Who 'likes' Mitch McConnell? Facebook unveils new tool for election 2014.

Facebook's new interactive map of Election 2014 races based on social media activity could have some predictive value. But Facebook is probably also looking for campaigns to spend ad money on the site.

A screenshot of Facebook's interactive Election 2014 page for Kentucky.

In the closely watched Senate race in Kentucky, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell is clobbering Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes with affection – he’s got 153,500 “likes” on his Facebook page vs. her 98,300 likes.

Does that mean he’ll win?

This week, Facebook introduced an interactive map of House, Senate, and governor races that shows how many people “like” those candidates and are talking about them.

You can click on the map and find, for instance, that while Senator McConnell may be winning the horse race in “likes,” he’s lost in the dust of buzz about his competitor. Roughly three times more people are talking about Ms. Grimes, based on Facebook comments and “shares” of content.

Facebook cautions that its new election tracking tool can’t predict winners or losers, though some outside experts think it has predictive potential.

The downside is that campaigns can gin up their Facebook numbers by suggesting likes from friends or introducing content on users’ news feeds that look legitimate but are really ads. They can also sabotage their opponents’ sites with negative comments.

And unlike a poll of registered voters, Facebook isn’t asking whether a user is likely to vote and for whom.

What the Facebook map does show is how engaged campaigns are with the public on one of the giant social media platforms. And it is giant. The company told Politico that in the past three months, 22 million Facebook users in the United States had 150 million interactions about the coming midterm elections.

The “real value” of Facebook as an election tracker is its size and demographics, says Edward Erikson of the strategic communications firm MacWillaims Sanders Erikson. “Facebook has a key demographic that aligns with the people most likely to vote, people aged 35 to 65.”

Unlike the interactive map, which reflects just raw data, Mr. Erikson’s company is using Facebook’s numbers to see whether it can forecast election outcomes. In 2012, Erikson and his colleagues used the data to correctly call eight out of nine tossup Senate races.

They calculated the growth in the number of fans (likes) and the growth in engagement, and then figured out the relationship between the two – how many fans were engaging – in order to see how well a candidate was actually mobilizing supporters.

This year, Erikson’s company is again working with Facebook data to forecast Senate outcomes, accounting for factors like incumbency. They’re posting their results on their website, hashtagdemocracy.com. Except for a few races, such as Alaska and Minnesota, they appear to be on par with polling.

Erikson suspects that Facebook’s real intent is to use its data as a revenue generator with campaigns. In 2012, campaigns spent 12 percent of their communications budgets on social media.

“In the future, Facebook could tell us not only who is interacting with what candidate but what registered voter is interacting with that candidate,” Erikson says. Facebook is trying to convince candidates they need their tool and they need to spend ad dollars.

“They’re saying, ‘You need to pay attention to us. You’re in a race not just for votes but for numbers of fans.’ They are trying to create a new horse race.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

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.

QR Code to Who 'likes' Mitch McConnell? Facebook unveils new tool for election 2014.
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today