Twindex: As Twitter goes, so goes the nation?

Twitter's political Twindex follows how tweeters discuss Obama and Romney.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP/File
First hands: President Obama used a laptop last summer during his first Twitter Town Hall.
Rich Clabaugh/Staff

With the presidential race in full swing, pollsters at Gallup call more than 3,000 registered voters every week, looking for insight into how America will vote this November.

Meanwhile, Adam Sharp, manager for government and news at Twitter, combs through a much larger pool of data: the 400 million messages posted to Twitter daily.

The microblogging website – where people share their thoughts, anecdotes, and links to articles – has teamed up with pollsters to launch Twindex (election.twitter.com). This daily political index measures attitudes toward Barack Obama and Mitt Romney based solely on how people discuss the candidates on Twitter.

It turns out that this massive, unfocused stream of information generally matches the rolling Gallup average. But Mr. Sharp says he's most interested in the times when Twindex disagrees with Gallup.

For example, he points to the military raid last year that led to the death of Osama bin Laden. Both Twitter and Gallup saw the president's approval rating spike, but the Twitter numbers dropped off more quickly. Digging into the Twitter posts (or "tweets"), Sharp's team found more messages from that time on the economy than on all national security issues combined, including the raid on Mr. bin Laden, which at the time was the most tweeted-about moment in history. Sharp says this discrepancy shows the benefit of Twitter's style of polling: It better captures everyday conversation.

"When a pollster asks, 'Do you agree with the job the president is doing?' you may pause, reflect, remember the bin Laden raid, and say, 'Yeah, he got bin Laden. He's all right by me,' " says Sharp. "But that same person, when they're going into the coffee shop with a colleague the next day, they're not going to say for the 30th time, 'We got bin Laden. Isn't that great?' "

On the other hand, the president also saw a huge spike Aug. 4, his birthday. Such "happy" tweets about President Obama probably won't affect anyone's decision in November.

Still, Twitter's push into unsolicited polling – the kind that won't bother people at dinner time – shows the power of "big data." With sufficient sample sizes, researchers could uncover new insights and maybe answer questions that were never formally asked.

Sharp says Twitter doesn't want to replace traditional polling; the company wants to build on it.

For more on how technology intersects daily life, follow Chris on Twitter @venturenaut.

[Editor's note: This is an updated version of an article that appeared in the September 10 issue of the Monitor weekly magazine.]

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.