« Tech Tuesday: Apple Introduces a "No Button" Mouse | Main | Missed It By That Much... »

So Much For The "Liberal Blogswarm" Theory

Chris Bowers over at MyDD let the delusions get the better of him last week in regards to the (then) upcoming Ohio District 2 race.

In the midst of a full-out progressive blogswarm on Paul Hackett's behalf, conservative blogs, who love to boast of their ability to swarm, have done nothing to help out Schmidt in OH-02. In fact, they aren't even writing about it. Look at the result of these searches from Blog Pulse ( I filtered out the stories about other Paul Hackett's):

* 614-6/20: 50, including 19 from conservative blogs.
* 6/21-6/27: 6, all from progressive blogs.
* 6/28-7/4: 29, including 2 from conservative blogs.
* 7/5-7/11: 30, including 14 from conservative blogs. Mostly small blogs were discussing the race at this point, but it was enough buzz for larger blogs to soon take notice. Hackett has raised around $16K online at this point.
* 7/12-7/18: 47, including 7 from conservative blogs. More importantly than the number of blog posts, this is a week where things really started to change in terms of who was writing about Hackett. Now, the progressive blogs writing about Hackett were no longer pretty much just OH-02 and MyDD. Several big names, including Atrios, the Stakeholder, Jesus' General, Swing State Project, and Dailykos diarists jumped in at this point. This set the stage for the storm that was to come.
* 7/19-7/25: 162, including 11 from conservative blogs. If the previous week had set the stage, Blogopshere Day on July 19 was opening night of the main show. There were as many progressive blog posts on Hackett this week as there had been posts on Hackett from both sides combined since the primary election. It included nearly every major activist progressive blog as well. The Blogswarm had started.
* Tuesday, July 26: 79, including only 2 from conservative blogs.
* Wednesday, July 27: 76, including 4 from conservative blogs.
* Thursday, July 28: 111, including 3 from conservative blogs. This blowout is really getting absurd now.
* Friday, July 29: 98, including 5 from conservative blogs.

Now, even though it is an excellent resource, Blog Pulse is slow, and won't record Saturday articles for a while. Still, with the info we have, a very clear picture emerges. Since the primary election, there have been 63 conservative blog posts about Paul Hackett, while there have been as many as 683 progressive blog posts about Paul Hackett (some, but not many, of the non-conservative posts were from general news aggregators). Even when the news aggregators are removed, progressives blogs have written roughly ten times as much about this election as conservative blogs. What's more, since Blogopshere Day, the advantage in liberal blog posts has been around 20-1.

If only winning elections were that easy. Conservative bloggers ignored it because it was a safe seat.

JEAN SCHMIDT 57,974 52% (W)
PAUL HACKETT 54,401 48%

Paul Hackett is lucky he ONLY lost by 4 points. Meanwhile this week, the conservative blogggers swarmed and cost Air America almost a million dollars. If we are now keeping score on blogswarms, I'd put that one in the win column.

The liberals keep calling themselves "progressive" but the Kos Kids have now lost 16 out of their last 16 elections. That's not exactly what I'd call progress...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference So Much For The "Liberal Blogswarm" Theory:

» The LLama Butchers linked with THE RELATIVE EFFICACY OF BLOGSWARMING

» Danny Carlton: codenamed "Jack Lewis" linked with Headlines

» Conservative Outpost linked with Ohio special election

» Red State Rant linked with Democrats triumph, even when they lose

Comments (22)

That's EXACTLY what I call ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

That's EXACTLY what I call progress.

The Ohio 2nd Congressional ... (Below threshold)

The Ohio 2nd Congressional District has voted heavily Republican in the recent past:

1994 Rob Portman (R) 77%
1996 Rob Portman (R) 76%
1998 Rob Portman (R) 76%
2000 Rob Portman (R) 74%
2002 Rob Portman (R) 74%
2004 Rob Portman (R) 72%

These results could be primarily due to a personally very popular candidate instead of an ideological preference so let's look at previous results:

1992 Willis Gradison (R) 70%
1990 Willis Gradison (R) 64%
1988 Willis Gradison (R) 72%
1986 Willis Gradison (R) 71%
1984 Willis Gradison (R) 69%
1982 Willis Gradison (R) 63% (4 way race)

I'd say that a 52-48 defeat was a remarkable

achievement in this heavily... (Below threshold)

achievement in this heavily Republican district. (oops!)

Ok, so with the combined fo... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Ok, so with the combined force of every Dem in the country and the Republicans coasting, he came within 4 points.... WOW impressive.

I guess Ohio is really gett... (Below threshold)

I guess Ohio is really getting tired of the culture of corruption around the Republican machine. An interesting point is that Hackett won the rural areas.

Despite his apparent moonba... (Below threshold)
JD:

Despite his apparent moonbat ramblings from time to time, this Hackett person ran as anything but a Democrat, or a liberal, and in fact, mentioned neither affiliation in his commerials or flyers. His campaign was essentially, "I served in Iraq", which while noble, much like with Sen. Kerry, is not sufficient to send somebody to office.

So, let us see ... local veteran returns home from the war, decides to run for office, runs ads supporting President Bush though Hackett says he opposes the policies ... essentially runs to the right of the Republican, and still loses.

Tough to be a Dem, or a stealth Dem, like Hackett.

Only the liberals like Dirk... (Below threshold)
JD:

Only the liberals like Dirk the Turd could try to turn a loss into some kind of moral victory.

How long will it take for t... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

How long will it take for the accusations of voter fraud and demands for a recount to start? They already have!

Updates (Chirs):

The reason the 91 precints have not reported in Clermont County has to do with problems with the voting machines there. They are being counted by hand. Stay tuned. Gather everything you can about voting "irregularities" in the district. Be ready to use the f-word, and I'm not talking about "fuck."


http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/2/22186/93438

And:
Re: Local Info (none / 0)

coming to concede? Nonsense, Hackett should request a full-recount!



by NeoLiberal on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 10:36:36 PM EDT

The left has become such a joke that it's no longer funny. Just sad.

The best part was when the ... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

The best part was when the results were slow coming in towards the latter part of the night and it looked a bit closer than it ended up. The DUmmies were going crazy declaring victory.

After a slight delay and the final results were announced -- the silence was deafening, until they started saying things like Steve J.

Schmidt was a crappy candidate who did not motivate the conservative voter base and it seems like a lot of RINO's stayed home too.

Hackett still lost. During a normal election cycle he will get crushed in OH-02.

MESABLUE - "Hackett stil... (Below threshold)

MESABLUE - "Hackett still lost. During a normal election cycle he will get crushed in OH-02."

Coin-gate isn't over and Fitzgerald isn't finished into his search for the traitor(s) who leaked Plame's CIA identity.

I think it's downhill in OH for the GOP.

Compared to the accurate e... (Below threshold)

Compared to the accurate election data provided by poster Steve J., I assume Paul finds no significance in the fact that Schmidt's">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050803/ap_on_el_ge/election_rdp;_ylt=AjpWJVHzdtJNdm74KTMlIqGyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl">Schmidt's 4% percent margin was a mere 3500 votes out of 112,000 cast? And, if the huge turnout was in support of her candidacy, it only confirmed Hackett as a viable threat.

This is not another Gallup Poll the Right can dismiss, these are Republicans confirming what they've said all along.

Actually, Steve, it's very ... (Below threshold)
Charlie (Colorado):

Actually, Steve, it's very likely he *is* pretty much finished with the Wilson thing. Two reasons:

(1) I've actually BEEN covert, and I can tell you, no one who has been driving to Langley daily for the last seven years is covert. The "yes, she works for CIA, but we'd prefer you didn't print that" answer is what CIA gives when someone wants to verify employment for a janitor.

(2) the probability that Judy Miller and the NY Times are spending this amount of money, or even one night in jail, to protect Karl Rove and Scotter Libby is infinitestimal.

I just have to ask, but I'm... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

I just have to ask, but I'm not sure I want to know the answer, isn't Dick Tuck the maneuver a tranny does right before he pulls up his panty hose?

Way to go Dems, Libs, Progr... (Below threshold)
Julius Geezer:

Way to go Dems, Libs, Progressives,etc, etc.
You're claiming victory in Ohio when you have yet to complete your vote count from 2004 ?
Am I missing something?
Who's your next "stealth" candidate.
"I was against Bush, before I was for Bush" needs to stock with hand grenades. At least they will produce some kind of a result "when they come close".
Keep coming close and conservatives will continue allowing you to claim victory.
Deal?

Wait for the next stage of ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Wait for the next stage of Ohio monbattery... Some liberal will actually claim that losing the election was actually better for democrats than having won.

Some [goofy] coloredfella s... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Some [goofy] coloredfella said:

>Paul finds no significance in the fact that Schmidt's 4% percent margin was a mere 3500 votes out of 112,000 cast?

Yup, that's what my calculator says.

It could also be 400 votes per 10,000 or 4 votes per 100. That's how you define 4%.

You are correct, I find absolutely no significance in the fact you figured out how to say the same thing 2 different ways.

Oh the tortured logic!

110,000 voted this time in ... (Below threshold)

110,000 voted this time in a close race vs. 300,000 who voted in landslide in November.
Overhyped summer tripe.
Dems p.o. Iraqi vet thing reminds boomers of Vietnam. Don't go there. We vote

I'm not sold on the after-t... (Below threshold)

I'm not sold on the after-the-fact justification for ignoring the race, Wiz. The national conservative blogosphere failed to jump on the fraud of a guy kissing George Bush's behind on TV and calling him and SOB and "chicken hawk" in personal appearances, and he almost pulled it off.

It's not like we locals didn't try to get your attention. In fact, we were right on the edge of being PITAs, to no avail.

If a couple of thousand people had changed their minds, we'd be saying "Congressman Hackett" today. That's way too close for my liking, regardless of my only-above-average enthusiasm for Schmidt.

I realize it was pre-blog, but nobody was worried when a dirtbag governor from a small Southern state rose to become the Dem nominee until it was way too late.

Tom Blumer
BizzyBlog.com

Tom,It got enough ... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

Tom,

It got enough notice that Rush talked about it and several blogs did touch on it, but not with the crazy fervor of the left. The lefties smelled blood and gave it their best shot -- and lost.

Kudos to you and the others who covered this. I followed your updates all night.

110,000 voted this time ... (Below threshold)

110,000 voted this time in a close race vs. 300,000 who voted in landslide in November.
Overhyped summer tripe.

The Right has no soundbites of Dems predicting or expecting a Hackett victory, which greatly weakens your dismissive analysis.

In">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Results,_U.S._Representative_from_Ohio,_2nd_District">In the off cycle 2000 election, Portman won with 139,000 votes. So, what explains such a low turnout in this heavily GOP district just 9 months after Bush's victory mandate?

'thatcoloredfella',<p... (Below threshold)
Varuth:

'thatcoloredfella',

The reason for the low turn out is simple; there were no other elections of local interest on the ballot. No school tax levies, no township trustees or city councils, no county commissioners. It was two piss poor candidates fighting over Rob Portman's table scraps. The only people who voted were the hard-core Pols who had nothing better to do on a Tuesday in August.

Now it makes sense that mos... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Now it makes sense that most people outside the Ohio 2nd Congressional may not know much about the ballot, but why do I keep seeing people on the internet attribute a low turnout to "nothing else of interest" on the ballot, explicitly school levies?

All three area school levies successful

Overall there were 59 school tax issues on the ballot in Ohio.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy