Thursday, June 28, 2007

Media Polls vs. Online Rankings, 2008 Presidential Candidates

I read this article about the impact of the internet on the 2008 presidential election, about how the internet is coming to be to the 2008 election what television was to Kennedy in 1960. I was impressed that the author mentioned Howard Dean's 2003 rise on the internet, when this analogy first surfaced, and felt confident that Ron Paul's internet presence would receive his just notice as well. Not so.

That prompted me to consider just how close all the offline media polls are tracking with the online activity of our favorite candidates. After several hours of digging around in the data, I present to you: more charts. Charts reflecting the offline media poll rankings of each candidate among his or her party, and comparing the data to the respective candidate's online rankings. So here we go.

The charts below compare the offline media polling numbers to the online world rankings for each candidate in their party. The first one shows the offline media poll rankings for Democrats during the month of June, 2007. As you can see, it's pretty consistently Clinton-Obama-Edwards in that order, with Clinton hitting the upper 30s-lower 40s, Obama hovering in the mid-20s, Edwards in the mid-10s, Richardson getting an anemic 5% average and Kucinich down around the 2-3% mark as usual.

Now look at their online rankings (below). The three frontrunners are still frontrunners just in differing orders, and the second tier candidates are showing second-tier rankings. Obama and Edwards seem to be vying for the lead with an occassional spike by Clinton. Notice both Biden's and Richardson's online rankings track pretty closely with the offline media polls, but they're the only two candidates to do so among Democrats. It may not be very obvious on this chart, but while Kucinich is ranked down in the 2-3 point range in offline polling, he's achieving somewhere around 10-15% penetration in online Democratic markets. Overall there is not much discrepancy to worry about at this point.

Now let's look at the Republican candidates (below), starting with the offline media poll numbers. Giuliani is solidly out front, with F. Thompson and McCain battling it out for second place. Poor Romney seems to be straddling the second-tier ditch, not quite in the upper ranks but doing a few solid points better than the actual second-tier contenders.

Something is radically askew here. As you can see from the Democratic candidate numbers, the online rankings are off, but not so terribly much that you're in another world. Here, we enter a whole other world. Suddenly the frontrunners are no longer frontrunners, and several second-tier candidates leap into the fore with heightened internet activity. Take a look at the GOP candidates' online rankings.

Ron Paul literally blows the rest of the candidates away, across the board, with second-tier straddler Mitt Romney and only one alleged front-runner, John McCain, coming within spitball range of Paul's online position. Could this possibly portend a showdown between McCain, Paul and Romney in the primaries?

I would expect small deviations like we see in the Democrat numbers to be normal as the world settles in comfortably to the internet age, but nothing so radical as an almost complete flip of the numbers like we see here. Why such a startling discrepancy between media polls and online rankings among the GOP candidates? What is it among republican voters that could cause this sort of chaos in the numbers? I've heard all the cellphone-landline arguments and don't buy it, not when the Democrats have a relatively smooth support transition from media polls to the internet. So what it is, really?

Thursday, June 21, 2007

GOP Candidates YouTube Stats - 06/21/07

First day of summer and the campaigns are heating up!

Here are the new YouTube internals for the frontrunner GOP candidates. It's pretty self-explanatory, but you may want to see the previous entries to see how the YouTube data is being used, and why. A discussion on the outlier data can be found here.

First up, the cumulative video views: the total views for all videos uploaded by each candidate's campaign (inspired by TechPresident's TubeMogul data).

Next are the cumulatives for user behavior at each candidate's videos: # of videos uploaded, Comments, Ratings, and candidate Subscribers.

Removing the outlier data, we get a more accurate picture of genuine support for each candidate, based on the averages of the data associated with each candidate. Here are the average views, comments and ratings per video to show you who among the frontrunners has the most solid support on YouTube.

Analysis: Ron Paul maintains his lead in all categories, as if you need me to tell you that. Among the others, why is Giuliani even in this race? ALL second tier candidates will surpass his numbers in just a few weeks. McCain doesn't appear to be doing much better, though he has started spitting our more videos in the last week. Will it help or hurt him? And does Romney love looking at himself or what? I mean, 187 videos? Nobody cares enough to watch 187 campaign commercials of anybody, I don't care who they are.

As in the previous post, included below are the graphs showing growth in user activity for each candidate since May 22. Some of this gets into minutiae that may not be very useful, but until that becomes apparent, here they are again.
Channel ViewsCumulative RatingsCumulative Comments
Cumulative ViewsSubscribersRatings Averages
Comments AveragesViews Averages

Previous entries:
June 11, 2007: GOP Candidate YouTube Stats - 06/11/07
June 2, 2007: GOP Candidate YouTube Stats, Charts (Followup)
May 22, 2007: About those Youtube Stats...

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

42 Ron Paul Revolution banners

No more Ron Paul Revolution Banners available.

As of January 1, 2008, I have 42 38 37 24 0 extra "Ron Paul Revolution" Banners, 64" x 36" in size, made per the instructions at (Tyvek HomeWrap Plastic sheeting, Corplast stencil, spray paint lettering, 4 grommets each). The materials ran me close to $250 for everything just to make a few banners for our group, and I'd like to recover some of that cost. So, for each $50 donation to my blog, I'll send you four of these banners in a 36" tube via USPS priority mail to domestic US addresses only, no international shipping (sorry). Shipping is included in the $50 donation, nothing extra is necessary.

(If you just want one banner, since the shipping costs run about $8-10 per 36" tube, I'm asking a minimum donation of $20 from you in order to receive a single banner).

NOTE: this offer expires when the banners are gone. I will update the quantity of banners available on this page as donations are received.

After your donation, make sure to email me your postal mailing address in order to receive the banner, and thank you for your contribution. Use this link to donate through the Amazon Honor System. You can reach me at amccac(at) with any questions or comments.

Monday, June 11, 2007

GOP Candidate YouTube Stats - 06/11/07

Well now, we've got a new contender in the "GOP Frontrunner" analysis of the GOP candidate internal stats at Mike Huckabee. Seems this secord-tier candidate is doing something right at the popular video sharing site to give frontrunner Giuliani a run for his money. Take a look at the charts:

These represent the cumulative stats for each candidate across all of the videos they've uploaded to their official YouTube page, first looking at just the cumulative number of views (inspired by's TubeMogul charts), followed by the cumulative number of comments and ratings for all videos per candidate with the number of videos, channel views and subscribers to each candidate. (Click the charts to view fullsize)

Once again, we'll throw away the outlier video data (see below for outlier explanation) because these reflect unusually heavy traffic resulting in lopsided averages that tend to skew the loyalty depth for each candidate, and that's what we're trying to gage: candidate loyalty and support. For example, take a look at how the single outlier video impacts the total views for each candidate's videos:

Once we subtract the outlier data from the cumulative totals, we get a better view of the regular support each candidate has achieved at YouTube.

That's all for this week's data. I want to take a minute just to go back and look at the growth over the last month, using the charts I created with the data that was current for each interval. I'll convert these to graphs later this evening.

Update - here are the graphs showing growth in user activity for each candidate since May 22. Some of this gets into minutiae that may not be very useful, but until that becomes apparent, here they are.
Channel ViewsCumulative RatingsCumulative Comments
Cumulative ViewsSubscribersRatings Averages
Comments AveragesViews Averages

It appears all of the candidates are enjoying steady growth in their loyal support base, except Giuliani. His numbers actually seem to be falling, but it's too early to tell what might be causing this. I suspect the Giuliani campaign isn't putting as much effort into internet campaigning as the other candidates seem to be doing. If that's true, will it hurt him in the campaign overall? The internet community is proving itself to be a significant influence on the success of each candidate, and it's becoming a common rule of the political game to exploit the internet for its maximum benefit. Is the Giuliani campaign slacking off or are his supporters souring on his message? Too soon to tell.

Previous posts:
June 2, 2007: GOP Candidate YouTube Stats, Charts (Followup)
May 22, 2007: About those Youtube Stats...

Update II - June 12, 2007
Several people have asked how I obtained the data and how the outliers were determined so here is what I did.

I signed up for a developer's account at Youtube, giving me access to tons of xml-formatted data that can be downloaded into any xml-compatible application. I then downloaded the user stats for each candidate into Excel to manage the data and generate charts.

To determine how much of a following each candidate has, you have to look at his averages instead of his cumulatives. When one video receives an abnormal amount of traffic, the averages you get for each video, including the one with the abnormal traffic, are not truly representative of the activity directed toward that candidate. For example, if you look at this Excel screen grab for the Youtube data for Duncan Hunter, the negative impact of outliers becomes very apparent.

He has 17 videos in his channel, his cumulative video views equal 353,271, and one of these videos has received 293,862 views. When you include this outlier data in the averages, Hunter's video view average is 20,781 per video. However, given that none of his remaining 16 videos have received more than 8,522 views, this 20,781 average is a false representation of the breadth of his supporters. Therefore this outlier data is set aside in the calculation of user averages to get a more accurate representation of his support.

As I explained in my first post, most of the candidates in frontrunner status at Youtube (as originally defined by had one video that blew all the others away for reasons that are impossible to attribute solely to user devotion. It is likely these individual videos and their unusually high traffic numbers were the result of YouTube's spotlight effort, or the possibility that it was embedded on a high-traffic website for automatic viewing each time the page was loaded, without regard to viewer interest in the video content itself. There is no way to know for certain whether these high traffic numbers were from genuine candidate support, from general public exposure which would include views from both friend and foe alike, or from the efforts of page-refresh scammers who use common tricks of the web to drive up the number of views on that video. To measure a candidate's genuine support, which is my primary concern, you have to look at how his other videos are treated and whether his information is being sought and viewed intentionally. For that reason, all of the candidates' averages for my analysis were calculated with the highest-traffic video data removed from the totals.

I hope this explains sufficiently how I arrived at the conclusions I did in these analyses.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

GOP Candidate Youtube Stats, Charts (Followup)

Following up on my original post, where we delve deeper into the Youtube internal statistics for each "frontrunner" as previously determined by, here are the updated charts to see how our candidates are doing at Youtube.

Using Youtube's API development feature saved alot of time gathering the stats automatically, but the "favorited" counts are not included in the data this process provides, so I've eliminated the favorites totals from the charts.

First we see the cumulative view totals for all videos uploaded by each campaign, which should be pretty consistent with TechPresident's TubeMogul data.

Below are the cumulatives reflecting user behavior across all videos per candidate.

As before, I've taken the liberty to throw out the individual video outlier for each candidate to smooth the averages to more realistic "loyalty" measurements. Here is how the cumulative totals look and how the outlier video impacts these totals.

The next two charts illustrate the per-video averages with the outlier data excluded. The averages are based on the cumulatives of the remaining videos for each candidate once the outlier data have been deducted from the totals. These averages are intended to reflect the loyalty and support each candidate has achieved during his tenure at Youtube.

I guess you don't need me to tell you who the winner is again this week. I'll try to make this a regular feature if scheduling permits.

Republicans must let go

Peggy Noonan asserts that immigration is the pivotal issue that turns the Republican Party leadership angrily toward its base in this WSJ opinion piece:

For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic--they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.


Anyone who has dissented against this administration's policies have been called everything from unpatriotic to supporters of terrorists. Where has Peggy Noonan been these last 6 years? Has she not been a member of the loyal press who expanded the scope of this administration's efforts to suppress dissent, the most common being frontal attacks on the patriotism of those courageous enough to vocalize their disagreements?

On March 19 2003, NRO published an opinion piece entitled "Unpatriotic Conservatives: A War against America" in which neocon propagandist David Frum attempts in one long tome to redefine conservative ideology and squelch the emerging pseudo-conservative criticism of Bush's war policies:
But the antiwar conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies. They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies.

Can Noonan not remember the culture of fear created and perpetuated by this administration's speech-chilling "You're Either With Us or You're With the Terrorists!" mantra, or the incessant insinuations that critics of Bush's policies were un-American?

Remember Ashcroft's 2001 preemption of all criticism regarding the War on Terror's impact on our cherished liberties by simply stating that anyone concerned about the loss of civil liberties were aiding terrorists and giving ammunition to our enemies?

And let's not forget what happens to the "girlie men" who dare to talk about economic policies in anything less than a favorable light, even as these leaders boldly (or I should say baldfaced-ly) proclaim, "If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican."

Everyone who had the courage to complain about the deficits, and to question government expansions, and express concerns about White House plans to invade Iraq, were unreservedly pummeled with every label from unpatriotic to anti-American, with Noonan and her peers on the front lines launching these broadsides.

To claim that immigration is the issue that finally brings out the leadership's attack dogs is flagrant dishonesty on Noonan's part.

"Would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens?" Would they indeed, Ms. Noonan. Welcome to life in the new America you helped construct.


While she accepts no responsibility for the role she played in empowering this administration, cheering endlessly as it strayed further and further from its conservative roots, Noonan does admit she began backing away from the administration a couple years ago. At last and with almost sheepish enthusiasm, she tries to persuade conservatives to realize how far the Bush Administration has dragged the Republican Party from its revered platform. Then to take the next, most painful step, and let go. Rejoin those conservatives who never grabbed hold in the first place.
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.

Whether her writings will display the introspection necessary to accept responsibility for her part in dividing the republican party is yet to be seen. But at least we now have in writing yet another rat who's jumped ship.

I guarantee you, once you latch onto a verifiably authentic conservative leader who will return your party to its roots, you'll have the good company of millions of Americans among whom you'll soothe your long journey home.

Friday, June 01, 2007

2003 WSJ Ad: A Republican Dissent

While researching another article I ran across this: A group of Republican business leaders placed a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal on January 14, 2003 called "A Republican Dissent on Iraq" (Emphasis mine)
A Republican Dissent on Iraq.

To President Bush, his advisors and the American People:

Let's be clear: We supported the Gulf War.

We supported our intervention in Afghanistan.

We accept the logic of a just war.

But Mr. President, your war on Iraq does not pass the test. It is not a just war.

The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions.

That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back.

War is the most extreme action a society can take. It can only be unleashed after exploring every other road. You have not explored all the roads.

How many young American lives will be lost in this dubious war? How many more innocent Iraqis will be killed and maimed and made homeless? Haven't they suffered enough, after two decades of terrible wars and sanctions?

Among the one billion Muslims in the world there is now a steady trickle of recruits going to al Qaeda. You will turn the trickle into a torrent.






And out of war may rise an Iraqi regime every bit as brutish as the present one. What will you do then? Our jaws drop when we read that you may decide we have to occupy Iraq for years, that the next ruler of Iraq may be ... an American general! Is there anyone who thinks that will work? Your odds of success are infinitesimal!

The world wants Saddam Hussein disarmed. But you must find a better way to do it. Why would you lead us into a situation where we are bound to fail?

You cannot keep proclaiming peace while preparing for war.

You are waltzing blindfolded into what may well be a catastrophe. Pride goeth before a fall. Show the humility and compassion that led us to elect you.

War with Iraq is not inevitable. Now is the time to stop it. Speak out at your place of worship, at your business, among your friends and relatives. Make your convictions known to your Mayor and Governor and -- above all -- to your elected leaders in Washington.

*Edward H. Hamm, Republican Regent, former Chairman, The Northland Company

*Richard S. Johnson, Founder, former CEO,

*Barbara Lifflander, President, Hastings Art Ltd.

*Huyler C. Held, Esq.

*John C. Haas, Rohm & Haas (Ret.)

*Howard S. Brembeck, Founder, CTB Inc., Chairman, Fourth Freedom Forum

*Betty B. Blauner

*Peter A. Benoliel, Chairman of the Executive Committee, Quaker Chemical Corporation

*Vice Admiral (ret.) John J. Shanahan

*Chris Berghoff

*Starr Tomczak, Attorney

*George Zeo, Psy. D.

*Professor Jeffrey G. Barlow, Ph.D.

*Linda and Larry Black, Owners, College Park Bicycles, Inc. and Mt. Airy Bicycles, Inc.

*Albert Lowe

*Roger Mumford, President, Matzel and Mumford Org.

*Martin Resick, Chapter President, World Federalist Assn., Pittsburgh, PA

*Paul Hally, Esq.

*Elizabeth Viering

*Peter B. Viering, Atty.

*Brenda Ungerland, M.A., LifePath

*Brooks Jealous

*Nancy F. Puls

*Pamela Davis

*Frank K. Martin, CFA, Managing Partner, Martin Capital Management, LLP

Affiliations for identification only.


P.O. Box 1976 Old Chelsea Station

New York, NY 10113

A ringing endorsement for Ron Paul's position, I'd say.