The NYT’s has a interesting interactive graphical piece — “The Election Will Be Tweeted (and Retweeted)” — looking at the tweetstream by candidate’s name:

>

click for interactive graphic

Category: Digital Media, Politics

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

3 Responses to “Tweeting the Election”

  1. Bill in SF says:

    Click the play button; but don’t stare at it too long… It may cause blindness or temporary insanity.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/politics/2010-twitter-candidates.html/index.html#detail/jerrybrown2010–whitman2010/1288378400000

  2. diogeron says:

    Not being a fan of Twitter, allow me to pose this hypothesis: There is negative correlation between the number of “tweets” sent by a politician and their attention span. That is, the more incapable one is of construction a serious argument, along with supporting data to support the thesis of that argument, the more likely one is to find Twitter an attractive mode of communication. As a correlative, let me suggest that the same thing applies to their “audience.” That is, the shorter the attention span and the more incapable a person is of actually taking the time to read a sustained policy argument and apply one’s critical thinking skills to assess the validity of the argument, the more likely one is to find Twitter an attractive mode of communication.

    What do you think?

  3. Julia Chestnut says:

    Dude, how many of us are even old enough to know that this is a pun on “the revolution will not be televised?”

    Feeling a tad despondent this morning. Voted, though.