Time to Face Facts on Blogosphere Senate Recruitments

[Cross-posted at MyDD and Swing State Project.]

Jim Webb's victory tonight is a victory for Virginia's netroots.  Virginia's progressive blogosphere was not thrilled with the default candidate emerging earlier this year.  So, spearheaded by Lowell and many others, they drafted a Reagan Republican with a stellar resume to run as a Democrat and propelled him to victory in the primary.

--  Raising Kaine

My, how far we in the activist Netroots have fallen.  With Brad Miller's refusal to run in the North Carolina Senate race, it's time to admit that we have a full-fledged blogosphere recruitment disaster on our hands for the 2008 Senate races -- and to ask why it happened, and how we can avoid such an event in the future.

Here are the candidate recruitment situations in the Senate races with Republican incumbents or that are open seats:

Alabama: Blogosphere-recruited State Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks decided not to run against Sen. Jeff Sessions, citing concerns of a divisive primary against State Sen. Vivian Figures.  Sparks' decision leaves only Figures, a charismatic liberal but a long-shot to win the general election, in the race.

Alaska: The Democrats' top choice against scandal-plagued Sen. Ted Stevens, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, is the only major candidate in the race (unless former State Senate Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz gets in).  Unlike the last two election cycles, when former Governor Tony Knowles was heavily recruited by the blogosphere, there hasn't been a peep from anyone online except to tepidly support the recruitment of Begich.

Colorado: Congressman and Blue Dog Dem Mark Udall locked up this nomination early, with support from Chuck Schumer.  The blogosphere has yet to mention a strong candidate against him (Mike Miles, anyone?)

Georgia: Neither Rand Knight or Dale Cardwell stands much of a chance against Sen. Saxby Chambliss, and the blogosphere has yet to make much noise about either of them, despite both of their solid progressive records.  The blogosphere (and, presumably, Chuck Schumer) also failed to recruit Sen. Max Cleland into a rematch with Chambliss.

Idaho: Former Congressman Larry LaRocco is a solid progressive, but has locked up this nomination against Sen. Mike Crapo without much help from the blogosphere, which is more focused on Congressional candidate Larry Grant.

Kentucky: No one on the Democratic side has yet jumped into this race against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, despite its high position on the list of blogosphere targets.

Maine: Congressman Tom Allen joined the race against Sen. Susan Collins early and was a joint recruit of the blogosphere and Chuck Schumer.

Minnesota: One could say that talk-show host Al Franken is a blogosphere recruit, but that would belie the fact that many in the blogosphere don't want him to run.  He faces Schumer recruit Mike Ciresi in what promises to be a hotly-contested primary for the right to face Sen. Norm Coleman.

Mississippi: No one has joined the race against veteran Sen. Thad Cochran, though former Attorney General Mike Moore is considering.

Nebraska: Blogosphere recruit Scott Kleeb is considering the race against Sen. Chuck Hagel in what may be an open seat, but the most likely candidate remains Blue Dog Democrat and rabid Iraq War supporter Bob Kerrey, who is being recruited by Chuck Schumer.

New Hampshire: The blogosphere failed to recruit anyone into the race against Sen. John Sununu, leaving the two leading Democratic candidates as former Congresswoman and Joe Lieberman ally Katrina Swett and the slightly more palatable former Governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is Chuck Schumer's choice.

New Mexico: No major candidate has yet jumped into the race against surprisingly-vulnerable Sen. Pete Domenici.  Top blogosphere recruit Congressman Tom Udall declined to run.  The blogosphere is now attempting to recruit former U.S. Attorney John Kelly.

North Carolina: A joint push by the blogosphere and Chuck Schumer to recruit Congressman Brad Miller into the race failed last week when Miller announced he wasn't running.  To date, no one has announced a run against Sen. Liddy Dole.

Oklahoma: In one of the few potential blogosphere success stories, State Sen. Andrew Rice is considering running against Sen. Jim Inhofe.

Oregon: The top two blogosphere recruitments, Congressmen Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer, both declined to run.  The blogosphere is now stuck with political novice Steve Novick.

South Carolina: No Democrat has stepped up to challenge Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Tennessee: No Democrat has stepped up to challenge Sen. Lamar Alexander, though Michael Ray McWherter, son of a former Governor, is considering.

Texas: Blogosphere recruit State Sen. Rick Noriega is still considering the race against Sen. John Cornyn.

Virginia: The only potential candidate for Sen. John Warner's seat is former Governor Mark Warner, who is a Schumer recruit.

Wyoming: The only potential candidate for these two Senate seats now held by Sens. Mike Enzi and Jon Barasso is conservative Dem Gov. Dave Freudenthal, definitely not a blogosphere recruit.

You may question my characterizations of some of these races, but let's look at the situation this way: The top five blogosphere recruits of the cycle (the ones that received national blogosphere attention from Daily Kos, MyDD, and other sites) were Ron Sparks in Alabama, Brad Miller in North Carolina, Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer in Oregon, and Rick Noriega in Texas.  To date, four of these five have declined to run, and the fifth (Noriega) is still considering.

This is a pretty terrible record for blogosphere recruitment this cycle.  In 2006, by way of comparison, the blogosphere was able to singlehandedly recruit Jim Webb and Ned Lamont into their respective Senate races, and then propel them ahead of high-powered Schumer candidates Joe Lieberman and Harris Miller.  We also played a major role in Jon Tester's defeat of the Schumer-supported John Morrison in Montana.

Where is that blogosphere muscle now?  Why can't we convince two separate Congressmen in Oregon to run against a badly damaged Senator, or show a statewide officeholder in Alabama that we can help him beat a no-name state senator?  It's time for us in the blogosphere, both in the state blogs and in the national activist blogs, to examine our priorities and figure out what has gone so horribly wrong in this recruitment cycle.  Is it because we're too focused on the Presidential race?  Because we've simply lost interest in the Senate since taking it over last November?  Whatever the reason, I think we should talk seriously about why we've failed so far in this cycle, and about how, or if, we can salvage the situation.  I for one would like to see a Lieberman-proof majority in the Senate after 2008.

•  Tip Jar

  Let me have it.

  by Nonpartisan on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:05:05 PM PDT

  •  Maybe my memory is just too foggy.

    The blogosphere did a lot to promote Jim Webb and Ned Lamont, but I don't think we were singlehandedly responsible for their decisions to run in the elections.  Maybe we helped to convince them? but they were going to run for other reasons.  Certainly we were supportive.

    What would you suggest as a coordinated campaign to recruit people via the web?

    by lizpolaris on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:34:45 PM PDT

•  How much money can we promise them?

  How many volunteers?  How much support in terms of messaging?  

  People running for office because bloggers asked them to is going to be the exception, not the norm.  

  And when it does happen, it will be the result of the efforts of in-state people, not out-of-state folks.

  by Geekesque on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:09:26 PM PDT

  •  But the in-state people have fallen down too

    As the list above makes clear.

    by Nonpartisan on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:12:46 PM PDT

    •  As I said, it will still be the exception.

      Bloggers don't have that much power in terms of delivering for candidates.  They certainly carry less weight than the DSCC, labor unions, and other interest groups.

      by Geekesque on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:19:00 PM PDT

•  the fallacy here

  is EXTREME overestimation of the power of the netroots, for good or ill.  Also frequently seen on MyDD.  I doubt we had much of anything to do with why any of the people you mentioned are running or not running.

  However, the diary is otherwise good as it points out that we may lose some winnable seats due to bad recruitment.  Oregon would be the most glaring example.

  by mcfly on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:09:44 PM PDT

  •  Jim Webb said

    his recruitment would not have happened without the netroots.  So did Ned Lamont.

    I agree with you that the power of the netroots has often been overestimated, but those successes in 2006 made me a believer.

    by Nonpartisan on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:11:35 PM PDT

  •  In a way

    our successes in 2006 hurt our recruitment in 2008. DeFazio, Blumenauer, and Miller would be much easier sells if they were sulking away in the minority. Instead, they're in the majority and they finally have some power. DeFazio, in fact, has one of the most desirable chairs in the House (transportation subcommittee of appropriations), the kind of seat you couldn't pry a House lifer from with a crowbar.

    by Crisitunity on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:27:26 PM PDT

  •  The real fallacy...

    Is a misrepresentation of what the "netroots" is. The netroots is not Kos. The netroots is the most local level. Calling Scott Kleeb a "netroots recruit" illustrates this pretty well. How many of you have actually set foot in our state? Other than saying "hey, Scott Kleeb would be a nice candidate," what has anyone actually done to "recruit" him?

    Don't ignore the grassroots in each state.

    Half of the netroots presence in Nebraska,

    Dave Sund.

    by ptmflbcs on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 08:04:27 PM PDT

•  um I don't know where you

  get that Udall is a "blue dog" in Colorado, I'd like to see that if it is true though.

  by pacified on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:11:10 PM PDT

  •  I thought I saw that he supported the war vote

    The one that reauthorized the surge.

    by Nonpartisan on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:12:05 PM PDT

    •  he did

      that's true.  But I don't know if that makes him a Blue Dog Democrat.  I'd expect to see his name on the Blue Dog coalition website to call him that.

      Udall is the Current House Rep of the the most liberal district in Colorado.  While we're disappointed with his vote on surge recently, one vote does not a Blue Dog make.

      by pacified on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:16:01 PM PDT

      •  Fair enough n/t

        by Nonpartisan on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:17:45 PM PDT

      •  Udall

        is a member of the New Democrat Coalition, not the Blue Dogs. The NDC is a historical outgrowth of the DLC, but it tends to be based around Dems from suburban districts who are ideologically around the midpoint of the Dem caucus, unlike the Blue Dogs, who are from rural districts and tend to be the right flank of the Dem caucus. Udall, in fact, has a Progessive Punch score of 87.01%, which puts him right around the midpoint of the Dem caucus, and is a comparable score to a number of people we actually like (like Kucinich, DeFazio, and Tim Ryan).

        by Crisitunity on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:22:06 PM PDT

•  What's wrong with Shaheen? She's hardly

  a conservative. For that matter, Udall is barely to the right of Defazio.

  by tigercourse on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:13:08 PM PDT

  •  Shaheen

    Was a DLC member during her 2002 run -- don't you remember?  And a strong opponent of Gov. Dean's chairmanship.

    by Nonpartisan on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:14:43 PM PDT

    •  On the first point, this site likes plenty of

      people who belong or have belonged to the DLC (Warner, Edwards, etc). It's a pretty diverse group, running from conservative like Ford to liberals like Clinton. I'm pretty sure Shaheen is closer to the latter. Do you have a link for that second thing?

      by tigercourse on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:17:56 PM PDT

      •  Yup

        Right here.

        A DC insider Dem if I ever saw one.

        by Nonpartisan on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:28:24 PM PDT

      •  Gore, too

        Remember, Gore was one of the founding members of the DLC.

        by wiscmass on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:54:18 PM PDT

•  we are paying too

  much attention to the presidential race.

  We also have state legislatures that need to be taken over.  Instead everyday we are worrying about who raised what money from how many people and what Ann Coulter said on some TV show.

  by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:20:27 PM PDT

•  Mark Udall is not a Blue Dog Democrat.

  A wild exaggeration. Here are the Blue Dogs. You may be referring to the Supplemental and the McGovern Amendment, but many congressment voted as Udall did on those issues who are not Blue Dogs.

  True, Udall isn't exactly a profile in courage, and he's doing more tacking than purists would like as he gets set for the Senate run, but he's a solid liberal-to-progressive.

  by Vico on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:23:27 PM PDT

•  This is ridiculous

  It's way too early to be talking about recruitment failures.  You list a lot of states where "no one has stepped up to challenge so-and-so"; so what?  It's the summer of 2007.  We're talking about Senate races, not the Presidency.  There's still a ton of time to find candidates.  Indeed, if we had recruited good candidates for all these races by now, there would be diaries about how surprising it is.  

  Also, Steve Marchand is a very good progressive candidate in New Hampshire.  

  Finally, I don't think it's right to draw such a sharp distinction between Schumer recruits and blogosphere recruits.  Oftentimes, the blogosphere finds itself supporting a candidate against one that Schumer has chosen.  But there are also instances where Schumer picks someone that the blogosphere likes and goes on to support.  So the fact that Schumer has recruited someone does not in and of itself indicate a blogosphere failure in that race.  

  by rsquire on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:26:58 PM PDT

•  uh...

  it's not even July! We've got time still.

  by Potus2020 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:28:56 PM PDT

•  we're not much of a political force

  when it comes down to it.

  by wu ming on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:29:48 PM PDT

•  I'm frustrated too.

    I'm actually pissed that DeFazio and Miller have decided not to run.  But you're misisng the good candidates.  While Novick and Franken aren't "netroots candidates," they have impeccable progressive credentials.  Novick, particularly, is an amazing person.
     In New Hampshire, Marchand has said he would drop out of the race if Shaheen enters, ostensibly endorsing her.  I realize that Shaheen supported the war originally, but so did a lot of otherwise good Democrats.  I'm not sure she's quite the DLC clone that she's made out to be.
     I think we should still try to pressure candidates who have declined to change their minds.  Brown changed his ind, and now he is a reliable progressive vote in the Senate.  We should not stop annoying Brad Miller.  But we might also make some adoptions.  Why not adopt Steve Novick against Gordon Smith.  Novick is a dream candidate by my standards.  We also keep looking for progressive alternatives, it's still early.  Don't panic yet.

  by redrelic17 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:30:14 PM PDT

•  Regarding Shaheen, of course you're not

  going to get anyone to commit to a suicide run against her.  

  by Geekesque on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:30:40 PM PDT

  •  Geek, suicide doesn't scare me...

    ...I wrote an Op-Ed announcing I was running against Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-4th VA) if I could get on the ballot. He was a valedictorian at Randolph-Macon in Ashland, VA while I was in the Army serving overseas during Vietnam. When I came back home and applied to Randolph Macon, they said, "We'd accept you, but you've been out of school too long". I said, "Duh! I've been serving my country for two years"! And that after I promised them a National Debate championship [I was in the VA State finals twice in high school and had 2 district championships and a trophy case full of awards to boot!]-They weren't impressed.

    And neither was my local RED rag about my "offer" to run against Forbes. They didn't even print my OP-Ed! And I won't talk about what my local Dem party said. I won't because the local party machine is next to a non-sequitor here. Seems gerrymandering still stands for "free ticket back to Washington" here in Va. The 4th is a 78% RED district. But I didn't care. I wanted the people to have a choice between a Bush rubber stamp and a lifelong progressive Dem. Some call it suicide to run against such odds. I call it giving the people a choice!

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:49:26 PM PDT

    •  Certain and overwhelming defeat isn't much

      incentive for someone to suspend their professional and personal life for 7-8 months.

      by Geekesque on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:54:16 PM PDT

      •  True. All the guts in the world...

        ...couldn't overcome Forbes' millions in special interest and PAC money. But you know what, they'll never see what I was like on "cross-x". My first year at State, my partner (now Dr. Thomas E. Finucan, M.D.) and I had the opposition literally in tears half-way through that debate. I know I may lose to Forbes in the heavy red district, but he would know he was in one hell of a debate by the time I got through with the cross-x! Money and power is all he's got. I've got him outnumbered on speaking TRUTH to power.

        by ImpeachKingBushII on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:04:22 PM PDT

•  Georgia may yet see a strong challenger

  North Georgia populist firebrand Wyc Orr is being courted. Some AtlantaKos stalwarts who know Wyc speak highly of him. Pronouncements of defeat are waaay too early, even here in Georgia.

  Georgia: Neither Rand Knight or Dale Cardwell stands much of a chance against Sen. Saxby Chambliss, and the blogosphere has yet to make much noise about either of them, despite both of their solid progressive records.  The blogosphere (and, presumably, Chuck Schumer) also failed to recruit Sen. Max Cleland into a rematch with Chambliss.

  by pat208 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:35:04 PM PDT

  •  What about the Dekalb County Commission chairman?

    I just moved to Atlanta, and I heard that a local Decatur official might take on Saxby.

    by Lucky Ducky on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:48:31 PM PDT

    •  Vernon Jones, County CEO

      A trifecta of corruption, harassment, and support for Bush.  Nope, I don't think he's going to be the one for us this year. And I sure hope not!  

      (Welcome to ATL! Hope you'll join the AtlantaKos Yahoo Group!)

      by pat208 on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:58:27 PM PDT

•  Basically, this diary proclaims

  your lack of knowledge of politics.  Of course the blogs aren't going to be definitive in bringing in candidates very often.  It's absurd.  Time to face facts?  Most of us already knew the facts.  You're the one who needs to face them, apparently.

  And as others have pointed out, your take on the NH senate race is way off - no, Shaheen's record on Iraq isn't ideal but she's not what you're painting her as, and you left out Steve Marchand.  Yeah, Katrina Swett is outraising him financially (of course she is, she's the daughter of one congressman and the wife of an ex-congressman), but he's set to mount a strong campaign if he stays in the race.

  by MissLaura on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:38:03 PM PDT

  •  And you're an expert on them?

    You guys pushed for five draft movements, hard.  Four of them resulted in rejections from the candidates you were trying to recruit.  A blogosphere endorsement is supposed to be a promise of cash and volunteers; obviously these candidates thought we couldn't deliver.  So now you say that we get to crow about candidates like Webb and Tester who we helped succeed, but when our appeals fall flat we should pass the buck to others?  How very DC of you.

    Shaheen was a Terry McAuliffe Dem, and she still is.  Marchand doesn't count because he's going to drop out of the race when Shaheen gets in.  Forgive me while I don't jump out of my seat crowing about her prospective entrance.

    The candidates we are backing in this race are the same people we swore to oppose when we started this blogging thing.  I don't mind swallowing the occasional Bob Casey (and in that sense Shaheen is fine with me) but when ALL our candidates are moderate-to-conservative DC Dems, it rubs me the wrong way.  It tells me the blogosphere has sold out its founding principles.

    Screw it -- I'm tired of posting these diaries and talking to a brick wall of circled wagons and status quo supporters.  You won't have me to kick around any more, I don't think.

    Not a GBCW, but pretty close.  I'll still comment, and maybe cross-post some historical thing on occasion that isn't controversial, but this obviously isn't the progressive site I thought it was where our principles and strategy were open to honest question without circling the wagons against the questioner, and where the blogosphere dons weren't always right, even if the evidence proved them wrong.

    by Nonpartisan on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 06:56:33 PM PDT

    •  See my comment below

      written before I read yours.  In the spirit of that comment, I'll try to be polite here.

      A senate candidate who bases their decision about getting into a race on the blogosphere is going to be a weak candidate.  The reason few senate candidates get added to the netroots/Blue Majority list is because we know we can't raise enough money to be enough for a senate race that's not getting money from elsewhere.  So your understanding of where the blogs fit in the campaigns they get behind is just plain wrong.  I can't think of a gentler way to say it.  Look, Jim Webb raised maybe $5 million.  The netroots ActBlue page raised $193,000 for him.  That's a substantial amount of money but it's not enough to base a senate race on.  

      Can blogs help a candidate?  Yes.  Could they tip someone over into committing to a run?  Sure, sometimes.  But to declare a blogospheric failure in a realm no major bloggers would claim serious influence on is not productive or accurate.

      You're also fundamentally not understanding candidate recruitment.  You think the DSCC succeeds in recruiting every candidate they try for?  Hell, no.  And it's somewhat dishonest to be like "the blogosphere failed to recruit anyone" in cases where the first person in was someone many bloggers were happy with.  Why bother getting someone new, then?  I mean, really:

      Idaho: Former Congressman Larry LaRocco is a solid progressive, but has locked up this nomination against Sen. Mike Crapo without much help from the blogosphere, which is more focused on Congressional candidate Larry Grant.

      That's just trying to shoehorn a case into your framework.

      I think the blogs' job is to support the best candidates in all cases.  Sometimes that means we're working to make someone stronger who otherwise would be seen as a non-starter in a primary.  Other times it's a matter of working to make what would be seen as a non-competitive race into a competitive one.  There are all sorts of roles we can potentially play, but what you outlined here just isn't it.

      by MissLaura on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:59:38 PM PDT

      •  I appreciate your apology

        and your thoughtful comment, and I apologize for my own tone in my response to you, but not for the substance of the comment or for my decision to post MUCH less around here.

        by Nonpartisan on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:25:45 PM PDT

  •  You know, without even reading

    what the reply to this comment says, I want to apologize for my overly sharp tone.  I think the substance of what I said is true - it's not realistic to expect the blogosphere to recruit candidates.  We can support the ones we like once they show interest, and may occasionally help push someone who was just thinking about it into going all out and really running.  But we're certainly not in a position to do significant amounts of recruitment.  All that said, though, I responded badly, and I am sorry.

    by MissLaura on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 02:43:50 PM PDT

•  Money is the blood of political races

  As I was reading this diary I felt my blood draining out in that it's going to cost  us some bigger sacrifices (DONATE!) than seems reasonable.

  You have no idea of the forces we're up against. The money, resources, credibility, reach, organization, ...dare I say: tentacles!

  Suggestions in response to diary and comments:

  1. Speak to Schumer directly. Work together rather than against. Communicate! Form coalitions. Synergy. Schumer isn't the enemy.

  2. Progressive blogosphere MUST have locals deeply involved. Webb and Lamont had more than virtual recruiters....Boots on the ground....People in their state who can meet them, report back to us, and who can make things happen in their home states. Not just 'jammie bloggers' like me, even though I do donate $, make phone calls......

  by LNK on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:45:43 PM PDT

•  Oklahoma

  If someone like Andrew Rice takes on Inhofe, I think we could really make the NRSC spend a ton of cash in what should be a safe seat.

  But as we saw in Coburn's race against Brad Carson in '04, Oklahoma's tough statewide.

  by Lucky Ducky on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:50:13 PM PDT

•  well

  Sparks didn't want a primary (Webb and Tester got in despite a primary, and that speaks very well for them).  The other three were House members who didn't want to leave a Democratic House.  You're also forgetting Steve Marchand in NH, who had a 24-hour blogger fundraising effort on this site yesterday.

  There's an oversized importance on what the national blogosphere can do.  Ultimately it comes down to whether or not the candidates want to run.

  by dday on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:51:43 PM PDT

•  Where were Ned Lamont and Jim Webb

  in June of 2005?

  And second point: the idea is to make sure we have strong candidates who can win and are suited to the states and district they represent, and that's far more important than whether they were recruited by bloggers.

  Third point: the candidates have to want to run.  It would have been fantastic if Brad Miller had run, and you'd bet I'd be headed to North Carolina next year.  But he doesn't want to leave a House majority, and that's understandable.

  When it comes down to it, the only results that matter are on election night.  And we either have a filibuster-proof majority or we don't.

  My blog. Come visit.

  by hekebolos on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:58:55 PM PDT

•  Correction on Idaho

  Former two-term Rep. Larry LaRocco is running against Sen. Larry Craig, not Mike Crapo - unless Craig decides to retire. He says he'll announce his intentions this fall. If Craig does opt not to run, we'll have an open seat with an almost-certain GOP donnybrook primary. Meanwhile, LaRocco does have the Dem nomination pretty well sewn up, with no visible opposition. He announced April 11 and has been running hard ever since. (Disclosure: I am on LaRocco's staff.)

  Both Larry L and Larry Grant (a repeat candidate in the ID-01) will be at Yearly Kos. Larry L just diaried here two days ago, his second at Kos this month:

  http://larry-larocco.dailykos.com/

  And yes, we have too many Larrys in Idaho politics.

  by Red State Rebel on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:00:36 PM PDT

•  Frustrated with the focus on a few seats?

  Then read (and recommend) my diary from a few hours ago on how the DK community needs to pay attention when viable Senate candidates come here to engage us:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  It includes a poll on whether Senate candidate diaries ought to at least get a nod on page 1. mcjoan mentioned Larry L's June 5 diary on the midday open thread, and it got nearly 100 comments and made the rec list. But without a page 1 mention this week, he barely made a blip.

  by Red State Rebel on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:09:16 PM PDT

•  It's not over yet...

  ...and in New Hampshire, we've been promoting Steve Marchand. In fact, a bunch of folks here did a 24 hour fundraising diary cycle just yesterday for him.

  by wiscmass on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:51:35 PM PDT

•  Okay.

  #1.  There's still time.  

  #2.  I live in Colorado, and I am disappointed with Udall's reauthorization vote.  But other than that, he is hardly a Blue Dog Dem.  If he is elected to the Senate, he will vote more progressively than Salazar.  That's for sure.  He is trying to keep Bush and his cronies from drilling in the Roan Plateau, along with the Brothers Salazar.  I am proud of them for doing that.  http://www.coloradopols.com/...

  And as for Mike Miles.  Honestly, he is a good guy, but  he couldn't get the job done.  He didn't raise a lot of money after having campaigned for a long time.  He ran a high-minded campaign, but was unable to connect with the voters.  It annoys me that people still express sour grapes over that.  

  by CO Democrat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 04:33:53 PM PDT

•  Umm...just so ya know...

  New Hampshire: The blogosphere failed to recruit anyone into the race against Sen. John Sununu, leaving the two leading Democratic candidates as former Congresswoman and Joe Lieberman ally Katrina Swett and the slightly more palatable former Governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is Chuck Schumer's choice.

  Yesterday we held a 24 hour fundraiser for Steve Marchand, a progressive candidate for Senate in NH. He's the only 100% pro-choice candidate in the race. He's a great speaker, and he has a good record of protecting the environment and protecting progressive programs.

  I believe you can read the fundraising diaries, or find the links to all of them by clicking here.

  I would urge you to read about Marchand. He's a great candidate.

  by Elise on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 05:49:39 PM PDT

  •  Yeah

    You held a fundraiser for a guy who's already pledged to drop out if another likely candidate actually jumps in.  Smart.  The money will be wasted.

    Okay, fine.  This is the last one of these diaries I do.  Maybe the last diary I do here at all.

    by Nonpartisan on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 06:48:44 PM PDT

    •  And that other candidate said she wouldn't get

      in if he raised good money this quarter.

      by Elise on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 07:32:29 PM PDT

•  I guess the real question here is:

  Are the Democrats recruiting strong candidates this cycle?

  The implication in your lament about the blogosphere's failure to play a larger (or increased over 2006) role in 2006 is that the netroots candidates are better than others. This may be true in most cases, but simply because the DSCC and the netroots agrees on candidates, does not mean the candidate is somehow less qualified.

  Also, the increasing diversity within the blogosphere is inevitably going to lead to MULTIPLE netroots-driven candidates.

  Another thing to ponder - where are the netroots likely to have the most influence - I'd make the argument that the netroots strategy should be looking at the Senate races outside the top 4-5 DSCC targets (as Virginia & Montana were at the beginning of the cycle). The top targets in this cycle (CO, OR, NH, ME, MN) are going to inevitably get DSCC $ and attention. It's the next group (NC, TN, NM, KS) where the netroots could effectively recruit a strong candidate that could seize the moment when a flawed/vulnerable candidate stumbles along the way.

  by Chrispy67 on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 08:56:09 AM PDT