As I watched President Obama tonight, I decided I would write what everybody else was trying to say, comparing his speech with the others - Clinton, Biden, Michelle et al. But that seemed to be silly. He wasn't running against them. So why was it so necessary to make a big deal of it. I merely jotted down that Obama was giving a presidential speech, not a stump speech. Not the most profound insight. But it was getting late.
But I did learn after so many years in the business of writing about these things that something new had been added in determining winners: tweets (which I don't do.) In case you are interested in meaningless trivia, like how many homeruns are hit on a 3-2 count, the Democratic convention produced 9 million tweets; the Republican convention, 4 million.
Can we conclude that's well beyond the margin of error? I left the room before anybody tried to explain the importance of that lopsided spread. If you know, you'll have no luck tweeting me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Like you, I'm not sure how to translate this finding. Being a non-tweeter myself, I claim no expertise about the tweeter universe. My only impression, for what it's worth, is that it reflects the respective age cohorts of the viewers who watched the proceedings.
Post a Comment