Posted on 03/11/2017 11:34:00 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Jiebo Luo and Yu Wang did not set out to predict who would win the 2016 U.S. presidential election. However, their exhaustive, 14-month study of each candidate’s Twitter followers–enabled by machine learning and other data science tools–offers tantalizing clues as to why the race turned out the way it did.
“We wanted to understand how each of the candidate’s campaigns evolved, and be able to explain why someone won or lost,” says Luo, an associate professor of computer science.
Luo and Wang, a dual PhD candidate in political and computer science, summarized their findings in eight papers during the course of the campaign, including these observations: •The more Donald Trump tweeted, the faster his following grew–even after he performed poorly in debates against other Republican candidates, and even after he sparked controversies, such as proposing a ban on Muslim immigration. (Read the paper.) •When Trump accused Hillary Clinton of playing the “woman card,” women were more likely to follow Clinton and less likely to “un-follow” her during the week that followed. But it did not affect the gender composition of Trump followers. (Read the paper.) •Moreover, a “gender affinity effect” seen in other elections–women tending to vote for women–did not appear to be working for Clinton as the primaries drew to a close. The percentage of female Twitter followers in the Clinton camp was no larger than that in the Trump camp. Moreover, though “un-followers” were more likely to be female for both candidates, the phenomenon was “particularly pronounced” for Clinton....
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencebulletin.org ...
They don’t seem to realize that many of Clinton’s twitter followers were fake.
Women are women’s worst enemies. Men’s too. Women should not be leaders, as a rule.
Hey now. I would think you’d exempt conservative women from your leadership ban.
As a rule. All rules have rare exceptions.
Interesting graphs at the site. The male / female ratio of Twitter followers for all the Republican candidates is remarkably consistent at about 60 / 40.
The big question which I’ve never seen polled...do people who brag or hype on GOP or Democrat candidates...actually show up to vote (stats for males and females). I think in 2008 and 2012...there were a fair number of people who showed up....who traditionally never voted. But for 2016? Unknown. That’s the kind of investigation that I’d like to see.
...”Women are women’s worst enemies. Men’s too. Women should not be leaders, as a rule.”...
I am a woman, Az Joe, and I totally agree with you. Women, over all, are enslaved by female hormones and when those go, no amount of replacement works to make us smarter or more capable. To be sure, some women are very smart, but emotions rule and staying power in tough situations is just not like what you find in the male. Also, women tend to be very jealous of one another and covert with their nastiness. Fairness usually is not a value when envy exists. While women in the workplace should be treated fairly, getting ahead simply because you have a radical feminist organization behind you hurts all of us. If we could just let men be men and women be women for one year, we would see this world change for the better in almost every way you can imagine. We would be much safer and very much happier.
Vaginalized Hillary was not a good sell.
She hadn't used her vagina in years....always standing by her man (gag).
Most women would have kicked the crap out of Bill Clinton after Paula Jones and the rest....and after he got lewinskied.
Women saw through her act......"standing by her man" was her ticket to power (so she thought).
2 words: Margaret Thatcher.
I am a woman, Az Joe, and I totally agree with you. ...
++++
Nice post jazzlite, an exceptionally thoughtful post.
Particularly the bit about letting men be men and women be women. How refreshing that would be. Right on the mark.
Margaret Thatcher
And I hate to break it those researchers, but you didn’t need a PhD to figure this out. Just an open mind, decent observational skills, and some common sense.
I think the vast majority of "polls" are not trying to figure out anything but are trying to influence the sheep to "like" and support whatever the pollster is being paid to conjure. If people are told "this is popular" the will want to be a part of it.
Madison avenue and K street are trying to sell you.
Well, Madison Ave and K St are doing a pi$$ poor job in my case. :-)
“Kuckabee” LOL
Of course, Hillary's campaign tactics completely failed her, especially her total reliance on just a few states and her arrogance in ignoring the advice of Paul Begala, James Carville and her own husband!
Voters that never voted before... Trump kept referencing that segment of voters all the way up to the convention in his rallies.. No way for the pollsters to poll ‘virgin’ voters... Thus their poll results were off. But the republican candidates knew full well that Trump kept gaining ground on the other 16, which is why Rick Wilson went into full destroy Trump mode... last January 2016. The GOPe fully expected Trump to self-destruct all the way up to election day.. Some of them did everything they could to make Hillry Clinton, the wicked witch of the West, president.
Enthusiasm and good ground game work together to determine who actually votes “at the margins”.
Enthusiasm generates ground game volunteers as well as people more likely to vote. Lack of enthusiasm depresses ground game volunteers.
Ground game volunteers can be trained or untrained, effective or not effective. Obama’s volunteers were extremely enthusiastic and well trained and very effective.
In both 08 and 16 Clinton’s volunteers were mostly lacking in enthusiasm. They were just going through the motions.
Trump’s volunteers had enthusiasm. But (as with their candidate) they turned off many they could have turned on if they knew how to be more effective. For example, in Georgia’s Republican Loudermilk and Price congressional districts many Republicans voted for Clinton. I suspect in a state that Trump lost closely such as MN the same is true.
One important role of the ground game is to personalize the campaign. The Reagan type candidate whose personality is super attractive is rare. Most candidates have a personality that is not attractive to some people. Trump is certainly one whose personality is works both ways.
The role of the Trump volunteer should have included winning over those voters who were turned off by Trump’s unique personality.
In short, Trump had the potential to do 5% better than he did against Clinton.
In future elections for local and state office many good candidates will need a much better ground game than Trump had. Many left wing candidates will have a better personality than Clinton and will be harder to beat than Clinton.
Very wise woman.
I believe voting would have remained in the hands of men were it not for the rise of progressivism and Socialism in 1912. Nineteen thirteen was a particulary bad year in our history with the passage of the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments as well as the central bank in the form of the Federal Reserve also a function of the progressive movement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.