The Democrats and progressives are far more organized and numerous online than their reactionary opponents. I've been commenting about this elsewhere, but the GOP dominance in established media -- newspapers, radio, and television -- has hindered their efforts on the Net, relative to progressives, who've been forced to go online earlier and in greater numbers because they're just not represented in conventional media. The Right is very well-represented in established media, and the Left isn't represented at all, myths of "the liberal media" notwithstanding.

Obama's candidacy is reflective of this greater leftward power online, since the old media all embraced Clinton early on as the "inevitable" frontrunner, and it was only because of Obama's excellent candidacy, his great organization, and his netroots base that he was able to get as far and as fast as he did. The only GOP candidate of equivalent Net-savvy is Ron Paul, and it's reflective of how far from the GOP rank-and-file he is that he's doing poorly, despite the online organizing and fundraising. Progressives will continue to outperform reactionaries online for some time, so it's key to make the most of it while we can.

But does "nationalizing" races, by internet or otherwise, necessarily benefit the extremes? In Pennsylvania, uber conservative Rick Santorum was replaced by moderate (to the point of crosssing the aisle on abortion) Bob Casey, largely owing to nationwide disgust with Santorum's virulently anti-gay remarks. The same might be said for Virginia, in which moderate Jim Webb beat right wing George Allen largely thanks to youtube.

To understand why the DINO from MD lost, just look at Glenn's post today about the telecom immunity bill.

People are tired of Congress going along with the GOP, despite pledges to stick up for us, and hamstringing our civil liberties, not out of some loyalty to Ober-Meister Meisterbuger Dark Lord Kos.

The assumption here is that centrists are obviously better than serious liberals or conservatives.

They are not.

The Republican party has been dominated by hard-line righties for years, (Delay, Gingrich, Bush, Norquist, Limbaugh, the list is endless) but the Dems biggest names have been centrist. (Clintons, etc.)

This has pushed the "center" far to the right, with settles issues such as women's rights and evolution suddenly becoming "up for discussion" again.

We desperately need to replace centrist Dems with progressive ones, and if that means the few truly moderate Reps get replaced by more rightward people -- so what? Those guys vote in lock-step anyway, and the stark contrast may help people see the real difference in the parties.

Is that really a win for online activists -- or is it, instead, a stalemate?

Good question. The answer is, "time will tell."

Particularly, if the conventional "centrist" wisdom is just plain wrong, letting the "extremes" duke it out may be the only way to come up with a better consensus.

And note, right now the "extreme" left position on issues like Iraq, surveillance, Congressional oversight of the Executive and a host of other issues is nearly identical to what poll after poll says is the "mainstream" position of the American people.

Mr Manjoo is only half right when he concludes that the respective primaries moved the race for the House seat "further left and further right" and "away from the center".

In America, the "center" is overwhelmingly opposed to the war in Iraq, and it does not favor tax cuts that benefit only the very wealthy; one need be only vaguely familiar with the results of the 2006 elections and the numerous recent American polls to know this. Ms Edwards opposition to the war and her opposition to tax cuts for the wealthy place her squarely in the political center of America, not on the "far left" as Mr Manjoo falsely asserts. Conversely, the win by the pro war and pro tax-cuts-for-the-rich Mr. Harris, whose views are shared only by a minority of Americans, did move the Republican offering away from the political center and toward the radical-fringe right.

for now.

Americans aren't opposed to war in general, they are opposed specifically to this one. Were it not for the economy tanking and other factors, the war would enjoy generally higher support, probably near 50%.

I enjoy your columns, Farhad, but I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I believe one can construct a fairly straightforward timeline of events that show the web to be a tool of happenstance - not of cause.

1. Richard Nixon southern strategy: flips solidly Democratic (but very conservative south) to GOP using original wedge issue: civil rights (Johnson Act)

2. Lee Atwater refines the southern strategy and pushes it outside of the south (Bussing, desegration nationwide, affirmative action, etc) This is the first instantiation of litmus politics, but albeit on amorphous issues. Incipient right wing talk radio (the Democrats were blind to the unintended consequences of dropping equal time)

3. Reagan pushed litmus and builds coalition of single issue voters (Wall Street (Rich), Anti-Abortionists (Evangelicals), Military (or 2nd amendment types).

4. Under Bush 1 and Bush 2, defunding of the left occurs. Tom Delay, Rove, push it to the extreme to starve the left of funds. Democrats source of labor funds removed, McCain-Feingold campaign reform actually hurts Democrats more than Republicans.

5. Lack of media relief for left, center-left views, Rise of FOX.

Bingo, internet becomes the place to comiserate. Act Blue, MoveOn, DailyKOS, fit Democratic members better (is there something to conservatives being followers and not leaders in opinion -ating? (or bloviating?) Ask Dan Bartlett.)

The internet is the RESULT of the closing of alternative methods of promulgating a loyal opposition. I think Norquist & Rove really were surprised that there was an alternative technique of organizing and the the left would be soooooo good at it.

I think that this reminds me of what someone once told me in my youth, "People excel when limits are placed on them."

Thanks!

I understand that you are limited by space constraints but your analysis of the Maryland race and its implications was sketchy and simplistic. First your use of "left" and "right" is so meaningless. What is it that makes opposition to telecom immunity, or torture or indeed, the war in Iraq, something that is any inherent part of the "left" as you call it. All these positions have clear and in some cases overwhelming majorities amongst the American populace as poll after poll shows. For whatever reason, many democrats decided to give ex poste immunity to private companies against the strong wishes of 70% of the American people. Certainly 70% of the people are not "leftists."

Yet this immunity only passed because of Democratic "cooperation" across the isle which you apparently think is a value more important than the content of the legislation itself. This cooperation got something done alright but it certainly did not advance popular will or the central moral values of the overwhelming views of the people. Voters get angry when their representatives flout their will on issues after issue of importance to them. They use the means at their disposal to have their popular will heard. If only there had been more gridlock, then perhaps the Congress would not have spit out some of the most shameful and dangerous laws since the Alien and Sedition acts.

What is it about opposition to torture that is a left issue? The government has just admitted that it has done something that is well established under American law to be torture and illegal. The AG can say whatever he wants but he doesn't have the authority to change the law and declare water boarding to be ok. That's not how law works. Is it part of the leftest philosophy to want Presidents to obey the law and to demand legal accountability when he transgresses? I thought that law and order was owned by the "right."

ps does your claim about out of state funding include the 150K that Rahm Emmanuel just gave the incumbent this past week. That was a lot of money and I'm sure it was mostly out of state.