To Early to Tell Who’s Winning the Twitter War?
Filed under: News, Red Alert Dossier, Social Media, twitter
The oh so unbiased news outlet *snicker*, Newsweek, posted an article a while ago about the Twitter war between the left and the right. While interesting, the article was flawed and missing some key conclusions. I’ve always based my opinion of Twitter accounts on the quantity of Tweets, quality of Tweets, quantity of Followers and quality of Followers. I think this is very good data in determining who is truly effective at Tweeting. Newsweek claims it’s too early to say so let’s take a look at the facts they used to decide to be indecisive.
“TweetCongress.org, a directory of members of Congress on Twitter, lists 101 Republicans on the site and just 57 Democrats.”
There are nearly twice as many from the GOP tweeting than from the left. They meet the first quantity test as a group. They are more active on Twitter, simple as that.
“The five highest-ranking Republicans on Tweet Congress, led by McCain, have a combined 1.3 million followers. The top 10 Democrats, have about 72,000.”
Here we are again, the top 5 of the GOP is beating the top 10 of the dems by 99.9%. If that’s not dominance in quantity I don’t know what would be.
“Tweet Congress shows that members from both parties are largely using the site to promote their legislative goals and accomplishments. But conservatives tweet more provocatively, and they draw more notice as a result.”
GOP tweeters are more active and from my own personal experience they actually engage the audience. They create discussion amongst their following. Best of all, they make the news in an environment where the drive-by media ignores the truth on a regular basis. Newsweek reports this active tweeting is out of desperation or a survival tactic because they’re in the minority. While I’m not so naive as to think that there aren’t any GOP politicians tweeting merely for personal gain, this is not out of desperation, rather, out of duty to their constituents and American to communicate. When PBO gets an obscene number of followers it’s change & hope and hope & change; when it’s Sarah Palin it’s a fluke or a plan contrived from hell along side Satan and the other “GOP demons.”
Hands down, conservatives own Twitter. Don’t try and take this one from us Newsweek or we’ll all block you for your pages of inane conjecture. I’m not saying there aren’t any from the left that are using Twitter very effectively. I give props out to those that are. But don’t waste my time with an article that doesn’t even make sense.
Newsweek said, “Twitter strategies on both sides of the aisle are radically different, and the way liberals have been using the service may turn out to be more effective in the long run.”
Just like the looming national health care plan…full of talk but no clear answers, Newsweek’s “journalist”, Aku Ammah-Tagoe, doesn’t extrapolate on a few key things most amateur journalists would have after such a presumptive statement.
- How are the strategies radically different?
- What are the strategies of both parties?
- Why will the alleged strategy of the Dems prove more effective?”
- Who are the ones employing any particular strategy?
- When did these strategies first get employed?
Pretty basic questions he DIDN’T EVEN ASK AFTER STATING THEY ARE RADICALLY DIFFERENT AND THE LIBERAL METHOD USED MAY BE MORE EFFECTIVE! You failed to ask and answer EVEN ONE!!! Seriously, Aku, leave online branding to the marketers, and journalism to the journalists. I know that leaves you out of the picture, but, oh well. The only radical difference in strategies I see is that one is succeeding and the other, collectively, is a complete and utter failure.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=91c20256-0328-4016-bd4b-de6ea63c84bc)
Just got my health insurance premium increase notice – 23%
It’s like clock work right? No matter how little I use my high deductible HSA plan (I buy my own as I’m self-employed), I get a increase every year. This year it’s 23%. That’s an abomination but my gut reaction isn’t to vote for a public option or government intervention. My reaction was to begin finding creative solutions out there in the open market for health care.
Too bad I missed a FREE webinar put on yesterday by our Association of Business and Industry here in Iowa discussing this very topic. That was MY choice to miss due to other commitments. The point is that as we keep getting buried by health care costs, increased competition across borders will provide options that I can live with. And, at the end of the day…if health insurance does cost a bundle, that’s what I’ll have to pay to keep it. If no one an afford health care there will be no payers into the system and it will fail. Market forces must intervene if allowed at some point (remember how we were supposed to have $9/gallon gas by now because of the collusion, cheating, and market manipulation?)
Moving health care into the realm of the government will further exacerbate the issues we’re seeing now on the paper on which the increases come will change. Now it comes from an insurance company. Then it would come on your W-2 and 1040 forms.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=86e77a23-08d3-495e-9dfe-a26e2e2b389e)
The White House opposes health insurance competition across state lines
Interview with David Axelrod at CNN.com as he stumbles over and over trying to explain why the truth is wrong.
Simple economics here. If you increase competition prices go down. It doesn’t matter what industry it is. The White House and most Congressional Democrats, and even some Republicans for that matter, NEED to understand the simplicity of this situation. If we break down the state barriers than prices will decrease, guaranteed. Any industry where companies are competing in price their products become more affordable. Sure, you can argue that the large insurance companies will create an oligopoly on insurance but it won’t work. Higher prices will enable entrepreneurs to enter the field and will allow those smaller companies to grow with lower prices. It doesn’t matter which way you look at it. By simply breaking down these barriers you are opening up a whole new world of cheaper health care and higher quality health care. Let’s ask President Obama WHY he’s against an obviously simple solution, and if you don’t agree it’s a solution it’s definitely a better starting point then any other proposal.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4a46846b-ee69-4f91-b428-5c98e005c5fd)
-
Social Media
