netroots at all. Let’s see what Edwards does re. an endorsement. Right now, he’s seeing how the two move forward on his issues. Clinton is better on health care than Obama, frankly.

This is hardly worth posting unless you are going to make a clear argument that we can discuss.

Epic fail.

Update: Yep. Hillary Clinton got nearly 30% support in MoveOn’s head-to-head poll, and just 11% from Daily Kos. They both favor Obama, but their memberships have different mindsets.

It’s a Two Way Street, Chris

Published by Not Paul Begala on January 17, 2007 in Democrats, Guest Bloggers, Internecine Battles, MSM vs. Blogs, Netroots and Rhetoric. 1 Comment

Chris Bowers, today:

If someone thinks you are stupid, they will never think of you as an equal. If someone doesn’t think of you as equal, they will always believe they should hold more power than you. Thus, if there are people in the progressive ecosystem who think the netroots are stupid, those people will always want to marginalize the netroots within our broad coalition.

I will simply comment that there are just as many netrooters who do the same thing right back to the broad progressive/liberal/Democratic community. Consultants, interest groups and elected officials alike.

I’m not rationalizing what’s done to you and the netroots or what’s done to us (though I hardly speak for those institutions). Just pointing it out.

It’s The ____ Stupid!

Published by Not Paul Begala on November 2, 2006 in Democrats, Guest Bloggers, Internecine Battles and Midterms '06. 0 Comments

[Note: I said that Not Paul Begala was not the insider cited below, and indeed, this evening NPB has some thoughts on the exchange himself.]

I liked the fight in the previous post between the Beltway insider and the Deaniac (for the record, Not Paul Begala is Gephardt-affiliated and will always rip on the SWarms instinctively) and I see this as a foreshadow of things to come: Wait till we get to a Congress with everybody taking credit for why we won! It was the ____!

For instance:

  • “It was the netroots that pushed the party…”
  • “It was the moderate stance he/she took that proved he/she was independent…”
  • “It was their position on choice that proved the R was too extreme…”
  • “The cash infusion saved our ass while the RNC was carpertbombing us, thank you Rahm/Schumer, and F you Dean.”
  • “The 50-statere program proved invaluable in gathering volunteers, poll watchers, low dollar donors that made the difference.”
  • “They attacked on the war relentlessly and won, pull out!”

I also can’t wait for all the fights that break out at the Hawk and Dove over the ____ when power-drunk, big-headed staffers who don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground prove their progressive/moderate/strategist mettle.

All while NPB sits back with a knowing smile, sippin’ on gin and juice, laid back, with his mind on the real answer: It was the ____!

Remedial Math: Democrats, Bloggers and Political Reporters

Published by Not Paul Begala on October 26, 2006 in Blogs vs. MSM, Democrats, Elections, Guest Bloggers, Internecine Battles, Midterms '06, National Politics and Netroots. 2 Comments

I imagine this occurs naturally in any subject area, but the great aggravation we so-called insiders have with the blogosphere is how often stupid things are published. For so-called outsiders to relate, how often have you heard someone make an ignorantly flippant remark about something in your area of expertise? You might leave it alone because the fight isn’t worth it — but now imagine this person writes a blog in your field.

It’s really annoying.

Take this example.

Matt’s third point bugs me:

Elect Tester, Get a Seat on Approps, and Start Building Some Seniority: Start building seniority with a new Senator now, so that when Max leaves, we’re not left with no seniority and no seats on powerful committees, but rather have a man who is by all accounts an able and honest legislator well into his second-term on Approps.

He’s referring to this story:

Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate say they will give Jon Tester a seat on the influential Senate Appropriations Committee as soon as they can if he beats Republican incumbent Conrad Burns in the November election. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a statement Thursday he will “work very hard” to secure a seat for Tester - even as a freshman senator - “as soon as possible.”

This is classic case of a DC outsider who thinks he knows something about the process (or actually does know something and is being disingenuous; another post topic).

Jon Tester is not getting an appropriations seat. Key phrases in that article being “as soon as they can” and “as soon as possible.”

First, there is the seniority issue in the Dem caucus in general — you think a freshman gets to jump over 2-term senators whose own states lack an appropriations seat? Second, there are “red states” up next cycle where a Dem would need a prime committee to defend his/her seat, e.g. Mark Pryor (AR). Third there is the potential retirement of Robert Byrd which would result in his fellow WVer John Rockefeller (also up in ‘08) making a play for the seat. Fourth, Chuck Schumer of NY will likely need persuasion to stay on as DSCC chair or take approps as a prize for winning back the Senate. And lastly, Tester’s own incoming class would knife-fight him for that seat — Claire McCaskill of MO and Bob Casey Jr. of PA are both Dems without senior senators in their own states while Bob Menendez already has seniority in the ‘06 class.

Bottom line, he ain’t getting that seat.

And people might say, “NPB, get off your lazy ass and join the conversation.” To which I reply, “There are just too many conversations to join, too much remedial math to teach.” If I wanted to teach, I would start a blog called “Politics for Third Graders.” But I do want the occasional polling number leaked to Left In The West about the Montana Senate race. When it comes to the blogosphere, I want the news which they provide, but I’m forced to put up with the crap that comes with it.

But maybe I’m being too hard on them.

Let’s see: Occasional tips, exaggerations about process, bullshit opinions, morons who think too highly of their opinions who wouldn’t last 15 minutes on the inside… sounds like some political reporters and columnists I’ve worked with. Maybe bloggers and the MSM have more in common than I thought!

·      ·      ·

On A Completely Unrelated Note: News story leaving out the important details, facts not quite up to par, not satisfield with the news as reported? Assignment: blogosphere!

In this week’s installment, can you finish where the NY Times left off and tell us who is the girl in the Harold Ford Jr. Playboy ad and how I can get her number? And the gun guy — was that Charlie Sheen? Did Adam Sandler play the porn producer? Holy trimmed-down Wilford Brimley-sighting batman, Canada will get those terrorists!

Now all of us political guys know that the occasional actor is needed for a commercial, but I want the story behind that. Popular commercials lead to bigger and better things — have ya’ll noticed that the Capitol One buffoon (”Noooooooo!”) is on “Studio 60″? Is that girl getting new offers? (That “call me” was so sassy at the end.) Will she show up on “Entourage”? And really, I’m not kidding, is that Charlie Sheen making a cameo in camo?

Hop to it, blogs! Get your Variety sources on Skype and get moving!

A Shot from the Cheap Seats

Published by Not Paul Begala on October 12, 2006 in Guest Bloggers, Language, Republicans and Seriously. 0 Comments

Surely everyone who’s been to a sporting event can appreciate the occasional shot at the opposing team’s players. One of my favorite childhood memories was the first hockey game I ever attended, where one particularly clever fan would yell, in between swigs of beer, “Hey Gretzky, hit him with your purse!”

I was reminded of this today by a digital dig from the cheap seats, posted to the comment section following this post from the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire:

WSJ blog Hastert comment

Everybody always picks on the fat kid.

Quit Speculating And Poll It, Already

Published by Not Paul Begala on October 5, 2006 in Barack Obama, Democrats, Guest Bloggers, MSM, National Politics, Polling and White House '08. 2 Comments

[We're not sure if this will become a recurring feature at Blog P.I., but our mystery correspondent/Dem strategist Not Paul Begala returns this morning with another new post. His posts will appear under his own byline from here on out, assuming there is a "here on out."]

The Washington D.C. crowd loves absolutely nothing more than speculation. It’s like heroin to political reporters, staffers, big party donors and anyone who has a stake in presidential politics. You just don’t feel right in the head until you’ve had your next fix, or in this case, heard the political buzz. And we should lump the political blogosphere into this group, as they display many of the same qualities of the DC crowd in following the big dance. They rumormonger, traffic in gossip and meticulously navel gaze about every politician’s move that has even a whiff of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Michigan/Nevada — depending if you’re a Republican or Democrat — coming off it.

And there is always, always someone who “should get in” or “has a chance now” that hasn’t entered the fray. There’s always somebody who isn’t in that the media wants in because frankly, new people in the contest is the very definition of news. Anyone running already is old news.

Enter the 2008 fascination with Sen. Barack Obama. Jon Alter is the latest to emerge with the inside news about a potential Obama run. He’s been on Oprah, he has a book, he helps Democrats, he raises money for his Senate account instead of the PAC (check out Claire McCaskill’s statement last week), blah, blah, blah.

You want to make some real news instead of just wild speculation and this weak “oh, I heard this” crap you guys are doing now? Put your money where your mouth is. Poll it! Because let’s face it, the only reason you process-obsessed hacks really do polls is to make news).

ARG, Quinnipiac, Zogby, Hotline-Diageo, Claremont-McKenna you listening? Add the damn question to the mix. Find out how many people in NH and Iowa know his name, find out if he beats any of the big dogs in the Dem primaries like Clinton, Edwards, Gore or Kerry.

You are notorious for polling ridiculousness like Bloomberg for President, so poll Obama and kick this feeding frenzy up a notch. It certainly can’t hurt his book sales any.

Maps, Money and Morons: Chris Bowers Oversimplifies Things Again

Published by William Beutler on October 2, 2006 in 50 State Strategy, Blog Consultants, Campaigns, Democrats, Guest Bloggers, Internecine Battles, Midterms '06 and Netroots. 7 Comments

[Note: I present to you our latest guest post, this one coming anonymously from a regular Blog P.I. correspondent and Democratic strategist who describes himself as "exasperated by the stupidity of armchair analysts" -- with the the above-mentioned armchair analyst, particularly. With a nod to Not Larry Sabato, we'll just call him Not Paul Begala. The rest of this post is his.]

I would be willing to bet that bloggers are more “satisfied” folks than most people. They get to expunge the vitriol that inevitably builds up from day after day of reading the simplistic rantings of unqualified morons. We the frequent readers miss out on this catharsis and sit here, perpetually pent-up and ready to throw our computers, phones and cats at the wall in frustration at people who don’t know what they are writing about. Guess I need to blog more often — so thanks to Blog P.I. for allowing me this chance to vent.

My subject is the “influential blogger” (as Matt Bai points out) Chris Bowers and the utter stupidity he posted today on MyDD. Bowers is upset that the DCCC is spending too much money in red districts because if we were to win there, the majority might not last as long as if we focused on more blue districts. Set aside the fact that most Democratic bloggers have called for a 50-state strategy (see Bowers’ 2004 post, “Fifty State Strategy”) (and by extension, 435-district strategy) and consider this, from today:

“Over the past three months, by a count of 3-1 the DCCC has spent its resources in Republican-held red districts. We need to be spending much more money in blue districts that will be easier to defend, and produce Democrats more likely to stay with the majority of the caucus on difficult votes.”

What pisses me off to no end about this is the macro look this moron just took at winning the House — as if you can tell by the Partisan Voter Index (supplied by Cook Political Report) how easy it is to win a district. Or how he just forgets conveniently that Red districts have leanings where it’s much easier to define a Democrat as a liberal, pussy, God-hating yuppie. It takes money in mail, TV, research and polling to fend some of this stuff off.

So, allow me to comment on every race he lists and why the DCCC spends what it does:

    RED DISTRICTS


  • AZ-08: $445,210.71. PVI: Republican +1.4 Hey idiot, they dropped $350K in the primary trashing the Republican they would have a harder time beating and hit the jackpot — getting the conservative crackpot — so this is a safe pickup. Money well spent.

  • IL-06: $82,946.87. PVI: Republican +2.9 It’s about a half million a week to run TV here, and it shows. They’ve spent a $100K compared to the NRCC’s $500K? You call that overspending in Red districts?

  • IN-02: $319,879.08. PVI: Republican +4.3
  • IN-08: $833,899.63. PVI: Republican +8.5
  • IN-09: $83,428.98. PVI: Republican +7.1 All Indiana districts are a good investment — local dislike of Mitch “The Blade” Daniels plus prevailing national winds makes it the best time ever to get these seats. And the reason there’s $800K in 08? Hostettler has $70K on hand, and he doesn’t raise money because he knows the NRCC will save his butt. They hate him, we love him. And we’re lucky Sodrel hasn’t decided to millionaire the shit out of us in 09, cause he can do that you know. That $80K is cheap so far.

  • KY-04: $13,833.64. PVI: Republican +11.7 Spending is actually low here for a Cincy media market, but it will come.

  • NY-24: $390,447.98. PVI: Republican +0.6 It’s an open seat for fuck’s sake, if you don’t spend the money, the NRCC defines you. Do you want that?

  • NC-11: $118,496.90. PVI: Republican +7.1 They’ve actually laid off here, again, I think, waiting to buy broadcast.

  • OH-15: $52,832.64. PVI: Republican +1.1 See NC-11.

  • PA-10: $259,195.99. PVI: Republican +8.0 Every dollar spent here draws two dollars from the NRCC because they’re defending a guy who choked his girlfriend.

  • VA-02: $129,493.94. PVI: Republican +5.9 This is probably some polling and mail. They’re not sure they can do anything here until they think the Senate race is in play.

  • WI-08: $275,778.90. PVI: Republican +3.7 Again, they have to respond to the NRCC if they want to keep this race in play. The open-seat challenger had zero money to respond to TV.

    • Total: $3,005,445.26

_____

    BLUE DISTRICTS


  • CO-07: $118,907.65 PVI: Democratic +2.3 Why spend money when the Dem is going to win and has money?

  • FL-22: $135,800.60. PVI: Democratic +3.6 They’re waiting to buy broadcast TV in Miami. That shit ain’t cheap.

  • IA-01: $357,042.22– PVI: Democratic +4.8 This is a pickup, through and through. The Dem who won the primary was broke, so they had to fill in for him.

  • NM-01: $230,526.42 PVI: Democratic +2.4 That’s a pretty good investment, I don’t know what you’re complaining about. This is New Mexico, not New York.

  • PA-06: $102,239.29 PVI: Democratic +2.2 See FL-22. TV is expensive, especially Philly TV.

  • WA-08: $28,204.03. PVI: Democratic +2.3 You have to believe you can win before you spend money and they’re just not there yet. Plus, the NRCC hasn’t gone in and played, that signals how the D-Trip reacts to this race.

    • Total: $972,720.21

Another annoying thing is Bowers’ unexplained selectivity: He failed to include the other two PA contests, the three CT races, plus IA-03, GA-12 and IL-08. But what will all those show you? Not much else but that each race has multiple factors that determine spending. You know those challengers that started out a whole year in advance had plenty of time to raise resources for some of these fights. That determines spending, too. The point is, local shit matters. The story of each race matters. Macro analysis is not enough.

Now, my work done here, I can get back to the tedious job of trying to send Dems to Congress and building back up to the point of having to refute these fools again.

Shorter Reynolds, Longer Instapundit

Published by William Beutler on July 31, 2006 in Academic Blogging, Guest Bloggers, Instapundit and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

Following up on the Chronicle of Higher Education symposium Blog P.I. summarized on Saturday, participating blog Sivacracy (but not participating blogger Siva Vaidhyanathan) zings fellow participanting blog Instapundit good on the lacking substance of many an Insta-post. It doesn’t qualify as “shortering,” but it is pithy enough to be unsummarizable.   Zingee Glenn Reynolds is actually on vacation this week, so the post’s author, Univ. of SC prof Ann Bartow, will actually see a rising word-to-link count thanks to his guest bloggers over the next few days. Which may only reinforce her point.

In Reynolds’ defense, dashed-off posts may be the unavoidable result of “instant punditry.” Still, “SURELY THE END TIMES ARE UPON US: Ana Marie Cox is now Time.com’s Washington Editor” hardly qualifies as “punditry.” And if Reynolds’ law school dean truly thinks his blog counts as “scholarship,” let alone legal scholarship, the academy might have bigger problems than mere blogging.