Comments on: The MySpace (OurSpace) primary

By: C

Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:25:04 +0000

A MySpace primary? Yawn. Why should I care which candidate has captured the egohound / teeny bopper / pedophile-in-training / spammer vote?

And let me guess - soon, there’ll be controversy over where MySpace gets to have their primary before Second Life, YouTube and Digg.

Online famous-for-being-famous people need to get over themselves.

By: Stephen Downes

Stephen Downes — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:36:57 +0000

You may not like it, but i think Obama is the net generation’s JFK.

By: Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:52:53 +0000

Mike,
That comment wasn’t really a comment but spam. Making it seem to be about blogs was just evil cleverness.

By: Phil Stanhope

Phil Stanhope — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:30:23 +0000

Don’t get too ‘cyber’ on us. If the power went out, you would rapidly discover that you indeed lived in New Jersey.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:37:09 +0000

I disagree Jeff that geographic boundaries are outdated in national politics. Let’s take a look at those earmarks that the White House released data about just today.

Money is doled out by geographic regions. That our home state of New Jersey does so poorly is significant.

If Biden were to win the MySpace poll, what would it mean? How would he capitalize on it? How would it even be significant? A broad network that is generally seen as teeny-bopper heaven is hardly a constituency. I liken it to the polls the Daily Kos might run.

By: The State of Sunshine » Blog Archive » Could MySpace Make or Break the 2008 Presidential Race?

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:27:17 +0000

[...] Jeff Jarvis wrote about this, saying “candidates will now need to spend some effort and, yes, money there to make sure that Obama doesnâ€™t walk away with the virtual election and the subsequent rush of publicity (just watch: the winner on MySpace will end up being announced on network news shows…)” [...]

By: Tansley

Tansley — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:07:02 +0000

Indeed. A pity it was removed, Mike…but it was probably for the best.

The only thing I don’t like about this is that it means ‘mo’ money’ for citizen Murdoch. Other than that, I think it’s great.

One could easily extrapolate that the best method of ELECTING our public officials might one day be ONLINE. While so many complain about the ease of rigging electronic voting, the solution would be elegantly simple: allow more than one source/institution to verify the numbers. Let them all play watchdog on each other. If the numbers don’t jive, find out why, and keep working at it until they DO jive. No ‘hanging chads,’ no system outtages, no inaccurate counters.

And no ‘out of state muscle’ harassing voters at the polls…

By: Mike Keliher

Mike Keliher — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:58:42 +0000

I see the post I was responding to in my first comment has since been removed. Still, my point stands!

By: Mike Keliher

Mike Keliher — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:12:45 +0000

Why do so many commenters see themselves as smarter and better than the rest, including the people whose work brought said commenter out of the woodwork in the first place?

I don’t at all believe that “all bloggers think they are journalists.” I do believe that most of them think they have something worthwhile to say, and in many cases, they do — thus the audience they have. In this specific case, Jarvis often writes intelligently about interesting topics that I don’t get to hear about other places. Call it journalism or don’t — I couldn’t care less. But that label doesn’t dictate the content’s value.

If you don’t see any value is what’s being written, don’t read it. We — or at least *I* — don’t want to hear your pointless whining.