Twitter Buzz Survey: New Mexico

Posted on June 6, 2012 by Ben Grivno

Our Buzz Survey show who Twitter is talking about, not necessarily who Twitter supports. However, the conversation gravitates to the topic or person perceived as most important and drifts away from the least important. Subsequently, the Buzz Tracker can predict a rise or fall in polls.

Methods are discussed below. Trend lines have been included.

New Mexico

Methods: Tweets mentioning the candidates’ @screen_names are collected using the Twitter API and designated either a mention or a retweet. Only tweets containing the @screen_name are considered and only actual mentions are used – retweets are excluded. Next we correct for spammers and overly-enthusiastic supporters who might otherwise affect the outcome. Then, we calculate the percentage of total mentions each candidate has received for the day and the results are put in a graph spanning 14 days.

Why mentions only? Mentions are an indication of importance – a portion of the conversation is inevitably drawn to each candidate in order of their perceived importance.

State polls by nature include less data than the national polls. Less data leads to significantly wider day-to-day variance  so we display linear trend lines for ease of interpretation.

Posted in Poll, Survey, Tracking | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Twitter Buzz Survey: Nevada

Posted on June 6, 2012 by Ben Grivno

Our Buzz Survey show who Twitter is talking about, not necessarily who Twitter supports. However, the conversation gravitates to the topic or person perceived as most important and drifts away from the least important. Subsequently, the Buzz Tracker can predict a rise or fall in polls.

Methods are discussed below. Trend lines have been included.

Nevada

Methods: Tweets mentioning the candidates’ @screen_names are collected using the Twitter API and designated either a mention or a retweet. Only tweets containing the @screen_name are considered and only actual mentions are used – retweets are excluded. Next we correct for spammers and overly-enthusiastic supporters who might otherwise affect the outcome. Then, we calculate the percentage of total mentions each candidate has received for the day and the results are put in a graph spanning 14 days.

Why mentions only? Mentions are an indication of importance – a portion of the conversation is inevitably drawn to each candidate in order of their perceived importance.

State polls by nature include less data than the national polls. Less data leads to significantly wider day-to-day variance  so we display linear trend lines for ease of interpretation.

Posted in Poll, Survey, Tracking | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Twitter Buzz Survey: Iowa

Posted on June 5, 2012 by Ben Grivno

Our Buzz Survey show who Twitter is talking about, not necessarily who Twitter supports. However, the conversation gravitates to the topic or person perceived as most important and drifts away from the least important. Subsequently, the Buzz Tracker can predict a rise or fall in polls.

Methods are discussed below. Trend lines have been included.

Iowa

Methods: Tweets mentioning the candidates’ @screen_names are collected using the Twitter API and designated either a mention or a retweet. Only tweets containing the @screen_name are considered and only actual mentions are used – retweets are excluded. Next we correct for spammers and overly-enthusiastic supporters who might otherwise affect the outcome. Then, we calculate the percentage of total mentions each candidate has received for the day and the results are put in a graph spanning 14 days.

Why mentions only? Mentions are an indication of importance – a portion of the conversation is inevitably drawn to each candidate in order of their perceived importance.

State polls by nature include less data than the national polls. Less data leads to significantly wider day-to-day variance  so we display linear trend lines for ease of interpretation.

Posted in Poll, Survey, Tracking | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Twitter Buzz Survey: Wisconsin Recall

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Ben Grivno

Our Buzz Survey show who Twitter is talking about, not necessarily who Twitter supports. However, the conversation gravitates to the topic or person perceived as most important and drifts away from the least important. Subsequently, the Buzz Tracker can predict a rise or fall in polls.

Methods are discussed below. Trend lines have been included.

Wisconsin Recall: Walker vs. Barrett

Methods: Tweets mentioning the candidates’ @screen_names are collected using the Twitter API and designated either a mention or a retweet. Only tweets containing the @screen_name are considered and only actual mentions are used – retweets are excluded. Next we correct for spammers and overly-enthusiastic supporters who might otherwise affect the outcome. Then, we calculate the percentage of total mentions each candidate has received for the day and the results are put in a graph spanning 14 days.

Why mentions only? Mentions are an indication of importance – a portion of the conversation is inevitably drawn to each candidate in order of their perceived importance.

State polls by nature include less data than the national polls. Less data leads to significantly wider day-to-day variance  so we display linear trend lines for ease of interpretation.

Posted in Poll, Survey, Tracking | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Twitter Buzz Survey: Wisconsin Recall National

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Ben Grivno

Our Buzz Survey show who Twitter is talking about, not necessarily who Twitter supports. However, the conversation gravitates to the topic or person perceived as most important and drifts away from the least important. Subsequently, the Buzz Tracker can predict a rise or fall in polls.

Methods are discussed below. Trend lines have been included.

Wisconsin Recall: Walker vs. Barrett (National)

Methods: Tweets mentioning the candidates’ @screen_names are collected using the Twitter API and designated either a mention or a retweet. Only tweets containing the @screen_name are considered and only actual mentions are used – retweets are excluded. Next we correct for spammers and overly-enthusiastic supporters who might otherwise affect the outcome. Then, we calculate the percentage of total mentions each candidate has received for the day and the results are put in a graph spanning 14 days.

Why mentions only? Mentions are an indication of importance – a portion of the conversation is inevitably drawn to each candidate in order of their perceived importance.

State polls by nature include less data than the national polls. Less data leads to significantly wider day-to-day variance  so we display linear trend lines for ease of interpretation.

Posted in Poll, Survey, Tracking | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Announcing Our Exclusive Agreement for 1-Click Twitter Political Fundraising

Posted on June 1, 2012 by Ben Grivno

At Digital Acumen we provide our clients with excellent service and valuable services. In that spirit, we are pleased to announce a new strategic partnership with Twitter commerce platform provider Chirpify. Digital Acumen has agreed to be the exclusive and sole provider of Chirpify political fundraising services, Enterprise Edition, in the United States.

Fundraising on Twitter has already proven very effective, but Chirpify makes donating even more convenient for donors. Chirpify gives the ability to manage fundraising in a timely manner, allowing fundraisers to take advantage of events as they unfold. Chirpify’s intuitive dashboard makes managing fundraising initiatives on Twitter a snap.

For more information:

Introduction to Digital Acumen

1-Click Twitter Fundraising

Getting Started With Chirpify

 

Posted in Announcements | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Twitter Buzz Survey: Colorado

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Ben Grivno

Our Buzz Survey show who Twitter is talking about, not necessarily who Twitter supports. However, the conversation gravitates to the topic or person perceived as most important and drifts away from the least important. Subsequently, the Buzz Tracker can predict a rise or fall in polls.

Methods are discussed below. Trend lines have been included.

Colorado

Methods: Tweets mentioning the candidates’ @screen_names are collected using the Twitter API and designated either a mention or a retweet. Only tweets containing the @screen_name are considered and only actual mentions are used – retweets are excluded. Next we correct for spammers and overly-enthusiastic supporters who might otherwise affect the outcome. Then, we calculate the percentage of total mentions each candidate has received for the day and the results are put in a graph spanning 14 days.

Why mentions only? Mentions are an indication of importance – a portion of the conversation is inevitably drawn to each candidate in order of their perceived importance.

State polls by nature include less data than the national polls. Less data leads to significantly wider day-to-day variance  so we display linear trend lines for ease of interpretation.

Posted in Poll, Survey, Tracking | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Twitter Buzz Survey: Wisconsin

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Ben Grivno

Our Buzz Survey show who Twitter is talking about, not necessarily who Twitter supports. However, the conversation gravitates to the topic or person perceived as most important and drifts away from the least important. Subsequently, the Buzz Tracker can predict a rise or fall in polls.

Methods are discussed below. Trend lines have been included.

Wisconsin

Methods: Tweets mentioning the candidates’ @screen_names are collected using the Twitter API and designated either a mention or a retweet. Only tweets containing the @screen_name are considered and only actual mentions are used – retweets are excluded. Next we correct for spammers and overly-enthusiastic supporters who might otherwise affect the outcome. Then, we calculate the percentage of total mentions each candidate has received for the day and the results are put in a graph spanning 14 days.

Why mentions only? Mentions are an indication of importance – a portion of the conversation is inevitably drawn to each candidate in order of their perceived importance.

State polls by nature include less data than the national polls. Less data leads to significantly wider day-to-day variance  so we display linear trend lines for ease of interpretation.

Posted in Poll, Survey, Tracking | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Twitter Buzz Survey: Missouri

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Ben Grivno

Our Buzz Survey show who Twitter is talking about, not necessarily who Twitter supports. However, the conversation gravitates to the topic or person perceived as most important and drifts away from the least important. Subsequently, the Buzz Tracker can predict a rise or fall in polls.

Methods are discussed below. Trend lines have been included.

Missouri

Methods: Tweets mentioning the candidates’ @screen_names are collected using the Twitter API and designated either a mention or a retweet. Only tweets containing the @screen_name are considered and only actual mentions are used – retweets are excluded. Next we correct for spammers and overly-enthusiastic supporters who might otherwise affect the outcome. Then, we calculate the percentage of total mentions each candidate has received for the day and the results are put in a graph spanning 14 days.

Why mentions only? Mentions are an indication of importance – a portion of the conversation is inevitably drawn to each candidate in order of their perceived importance.

State polls by nature include less data than the national polls. Less data leads to significantly wider day-to-day variance  so we display linear trend lines for ease of interpretation.

Posted in Poll, Survey, Tracking | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Twitter Buzz Survey: Virginia

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Ben Grivno

Our Buzz Survey show who Twitter is talking about, not necessarily who Twitter supports. However, the conversation gravitates to the topic or person perceived as most important and drifts away from the least important. Subsequently, the Buzz Tracker can predict a rise or fall in polls.

Methods are discussed below. Trend lines have been included.

Virginia

Methods: Tweets mentioning the candidates’ @screen_names are collected using the Twitter API and designated either a mention or a retweet. Only tweets containing the @screen_name are considered and only actual mentions are used – retweets are excluded. Next we correct for spammers and overly-enthusiastic supporters who might otherwise affect the outcome. Then, we calculate the percentage of total mentions each candidate has received for the day and the results are put in a graph spanning 14 days.

Why mentions only? Mentions are an indication of importance – a portion of the conversation is inevitably drawn to each candidate in order of their perceived importance.

State polls by nature include less data than the national polls. Less data leads to significantly wider day-to-day variance  so we display linear trend lines for ease of interpretation.

Posted in Poll, Survey, Tracking | Tagged , , | Leave a comment