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.
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.
ReplyDelete