ted,
Facebook ad Twitter are only more important than traditional media in areas where traditional media has less reach than the internet (i.e. 2nd and 3rd world countries). In fact in many of those countries they aren't as far-reaching as you might think. Take Egypt, a country that had a revolution that was largely reported to be fomented via Twitter, for example. In point of fact most non-college-educated people outside of Cairo and Alexandria don't even have internet access.

The mainstream media and the publishing industry in the developed world are certainly in the process of a fairly quick (historically speaking) downward slide, but they're far from overshadowed by Twitter. Facebook (which has over time stolen all the best features of Twitter) is even less competition, as its private, symmetrical friendship model doesn't lend itself to the kind of wide distribution that Twitter does. Yes, they have amazing penetration with tech-savvy highschool and college students, but they are pretty much completely irrelevant to members of the AARP.

So...I'm not part of the 99%, and I guarantee the 99% isn't organized or united, but that's because the 1% (really a much smaller percentage, but 'We are the 99.99%' isn't nearly as catchy) wants it that way. We (ok they) want people to support our (their) causes, and support the kinds of campaigns and lobbying that convince Joe Sixpack and Mary Minivan that their interests are aligned with ours (theirs) which of course in reality they are not.

Just look at the nonviolent protests that have been organized in the last several years. You have OWS and...the Tea Party. The two biggest protest movements of the last decade basically cancel each other out. It's a giant joke. Of course in reality they both want regulation on Wall Street and accountability for corporate executives, but that's not the way it gets spun. It gets spun as anti-dem or anti-rep, and it all just cancels itself out so that the whole gyroscope can keep spinning.

So, is the 99% not united, or uninformed? BOTH! But that's because there is a lot of money and interest that has a vested interest in keeping it that way. Corporate and political operatives have decades of experience in manipulating the truth, and "new media" isn't nearly mature or vetted enough to counteract the effects of the money and canny influence.

To assume that raising more money is all it takes is insulting to the average voter? Ok, then insult the average voter. So far as I can gather from historical data, candidates who raise more money win 80%+ of the time. Now there's an argument to be made that that isn't causal; rather that the candidate raises more money as an effect rather than a cause. But still. If you can look at one number and determine the election winner with 80% of the time that's pretty good. I'd take that to Vegas.

Yes Ron Paul is leading in Iowa. That's because he's spending like a madman in Iowa, building a crazy organization and praying that he can make enough of a showing there that he will get a fast flood of support and money such that he can set up real campaigns in other states before it is too late. Where else is he leading? What's he going to do when the election goes national and he doesn't have the war chest to put ads on TV or fly to New Mexico for a 3 day barnstorm?

If Grannie is "in a society and district that cares about her?" Man, each congressman in California represents ~700,000 people. Each senator represents 18,000,000 people. How realistic is it to assume that 700,000 people are going to organize to take on a problem for Gramma Mille? Heck, even if there are 1,000 Gramma Millie's, their $20,000 in donations and their high level of community outrage still don't match a single solid lobbyist's $50k plus intros, etc. And that's just ONE GUY.

Claiming that this is all "we the people" and that money doesn't decide elections seems pretty idealistic to me. To an extent of course people get what they deserve in elections, but big money has been the grease on that skid for as long as politicians needed to spend money to get the word out.