THE CAMPAIGN MONEY FALLACY. I'm inclined to agree with Duncan that the campaign money fallacy should be taken out back and shot. There is not, in fact, a finite amount of funds each progressive donor gives to a candidate, and there's no real reason to believe that their donations to Lamont will, in some sort of zero-sum fashion, detract from their donations to Webb.
That said, Adler, as I read him, was making a more specific point: that the blogosphere's capability to focus attention and emphasis on a certain campaign or issue is limited, and that they'd made a strategic mistake in devoting so much of it to Lamont. I do recall far more "Nedrenaline" posts than I do Webb appeals, so it seems to me that Adler's got a point there. Whether he's right that the netroots squandered its time or energy by focusing on Lieberman is, I think, a different question, and one that I can see both sides of. But asking it doesn�t necessarily entail buying into the zero-sum conception of campaign money that gives the priorities of donors who've contributed to Clinton's $22 million a pass. Speaking of her war chest, it's worth keeping in mind that much of her money comes from corporations and industry groups who have a different agenda than individual progressive donors, so much of it isn't meant to advance the Democratic Party or the liberal agenda at all.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)