The Internet changes nothing. People are still blobs. Most people will continue to vote based on party affiliation or hot button issues (abortion, economy, guns, environment -- probably in that order, especially women on abortion). Sound bites will still rule. And the media will judge the most important candidates (meaning those worth covering because they are the most likely to win) as coming from the major parties.
People are not likely to log on in any larger numbers to research candidates. It just isn't going to happen. And if candidates spam, it's going to piss people off and most of it won't get read any way. H. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Corrigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:12 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: yay! Absolutely. The Internet has really begun to change the face of it. there are more varying viewpoints that people have access to. For now though, TV is still the medium of choice and that's very expensive. I hope that the Internet has the same impact that TV has had, but I think that the impact will be a better one. I always think back to the Nixon-Kennedy debates and the reports that came out afterwards and how different they were. Those that watched the debate on TV thought that Kennedy did better, and those that heard it on the radio thought that Nixon did better. BTW, I was not around then. I remember the discussions in history and communications classes. You would be really old if you were around then ;^) <adorns muffin proof vest, kevlar, and goggles> Michael Corrigan Programmer Endora Digital Solutions 1900 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 630-627-5055 x-136 630/627-5255 Fax ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Hall To: CF-Community Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:54 AM Subject: Re: yay! Well I see where you guys are coming from, but I think this is one of the things the internet is changing. Especially now that internet users are the majority in the USA. Getting your message out is no longer expensive. Sign's, ads, buttons, bumper stickers, etc do not contribute to voter's making an informed decision about who to vote for either. Good riddance I say. jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Corrigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:38 AM Subject: Re: yay! > True, but money buys signs, posters, ads, buttons, bumper stickers, etc. > If I want my "voice" heard in the political debate, then I want to make > sure that the candidate that I support is able to get that voice heard. > If I want a certain candidate to represent me and those that believe the > way that I do Washington, the state capital, mayoral elections, etc. > then I want to make contributions to their campaign, so that, in > essence, my voice gets heard. I'm not great fan of Ralph Nader's > politics, but I think that if he was able to raise more cash, he would > have faired better in the last election. But since he doesn't accept > soft money, he relies solely on hard money which is limited. So in > political campaigns, money does = speech. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jon Hall > To: CF-Community > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:26 AM > Subject: Re: yay! > > > $'s != Speech in my book.... > > You know what bugs me, i just noticed this the $ sign only has one > line. > > ______________________________________________________________________ Macromedia ColdFusion 5 Training from the Source Step by Step ColdFusion http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201758474/houseoffusion Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
