It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Using an artificial intelligence algorithm that mined social media, MogIA predicted Trump would win when almost no one else did.
Specifically, it scans 20 million data points from public platforms such as Twitter, Google, and Facebook to come up with its predictions. Rai told CNBC that his AI system clearly showed that in any of the elections that MogIA had analysed, the winning candidate was the one that had leading engagement data.
"If Trump loses, it will defy the data trend for the first time in the last 12 years since internet engagement began in full earnest," Rai wrote in a report sent to CNBC on October 28. Not that anyone was listening. Rai also pointed out that Trump had managed to overtake even Barrack Obama's engagement number in 2008 by 25 percent.
From January 1 to November 6, 2016, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton amassed a total following of 48,986,921 across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. On those three networks, Trump and Clinton’s posts attracted 495,120,770 engagements. Half a billion likes, comments, shares, retweets, and reactions. And most of them went to Trump.
On Facebook, Donald Trump collected a 208,099,876 Facebook engagements and 12 million Facebook fans. Hillary Clinton, who spent early 2016 fending off Bernie Sanders while Trump consolidated support, attracted 72 million engagements and 7.9 million Facebook fans. Her slick mostly image-based campaign won urban voters, but Trump’s grassroots, raw content crowdsourced from rallies was a bigger hit with his fans.
On Twitter, Trump stayed ahead with 89,459,006 total engagements to Hillary’s 41,572,396.
If the general election follows the same pattern as the primaries, the social media data collected indicates that Donald Trump will be the next President.
originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: neoholographic
She lost because the Founding Fathers are always watching over us. God bless them.
originally posted by: smcneil01
Good post. I happen to agree. I have nothing against democrats...but could you imagine where we would be if she made it to the White House? Trump is not even close to perfect but she was really a loose cannon. I was planning on voting for her because she was a woman and I'd like to see a woman president in my lifetime. But, the further things got, the scarier she became. Now, I think voting is a joke. I really believe we are headed towards another cival war before anything political changes. We need to drop the titles of Rep./Demo. and go to one person per state representing the state. (That gets rid of the squabbling between sides.) Then go by popular vote for President. I can't help but wonder if we ever did have a cival war, would people give up their electronic devices to go fight for a cause?
originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: neoholographic
For one thing it can definitely be both.. those things are not mutually exclusive.
Your whole premise is a joke considering that almost nothing has a single cause.. definitely nothing like elections..
Say only 1% was Russia.. well if he won by 1%....
But obviously the majority of it was that Clinton was a horrible candidate....
No one liked her.. she literally didn’t excite a single American..
AND TRUMP STILL COULDNT WIN THE POPULAR VOTE AGAINST HER!!!!