There are plenty of reasons why the Republicans might not keep the White House in 2008 – the war, scandals or desire for a change. But could the Internet cost them the election?

The Democrats have always projected themselves as hipper than the GOP (see: Clinton, Bill), and their approach to technology plays right into it. The Democrats have significantly outpaced their opponents in creating Web sites, a factor that counts for a lot more than it seems.

Getting the youth vote is the ultimate goal for any candidate – do that and the race might as well be in the bag. Only 47 percent of the sub-25 set voted in 2004, compared to 66 percent of their elders, so a politician that manages to bring out, say, another 10 percent of youth voters gets a generous bump in votes. Naturally, much of the races are spent trying to reach us young folks, explaining why you see candidates on The Daily Show and Conan all the time.

But, as you obviously know, the Web is a prime resource to reach young people. Some candidates are creating their own Facebook profiles, where they’ll be too busy trying to get your vote to judge you for drinking in your profile picture. But the real test of a candidate’s technological ability is on their campaign Web site. In the 2006 elections, 96 percent of the Senate candidates had active Web sites, up from 55 percent in 2002. Most just had their biography and stances on issues and, of course, a donations page, but a select few embraced the Medill 2020 ideals and hosted a campaign blog with video clips.

A look at the 2008 Web sites show the Democrats are excelling over the Republicans. Barack Obama’s site has a blog, an updated calendar of events and the AnswerCenter, which is essentially a FAQ page, but for political issues. Meanwhile John Edwards’ has video clips, a campaign blog and plenty of volunteer information. But the real star of campaign sites is Hillary Clinton, who has dozens of video clips, volunteer coordination, her own blog and even a feature where visitors can vote for her campaign song from a list that includes Smash Mouth.

Meanwhile, the Republican sites are a little less…fun. John McCain’s site has a fair number of features and a blog, but his video section is headlined by a cheesy number called “Live Free or Die,” which contains animated road signs with phrases such as, “Warning: Straight Talk Ahead.” Rudy Giuliani’s site doesn’t have any cheesy videos, let alone a blog or an interesting layout. It does, however, have a very large advertisement for “Rudy” bumper stickers.

Sure, the campaign Web site is only a small part of the presidential campaign, but it counts for a lot. According to a Pew Research Center report, 52 percent of Internet users went online for their political information in 2004, so just imagine how much that number has increased (I mean, 2004’s practically the Stone Age at this point). And look at the shitstorm that was created in Connecticut when Joe Lieberman’s site crashed on the day of the Senate primary, culminating in a dramatic hacking accusation. That election was credited as being the first won by the blogs, proving how much the Internet can play into election outcomes.

The Internet can’t determine who wins the race - if it did, shouldn’t Al Gore have been president? But it will play a big role, especially in bringing out the youth vote. Those campaign Web sites are done partly for the benefit of the college crowd, so the Democrats’ success online could spell success at the polls among young voters.