4 ms·

Young, Urban, and Not so Tech Savvy

• stepherm 17y ago
  Something the article fails to note: The WaPo op-ed they are quoting left out some fairly significant information: "The poll that appears in today's op-ed shows a 2 to 1 lead in the thinnest sense: 34 percent of those polled said they'd vote for Ahmadinejad, 14 percent for Mousavi. That leaves 52 percent unaccounted for. In all, 27 percent expressed no opinion in the election, and another 15 percent refused to answer the question at all. Six percent said they'd vote for none of the listed candidates; the rest for minor candidates." See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/06/about_those_iran_polls.html?wprss=behind-the-numbers http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/06/... for more details.
• ynniv 17y ago
  Without knowing how well researched the article is, if you had only seen internet commentary in our last election you might be surprised that Ron Paul isn't our current president. The 'net seems to have a voice unto its own.
  • DannoHung 17y ago
    Perhaps if the extent of the Internet was reddit's mainpage and digg. I saw a lot of Obama support on other sites I frequent.
    • dkarl 17y ago
      Yep, lots of Obama support. On the other hand, I didn't see much McCain support. On election day, McCain had roughly 85% as much support as Obama. Most of those voters were invisible to me. Probably partly because they're underrepresented on the internet, and probably partly because I would only visit the sites where they congregate if there was something unintentionally hilarious there to point and laugh at. The internet is kind of like a big city; once you get your bearings, most of it becomes invisible to you.