It's pretty much a given that Ben Chandler probably wouldn't have won without support from bloggers. It's also the case that Stephanie Herseth got a tremendous boost from bloggers, though I won't say I can claim that blogger support was necessary. Neither of those members of Congress are my favorites, but the fact that they were supported despite being rather right wing undercuts the usual media narrative that lefty bloggers only support candidates that are crrrraazy lefties who are otherwise unelectable. Herseth and Chandler won against Republicans in conservative districts.

But, anyway, supporting Rodriguez was a no brainer and it's a shame we didn't jump on it earlier. The seat is going to remain Dem regardless (unless Cuellar jumps ship) and it was an obvious opportunity.

There are lots of reasons to support underdogs, and for better or for worse most of the candidates directly support by Kos and me in the last election cycle were not especially ideologically liberal. They were generally underdogs running against incumbents (most people running against incumbents are underdogs), and in many cases the small amount of funds provided to them helped force their opponents to spend huge amounts of money in return, diverting money from other places.

If my goal in life was to support people who were "winners" I'd be writing checks to Joe Biden, Hilllary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy. All 3 of those candidates will win their next election. All 3 of those candidates have far more money than they need to win their next election. All 3 of those candidates still have no problem getting people to line up to give them even more money for their campaigns. If there's wasted money in campaigns that's where it is. And, yes, I know, that those candidates tend to pass on some money to other candidates, but I'm not sure how supporting party "kingmakers" is really of much value.

It's odd that people who throw $50 at Ciro Rodriguez get mocked while people who throw down $2000 to the Clinton campaign aren't. This is not a slap against Clinton, it's just that the "big money" in campaigns is accepted as the way things are done while the little money is scorned.