Centerfield

Well, I don't want to claim I'm a prime mover, but I like to think that I choose good topics and perspectives on them that are interesting. I hope that draws a least a little bit of traffic.

And I've been off the radar screen for almost 2 months with a back injury.

Plus, Pat and Tully no longer routinly opt for Centerfield as their first choice when the mood strikes to originate a thread. They do that at the more Republican Stubborn Facts. If that's more comfortable for them, then it's where they belong, but it hasn't been great for Centerfield.

Pat and Tully, I hope you don't mind my saying that, I don't begrudge you the move, I just think it's relevant to the question C3 posed. And when I say "mopre republican" I mean that when the site is taken as a whole, I think people would view it as being to right of center. How much to the right? That judgement would vary widely, I think.

Posted by: bk at October 24, 2006 10:32 AM

I would turn a common negative characterization of certain other blogs, articles, columns, etc. on its head. Here there may be too much light and not enough heat to please enough would-be commenters to maintain critical mass. This blog is too hard and dry for most people.

I comment less and less, though I continue to read (lurk?)pretty religiously. Most people, myself included, can't compete. For me, Centerfield has become more of a spectator sport than one to participate in. Even in that context, I can tell about 90% of the time which regular is writing a comment before seeing his or her n@me. There are too few regulars and they are too familiar.

Centerfield is, in a sense, a victim of its own success. Requiring people to be know their stuff and disallowing abusive language reduces the field of people who will stick around for the long haul. It's kind of sad, really.

Posted by: WHQ at October 24, 2006 10:37 AM

That's very flattering and kind of you to say, Brian, but I'm not sure I would agree with you (big surprise there, huh? lol). About the effect of our abatement on Centerfield, that is. You're right that we lean "more Republican" (just don't call us an echo chamber!).

I don't know what makes a site succeed. Our traffic at Stubborn Facts isn't bad at all for such a new site, but it's hardly large enough for me to claim any expert status at attracting large numbers of readers and participants.

I think part of it is just a general boredom of blogging. I've felt it myself, the psat few weeks. After awhile, it starts feeling like we've had all the arguments before, and we're tired of having the same arguments with the same people over and over again. Plus, the emotional roller coaster of the upcoming elections is kind of draining.

On a personal note, Brian, I hope your back is doing better and you can get back to more regular posting!

Posted by: PatHMV at October 24, 2006 10:43 AM

WHQ... you play that game too? Guess the commenter in the first paragraph? I can always pick Tully's, and I'm probably 75% on the rest.

Posted by: PatHMV at October 24, 2006 10:45 AM

I don't think the problem with spambots helped either. Down days lead to people finding other venues.

Posted by: Jim M at October 24, 2006 11:10 AM

A quick survey shows that blog traffic overall is DOWN 30-35% from this time last year. Across the (ideological) board.

Posted by: Tully at October 24, 2006 11:29 AM

Yeah, I can usually guess posters.If I can't, and the post is getting long and I'm not sure where it's heading, I'll scroll down to see who has written it. If it's one of our regulars I can feel good about assuming it leads somewhere, and then I scroll back up and read the whole thing.

WHQ, I wish you'd share your thoughts more often, even if they're just words of encouragement or a comment noticing that the topic is one we've covered at length. I think it's useful to notice the points where even the open-minded get stuck on their ruts about an issue.

Pat I AM feeling much better and hope to do a few posts on a few "stored" topics. While I'm on it, anyone interested in a cooperative effort to provide a simple but useful resource for would be centrists in the run-up to 2008? If there's are any small useful thing we agree on as centrists, I think it's the idea that leaving the primaries to the rank partisans is a main cause of the douche-turd paradigm (ask if you're reading and don't know what that is).

What we could do is help any would be centrists out there know what they need to do to participate in the primary of their choice by providing links to the rules for primaries in each state, along with links to summaries of various schools of thought on how to approach primaries. Especially, there's Tully's advocacy of what I'd call open subversiveness which includes voting in the despised party's primary to elect the most beatable opponent for your favored one. For centrists, I think we should advocate primary participation to steer parties away from fringier folk, so that could be another one that's similar.

What do you folks think?

And again, while I'm on it, I happened to read a Bob Herbert NYT column yesterday claiming that the GOP is enthused at the notion of facing Obama for Prez in 2008 due to his lack of experience. Frankly, I didn't believe this claim for a second and took it as a suggestion that Herbert's real agenda in counseling Obama to wait and be patient was to clear the path for Hillary.

What do GOP folk say, would you really rather face the fresh-faced and charismatic yet less experienced Obama, or the tough, experienced but uncharismatic Hillary Clinton, who has pretty high negatives?

My sense is that Obama has rock-star charisma and would be VERY hard to beat. The most common GOP dismissal of Obama seems to be that he sure talks pretty but where's the real substance on tough issues? While a legitimate criticism, my sense is that the pols who have the rock star charisma are the folks who can sucessfully skate around the substance on tough issues by carefully but subtly varying what they are saying so that everyone thinks the skater is skating the same way as them.

At this point, I think Obama is by far the most widely likable politican of the last 20 or so years. More likable than Clinton because he doesn't IMO transmit the same weasel vibe. As likable as Reagan and Kennedy, and with very strong middle of the road, regular folks appeal. And as far as Herbert's advice goes, my experinece in following presidential politics as well as sports suggests strongly to me that the window of opportunity for a winning bid just doesn't open as often as one might like to hope. Obama is smart enough to know that if he doesn't run and Clinton wins, he has a minimum 8-year wait, which is a long time for the bloom to leave the rose. And if he takes the VP slot, how many VPs have subsequently been 2-terms Presidents?

Maybe Obama deserves his own thread here...

Posted by: bk at October 24, 2006 11:30 AM

I think part of it is just a general boredom of blogging. I've felt it myself, the psat few weeks. After awhile, it starts feeling like we've had all the arguments before, and we're tired of having the same arguments with the same people over and over again.

Relative to blogging political topics, I can totally agree with this statement. I have begun to feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall and all I get out of it is a headache. In fact, that pretty much summarizes how I feel about politics in general. I can't help but wonder how many other moderates/centrists feel the same way, and since this is primarily a political blog, that could help explain the lowered interest.

This blog is too hard and dry for most people.

I am a regular reader, frequent poster over at Dean's World. I would say he is politically moderate and he also has a wide variety of co-bloggers. His readership/participation level remains high, I think, because of the wide-ranging topics from political to religious to television to sports and so on... It seems to me that the most successful blogs are also fairly flexible in topical shifts.

I also think the recent spam issues haven't helped as well.

Posted by: Heather at October 24, 2006 11:42 AM

Perhaps blog traffic is down overall because a bunch of the people who care enough to contribute to it are out working on actual political campaigns just now.

Just a thought. By late November we'll know if they have come back or not.

Posted by: wj at October 24, 2006 11:44 AM

Perhaps blog traffic is down overall because a bunch of the people who care enough to contribute to it are out working on actual political campaigns just now.

Could be a part of it, but I think it runs deeper. Off-year second-term fatigue may be a factor as well. If I figure out how to test for factors, I will.

Posted by: Tully at October 24, 2006 12:22 PM

A quick survey shows that blog traffic overall is DOWN 30-35% from this time last year. Across the (ideological) board.

Is there a correlation between blog traffic and real estate prices? Posted by: c3 at October 24, 2006 01:10 PM

I have been dissappointed at how little involvement the Centrist blogs have been in the election.

I have made about 20 contributions to various candidates and organizations.

Where are the Centrist donors and activists?

http://austincentrist.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Paul in Austin at October 24, 2006 01:56 PM

I have also experienced a reduced interest in blogging, both here and on my personal blog, and in reading other political blogs. Sometimes, it just feels like the movie Groundhog Day. "Republicans lie about everything!!!" "Democrats are appeasers!!!" The same thing, day after day. Most days, I would rather read a book.

I expect the trend that Tully cites to continue, until things start heating up for 2008. I also have no doubt that the real influence of blogs on the people who seek (or seek to retain) political office will continue to grow.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at October 24, 2006 02:41 PM

Sometimes, it just feels like the movie Groundhog Day. "Republicans lie about everything!!!" "Democrats are appeasers!!!" The same thing, day after day.

And I guess that's why I'm surprised at our slow down HERE. We supposed to provide an alternative. Maybe we don't like the insanity of the netroots but kinda like the excitement? Posted by: c3 at October 24, 2006 04:58 PM

Guys and gals, you might find this interesting and perhaps relevant too: Room for agreement. Check out his earlier post which he links to at the beginning of this one, as it gives this one more context.

At issue there is the radical middle and what it is that we want and what it is that we'd be happy with. I figured that was pretty much right down y'all's alley, so to speak, and posted a link here in my recent comment over there.

Posted by: Kevin at October 24, 2006 05:18 PM

I agree with most comments here concerning this topic. My unprofessional take is that centrists have been so marginalized "we" are waiting to see how this boring binary debate plays out. I am so tired of being called a lefty by Republicans and a neocon by Democrats.

On the positive side, people here try to stick to facts, do not worry about political labels, and debate with civility. I guess many Americans either can't follow this behavior or are too bored of politics altogether to post.

I think "we" will decide the political outcomes to come. Most have indicated energy, security and health care are major issues. All seem to rationally balance liberty with security and reject political extremes. We certainly understand sixty labels have lost their meaning. It has been a long six years since America has been locked in a polarized state. Don't despair. I have an uneasy feeling that global realities will rock our boat and force us to return to the excluded middle. I just hope that by then the damage done by partisan irresponsibility have not hurt us beyond repair.

The lack of centrist thinking coming from our candidates is a good indication of why the centrist debate is lighter at this point.

And then there is the media. Tonight I would rather watch a new South Park than view CNN footage of Americans being killed in Iraq.

Posted by: Maxtrue at October 24, 2006 05:35 PM

Kevin;
From the BlueOregon blog, I love this comment:

one thing i think people should remember when thinking about Dems in control of govt: we're a much more diverse party than the GOP. it's hard for us, if not impossible, to wield the kind of control Rove et al were able to use.

blah, blah, blah.... There must a a macro commang that many folks have the computer CNTR-ALT-ROVE.

Now there's a great question, given what you've seen on the netroots blogs what would you imagine is the most common macro command on a lefty's computer and what about a rightie's. I've already suggested the CNTL-ALT-ROVE macro. Any other ideas?

Posted by: C3 at October 24, 2006 07:04 PM

C3, the most obvious one for a Rightie would be CTRL-ALT-CLINTON although CTRL-ALT-GORE, CTRL-ALT-KERRY and more recently CTRL-ALT-PELOSI all spring to mind as likely alternates. Of course for the really hard-core old-timers there might be a CTRL-ALT-FONDA.

Posted by: Kevin at October 24, 2006 08:37 PM

Welcome back, bk!

Like bk, I'm also going to need a blogbreak soon. I'll need to take a month sometime within the next three months, likeliest to be Januaryish. I can feel my rhetorical arteries hardening and interest waning; my blogbreak needs seem to be roughly one month taken once every eighteen months.

I also think Obama has the potential to be a better leader than Clnton, but Clinton has the earlier establishment of brand on her side, and can do just fine.

Posted by: Jon Kay at October 24, 2006 08:41 PM

Definitely CTRL-ALT-GORE and CTRL-ALT-PELOSI. My husband would definitely go for CTRL-ALT-BUSH!

Posted by: Heather at October 24, 2006 09:46 PM

And on the Centrist macro list, CTRL-ALT-WINGNUT

Posted by: Tully at October 25, 2006 11:06 AM

I think a lot of these comments sort of illustrate why blogging on Centerfield is down. We seem to be obsessed with commenting on the extreme left. Who cares what a left-wing blog says? Don't we have anything else to do but point out the stupidities of wing-nuts?

More importantly, I think the major issue is that people don't perceive this as a centrist blog anymore. It's pretty clear that most of the commenters here are pro-war and fairly conservative on economics. There is nothing wrong with that, but with so little diversity, I think people find less reason to go here. Even Rick thought that the blog was moving too much to the right. We have an increasingly limited range of ideological opinion here, especially about Iraq,and I think the perception is that this blog is basically pro-war and pro-Bush.

Posted by: Marc at October 26, 2006 09:48 AM

But why is that, Marc? There are plenty of much-more-left folks who post on the front page of the blog and who comment regularly. In fact, the number of front-page posts by Tully, Simon, and I have fallen dramatically since we started Stubborn Facts.

Posted by: PatHMV at October 26, 2006 03:37 PM

Frankly, Pat, I think you and Tully, especially, became the dominant figures and I don't say that pejoratively. Even if you aren't posting much anymore, I still think most of the posts and comments imply at least limited support for the war. I haven't seen anyone really support withdrawl. I'm not saying that's wrong, just a fact. But this is just my perception anyway.

Posted by: Marc at October 26, 2006 05:21 PM

But couldn't that also mean that "at least limited support for the war" is the pretty centrist position?

Posted by: PatHMV at October 26, 2006 06:55 PM

Right! There's an awful lot of unhappiness about how things have been unfolding in Iraq. It's becming a more and more popular view that we should therefore bail, simply becuase things aren't going well. The simple populist response to the war being troublesome is that we should withdraw,

But it seems to me that many thoughtful folks acknowledge that bailing brings its own set of issues, not the least of which would be the sense of muslims that jihad had won a major victory for islam. I don't believe that ultimately our decision on whether to keep trying or withdraw should be based on how our actions make our enemies feel, but it's reason enough to stick with it unless there are serious signs of irreversible failure, like mass protests across the country telling us to leave, roads packed with refugees fleeing many different areas of civil unrest, insurgent forces gaining permanent control of important regions, and the breakdown of the everyday order of things like schools, utilities, hospitals, courts, and so on.

Related to that, I think that Maliki releasing an Al-Sadr deputy and promising that such arrests won't occur again is an extraordinarily bad sign that government officials fear insurgents and are willing to do their bidding, even that they are getting ready to meet the new boss.

Posted by: bk at October 27, 2006 10:08 AM

Centerfield is never going to popular as long as the only way to find it is a tiny 4th link down the right side of the front page of centrist coalition...

Posted by: Susan at October 28, 2006 03:41 PM

SPAM!
Cheap Ambien Order Ambien Ambien Side Effect Ambien Overdose Ambien Cr Effects Side Buy Ambien Online Ambien Addiction Generic Ambien Ambien Sleep Aid Ambien Zolpidem
http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/ambien-addiction.html http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/ambien-zolpidem.html http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/order-ambien.html http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/ambien-side-effect.html http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/buy-ambien-online.html http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/ambien-cr-effects-side.html http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/generic-ambien.html http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/ambien-sleep-aid.html http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/ambien-overdose.html http://jp2.freemy.homeip.net/farma/cheap-ambien.html

Posted by: mortgage at November 14, 2006 01:06 AM