Support NeoGAF

[Vennt]

As a Brit I cannot remember a presidential election campaign so widely covered by the British media or so widely debated by the general public.

Is this election campaign higher profile than average "over there" too?
Is it affecting "political apathy" and if so are you expecting record turnouts, or the opposite?
Or is it just a consequence of greater worldwide communication via the Internet?

Curious to hear your opinions.


edit: Bah... I *was* reading OT, I swear, please move

 

[Alcibiades]

It might be hard to overcome, but the DS's new gameplay may find a better audience than usual in the UK.

 

[Alcibiades]

Is this election campaign higher profile than average "over there" too?

- it is higher profile, if only because people want to be mad about everything... to be honest, the world if more dangerous than in the 80's, but IMO the elections in the 80's were way more important. Nuclear war was a much bigger threat. right now, even if Kerry gets elected, the Presidency can change hands pretty quickly in the context of the "war on terror" taking decades to go through...

Is it affecting "political apathy" and if so are you expecting record turnouts, or the opposite?

-there might be record turnouts, but accompying that will be record ignorance (my bet is the Democrat's have the edge because Michael Moore's movie is taken as gospel by some of today's youth).

Or is it just a consequence of greater worldwide communication via the Internet?

-the internet has changed some stuff definitely, as more voices are getting heard. That said, you're still going to have a lot of people not voting. "the most important election of our lifetimes" was supposedly in 2000. Heck, it's probably going to be the same tagline for '08...

 

[Vennt]

efralope
Absolutely pathetic.
(Today, 05:53 PM)
Reply | Quote

Never a truer word....

 

[TekunoRobby]

I don't know but in the year 2040 the President will fight the Vice President and his terrorists in an all out battle with mechs on American soil.

Now that would be a campaign that'd be watched!

EDIT: Oh no I'm in Off Topic, must flee.

 

[Hitokage]

Voter registration has skyrocketed in the past month, so turnout is indeed expected to be high. This is probably because the election is so hotly contested and also very close in many states. Many people's individual votes will have a great deal of influence, but not if you live in Montana.

 

[MIMIC]

As a Brit I cannot remember a presidential election campaign so widely covered by the British media or so widely debated by the general public.

Is this election campaign higher profile than average "over there" too?

Much, much higher.

Is it affecting "political apathy" and if so are you expecting record turnouts, or the opposite?

I'm expecting record turnout (everything has indicated a such event as well). Democrats mobilized in response to their views of the Bush Administration.

 

[Dilbert]

Is this election campaign higher profile than average "over there" too?

Definitely. The country seems to be more polarized over politics than I've ever seen, and the coverage has reflected that interest and anger.

Is it affecting "political apathy" and if so are you expecting record turnouts, or the opposite?

Record turnouts...well, at least compared to recent elections, and if you make the assumption that all the people who are newly registered will, in fact, end up voting.

Or is it just a consequence of greater worldwide communication via the Internet?

The internet has had an interesting effect on the election -- I suspect that there is one hell of a Ph.D. thesis out there for someone. I personally can't decide whether it helps or hurts the process. On the one hand, people have alternate means to acquire information other than the major media outlets, and you can seek out a wide variety of opinions to help develop your own opinions if you want to invest the time. On the other hand, the internet has provided a podium for every nutjob with an agenda to broadcast their point of view, which is something they wouldn't have been able to do easily before. I will never understand why people want to believe everything they read on the web without doing any critical thinking questioning the source.

 

[Vennt]

Is this election campaign higher profile than average "over there" too?
The internet has had an interesting effect on the election -- I suspect that there is one hell of a Ph.D. thesis out there for someone. I personally can't decide whether it helps or hurts the process. On the one hand, people have alternate means to acquire information other than the major media outlets, and you can seek out a wide variety of opinions to help develop your own opinions if you want to invest the time. On the other hand, the internet has provided a podium for every nutjob with an agenda to broadcast their point of view, which is something they wouldn't have been able to do easily before. I will never understand why people want to believe everything they read on the web without doing any critical thinking questioning the source.

Yeah, this is an aspect I'm finding fascinating, The whole idea of "tactical blogging" and the effect blogging is having on journalism in addition to it's effect on the election is what I expected from the nets growth right the way back to the late 80's/early 90's when we were still in the midst of the battle between TCP/IP & OSI.

I thought greater/easier communication would have had greater consequences a lot earlier than we have seen and expected usenet/web uses by various "parties with interest" to have been one of the first new tools. Funny how it turns out that "Dear Diary" has turned into that tool, for good or ill.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Thought I might throw my two cents in:

-The coverage is a hell of a lot higher, its kinda like the Florida debacle every day here. Democrats and Repulicans spewing fire at each other, spinners spinning like they never had before, and crap just being run down the average Americans throat.

-I think with the tightness of the last election, both parties have made really good efforts to get the youth vote. Here at the University of Texas, the university democrats registered ~5000 people, and were out everyday in force, especially the last day of registration this week.

-I think the Internet may affect it a little, but I think the cause of the increase in coverage is mainly due to the war. It has basically smashed any politcal unity that was had after 9/11, and really caused the sides to polarize. Its also represented a major shift in US foriegn policy, which usually means there is a lot more global coverage on what happens in Washington.

Is this going to be a realigning election, only time will tell. We haven't had a real one in a long time, so we are due.

 

[Prospero]

Based on anecdotal evidence, I'd say Americans are much more involved this time out (though I live in a bit of a "liberal cocoon"--a strongly-Democrat university town). This cycle I contributed money to a campaign as well as voting in a primary, as opposed to just the general election, both of which I'd never done before. I have friends who have been canvassing from house to house and making phone calls to pitch Democratic candidates, and writing letters to news agencies whenever they see inaccuracies in reportage, and they definitely weren't that involved in the 2000 election.

In general, it seems like the American political left has its game together like it didn't in 2000: it's much more unified in pursuit of a single purpose. It's as if the members of the left are asking, "How can I best expend my efforts to move the nation to the left?" instead of, "Which candidate best agrees with how I personally feel the country should be run?" Those questions may seem identical, but they're not--in 2000 I saw screaming matches in university hallways because so-called "conservatives" voted for Gore over Nader and sold out their liberal principles. This cycle I don't know a single third-party supporter offline, and only a few online, here on GAF and elsewhere.