Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Obama's MySpace Drama

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed May 02, 2007 11:02 AM
from the highway-robbery-i-won't-pay-it dept.
fistfullast33l writes "TechPresident, which is covering the use of technology by Presidential Campaigns for 2008, has a very interesting article on how Obama's MySpace page is currently the subject of an underground battle for control by the campaign itself and the volunteer who created it in 2004. Joseph Anthony worked with the campaign initially and grew the site to include over 160,000 unsolicited friends that the campaign could use to reach out to. It currently is the main Obama page in the Impact Channel on MySpace. However, as Obama's campaign became more centralized and formal, the decision was made to attempt to acquire control of the site from Anthony. They asked him for a price, which he offered up as $49,000 plus part of the $10,000 fee paid to MySpace for the Impact Channel. Obama balked at the price, and decided to start afresh rather than pay the money. The fight broke out into the open when Anthony posted a response on his blog to rumors that the campaign was spreading regarding him wanting to cash out. MyDD has more."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Obama Requests Creative Commons for Presidential Debates 478 comments
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama recently submitted a letter to the DNC asking for the Presidential debates to be licensed under the Creative Commons. This move would give everyone the freedom to share, recut, and edit the debates as they wish. "I am a strong believer in the importance of copyright, especially in a digital age. But there is no reason that this particular class of content needs the protection. We have incentive enough to debate. The networks have incentive enough to broadcast those debates. Rather than restricting the product of those debates, we should instead make sure that our democracy and citizens have the chance to benefit from them in all the ways that technology makes possible."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Chris Burke (6130) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:06AM (#18957983) Homepage
    Yeah, I was just reading the article about NASA and space-sex, so I misread the title. Reality is never as cool as my caffeine-deficient brain-damaged hallucinatory interpretation of reality. :(
    • See, I read the same thing. Except I read it as "Obama's Space Dream". I was rather disappointed when I realized there was a "My" in there. I might have considered voting for him if he had a good space plan. Instead I'm thinking of avoiding his Web 2.0-ness. There's too much crap in the world already to be having another President adding to it. :-/

      Anyone have a better candidate for President? How about Steve Jobs? :-P
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I second Bill Richardson. As a former NM resident, I know how hard he worked/is working for the state, and the country. He has a broad depth of experience (foreign/domestic), can go toe-to-toe with anyone, and is frankly a lot easier to digest than your garden-variety Democrat. He seems to surround himself with good people too, which I think is half the trouble any President has -- the last few have been surrounded by "yes men".

          • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:44AM (#18958565) Journal
            Race may not be relevant to you and I, but it appears to be for most Americans. The Republicans have been trying to appeal to the Hispanic voter for a while now, and doing a much better job at it than they are at swaying African-American voters. So an Hispanic candidate is a natural for the Dems, is all I'm saying.
          • Re:Bill Richardson (Score:5, Informative)

            by valkraider (611225) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @12:24PM (#18959269) Homepage Journal
            As far as the war, Richardson wants a complete withdrawal with ZERO residual troops by the end of 2007.
            Richardson on some issues. [richardson...sident.com]

            As far as Patriot Act:

            "It is important, especially now that Congress is evaluating the impact of the Patriot Act, that we send the message that New Mexico opposes the infringement of civil rights and liberties," said Governor Bill Richardson. "The United States can fight the war against terrorism without eroding America's precious freedoms."
            Governor Bill Richardson and Attorney General Patricia Madrid Oppose U.S. Patriot Act provisions [state.nm.us]

            Prohibition? I am not sure what you mean there. Do you mean the drug war? Well he signed the Medicinal Marijuana bill in NM, and he has pushed for drug treatment before prosecution. But he has also pushed for minimum sentences for dealers, and supports parts of the war on drugs. So I guess maybe he is in the middle of the road with regards to the drug war.

            I am not sure about IP.

            This site has a lot of information, although I cannot say if it is to be 100% trusted as I didn't look too hard to see who funds it. On The Issues [ontheissues.org]. It also appears that some of their information is a little out dated.

            Bill Richardson is the most qualified and most electable candidate we have at this time. Obama, or Clinton would be disasters.
      • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:31AM (#18958385) Journal

        Couldn't Obama or his people send in the lawyers and ask the guy to take down the site or remove references on the guys site to being the official page?
        Actually, Anthony's page specifically states that it's NOT the official page.

        And if his claims that it wasn't about money aren't true, then where are the specific amounts of money coming from?
        The Obama campaign solicited a figure from him.

        It's not a cut-and-dried case of squatting -- Anthony had actually worked with the campaign on the profile. The campaign had password access, so that they could maintain some kind of control over the content just-in-case.

        It isn't about money, IMO. This guy built a significant amount of grassroots support for Obama, then found out that presidential politics is big business, and there's no room for the little guy. How would you feel if a 2.5 year labor of love was pulled out from underneath you? The campaign told him to make an offer... he did, based upon an approximated value of the time he spent on the profile this year. They scoffed, and went around him.

        I don't blame the creator of the profile. I don't blame the Obama campaign, either -- centralized control is necessary for presidential campaigns today.

        It's politics, sometimes people don't get what they want and feelings get hurt. Same as it ever was, same as it ever will be.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I agree with your reply for the most part. The one thing that keeps getting overlooked by the majority of comments I've seen, is that Obama's campaign people asked Anthony to come up with a figure. If that figure was too much, the campaign people could have negotiated, instead of accusing him of blackmail. With all the unknowns here, I'd have to say, that a negotiation would've been better than the way this turned out.
        • by vux984 (928602) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:59AM (#18958873)
          he did, based upon an approximated value of the time he spent on the profile this year. They scoffed, and went around him.

          And if he were a paid professional in stead of a volunteer working on it, that would possibly even be fair value.

          Suppose on a lark I bought a beat up motorcycle, and let you, a volunteer work on it for fun. Then one day I decide to race competitively, and offer to compensate you for your time.

          So you calculate all the hours you spent on it, lookup what pro pit mechanics are paid an hour, and suggest I pay you for 800 hours at that rate. I'd probably 'balk' at that too.

          Volunteers are usually paid nothing. The fact that the campaign was willing to buy him out was the right thing for them to do. Him deciding to value his volunteer time as if he were a contracted professional was probably out of line.

          That said, I agree. Its unfortunate that it couldn't be resolved amicalby, but that's life.
            • by popejeremy (878903) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @12:59PM (#18959837) Homepage

              Except your analogy is flawed because the "motorcycle" in question, a myspace.com profile, never belonged to this guy in the first place.

              Everything on myspace.com belongs to NewsCorp, and they say so very openly. Taking the 30 seconds to register a username on myspace doesn't give you ownership of the page that is generated with that username in it anymore than registering a username on slashdot.org gives you ownership of slashdot.org.

              Myspace.com has an established history of taking usernames that are the same as celebrity names and simply handing them over to the celebrities. The issue is even in their TOS.

              Obama's campaign didn't steal anything here. It belonged to myspace.com all along, and myspace.com did what they did in every other case where similar thing happened. They took the famous name and gave it to the person who is actually named that. This dude just made the mistake of believing that his little piece of myspace.com was actually his, when it never was to begin with.

            • by Heywood J. Blaume (858386) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @01:27PM (#18960293)
              This is false. You are not allowed to deduct time spent or professional services donated to a non-profit or charity. I don't have time to look up actual tax code, but the google search "IRS Rules donate in kind" returned this among many links: This Link [bargaineering.com]
        • by rolfwind (528248) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:59AM (#18958875)

          I don't blame the Obama campaign, either -- centralized control is necessary for presidential campaigns today.


          I do. You don't take what isn't yours. It's a pretty old principle last time I checked. If it was really important, they would have built up their own MySpace page instead of hijacking someone elses.

          How you treat the people underneath you in your daily interactions says a lot about you. How you run your campaign is the same thing. I'll be looking at what Mike Gravel has to say now, thanks.
  • The guy wants to be president. He's a politician. And now some guy is surprised he is up to dirty tricks? Politicians are all scum, no matter which flag they wave. Remeber: Poly = many, tick = small bloodsucking parasite.
    • by hsmith (818216) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:14AM (#18958105)
      I am shocked and appalled that a politician is doing whatever they want, acting like they are better than the proletariat, and taking what they desire. This is America damn it! This is like fighting in the war room!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Seizing a volunteer's "fan site" seems kind of sleazy, but then having the most popular MySpace page for your candidate being controlled by a random person, and therefore having no control over the content yourself, is also politically unwise. What happens when Obama does something the volunteer doesn't like, and the volunteer decides to use his page to spread vicious rumours about the candidate? If the page has already gained popularity as the de facto Obama MySpace page, that could be very damaging.

      On t
      • the volunteer's decision to try and cash out rather than cooperate with the campaign is a little short-sighted. If he really thought Obama had a shot at winning, he might have been better served to work with the campaign, maintain their official page

        Your comment mangles what really is going on here. The guy asked for compensation and to become a paid consultant to the campaign. The campaign countered by saying they wanted a one time payment and full control. He gave them an offer and they balked. He's b
          • by Dog-Cow (21281) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:43AM (#18958555)
            Candidates spend billions on campaigning. What the FUCK do you think they spend all that on? Asking for money is the only sane thing to do in this situation.

            That's beside the fact that numerous posters already explained that he isn't extorting anything. $49k for a good portion of 2.5 years of work is cheap. Do you think the rest of his upper-level campaigners are working for free? They may not be getting cash now, but you better believe they expect 6-figure salary jobs in the Administration when he's elected. That, or government contracts or some other form of power/money.
      • by RingDev (879105) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:39AM (#18958491) Homepage Journal
        On the other hand, the volunteer's decision to try and cash out rather than cooperate with the campaign is a little short-sighted. If he really thought Obama had a shot at winning, he might have been better served to work with the campaign, maintain their official page, and use that leverage to angle for a cushy government job when Obama got elected.

        Except that they made it clear to him that he would NOT be part of the future of the page. The one time payment was just a trap, and the guy fell for it. No matter how crooked they were in going about it, they can destroy his credibility by saying he was just in it for the cash. Even if he had said no to the payment offer, they would have muscled him out one way or another.

        The polite thing to do would have been to split the different and give the guy some chump change for his costs and an invite to a few events as a special contributor. Would a few dinners really dent that $28 million dollar campaign?

        Anyways, who cares. Obama is nothing more than a republicrat. He's riding the Bush bashing coat tails like all of the democrats but he hasn't shown anything of substance for how he is going to do things better on his watch. Preaching to the choir that Bush sucks is great and all, but what does he actually bring to the table? 4 more years of political foot play at the tax payers' expense.

        Nah, if you want real change... Gore/Edwards in '08, now THAT would be an exciting 4 years.

        -Rick
        • by networkBoy (774728) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @12:04PM (#18958971) Homepage Journal

          Gore/Edwards in '08
          I *really* hope you're kidding...
          In all honesty, the best suited people for political jobs often refuse them.
          A local radio host (Tom Sullivan) was asked to run for office at the last election (US assembly). He declined. Would have been a damn good Assemblyman, didn't want to do it, felt he "could do more good on the radio in a week than he could accomplish in an entire term in office" (or something like that). IIRC he was pushed to run for governor when we had a recall in CA. Didn't run for that. In the case of the president and vice president, I honestly believe Penn and Teller would be better than anyone who is currently even thinking of running. I could just see the veto stamp now:
          • Pork spending bill: VETO (bullshit)
          • IP bill: VETO (bullshit)
          • Repeal of some fragment of any orwellian law: Signed
          • Extension of the PATRIOT act: VETO (are you kidding me? BULLSHIT!)

          Ahhh dreams.
          -nB
      • by Logger (9214) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:42AM (#18958539) Homepage
        Short-sighted is to give a guy who probably has no idea what his effort was worth 24 hours to come up with a price, and then not at least try to negotiate. He shoots in the dark a $50k price. For a year of work that has been that effective as it has, that's a bargain compared to how much ineffective money is spent on political TV ads.

        Then instead of providing a counter offer, they simply accuse him of profitering and proceed to hijack the site from him. That is short sited anyway you look at. They are doing this because they thought he's an individual nobody. What could he possibly do to retaliate (read "typical big guy squish little guy think"). And now they are getting bad press because of it (read "short-sighted"). He's already sustained his loss (MySpace page was hijacked) which won't change his life really. They are only now going to begin to discover the loss to there credibility, which could potentially be very damaging. (Well, for the few people that are naive enough to give any credibitlity to any candidate.)
        • by powerlord (28156) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @12:38PM (#18959475) Journal

          They are only now going to begin to discover the loss to there credibility, which could potentially be very damaging.


          Well ... I think "we" should all help them figure out just how much they may have damaged their credibility.

          If you're a MySpace user, after clicking on http://www.myspace.com/barackobama [myspace.com] feel free to click on "Send Message" and let him know how you feel. :) (remember to keep things clean and expletive free). Hey, he's even "On Line Now!" so he might reply. ;)

          Also, whether you Are or Are Not a MySpace user, feel free to click on "Block User". I'm sure those metrics might make their way to his attention (or at least the mainstream media's).
    • Politicians are all scum, no matter which flag they wave. Remeber: Poly = many, tick = small bloodsucking parasite.

      I completely agree. Politicians are horrible. Why can't we go back to the good old days before annoying campaigns and bothersome voting. I just want to be told what to do by clergy and nobility, and have the strength to be able to do it. Why bother thinking?

      • So what's the issue here?

        You obviously didn't RTFAs. The Obama campaign literally STOLE his myspace account from him. If they had just agreed to part company, there would be no issue.

      • RTFA, but I guess thats just asking too much. The dirty trick is that the Obama crowd wrested control of the guy's myspace account without his consent. What if I put up a myspace page stating Obama should *never* become president, and they don't like it. Will that get taken over as well?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        What's the dirty trick? He spent his own money to make a myspace site. Candidate tells him great job, I'd like to centralize control of the thing, I'll buy it off you for your trouble. Guy names rather high number. Candidate tells him to forget it, and starts his own myspace page from scratch. Which is his right to do.

        So what's the issue here? Guy gets greedy, and/or overestimates his own value, and loses?

        The issue is not that the Obama campaign started up its own site (that's fair game) but that they convinced MySpace to disable Anthony's access to the site he created and redirect the URL to the new Obama campaign site. When Anthony balked at this (rightfully so) MySpace offered to give back the content to him, but at a different URL.

        Imagine if you had registered obamarocks.com and gained the support of hundreds of thousands of individuals for Obama. The campaign team gets interested, offers to buy you o

  • by ILuvRamen (1026668) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:10AM (#18958045)
    If you vote for me in 08, I'll do everything in my power to keep politicians off Myspace *crowd cheers*
  • by GMO (209499) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:14AM (#18958095)
    And if, as he claims, they suggested a one-time fee, and then rejected his offer as an attempt to moneygrab, that is sneaky.

    But why would you need money for this, anyway? Compenstation for work already done?

    Anyway, considering the millions raised for campaigning, 50,000 is not so much.
    • by pilaftank (1096645) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @05:28PM (#18964379) Homepage

      When I first read about Obama's MySpace fight, it looked like Joseph Anthony had been wronged. After all he did create and maintain the MySpace account. Then I noticed the name of the profile. The profile name is not "PasadenaForObama" or "ObamaFans". The profile name is "BarackObama". Anthony knew (or should have known) that his claim to ownership of the profile would always be weak to nonexistent. The amount of time and effort he spent working on the account is irrelevant.

      The Obama campaign is not without fault, though. They should have never even solicited a financial offer from Anthony. Instead, the campaign should have offered signed books, buttons, shirts, and a handwritten thank you letter from Obama himself.

      As a contributor to the Obama campaign myself, I would have been annoyed to see my cash pay for Obama to purchase his own name. I am disappointed that the Obama campaign made the mistake of solicited an offer, but the bottom line is that Anthony was not wronged.

  • 404 Not Found (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pharmboy (216950) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:17AM (#18958147) Journal
    Well, Anthony's comment has already been removed, along with the "page missing page".
  • This is what happens (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tkrotchko (124118) * on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:17AM (#18958155) Homepage
    This is what happens when an idealist gets mixed up with politics.

    They say politics is like sausage. You can't simultaneously appreciate the taste of sausage and know how it's made.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      They say politics is like sausage. You can't simultaneously appreciate the taste of sausage and know how it's made.


      Unless you are a realist. (?!)

      Welcome to the real world, step right in!
  • So, Obama has $19 million on hand from fund raising and donations [opensecrets.org] and he can't drop a year's salary to this guy for the work he's done maintaining a MySpace site? And if the guy invested $10k of his own money on good faith that it would help the campaign ... I'm shocked that he's not asking for more. I mean, isn't that chump change to Obama? And doesn't Obama have to dispose of that money before the election otherwise it's gotta go to charity (I'm not a politician, I forget the rules of soft money).

    I'm getting the feeling that I'm not hearing the whole story here. Nobody's doing anything wrong though, this is clear cut capitalism. The man has the only supply for the product ... Obama's campaign managers didn't like it so decided to make their own. Interesting drama but not really news.
    • by bjourne (1034822) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:51AM (#18958709)
      So, Obama has $19 million on hand from fund raising and donations and he can't drop a year's salary to this guy for the work he's done maintaining a MySpace site? And if the guy invested $10k of his own money on good faith that it would help the campaign ... I'm shocked that he's not asking for more. I mean, isn't that chump change to Obama? And doesn't Obama have to dispose of that money before the election otherwise it's gotta go to charity (I'm not a politician, I forget the rules of soft money).

      It is about principles. I have done alot of grunt work for a political party in Sweden, maybe it is different for the Democrats in the US, but in general, you don't get paid. You do it on your own free will because you want your party to succeed. A select few functionaries get paid, usually the minimum salary for their competence level possible and are still expected to do lots of volunteer work. I would be surprised if any of all the telemarketers that do the real work in Obama's fundraising campaign are paid anything above the minimum wage.

      Only when you get higher up in the party hiearchy can you expect to earn a decent living doing political work. But even then you are severly underpaid compared to what you can earn in other sectors. Even Bush and his appointed staff could probably earn a much higher salary working for a private company than working for the US.

      From that point of view, it really does not make sense that this person should be able to cash in on his volunteer work while thousands of other volunteer worker gets nothing. Sure, give him back his 10 grand he invested, but he really can not and should not expect to be able to earn money doing volunteer work.
  • Let this be a lesson. These people are no better than the ones they want to replace. I know I'm talking to the hand, But it has to be said. You have a choice. Make it a good one. If you all want change, then you have to bring it about. The standard bearers of the status quo won't do it for you.
  • by madsheep (984404) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:21AM (#18958235) Homepage
    Yep.. big trouble a brewing at the polls because of this. If Obama can't reach out to those tens of thousands of 14-17 year olds and the tens of thousands of 18 to 20-somethings that aren't registered to vote on his MySpace.. what will he do? This may turn to political ruin for him. :(
  • by Petersko (564140) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:23AM (#18958245)
    Seriously, what's the point? There isn't enough evil in here to make it interesting.
  • Character (Score:3, Insightful)

    by outlander78 (527836) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:38AM (#18958481)
    This shows Obama's character pretty clearly. He apparently has a sense of entitlement and lacks gratitude for those who supported him early on. Keep it in mind if you find yourself looking at a ballot with his name on it.
  • Foolish (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spazmania (174582) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:46AM (#18958609) Homepage
    Way back in the day, I built a web site around the Ultima series of computer games. Much of it was scanned copies of Origin Systems' artwork though it also contained walkthroughs, hints and similar fan-supplied stuff from various authors. I'm a big fan of the games, so I built the web site in that vein. It became the central source of information about the Ultima games on the web.

    After a while, Origin came along and asked how much I'd be willing to sell it to them for. My answer? Tell me what you think is fair. After all, its their game not mine. They picked a number, I agreed and that was that.

    I could have picked a number that was representative of the manpower I put in to making the site. I could have gotten in to a big fight where they accuse me of copyright infringement and I accuse them of bullying, etc. etc.

    I could have, but I didn't. I didn't build the site to make money and at the end of the day it was their game, not mine. So I smiled and said, "thank you," sent them a zip file of the content and put a redirect on my web site that pointed to the site's new home.

    Joseph Anthony is nobody. Its Obama's myspace profile; Anthony is just a fan. He should have turned it over along with a list of expenses and said, "pay me what you think is fair."
    • Re:Foolish (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @01:33PM (#18960413)

      Joseph Anthony is nobody.

      Yeah, but, in theory, that's not supposed to matter under our system.

    • Re:Foolish (Score:5, Informative)

      by dantheman82 (765429) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @02:00PM (#18960869) Homepage
      A few comments I read in the techPresident blog [techpresident.com] that sum up my sentiments well (from RickRussellTX)...
      Guys, step back and read the actual text
      This whole "Anthony is a greedy schmuck" and "the Obama campaign tripped up" debate is a bunch of malarky. Read what was actually written:

      (1) Campaign staffers had become concerned about the currency and accuracy of information on the site.

      (2) Anthony was overworked and suggested that they should make him a consultant.

      (3) They said they would rather have a one-time transfer, and he should name a price.

      (4) He picked a number. They said no and went to MySpace management for resolution.

      (5) MySpace came up with an eminently equitable solution. Mr. Anthony has been given the opportunity to build the site again with a different URL and full transfer of his friends list.

      It's as simple as that. He's not a greedy bastard. They asked him to pick a number. Obama staffers are not bumbling idiots; they tried a couple of approaches, things weren't working out, and ultimately they decided to run the site themselves.

      MySpacegate, indeed. Surely we can focus on the actual issues, and not this cyber-distraction?
    • Not Scum (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fistfullast33l (819270) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:19AM (#18958173) Homepage Journal
      Are you kidding me? He's not charging $49k to give the name back - he started the site as a supporter of Obama 2 freakin years ago, not knowing that Obama would run for president. Now, the campaign wants to take control of his profile page and they asked him to come up with a rough sum rather than hire him as a campaign contributer.

      This is a lot like Valve and the mods that came out of Half Life. Valve in that case hired the Counterstrike and DoD teams and gave them jobs. Obama decided they didn't want to do that and instead asked the guy to come up with a sum of money. As MyDD points out, it's roughly 32 cents per friend. That's not too shabby considering how much money they throw away on consultants. And it's only a one time payment. For a campaign that just raised $26 million, to balk at $50,000 is pretty crazy in my opinion.
    • You're not a presidential hopeful with millions in campaign money in your pocket.

      Read the techPresident link:
      http://www.techpresident.com/node/301 [techpresident.com]

      This is Joe Anthony.

      This is not blackmail and I'm not a "squatter".

      They wanted the profile and asked me to propose a fee, and indicated that Myspace was ok with this. I have no experience making such proposals and had no idea what to ask for.

      I proposed a fee, and now they're accusing me of looking for a "big payday".

      This is not blackmail. This is not me cashing

    • (This is a repost of something I wrote near the bottom of the page, in the hopes it'll actually get seen...)

      From allison

      It's a freaking myspace page. Of his 160,000 "friends," how many are over 18? Perhaps 25%? Of those 40,000, how many are registered? Even a quarter of those? I doubt it. Maybe an eighth. So of those 5,000, how many actually care enough to vote? Probably half.


      Well, doing a quick Google search on 'myspace demographics' shows conflicting information. Some pages say that over 75% of the MySpace population is over 18 [1]. Meanwhile, another site is saying over half of MySpace is over thirty five [2]. Even pulling numbers out of my ass (much like you did) and assuming that a significant portion of of the people who show up as over 18 are lying, it still looks like much more than 25% of the "friends" from this page are over 18.

      Likewise, looking at US census info shows just about 50% of 18-24 year olds were registered for to vote by November 2004 while around 40% actually voted [3].

      So lets do some math with this new data. You said of the 160,000 friends this page had, only around 2500 will actually vote. Of the 160,000 around 120,000 (160,000*.75) are over 18. Of those, the national turnout (again, the US Census) was at around 58% in 2004. 58% of 120,000 is just under 70,000 people who, statistically, will probably vote. At the asking price of $49,000 for the MySpace page, that's less than a dollar a voter - a good buy for any politician.

      But lets go a step further and look at just the 18-24 demographic (from links 1 and 2 somewhere around 18% of MySpace). So around 29,000 friends of the 160,000 are 18-24, of which around 40% will actually vote. So over 10,000 friends age 18-24 who will actually vote. That's still only a couple dollars per voter, not bad for a campaign, and ignores all the other voters who are over 24.

      Now, I know, I've made a lot of assumptions doing this back-of-the-envelope math: all the data (both about MySpace and about US voters) is accurate, all the MySpace users are in the United States, and trends will continue like they did in the 2004 election. But for all the assumptions that my estimates are high, you could make an equal argument that they're low. That is, you could argue that people registered as friends of Obama are more likely to vote than the population as a whole.

      My point is, your original guess (about 2500 who are 18+ and will actually vote out of the original 160,000 friends) seems to be off by 65,000 voters (not registered voters, but people who will vote). In fact, there are more voters out of those 160,000 who are 18-24 than your original guess for all people over the age of 18.

      Feel free to correct my math or my assumptions. I had fun doing this, but would someone else come along and correct me than let something incorrect stand.
      -Trillian

      [1] http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=11967 [zdnet.com]
      [2] http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=10 19 [comscore.com]
      [3] http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/votin g/cps2004.html [census.gov] Look at table 11, Reported Voting and Registration, by Marital Status, Age, and Sex: November 2004.
      • Flamebait? Come on (Score:5, Insightful)

        by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:32AM (#18958403) Journal
        I'm a staunch Democrat and feminist and I still think she's completely unelectable. She has no convictions and an obsession with power. She gives the impression that she would sway in the tiniest breeze, doing whatever she felt was popular at the moment.

        God, remember when she was cool, and had convictions? National health care, remember that? Washington ruined that woman.
        • My greatest fear for the upcoming election is that she wins the Democratic nomination - and gets clobbered in the general election.
                • by Kymermosst (33885) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @02:01PM (#18960887) Journal
                  No, because the Republicans believe they are only elected to represent the people who voted for them, rather than the whole country. So a little less than half of us will lose if the Republicans win.

                  Funny, I feel that the Democrats believe the same thing.
                  • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Wednesday May 02 2007, @02:15PM (#18961065) Journal
                    Any Republican's writing a book on putting the nation ahead of your party? No, that's a Democrat writing that book. Clinton appointed plenty of conservatives in his cabinet. Democrats don't just preach bipartisanship, they practice it. The current Republican party is built on "energizing the base" which means finding the most divisive issues possible and running with them.

                    I know I won't convince you, your mind is obviously made up. But perhaps others more open minded will read this, look at the evidence, and come to the same conclusions I have based on the facts.
                  • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Wednesday May 02 2007, @04:12PM (#18963197) Journal
                    Poor oppressed white males. So sad how little respect we get, isn't it? Why won't those mean old Democrats pander to us?

                    I need to state for the record that, Democrat though I may be, I have no problem with real conservatives. That is, those who advocate a smaller Federal government, states rights, and fiscal responsibility. That is not what the current Republican party stands for. They stand for anything that benefits big corporations, the religious right, and borrow and spend lunacy.

                    It must suck being a Republican these days and feeling as though you have to defend the indefensible. I almost feel sorry for you.
    • Re:Scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gurps_npc (621217) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:44AM (#18958563)
      You did not read the article at all did you?

      This is some guys personal web site, that favored Obama. He set it up YEARS before Obama was announced he was in the presidential race.

      Did he ask for money? NO.

      This was his baby, his project to help Obama.

      Then some low level staffer says "HEY, I like your idea, only I want to run it."

      He responds: "No thank you, this mine. Go make your own".

      Low level greedy staffer responds "I am one laze SOB. I don't want to do the work, I just want the credit. How much to buy your work?"

      Honest, hard working guy responds "Well, if the Obama campaing really wants my personal Pro Obama web site, I could sell it to you. It cost me $10 grand in outright cash, and more than 3 years worth of work. If you really don't want me to run my web site anymore, and want to run it yourself, I'll give it to you for a measily 50 grand."

      Read the article first, instead of getting all huffy about who did what.

    • by jamonterrell (517500) on Wednesday May 02 2007, @11:49AM (#18958667)
      Your comment read like total gibberish, so I decided to translate it to german and back using babelfish, in hopes that this would make it more readable. I've shared below the results of this experiment, I believe that it has drastically improved the readability of the comment: Fantasy Obamas is to force its moral code on the remainder of us. He dreams about a world, which grants him such a liberty without the appropriate character strings. Welcomely to the world of nonrepresentationalism! In this nightmare world it had been for a long time forgotten that I would judge not allied Obamas too roughly. They are indeed fair cannon fodder, so that Plot Obamas keeps an institute, those, torsion and revolution, as you like, are and remain a dishonor to the humanity. Obama says that we are to close and smile above, if he says rummy things. But then it turns and says that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of the government, which we could perhaps have. They know, you cannot not them have both ways, Obama. Sensor. Barack Obama stands out as the king of the planet superficially. Give to that something thought.
    • It's a freaking myspace page. Of his 160,000 "friends," how many are over 18? Perhaps 25%? Of those 40,000, how many are registered? Even a quarter of those? I doubt it. Maybe an eighth. So of those 5,000, how many actually care enough to vote? Probably half.

      Well, doing a quick Google search on 'myspace demographics' shows conflicting information. Some pages say that over 75% of the MySpace population is over 18 [1]. Meanwhile, another site is saying over half of MySpace is over thirty five [2]. Even pulling numbers out of my ass (much like you did) and assuming that a significant portion of of the people who show up as over 18 are lying, it still looks like much more than 25% of the "friends" from this page are over 18.

      Likewise, looking at US census info shows just about 50% of 18-24 year olds were registered for to vote by November 2004 while around 40% actually voted [3].

      So lets do some math with this new data. You said of the 160,000 friends this page had, only around 2500 will actually vote. Of the 160,000 around 120,000 (160,000*.75) are over 18. Of those, the national turnout (again, the US Census) was at around 58% in 2004. 58% of 120,000 is just under 70,000 people who, statistically, will probably vote. At the asking price of $49,000 for the MySpace page, that's less than a dollar a voter - a good buy for any politician.

      But lets go a step further and look at just the 18-24 demographic (from links 1 and 2 somewhere around 18% of MySpace). So around 29,000 friends of the 160,000 are 18-24, of which around 40% will actually vote. So over 10,000 friends age 18-24 who will actually vote. That's still only a couple dollars per voter, not bad for a campaign, and ignores all the other voters who are over 24.

      Now, I know, I've made a lot of assumptions doing this back-of-the-envelope math: all the data (both about MySpace and about US voters) is accurate, all the MySpace users are in the United States, and trends will continue like they did in the 2004 election. But for all the assumptions that my estimates are high, you could make an equal argument that they're low. That is, you could argue that people registered as friends of Obama are more likely to vote than the population as a whole.

      My point is, your original guess (about 2500 who are 18+ and will actually vote out of the original 160,000 friends) seems to be off by 65,000 voters (not registered voters, but people who will vote). In fact, there are more voters out of those 160,000 who are 18-24 than your original guess for all people over the age of 18.

      Feel free to correct my math or my assumptions. I had fun doing this, but would someone else come along and correct me than let something incorrect stand.
      -Trillian

      [1] http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=11967 [zdnet.com]
      [2] http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=10 19 [comscore.com]
      [3] http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/votin g/cps2004.html [census.gov] Look at table 11, Reported Voting and Registration, by Marital Status, Age, and Sex: November 2004.