As we’ve reported before, the 2008 Weblog Awards made the mistake of nominating PUMA-blog “The Confluence” as one of the “best liberal blogs of 2008.” Critically, neither Confluence nor PUMA-dom are liberal – they’re Obama conspiracy theory agglomerates, nothing more – and we suspect Weblog Award administrator/conservative blogger Kevin Aylward knows as much, and is just trying to yank the liberal blogosphere’s chain. Well, it’s not funny. Confluence must not win the Best Liberal Blog Award.
How can we do this, you ask? It’s going to be tough, make no mistake: because there are fourteen nominees and only “fake” liberal blog, Confluence can win just by splitting the legitimate liberal vote between the remaining thirteen legitimate blogs. The best way to fight the vote-fracturing potential is for all of us here to settle on one blog to vote for: I recommend Crooks and Liars. So, first things first: when polls open tonight at midnight,
VOTE FOR “WONKETTE”
AT THE WEBLOG AWARDS SITE.
When the polls go live, we’ll have an embeddable voting tool here so you don’t need to go to their site, but in the meantime, be sure to get your vote in ASAP. Now, Confluence is likely to enlist the entire PUMA-sphere to take advantage of the vote fracturing effect, and propel them into first place. In a fair fight, they’d have a good shot at winning. We can’t give them a fair fight. Most web voting software forbids multiple votes but bases its decision on whether or not to forbid your second vote based on a combination of (1) your IP address and (2) cookies in your browser. So, if you’re tech-savvy, to maximize your ability to vote multiple times…
- Install TOR, an onlyine anonymity tool, and use it to cycle IP addresses to vote.
- If TOR doesn’t allow you to vote once per IP, clear out your cookies between votes.
- If that doesn’t work, use your iPhones, mobile networks, any publicly accessible IP addresses, and multiple devices to try to vote for C&L as much as possible.
We can kick Confluence out. May God have mercy on our souls.
Confluence is winning, by a rather large margin…
Posted by alcari | January 5, 2009, 6:38 pmNot as large as The Volokh Conspiracy‘s margin in the Law category, though. Which is actually surprising me – while I think the Conspiracy’s a great blog and enjoy reading it, I’d think Hartsfield-Jackson would’ve been making it closer.
Posted by Steve | January 5, 2009, 7:29 pmBy 150 or so last I checked… that’s to be expected, all their minions just dumped their votes in. Gotta keep voting!
Posted by Ames | January 5, 2009, 7:31 pmI’m just glad it’s not Above the Law. I hate that place.
Posted by Ames | January 5, 2009, 7:33 pmI flip-flopped to Wonkette. They’re the current favorite to win and also awesome.
Posted by Ames | January 5, 2009, 8:30 pmAmes, I know how much you despise the PUMAs, and from what I know about them, I can only support that position – but even with the best will, I can’t see how outright vote fraud is a progressive position.
If the opposition is better at “energising the base” or whatever the cool kids call it these days, that’s unfortunate, but surely there must be better ways to deal with this.
Posted by Lanfranc | January 5, 2009, 8:31 pmI imagine that the only way Confluence got on the list is fraud of some sort: no self-respecting liberal, or serious individual who did any research, would put Confluence in the “liberal” category. So I have no problem returning in kind.
Posted by Ames | January 5, 2009, 8:51 pmEh, I think it’s pretty well-accepted that online polls are mostly just exercises in fraud. Poll crashing has a long and honorable history on the internet
Posted by Gotchaye | January 5, 2009, 8:57 pmWell, I’m certainly not going to moralise about “taking the higher road” or anything like that.
However, I would at least point out that such a scheme can easily backfire if the poll organizers figure out what’s happening and decide to compensate Confluence or penalize Wonkette – as they probably should if it’s big enough to have an impact.
Posted by Lanfranc | January 5, 2009, 9:08 pmStrictly speaking, I think the bigger problem with Confluence’s nomination is the extreme misuse of the term “best”, rather than any misuse of the term “liberal”.
This is pretty much like the Heisman Award For Overhyped Quarterbacks And Runningbacks At Big Name Colleges: an award that people say is for “the best” in a category, where really it has nothing to do with excellence in that category, and as Gotchaye pointed out awarded by a process determined by a process full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I mean, we’re all agreed here that this “Best Weblog” award is a joke – so can I please get some agreement that calling a football award where only 9% of the positions are eligible “prestigious” or awarded “to the best player” is an absolute crock? I mean, agreement from someone other than Judge Easterbrook’s younger brother (who I would totally vote for were he to run for President)?
Oh, and Ames, I’m no fan of Hartsfield-Jackson the blog either. The airport’s damn fine, though, even if it’s been a little too crowded in recent years
Posted by Steve | January 5, 2009, 10:13 pmRight on. Confluence is way farther from “best” than it is from “liberal.” It’s sure far from both though!!!
And, Lanfranc, I think the morality of the vote-gaming system might be academic. I can’t seem to get myself to be able to vote twice… not for lack of trying.
Posted by Ames | January 5, 2009, 10:30 pmI threw up several times in my mouth reading Confluence. Score 1(,000) more votes for Wonkette from me!
Posted by SPQR | January 5, 2009, 10:51 pmIt doesn’t really matter either way, since the unwashed multitudes of the Comics Curmudgeon have now rallied to Wonkette. That’ll probably be the end of Confluence.
Posted by Lanfranc | January 6, 2009, 8:31 am12 pm est … wonkette has 56% of 7400 votes … confluence … 11% …
i LOVE fighting the good fight!
Posted by didionsmommy | January 6, 2009, 12:05 pm