Online NewsHour:

What are the differences between this year's election Web sites and those of the '96 elections?

MICHAEL CORNFIELD: I can't really comment on the differences between 1998 and 1996 Web sites, because -dramatic pause- I didn't look at any political Web sites two years ago. I don't remember checking out Bob Dole's Web site after he announced its URL at the conclusion of a presidential debate; I don't remember consulting with Project Vote Smart or any of the other civic education online pioneers; and I didn't go to any of the news organization sites, either, not even www.pbs.org. I caught the online politics bug in 1997, when I heard that the two Republican candidates for Governor that year, James Gilmore in Virginia and Christine Todd Whitman in New Jersey, had dynamite Web sites. I entered the Web site reviewing and studying rackets this year.

But I'm not a latecomer, really. I'm part of the steady influx of online regulars which is a chief characteristic of this period in the development of politics on the Internet. Fifty million Americans entered the World Wide Web in its first four years of existence (1993-97); the current estimated "online population" is at eighty million Americans. By the next election cycle, the online population could reach a majority.

Until that majority arrives, and until the community of political consultants discovers reliable ways to make the most of online resources, we will remain in the early years.

Online NewsHour:

What can we expect in 2000?

MICHAEL CORNFIELD: In mid-October of 1998, 94 percent of major-party Gubernatorial candidates had Web sites, 82 percent of Senate candidates, and 39 percentof House candidates (60 percent in competitive races; remember, there are 94 unopposed House incumbents). Two years from now, I expect those first two numbers to hit 98+ percent (there will be a handful of holdouts), and the House number to top 60 percent overall and 90 percent in competitive races. There will be slightly more online fundraising, a good deal more online recruiting of volunteers, and an appreciable increase in substantive position-taking on issues. E-mail newsletters will proliferate: that's the biggest online pay-off (or "killer application") for campaigns to date. Opposition research and monitoring, another big pay-off, will also rise in frequency and sophistication.

Here's what I don't expect in 2000: full integration of online and offline campaign operations. Integration would mean up-to-date press releases, simultaneous broadcasting and Webcasting of candidate appearances, and well-coordinated mobilizations of supporters for e-mail-writing and getting-out-the-vote. A few campaigns will come closer to integration than we have yet seen, and thereby realize savings in money, time, and effort. Integrated campaigns may even benefit from online feedback -that's what the "cyber-" prefix means- and make strategic adjustments in what they say and do based on visitor data. But until the savings and benefits are clear-cut, as in statistically demonstrable, online politicos will continue to have a tough time convincing candidates and campaign managers that a big commitment to this new medium is worth it.

Online NewsHour:

What are the cutting-edge campaign Web sites and what makes them so innovative?

MICHAEL CORNFIELD: The average campaign Web site today is an electronic brochure. It makes a case for the candidate in text and graphics, and invites readers to volunteer their time and make financial contributions. Cutting-edge Web sites take advantage of the dynamic features of online communications, and seem alive with activity, like a campaign headquarters. Visitors can do things in these sites, not just glance at a multimedia message. They can purchase catalog-type items. ("Boxer-ware" from Barbara Boxer; "Jeb-wear" from Jeb Bush.) They can take quizzes and play games. (George Pataki) They can compare the candidate's positions (Lauch Faircloth's home page links to the appropriate page at Project Vote Smart); and check the documentation of key claims.(Russ Feingold) And they can get to work contacting friends and the news media (Bob Taft).

When you enter an innovative Web site, in short, you are treated as a visitor and not simply as a reader. The hum of interactivity may make you more likely to return, to sign up for e-mail, to support the candidate. That's the theory, at any rate.

Online NewsHour:

Are there any campaigns where the Internet might play a decisive role?

MICHAEL CORNFIELD: That's a hard one to answer before the returns are in! And since what we are attempting to gauge here is influence, a fuzzy concept, the question will be hard to answer even after we get more data. Furthermore, since online communications is, in part, a person-to-person medium like the telephone, there may be no dramatic evidence which people can point to as having turned the tide in an election. Online communications is also, in part, a mass medium as well, and mass media are noted for "turning-point" events, of which the first debate between JFK and Nixon in the 1960 campaign is the most famous example. Even in that case, however, the influence of the event, not to mention the medium, has been overrated. People forget that Nixon made a big deal of his own performance by complaining about the press coverage he received; the debate, in other words, was truly a multi-media event, and not just a television event. But I digress....

All that said, I will be trying to answer the influence question. I'm watching six races (five for the House and one for Governor) which the polls indicate are very close and in which only one of the major candidates has a Web site. My thinking is, if there's going to be a good case made for online communications having been decisive, it's going to be in one of these races (and maybe the California and Wisconsin Senate races, too). The six:

CONNECTICUT 5: Mark Nielsen (R) has a Web site; James Maloney (D-INC.) does not.

INDIANA 9: Jean Leising (R) has one; Baron Hill (D) does not. (Open seat.)

OHIO 6: Nancy Hollister (R) has one; Ted Strickland (D-INC.) does not.

PENNSYLVANIA 10: Don Sherwood (R) has one; Patrick Casey (D) does not. (Open seat.)

PENNSYLVANIA 15: Patrick Toomey (R) has one; Ray Afflerbach (D) does not. (Open seat.)

RHODE ISLAND GOVERNOR: Myrth York (D) has one; Lincoln Almond (R-INC) does not.

You may have noticed that in the five House races, the five with Web sites are all Republicans. That could be a sign of the demographics of the online population to date, which skews toward higher educated and wealthier people.

If you're interested in my analysis of the results, check one of my two Web homes, Campaign Web Review or Democracy Online after November 20.

Online NewsHour:

Who are the users of the campaign Web sites? Do candidates cater their sites for a specific audience (e.g. reporters, young voters)?

MICHAEL CORNFIELD: Another inference game. The better sites have kids sections, specialized newsletters for different interest groups and district regions, and top-notch (i.e. well-indexed and up-to-date) news sections. But are these sections being used by the targeted sub-populations? I'm afraid that, again, we're going to have to wait a couple of weeks for the earliest compilation and analysis of the evidence.

What's neat with respect to the usage question, however, is that such evidence does exist with this medium. It consists of site traffic reports, which can tell us who went to which pages, when, and for how long. But that data is not public yet. We will get some of it in the months to come, as consultants attempt to win clients for 2000 by demonstrating that they reached people well in 1998.