Agradezco a Julio Burdman la mención, por supuesto que mis
dichos son debatibles, en general.
Pero hay dos cuestiones que, por ser objetivas, afectan el
panorama político y electoral de manera indiscutible.
La primera, demográfica, se puede observar en el twitt de
Ozymandias; Córdoba y Santa Fe han superado a la CABA en población y electores.
Ya no se trata solo del reclamo por la subrepresentación de
la PBA, lo que implica la distribución de la Copa; ahora se suman, por lo menos
contra la CABA, ambas provincias tienen 6 y 5 diputados menos que la Ciudad.
Córdoba 9+9= 18, Santa Fe 9+10=19, CABA 12+12=24.
Es cierto que será difícil cambiar ambos status quo;
distribución de diputados y Copa.
Pero, para elección de PEN, como distrito único; ambas
provincias se convierten en mas estratégicas que la Reina del Plata, aun a pesar
de la pretendida “capacidad” de generar “Agenda Política Mediática Nacional”.
Esto ultimo nos lleva a la segunda cuestión; la Comunicación
de Masas esta en reflujo frente a la “Segmentación de Audiencia”, gracias a la tecnología
del ultimo ¼ de siglo.
No solo se trata de los Medios Gráficos y/o TV abierta,
gracias a Internet y las “Redes Sociales”.
Sino del mismísimo “Periodismo Político” en general, que
esta siendo desplazado, incluso en nuestro país; por el “Periodismo PARA
Genero”, “Deportes” y “Rosa”.
Las audiciones, por cualquier medio, sobre Deportes, en
especial Futbol; tiene mayoría amplia de publico masculino de toda la gama
etaria.
Mientras que lo “Rosa”, “Espectáculos” o “Chismes”; ídem
pero en publico femenino.
Hasta alguien con la experiencia de Lanata, se sintió
sorprendido por el “Rebote” en los “espacios chimenteros”; y eso que no le
presto atención a al “cursus honorum” de Macri y Berlusconi.
Ya que estamos dos links de Carrasco Lucas, que es quien
tiene mayor Praxis, sobre el tema de los “nuevos medios”.
Esta doble “pinza comunicacional”, segmentación de audiencia
y concentración “global” de los nuevos medios; pone en aprietos muy severos a
las organizaciones políticas, incluso las del primer mundo.
A tal punto, que Republicanos (Orca) y Demócratas (Narwhal)
de USA, han desarrollado Plataformas, Software, y Enlaces “PROPIETARIOS”.
Ya que el Conocimiento es Poder, ¿para que quedar “prisioneros”
de Organizaciones Comerciales con fines de lucro?
Chicago knew…
A TALE OF TWO ARMIES
Romney's campaign had made 50 million voter contacts by mid October.
For the final push, they had recruited an unprecedented - for
Republicans - army of 34,000 volunteers to help on election day, who targeted
and fed info for 800 calling center staff who completed 6 million robocalls.
When Romney was to get about 60 million votes (actually ended up with
about 58 million) that means that as they wanted to make 6 million calls on
election day, Boston had a theoretical target of hitting 10% of their voters
(if they were accurate enough to only hit Republicans).
No, thats merely a mob.
Thats a boy scouts club, 34 thousand volunteers.
Check this out.
The obama campaign had recruited a genuine army.
Over 300,000 volunteers. 109,000 of the volunteers were out in the
field, to make 7 million visits to individual voter homes !!!
Yes, Obama had such a superiority in numbers, they were able to make
more personal visits to homes, than Romney total contacts by phone.
And what of phone contacts?
Obama's volunteers had 200,000 manning the phone banks, who made 11
million phone calls.
But wait?
Romney had 800 people who made 6 million calls and Obama had 200,000 who
made less than twice the number, at 11 million calls?
What gives?
Romney's 800 staff who made 6 million calls, did not talk to the people
they called.
The Romney team directed robocalls to targeted area codes to reach
phones in districts where there were many Republicans.
If we say those 800 were full-time employed and worked 8 hours, then
they would need to process one robocall every 4 seconds.
At Obama's side, if we assume a volunteer worked a 2 hour shift, then
doing phones made only 55 calls in two hours.
So an Obama phone bank volunteer spent on average 2 minutes per call.
Yes, Romney mostly pushed robocalls to their targets, while Obama's
callers actually talked to the voters.
Obama callers would first, know if the person they reached was an actual
voter - if you push a robocall, you just let the phone ring, and you move onto
the next call.
Then, Obama's team would find out talking to the potential voter, if the
person had already voted - very useful information.
And the Obama team could present useful arguments that this given
potential voter might appreciate - an automobile worker would probably be
interested in a different argument than a retired teacher or a young university
student.
A huge difference!
And of that field staff monitoring the polling places?
Romney's team believed they can react to location-specific changes, and
monitoring most relevant polling places would give them an advantage.
As Obama's team had tried that with their Project Houdini in 2008, and
found it lacking (and crashing) they did have something like that, but at a far
reduced scale, called Gordon (for the man who reportedly killed Houdini) as the
Obama team knew they had far more relevant information through
Narwhal/DreamCatcher and could target based on real voter preferences and
behavior, rather than just by voting precinct.
So Axelrod directed most of the ground team to pound doors, to visit
homes, rather than count voters at polling places.
This was both a lesson already learned by Chicago
that Boston
hadn't yet learned, and the power coming from far more deep insights into voter
behavior, that was collected over many months.
Chicago was driven by the extensive and powerful data they
were now mining.
November 12, 2012
Orca meets Narwhal - How the Obama Ground Game Crushed Romney - A look
behind the math.
That is the difference, where it counted - the Battleground states where
the 2012 election was decided.
Team Obama powered by its Narwhal machine, made twice as many contacts, hit three times as many of its own registered voters (or voters leaning
Democratic), achievedfour times as many contacts with its own voters, and the real number where it matters,ended up activating five times more voters than Team Romney, powered by its Orca machine.
At the Battleground states, Team Obama was able to make an election day
activation contact that reached 64% of its final voters on that day, and of the
contacts attempted, 30% resulted in an activation.
By contrast, Team Romney was only able to make contacts that rached 13%
of Romney voters, and a contact had only a 14% chance of activating that voter
to vote on the day.
The Narwhal project of Team Obama is the biggest election-related voter
list, supporter database and voting support system ever made.
It cost over $100 million to produce, and employed over 120 engineers,
programmers and mathematicians who worked on the project for more than a year.
Its database covered over 175 million voters and massive amounts of data
for real time use.
Narwhal was far more than just an election-day system, it was used to
collect and analyze and even forecast data on most election activities from
fundraising to TV advertisement placement.
By contrast, the Romney project called Orca was mostly an outsourced
project rushed into production only over a few months, mostly with outside
consultants and suppliers.
Its maximum capacity was 23 million voters.
On election day Orca was supported by several other databases and voter
lists.
When analyzing the performance in the end, comparing the two systems by
states where they were used vs states where not, and comparing the voter
turnout gains compared to the 2008 election between Obama and McCain, a measure
of voter turnout gain by Romney's Orca system was about 1.4% of Republican
turnout (corresponding to a vote margin gain of 0.7% when comparing two
candidates).
In real terms, Orca delivered about 200,000 votes to the Battleground
states in 2012 for Romney, about 29% of his vote gains.
By contrast, Team Obama's Narwhal system achieved a 5.9% gain in
Democratic voter turnout in the Battleground states (corresponding to a 2.95%
gain in vote margin between two candidates).
In real terms, the gains of Narwhal amounted to about 900,000 actual
votes cast in the Battleground states, which is exactly the vote margin Obama
had in winning those nine states.
It is fair to say, that without running Narwhal, President Obama would
have faced a dead heat in the election.
One should remember, that a Get-out-the-vote campaign effort is almost
impossble to measure before the election actually happens, and the average of
election polls just before election day suggested the election at almost even,
with Obama having a tiny 0.7% edge according to the last RealClearPolitics
average of polls on election eve.
That he won so handily can be attributed to project Narwhal, which seem
to have turned a nailbiter election into a clear victory and re-election for
President Obama.
If you want to understand how these numbers were achieved, or would like
to understand more of how Narwhal and Orca worked, what they acheived, how
their effects can be seen comparing Battleground states and non-Battleground
states, etc, please follow the article after the fold here:
December 06, 2012
The Definitive Article on Numbers and Performance of Narwhal vs Orca -
Obama vs Romney - Datamining and voter activation in 2012 US election
El Blogger, en dos post que suman 20.000 palabras; no es
analista político, ni politólogo, ni sociólogo, ni periodista especializado.
Tomi T Ahonen, hacer clic aquí, es
uno de los Gurúes empresariales mas respetados, y "cotizados”, de la Industria de
las Comunicaciones Digitales.
The
seven mass media in order of their introduction are:
2. Recordings (gramophone records, magnetic tapes, cassettes, cartridges, CDs, DVDs) from the late 19th century
3.
Cinema from
about 1900
4.
Radio from about 1910
5.
Television from about 1950
6.
Internet from
about 1990
7.
Mobile phones from about 2000
………..
Mobile offers eight benefits that cannot be replicated by the six legacy mass
media. They
are:
·
Mobile is the first
personal mass media
·
Mobile is permanently carried
·
Mobile is always on
·
Mobile has a built-in
payment mechanism
·
Mobile is available at
the point of creative inspiration
·
Mobile has the most
accurate audience measurement
·
Billboards can be seen
and viewed by a big number of people everyday
·
Mobile captures the
social context of media consumption
·
Mobile offers a digital
interface to the real world
Resumiendo, los cambios demográficos, y su redistribución, alteran
el status quo de los sujetos de las Campañas electorales.
Ejemplo; el Chivo Rossi es un político de “alcance nacional”
indiscutible, pero eso conspira contra SU éxito como candidato “local”.
Diputado 2009, 9.63%; Gobernador 2011, 22.76%.
Los cambios tecnológicos cambian el Paradigma de el “Medio
es el Mensaje” por la “Plataforma es el Relato”.
Ejemplo, De la Sota exitoso en lo “local”, y considerado
“nacional” por los Medios de la CABA, en sus 30 años de protagonismo político
no ha logrado “penetrar” en la 1º y 3ª Secciones de la PBA.
“Primera Ley de Bronce Electoral” de Manolo.
“No HAY Presidente, de cualquier asignación, si no se gana
en la PBA”
Ejemplos, Alfonsín 1983 y de la Rua 1999.
“Segunda Ley de Bronce Electoral” de Manolo.
“Es imposible un Presidente peronista, SIN el GBA”
“Ejemplo, Menem 1988 contra Cafiero; NK 2003 contra Menem y Rodríguez
Saa”
Tanto CSM/88 y NCK/03, eran de provincias “marginales”
demográficamente, y enfrentaban superestructuras importantes.
El Turco, la Cafieradora con Gobernadores, menos las Saadi y
del Val; y el grueso de Legisladores Nacionales y Provinciales.
El Lupo solo tenía su región, Patagonia, más Jujuy y
Formosa.
Mientras que Menem tenia el apoyo del Norte Grande, NOA+NEA;
y Rodríguez Saa Cuyo, y le disputaba a CSM la “región Centro”; Córdoba, La
Pampa, y en menor medida Entre Ríos.
“Tercera Ley de Bronce Electoral” de Manolo.
La “viralidad” en política SIEMPRE tiene una base FISICA,
persona a persona, mas allá del medio en si.
Una llamada grabada, o un twitt ingenioso, es
fundamentalmente efímero y sin autoridad; frente al mano a mano.
Pero los “difusores” necesitan “munición argumentativa”; que
no se las dan los medios tradicionales, ni los digitales.
Estos últimos por su propia naturaleza fragmentaria.
El humor popular, de la propia tropa, llama a las
intervenciones Presidenciales “Almorzando con Cristina”.
Como el mítico programa de Chiquita Legrand, existe una
indudable Estrella y Bastonera, más allá de los invitados circunstanciales.
El problema es que se trata de un formato “antiguo”, para
estos tiempos da mas “Alo Presidente”, con su estilo de Programa Ómnibus de Sábados
Circulares de Mancera.
Incluso con los golpes de efectos del inolvidable Pipo.
“Cuarta Ley de Bronce Electoral” de Manolo.
Las “Bases de Datos” embocan a las “Encuestas”; Google,
Facebook, Twitter, y el resto; son ante todo Bases de datos.
Luego una “minería” de datos, que permite articular de
diferente formas los datos; “segmentando” y “personalizándolos”.
Ese es el motivo de su éxito económico; te dan un servicio
gratis, para luego vender tus preferencias a quien las necesite.
En la Grafica esta el Instituto Verificador de Circulaciones;
en la Banda de Radio y TV Ibope et al; en Internet Google, que mide en tiempo
real los clicks.
¿Y entre los Smartphones?, la guerra de Plataformas, con las
Telco como terceros extremadamente interesados.
PD, planilla de electores, provincias datos de La Nación
2013, las seccionales de la PBA, Andy Tow elecciones para legisladores
provinciales PBA 2011.
