‘Mood meter’ says Obama won debate on Twitter

President Barack Obama kept Twitter users happier than Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney through most of last night’s debate, according to a Silicon Valley company’s analysis.

NetBase, a Mountain View-based firm that “delivers the enterprise social intelligence platform that global enterprises use to monitor, understand, and engage with customers in real time,” has created a Mood Meter: a dial updated every 10 minutes that captures and measures sentiment expressed by Twitter users about the presidential and vice presidential candidates. Here’s a screen-grab from a short while ago:

NetBase Mood Meter screen grab

NetBase’s natural language processing engine analyzes each tweet about the candidates using its technology that understands how humans speak, including profanity and slang, according to the company’s news release. So the dials represent a moment in time, a cumulative group of tweet sentiment over the past 10 minutes – a real-time look into Tweeters’ opinions.

Here’s how it stacked up during last night’s debate:

NetBase mood meter

Keep in mind that this only surveys those who are actively Tweeting – a younger-skewed demographic – and not the entire debate audience.

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • Elwood

    Gee, what a surprise.

    Have you ever looked at Twitter?

    Most of the posters are illiterate morons.

  • Truthclubber

    @1 —

    Ya, like THIS GUY.

    I got more — and I’ll post them later today.

    Thanks for playing — sorry, no prize for you.

  • Truthclubber

    @1 —

    You are SO right!

    Here’s ANOTHER ONE!

    BTW, I meant right, as in wing — in case you can’t read lips.

  • Truthclubber

    @1 —

    OMFG! I had no idea!

    Here’s yet ONE MORE!

    The twitterverse is full of those illiterate morons of whom you speak!

  • Truthclubber

    @1 —


    Here is a member of the US Senate — using that dreaded Twitter!

    Who knew that Congress is full of illiterate morons?

  • Truthclubber

    @1 —

    Oh, for the love of baby Jesus!

    Here’s a candidate for office — using Twitter!

    I guess there was a spelling error — I thought you said illiterate moron, not illiterate mormon.

  • Elwood

    @ #2-5

    Is there some part of “most of” that you don’t understand? If you will tell me which parts you don’t understand, I will try to explain them to you.

    “Who knew that Congress is full of illiterate morons?”

    Almost everyone except you, apparently.

  • JohnW

    Tweets aside, I dread saying it, but it’s not looking at all good for Obama. Never mind the Gallup poll showing Romney +7 among likely voters. The real story is in the swing states. Obama still holds a slim lead in enough swing states, including Ohio, to win the election. But he is not at 50% in any of them. When undecideds kick in, they are likely to go against the incumbent. If every swing state goes Romney’s way (which may very well happen), Romney won’t just squeak out a victory. He’ll win decisively.

  • Elwood
  • JohnW

    Re: #9

    Ha, ha, ha!

    Elwood, you follow Tweets?

    I’m sure there are Twitter fools on the Left as well as the Right.

    I’m also certain that the outrageously unrepeatable Tweets in your link were written by either ignoramus rednecks or, more likely, by cynical right wingers trying to sound like gang bangers — and doing a really pathetic job of it. They all read like they were written by the same person using different Twitter names. The one on food stamps? Seriously? Who on food stamps would write something like that?

  • Josh Richman

    @9 – You slay me, Elwood. Twitter has 140 million users, and you point to this tiny collection of trolls as “a good assortment.” You know what trolls are, don’t you Elwood? 😉

  • Elwood

    And here are some more intellectual giants on Twitter who plan to riot if Romney is elected:


    Of course Josh and John say all these tweets are simply part of a right wing plot.

    You go, boys! You must really enjoy your separate reality.

  • Josh Richman

    @12 – “Right-wing plot?” Get a grip on yourself. All I said was that a few wingnuts saying absurd things in order to provoke reactions aren’t representative of 140 million users – a concept with which you ought to be intimately familiar.

  • JohnW

    Don’t believe I used the word “plot.” Although, frankly, I wouldn’t put anything past RNC chairman, Lance Priebus, and the political operative descendants of Lee Atwater {who had a particular fondness for race-based dirty campaign tricks].

    However, I did say “Right Wing.” But I like “wingnuts” better.

    Somebody went to considerable effort to get all those Tweets posted. Interesting, don’t you think, that this angry outburst of threats seems to have surfaced all in one or two days? And that they all read pretty much alike? Was there something that happened on Oct 16 (other than a good night for Obama in the debate) that would have triggered an authentic volley of threats by angry and militant black Obama supporters freaking out about the growing possibility of a Romney victory in November.

    Let’s also note that Twitchy.com is owned by right wing babe, Michelle Malkin.

    I may have missed it. But, to my knowledge, not even Fox News (where Michelle Malkin often guests on Hannity) has picked up on this. You’d think they would be having an orgasm over this — unless they realize it would blow up in their faces. [oops, I didn’t mean to construct the imagery that last sentence conjures up].

    And, where or where is the Secret Service if this stuff is real?

  • Elwood

    “saying absurd things in order to provoke reactions”

    I believe that absurd is in the eyes of the beholder.

    I simply express my thoughts, interspersed with what some find to be inconvenient truths.

    It is in no way my fault if people overreact.

  • Truthclubber

    @15 —

    Let us not forget or ignore that Elwood’s initial comment and intent (as in @1) was to castigate “Twitter” — and now he promotes it as if it is ideological manna from heaven, IF it suits his cause.

    Kinda reminds you of a candidate for the “WHITE” House, don’t ya think?

  • Elwood

    @ 16

    non sequitur
    non se·qui·tur
       [non sek-wi-ter, -toor; Lat. nohn se-kwi-toor] Show IPA
    Logic . an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
    a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

  • Elwood

    Larry Kudlow explains it all to you:

    “In a larger budget context, reporter Jeffrey H. Anderson uses a Treasury Department study to chronicle the 7-Eleven presidency. In fiscal year 2012, ending Sept. 30, the government spent nearly $11 for every $7 of revenues taken in. The exact figures are $2.5 trillion in tax revenues and $3.5 trillion in spending. In other words, it spent 44 percent more than it had coming in. Previous fiscal years look even worse: The government spent 56 percent more than revenues in fiscal year 2011 and 60 percent more in fiscal year 2010.”


  • Elwood

    Uh oh!

    Here’s someone’s favorite website!

    Bye bye ‘Bama!


  • Truthclubber

    @19 —

    Sorry, I was busy making money or I would have commented earlier (I know us Hafrican-loving libtards are not supposed to be capitalists, but hey, sometimes you just gonna go with the flow).

    Sorry to see they didn’t go over the difference between the words “site” and “page” with you during your schooling — since my favorite webPAGE shows O’bammy the Socialist with a clear 277 to 264 margin when all toss-up states are forced into a pick one way or the other.

    Thanks for playing — but you LOSE and your parting gift is…wait for it… four more years of O’bammy!

    Those numbers of 277 vs 264 do not reflect the results of O’bammy’s smackdown on Romnuts last Tuesday, but already the insta-polls in key battleground states are starting to pick that up:

    1) Virginia is a literal dead tie, yet the RedHeads at RCP give it to Romnuts on the “no tossups map”, and as it slips back into blue, that moves this needle to 290 vs 248.
    2) Colorado has already moved back to a .2% margin for Romnuts, so give the post-debate polls a couple of days and O’bammy gets another 9 EVs to move to 299 vs 239.
    3) Florida is slipping back toward O’bammy (from 2.7% for Romnuts a week ago to a mere 1.7% on the basis of debate II), and that will be accelerated during next Monday’s foreign policy wipe-the-floor using Romnuts as a dustrag, so those 29 extra EVs should move the needle back to 328 vs 210.

    I see where the O-B-A-M-A (aka post-Shrub) sanctions against Iran (and their currency — down 40+%) have done the trick — Iran suddenly and urgently wants to talk one-on-one — so that is going to blow up in Romnuts’ face “big time in Boca” — be there, unless you’re square!

  • Elwood

    @ 20

    Gee, that’s funny!

    It’s the SITE you were always posting when the chosen one was ahead.

    Now you’ve changed your tune.

  • Truthclubber

    @20 —

    Like Candy Crowley sez — check the transcript.

    (Josh, oh keeper of all things posted — feel free to chime in.)

    It’s always been that particular page (the no toss ups map), even for the mouth breathers that occasionally post here.

    Thanks for playing — but once again, you lose.

    Sorry you feel so hurt due to your obvious inability to use HTML tags to enhance your pointy-headed views here, but as JFK said, “life is not fair”.

  • JohnW

    Truthclubber is significantly more optimistic than I am about the election, but I hope he’s right.

    GOP spin on news about Iran talks will be that “Ayatollah hearts Obama!”

  • JohnW

    In reference to Monday night’s foreign policy debate, perhaps Obama should quote the following words from a newspaper editorial:

    “Obama’s foreign policy record is perhaps his strongest suit, especially compared to Romney’s bellicose posture toward Russia and China and his inflammatory rhetoric regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Obama’s measured reliance on tough economic embargoes to bring Iran to heel, and his equally measured disengagement from the war in Afghanistan, are examples of a nuanced approach to international affairs.” The editorial goes on to mention the handling of the Benghazi matter as a “glaring exception” to Obama’s foreign policy astuteness. But, of course, that was written before the latest intelligence confirming what the administration was saying from the start.

    Oh, forgot to mention, the editorial is the newspaper’s endorsement of Obama for re-election. The newspaper? The Salt Lake City Tribune. It talks about his Republican and Mormon pedigrees (generally regarded as good things in Salt Lake City), his governorship of MA and, of course, his running of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. But then it blasts him for a bunch of stuff. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound!

    Google it.

  • JohnW

    Oops. Comments mentioned in the last two sentences above refer to Romney.

  • Truthclubber

    @25 —

    I wouldn’t worry about that slip — as I suspect everyone (save the mouth breathers who troll this blog) knows that O’bammy the Hafrican may be many things (that Amerika hates), but he definitely is NOT:

    1) a Mormon
    2) a Republican
    3) a former Governor of Massachusetts
    4) involved in any way with running the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City

    Sweat not, young Jedi…

  • Elwood

    “Like Candy Crowley sez — check the transcript.”

    As has been shown repeatedly, Candy Crowley lied.

    You’re so easy.

  • Truthclubber

    @27 —

    So did Nixon, Reagan, and Shrub — but that didn’t stop you from supporting and referencing THEM.

    Talk about easy…thanks for playing, but you lose…again.

  • Elwood

    @ 28

    non sequitur

    Logic . an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
    a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

    You seem to specialize in these.

  • JohnW

    Am still trying to figure out the basis for “Candy Crowley lied.”

    Where I come from, to lie means to willfully convey untruthful “information” with the intent of misleading.

    Never mind the intent part, what is the untruthful part?

  • Elwood

    @ 30

    The dissembler in chief said he was opposed to terrorism.

    He did not say until much later that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack with AK-47s RPGs and mortars which went on for hours.

    The administration hung with the absurd story about the inflaming video for days.

  • Elwood

    White House: Lying as fast as they can.

    “Since it now appears that the first two presidential debates did very much indeed have a resounding effect on the state of the race, Team O can’t afford to take any chances with Monday’s foreign-policy debate.”


  • JohnW

    Setting aside your version of what Obama and his people said and didn’t say and when they said it, I thought your comment was about what Candy Crowley said — i.e., “Candy Crowley lied.”

    What she said (poor syntax and all):

    “It- he did in fact, sir…he did call it an act of terror…It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.”

    Obama used the phrase “acts of terror” in his rose garden remarks. He did not specifically say “this was an act of terror,” but the context was obviously the event in Benghazi.

    Crowley took Romney’s side when she said that it took two weeks to change the story about there being a riot inspired by the video.

    Crowley did not lie about anything. But, if she got anything factually wrong, it was the part that supported Romney’s comments about the two weeks. That part was somewhat wrong, in that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and others never, ever portrayed Benghazi as “either/or” — either a demonstration gone wrong about the video or a pre-planned 9/11 terrorist attack related to the 9/11 date rather than the video. They always framed their comments in terms of the still emerging intelligence.

    As of yesterday, it still appears there was never any demonstration, just the attack. But it appears that attack was not a pre-planned attack related to 9/11 but rather an opportunistic attack inspired by the demonstrations in Cairo, which were indeed triggered by the video.

  • Truthclubber


    I just think this particular thread has gone on way too long and wanted to invoke Godwin’s Law.

    Go see Argo by the way — great story, even greater film, and they take the time at the front for some well-needed “re-education” on how we helped make the entire Iranian mess in the first place by putting (along with the Brits) the Shah into power through a forced coup in 1953 after they (the Iranians) elected a secularist head of state in 1950.

  • Elwood

    Obviously, by invoking Godwin’s law you concede that you have lost.

    “There are many corollaries to Godwin’s law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.” –Wikipedia

    Please play again. However, this loss will be a part of your permanent record.

  • Truthclubber

    @35 —

    Fell for it, as I thought you would.

    There was NO comparison made, just a reference — which you fell for.

    I suspect that the audience is sick of the two of us jousting for the last word, so I am going to move on.

    You can do as you want, and I suspect your ego is too fragile to not want the last word.

  • JohnW

    Yes, this thread has run its course. That includes my numerous posts.

    So, as regards Benghazi, let’s just say I won and move on.

    Just kidding about the who won part.