Skip to main content

Contemplating the influence of blogs on state and local politics

Over at Delawareliberal there is an ongoing conversation about the impact that blogs can have on State and local politics; definitely worth reading and participating in.

Quite obviously one of my purposes here has been to give publicity to Libertarian candidates around the country, even at the risk of sometimes losing my non-Libertarian Delaware audience.

Most of the significance attached to political blogs (which are read--at most--by 1-2% of voters) has been discussed from a national perspective, but as I drive back from the beach tonight I'll be ruminating on the limits of the possible in other contexts.

Some questions on my mind:

If blogs become attached to particular candidates and aid their fund-raising, what happens to the intellectual independence of those blogs? (What do you do if the candidate you've been fund-raising for shits all over one of your favorite issues?)

How do you build traffic to get, maybe, 5% of the voters reading blogs?

How do turn those readers from passive recipients of your brilliance into activists?

How do you make some bucks (or should you) out of this enterprise in order to do more?

Not that I've solved any of these issues, but I do have some thoughts forthcoming tonight and tomorrow.

Now (sigh) to pack up the beach umbrella.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have been volunteering for three campaigns so far. The people running are thoroughly vetted before I'd spend energy, though I don't have a litmus that says we are eye to eye on every issue, there isn't much of a gap so far. In two on these cases, the candidates are supporting another candidate I abhor. I did state that if said candidate was being actively or jointly campaigned for than I would walk.
That is about as far as that kind of issue went. So far I am in.

For the record I actively support Karen Hartley-Nagle, Thomas Gordon and Bill Dunn.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...