For example, if Barrack Obama does earn the Democratic nomination, it will be because of his internet campaigns with younger voters. What I mean to say is that a mainstream moderate might be able to beat another mainstream moderate in an election because he or she has a better internet marketing campaign that puts him or her over the top. The difference resultant from an internet campaign might be a meager 4 percentage points, but less than a single percentage point can swing an election as we've all seen in 2000. In that case, the internet could have a huge impact.

We often hear about how so many of the poor in third world nations should have access to better medications. Rarely does anyone comment on the fact that the water sources these people are forced to use causes rampant dysentary which makes it very difficult to remain healthy enough to tolerate/absorb any medications ingested. 

After dealing with the water facilites, I would use any funds left over to buy out businesses and industries in Africa that are owned by Americans and Europeans which could generate food and clothing. After buying these out, i would then field applications from locals who would hope to run these industries and grant complete ownership the businesses and any profits to them on the conditions that they allow some degree of business management oversight by paid business consultants (paid by me). This would hopefully contribute to establishing a modern economy in third world Africa that could be somewhat self-sustaining.

What the internet is good at is extending the tails of the guassian distribution of any given population. For example, it is now easier for each of us to find music better suited to our tastes. However, my own preference for music outside of mainstream pop will never redefine mainstream pop music. Pop music will remain uncomplicated and accessible to a broad audience; virtually by definition.

I feel like the same phenomenon is in play with presidential politics. There is some relatively small population of voters who lean toward Liberterian ideals. The internet has been instrumental in exposing these voters to Ron Paul. The same might be said for liberals and Dennis Kucinich. As a result, their support might be significantly greater than it would have been in the absense of the internet.

However, in the cases of the more moderate candidates with more mainstream appeal within a given party, I believe the internet has and will always have marginal impact. In fact, I actually believe that since all candidates have mostly effective internet strategies, the playing field is even and the only impact the internet can have will be if a candidate fails to use one.

Think about it...does a cellular phone really offer a competitive advantage in the business world in the United States? Of course not. Everyone has and uses a cell phone. There is no advantage to using one, but there is a huge disadvantage to not having one. I believe use of the internet in politics is comparable to the cell phone where national political campaigns that are focused on broad accessible concepts are concerned.

On the other hand, I do believe the internet can have a great impact in local elections with far lower turnouts. If a large enough minority can be mobilized for local school board, mayoral, state representative campaigns, I believe a considerbale impact is possible.