Internet use for political information has doubled since 2002, according to a new Pew Research study (PDF here) conducted 11/8 to 12/4. As Lynn Rainey and John Horrigran report in their article “The Internet Is Creating a New Class of Web-Savvy Political Activists“:

The number of Americans who got most of their information about the 2006 campaign on the internet doubled from the most recent mid-term election in 2002 and rivaled the number from the 2004 presidential election…15% of all American adults say the internet was their primary source for campaign news during the election, up from 7% in the mid-term election of 2002 and close to the 18% of Americans who said they relied on the internet during the presidential campaign cycle in 2004.

In addition, 31 percent of respondents — representing 60 million people — said they used the internet to get political information in 2006. The study also identifies the type of websites being most frequently visited by political internet users, reporting, for example, that 20 percent read political blogs. Interestingly, the survey of 2,562 adults included 200 respondents who had cell phones only.
For more on political internet users, see EDM’s January 20 post below.

Congressional Quarterly has a round-up of ratings for 08 Senate races — their earliest ever. Of the 33 U.S. Senate seats up in the ’08 cycle, 21 are held by Republicans, compared to 12 seats for Dems. The article rates each seat as “safe” Republican/Democrat” (8/6), Democrat/Republican “favored,” (4/7) “leans” Democrat/Republican (1/5) and “no clear favorite” (1 each). In other words, the early money says the Senate will remain very close, with a possible net-pick up of 1 for the Dems. Some of those submitting comments to the article disagree, but not by much. The delicate balance that gives Dems their majority remains a continuing concern.

Sillylittletwit’s article “2008 and State Legislatures” at the Daily Kos has a useful list for targeting state legislative houses Dems can win. The list ranks 23 legislatures according to “percentage gain required for outright Democratic majority”:

1 Montana House: 2.0
2 Oklahoma Senate: 2.1
3= Tennessee Senate: 3.0
3= Wisconsin House: 3.0
5 Ohio House: 4.0
6 Texas House: 4.7
7 Nevada Senate: 4.8
8 North Dakota Senate: 6.4
9 New York Senate: 6.5
10= Arizona House: 6.7
10= Missouri House: 6.7
12 Oklahoma House: 6.9
13 Delaware House: 7.3
14 Michigan Senate: 7.9
15 Kentucky Senate: 8.0
16 South Dakota Senate: 8.6
17 South Carolina Senate: 8.7
18 Georgia House: 9.4
19 South Carolina House: 9.7
20= Alaska House: 10.0
20= Alaska Senate: 10.0
20= Pennsylvania Senate: 10.0
20= Virginia Senate: 10.0

An extra investment in candidates who can help to win some of these state houses could give Dems decisive leverage, not only in the legislatures, but also in upcomming congressional redistricting battles.

Dems are riding high on the wake of raves for Sen. Jim Webb’s response on behalf of the Dems to The Lame Duck’s lamest ever SOTU address. Lest we get too high, however, on the heady wine of the political moment, MyDD‘s Matt Stoller takes away the punch bowl for a minute in his post “The State of the Progressive Movement.” Reflect for a moment on his sobering assessment:

On the eve of the State of the Union, I figured it was time to broach a little something about the state of the progressive movement. The state is fun, but honestly, it’s pretty unhealthy.
Here’s why.
Though the internet left has raised many millions for candidates, the dirty little secret of progressive activism is that there is literally no support for any of the people who make internet politics work. Many effective activists don’t have health care, and scrap along with whatever they can. The right has a well-developed infrastructure, and that’s why they tend to win. They take care of their people. We don’t, and so our people quit, or leave, or become consultants, etc…We think that supporting the local bloggers that deliver us better and higher quality information than the traditional media and operative class is critical to gaining and holding progressive power.

Amen to that, and plaudits to Stoller and Chris Bowers, who are actually doing something about it through their organization, Blogpac, which is helping activists in financial need, like Lane Hudson, who recently lost his job, reportedly for publicizing the Mark Foley scandal. Blogpac is also credited with pioneering creative internet projects like “Use it or Lose it” and Googlebombing to get coverage for important but neglected election stories. Show ’em some love by clicking here and doing the right thing.

“How to Speak Republican,” Katharine Mieszkowski’s Salon interview with Frank Luntz, offers a revealing look at how the GOP’s top wordsmith sees their midterm debacle. Asked what he thought were the GOP’s “linguistic mistakes” in the ’06 campaign, Luntz says:

Earmarks became a public issue and they were silent on it. The bridge to nowhere was a complete disaster for the GOP. Not articulating the sense of accountability with Mark Foley and Duke Cunningham and [Bob] Ney. I think that the language that was tied to the policies of 1994 represented politics at its best, and language tied to the politics of 2006 represented politics at its worst.

Asked for some examples of failed language, Luntz responds:

You tell me. What was the Republican message for 2006? I’ve asked congressmen, senators. I even asked the people responsible for creating the message for 2006. What was the message for the Republican Party in 2006? Not a single person can give me an answer. None of them. No one at the Republican National Committee, no Republican senator, no Republican House member, no operative, none of the Democrats, can answer it either. Nobody knows. That’s the failure. So when you say to me, “Give me an example,” I can’t. There’s no message to criticize because there was no message. It was nothing.

Luntz credits Gingrich for giving the Dems their winning slogan “Had enough?” but says they won more because they got a free ride, thanks to GOP ineptitude. He takes predictable pot shots at the netroots, but sees Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as generally effective communicators. A stickler for oppo research, Luntz says he reads all of George Lakoff’s books and spends “half my time” reading Democratic blogs and studying congress in action on the floor. Luntz also has a new book “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear,” which probably merits a read by political language junkies of both parties.
Yet, after giving Luntz credit for identifying some key GOP failures in the midterms, absent here is any sense that maybe voters rightly concluded that the occupation of Iraq was a bad idea, based on lies and poorly executed. It’s all about communication. Instead of “surge,” Luntz believes President Bush would have done better using the euphemisms “reassessment” or “realignment.” Thoughtful political communication is important. But at a certain point, using evasive language to describe bad policy is putting lipstick on a pig.