Boomers, Jonesers , Xers, Millennials.

Generational change!..Well, the GI generation fought WWII and then produced baby boom generation (born 1945-1955), 31 million of them now, lived through the civil right movement and the Vietnam war, very idealistic and hard workers. Then came generation Jones (born 1956-1964), 37 millions, less idealistic and more pragmatic, they saw Nixon's failure,80s Reaganomics,and found themselves on the unemployment lines in 1989. Next is Generation X (born 1965-1980), 34 millions, skeptical and realistic, born to two salary families flagged with divorces and recessions, this generation saw the lowest birth rate ever and statisticians added 5 more years to their accumulation average of 10 years per generation to correct their data. And lastly, the millennial generation (born 1980-1990), 78 millions, the largest, most diverse and well informed. They were born in time of prosperity and globalization, world markets, the Internet. However, they saw wars, world economic meltdowns, and will most likely experience their first ever recession this year.
How does this matter now?.. OK! people vote with a retrospect to their experiences, and then make judgement on the prospect. Others do the reverse. It all depends on how long they perceive themselves to be in life, beginning, middle, or close to the end. Simple!. Not really, this election 2008 year brings the McCain GI and Boomer generation vs. the Obama Jones, X and Millennial generation. The hard worker, idealistic and traditional era vs. the pragmatic, diverse, and globally connected new era. For instance, IBD/TIPP polling and research website reports that the decisive factor this season are women 25-50 yrs old who are voting 50% for the Democratic ticket vs. only 43% for the Republican ticket. This is the largest disparity among any specific groups who traditionaly vote. How about the Young Vote? The fact is that the Millennial generation is following on the trend of the Jones and X generations aligning themselves by 52% Democratic vs. 41% Republicans. Can you say "Realignment" !

The Great Equalizer

The Internet is dubbed by some as the GREAT Equalizer. In a sense it is obvious on its face value, it gives all of web browsers a chance to be informed and to contribute back to this growing medium. As one googles, youtubes or wiki any piece of info about the campaign, one gets national media, PACs, pro and cons, these are the PROS. And then you get the MASSES, with their YOUTUBES, MYSPACES and BLOGS.... now who is bigger? or most importantly who can change voter behavior?...One obvious answer is that the Media is past the early format that can be controlled by the campaigns. Historically, big media only embodied Newspapers,TV and Radio.
Now what is at play is a factor which many political scientists can't agree on yet: GENERATIONAL CHANGE. I'll explain: when the campaign uses the net to collect contributions, organize rallies and vote drives, it sounds like usual, normal,old politics. However, the Internet has allowed a new generation to express itself through homemade videos, blogs and fact checking that are almost instantaneous and accurate, then it does its magic: spread through the net... and that is the web: it allows anyone to become part of the media by creating his own webcast or googlegroup. Now, with less control of the information that controls the behavior, any one can become his or her own 527 group.

The Fairness Doctrine.

Conservatives have News Corp with Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, limbaugh and the expertise of the Heritage Foundation. On the other side, the liberals have GE and Time with Olbermann, Brown, Maddows supported by political experts from Salon and the HuffintonPost. Now, the issue is How Much Influence do they both have on the voter?...well, in June 87, President Reagan vetoed the Fairness Doctrine, a policy by the FCC which insured honest and balanced coverage of candidates. The measure is now seen by conservative talk radio as a free speech impediment while the liberals point to the small numbers of corporate holders of major media outlets and how they can limit free speech. Both are valid points, yet they both agree that the Internet should be less controlled. It is possible that the system is too large, is still growing, and that they cannot control it anyway. With or without the Fairness Doctrine, it seems that the Internet has gone beyond the measure to ensure that everybody gets his or her voice heard. FoxNews might have Rove as an expert, MSNBC might have Matthews as a host, the Internet has many unaffiliated youtubers and bloggers that widen and cloud the spectrum of coverage and the issues. Now, is it too much for anyone to make a decision? How about news fatigue?...Many more questions at stake. One thing for sure! The media has become a strong part of the political arena as the "FILTER", and who ever is successful in controlling the message that passes through it will have an edge.

Change!

Change we can believe in, change you deserve, change!.. well this is the year for CHANGE. With the incumbent party down in the public opinion, the 2008 presidential election favors the opposition. However, the Republicans are trying their own spin: Reform... as the incumbent party!. It is a tall order.
This is a deviating position from the traditional conservative agenda of the GOP. And the Democrats cannot just assume the win, Campbell can't be wrong about how important the split along patisan lines still is strong. Then, the less connected independent voter would be as easily persuaded by the reform message of the GOP as by the change slogan given by the DEMs. Both parties can count on 40% of the electorates in their camp, it is a matter of running to the center and embracing some of the independent issues in the middle. Now, the DEMs are for off-shore drilling and continuity of security surveillance, and the REPs are for environment protection and downscaling of the war in Iraq. All of these issues have popular support and the demand for change on these is at stake this election year. Going forward, the economy is still a hot issue and the public is still taking sides on the steps needed to be implemented. Now both parties are causiously trying to take the popular position: however, it is not clear yet if main street is for or against The bailout.