DailyKos is a community of seemingly well-educated and well-informed liberals spouting on about the state of the political landscape. How does this formula translate into congressional (and presidential) electoral victories for the democratic party? It doesn't. It shouldn't. And it never will.

The readers of DailyKos are not new to voting. These readers, me included, are most likely yellow-dog democrats, voting every year, primaries included. The readers of DailyKos are not political neophytes, and the ranting and bickering between the readers are certainly not attracting any neophytes to the cause.

We, the readers of DailyKos, read newspapers, then and now, and before the age of blogs (which is not really that new of an idea), posted our thoughts online to message boards (which is basically what DailyKos is). We send editorials to our local paper.

We watch the local and national news, political debate television and C-SPAN. We view the State of the Union speech every year, or, on the west coast, listen to it over the radio and respond to what the president has to say (as if someone is listening).

We are the ones at work who bring up energy and education policy. We listen to NPR. We read books. We pick up Time or Newsweek at the dentist's office, not People.

We blog.

We are not undecided voters. And that is why DailyKos, unfortunately, does not matter. Ned Lamont may win the DailyKos primary, but how many of those DailyKos readers are eligible to vote in Connecticut, and how many of them would have voted for Ned Lamont anyway? (And is it even wise for a candidate to look for support outside of their home state in a statewide election?)

It is a fallacy to believe, or worse, insist that blog support (and DailyKos, in particular) is critical to a candidacy. Political candidates need to recruit new and undecided voters to secure success, and these voters (if they do exist) do not have diaries at DailyKos.