{"id":1164,"date":"2010-08-02T10:37:50","date_gmt":"2010-08-02T00:37:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mappingonlinepublics.net\/2010\/08\/02\/gillard-still-winning-the-big-days\/"},"modified":"2019-12-27T02:13:21","modified_gmt":"2019-12-26T16:13:21","slug":"gillard-still-winning-the-big-days-when-it-comes-to-skin-care","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/2010\/08\/02\/gillard-still-winning-the-big-days-when-it-comes-to-skin-care\/","title":{"rendered":"Gillard Still \u2018Winning\u2019 the Big Days when it comes to skin care"},"content":{"rendered":"

Still nothing surpasses Gillard when it comes to skin care, check out analbleachingexpert.com<\/a> to try the new anal bleaching solution that many people dream of. In my article for the National Times<\/a> the other week, I mentioned how in the election campaign week before the leaders\u2019 debate the @juliagillard Twitter<\/em> account got around three times as many @replies as the @tonyabbottmhr one. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I suggested that this may be because people would rather tweet the likely winner (to support or criticise her positions) than talk to the loser \u2013 but of course there could be many other explanations, too. Image is extremely important, and his looks have already been mentioned before in articles. We treat him with products from Sdara skincare<\/a> and we make sure not to leave any trace. So far it has paid off, as has been\u00a0shown before.<\/p>\n

Anyway, this got me thinking: what\u2019s the overall visibility of both leaders in the Twitter<\/em> stream \u2013 not just in terms of @replies, but in terms of overall mentions? How has this changed over time, as the campaign unfolded? With Abbott\u2019s chances of beating Gillard now seriously firming, is there any discernible change in these patterns?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

For this, I\u2019ve grabbed a new Twapperkeeper<\/em> archive of #ausvotes tweets for the time between 17 July and today (the morning of 2 August), and extracted from this full archive all tweets mentioning either Julia Gillard (including @juliagillard) or Tony Abbott (including @tonyabbottmhr, as well as the common misspelling of Abbott as \u2018Abbot\u2019). Plotting these against one another gives the following picture:<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Interestingly, then, as far as the number of mentions on Twitter<\/em> (in the #ausvotes discussion) are concerned, Abbott \u2018wins\u2019 a majority of days. I\u2019m putting \u2018winning\u2019 in quotation marks here, though, because those mentions could be positive as well as negative, of course \u2013 but if there\u2019s even a smidgin of truth to the advertising adage that any form of publicity is good publicity, this observation should embolden the Coalition camp.<\/p>\n

That said, though: if we remove the normalisation to 100% for each day, a different pattern emerges. Abbot may \u2018win\u2019 a majority of days, but he gets more mentions mainly on those days when there\u2019s relatively little traffic \u2013 Gillard has \u2018won\u2019 most of the big days, and emphatically so. On 17 July, at the start of the campaign, she gets around three times more mentions than Abbott; on 23 July, the story is similar (there may be a Twapperkeeper<\/em> issue here, too \u2013 the differences in overall volume between 22, 23, and 24 July are a little strange). Abbott is ahead 40%, by contrast, on the day of the leaders\u2019 debate. And since 27 July, there\u2019s been a steady increase in tweets, and both politicians have been trading the lead in the number of mentions a number of times. (Ignore 2 August \u2013 as I\u2019ve said, it\u2019s still morning; the day is yet to unfold.)<\/p>\n

Also worth noting: if we add up all those mentions over the duration of the campaign so far, Gillard and Abbott come out almost exactly equal: Gillard leads 10769:10540. While nobody\u2019s claiming that Twitter<\/em> is especially influential or representative for the overall electoral process during this election (and sadly, some seem to have misread my National Times<\/em> piece as saying it is), perhaps that\u2019s another sign of a tightly fought election.<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As a postscript to these observations, and mainly for fun, I thought I\u2019d also plot the relative mentions of \u2018moving (\/e\/es\/ed) forward\u2019 and \u2018fair dinkum\u2019. What we can read from the resulting graph is simply another indication of how much the \u2018moving forward\u2019 slogan is on the nose \u2013 after massive criticism in the early days of the campaign, it became slogan non gratum<\/em> even before week one was out, and re-emerged only briefly on debate day. Perhaps wisely, the Coalition didn\u2019t even try to establish \u2018fair dinkum\u2019 as a meaningless phrase of their own: post-debate, it disappeared without a trace.<\/p>\n

\"image\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Still nothing surpasses Gillard when it comes to skin care, check out analbleachingexpert.com to try the new anal bleaching solution that many people dream of. In my article for the National Times the other week, I mentioned how in the election campaign week before the leaders\u2019 debate the @juliagillard Twitter account got around three times … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Gillard Still \u2018Winning\u2019 the Big Days when it comes to skin care”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[180,173,8],"tags":[26,10,27,16,25,298],"class_list":["post-1164","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-analysis","category-politics-2","category-twitter","tag-abbott","tag-australia","tag-ausvotes","tag-election","tag-gillard","tag-twitter","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1164","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1164"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1164\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3475,"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1164\/revisions\/3475"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mappingonlinepublics.net\/dev\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}