From Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post: “Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee."
The link to the story was in one of our articles this week.
I'm not sure how I feel about this statement. Don't get me wrong; I have a great deal of respect for Arianna Huffington, and I enjoy reading the Huffington Post periodically for the liberal spin on news, much the same as a conservative might enjoy watching Fox News. The issue I have with Huffington's statement is that I refuse to believe that the general populous of this country could be so ignorant that we would have elected another Republican head of state after 8 years of pure global embarrassment.
I recognize the fact that Obama's campaign would not have been nearly as successful as it was were it not for the huge online presence it forged, and the financial support received through Obama's website was certainly impressive. But are YouTube videos and Twitter accounts the reason we have a competent person as President of the United States?
John McCain's campaign was clearly the more traditional type of political campaign--but I would argue that the traditionally run campaign was not the reason McCain lost to Obama; it was because voters were ready for a change from a TRADITIONAL politician. A millennial-friendly campaign might have helped McCain, but unless he changed himself (and rewrote history), there was no way he was going to win this particular election.
My "Aha" this week comes from the realization that the Internet has a profound effect on politics in America, coupled with the fact that Campaign Finance will be very different in 2012. In January of this year, the Supreme Court blocked the ban on spending limits for Corporations who want to contribute to political campaigns. What does this mean? Basically, since (USUALLY, not ALWAYS) corporations are generally supporters of Republicans, the Republicans can expect a gigantic influx of advertising (sponsored by Big Oil, US car companies, insurance companies, etc) in 2012. These advertisements will be all over the media--the TV, the web, streaming services, billboards--you name it. Perhaps it will have to be the Democrats who, just four years after making waves online, will have to adapt to the financial behemoth of the Republican 2012 campaign.
As an afterthought, though, I will say this: If the media pundits are correct, and 2012 really is an Obama vs. Palin situation, God help us if America has already forgotten what happened from 2000-2008.
I tend to agree with your statements. I know that in my case, the use of social media (particularly by the Obama campaign), allowed me to understand the issues better than if I had only watched the debates. Or the constant barrage of negative campaign ads (by both sides).
ReplyDeleteMike, I agree that the internet will be playing a major roll in future elections. I can only hope that it does so in a positive way. Hopefully the fact that candidates can reach even more voters will be balance by the number of user generated postings from those of use that are not taking money from big oil and the insurance companies. Using sites like FactCheck.org to research the claims the candidates and their supporters make has helped me to become a more informed voter as well as a better lunch table debater.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. While social media was a huge aspect of this last campaign, I find it hard to believe that the outcome would have been that different. Obama's success came largely from the support of young voters, who would have organized and supported him with our without Facebook and Twitter.
ReplyDelete