Even in the Roanoke area, you can see the value of what the blogs are doing. The more people that turnout (sic), and the more the electorate gets away from the "party leadership(,)" the better nominee it produces. (link)I have a great deal of respect for the political analysis provided by Ben Tribbett over at Not Larry Sabato. But these two sentences make no sense. The "value of what the blogs are doing" is to be judged by the turnout? There was an embarrassing 3.45% turnout Tuesday. If there is an association to be made, it is that all the blog hype leading up to the election turned people en masse away from the polls. 3.45%, Ben! Your candidate received all of 1.8448% of the total votes that could have been cast by Virginia's registered voters, for Christ's sake.
The question has to be asked - and answered: What would that 1.8% have been without the active involvement of all the bloggers in the commonwealth? Any more hard work on the part of bloggers and we'd have had to declare a winner by drawing straws.
And that second sentence, "The more people that turnout, and the more the electorate gets away from the "party leadership" the better nominee it produces," By what standard are you judging Jim Webb being a "better" nominee? And define "party leadership." It would seem to me that John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic party nominee for President and Chuck Schumer, the current chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, both of whom endorsed Jim Webb with the former actively campaigning for their candidate prior to the primary, can be considered "party leadership." But you know their status better than I do.
And exactly how did "the value of what the bloggers are doing" bring that election of the "better nominee" about? At most, you can argue that you turned a handful of Miller voters into Webb voters, which you have every right to do. But handful must be the key word.
So, methinks thou givest thyself far too much credit. You won. Leave it at that. Mover and/or shaker you ain't.