Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


Predicting House Races by Weight of Tweet

• October 31, 2012 • 4:00 AM

With the presidential prediction game dreadfully same-y, surely there’s another constantly changing fix for political junkies. How about forecasting all 435 U.S. congressional races every day, based on brand new data every day?

That’s what you get at “Voting With Your Tweet,” an experiment that mines mentions of congressional candidates in the Twitter-sphere to predict who will win each race and what the actual vote share will be. Unlike past efforts at using social media to predict political contests, which made their “predictions” after the voters had settled the matter, this research is happening now and you can check in at the California News Service site to see what’s up today, yesterday, or tomorrow.

Using social media as a forecasting tool is a hot area right now, and mixing Twitter with punditry is not brand new. Carnegie Mellon’s Brendan O’Connor compared tweeting to polling results in 2010, and not surprisingly found some correlation. Andranik Tumasjan and his colleagues at the Munich Technical University found that “the mere number of messages mentioning a party reflects the election result” in a German federal election. The “media utility” Tweetminster, meanwhile, says it accurately predicted the outcome of the last British Parliamentary elections using Twitter (an experiment they note is based on an earlier Japanese study looking at “online buzz and election results”).

Voting With Your Tweet is a kind of combination, using past results to predict future returns (but with mountains of caveats).

Analyzing about a quarter million tweets from 356 races in the 2010 mid-terms, UC Berkeley doctoral candidate Mark Huberty correctly “predicted” (after the fact) the winners 92 percent of the time, a much better showing than the six professional human pundits used for comparison. (The technical report on 2010 is available here, but be prepared to see that the 92 percent figure is one of a number of outcomes based on different statistical methods and statistical approaches. Huberty goes with “better than 85 percent accuracy” in the paper’s introduction.)

Taking that information, Huberty “trained two machine learning algorithms to determine what word features of those tweets best predicted whether the Democratic or Republican party candidate won each race.” So in its current incarnation …

We think the finished algorithm works like this:

First, it identifies from the language in a candidate’s tweets whether they are the incumbent or challenger. Since incumbents win about 85% of the time, this provides a good baseline.

It then adjusts the baseline prediction based on sentiment and action-related phrases. For instance, “voted hcr” (indicating that the incumbent voted for health care reform) was one of the most influential predictors alongside incumbency-related phrases. The algorithm weights those phrases positively or negatively, depending on how predictive they were of a candidate winning or losing.

And you can take this forecast to the bank? Only if you’re Lehman Brothers. “Voting with your Tweet is an experiment and should be treated as such,” Huberty and “data guru” Len DeGroot from the Knight Digital Media Center at Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism write in an honest and detailed set of FAQs. “We think this might work and think we might know why. But we could fail spectacularly.”

So why do it at all, or at least so publicly? The answers are refreshing:

Anyone who is interested can observe the experiment.
It keeps us honest: whether we succeed or fail, the predictions will be out there for all to see.
Observers can offer constructive feedback.
It gives us the opportunity post our own observations.
It offers the general public a window into the intersection of social data and political research.

So knowing this, I peeked at the putative winners for some races I’m following, starting with the competitive bout between Democratic incumbent Lois Capps and challenger Abel Maldonado in California’s 24th, Pacific Standard’s home turf. As of last night, VWYT gives it to Maldonado, with 53 percent of the vote.

Then there’s Berman-Sherman, the heated race between two Democratic incumbents battling for a single seat in LA? Ah nothing, not even Brad Sherman’s name, since the algorithm only codes for races with a Republican-Democratic contest.

OK, how about Kansas’s 2nd, the district where my mom is buried? (Kansas not being Chicago or Louisiana, Mom can’t vote there.) Incumbent Republican Lynn Jenkins is shellacking Tobias Schlingensiepen with a 65 percent prediction. That’s not surprising in this very blue state, but I wonder if the challenger’s name isn’t a bit Twitter-unfriendly.

As suggested, Huberty and co. see lots of ways this experiment can go pear-shaped, many of the potential problems hinging on using 2010 results to craft important topic choices this year. The mid-terms, after all, saw a powerful effort by Tea Party partisans, which could mean the terms over-represent Republican memes and challengers’ chops. Plus, there are new issues in the mix now, such as Libya and Solyndra.

Nonetheless, it’s fun to see political science in action and even better that for once it’s not about those two guys running for president.

Michael Todd
Most of Michael Todd's career has been spent in newspaper journalism, ranging from papers in the Marshall Islands to tiny California farming communities. Before joining the publishing arm of the Miller-McCune Center, he was managing editor of the national magazine Hispanic Business.

More From Michael Todd

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

October 24 • 4:00 PM

We Need to Normalize Drug Use in Our Society

After the disastrous misconceptions of the 20th century, we’re returning to the idea that drugs are an ordinary part of life experience and no more cause addiction than do other behaviors. This is rational and welcome.


October 24 • 2:00 PM

A Letter to the Next Attorney General: Fix Presidential Pardons

More than two years ago, a series showed that white applicants were far more likely to receive clemency than comparable applicants who were black. Since then, the government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a study, but the pardons system remains unchanged.


October 24 • 12:00 PM

What Makes You So Smart, Middle School Math Teacher?

Noah Davis talks to Vern Williams about what makes middle school—yes, middle school—so great.


October 24 • 10:00 AM

Why DNA Is One of Humanity’s Greatest Inventions

How we’ve co-opted our genetic material to change our world.


October 24 • 8:00 AM

What Do Clowns Think of Clowns?

Three major players weigh in on the current state of the clown.


October 24 • 7:13 AM

There Is No Surge in Illegal Immigration

The overall rate of illegal immigration has actually decreased significantly in the last 10 years. The time is ripe for immigration reform.


October 24 • 6:15 AM

Politicians Really Aren’t Better Decision Makers

Politicians took part in a classic choice experiment but failed to do better than the rest of us.


October 24 • 5:00 AM

Why We Gossip: It’s Really All About Ourselves

New research from the Netherlands finds stories we hear about others help us determine how we’re doing.


October 24 • 2:00 AM

Congratulations, Your City Is Dying!

Don’t take population numbers at face value.


October 23 • 4:00 PM

Of Course Marijuana Addiction Exists

The polarized legalization debate leads to exaggerated claims and denials about pot’s potential harms. The truth lies somewhere in between.


October 23 • 2:00 PM

American Companies Are Getting Way Too Cozy With the National Security Agency

Newly released documents describe “contractual relationships” between the NSA and U.S. companies, as well as undercover operatives.


October 23 • 12:00 PM

The Man Who’s Quantifying New York City

Noah Davis talks to the proprietor of I Quant NY. His methodology: a little something called “addition.”


October 23 • 11:02 AM

Earliest High-Altitude Settlements Found in Peru

Discovery suggests humans adapted to high altitude faster than previously thought.


October 23 • 10:00 AM

The Psychology of Bribery and Corruption

An FBI agent offered up confidential information about a political operative’s enemy in exchange for cash—and they both got caught. What were they thinking?


October 23 • 8:00 AM

Ebola News Gives Me a Guilty Thrill. Am I Crazy?

What it means to feel a little excited about the prospect of a horrific event.


October 23 • 7:04 AM

Why Don’t Men Read Romance Novels?

A lot of men just don’t read fiction, and if they do, structural misogyny drives them away from the genre.


October 23 • 6:00 AM

Why Do Americans Pray?

It depends on how you ask.


October 23 • 4:00 AM

Musicians Are Better Multitaskers

New research from Canada finds trained musicians more efficiently switch from one mental task to another.


October 22 • 4:00 PM

The Last Thing the Women’s Movement Needs Is a Heroic Male Takeover

Is the United Nations’ #HeForShe campaign helping feminism?


October 22 • 2:00 PM

Turning Public Education Into Private Profits

Baker Mitchell is a politically connected North Carolina businessman who celebrates the power of the free market. Every year, millions of public education dollars flow through Mitchell’s chain of four non-profit charter schools to for-profit companies he controls.


October 22 • 12:00 PM

Will the End of a Tax Loophole Kill Off Irish Business and Force Google and Apple to Pay Up?

U.S. technology giants have constructed international offices in Dublin in order to take advantage of favorable tax policies that are now changing. But Ireland might have enough other draws to keep them there even when costs climb.


October 22 • 10:00 AM

Veterans in the Ivory Tower

Why there aren’t enough veterans at America’s top schools—and what some people are trying to do to change that.


October 22 • 8:00 AM

Our Language Prejudices Don’t Make No Sense

We should embrace the fact that there’s no single recipe for English. Making fun of people for replacing “ask” with “aks,” or for frequently using double negatives just makes you look like the unsophisticated one.


October 22 • 7:04 AM

My Politicians Are Better Looking Than Yours

A new study finds we judge the cover by the book—or at least the party.


October 22 • 6:00 AM

How We Form Our Routines

Whether it’s a morning cup of coffee or a glass of warm milk before bed, we all have our habitual processions. The way they become engrained, though, varies from person to person.


Follow us


Politicians Really Aren’t Better Decision Makers

Politicians took part in a classic choice experiment but failed to do better than the rest of us.

Earliest High-Altitude Settlements Found in Peru

Discovery suggests humans adapted to high altitude faster than previously thought.

My Politicians Are Better Looking Than Yours

A new study finds we judge the cover by the book—or at least the party.

That Cigarette Would Make a Great Water Filter

Clean out the ashtray, add some aluminum oxide, and you've (almost) got yourself a low-cost way to remove arsenic from drinking water.

Love and Hate in Israel and Palestine

Psychologists find that parties to a conflict think they're motivated by love while their enemies are motivated by hate.

The Big One

One company, Amazon, controls 67 percent of the e-book market in the United States—down from 90 percent five years ago. September/October 2014 new-big-one-5

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.