Obviously, there's a gut-reaction answer to a question like that, and I have a feeling that if I put a poll question up, the only real question would be how far into the 90's the NO responses would go. (So, instead, I've included another question).
Every two years, we have 150 (give or take) competitive races in the House and Senate, in addition to Governors races, and yet, by a weird alchemy that we try to define but is never followed, a handful-- maybe 5 to 10 percent or so-- are lifted onto the shoulders of this community and the "great orange smoke monster" comes alive, raising money, writing about them on the front page, and the multitude of us follow their race closely, even when it lies outside of our state and/or district.
And so, as a guy who is often asked by campaigns how can they can get the progressive online community excited and interested in their race, it's a puzzling question: What makes a Netroots Hero?
Here, also, is a gut-reaction, one that is both true and (I think, partly) false: "Get involved in a heavy, real, long-term engagement and dialogue with the community." "Go to where they are, just like when you're campaigning, and listen to them and talk with them." "Make the candidate available, offer real details and answers, and really hear the concerns and issues important to them." "Do it early and don't ask for anything." "These people are on the front-lines, and they deserve to be taken seriously."
I've spit out all of these, in one for or another, as an answer, and I suspect that your advice, if asked by a campaign, would be much the same.
Yet, I think if you really look at who gets elevated, the answer is much more complex (though maybe the poll will prove otherwise, and I welcome your thoughts on this question). There are whole host of, I believe objective, if not overly-simplified, reasons that catapult a candidate into the netroots stratosphere:
1- Loathing the opponent (El Tinklenberg)
2- "One of us" (Darcy Burner)
3- Strategically important (Jim Webb)
4- Sensing an opening to win (Scott Murphy)
5- Legitimately inspiring (Howard Dean)
6- National-focused (House/Senate are usually the biggest focus)
7- Front-pager backed (The early love for Tester or Schweitzer, for example)
Now,
- I don't mean to diminish the support shown to these candidates (I've literally given to each of them myself), and,
- I'll admit, these are probably oversimplifications and in many of these examples it's often a combination of two or three of these elements, and
- These factors are not often weighted equally,
But my point is that the embracing of a candidate is rarely, if ever, driven by the regular, direct participation of the candidate in the online community, so our advice, it would seem, might only be paying lip-service to an idea about online engagement, rather than the practical reality or application.
Which brings me back to Arlen Specter. If you accept as generally true the several criteria laid out do make an impact on the elevation of a race and a candidate-- and any of one of which has been proven to be enough alone to elevate a candidate-- what does Specter's score sheet look like (assuming he wins the primary)?
Loathed opponent? Yes
One of us? No
High Profile/Strategically Important? Yes
We want to win? Yes
Inspiring? No
National? Yes
Front-pagers? I'd say no. I think Kos has made his opinions on this race and the Senator fairly clear.
So, if the Senator continues to build on his appearance at Netroots Nation (posts here, attends next years, does blogger conference calls) and continues to throw his votes behind the Democrats agenda, is that enough?
Objectively, I think there's an argument to be made that the answer should be yes, but I suspect that, given the netroots alchemy, the answer would be no, especially in light of the front-page hostility towards him.
Which gets to my core question: How do you think a candidate "wins" online or becomes a Netroots Hero? Does engagement really matter?
Or should the time better be spent cultivating relationships with the front-pagers and high-profile writers on the most influential sites, so they can shape the opinions of the rest? And, if that's the case, is the online community really all that different than the traditional media?
I obviously think it is, which is why I do this for a living and enjoy watching it so closely (and now, finally, making an effort to take the leap to participating more regularly), but what's the distinction?
Is it possible to make an impact at Kos, and sites like Kos, on the merits of the race and simply participating regularly?
If so, would we be well-served by some type of candidates forum which allows for participation and the ability to get engaged, starting the conversation in the hopes that they can make the "sale" get a few advocates, and build a network of support here with the hopes of pulling themselves up to the Netroots Hero level? Is that even desirable?
Or do we want the filter of the front-pagers and our featured writers, since, after all, we read them and value their leadership? Are there simply too many races and too many asks, and campaigns need to go local and hope that someone elevates them?
I'm, of course, not saying that simply participating is enough of a reason to give a political office-seeker a pass or to lift them up, throw gobs and gobs of cash at them, and unleash a virtual army on their behalf.
But, at the other end of the spectrum, I'm wondering if engagement actually matters to the degree that I get the impression that we all believe it to (and which I get paid to say it does)?
M