My Photo

Ordering Information

Tomi on Twitter is @tomiahonen

  • Follow Tomi on Twitter as @tomiahonen
    Follow Tomi's Twitterfloods on all matters mobile, tech and media. Tomi has over 8,000 followers and was rated by Forbes as the most influential writer on mobile related topics

Book Tomi T Ahonen to Speak at Your Event

  • Contact Tomi T Ahonen for Speaking and Consulting Events
    Please write email to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com and indicate "Speaking Event" or "Consulting Work" or "Expert Witness" or whatever type of work you would like to offer. Tomi works regularly on all continents

Tomi on Video including his TED Talk

  • Tomi on Video including his TED Talk
    See Tomi on video from several recent keynote presentations and interviews, including his TED Talk in Hong Kong about Augmented Reality as the 8th Mass Media


Blog powered by Typepad

« The Secret Transcript of the Phone Call between Trump and Bill Clinton | Main | Smartphone Wars: Lets do Windows Microsoft disaster, yes 5.8M total Lumia sold is now market share of 1.6% (and falling) (UPDATED) »

October 23, 2015



Tomi, you forgot to mention staying power.

Who of the other would-be presidents would keep a cool head in an 11 hour cross examination? And not get the opposition a single sound-bite?

I think Hillery just preempted any attempt to get her on her age.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Winter

LOL very good. But we haven't (yet) tested all the other candidates on 11-hour congressional hearing marathons...

SRSLY, I did expect her to come really prepared but I was still impressed that she held out that well. Did you see the Republicans towards the end. Trey Gowdy was so red in his face, I was afraid my TV was starting to lose its color balance haha, he was looking like he was getting ill. And like we learn in basic debate, the side who gets angry, has lost. How many times did that Ohio guy, Jordan raise his voice.. The split-screen views were priceless with Hillary often smiling as if she was a mom watching a toddler having a tantrum. Yeah, that performance will be studied for decades by future hearing-prep lawyers on pure excellence in how to perform in front of Congress.

PS this hearing... now consider Hillary in the general election debate... She walks into that debate as the favorite against anyone from that Republican field. This year's Hillary would beat Obama of 2008 in head-to-head debates..

Tomi Ahonen :-)


Hi Tomi

Great review! I have travelled and worked in the USA and am like you fascinated by their political system. Live in Scandinavia now. What a contrast to the USA!!

I think you are spot on. Looking forward to seeing your coming articles on the subject matter.


Jeb is toast

Gone in day or a few weeks


Jeb campaign cutting near 50% of all spending and some staff.

Life support

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Rob and mpinco

Rob - thanks. I will do that from time to time. This has just been a very busy time of big news with the first Democratic debate and now the Benghazi hearing and the campaign finances were reported, etc. But yes, I probably will do a big review as we approach the first elections, say December or January. And then occasional events will drive some blog articles either some big news or else if I spot some issues that I feel are not adequately covered, like the Delegate Math article I wrote a few days ago.

mpinco - haha, yeah, Jeb's campaign is now signalling it is going the way of Walker. A second staff budget cut in what, a month. And what I think is a sign they are desperate, is that Jeb rolled out brother W Bush to do fund-raising. I know he's popular with part of the party but that is really bad optics for Jeb, in the light of 'he kept us safe' etc. Now, if the Jeb Bush campaign was run professionally, he should not be in any jeopardy of folding. And Jeb did have the choice of most of the best Republican talent when he set it up, its run by Mike Murphy a career Republican (moderate) operative, who seems quite smart when he's on TV. He's (Murphy) been saying for months that this is a long haul race, that they will not obsess about daily Trumpisms. And obviously they've raised the most cash. If this is a professionally-run campaign, it should not be in danger of collapsing, like Scott Walker's campaign did. But...

The press is that his donor base is freaking out. The campaign donations to the SuperPAC were huge for his launch but been miniscule in the 3 months since. Its quite possible that most Jeb supporters have not paid really anything since he launched, and as they watched Trump take Jeb apart in the early going. If the money spigots have dried up, then no amount of staff cuts can save this campaign. Iowa is too far ahead and Jeb will do poorly in that vote anyway. His first good chance is New Hampshire.

Note that if Jeb drops out, the delegate math hell will not shift an inch. He was in the Florida run-off so the only thing we'd know is that Rubio would the own the 99 delegates of Florida. But Jeb's supporters will not go to Cruz or Rubio or Trump (or Carson). The will go to another moderate, so Kasich would be biggest beneficiary with Christie also. Any other leading candidate except Rubio or Bush, would at least shrink the field for real, in the delegate hunt. But Jeb (or Marco) dropping out would not change the delegate hunt futility where nobody can clinch the overall nomination before June.

Hey mpinco, what did you think of my ratings? Reasonable? Roughly in line with how you see it (especially the Republican side?)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

To all

Wired has just written a story about the data-mining 'gap' that is forming where Hillary builds but the Republicans have stopped building a big data system. Obviously its the same story I mentioned (first) on this blog

Note. First. That the biggest expenditure of Hillary's huge spending so far, has been to build that updated version of the data-mining juggernaut of the Obama 2012 campaign (6th largest database on the planet, and the only one that was a 'disposable' database, built only for the four-month campaign run. Obama spent 100 million dollars on that). Hillary hired many of the same people, and they are building something that is even bigger and more powerful.

So then, Jeb Bush. I mentioned that Jeb is the one spending second most. That was BEFORE he made his big staff cuts and sent most of those who remain to go fight for the early-voting states. The big data project has been gutted if not shelved or cancelled. So who else spent on a big data operation? That was Walker, who has quit the race. And his project has not found any buyers. No other campaign (except Jeb) was willing to spend the kind of enormous amounts to build something like that, and Jeb was already building his. So now this rump of a project is stuck and most of that effort probably will be wasted (and if Jeb quits, the same will be true of his project).

In 2012 when the Romney team figured out what the Obama team was doing, they created a rush-project and throw tons of money onto it. They brought in Microsoft to help build what was called Orca. Like any Microsoft project it was delayed and went over budget and underperformed. The big data system was turned on only on election day! The thousands of staff and volunteers who were supposed to use it, received a huge manual of tons of pages of techno-babble of how to use that 'machine'. Then tons of typical glitches of any big tech prototypes appeared, so that for example in North Carolina nobody was able to use that expensive data-mining tool at all.

Meanwhile the Obama machine called Narwhal (actually a series of interconnected databases) was deployed months before, tested and perfected, used to guide TV advertising and the ground-game of visiting homes, making phone calls etc. All people who were needed to use Narwhal had long since received their passwords, and their training, and all the bugs were worked out of the system. Oh, Obama's team had brought in those people smarter than Microsoft, haha, they had Google, Facebook, Amazon and other modern tech companies helping them. The one team that Obama went to thank personally, and in public, immediately after his surprisingly large election victory - was the Narwhal datamining geeks and nerds. The only team he went to thank personally, in public. That is how important it was to win 2012.

Hillary hired many of the top people who built that. She knows. And she's now throwing even bigger mountains of money at this project. The smart people at the Republicans know that Romney's Orca was too little and too late to bring them the balance in that battle. They wanted to start early and build robustly a far bigger system now. Some of those people were hired by Scott Walker. They are now adrift without a job and with a barely begun tech project in shatters. The other rival project was with Jeb Bush. He has now gutted if not terminated that project, with its technology in tatters. There was also a rumor that the Koch brothers would build their own big data system to help their favorite candidates. Well, the Koch brothers just announced that their total funding for the 2016 election cycle will not be 900 million, but a tiny fraction of that. I would guess that their data-mining mission went out that window.

Watch this space. Read the Wired article and then re-read the data-mining part in this blog (it was in the Hillary section). This will be a part of the race that will mostly be hidden. I will report on it of course, if and when we see anything, because that is of specific interest to our readers here.

Tomi Ahonen :-)


"Well, the Koch brothers just announced that their total funding for the 2016 election cycle will not be 900 million, but a tiny fraction of that. I would guess that their data-mining mission went out that window."

Does this signal that the Koch brothers admit defeat? That is, they expect Hillary to win.

millard filmore


"Does this signal that the Koch brothers admit defeat? That is, they expect Hillary to win."

By golly Winter, you just made my day!


Another argument for pro-Hillary: "Support for Tea Party Drops to New Low"

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi all

Mark Halpern at Bloomberg wrote a good article about Hillary's chances as a kind of check-list of advantages that she now holds (many that she has held all along, he points out) and the article is well in line with espeically my 2016 election preview on things I wrote there, about the convention advantage, the electoral college advantage, the role of Bill Clinton as a surrogate, and how an easy nomination race on Hillary's side helps her while a long nomination battle creates more damaged rival on the Republican side. Its a very good article, I would recommend reading it

But the really interesting part in the article is the part about Republican delusion relating to Hillary Clinton. There is a true deep-held hatered about her, and this blinds them to obvious realities. There is a level of denial about Hillary. This means they are doing dumb things as a party, such as this witch-hunt relating to emails and Benghazi. While the base loves this kind of feuding with Hillary, the Independents in the middle see it for what it obviously is, a partisan attack and hack-job. This will earn her sympathy that turns against the Republicans. It - the delusions that the Republicans and Conservatives have about Hillary - is an aspect I had not discussed and it is a further weakness across the board for 2016 compared to the Democrats.

First, remember me and my crusade to get Stephen Elop removed from the job of running Nokia? I was relentless in describing his multitude of massive errors that he committed as CEO. Yes, I was chronicling them all and wrote long articles that were extremely critical of Elop. But along the way, I didn't lose a sense of realism, when, occasionally, he did something good for Nokia, I was able to see that as well. See the good sides as well. Such as reversing the idiotic decision to go with naming only by numbers. Or launching the best camera ever seen on a phone (the Symbian based 808 Pureview) etc. This blog was not only an 'anti Elop' blog, I discussed EACH move made by Elop, and because most were stupid, I called him out on those, but whenever he did or said something sensible, I also reported on those (when they rarely happened) such as for example when he admitted his memo did damage Nokia sales. I would say the difference is, that I was able to keep reality in view, while being critical. Same of Nokia prior to Elop. Some thought I was pure love and joy of Nokia, but if you read the reviews I had of Nokia performance in 2010, I was very critical of Nokia often, that it was poorly managed, even while Nokia reported profits, I said they were under-performing.

Now, with all that, lets get back to conservatives and Republicans looking at Hillary. Its like a red flag to a bull. they go off the rails. Where is the realism. They should note clearly, that Hillary is a frightfully strong TV performer and debater. They should make this a clear ISSUE now. And they should insist that the Republican rival show he or she IS ALSO strong in TV debates. Look at how weak Trump was (complaining about 3 hours being too long). Look at how 'low energy' Dr Carson is haha and Jeb Bush? He's no match to Hillary! Ted Cruz came to us on the reputation of a chammpion debater in college. He clearly isn't that (I wonder where he debated and how he achieved such a reputation, when I was judging, I can't see giving him any victories). Who is good at the debates? Fiorina, Christie, Rubio and Huckabee. A few others (Kasich, Bush, Paul) could become strong if they got some good coaching and plenty of practice. But for the right wing to insist Hillary is weak and will fall to emails or Benghazi, that is only avoiding the truth and preventing a good response to her. Note, it also would be in the Republican nominee's best interest to create the public perception that Hillary is a supremely strong debater, to lower the standards for the Republican candidate, and increase the chances that if the Republican performs well on TV they would have an upset. Its partly expectation on TV debates vs reality.

Oh, one more example. Look at what a blind spot Jeb Bush has about his brother. This is a danger I think the Republicans have about Hillary. They have created an alternate reality where she is hated (because she IS hated among Fox news and its friends) and thus would be a weak candidate who cannot win. If they go into that battle, against the imaginary Hillary, they will WASTE THEIR EFFORT to try to defeat a ghost, while the real Hillary coasts to an election landslide victory. This delusion is dangerous for the Republicans. It will damage them more in 2016. Consider the alternative. Consider if Republican leadership, especially some of the candidates, wanted to show they are the 'grown up' party. They would take the Benghazi hearing, scold Trey Gowdy in public for running a farce and damaging the Republican party (and Congress) reputation - and end the witch-hunt. And clearly, in public, reprimand Gowdy for what he did. Instead, what are they now doing? They have launched a NEW witch-hunt hearing about Planned Parenthood (because Fiorina - another delusional candidate - imagined something apocalyptical when she watched a video).

Would admitting that some zealots had launched a witch-hunt within their own ranks, hurt the Republicans in 2016? No. That is the truth. The Democrats will run that as a major issue, with ads that start with Kevin McCarty's bragging of how the Benghazi hearings were created to drive down Hillary's numbers, and then ending with Gowdy admitting no they didn't learn anything new. And interspersed with costs wasted that will end up so big, they would have paid for a quarter of the 20 million dollars that Hillary had requested for added security funding but the Republican Congress didn't give her, prior to Benghazi.

This will be a particularly damaging TV ad because it damages the INTEGRITY of the Republican party, hurting every candidate up and down the field, especially all incumbent Republican members of Congress. So, we know Hillary is vindictive (her surname is Clinton) so we KNOW this is coming. IF we're honest now, and we see reality now, we can plan on preparing for it. The SMART move by the Republicans is to now end the sham hearings and to DIFFUSE this issue for the next election. To blame it on just Gowdy's over-reaching investigation and the hyper-partisans on that committee. If the Republican party was able to see clearly, it would do this. It would diffuse the issue for 2016. Then even if Hillary ran those TV ads, it would be 'water under the bridge' and that the Republican leadership has dealt with it 'last year' and is no longer going to happen... Rather, it now raises the issue that the Democrats can argue, that Republicans are so irresponsible, they will spend millions in persecuting future candidates for President on witch-hunts at the taxpayer's expense, rather than give the money to make those embassies safe...

Interesting angle by Halperin, a delusion that very clearly clouds much of the discussion about Hillary in the current Republican field.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

millard filmore

@Tomi, I will start with a quote that comes to mind:

Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. - Lily Tomlin

You mention that the Republicans will do this all over again: "They have launched a NEW witch-hunt hearing about Planned Parenthood"

Its actually even worse than you think. The witch hunts can keep on comm'in. Currently in the pipeline and already in operation is the Climate Denier's committee: "the House science committee, under the chairmanship of Lamar Smith (R-TX)"


As this link and the next (below) explain, the purpose of these investigations is to harass and drain the target of resources, waste time and money finding, producing, copying documents, working with lawyers, depositions, and on and on and on. Straight out of L Ron Hubbard's playbook.

The House Republicans have given a select number (select? these two links are not clear on how limited this number is) of committees vast powers. "No longer is the [committee] chair required to consult with the ranking member before launching investigations or issuing subpoenas."


Tomi, the Republicans in Congress have gone feral. Do not expect good things from them.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi all

The 3rd Republican debate is tomorrow on CNBC. There are plenty of candidates who need a strong showing but I think this is existential threat time for Jeb Bush. He has made such a long series of blunders and is really on the ropes, I think he has to come out swinging and hit Trump hard.

The mocking that Trump did at Jeb 'he's gone home to mommy and daddy in Texas to ask for more money' hurts. The meekness and modesty of his campaigning hurts. The financial problems, two cuts in staff, hurts. The stories that fund-raising is suffering and now needs brother W Bush (wow, that means its REALLY bad) and tow 90-year olds Daddy and Mommy Bush to beg for donations for Jeb, all this is bad.

What is devastating, however, is that Jeb said on the weekend that he doesn't need to do this, that he could go home and watch it on TV rather than be beaten up by Trump. Come on. Its the job of being President of the USA. Jeb Bush more than any other candidate knows EXACTLY how hard it is, from both his father and his brother serving a total of 12 years as President. And both who had strongly disapproving terms by the end, so Jeb should know that the Presidency gets it FAR WORSE than what Trump says about - gosh wow, does it hurt really - that Jeb is 'low energy'. What will Kim Jong Un say about Jeb as President? What will Putin say about him? The Iranians sing every week songs that the USA is the Great Satan. Someone threw shoes at his brother when visiting the Middle East. And Jeb is hurt that the nomination fight is a bit ugly. He does not have any fighter instinct in him. He is a wimp, more so even than his dad. And what clearly W Bush over-compensated with his moronic walking style and hiring Cheney and his cronies to be W Bush's bullies to show how 'Texas Tough' W Bush was. Jeb is no fighter. He will be crushed by this process.

So the narrative is solidifying that Jeb is weak (something Trump loves to drive into voter minds). This is the first debate after the Repbulican voters saw Hillary being tested both in the Democratic debate, and more impressively even, in the Benghazi hearings. What they now want, is a Hillary-killer on the debate stage. If Jeb cannot handle Trump, what hope is there for voters to send Jeb against the far more formidable Hillary Clinton?

This is really an existential threat now to Jeb's candidacy. He is routinely fumbling his chances with massive self-induced errors like now that stupid statement that he'd rahter be at home than take the 'abuse' of the campaigning. Sorry Jeb, you have to show backbone. The Republican base wants a fighter. Hillary has shown her side that she is truly the fighter who can take on 7 rivals at a time for 11 hours straight, and still keep a broad smile on her face and emerge the winner. Jeb, you need to raise you game. Jeb needs to hit Trump really hard and repeatedly. Show 'energy' and passion. To a FAR larger degree than he's shown before. Or the narrative sets, that Jeb is not up to taking the fight to Hillary. And he can't win anything. And as Jeb built a big organization, if his fundraising really dries up, he will fold like Scott Walker and Rick Perry. This debate is that test now, if the supporters are willing to throw more money into the Jeb gamble. Its looking awefully perilous.

PS Carson now first national poll large lead over Trump. Carson should draw fire in the debate also. He can't handle that nearly as well as Trump did, and Carson will be only a 'flavor of the month' who will be out of the lead by December. Trump has solid base support of 11% but the other 11% of his support is soft and will continue to erode. So who is the 'Flavor of the month' AFTER Carson. For December. Whoever that is, that candidate is an early serious candidate for winning in the early States. I can't see Cruz getting to a lead position until Trump or Carson or both quit. So who? Someone could have a breakout debate moment - best bets Fiorina, Rubio, Christie and Huckabee. And remember Rubio made that brilliant call on Putin and Syria. Brilliant call. It will come up several times tomorrow in the debate haha...

But of course the best time to peak would be January when voting starts in February... We may still see a few of the best candidates 'shadow boxing' and not giving it their best yet. And Trump? He has TONS of weapons he hasn't yet used starting with advertising. He's been kind of coasting the past two months or so. He may show up tomorrow really fired up and have a breakout debate himself - and again leapfrog Dr Carson back to the lead...

Oh I love this race this time. The most entertaining race ever..

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Stephen Reed

I appreciate your model. However, I believe that "Issues" should somehow be a factor. Trump, for whom I will be volunteering in Texas for the primary, is considered by many to be a populist - having talking points for issues that are widely accepted. For example, most Americans believe that persons should not enter the country illegally. Trump, alone among the candidates, wants to build a wall on the USA / Mexico border.

I suppose too, that Trump's position on trade imbalances would lead directly to a stand that cellphones sold in the USA should be manufactured in the USA - if that was necessary to improve the trade imbalance between the USA and China. I wonder if Americans are willing to pay more for phones in return for local jobs.

As I write this, Trump has lost his lead in Iowa to Ben Carson. Trump says that he will work harder in that state and spend more money, suggesting that if he wins Iowa then the resulting huge momentum will carry him to the nomination.

You may know that the Republican National Committee has created rules for this cycle's nominating convention that favor a candidate who may not lead in every state, but who is relatively strong in many states. For example, Carson must win eight of the states and territories before his name can be placed in nomination. Presently, Trump is the only candidate favored to win in more than eight states.

I will stick with my prediction, based upon current poll trends and an expectation that Iowa will be fixed, that Donald Trump wins every state.

It will be great reading your articles after each of the early voting primary states in February and March of next year. Maybe I will be changing my predictions...

Regarding Hillary Clinton, the US FBI has said that they are attempting to complete their investigation of her private email server by the end of this year. Obama's Justice Department will have to decide whether to indict Hillary should the FBI find evidence that classified data was not properly secured. There are actually several sorts of national security felonies that Hillary could have committed.

There is a non-zero chance that Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee at this time next year due to an indictment. And if the FBI publishes evidence that the Obama Justice Dept says is not sufficient for an indictment, then that evidence becomes a focal point of Republican negative advertising none the less. E.g. how can a person who arguably risked the nation's security be commander in chief?

If Trump is the Republican nominee, then it is clear that many hundreds of millions of political action committee money will be spent against the Democratic candidate even if Trump says he does not want the other billionaires' money. The current terrible system in the USA permits this anyway.

I predict that Trump will poll well in some historically Democratic states, resulting in a historic landslide for Donald Trump in the general election.

One day I would like to purchase an iPhone made in the USA.

millard filmore

@Stephen Reed

Trump's indifference to his followers beating up random people is troubling, but his statement that police need more power goes way over the top. More power. Wow! Did you know that plain-clothes police can already snatch 12yo girls off a front lawn, stuff her in the back of a nondescript unmarked van, and beat her senseless when she resists?

There were not "rogue" cops. The department and the city backed them up. Instead of disciplinary actions, they went on to get promotions, raises, awards, bonuses. What kind of power can you add to smacking around a 12 year old girl? What more power does Trump think the police need? Maybe (look left, look right, stage whisper) no one ever need find the body?

More power for the police. Maybe Trump will push to make it a federal crime to video the police as they commit felonies on public streets.

Be careful what you wish for, we may end up with a police force that would be the pride of the Belgian Congo.

(sorry to go off the rails here, Tomi)


@Stephen Reed
"Trump, for whom I will be volunteering in Texas for the primary, is considered by many to be a populist - having talking points for issues that are widely accepted."

No, he is considered a populist because he says what his followers want to hear irrespective whether it is true or feasible. I admit that this is also a matter of degree. But, e.g., promising that he will take away citizenship from those who were born on US soil is not his to decide and there is zero chance that it will fly.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi millard and Stephen

millard - haha, gosh I love Lily Tomlin. One of the all time greatest sketches was her Phone Company Lady on Saturday Night Live in the early years when she was a guest host. Its the one where she was an evil phone company switchboard operator, who after spying in on phone calls and being abusive to callers, would turn to the camera and say, 'We don't care. And we don't have to. We are the Phone Company'... gosh I love her humor. That quote you found, I hadn't heard that. It reminds me of the one about the tunnel - the light at the end of the tunnel.. may be an onrushing train.

But yeah, thanks, I spotted that too. Really its now hearings galore. I totally get it, if there WAS a scandal but Mr No Drama Obama has had no real scandals. His is THE cleanest administration evah. Which of course drives the haters nuts because they want to catch him with something like what idiot W Bush did (or worse). But this WILL come back at them when the Democrats get both houses, and because there IS plenty rotten in their methods. Some members of Congress and many of their aides will go to prison for clear partisan abuses of power. What I hope to see however, rather than this petty partisan bickering, is the real serious crimes by Cheney and Rumsfeld and their buddies, the tortures and wars and spying etc. Those hearings will be coming too, because the liberal base of Democrats will demand it and Hillary will delight in approving it, as will Nancy Pelosi and I suspect so too will Chuck Schumer. Oh, and those new subpoena powers.. gosh, how sad. But as they say, power corrupts... And eventually after the serious abuses, there will be new legislation that will govern this, making it illegal for just the chairman to unilaterally harass people like that..

Stephen - thanks or the background. FYI I lived in Texas for a year, Houston. Studied there at TSU Texas Southern University yes the all-black university right next to University of Houston. Initially I was accepted to UoH but their debate coach was fired for some improprieties just the season I was doing my transfer papers, and they suspended their nationally ranked debate team. I had already found a family to support me so I was going to come to Houston anyway, so I picked the next best debate school in town, next door was TSU, and I arrived, white-faced boy, to discover a campus that was literally 97% black... Haha, weird feeling but not one iota of discrimination against me haha and we had fun with that debate team, until I moved back to Pennsylvania the next year. So I kinda have a bit of an understanding of that peculiar brand of being an American, in Texas it is definitely Texan first, American second, eh? (And I've visited Dallas, Ft Worth, Texarkana, Austin, San Antonio, Galveston, Laredo, MacAllen, Corpus Christi, Lubbock and Amarillo. I've driven I-10 across the state and what is the next Interstate, I guess msut be I-20 haha. And North-and-South too from Gulf of Mexico to Oklahoma..

(I love Texas, and the women... gosh, that accent, I am totally butter in the hands of any Texan if she speaks that accent). Now to the issues. Fair point, issues probably should be in, but its a very hard item to quantify and also to select. Its a bit like reading the Exit Polls. First, you love it seeing what was asked but in only mere minutes you notice, wait, they didn't ask X and they also didn't ask Y and not Z etc.. So should I take guns. Ok. What about gun safety. What about mental illness. As same as gun safety or separate. What about police killings. Part of guns or separate... etc etc etc. Gets very messy and each candidate of course tries to spin their support of a given issue to gain maximum advantage however they perceive that, sometimes very vaguely, sometimes defining it weirdly etc... I do agree it matters. I find it hard to imagine how it could be done fairly to cover roughly all relevant issues without having a list of 300 issues haha...

It will matter, most definitely, and my model ignores the issues. Mainly out of the imprecision where I couldn't trust the model could be fair and clean and reasonably unbiased. But good of you to notice and mention.

Now lets talk a bit about the handset tariffs issue you bring up. Fair point, this is in line with Trump's stated trade policy position. He wants to be the President who slaps on unilateral tariffs on imports to bully his view to world trade contracts to try to unilaterally renegotiate them. I hope you knew, that essentially all foreign trade experts and economists who have commented on this ludicrous idea, have said it is totally unworkable and would intensely backfire on US itself, damaging US trade and jobs and balance of trade. It would instantly ignite trade wars that would damage the USA far far more than the counterparts. Trump has a valid point that some countries - often for example China and at times yes, Japan - have abused trade deals. Even so, the latest achieved trade deals with those countries have GREATLY benefitted US companies, at EVERY step of the lessening of world tarriffs and increasing open world trade. The latest, TPP is once again a MASSIVE lowering of international tariff regimes which again helps US corporations disproportionately more than any others in that trade partnership area. EVERY cycle of lowering of tariffs has helped US corporations. Always trade wars have hit US corporations the most. Trump KNOWS this but he is now pandering to the populists on this issue. So about your 'made in USA iPhone' please trust me, even if Trump was the President, even Trump would not follow through on this silly political promise. If the USA raised tariffs on phones for example (and targeting China) China would retaliate by raising tariffs on airplanes. Now what. USA has no other place to buy iPhones than from China. But China HAS a cheaper place to buy airplanes than Boeings from Seattle - they would buy Airbusses. This is INSTANT damage to US trade and employment at FAR bigger scale than the benefits to phone manufacturing employment in the USA haha... sorry, I appreciate it that you are patriotic in this way, but an iPhone manufactured in the USA would cost at least 1,200 US dollars without contract or probably 800 dollars with 2 year contract. Do you want that? Nobody would buy those, they would buy Samsungs coming from South Korea who don't have the tariffs and still sell at same prices as today..

(I will post these and come back with more)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Stephen, millard and Winter

Stephen - on Iowa. It is a state not naturally well suited for Trump's run. It is exceptionally well suited for Carson. I don't think Trump really needs to win Iowa, and as his lead there has ended, its quite difficult for him to regain it. I don't doubt Trump will quit Iowa yet and he can do ok by just grabbing a share of the delegates if he finished say 2nd or 3rd. New Hampshire fits Trump far better and is very bad fit for Carson..

On RNC rules about nominees, no I didn't know that 8 state rule. Interesting. I would guess that only applies for 'first round' votes or a few first rounds. If no nominee is found, eventually all delegates are released and the haggling really starts... But yeah, I didn't know that, thanks. it does mean that mathematically no more than 6 candidates can be finalists with enough states won, and likely only 3 or 4. But that means top of ticket, and VP choice could still be someone who has tons of delegates but only a few states won...

Now on Trump winning every state, I hear you but I say that is 'statistically impossible'. Not with this field and the early support. Trump currently leads Florida. Fine. But ACTUAL Florida will be a TV bloodbath where Jeb and Rubio have a HUGE home field ORGANIZING advantage. It would be prohibitively expensive for Trump to go try to set a rival ground game - the THIRD parallel in that state - to try to defeat both. The same day Oct 15 is Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina and Illinois. If Kasich is still running, he WILL easily win Ohio. Just look at the dumb stuff Trump said about Ford and Ohio factories. It was Kasich who NEGOTIATED that deal in 2011. Who will Ohio car workers vote for. Their fave Gov of course. Now, Florida, expensive, near impossible. Ohio, expensive, near impossible. Why not go to Illinois, or Missouri or NC? They don't have a home field player. Trump would have FAR bigger chance to win one or some of those, at FAR less cost.

There are several of the winner-take-all days that are like this, where it is almost certain that if 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 candidates are running, they will disperse to try to win one or 2, not all states that day. Mar 15, Apr 26 and June 7 are such days (as is SEC primary Mar 1 but not winner-take-all). But it is technically plausible that one candidate catches fire and then wins a perfect streak of all the states. Because Trump has such a low ceiling (so many Republicans say they will not vote for him) that is highly unlikely to be Trump. Rubio has a better chance for a total clean sweep.

haha on the articles thanks. Today obviously the debate criteria is up and later, after the CNBC debate, will do debate scoring...

On the FBI investigation. Fine, maybe a 1% chance that she is indicted and then... remember these are the Clintons. They are lawyers to the core, you think they'll ever be convicted of anything this moronic. But ok, there is a slight outside chance that her run is sunk by the FBI. Please do not hold your breath haha...

Finally the general election match-up. Lets see what the next polling tells us. It will be the first that reflects a Hillary campaign that has started with the first debate done and her Benghazi hearing. I am guessing Hillary-Trump head-to-head will be about 10 points for Hillary, maybe more. This is now, when everybody KNOWS Hillary and nobody really knows yet fully Trump as a Presidential candidate. So Hillary's 'negatives' are baked in. But Trump's negatives will only appear in the continued attacks from all sides, driving up his negatives both by Republicans and especially Independents. He has taken so many extremist positions, he cannot win a general election. I know you feel strongly about the Immigration issue and others he stands for - but on that too - the vast majority of Americans prefer to give some legal status for illegals in the USA - Hillary's position - while only a minority want to try to deport them all - Trump's position. BTW the fence he wants to build and the deportations he wants to do, will cost huge - HUUUUGE - amounts of EXTRA money for Goverment to spend. So how to pay for it? Trump previously said he wants higher taxes especially for the rich. How well does that play? Or if he now says no, no more taxes, and his plan is scored, and it causes a huge increase of the bugdet deficits. So now he, Mr bankruptcy-prone 'businessman' wants to balloon the national debt? All of his promises are vaporware and utterly impractical. But he expresses his views with such strong conviction, they must be right.. haha...

millard - no problem, it was within the general scope and I agree. The majority of Americans think the police have been behaving irresponsibly and they must have some changes to their rules and such monitoring tech as cameras etc... Some of the worst abuses are really depressing to watch.

Winter - agreed and thanks. And yes, its pandering to the xenophobic racist wing, the promise of removing the Constitutional protection that anyone born in the USA, is a citizen of the USA with all rights. It will never ever be revoked but some extremists can peddle such views and now unfortunately Trump (but there was another candidate too who embraced that, was it Ted Cruz)

Thank you all, lets keep the discussion going and enjoy the debate on CNBC today. Lets talk after it about what you thought.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Stephen Reed

After watching the CNBC GOP debate, I suppose that Jeb Bush will drop a bit in subsequent polls, his lost share going to Marco Rubio - due to their relative performance. Trump as usual won the online (non scientific) post debate popularity polls by large margins.

Notably the moderators were trying to make the candidates look bad - and were in turn scolded by the candidates, in particular by Ted Cruz. Perhaps a future GOP debate will be moderated by well-known conservatives.

I believe that Marco Rubio's past support for amnesty with regard to illegal immigrants will keep him from rising to the top tier occupied by Trump and Carson.

Carly Fiorina did not help herself as much as in the prior debates and I think she will stay well below 10% in the polls. Cruz performed well in the debate, but not as well as Rubio. So I think Cruz may gain a bit but also stay below 10%.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Stephen

I did my debate review in a new blog. But thinking now specifically about poll results, a few comments. First, I am stunned at how much the early press praised Rubio's performace and was utterly brutal about Jeb Bush. I personally agree Jeb campaign may not survive that debate, but am stunned at how vicious the early reviews were about him. Then I rated Christie as the best out of the debate, thinking the Republicans will be considering a match-up with Hillary. But almost all early reviews rank Christie around 4th or so, and praise Rubio and Cruz usually (I ranked Cruz second).

With those slight adjustements to my original unpolluted debate review, I think the horse race will shift thus. Trump has his base, he did not gain, I don't see him really losing. His base saw enough of what they want, and nothing to scare them. Carson did surprisingly well (but is utterly hopeless in an eventual match-up against Hillary) and those who already have picked Carson will find comfort in that debate, which was the best we've seen of Carson so far, but he is still the worst debater on either side. Considering the Democrats has clueless Lincoln Chafee, that is really saying a lot about how bad Carson is (in a real world). It doesn't matter to his loyal supporters. So Carson won't lose but I don't see him strongly growing either.

The conservatives found their man now. Ted Cruz had a great debate and most of all, he showed how he can think on his feet and he played the room well. This is a strong candidate who is adjusting his skills to learn the TV debate format and doing that remarkably well now. It doesn't hurt him that Huckabee messed up almost all of his replies that started sharp and degenerated into confused ramblings. So the conservative bracket is now becoming Cruz's. He should see a big bounce from the debate. Huckabee should see a decline but he doesn't have that much to give.

On the modereate bracket, Jeb is now going to see his support collapse. Kasich will also see a strong erosion of his support. The moderates see two strong candidates who will take all that, Rubio and Christie. I believe that as the conservative pundits start to ponder the match-ups vs Hillary, they will very often note, that actually Christie looks like their strongest TV debater against Hillary (note, not Fiorina). And as Christie rises in the polls, he'll be closer to the center next time, and I am sure, he will again shine and reinforce that feeling. Part of the damage will be to Fiorina who saw strong rises last two debates, but now the better debater bounce goes to Christie instead, so Fiorina is likely to be about flat out of this debate. Christie might not rise to the top level yet but a strong mid-fielder. And Rubio will be the strongest traditional candidate who should lock now support in the double digits.

Trump didn't hurt or help himself, but he was on a gradual downward polling trajectory. Carson will become the man of the month for November before he falls out and will be irrelevant by New Hamsphire. His support will almost all end up with Cruz. Trump meanwhile, will resort to more outrageous TV gimmicks to power his polling. He dreads the debates.

And the next debate, as this was so mild, almost no attacks on each other, next debate will compensate and there will be fierce feuding.

Thats my gut feeling. Meanwhile the moderators. Gosh, I Tweeted about it during the debate, they were the pits. PS we could move the direct debate evaluation discussion to the blog entry of the debate performance review..

Tomi Ahonen :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Available for Consulting and Speakerships

  • Available for Consulting & Speaking
    Tomi Ahonen is a bestselling author whose twelve books on mobile have already been referenced in over 100 books by his peers. Rated the most influential expert in mobile by Forbes in December 2011, Tomi speaks regularly at conferences doing about 20 public speakerships annually. With over 250 public speaking engagements, Tomi been seen by a cumulative audience of over 100,000 people on all six inhabited continents. The former Nokia executive has run a consulting practise on digital convergence, interactive media, engagement marketing, high tech and next generation mobile. Tomi is currently based out of Helsinki but supports Fortune 500 sized companies across the globe. His reference client list includes Axiata, Bank of America, BBC, BNP Paribas, China Mobile, Emap, Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard, HSBC, IBM, Intel, LG, MTS, Nokia, NTT DoCoMo, Ogilvy, Orange, RIM, Sanomamedia, Telenor, TeliaSonera, Three, Tigo, Vodafone, etc. To see his full bio and his books, visit Tomi Ahonen lectures at Oxford University's short courses on next generation mobile and digital convergence. Follow him on Twitter as @tomiahonen. Tomi also has a Facebook and Linked In page under his own name. He is available for consulting, speaking engagements and as expert witness, please write to tomi (at) tomiahonen (dot) com

Tomi's eBooks on Mobile Pearls

  • Pearls Vol 1: Mobile Advertising
    Tomi's first eBook is 171 pages with 50 case studies of real cases of mobile advertising and marketing in 19 countries on four continents. See this link for the only place where you can order the eBook for download

Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009

  • Tomi Ahonen Almanac 2009
    A comprehensive statistical review of the total mobile industry, in 171 pages, has 70 tables and charts, and fits on your smartphone to carry in your pocket every day.

Alan's Third Book: No Straight Lines

Tomi's Fave Twitterati