Take a look at this op-ed in the P-I on the topic of the growing power of online political engagement; it makes some salient points. Yet it also acknowledges in way that as much as the Internet has mightily changed political discourse and events, the power of other mediums should not be forgotten - even as the reach of the world wide web grows.
Pew Research dug deep on this topic after the 2006 elections and come up with some important findings (full PDF here).
The core results were that the Internet as a source of political news and discourse is growing rapidly, but it's still far from dominant. Political activists in particular make up a healthy portion of those who use the Internet as a top media medium. At the same time, TV and newspapers remain a dominant force among the typical voter, especially older voters who turn out in disproportionately high numbers in primaries. For example voters over 65 make up only 7% of those who use the Internet as a primary news source.
In total, the breakdown of primary sources of political news for voters in 2006 was broken down as follows:
TV - 69%
Newspapers - 34%
Radio - 17%
Internet - 15%
Magazines - 2 %
(totals = more than 100% due to respondent ability to answer in more than one category)
Thus, while Internet discourse is certainly devoured and discussed by the press, bloggers, and activists, the importance of other mediums cannot be ignored, including in primaries.
Here's a recent example of the difference. When Hillary Clinton recently announced her health care plan, Mitt Romney purposefully jumped on her press cycle by making this statement:
Consequently, portions of Romney's reaction was quickly included in stories circulating on network and cable news as well as on the radio and assorted news outlets (including online).
In contrast, Fred Thompson came out a day later with this video:
Props to Team Thompson, it's a great video. Rich Lowry loved it, as did Patrick Ruffini. It's a pithy, down-to-earth statement, scripted to appear delightfully unscripted. It quickly made the rounds in the blogosphere, though not much further since the news cycle around the Clinton health care announcement was already winding down.
Based on the Pew results noted above, which tactic got the candidates message to more likely primary voters?
That's just one illustration. Obviously campaign will get decided on much more than that. But it's a reminder that while the Internet is an increasingly powerful tool in the modern political world, a huge chunk of voters still get their political news elsewhere.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 22, 2007 01:44 PM | Email ThisConsidering that the poll results after the fox debate which were done by text messaging and not through the internet showed about the same results as the internet polls, I would have to say no.
BTW, Paul won both of those post debate polls. Hannity tried to play it off as just a few Paul supporters voting multiple times. Fox however only accepted one vote per phone debunking hannitys theory.
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 22, 2007 04:36 PMThe Internet is hot.
The press is warm.
The public is cool.
(nod to McLuhan)
Posted by: John Bailo on September 22, 2007 06:26 PMAs in, Ron Paul, the only true conservative the Republicans are fielding.
Ya know, Romney's words and his rhetoric on health care are libertarian and market oriented, but his voting history is not as consistent as Ron Paul's.
His health care system in Mass. FORCES people to have health insurance.
Such a use of force is antithetical to the free market that Romney's rhetoric seems to support. Romney and Giuliani have no credibility with me. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk like Ron Paul does.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on September 22, 2007 06:26 PMSorry for yelling, but this continual reliance on polls that literally cannot have any meaning is annoying.
Also, Bruce Guthrie, Ron Paul is not a conservative. He's a libertarian. You know as well as the rest of us that there's a difference, and you're not fooling anyone.
Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 11:27 PMI do not mind the yelling. I however will remain calm. When did I say that self selecting polls were valid? I was only comparing the self selected text poll to the self selecting internet polls and showing that they were both close to the same results thus leading one to conclude that it is not europeans throwing off the internet polls here in the US.
Also not all self selecting polls are worthless. Many called elections are used to determine who will be our mayors, presidents, governors, senatores, etc...
Posted by: Travis Pahl on September 23, 2007 07:52 AMWhen did I say that self selecting polls were valid?
You were implicitly giving them validity. There is no question about that.
I was only comparing the self selected text poll to the self selecting internet polls and showing that they were both close to the same results thus leading one to conclude that it is not europeans throwing off the internet polls here in the US.
Right, so you admit that the results have some validity. But they do not. The fact they are self-selected means that you cannot even compare results of one self-selected poll to another. The results are not meaningful for any purpose, even the purpose you're using it for: comparison to another one.
Also not all self selecting polls are worthless.
NO. This is completely false. ALL SELF-SELECTING POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS.
Many called elections are used to determine who will be our mayors, presidents, governors, senatores, etc...
Those are not polls. Those are elections.
Posted by: pudge on September 23, 2007 10:03 AMOh how I want to rip those ron signs out of the ground going up Finn Hill.
Ahhh but then I would be stooping to their level!
Posted by: dcat on September 23, 2007 10:56 AMHillary (I got the clap from my husband) Clinton. Barrack (Cocaine been Berry Berry good to me) Obama. Chris (waitress sandwich) Dodd. Joe(the plagerist) Biden. Bill (EL LOCO GIGANTE) Richardson. Dennis (I took a Wad from ASSAD) Kucinich. Keep on Blathering. Posted by: Huh? on September 23, 2007 02:36 PM
None of them are going to change the system that is driven by special interest money since they are all forced to be part of that system in order to get elected. I am one of those 30% of the population that is an Independent that decides the elections but no one really speaks for me or the issues I care about. (education, immigration, how the growth management act forces artificially higher housing costs, is abortion a form of personal war where women choose lifestyle over life? if I oppose war shouldn't I oppose this also? world trade, etc)
Posted by: seattle_independent on September 23, 2007 03:53 PMYou are wrong. There are few of the candidates with the sort of credentials that would get them jobs at top American corps ...
Rep:
Romney had had high level corporate jobs
Mccain ... he has a very impressive CV
Guiliani
His law firm has done quite well
Dem.
Obama
Could easily have been top corporate attorney,
Clinton
same
Edwards
very successful attorney
Richardson
his CV is awesome
@20 Candidates and $$ and Media
I agree with you that is how it has been. Most folks vote as they are told to by superficial views portrayed by the media.
I do think blogdom is growing as an alternative. There is a need for more sites like KOS that take different stands.
You might enjoy coming to a DL meeting. The discussions are terrific even when a conservative comes. IT seems to me that the DL crowd may be the forerunners pf a new sort of political entity.
Hay Sharky ..
Why not start a rival to DL for conservative bloggers? Right Night at the Pub? My contribution could be the name and, it would be fun to come.
Obama, done what to get those accolades from you? I think he was a community coordinator prior to politics. Stellar. Just stellar. Posted by: PC on September 23, 2007 06:21 PM
Edwards made $30 million bringing nonsense lawsuits based on junk science against doctors. To defend themselves from parasites like Edwards, doctors now pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical malpractice insurance every year.
Posted by: PC on September 23, 2007 06:42 PM2. The blog world and the pajama hedeen, at this point in history, are literally keeping the info flow alive. For all the heartbeating among secular progressives about Fox News, the fact of the matter is the alphabet networks have a grip on their version of the "truth" which would make Pravda proud. They have an agenda and they push it. According to their version, Sharpton/Jackson are the goto "leaders" of Blacks and there is only one opinion for the group. Slowly, other voices are being to emerge because of blogs and ezines.
So, I believe the net is powerful.
Posted by: WVH on September 23, 2007 07:49 PMThe "blog-o-sphere" is just the Internet. The Internet is just communication. If it's the only communication you do, then maybe you don't get much done. But the point is that it's not the only communication most people engage in.
I've been "doing the Internets" for a long, long time, in Internet time. I was known in the national news almost a decade ago for a stunt I pulled online (voting for Nomar Garciparra 40,000 times). I have worked for many years for Slashdot. I have seen Internet communication bring people together in person, and come to naught. It's like anything else. It's not special, and not useless. It has its pros and its cons. It's just another way to do the same things we've always done.
Posted by: pudge on September 23, 2007 11:54 PMor " Governor collecting campaign cash but ready to dash". Posted by: Huh? on September 24, 2007 04:49 PM
Not that it takes away from your basic argument, but this particular example perhaps doesn't illustrate that argument ...
Posted by: pudge on September 24, 2007 06:37 PM