Thursday, November 09, 2006

Netroots contribution to US Elections

I have always like US politics but have been put off in the types of people that always seem to be in power e.g same universities and fraternities. So the same type of people are continually elected in Office but with different social talking points but in the end vote the same way on major issues.

I think this election has changed that. As now more grassroot people are having more influence in who their candidates are, were the internet has become the enabler. So the spread of people who are becoming candidates is increasing.

Also candidates talking points have less effect as the old strategies of distraction and spin can no longer prosper in transparent environments like Daily Kos. So what happens when you have forum with a large amount of people that accept constructive criticisms, it means that reality based arguments usually wins.

I have only understood what netroots was in the past week as I really stopped following Daily Kos when Howard Dean was making his run for the DCCC Chair. I always thought he would be a good chairman and his 50 state strategies seem to have proved that.

What has been totally missed in the US election is the contribution of Howard Dean and netroots. It seems main stream media is supporting the talking point that Rahm Emanuel had the largest influence in the win. Even though Rahm’s candidates in Illinois did not get through and he did minimal support for grassroot candidates like John Laesch

The lack of recognitions shows to me that the main stream media is worried about losing its influence in deciding election as shown by this article. I can also see the old school candidates being worried over the netroots power and the biggest negative will be on Hilary Clinton. Netroots and focus group electioniring are quite different.

In Fiji the media does not have much role influence in people choosing their party as there are two many social interactions through church and other tribal activities to influence people minds. I think that was the large advantage that Republicans had in previous elections was their interaction with church leaders which contradicted views from Main Stream Media.

What netroots now has is the same social ability of disregarding main stream media’s talking points with sound arguments in netroots forums. Like I have argued before it is easier to change someone’s perceptions if you are arguing for a reality based perception which gives the netroots people the edge.

This is a new world now as the US where politicians will have to be more transparent and are now more accountable to their people. As people that are being elected eg Tester don’t fit into the normal stereotypes of previous senators. This is all a good thing for democracy but does that mean it’s a good thing for the nation.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What difference would it have made if Rumsfeld was fired a few weeks before the election? Some journalists say it would have gone differently.

1:05 pm  
Blogger George said...

Not sure, but I think Republicans would have kept the Senate and a few seats in congress.

2:14 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home