H0w will the Internet affect the Presidential election.?

Question

The written word is very powerful even if it is slanted in favor of truth or misconception. Will it help you make a sound judgement?

Answer 1

The internet puts human knowledge and current events, in a searchable and easily archivable format. That is much different than old paper, spoon fed news. Before the internet, and tivo, you either watched a debate when it aired, or ate with your family, or went out somewhere. Everything was word of mouth, if it didn't come from the tube or newspaper.

Everything was top down in structure, from a few sources to many. Now it's more like a bottom up structure, where we all share information, and prop up the few candidates or important stories to the top. No more of this declaring front runners 14 months before elections. No more changing stories as they happen. If someone catches it on video (like their cell phone), it's available. It can make or break anyone.

Within a generation, everything will be different. The rules are changing, this is just the beginning as the web and humanity mature.

Answer 2

Depends....there's LOTS of voting public out there that still don't even bother with the internet.  And most of the ones who DO are all liberal bloggers.  I think the 2004 outcome blew their minds a bit.

Answer 3

In the 2004 election, Kerry attempted to use the internet to gain support.  He hoped it would lure the young people in, but studies show that despite the fact it worked fairly well to get the message out and get people talking, that in the end it did not do much to gain support for Kerry.  It's just another broader avenue to discuss politics, but I really don't think it matters in the end.  Whatever you see in blogs is either a left field conspiracy theory (and that goes both ways, conservatives and liberals) or the same information we read in the newspapers or watch on the news.

Answer 4

Yes, for good and bad.   You can see the candidates stance on certain topics, but since it is uncensored, you can also get all the hate and prejudice those against the candidate is spewing too.   It is a useful tool, but just that, a tool, that can be used for good or bad.

Answer 5

Will it?

Answer 6

it will have even more influence. more news is being broadcast on the internet so more people will get election news, bloggers will have more access and bloggers can organize people to volunteer and contribute to grassroots candidates. and candidates will use their websites as well as social networking sites to raise money and get attention, it was a big deal in 2004 but its gotten so much bigger and it will only get more influential.

Answer 7

It could, if used properly, be useful to a candidate. I wouldn't recommend one campaign solely on the Internet nor even use it as a primary tool for spreading the candidate's message but through emails and You Tube etc. a candidate will find just another avenue of exposure.

It was effective for Howard Dean, for awhile, and is now being used by others too. Each candidate has a web site where voters can check how the candidate stands on the issues and know about the candidate beyond sound bites and brief bits in so called debates etc. The prospective voter can pick and choose at leisure whose web site to visit and not have to be bugged by messages they are not interested in.

By the same token blogs can be both beneficial and detremental to a candidate. The free flow of discussion about a candidate and his/her stand on issues can be useful and help one who is undecided often make up their mind. But when the supporters of one candidate become pests with a constant bombardment of their candidate and the candidate's message insessently like a nagging shrew one is quickly turned off. In my case, for example, even if I believe a candidate may do a good job and it probably wouldn't really matter who got elected I would be turned off by such a display. Of course if I am not for that candidate in the first place it just adds more reason for me to actively campaign against them.