Jim Hoeft and Brian Kirwin over at Bearing Drift posted a joint piece on their take on the relevance of the blogosphere. Now that I’ve had time to rest after last week’s elections, I re-read the post and was about to post a response over there but decided it was just too long.
While there are parts of the post that I agree with, there is something missing: the 2007 elections were far different from the 2006 ones.
Think about it. In 2006, we had a single Senate race, and while all 11 Congressional seats were up for re-election, only 2 or 3 were competitive. As the result, most of the blogs were much more focused on just a few races, plus the Marshall-Newman amendment. (Heck, even the national blogs and MSM were focusing on Virginia towards the end.) That concentration made the blogosphere much more powerful as a medium for getting information out.
By comparison, by my count we had 45 contested General Assembly races this year, and probably 30 of those were competitive. On top of that, there were numerous local races. (According to the SBE (pdf) there were 2,510 candidates on the ballots this year!) That means the blogs were much more dispersed in their coverage. Rather than focusing on one or two candidates, we all had many more to cover.
So I don’t think you can really compare 2007 to 2006. Different circumstances, different results. I will say, though, that if my blog stats are any indication, more people used the internet to search for candidate information this year than last. I suspect other blogs have experienced the same thing. So blogs continue to serve a purpose, and remain a relevant part of the political discussion.
Jim and Brian are just upset that nobody reads their blog.
Posted by NotBrianKirwin | Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 11:59 amOne of the things I noticed is that many people came to my site looking for information about the county Board of Supervisors races or GA races that weren’t receiving as much attention from the MSM. So while there might not have been a definitive sign as to the role the blogs played in the races like there was last year, I think they were a useful tool for people who wanted more information on the downballot races.
Posted by Bryan Scrafford | Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 12:57 pmAgreeded my very small blog got a huge upswing in hits from people looking for info about the Fairfax County Supervisor race
Posted by novamiddleman | Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 2:04 pmI think some people can overstate the importance of blogs. But they definitely have some influence. That’s true especially in a low turn out election where the people who are going to go vote are the activists who read blogs and pay attention to debates.
When a race is close – down to 90 votes – yes, blogs could be one influence that sways a few votes and makes that difference.
I think they also drive the debate and often even the coverage from the MSM. Newspaper reporters and editors pay attention to the blogs, quote them, and the blogs’ role often becomes part of the story too. So, blogs have an influence. But it’s one factor among many.
Posted by Anonymous Is A Woman | Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 4:59 pmSome blogs have influence, other don’t. Boring Daft doesn’t have a spit of influence because it is run by people who have vested, monetary interests in campaigns, so anything posted there is suspect. I wouldn’t believe Kirwin or Hoeft, if they swore the sun was shining. I’d need to step outside and confirm it for myself, and even then, get a second opinion from someone I trust. In fact, in my opinion, Bull Drift is an example of how not to run a blog. While ego’s play a role, it should be the only role as in that one.
Vivian’s blog is an exception, as is RaisingKane, notlarrysabato, Bacon’s Rebellion and a few others. Just informed, interested and concerned citizens, providing forums for discussion. If the blog is even handed, and provides factual information, it has an impact.
The last thing you would want to do is ask people who run blogs, “how much influence they have on elections”. They’ll tell you that the very election pivots on their posts.
Good blogs help, bad blogs don’t.
Posted by Bill Temple | Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 5:22 pmI’m not comfortable with the idea that blogs have “influence.” I think they provide another source of information for voters who are looking for it – and that’s about it. The MSM for the most part is not one of advocacy, while the blogs are. So from the standpoint of giving that perspective, the blogs serve a purpose.
Posted by vjp | Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 6:20 pmDon’t feign modesty. You were TRYING to influence both the Marriage Amendment vote last year, and the House and Senate elections this year.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 10:05 pmTrying to influence and having influence are not the same thing, Mouse. Advocating on behalf of a candidate or cause does not infer influence.
Posted by vjp | Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 10:14 pmIt may not infer influence, but it does imply influence.
So you agree that you were trying to influence the votes, but you said, “I’m not comfortable with the idea that blogs have ‘influence.’”
That sounds a bit incongruous.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 12:05 pmNo, it’s not. They are two separate things. You cannot compare an individual’s advocacy with blog influence in the aggregate.
You like to seize on one point, Mouse, and beat it to death, while ignoring the broader point. Try to step back and see the bigger picture once in a while. How in the heck can blogs be influential when blog readership is virtually non-existent?
Posted by vjp | Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 12:46 pmAh. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
From your statement that, “I’m not comfortable with the idea that blogs have ‘influence,’” I inferred that you did not want the blogs to have influence, not that you thought they did not have influence.
Sorry.
In that case, I agree with you. The blogs tend to be populated by those have already made up their minds.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 1:42 pmGlad you agree
And it gets to the point the Jim & Brian made in their piece: that bloggers get swelled heads. Over what, I’ll never know.
Posted by vjp | Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 5:37 pmIn the case of Jim and Brian, the “swelled heads” is a natural side people who are full of themselves.
In case you didn’t note, NONE of Kirwins clients won in the recent election cycle. He was the genius who engineered the humiliating loss of Marty Williams. He was also behind the Welch debacle. I’m told that Welch lost by the largest percentage of any incumbent in Virginia history.
The reason for the weight of my message is because for many years on other blogs, Kirwin would be quick to condemn, and tell other people how stupid and wrong they were. Comes back to bite, doesn’t it?
Posted by Bill Temple | Thursday, November 15, 2007, 4:47 amAlright, while I am loathe to come to Brian Kirwin’s defense:
1. It’s not entirely his fault that Marty Williams lost. Regular republican primary voters have always been to right of the majority of this district. I doubt they learned their lesson this year, too.
2. The 21st House of Delegates District is a quintessential democratic district–I would swear they’d intentionally drawn it that way after the 2000 census, except I know they thought they had a lock on the suburbs. I don’t believe Brian Kirwin or John Welch actually knew enough about the district to realize that was true, but that’s Welch’s fault for not being able to keep up with the changes in his district. It’s not Brian’s fault he lost a race he was supposed to lose.
Posted by anonymous | Thursday, November 15, 2007, 10:24 am1-Marty Williams had 12-year incumbency and 1/2 Million in cash in the bank. Kirwin misplaced over $100-thousand in the last month of the campaign. It was a shoddy, poorly run campaign. It was nothing but a nasty smear, attack campaign that alienated the people of the 1st District. “to the right of the majority?” That’s why they elected Miller, huh? There is no defending Kirwin on this one.
2-21st House District is Conservative, not Democrat. Welch was an idiot and went out of his way to offend, and alienate. But his campaign was laughable. Nothing but a nasty attack campaign.
There is not defending the guy on this one either.
Let me repeat, “The reason for the weight of my message is because for many years on other blogs, Kirwin would be quick to condemn, and tell other people how stupid and wrong they were. Comes back to bite, doesn’t it?” Brian, or anonymous?
Kirwin dug his own hole, now let him bask in the glory that he so desperately wanted!
Posted by Edward Teach | Friday, November 16, 2007, 5:33 am