NationStates Jolt Archive

Just reading the thread about Right America Feeling Wronged, I got curious.

In Australia, it seemed very much like McCain and Obama got fairly equal coverage. It seemed like McCain and his camp made a lot more stuff-ups than Obama's. To me, the complaints from the GOP seem to stem from a wish to deny the complete fools that they made of themselves. It seems like their supporters want someone to blame for that.

I mean, I saw the rallies of both. How is it the media's fault that McCain supporters were calling for Obama's blood and being generally agressive? Were they not supposed to report on this or what?

So I thought, maybe coverage was different in the US? Maybe there was a lot more of a slant to Obama? Or am I right in my thinking that it's a lot of bitching from people who don't like the reality of their existence being brought into the open for all to see?

The second one.

Eh pretty much Mc. Cain tried to appeal to the right wing instead of the center. That pissed off the centralist, and the right wing were pissed off because they didn't see him as a true Republican/Neo-Con/Con. (whatever).

I know I am going to get attacked for this, but here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg&feature=related).

I know I am going to get attacked for this, but here it is (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPO6tZf_dXs).

*attacks for giving me a link where the address cant be found* :mad:

*attacks for giving me a link where the address cant be found* :mad:

my bad, *fixed*

I know I am going to get attacked for this, but here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg&feature=related).

It was pretty interesting...

I do have a few concerns however, lol....

First, I do believe that man is a Ron Paul supporter, lol

Second,The Google Searches would be world wide, not just in the United States, so it doesnt exactly work as a medium of the American Point of View...

Third, the spikes didnt only correspond with media Coverage, it also corresponded with Ron Paul's losing the Republican Nomination, and would logically meet a downturn as his hopes begin to flounder...

and Lastly, just because someone is searching someone on the Internet, it doesnt exactly mean that the candidate is popular with that person, just because I did a search for Sarah Palin doesnt mean that I like or intend to vote for Sarah Palin, it simply means that I did a search for Sarah Palin, and its impossible to know what my true intents and purposes are...

I know I am going to get attacked for this, but here it is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg&feature=related).

And you should be attacked for such nonsense.

Since when does # of YouTube videos or # of Google searches = popularity?

(especially given that searches by people like me looking for how fucking absurd and offensive Ron Paul's record and rhetoric was gets counted by Mr. Day as "internet popularity")

Regardless, doesn't Ron Paul's lack of votes show that his "internet popularity" is meaningless?

Regardless, doesn't Ron Paul's lack of votes show that his "internet popularity" is meaningless?

At least he got chicken.

Or am I right in my thinking that it's a lot of bitching from people who don't like the reality of their existence being brought into the open for all to see?
This.

In regards to Ron Paul, one thing he can be credited for was an excellent online strategy, one copied by Barack Obama,

Essentially his site was skeletal, all his content was on social media and UGC sites, such as Youtube, this is different to traditional strategies of building a site with all content on that site - it means traffic is highly socialised and disseminated on the greatest tool for information sharing mankind has ever known, as opposed to concentrated on one site, that of the candidates.

He also encouraged people to put up their own videos tagged Ron Paul, creating even greater dissemination.

All this caused a great amount of searching in terms of 'who is this guy?'.

Whether is was intelligent forethought or simply down to constrained funding is hard to say, it was quite brilliant though.

Ron Paul also started early on this strategy, back in October 2007, meaning he had quite some headway before the other campaigns got their act together.

Finally, one video by Barack Obama, will.i.am's Change song, gained millions and millions of votes, most of Ron Paul's videos have merely 10's of thousands of viewers at most.

Still, it worked in gaining online support from teenagers, who doesn't want freedom when you're 13.

And you should be attacked for such nonsense.

Since when does # of YouTube videos or # of Google searches = popularity?

(especially given that searches by people like me looking for how fucking absurd and offensive Ron Paul's record and rhetoric was gets counted by Mr. Day as "internet popularity")

Regardless, doesn't Ron Paul's lack of votes show that his "internet popularity" is meaningless?

I deserve that. *bows head in shame*

In regards to Ron Paul, one thing he can be credited for was an excellent online strategy, one copied by Barack Obama,

I would think that he got it from Howard Dean who used a similar model in 2004, Obama's own background as a grassroots organizer, and the organizing of Ploufe and Axelrod...but I guess he could have copied the also ran guy who hadn't really established himself until after Obama was a contender, sure...

Media coverage was slanted towards Obama pretty heavily on some stations, but this has less to do with partisan differences and more to do with the first black Presidential candidate versus an old white guy.

Just reading the thread about Right America Feeling Wronged, I got curious.

In Australia, it seemed very much like McCain and Obama got fairly equal coverage. It seemed like McCain and his camp made a lot more stuff-ups than Obama's. To me, the complaints from the GOP seem to stem from a wish to deny the complete fools that they made of themselves. It seems like their supporters want someone to blame for that.

I mean, I saw the rallies of both. How is it the media's fault that McCain supporters were calling for Obama's blood and being generally agressive? Were they not supposed to report on this or what?

So I thought, maybe coverage was different in the US? Maybe there was a lot more of a slant to Obama? Or am I right in my thinking that it's a lot of bitching from people who don't like the reality of their existence being brought into the open for all to see?

Obama gained more positive press. McCain earned more negative press.

The rightwing that complains about lack of media coverage ignores the negative press, and talks about bias, instead.

I would think that he got it from Howard Dean who used a similar model in 2004, Obama's own background as a grassroots organizer, and the organizing of Ploufe and Axelrod...but I guess he could have copied the also ran guy who hadn't really established himself until after Obama was a contender, sure...

Shh! Nobody wants your recklessly accurate portrayal of fact here!

Eh pretty much Mc. Cain tried to appeal to the right wing instead of the center. That pissed off the centralist, and the right wing were pissed off because they didn't see him as a true Republican/Neo-Con/Con. (whatever).

Then the choice of Caribu barbie which was a patronizing attempt to get Clinton women supporters. It pissed off many women....

Then the choice of Caribu barbie which was a patronizing attempt to get Clinton women supporters. It pissed off many women....

Ooh, yes. That's an excellent example of media bias: WHen Sarah Palin first can on the scene, McCain got a huge jump in the opinion polls and Sarah Palin became a media darling. Then she spoke...

So the young popular charismatic first-black-President got ever so slightly more media coverage than the old white guy he ran against. Shock horror! The news media is biased towards the news!

Obama gained more positive press. McCain earned more negative press.

The rightwing that complains about lack of media coverage ignores the negative press, and talks about bias, instead.

My impression was that McCain's campaign simply made more mistakes. Allowing Sarah Palin to open her mouth, for instance.

Shh! Nobody wants your recklessly accurate portrayal of fact here!

Don't make me come down there and smack you,

Ron Paul was far ahead on Internet strategy, much of the tactics simply weren't available to 2004 candidates, at the end of this article, the author notes that he expects other candidates to take note, they did.

This article is from June 2007, before Barack Obama had his online strategy up and running.

http://www.bivingsreport.com/2007/ron-paul-and-distributed-online-campaigning/

'Copied' is possibly too harsh a word, 'took note of' and 'implemented similar strategies' might be closer to the truth,

I couldn't give a toss about Ron Paul as a candidate, his Internet team were certainly innovative,

My impression was that McCain's campaign simply made more mistakes. Allowing Sarah Palin to open her mouth, for instance.

Actually... gonna sound crazy, here... that wasn't the mistake. The mistake was letting her open her mouth... and then 'handling' her.

If she'd have been allowed to run around making the kind of oral clusterfuck demolitions that typified Bush's term? It would have spiked... and then faded. But the way they jumped on her and told her to shut-the-fuck-up, and wouldn't let her talk without weeks of specific coaching? That said she's incapable of acting on her own - a bad quality in a VP.

The DID make more 'mistakes'. The smear campaign tactic turned out to be 'a mistake', but you can't really blame the GOP for it - they got away with it last time.

They actually got let off of some of the worst gaffes. The GOP saying that it didn't matter WHAT McCain said, they weren't going to let him put a complete veto on special interests - priceless, but largely ignored.

If she'd have been allowed to run around making the kind of oral clusterfuck demolitions that typified Bush's term? It would have spiked... and then faded. But the way they jumped on her and told her to shut-the-fuck-up, and wouldn't let her talk without weeks of specific coaching? That said she's incapable of acting on her own - a bad quality in a VP.


The high point of that was that interview where he showed up and looked like daddy watching out for the girl....

The high point of that was that interview where he showed up and looked like daddy watching out for the girl....

That was a pretty good high point, I have to say...;)