Democracy and networks

I always observe with much interest the evolution of an election and follow the media trying to predict the results with very precise surveys. According to the results of the final voting day that normally are identical to the predictions before the campaign, it seems that the messages from the candidates during the campaign don’t seem to influence the decision of the voters. This can happen because the messages aren’t so different or becuase they don’t mean any interest to the people. Or maybe because both: political messages of political contencers have little difference and they normally touch issues that don’t mean real interest to the people.
It could be also that candidates are trying to reach a vast majority of voters with a unique  message in times when we’ve entered in a 2.0 communication era. That is: people want a more tailor made message, they want to feel that politicians have in mind their single problems. Polls on public opinion on the media show every now and then a ranked list of issues that concern our societies. Everyone can support the ranking of the list with little differences, but when we vote in the elections we are voting trust that the winner will solve “our” problems by leading the country, and general issues that apear on the polls don’t touch us as much as the need of trust we demand to our politicians. People want leadership.
Barack Obama in the US is an example of a politician who won the confidence and trust of citizen. He was a candidate that became a leader to win the presidential election, and he did it using 2.0 strategies. He got in touch with milions of anonymous citizens and became funds from millions of people. He kept in touch through the social media and the Internet with everyone who wanted to hear his message and he explained a detailed and deep political action plan that convinced the majority.
Social media or 2.0 web tools are becoming essential for politicians and will be in the future more determinant.