Can Wiki Edits Predict Romney's VP Choice?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pythagorean
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prediction
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
153 replies · 20K views
Pythagorean
Science Advisor
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
327
Some say you can tell who's going to be VP by how many wiki edits their page is getting... it's almost as if somebody has millions of dollars to hire a lot of lobbyists to go to wiki war!

*snip*

In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, "just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about her approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.

Meanwhile, the Post said, "on Aug. 22, the day before the Obama campaign officially named [then-Sen. Joe] Biden as the veep pick, Biden's Wiki page garnered roughly 40 changes. Over the five days prior, users would make at least 111 other changes to his entry."

*snip*

So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket?

— Ohio Sen. Rob Portman's Wiki page has been revised 16 times so far today, by someone called "River8009."

— Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's Wiki page has been revised nine times so far today and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.

— Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's Wiki page has been tweaked four times today.

— Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's Wiki page has been edited once today, and 11 times from Aug. 2-6.

— Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Wiki page hasn't been edited today, but was revised eight times from Aug. 3-4.

— New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte's Wiki page has not been touched today. It was last revised on July 28.

— New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's Wiki page hasn't been revised since July 24.

*snip*

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...e-is-getting-the-most-edits?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw
 
on Phys.org
I see there were no guesses put forward in this thread.

now we know. Paul Ryan. As per the news this morning.
 
lol - if I had guessed ... one of these.

I would have been the only one to guess.
The debate will continue as to, is this a good or the best choice.
I don't see Mr Ryan as a bad choice.
 
I expect Romney to win, so the choice is important. For those who don't like Romney, take heart, he predicted Ryan would be the next President.
 
Jimmy Snyder said:
I expect Romney to win, so the choice is important. For those who don't like Romney, take heart, he predicted Ryan would be the next President.

I do not expect Romney to win. His choice of a VP is a non issue for me.
 
Pythagorean said:
I'm pretty sure Obama's got that one, but that's probably for another thread.

I think the Ryan pick was out of weakness. He needed someone to get people to stop talking about him. On the other hand, he'll appeal to the tea baggers but at the price of the more moderate line.
 
Pythagorean said:
I'm pretty sure Obama's got that one, but that's probably for another thread.
Obama can't be the next President, he's the current one. And the only way Ryan can be the next one is if Romney loses the current election.
 
I can only ever hope neither of them wins. "Two wings of the same bird of prey"
 
I feel like he's just picking an overly conservative party politics consumed individual for VP to offset his own flip flopping status and moderate status. Paul Ryan is a horrible human being, god I hope Romney doesn't win.
 
Haborix said:
I can only ever hope neither of them wins. "Two wings of the same bird of prey"

Yeah, but unrealistic. Lesser of evils is what we're forced to choose, lest we allow the greater.
 
"Lesser of evils" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
Pythagorean said:
Lesser of evils is what we're forced to choose, lest we allow the greater.
I've voted for the lesser of two evils in the past and it hasn't worked out well for me. This year I'm going to turn things around.
 
I now have a reason to vote for Romney.
 
Jimmy Snyder said:
I've voted for the lesser of two evils in the past and it hasn't worked out well for me. This year I'm going to turn things around.

You're going to vote for the greater of two evils this time?
 
Paul Ryan was a good VP pick. Makes it clear that Romney's potential presidency is going to be all about the federal budget.

SIGNIFICANTLY better than John McCain's VP pick... I'm probably not going to vote this year, but it's good to see Republicans picking a candidate based on credentials rather than race sex or religion.
 
Last edited:
skeptic2 said:
You're going to vote for the greater of two evils this time?
I believe he said he was voting for Romney.
 
dydxforsn said:
Paul Ryan was a good VP pick. Makes it clear that Romney's potential presidency is going to be all about the federal budget.

SIGNIFICANTLY better than John McCain's VP pick... I'm probably not going to vote this year, but it's good to see Republicans picking a candidate based on credentials rather than race sex or religion.
I share that opinion, particularly the parts about budget and religion. I am particularly happy to see someone with virtually no religious cachet on the Republican ticket (Romney too).
 
Pythagorean said:
How do you mean?

I mean it in the sense that it is positive feedback to the system. People may say they are voting against someone or for the lesser of two evils, but it is still a vote FOR someone. This only acts as an affirmation to the party that what they put up people will vote for.
 
lisab said:
Seems like Ryan will go a long way to secure the base...but shouldn't that already be secured? I don't know yet how he'll appeal to independents.

I suspect the emphasis is to make clear that in this election "It's the economy, stupid" will once again be front and center. Hence, the Ryan pick makes perfect sense.

IMO, I think the Republicans may have a shot at the younger crowd with the recent report that for the first time in history, new retires will get less out of Social Security than they pay in! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ocial-security-than-paid-in-marking-historic/ How many young people could invest that same money in an age appropriate investment vehicle and do better over 40 or 50 years than to loose 7%, like in this report? "A married couple retiring last year, after both spouses earned average lifetime wages, paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank." Likewise, I think Independents are going to the need for a change in the system.
 
lisab said:
Seems like Ryan will go a long way to secure the base...but shouldn't that already be secured? I don't know yet how he'll appeal to independents.

And that's the issue. Romney had lackluster support from the base, but had a chance at independents. With Ryan as his pick, he will excite the base, but at risk of losing some independents. The key is will he gain more than he loses? (Of couse, this is all IMO, if it isn't readily apparent)
 
Which base?

The way I see it, there are two Republican parties; the gun-totin', hardcore Christian Right of Sarah Palin and the non-religious fiscal conservatives of...well...Paul Ryan.

Setting aside the problem of Palin's intelligence, McCain surely picked her to energize/appease the Christian Right, while hoping women would vote for her because she's a woman.

For a Republican, I don't think Paul Ryan could be more anti-Sarah Palin. So Romney must be betting he'll get the Christian Right either way and hoping the independents buy-in to the traditional Republican fiscal conservative values. I think that's a good strategy and one that has a pretty good shot at succeeding. I think Americans like fiscal conservative Presidents and I think that message should sell better now than it ever has before. I think it is a good pick -- unlike Palin, I think Ryan can only help Mitt, not hurt him.
 
russ_watters said:
Which base?

The way I see it, there are two Republican parties; the gun-totin', hardcore Christian Right of Sarah Palin and the non-religious fiscal conservatives of...well...Paul Ryan.

Setting aside the problem of Palin's intelligence, McCain surely picked her to energize/appease the Christian Right, while hoping women would vote for her because she's a woman.

For a Republican, I don't think Paul Ryan could be more anti-Sarah Palin. So Romney must be betting he'll get the Christian Right either way and hoping the independents buy-in to the traditional Republican fiscal conservative values. I think that's a good strategy and one that has a pretty good shot at succeeding. I think Americans like fiscal conservative Presidents and I think that message should sell better now than it ever has before. I think it is a good pick -- unlike Palin, I think Ryan can only help Mitt, not hurt him.

His political actions are still aligned with fundamentalists:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm/
 
About fiscal practices:

Jacob Weisberg apologized for his initial praise, admitting that

"I reacted too quickly and didn’t sort out just how laughable Ryan’s long-term spending projections were. His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
 
Last edited: