Instead, it saw politics caught in Internet hysteria, followed by disappointment as Internet-based campaigning did not seem to pay significant dividends. The American experience seems to confirm that, for the moment at least, established 'old media' outlets dominate the discourse, critical for winning influence, shaping the debate, and ultimately voter expectation. Little evidence exists that voters were sufficiently affected by new media channels to alter their votes. However, to conclude that the Internet does not yet matter in electioneering would be a big mistake for several reasons. First, the established media are always looking for new angles on the election, and there is a fascination with the processes that underlie politics.
Reporters vie to detect and promote the next trend.
The halcyon days of coverage for having a web site or doing something vaguely techno-literate are over, but genuine online innovation will still catch the eye. Second, although there may be relatively few votes to be gained in getting it right, there are potentially far more votes to be lost by getting it wrong. Just as innovation will gain positive coverage, leaks, legal blunders and ostensibly satirical web sites that miss the mark will cause embarrassment and bad publicity to their perpetrators. Third, this is a marginal election. In some of these areas, Internet campaigning really could make the difference.