Who cares about the internets?

As you are undoubtedly well aware, Deval Patrick recently undertook a massive blog outreach effort, giving interviews to .08, Eisenthal, and the three of us here at BMG.  His campaign also approached Left in Lowell and Cape Ann Dem, and possibly others, and we look forward to seeing the results of those interviews as well.

We wondered whether other campaigns might be interested in doing the same thing - after all, Howard Dean does seem to have shown that you can generate a lot of money and a lot of interest by undertaking a sophisticated internet-based campaign, and the phenomenon of internet-based activism, whether via blogging or otherwise, is only going to grow in importance.  So we sent an invitation to Tom Reilly's campaign a couple of weeks ago wondering whether he might be interested in holding a similar conversation.  So far, nothing.  [cue crickets chirping]

In addition, in an effort to find out more about the candidates for the Second Middlesex Senate seat, earlier this week we sent a brief questionnaire to the four major Democratic candidates (Pat Jehlen, Paul Casey, Michael Callahan, and Joe Mackey) asking them to elaborate on three issues important to the "progressive" community (health care, education, and transportation).  Jehlen's campaign responded promptly and promised she would answer [UPDATE: and Mackey's campaign has said he would answer as well].  Nothing from the others so far.  (To be fair to Callahan, I had to snail mail his since I could not find an email address for him, so he's probably only receiving the questionnaire now.)

I very much hope that we get a response from Reilly and from the Senate candidates, since I welcome any opportunity to find out more about where the various candidates stand on "the issues."  But I also think that a campaign's decision as to whether or not to respond at all says quite a lot about how that campaign intends to operate, and who it sees as a possible source for voters.  So far, Patrick and Jehlen [UPDATE: and Mackey] have indicated that they think Howard Dean was really onto something (I don't care what you think about Dean on the merits - his biggest accomplishment in the '04 campaign was on process, including raising a ton of money, not on substance).  The others, as of yet, not so much.

Maybe the traditionalists are right.  After all, George Bush won in 2004 despite the Dems thinking that they had learned what made Dean's campaign tick.  And Mike Moran won the Allston/Brighton/Brookline special election despite Tim Schofield's more aggressive outreach to the "progressive" internet-based community.  But Schofield came really close (64 votes) - a lot closer than he would have come otherwise, given Moran's lifelong roots in the community and his endorsements from both the Globe and the Phoenix.  And, it is said, Schofield's strong presence in the race pushed Moran to adopt more "progressive" positions on certain issues (including but not limited to gay marriage) than he otherwise might have.

So a sophisticated internet operation may or may not be outcome-determinative in these kinds of races, but I think there's little doubt that the internet matters, and that it will matter increasingly as time goes on.  Seems to me that the candidates who get that now will be better positioned in the future than those who don't.