Lots to cover today, starting with <PLUG>
Adam Zand's Really Big Shoe (Join in)
Host: Adam Zand - ThisDudeAbides (dot) Zand (at) gmail.com
Episode: EPISODE23 - Adam Zand's Really Big Shoe
The world will fundamentally change on Election Day - The Big Shoe talks to Joseph Carrabis for a preview and a review of political social media efforts and effects. Carrabis is Chairman and Chief Research Officer of NextStage Evolution, LLC, NextStage Global LTD, and a founder of KnowledgeNH, NH Business Development Network and the Center for Semantic Excellence. He's a Senior Research Fellow and Advisory Board Member to the Society for New Communications Research and frequent contributor to www.SoMeElection08.ning.com. You've heard the pundits and the pollsters but what does Joseph's online predictive crystal ball tell about how close the election is (http://tinyurl.com/63hec9); how messages are being received and re-interpreted and if O.J. Simpson is really a factor - http://tinyurl.com/669kc8. We'll catch up on Joseph's consulting business (http://www.nextstagevolution.com) and share best practices for marketers in the fields of predictive intelligence, persuasion engineering and interactive analytics. On the day before the election, Joseph Carrabis and The Really Big Shoe will reveal what's behind the voting booth curtain.
Call ID: 18410
</PLUG>
Does your chosen candidate motivate you to vote? Then Be Careful...
Next a note from NextStage's and others' research: It seems that people who are best able to motivate others are also most likely to mislead them. NextStage did some research regarding how to motivate people to act favorably (for lack of a better term, "convert") online and made an unexpected discovery. We then went looking through the literature to learn if others had discovered anything similar. Sure enough, two Colgate University researchers had learned much the same thing (Dominance and Deception in Children and Adults: Are Leaders the Best Misleaders?).
An Email Response to my Comment Exchange with Tex
Frequent reader Tex and I exchanged comments on Slew of emails about my political postings (#4), the gist of which was that I hadn't received any emails that I could decidedly say were "con-Obama, pro-McCain".
Someone was reading (and thank you for doing so) and sent me the following:
Subject: obama stealing the election
To: friends (at) foxnews (dot) com
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 7:35 AM
Hi guys's
I watch you every day. This morning while watching I decided to try to donate to Obama using my real credit card with a fictious name and address and it sailed thru, try it it is true this is how he is raising all his money
I have no idea if one can actually provide false information so on and so forth.
Finally, voting by population percentages...
I wrote in Governor Palin's (and everybody else's) Popularity that the Democratic ticket was doing a better job at getting its message across in a way that the largest population could respond to easily and rapidly.While I'll stand behind my statement I do need to qualify/quantify it a bit.
A party's ability to capture a given age demographic is important, yes, and the population of that demographic, the likelihood of individuals within that age demographic to vote, ..., all play a role. The chart here takes into account the populations (not how many individuals within each population will vote, only the populations within those demographics).
Clarifying
The guestimates above are based on 2007 population projections that are, in turn, based on the 2000 national census. I don't know how the population is divided (no pun intended) and I don't know how many individuals within each demographic are likely to vote.
I had thought I'd have time to do a state by state breakdown today and no, I don't. Sorry, folks.
Please contact NextStage for information regarding presentations and trainings on this and other topics.
Links for this post:
- BizMediaScience Politics blog posts
Sign up for the NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.
Hi:
The "Obama stealing the election" horse-sh?t is only valid if
1 the donation appears on his charge card monthly statement.
2 a similar donation to Barr, Nader, McCain, or Green Party, also went through and were rejected.
3 the donation was not returned by the O campaign,
4 his credit card company's security was as lax as the republicans' oversight of Wall St.
5 etc. etc......
Given 1-5 above, even if the writer's actions bore truth, the fact that his credit card company allows silly transactions to go through, bears no relationship to:
1 stealing,
2 the O campaign,
3 the election.
and insults intelligence to boot.
Posted by: Caljud | November 3, 2008 9:51 AM | Permalink to Comment