[Paleopsych] the global pulse - "tonalities" that shape global events.

[Steve Hovland]

All of us have a childish side that want simple answers to complex questions.

I would say Bush plays to that better than Kerry.  

On the other hand, the cost of voting for simple assurances may turn out to be quite high.  

If there is such as thing as "Security Moms," most of them probably don't understand that 
some of their children will have to die to keep us "safe."

Steve Hovland
www.stevehovland.net


-----Original Message-----
From:	K.E. [SMTP:guavaberry at earthlink.net]
Sent:	Saturday, October 09, 2004 11:14 AM
To:	paleo
Subject:	[Paleopsych] the global pulse - "tonalities" that shape global	events. 

  'Google With Judgment'

  By David Ignatius

     Imagine for a moment that you could study the ebb and flow of
public discussion about American politics as if it were a computer
graphic. What would this database of "aggregated thought" tell you
about the presidential campaign debates?

   It happens that a former Republican campaign strategist named Charles
M. McLean has created just such a database. His consulting company,
Denver Research Group Inc., monitors more than 7,000 sources on a
constant, real-time basis -- giving him a window on what he estimates
is about 80 percent of all original political content around the world.
Using a combination of computer algorithms and human analysis, he sifts
this mass of information to discern the "tonalities" that shape global
events. This approach has identified key political trends one to two
weeks before those changes appear in traditional poll numbers, he says.

   And what does McLean's giant Wurlitzer of information tell him about
the debates? Like the conventional pollsters, he rated last Thursday
night as a giant victory for John Kerry. The difference is that
McLean's methodology allowed him to see this shift coming. His
"tonality" measure for Kerry began to move up sharply just after Kerry
gave a speech Sept. 20, outlining a four-point plan on Iraq. When Kerry
performed well Thursday night, he was pushing on an open door.

   What's driving this election, argues McLean, is something he calls
the "unease factor." He estimates that more than 20 percent of the
electorate is worried about America's security in the world -- and is
looking for reassurance. It's a large group -- much bigger than the
usual measure of undecided swing voters because it includes a lot of
Bush supporters who had been comforted by the Republican candidate's
certitude about Iraq and the war on terrorism.

   Kerry couldn't reassure these uneasy voters until he had an
alternative explanation of what the United States should do in Iraq.
His "tonality," by McLean's measure, had collapsed in early August
after the ad campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth challenged his
trump card of Vietnam service. It didn't recover until his Iraq speech,
which reassured voters that Kerry had an alternative "plan" for the
war, as he kept repeating Thursday night. The poll numbers didn't show
the swing before the debate, but McLean's indicators did.

   "The uneasy voters want to hear how it's all going to be okay,"
McLean explains. "They've been waiting for something to grab hold of
with Kerry. Bush's greatest strength was his sense of assurance,
comfort, confidence -- but his performance Thursday took all three
away. All Kerry had to do was stand there with a catcher's mitt."

   I've been exchanging e-mails with McLean for the past year, pestering
him to let me write about his methodology. Since he's selling the
system to various Fortune 500 corporations, he's wary about sharing too
many details. And I should note, as a caveat, that he's shared
information this year with the Kerry campaign.

   McLean says he's applying to politics something he learned doing
commercial research: By the time a new product shows up in sales data,
it's too late for another company to compete effectively. An aggressive
competitor must analyze the technical and market environment and then
develop products for that space. It's the same in politics, McLean
says: By the time you see a candidate's weakness in poll numbers, it
may be too late to fix it.

   McLean has applied his intriguing approach to the Middle East,
helping build an organization called Access/Middle East, which
automatically monitors and translates more than 400 sources covering
Israel and the Arab world. This database also includes information from
more than 50 think tanks.

   So what does McLean's survey of "aggregated thought" in the Islamic
world tell him about the possibility of terrorist attacks? The
likelihood of an attack on U.S. soil now stands at 46 percent, the
highest level since Sept. 11, 2001. But the risk is even higher, at 54
percent, in the six months after the November presidential election.
And for better or worse, McLean sees a high likelihood (68 percent)
that radical Islamists will make a political push in Iraq -- perhaps
focusing on winning next January's elections.

   McLean describes his system as "Google with judgment." To me, it
sounds almost like an electronic "marketplace of ideas" that allows you
to track the direction and momentum of what people are thinking, 24
hours a day. If the system works as well as he says, it could
eventually change the way people analyze politics, and a lot of other
things as well.

  davidignatius at washpost.com 


_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych