You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘online politics’ tag.
It appears that Democrats in Adams and Franklin county have an online edge. They’re pushing Dem Bruce Tushingham out in front of Republican Rich Alloway in this Internet poll I set up many moons ago. I don’t quite understand the results, but it seems Tushingham has support of 65% versus 10.3% for Alloway. Both are running for a state Senate seat, to replace retiring Terry Punt, a Republican.
I haven’t seen many yard signs yet, but then again, I’m not driving regularly on Route 30 between York and Gettysburg. That, after all, is the other important metric in this race. Oh, and so is the overwhelming advantage in voter registration enjoyed by the GOP. I wonder if that will make a difference in the fall…
Is it possible that the Internet is changing politics? You’d be foolish to think otherwise. But you’d also be foolish if you thought the Internet laid the foundation for some utopian break.
What if the Internet served mainly as a funnel for the village cranks who, in the past, bored their family, friends and neighbors with their rants, sent angry letters to newspaper editors and generally made a habit of being self-righteous, indignant and quick to jump on everyone else’s hypocrisy but their own? Sounds like the political Internet, eh? The funnel has turned into a megaphone that’s harder and harder for the rest of us to dismiss politely, as we would the neighborhood crank. All the cranks are linked together now — and plugged directly into the media.
Consider the tempest-in-a-T-1-cable over comments by John McCain’s Internet adviser. He said something to the effect that McCain doesn’t need to know how to use a computer to govern effectively. The people bemoaning this sound a bit like someone complaining about a city council member who doesn’t know what it’s like to live on their street because s/he lives in some other, better-protected neighborhood.
Ultimately, Americans don’t need a leader who understands the Internet. They need a leader who can help them get affordable health care, sensible energy choices and perhaps an end to the war in Iraq. But just as the issues are eclipsed by the likes of Chris Matthews’ analyzing the interior and ulterior motives of Bill Clinton, they’ll be eclipsed by judgments concerning politicians’ use of, and attitude towards, new technology.
The good news for American democracy online is that there will always be some new toy for the insiders to twitter about.
The results are in and it looks like search results were a relatively accurate predictor of the winners of primaries in Adams County.
Will Tallman, who led Mike Rishel most of the way, came out on top with a voting edge of 3,363 to 2,766. He will face a Democrat, Neil Clifford, in the general election to replace retiring state Rep. Steve Nickol in the 193rd district.
Rich Alloway emerged victorious in the four-way GOP race to replace retiring state Sen. Terry Punt. Jim Taylor came in second, despite lagging behind everyone in search results. But — and I should have noted this earlier even though the numbers seemed too small to mention — Taylor had the most people (three) click through here to his campaign web site. Cathy Cresswell, the third-place finisher, had two click-throughs.
At any rate, here are the final results for the 33rd Senate district: Rich Alloway: 9,266; Jim Taylor: 8,933; Cathy Cresswell: 7,728; Bob Curley: 1,379. Alloway dominated in Franklin County while Cresswell rocked Adams. See county-by-county results here.
Curley, of course, switched parties and ran as a Democratic write-in candidate. The Adams County courthouse lists 2,390 write-in votes by Democrats in the 33rd but doesn’t give any names. There were 3,393 Democratic write-in votes in Franklin County, but again no names are attached. York County Democrats added another 357 votes for a total of 6,137. Were they all for Curley? I guess we’ll know eventually.
Why wait 24 hours when you can have a prediction on tomorrow’s election tonight? On the eve of the most-hyped PA primary in history, I’m posting the local Adams County candidates whose names drew the most searchers to this particular blog both for the entire spring and for the last seven days. Look for an explanation of this exercise here.
There is an interesting difference in the results depending on how far back you look, suggesting that Rich Alloway could be riding to victory on a wave of momentum. If I were you, I would trust the results from the shorter time frame more than the results from all time. WordPress seems to leave some searches out of the latter, creating odd fluctuations.
So, here are the results for all time:
For Terry Punt’s Senate seat:
- Cathy Cresswell: 26
- Rich Alloway: 23
- Bob Curley: 12
- Jim Taylor: 8
For Nickol’s House seat:
- Will Tallman: 25
- Mike Rishel:7
And here are the results for the last seven days…
For Punt’s Senate seat:
- Rich Alloway: 13
- Cathy Cresswell: 12
- Bob Curley:10
- Jim Taylor:8
For Nickol’s House seat:
- Will Tallman: 24
- Mike Rishel:5
Tallman is way ahead on the House side no matter how you slice it. On the Senate side, Alloway is up by one over the last week. But one person on Saturday was searching under “pa state senate democrat primary alloway.” Is it possible that Alloway supporters are encouraging Democrats to write in his name in a bid to block Curley’s write-in bid? Hmmm. I thought politics was supposed to be fair.
Will online searches turn into real votes? Tune in tomorrow to find out!
The York Daily Record provides a nice summary of the candidates running to replace Terry Punt. Here’s a story about the House race for Steve Nickol’s seat.
I plan to update my search results on the candidates on Sunday night and again on Monday night before the election itself. In short, I’m trying to determine which candidate is most popular based on how many online searches land on this page. It’s far from scientific. But, hey. I’m curious to see if searches line up with vote results.
I fear I may be skewing the search results simply by measuring them. But that’s a risk I can live with since I doubt any candidates are living or dying by the numbers I post here. If you are, let me know.
An underlying theme of a recent conference about online politics (that I happened to attend) was the trend toward people reading only what they want to read, thus confirming their beliefs rather than challenging them. It is the age of confirmation replacing the so-called age of persuasion.
If this is a new trend, how do you explain the endurance of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”? People have always had a capacity to see only what they want to see and believe only what is convenient. It’s hard to find a golden age of rational discourse, though people seem to believe one existed as recently as the early 1990s. Newt Gingrich should be flattered
At any rate, the hand-wringing over the dawning of the “age of confirmation” seems to be the public intellectual’s version of this: