IT is still a wide field for the presidency.
According to Eero Brillantes, CEO of Blueprint.PH (www.blueprint.ph), a big data analytics and campaign management consultancy firm, about 16 names so far have paths to the presidency in 2022.
“If we go by our big data metrics, about 16 names are frequently being mentioned on social media, particularly Facebook, as potential presidential candidates. All have paths to the presidency. Social media networking activities alone through Facebook can generate 22%-35% of the votes in 2022.”
“There are four components to a serious campaign. These are the ground game, the air war through mainstream media, network engineering (social media), and big data for decision support. Each of these “presidentiables” have at least one of these components in play as we speak. No one has all the four as strengths just yet going into the filing of candidacies in October 2021”, added Brillantes, author of the 2020 book “Campaign Management for politics and Social Change”.
The 16 names considered as presidentiables are Bongbong Marcos, Sara Duterte, Manny Pacquiao, Bong Go, Risa Hontiveros, Grace Poe, Ramon Ang, Chel Diokno, Alan Peter Cayetano, Tito Sotto, Jonvic Remulla, Pia Cayetano, Manny Villar, Lucy torres- Gomez, Isko Moreno and Leni Robredo.
“Social media will be a major battleground at 22%-35% potential votes. The ground game (machinery) and mainstream media (advertising and public relations) will account for the 65%-78%% of vote generational potential. Big Data will be crucial in determining the right messaging and priority spending across many segments of the electorate”, explained Brillantes.
Tandem Analysis (Combinations)
Notable is the “tandem analysis” done by Blueprint.PH based on social media networking activities of the 16 personalities. The analysis did not discriminate the political colors and alliances of the 16 names but only looked at the relative strengths of tandem combinations voter generation potential over Facebook.
By Blueprint.PH metrics, a tandem or combination which can potentially generate more than six million votes via Facebook networking activities is categorized as “STRONG”.
The “COMPETITIVE” category means a combined voter generation potential of more than four million votes but less than six million votes through social media networking activities. The “WEAK” category is less than four million votes generation potential for combinations.
Of the 16 names, two names at the moment can theoretically pair with any of the 15 others and become STRONG combinations.
Three other names pairing with four particular others on the list are likewise categorized as STRONG.
11 other names pairing with 2 particular others on the list are likewise categorized as STRONG.
10 names fall under the COMPETITIVE category.
Of the 10, 1 name has 1 potential tandem categorized as COMPETITIVE. 1 other name has 4 particular combinations landing on the ‘COMPETITIVE” category. 1 with 3 particular combinations, 5 with 6 particular combinations, and 2 with 7 particular combinations for the COMPETITIVE category.
14 of the 16 names are categorized as WEAK combinations or tandems.
1 has 5 WEAK combinations. 1 has 6 WEAK combinations. 2 have 7 WEAK combinations. 3 names have 7 WEAK combinations. 1 has 9 WEAK combinations. 1 has 10 WEAK combinations. 1 has 12 WEAK combinations. 4 names have 13 WEAK combinations.
Most Media Coverage over Facebook
According to Brillantes, the computation of each name’s voter generation potential over Facebook is a proprietary formula of Blueprint and its foreign partners, tested in multiple Asian elections and calibrated with 2019 Philippine Senatorial Elections data, and projects the percentage of total votes for each name may potentially attract.
Brillantes notes that the formula serves as a constructive evaluation of each potential name’s readiness and deficit in generating the necessary support to become winnable. It also serves as a guideline for early fundraising and organizational capacity building for serious candidates and their political parties and coalitions.
The study was generated last December 3, 2020, extracting social media data from June 1, 2020, to November 30, 2020 scanning a total of 344,761,479 data points across publicly available data on Facebook. All the extracted data were from the social media content, reactions, behavior index, and the nature of the extracted data was passive, without any active stimulus. The data gathering process deployed for this report did not include active stimulus triggering biases in the form of questions, surveys, or polling. This methodology avoided the framing effect most common with active polling on issues or the instrument effect of panels. The longitudinal data for six months minimized the distortion of the recency effect and recall exclusion.
The process measured the preconceived opinion of the potential voters that were formed before official filing and measured the stability of each name’s perceptions with potential voters. This framework did not specifically differentiate probable event-based factors but measured the impact these events had on the names as they roughly shifted in perception, and exposure.Publication Source : People's Tonight