One of the questions I was most frequently asked about the online aspect of the Democratic presidential nomination campaign during 2007 was why the progressive blogosphere had such clear differences in preference than Democrats as a whole. Or, more specifically, I was often asked to explain why Hillary Clinton did so poorly in straw polls at Daily Kos and MyDD, even though she usually had a comfortable lead most national and state polls.
My first theory was based mainly on demographics. Almost every single one of Clinton's worst demographics is over-represented in the progressive blogosphere relative to the Democratic Party as a whole. Men are something like 55%-60% of the progressive blogosphere, while they are only 40%-45% of the Democratic electorate. Seculars are something like 40-45% of the progressive blogosphere, while they are only 20% or so of the Democratic electorate. Those with post-graduate degrees are something like 40-50% of the progressive blogosphere, and only around 15% of the Democratic electorate. The median annual income of a progressive blog reader, at about $75-80K, is much higher than the Democratic electorate as a whole. Self-identified liberals and progressives make up 80-90% of the progressive blogosphere, and only 50-55% of the Democratic primary electorate. The average progressive blog reader is about 12 years younger than the average Democratic primary voter. And so on. For a long time, these were Clinton's six worst demographics relative to Obama, and the progressive blogosphere was overloaded with them.
While good for a partial explanation, the demographics of the progressive blogosphere were always inadequate as a full explanation for the outcome of straw polls at Daily Kos, MyDD and other blogs. For example, at Daily Kos, Clinton would receive around 8-9% support, Obama would be in the mid-twenties, and Edwards would be in the mid-thirties, practically inverting the standings nationwide. The relatively small African-American population in the progressive blogosphere, about 5% compared to 20% in the Democratic electorate as a whole, can partially explain this, but not fully explain this.
Another piece of the puzzle is that one needs to consider the blogosphere the equivalent of a state like Iowa or New Hampshire. Like residents of early states, blog readers pay much more attention to the process early on (only we do so intentionally instead of having it forced upon us). As such, it should be pointed out that the more focus the candidates gave to a state, the less presidential preference in that state looked like national polls. In particular, during 2007 Iowa was the most-focused upon state, and it often showed a three-way campaign, and sometimes a four-way campaign, that looked very different from national polls. Iowa is also a useful comparison because, as a caucus, it tends to draw a higher percentage of activists, die-hard partisans, and ideologues than would a primary. In fact, if one looks for blogosphere demographics in the Iowa exit poll, Clinton usually finishes third. Clinton came in third among men, the "somewhat liberal," those who make $75K or more, and those under the age of 45. Also, note that Edwards won boomers in Iowa, and that the average age of a progressive blog reader is 42, right at the tipping point between boomers and Gen X. So, among its demographic cohorts in Iowa, the progressive blogosphere actually held pretty similar presidential preferences.
From that point, what little variation that remaned can simply be chalked up to the different campaign messages and the differing quality of their blogosphere outreach. It seems perfectly reasonable that running on anti-corporate platform should be appealing to people who consume large amounts of independent media, as every regular participant in the progressive blogosphere does simply by a matter of definition. It also isn't surprising that the idea of unity, post-partisanship and post-ideology will not be as appealing to people who participate in an overtly progressive medium because they are disgusted by the supposedly bi-partisan, non-ideological news outlets that already exist (if "bi-partisanship" means Hannity and Colmes, as it did in just about all media back in 2002, then count me out). And, it is even less surprising that a message of a "experience" will do even less well than "bi-partisanship" in a grassroots medium that was founded because of repeated failures of Democratic elites on impeachment, the 2000 stolen election, the Iraq war, and much more. In other words, the progressive blogosphere is a form of largely non-corporate, small business, and hobbyist media that was founded because of the perceived failure of experienced Democrats to stop conservatives from taking over the country, and which thrived because of the lack of progressive voices in other media. As such, should anyone be surprised that an anti-corporate message did better online than a message of "experience" or "unity?" I'm not. These are messages that run to the very heart of the progressive blogosphere as a medium, and do so in very different directions.
The bottom line is this: the progressive blogosphere had very similar presidential preferences to its demographic cohorts in the Iowa caucuses, and what little difference remained can easily explained by the reaction of campaign messages to the fundamentally outsider, partisan, and anti-corporate nature of the progressive blogosphere. |
