In this week’s readings, we explore how more conventional and more exotic modes of Internet communication collide, and affect politics on the Internet. An overarching question that had presented itself through these readings is: How important is the Internet to political conquests, and have new, less traditional forms of communication replaced “mundane” Internet functions? I agree with Herrnson that constituency characteristics have a strong impact on campaign strategy, especially at lower and more local levels of government. However, I disagree with Nielen’s argument that simple, original forms of Internet communication have had a stronger impact on campaigns than new forms such as social media. I instead suggest that elements of traditional Internet communication has transcended and is now apart of social media, which allows candidates to reach a much larger group of people in quicker, more efficient fashion.
Herrnson’s essay looks Internet usage within the digital and political divide. He asserts that candidate for lower-level offices are less likely to use the Internet than presendential and congressional candidates. However, he understands that there is not too much that is genuinely known about candidates’ internet use, and that it is a situational issue that depends on the candidates demographic. This study acknowledges that not all candidate s have embraced the Internet to the same degree as others, because certain uncompetitive campaign races do not require the Internet as a tool.
Nielsen’s essay argues that specific, mundane Internet tools, such as email, are much more integrated into mobilizing efforts than emerging (social networking sites) and specialized (campaign websites) tools. He further explains this by explaining that emerging and specialized tools actually remain on the margins when it comes to mobilizing efforts. He acknowledges what social networks and campaign websites did for donations, but Nielsen’s essay is focused on mobilizing volunteers for campaigns. This interestingly clashes with a New York Times article that explains the importance of Twitter in the Republican Party. In fact, this article explains, “as the 2012 campaign heats up, policy fights that used to play out in old-school direct mailings and television advertisements are likely to migrate to Twitter” (Steinhauer, 2011). This, in my opinion, is a far more realistic view of where political issues, and campaigns will be handled in the future. Social Media is a huge reason why President Obama was elected in 2008, and is now the platform for debate as we move closer to the 2012 general election.
My final question for discussion is: When will traditional forms of communications be completely removed from political game plans? If this happens, how will it effect the older generations and people who refuse to use social media as a their main source of information?
Social Media and Politics Course 
I think that emerging technologies will continue to be the focus of campaigns due to their ability to interact directly with the voters, but I do not think that traditional forms of communication will ever completely disappear. Hypothetically, if it did happen, I think it definitely would hurt older generations. They would either be forced to adapt to the new political world, or else they would be uninformed. Currently, they have a choice between traditional and social media communication, but if traditional forms disappeared, I think many people in the older generations ultimately would adapt if they really cared about politics.
Adding onto Nick’s stance, I too believe to a higher level of conviction that traditional media of communication will never disappear from the platforms of political campaigns. I agree with Nielson’s overall argument that mundane tools have produced greater effects in mobilizing interested supporters and volunteers to further their actions, and would hinder any campaign greatly if these tools were to fully disappear one day. Even as our speaker in class explained, there are ‘surface’ benefits to emerging communication facets such as Facebook and Twitter for they allow you to mass publish a status or create an event, but the action or strategic component do not stem from these websites. Rather, it’s the constant subscribed emails that push supporters to donate or produce any other tangible benefits for the campaign. In addition, these emails are a permanent way to stay in touch with constituents; with Facebook for example, once a format changes, as it often has, it is difficult for candidates to make sure each one of the supporters online will follow the new format and rejoin or ‘like’ the page again. I see traditional media as a cornerstone and almost a cemented element crucial to a campaign , and the emerging tools as supplementary means to surface decoration. Because I believe it’ll be a long while before social media becomes mundane, older generations should not be in fear of fully adapting to social media just yet. Personally, I don’t forsee a future without traditional media; of course, this doesn’t mean a candidate can’t expand on his or her social media outlets. But if the overall system isn’t broken and has proven to be effective, why fix it?