How much of a difference do you think the Internet makes between the 1994 and 2010 elections?

[Tony_FLADEM]

In 1994 there was no Internet and Democrats could not meet online and discuss politics and stay involved and thus motivated.

In 2010 people are able to go on DU and Facebook and discuss these things which helps with turnout.


Since the Internet came in to existence, Democrats have done well, with the exception being 2002 and 2004, although those elections were relatively close.


I don't think pundits are taking that into account when comparing 1994 and 2010.

[ejpoeta]

1. another difference is youtube and candidates saying they never said something

and then the video online showing they did say that.

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. That is what nailed Hillary's campaign in 2008

She was campaigning like it was 1994 in a 2007-8 world.

[Dawson Leery]

2. The Internet is for the political left what talk radio is for the political right.

[slackmaster]

3. The effects of the Internet cut every direction

I think it levels the playing field.

[DURHAM D]

4. The internet is where keyboard warriors sound off.

Doesn't necessarily result in actual campaign participation for said typists.

IOWs - little or no difference.

[arcane1]

5. It makes a hugh and series difference!

in 1994 I got all my news from tv, and had to read between the lines, etc.

With the internet, real actual news is much more easily obtainable.

[Johonny]

6. I hope a lot, won't know the results til NOV

these rethugs are worse than the 1994 ones for sure.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Which is a pretty startling thing to think

Newt and his "GOPAC Zombies" were terrifying back in 1994. The "teabaggers" are an even worse lot, particularly since they aren't doing much to even ATTEMPT to cover up their racism, and I'm still not even fully sure WHAT it is that they actually want. What they SAY they are opposed to doesn't even make any sense to me since they consistently ignore EVERYTHING that happened during the past eight years under a near-unified Bush/Republican-controlled federal government and pretend (believe?) that everything bad that they are opposed to and upset about only happened since 01/20/09. :eyes: :banghead:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. None.

Ultimately.

[Scuba]

8. The bloggers above list important reasons why the net needs to remain open for all.

[Gman]

9. I remember sitting in a congressional campaign office on election night 1996

and being the only one that had a dial up Internet account and a laptop. I was checking the Secretary of State's office for the results. It was excruciatingly slow because the slow servers were getting hammered by others like me. But we got results from other counties quicker than they were coming in by phone.

As Democrats, we were just getting up and running in 2002 after the GOP ran technological circles around us in 2000. During the FL recount, freepers were freeping polls and those polls were reported as real news and public opinion by the MSM. In 2004 DU had the URL's posted of every major newspaper's poll for the debates and we swamped 'em. Freepers gave up.

In 2008, Obama's win is the very first attributed to this new age of technology.

But all the technology has done is replace old technology like newspapers, magazines. And there are new ways of doing the same things on a larger scale and doing them faster. But political climates can be compared. Regarding what the pundits are saying, there is very little in this political climate that can be compared to 1994. If for no other reason, because (IMHO) 1992 and 1994 were probably about the last elections that the WWII generation and their attitudes and mores affected. For example, I don't think "bouncing checks" at the House bank (although technically, that's not what really happened), would not be anything of the election issue today that it was in 1994.