I wouldnt know the real statistics of voters and such, but around the 2k elections, my opinion as to why the younger age group jumped up to the polls was that… we dont like Bush…. and yet he still won. twice.

I will be turning 18 in January 2008, and I am not a “presumably apathetic” young person. As an upcoming first-time voter in the 2008 presidential election, I feel that the MySpace/MTV candidate chats will be another useful outlet to educate young voters, like myself, in a convenient and accessible fashion.

In response to Kyle’s post, I do not feel that these events will turn the “presidential race into a popularity contest” among “a wide and honestly ignorant audience”. Age has no correspondence to ignorance; unfortunately, there are innumerable mature American voters who vote blindly year by year, based solely on partisan alliance.

I hope that this venue introduces both lesser- and well-known candidates to young voters and encourages them to do their own research of candidates and issues. As Craig says, “any and all efforts to foster their participation should be encouraged,” and this is an attempt to connect with young voters that should be recieved with open minds and ears.

I love news and humor, and I thought the title was great!

I didn’t see any antagonism toward these debates, and I didn’t think the article was misleading.

When two fluff houses like MTV and MySpace come together to ‘educate’ young people, some ribbing is in order. I too look forward to the day when young people will will make their voices heard at the polls.

Hi, David S., thanks for the comment. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. A few people have said they didn’t like the headline; it was an attempt at a joke and perhaps it failed. But for the record: I’m NOT antagonistic toward the MySpace/MTV events, not at all. If anything, I think the ability for viewers of those events to participate in real time gives them, potentially, an edge over the CNN/YouTube debates. In my view, everything that encourages public political conversation is welcome, and I don’t see the two efforts as competitors.

This editorial is clearly antagonistic towards the MTV/MySpace debates because they are in direct competition with the CNN/YouTube debates. The title insults young readers by implying that they are immature for watching the MTV/MySpace debates, as opposed to the CNN/YouTube debates.
The author fails to make his argument because his audience can easily see his motivation for the low blow against the competition.

What is this? Is the title supposed to draw in a younger audience? I find it an unprofessional attempt at humor. I want the gist of the story and not a blatant attempt at drawing in minors such as myself. I know this comment comes off as immature, yet I come to CNN for NEWS, not “witty” and truly annoying titles. Well, that’s enough of my rant on the title. Back to the story. I don’t believe that making presidential candidates visible to a wide and honestly ignorant audience can help in the long-term. It might raise voting rates, but does the U.S. actually require uninformed voters? It will be the same way that Arnold S… was voted into office, on name recognition alone. Young people (myself included) need to be informed on matters of government before casting a vote, and turning the presidential race into a popularity contest in the vein of cliques at high school is not the correct way to undertake this.

“not especially successful vice-presidential nominee”

hmm…was that really necessary?

It wasn’t “hip” or “cool”…just plain demeaning.

I’m surprised the first Myspace townhall is with John Edwards after the raucous he created about Rupert Murdoch, the Fox News debates, and the WSJ acquisition.

Who’s the moderator? Sean Hannity?

Thanks! That’s the first time I’ve seen an author reply, and I appreciate it. I can’t really speak for the 80’s and 90’s since I turned 18 1999, but I’m sure your right. It doesn’t seam very relevant thought since the current crop of 18-24 year olds, like me, aren’t the 18-24 year old of then (obviously).

It just seams to me that the media will put the negative spin on young voter turn out regardless of the stats. I remember in 04 when voter turn out of 18-24 year olds was significantly up (as you stated). At the time though the news story on the trend was that all of the “rock the vote” efforts had no effect. Their reasoning was that the percentage of the pie remained the same due to the increased turn out across the board.

At the time this stuck me as unfair. More so because everyone that I knew was very engaged in the campaign and the issues were very important to me and my 18-24 year old classmates and friends. By the way, this is coming from a normal 26 year old citizen, I’m not a political volunteer, partisan, or otherwise special case–Just a guy who watches and reads the news, and I can tell you its not just the war, though that is the biggest factor. The environment, energy policy, and the coming financial crisis are all acutely important to young voters.

Craig: Thanks for the comment and I take your point but let’s be clear on this: Prior to the 2004 election, the trend line for youth voting was very starkly downward. That’s why I argued that those efforts from the ’80s and ’90s - which I suppported - had no effect. I suppose one could argue that the 2004 result is a cumulative result of those earlier efforts, but I think that’s a stretch. I think it’s largely the war.

So, we start with, “…efforts that seemed like admirable ideas with little tangible effect.” and then outline the upward trend of participation that is actually quite tangible? Nice.

Media efforts to discredit the young voter are either grossly cynical, or overt efforts to maintain the status quo. Either way, it is a disservice to the process and is ultimately swimming against the tide. The young people of this country will be needed to create the required change, and any and all efforts to foster their participation should be encouraged. “…but it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the issues seem more urgent than at any point in decades.” – absolutely!

OMG! Like, what a terrible frickin’ title for an article! WTH u no?

^ Note, sarcasm.

Like, why don’t we insult those who may have read Money in the past! YAH! Kewl yo.

Way to be guys, way to be.