Only Two GOP'ers Have Agreed to YouTube Debate

Rightly or wrongly, it is perceived as an outlet for teens and early 20-somethings to post goofy video clips making fools of themselves trying to emulate "America's Funniest Home Videos". That isn't the image the Rep candidates want to project to their primary voters.

The younger, urban and/or single voters that are more likely to see Youtube as fun or hip are going to vote in the Dem primaries.

Majority of YouTube Audience is 35 to 64

Until now we've been operating under the misconception that YouTube's audience looks like Lonelygirl15. Just as the teen dream was unmasked as an actress performing in a scripted, if clever, work of fiction, eMarketer's just published study, Internet Video: Advertising Experiments and Exploding Content, reveals that
55 percent of YouTube's U.S. audience falls within the 35 to 64 age range, not exactly Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. Even more surprising is that these viewers are affluent; 61.5 percent banked over $60,000 per annum. While this is bait for advertisers who are slowly shifting their ad dollars from broadcast to the Internet, it's bad news for television, which has seen this age demo running for the exits.

Republican Presidential Candidates Gain Increased Visibility on YouTube in April, According to Nielsen//NetRatings
Wednesday June 13, 9:00 am ET

Social Media Web Sites Changing the Way the Public Consumes Politics

NEW YORK, NY--(MARKET WIRE)--Jun 13, 2007 -- Nielsen//NetRatings (NasdaqGM:NTRT - News), a global leader in Internet media and market research, announced today that YouTube videos about Republican presidential candidates accounted for 31 percent of all time spent at the site watching campaign-related videos in April, increasing 21 percentage points over March (see Table 1). Videos about Democratic candidates accounted for 69 percent of all time spent on campaign videos in April, decreasing 20 percentage points since March. Although Democrats are still dominating time spent on YouTube, Republicans are starting to make their online presence known.

The Post article also notes that the leading Republican candidate New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani isn't likely to agree to participate in the September debate. Again, this isn't surprising. I lived in New York when Giuliani was mayor, and he's not exactly a touchy-feely guy who responds well to other people's opinions and feelings, which is what a lot of the YouTube election is about -- how voters feel and demonstrate those feelings on video about the issues.

Yet, these candidates could be making a serious mistake.

Ratings data show that the CNN/YouTube debate received the highest viewership level for the demographic between 18 and 34 since measurement level began in 1992 for a cable news debate.

Research released earlier this year by Harvard's Institute for Politics found that -- galvanized by the war -- this age group showed up at the polls in 2004 at extremely high levels.

As Carl Cannon, a writer for the inside-the-Beltway publication National Journal noted in a May edition of the magazine, "These young people are so little understood that many of the 2006 congressional campaigns ignored them utterly, although the candidates who did paid a price for their inattention."

When you think about YouTube, you probably think young and liberal. Well, if you did, you'd be, um, wrong.

As the Republican presidential candidates mull decisions to pull out of the YouTube/CNN debate, we here at techPresident took a quick look at the demographic breakdown of the YouTube audience and found some very interesting data.

According to comScore, YouTube actually attracts more Republicans than Democrats. Specifically, there are 3.3 million self-identified Republicans on the user-generated video site versus 3.1 million Democrats. (An addition 5 million consider themselves independent.)

Digging a bit deeper, it seems like Democrats have a bit more free time on their hands. Whereas Republicans spend an average of 13 minutes on the site each time they visit, Democrats rack up an average of 20 minutes.

No matter which way you splice it, YouTube is clearly an important medium among Republican and Democratic voters and the perception that YouTube is a liberal haven simply isn't true.

fishin wrote:

Rightly or wrongly, it is perceived as an outlet for teens and early 20-somethings to post goofy video clips making fools of themselves trying to emulate "America's Funniest Home Videos". That isn't the image the Rep candidates want to project to their primary voters.

The younger, urban and/or single voters that are more likely to see Youtube as fun or hip are going to vote in the Dem primaries.

ya made me start looking at this (as have the Neilsens and a few others)

Quote:

Majority of YouTube Audience is 35 to 64

Until now we've been operating under the misconception that YouTube's audience looks like Lonelygirl15. Just as the teen dream was unmasked as an actress performing in a scripted, if clever, work of fiction, eMarketer's just published study, Internet Video: Advertising Experiments and Exploding Content, reveals that
55 percent of YouTube's U.S. audience falls within the 35 to 64 age range, not exactly Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. Even more surprising is that these viewers are affluent; 61.5 percent banked over $60,000 per annum. While this is bait for advertisers who are slowly shifting their ad dollars from broadcast to the Internet, it's bad news for television, which has seen this age demo running for the exits.

http://www.mediavillage.com/jmr/2006/11/30/jmr-11-30-06/

Quote:

Republican Presidential Candidates Gain Increased Visibility on YouTube in April, According to Nielsen//NetRatings
Wednesday June 13, 9:00 am ET

Social Media Web Sites Changing the Way the Public Consumes Politics

NEW YORK, NY--(MARKET WIRE)--Jun 13, 2007 -- Nielsen//NetRatings (NasdaqGM:NTRT - News), a global leader in Internet media and market research, announced today that YouTube videos about Republican presidential candidates accounted for 31 percent of all time spent at the site watching campaign-related videos in April, increasing 21 percentage points over March (see Table 1). Videos about Democratic candidates accounted for 69 percent of all time spent on campaign videos in April, decreasing 20 percentage points since March. Although Democrats are still dominating time spent on YouTube, Republicans are starting to make their online presence known.

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/070613/0265509.html

Nielsen//NetRatings says that nearly 55 percent of YouTube's U.S. visitors in May 2006 were ages 35 to 64, with an additional 19 percent in the 25- to-34 bracket.



http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/12474.asp

Key Demographics
Men are 20 percent more likely to visit YouTube than women, with unique audience composition indexes of 113 and 88, respectively (see Table 2). Visitors between 12-17 years old index the highest among the various age groups, at 142. They are nearly 1.5 times more likely than the average Web user to go to YouTube.
http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_060721_2.pdf

61.5 percent banked over $60,000 per annum.

Nice to see you again, fishin.

Finn de barking beagle wrote:


And here I thought a Kuvie/Finn detante might be possible. Silly me. How can Kuvie maintain his image as the Lefty Cruise Missle without countering Finn on an ad hominem basis?

Actually, you're slipping.

To suggest (as I did) that lesbians and animated snowman are hardly "average Americans," is a far far cry from asserting they are "too tough." (Whatever the hell that means).

But, clearly, logic and reason has no influence on the Kuvie rant. Instead, it's all about The Bile.

Partisan assasin---fine. There is certainly room within A2K for such characters. Trouble is that this is all shite, and if it were not, your flawed efforts at whacking someone on the Right would have left you stone cold dead. You're just not good enough.

Oh dear, sounds like penis envy from you again young man, or is it yet another anguished cry from the sensitive Right Wing about their victimhood? Cry me a river. Your partisanship precedes you like the odor of a pile of horse excrement. A practicing whore crying rape wouldn't be funnier than you crying foul.

You can make all the loopy, hand-waving, tooth sucking excuses you want about your buddies but the fact remains, like George Bush before them the Republican candidates are congenital liars, whose bunkum could not bear critical examination from average American people, lesbians, albino dwarfs, and one-armed animators included. Yet, you lap up their mendacity like a dog licks up its own vomit and bark for more.

As you continue in your quest for public humiliation your own ad hominum and strawman arguments show an almost fanatical attachment and blind devotion to those who stimulate the worst in human nature, and perhaps where you see it proudly as the source of all your virtue and strength, I see it as delusional and dangerous to rational human beings.

If you want détente, grow a brain. I've given up on you having a soul.

So, is this another case of "We won't waste time talking to people who won't vote for us"?

Or is it more a case of "We are scared shitless by a more spontaneous format where we might be asked things we aren't willing to talk about"?

snood wrote:

So, is this another case of "We won't waste time talking to people who won't vote for us"?

Or is it more a case of "We are scared shitless by a more spontaneous format where we might be asked things we aren't willing to talk about"?

Neither explanation makes sense to me; I'm mystified by the Republican candidates' refusal.

For one thing, a fair share of political bloggers are conservatives. There is no reason for Republican candidates to expect a particularly hostile reception on the internet. And unlike the AACP, politically interested internet users include a good percentage of people who would vote Republican. So that can't be the explanation.

Your other explanation also doesn't work because the YouTube format is no more spontaneous than older formats were. In the olden days, CNN would have collected questions from a live audience, picked the ones they find interesting, and have the member of the audience ask them. Now CNN collects videos, picks the clips they find interesting, and broadcasts them. Where's the difference in spontaneity? Add to this that the YouTube format leaves no room for backup questions, and the hype about spontaneity deflates further.

I have no explanation for the Republican candidates' behavior.

The Republicans are a bunch of lily-livered cowards.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The notion that these UTube questions represent the voice of the people is ridiculous.

Why? They were submitted by people.

Your partisanship is showing, might want to adjust your skirt a little.

Cycloptichorn

I'm surprised I have to explain this to you (then again...), but the fact that they were submitted by people doesn't mean that the are representative of the collective notions of The People.

I don't know the exact number of the pool CNN had to choose from but it was, comparatively, tiny, and there is no reason to believe that people with the capability and desire to post videos on the internet are perfect examples of the average American Joe or Jane.

It was a clever stunt.That CNN, correctly, believed that they could generate a fair level of buzz by invoking the internet speaks to the growing importance of that medium, but certainly not that UTube is the medium of democracy.

It never ceases to amuse and gratify me when uber-tolerant, feminist Lefties such as yourself revert to form and attempt to ridicule your opponents with sophomoric taunts ("might want to adjust your skirt") that attempt to challenge their masculinity.

And y'all just keep on doing it! Thank you.

Theoretically, nothing can possibly represent 'the voice of the people.'

Strange theory.

Posing questions asked by people, but selected by CNN, is really no different then posing questions asked by CNN. But it does add another element to the equation, in that there are certain arguments which have more emotional impact coming from an actual citizen, who took his time to record a question, then they would coming out of the mouth of Blitzer or Cooper.

Essentially no, but by using selected UTube questions, CNN is trying to cast its questions as "the voice of the people." You bought it after all, and it's folks like you to whom they appeal.

Those who are unaffected by insult rarely bother to respond to them, Finn.

Wow, did you read that in Poor Richard's Almanac?

In truth, I wasn't unaffected by your attempted insult. I thought I made that clear. I was amused and gratified.

You aren't fooling anyone.

I'm not? What am I up to Cyclo?

And, who said I'm a feminist? I really think you sound like a whining little b*tch, and that's why I wrote what I did.

Clearly you're not (a feminist that is).

I have no doubt that you wrote what you did because you wanted to insult me...that's the point. When looking for a really good insult, you can (and will) always rely on some sophomoric barb that seeks to question your opponent's masculinity.

If I were of the opinion that blue-eyed people were the lowest of the lows, I would probably fashion my insults around the color of my opponents' eyes. Since you fashion your insults around gender and sexual orientation we can reasonably assume what you find the lowest of the low to be. Not really very tolerant of you Cyclo. Perhaps you're not a feminist but are you prepared to accept your identity as a mysogynist and homophobe?



Oooh, the bias of CNN, REVEAL IT, Republican candidates!!!! You guys crack me up.

Cycloptichorn

Finn de barking beagle wrote:

And here I thought a Kuvie/Finn detante might be possible. Silly me. How can Kuvie maintain his image as the Lefty Cruise Missle without countering Finn on an ad hominem basis?

Actually, you're slipping.

To suggest (as I did) that lesbians and animated snowman are hardly "average Americans," is a far far cry from asserting they are "too tough." (Whatever the hell that means).

But, clearly, logic and reason has no influence on the Kuvie rant. Instead, it's all about The Bile.

Partisan assasin---fine. There is certainly room within A2K for such characters. Trouble is that this is all shite, and if it were not, your flawed efforts at whacking someone on the Right would have left you stone cold dead. You're just not good enough.

Oh dear, sounds like penis envy from you again young man, or is it yet another anguished cry from the sensitive Right Wing about their victimhood? Cry me a river. Your partisanship precedes you like the odor of a pile of horse excrement. A practicing whore crying rape wouldn't be funnier than you crying foul.

True Kuvie prose: a florid bouquet with a fetid aroma ( and add a generous spray of base sexual and/or scatological reference for the sake of Kuvazian art.)

You can make all the loopy, hand-waving, tooth sucking excuses you want about your buddies but the fact remains, like George Bush before them the Republican candidates are congenital liars, whose bunkum could not bear critical examination from average American people, lesbians, albino dwarfs, and one-armed animators included. Yet, you lap up their mendacity like a dog licks up its own vomit and bark for more.


As you continue in your quest for public humiliation your own ad hominum and strawman arguments show an almost fanatical attachment and blind devotion to those who stimulate the worst in human nature, and perhaps where you see it proudly as the source of all your virtue and strength, I see it as delusional and dangerous to rational human beings.

If you want détente, grow a brain. I've given up on you having a soul.

The smell of skunk cabbage permeates the cyber-room. Clearly I made a mistake and assumed, base upon a rare Kuvie fit of sanity, that you are capable of discourse. I'll not repeat that mistake.

Ode de-Finn

"We know him well
He cannot tell
Untrue or groundless tales,
He always tries
To utter lies
And everytime he fails"

kuvasz wrote:

Ode de-Finn

"We know him well
He cannot tell
Untrue or groundless tales,
He always tries
To utter lies
And everytime he fails"

I left off of this for a week or so with the expectation that returning to the scene once or twice might result in illumination.

Nope.

Just more of glib Kuvy.