Obama turns Facebook fans into delegates

Summary: Barack Obama's victory in Iowa was marked by heavy participation by young and first-time caucusers. The San Francisco Chronicle takes note that this may mark the first time that politicians talk about bringing in young voters actually materialized on the ground.

Barack Obama's victory in Iowa was marked by heavy participation by young and first-time caucusers. The San Francisco Chronicle takes note that this may mark the first time that politicians talk about bringing in young voters actually materialized on the ground.

The Obama campaign "had a candidate who spoke to the issues that mattered to young people and they combined online outreach with on-the-ground, in-person contact," said Kat Barr, education director for the nonpartisan Rock the Vote and a nationally recognized youth voter expert who was in Iowa for the caucuses.

But key to the breakthrough, the Chronicle's Joe Garofoli says, was Facebook.

Obama's campaign had three times the number of Facebook supporters (more than 182,000) as his nearest Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and also dominated his competitors in terms of friends on MySpace. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, has the most online support among GOP candidates, and attracted 21 percent of the under-30 vote in Iowa; however, he garnered single-digit support among those over 30.

But that's not enough. Interestingly, perhaps because online connections are so common, young people actually respond more to face-to-face pitches. Or perhaps just everyone does.

In any case, the other campaigns have taken note and are calling MTV to get into the latest youth-oriented media event.

MTV's Ian Rowe said "several of the top-tier campaigns from both sides" called the network Friday morning wanting to know when they could participate in the next "Presidential Dialogue" that the youth-oriented network has been co-sponsoring with online giant MySpace. So far, only Obama, Edwards and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have participated, even though all the campaigns were invited weeks ago.

Topics: Networking, Social Enterprise

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

39 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • There should be some talk of Ron Paul in this article

    Ron Paul has harnessed the internet like no one has ever done before. He raised 20 million in donations in a quarter through the internet and has gained millions of fans through you tube. I suggest everyone find out what he stands for. Many of Obamas fans have been coming over to the Ron Paul side. Forget parties, he should appeal to democrats and republicans. He wants to put the money back in your hands so that you can do what you like with it. He would like us to control/befriend other countries through fianance like so many are doing to us right now. He wants to restore the value of the dollar. Do some research on this good man and you will find a voting history that has been the same for 20 years. He doesn't just say he is for the people, he really is.
    Protector
    • re

      Sorry I'm, getting used to slanted articles I overreacted. But he is still a good man.
      Protector
    • There is a lot about Ron Paul that I like....

      However being diabetic from Age 6 to now 45 and having other issues related to
      my life long disease like Kidney failure and an eventual transplant I am hesitant to
      support him completely. Frankly I like the idea of doing for ones self and I try as
      much as possible to live by that motto. However the honest truth is that
      sometimes things simply can't be done by oneself. As long as medicine is insanely
      expensive I can't be self reliant. No matter how much money you put back into my
      hands I unless I make Bill Gates type money I can't be self reliant. Unless actual
      cures are found through stem cells and the like I will always be tied to the slave
      yolk of the medical industry machine and Ron Paul's single minded focus seems to
      leave some people behind. In other words it works for the healthy or semi healthy
      even those who's health could be dramatically improved if only they got off their
      collective buttocks and did what is needed to make themselves better but there will
      always be those of us who simply can't do that, and I'm not sure what his plans do
      for us?

      Pagan jim
      Laff
      • Socialized medicine will not work.

        Socialized medicine will drive the costs up because there are too many middlemen in this insurance ponzi scheme. They all want a tremendous profit with the government to pay for it all. Medicine is over 16% of our GDP and 1/3 is administrative costs. When my dad was little, a doctor would come to the house for $5-10 which is about $75-150 today. Forget about that today. He still drove a Cadillac. With the government being so inefficient, only a small portion gets back to you in actual care anyway.

        When all of the boomers sign on to SS is when it all falls apart anyway. If it was left in private hands all along, medicine would be many times cheaper. The boom and bust cycle must be replaced with stead as she goes.

        He said that folks that need help will be addressed by private charities. Once the military industrial complex has been eliminated, there will be plenty of capital freed up for other causes. Those who look to the state for care, get whacked in the end. Only the early adopters make out. That is the definition of a ponzi scheme. Our children will pay for this failed experiment. Better tip your caretaker in the nursing home because they are pissed.

        Go here for his articles.
        http://www.lewrockwell.com
        osreinstall
        • No Unlimited Money under Socialized Medicine

          Take a look at how socialized medicine works in Europe, Canada, and Japan and see the worst that government-run medicine can bring. With limited money, the government will be forced to 1) provide substandard care to everyone, and 2) a bureaucrat will deicde who on the long waiting list will receive that needed kidney transplant and who will die. Will it be the 70-year-old retiree with a limited lifespan or will it be the 35-year-old productive taxpayer with many years ahead of him/her? Think about it.
          jpgeorgia
          • Look....

            IF there is a "choice" that is going to be made ie that I don't HAVE to die but for the
            bottom line I will die then I get to choose as well. Either to simply die for the
            bottom line or to take people with me and guess how I'm going to choose? I'll give
            you three guesses and the first two don't count.....:P

            I will take as MANY as I can kicking and screaming into the voide with me for
            missery does surely loves company.

            Pagan jim
            Laff
          • We are all going to die, eventually.

            But I will be damned if we all go to the poor house to buy you another 3 more months of wretched existence at EOL. If you can pay for it on your own, fine. But to be a dog in the manger and burden others is greedy existence. How about and cheer others on to carry the torch and accept the fact your job is done. True Pagans will fall on their sword and walk the halls of Valhalla.
            osreinstall
          • Make it reasonable to pay and I'll meet you half way.

            Other wise this Pagan is going to use the sword all right. After all dead is dead and
            you can't threaten a dead man with what? You can't paint anyone into a corner and
            not expect to get hurt in the process. I did nothing wrong I'm not diabetic because
            of some failing on my part. I've worked since I was a child and continue to do so
            even through three solid yeas of dialysis. Heck I've been able with a little guile on
            my part to go on disability for years now and have not and I think I've been
            increadibly stupid for NOT doing so. This is not my fault I did not create the mess
            I've only been a victim of it and for decades now. I did not create my own
            condition I'm not an adult onset diabetic my only crime is managing to live this
            long and remain working. As a living organisim my primary directive and duty is to
            seek life by any means possible and if that means you get one less vacation
            (something I've never known) to another country have to stay home for once. So be
            it and I won't feel a bit of guilt over it. If you want it better demand better if you
            think it's unfair that you have a little less well let me tell you WA! I've never known
            much beyond work and paying for medicine in one fashion or another so don't talk
            to me about going without. Big Wa. Poor baby.

            Look when it comes right down to it I would much rather not involve you or anyone
            for that matter if I could. So let's fix this and make it better. No more "treatments"
            and if that is all medical science can give us make it affordable. Stem Cells and
            growing one's organs could solve a lot of my problems if I could grow a kidney
            that my body would not constantly try to reject then I would not have to spend
            countless amounts of money on anti rejection drugs. Heck with insulet cells grown
            from stem cells I could even cure my underlying disease or diabetes. And no
            monthly fees to the drug companies...Yay!

            Pagan jim
            Laff
          • Life isn't the way we want it.

            Heck, I don't think most folks bring on their diseases. But it is wrong to expect others to pay for it. If the health care is affordable then there is no problem. Wait till all the boomers sign on for SS. The socialized medicine will let them die they will be so swamped. Guess who they will take care of first. The wealthy. So many will die it will look like a MASH operation.

            As for growing your own organs, they will have to be patched DNA stem cells. I believe all diseases are genetic and you will only grow another deficient pancreas. So it will have to be patched before it is grown. Another expensive system.

            All socialized medicine is tyranny of the majority in medicine. If they see your genetic makeup, they might right you off and wheel you in the corner and die anyway. If you think you have no privacy now, wait till they manage you in that menagerie. Oh yes, #009945667854 is genetically inferior. I would rather die privately at my own hand then to be collectively murdered.
            osreinstall
          • Did not say grow and entire pancreas......

            Grow insulin producing cells and place them on say the liver. Even if that would
            not work they could still grow Kidneys and then no anti rejection drugs needed.

            As for life being unfair DUH! That is my point! So how is it my responsibility to
            play by rules we both agree don't exist? Answer there is no such obligation on my
            part so I am free to return the favor to those who say to me "Life is unfair now die
            and be nice about it" Naw.....Oh I'll die that is a given but I'm going to do my part
            to point out just how unfair life can be.... boy oh boy will I point that one out and
            again there is NADDA that can be done to threaten me I'm already dead right?

            Pagan jim
            James Quinn
          • But that would work best.

            What is needed is the missing or deformed DNA to produce insulin at the cellular level. Inject the pancreas with modified stem cells to produce insulin.

            Ron was to phase out SS over a few generations. He told us it wasn't going to be cold turkey and sent folks into the streets. He also said he would send the administration of it back to the states so they can take better care of it at a more local level. He said central planning is out.
            osreinstall
          • What would be different?

            So, are you describing the current situation or what you think will happen with a nationalized system? You seem to be describing the HMO paradigm. I think the idea is to change what you're describing to something better. And by the way, if you have enough money, even under another system you'd likely be able to buy your way to the front of the line; don't fear.
            larryl1234
        • Wow! Hook, line, and sinker

          You've really bitten hard onto the hook. Ever see the movie, "The Matrix"? You kind of remind me of one of the people who is yet 'unhooked'. You're so adamant, so passionate, even though it's against your own self-interest to see things as you do. Case in point: consider who the middle-men are in the current health care paradigm and how much they skim from the system and also remember that since their's is purely a profit motive, and they'll tell you that themselves, they use every method at their disposal to 'not render care', that is, 'to save money', not lives, pain, suffering, or misery, to save money. In order to not lose money to law suits, they do the bare minimum to relieve, pain, suffering, misery, and to prevent death, but it's not their primary objective. Every dollar of profit that goes to health care insurers and that gets paid out as dividend, or that goes into some executive's retirement package, doesn't stay in the system to lower costs and promote research.

          Lastly let me say that you, like so many, want to use the clich? of government inefficiency to justify not having 'government' run various programs, like healthcare. Our government structure is supposed to be made of people, our neighbors, friends, and family. If seem to me to be far more productive to get involved with, and hold accountable, those who run and/or are simply employed by government agencies. The various government levels aren't staff by Martians, but by people you and I know and we need to communicate with and about them as though they have the same needs and problems that the rest of us have.
          larryl1234
          • You are so full of it.

            The matrix was a bunch of crap. The writer didn't know reality from fantasy. Sounds like you swallowed both pills to make sure.

            With socialized medicine you would not be able to sue the government like a private entity so you blew that argument. Ask a vet. As for costs, you are joking. Government cannot run a lemonade stand much less stuff that could kill you.

            And finally you think the government is made up of people that are like our loved ones. True but the system is malevolent towards its own citizenry so it doesn't matter. If you want a bunch of lawyers making medical decisions, you are daft. Socialism kills.
            osreinstall
          • Back to the future

            Ah! So it's back to the future of the pinko-commie scare: Socialism Kills! Have you not been around for a while? This president and his party (and the lobbyists they've brought in to help write policies and legislation) have been nothing if not relentless in their pursuit to limit our ability to sue any entity for amounts meaningful enough to bring about a change in their behavior. They call it 'tort reform' and they push it out to the willing and the gullible in the guise of preventing unfair awards that could cripple or destroy corporations, apple pie, and the American way of life. Real tort reform for medical malpractice, might start with preventative care, through a (gasp!) national coverage plan. Healthier people might have fewer opportunities to sue.

            Remember, the 'government' runs the military complex that protects you and me, and is responsible for a nuclear arsenal that could destroy the world, many times over. I hope it can handle at least, a lemonade stand.

            Oooh. The system is malevolent. There is no system, only people. Some people are hard to get to, both physically and intellectually, but still, they're out there. And no matter how self-interested those people are, it's for the rest of us to make certain that the nation's well being is the business that they're about. There actually should be more direct control over our governmental agencies than over corporate entities (again, think HMOs - oops I forgot, you ignored their current practices the first time I mentioned them, I shouldn't keep bringing them up). Police, fire, and educational socialized services have been around a long time, perhaps they should be outsource too. Profit as the singular motive for everything in life. By Jove, I think you might be onto something!
            larryl1234
          • Better than a sign "Will Code for Food"

            If you had any brains, you should be scared of socialism. It killed around 180 million in the 20th century of empty promises. No thanks. This president killed no where near what the socialists have done, but he still is into corporate welfare which must go too. True, they were the extreme version of it, but they all end up there in a totalitarian collective.

            Go here for pics too.
            http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=3279120&map=0&page=0&lang=en

            Yep and they lose track of nukes from time to time. Makes you wanna give them a big hug for making you feel secure. They also sell the weapons to our future enemies also. Make that another hug.

            Actually, the government's job is to make sure everyone is obeying the rules. Not to have a big brother to wipe my bottom, whether I like it or not. Also I don't want to take care of you or pay for it either. That is your job. Having the state taking it out of my wallet is theft. There is no right to medical care in the Constitution and thinking it is a right is delusional.

            You are right they have been around a long time but not that long. If the powers that be keep coming up with more ways to Sunday to be more inefficient than they already are, the companies will outsource the remaining jobs. Then it will not matter anymore as they watch you starve to death in the next depression.
            osreinstall
          • No system is perfect granted but to throw the baby

            out with the bath water is insane. Sure I'm actually not a huge fan of socialisim
            however I an sane enough to realize that if the rules of capitalism do NOT apply to
            a given provider like medicine then another system should be applied to control it.
            Simply put the price controls of competition (The drug companies stake out their
            own treatments to different ills and for the most part don't compete with one
            another) Go ahead name any two different insulin providers? I haven't seen that in
            years. The consumer is NOT king when it comes to medicine people just don't
            choose to suffer and or die. And if they did they would not make such a choice for
            someone they loved like a child or parent perhaps brother or sister. SO again the
            consumer is not in charge the provider is. The list goes on and on and on. The
            dealer is NOT afraid the consumer might go elsewhere now are they? So where is
            the controls that keep prices down?

            If the rules don't apply then something else should be put into place. Simple really
            and be all can see that where medicine is concerned the rules have not nor are they
            going to come into play as we who understand capitalisim were made to
            understand.

            Pagan jim
            James Quinn
          • Never said it was but anything is better than this.

            Ron isn't going to throw the baby out with the bath water. The change is going to be over a couple generations. Everyone thinks that because the socialists are fear mongering again, basically being dishonest to discredit him on the issues.

            Another reason the price of medicine is high is because the medical industry is one giant cartel run by the AMA. There is no competition to drive prices down. Also med students are not released to the field creating a artificial shortage that keep prices high. The same for medical supply industry. One aspirin costs $8 in the hospital while 500 in a bottle at Walmart is $2.99. If competition is good for manufactured goods, then why wouldn't it be good for the medical industry? People always think throwing more socialism at the problem will cure it. Funny thing is, it always makes it worse.
            osreinstall
          • I completely agree with you on the whole competition

            thing and the med students issue as well. My whole point is that "IF" this cartel
            does not follow the rules of capitalisim then by it's very nature that system won't
            work. So something has to change The system as it stands now is a mess and it's
            an affront to those of use who do admire capitalisim. I don't admire it perhaps as
            much as you but I do admire it none the less. What we have now with the medical
            industry is nothing like what I admire and should be destroyed for it is harmful not
            only to the individual but hte nation and it's ability to compete in the global market.

            Pagan jim
            Laff
          • It will have to be broken up like any other business.

            You cannot have any entity practicing the restraint of trade and he vowed to do something about it. Just having the government run it in totality will not solve the problem but make it worse. State industries is the last thing you want for all the workers will be apathetic for all incentives will be removed. I would not want demoralized people operating on me.
            osreinstall