Tweets Can Foretell Votes, Study Finds

National Journal
Alex Roarty
Aug. 12, 2013, 2:29 p.m.

Who needs polls? A study pub­lished Monday re­ports that cam­paigns could use Twit­ter to suc­cess­fully pre­dict the win­ner of most races, find­ings that might bol­ster the so­cial me­dia ser­vice’s already ro­bust polit­ic­al pres­ence.

The key meas­ure, re­search­ers from In­di­ana Uni­versity found, was a can­did­ate’s “tweet share,” the per­cent­age of total tweets about a race that men­tion them. The more of­ten a can­did­ate is men­tioned on Twit­ter re­l­at­ive to their op­pon­ent, the study re­por­ted, the great­er their chance for vic­tory.

The find­ings were com­pre­hens­ive: An ana­lys­is of tweets from the 2010 midterm elec­tions found the data cor­rectly pre­dicted the win­ner in 404 of the 406 House races.

“We plot­ted it and thought, ‘Holy moly, it was a very strong cor­rel­a­tion,’ ” said Fa­bio Ro­jas, a so­ci­ology pro­fess­or at In­di­ana and one of the study’s coau­thors. He ad­ded that pre­lim­in­ary ana­lys­is of last year’s con­gres­sion­al elec­tions show sim­il­ar res­ults.

The find­ings rest on two im­port­ant points: The raw num­ber of tweets about a can­did­ate doesn’t mat­ter, and neither does wheth­er the tweets are pos­it­ive or neg­at­ive. Ro­jas and his col­leagues, who col­lec­ted hun­dreds of thou­sands of tweets from the 2010 race, ini­tially meas­ured the total num­ber of times the can­did­ate was men­tioned, but the find­ings failed to cor­rel­ate with which can­did­ate won. Well-known can­did­ates, like Rep. Michele Bach­mann, R-Minn., or can­did­ates from big­ger and wealth­i­er dis­tricts would in­her­ently re­ceive more at­ten­tion.

It was then, Ro­jas said, they real­ized that what mattered was the Twit­ter “horse race,” or the num­ber of tweets a can­did­ate earns vis-à-vis his or her op­pon­ent. Just as the can­did­ates would com­pete for a lim­ited per­cent­age of the vote, they would also com­pete for a lim­ited per­cent­age of the total Twit­ter traffic.

Per­haps most in­ter­est­ing, wheth­er the tweet praised or cri­ti­cized the re­cip­i­ent was ir­rel­ev­ant. When it comes to Twit­ter and politi­cians, ap­par­ently all pub­li­city really is good pub­li­city.

“Are you go­ing to talk about the guy who loses or the guy who wins?” Ro­jas asked. “You’re go­ing to talk about the win­ner, even if you hate the win­ner.”

He ad­ded that al­though cam­paigns could seem­ingly skew the res­ults by pay­ing so­cial me­dia dir­ect­ors to tweet or by ask­ing vo­lun­teers to pitch in, such a prob­lem has not yet aris­en. Such ef­forts are usu­ally can­celed out by sim­il­ar ac­tion taken by their rival, he said.

In Ro­jas’s view, the find­ings should re­vo­lu­tion­ize how cam­paigns con­duct them­selves. Rather than spend­ing hun­dreds of thou­sands, or even mil­lions, of dol­lars on sur­veys, cam­paigns could simply gauge their status on Twit­ter. That should help cam­paigns with few­er re­sources com­pete with well-heeled in­cum­bents, he said.

“The point is, it’s cheap,” he said. “Once you start up soft­ware for col­lect­ing tweets, it’s very cheap. It took one of my Ph.D. stu­dents a couple of weeks to set it up.”

Of course, pro­fes­sion­al polling isn’t likely to dis­ap­pear from polit­ics any time soon. For one, it’s used for more than just the horse race — cam­paigns test a vari­ety of things with polls, in­clud­ing their mes­sage. Twit­ter doesn’t of­fer help that way. And few politi­cians would be will­ing to switch off from a battle-tested poll­ster in fa­vor of a tech­no­logy un­proven in the heat of a crit­ic­al race.

But Twit­ter is also of­ten de­rided as a hangout for polit­ic­al and me­dia elites, pro­du­cing a de­bate that bears little re­semb­lance to the thoughts and opin­ions of most voters. This study sug­gests that the so­cial me­dia out­let does provide an ac­cur­ate re­flec­tion of the elect­or­ate.

Guy Har­ris­on, a former ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al Com­mit­tee, said he’d have to see a Twit­ter ana­lys­is pro­duce ac­cur­ate res­ults in a com­pet­it­ive race be­fore put­ting his faith in it. But the ser­vice’s im­port­ance to the polit­ic­al de­bate, he said, is bey­ond ques­tion at this point.

“So­cial me­dia and di­git­al me­dia across the board is here to stay, and it’s go­ing to be here a long time,” he said.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4382) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
16 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
17 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
18 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
20 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
22 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×