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

« Countdown to the End of Trump: 2 Weeks (actually less) to go - just doing the math now... | Main | Countdown to the End of Trump: Seven Days Left. Seven Days. One Week To Go, and Then He's Gone! »

October 30, 2016



thank you for being in the weeds for election night data.
PhD level material, you should be proud.

NC and FL are the rout indicators for me, because of new voters registered there by the Dems.

But I agree that GA, VA, and KY , IN will indicate the degree of the win.

I intend to finish my Oban single malt by 9. ;)

With the Comey kerfuffle, I need to see if I have enough xanax for the next 8 days. ;)

Wayne Borean

Posted this in one of the older threads, where folks might not have seen it. Tomi has added it above, but you really should read the article.

Then consider what you are going to do if you live in such an area, or in such a household, and are LGBTQ (like 3 to 5% of the population). Yep, you'll pretend to be a Trump fan, and in the voting booth go Democrat.

Add in those who have Black, Hispanic, or First Nations ancestry not too far back, and look 'White'.

I have no idea what the numbers are, so we don't know how big of an impact this will have. Guess we'll find out in just over a week.

Possibly some of you have heard of Marie Claire magazine. It isn't on my reading list (though it may have been on Catriona's), but a woman blogger who covers the Evangelical movement posted this link.

The article is about those women who live in Deep Red states, and who are rebelling against their husbands, and also against the local culture. While the information is anecdotal, I've seen too many other articles saying the same thing, so I suspect there is a solid grain of truth to it.

The real numbers are impossible to pin down, as many of these women live in households where they are expected to follow their husband's or father's orders as to voting.

Can you imagine a Red state where the white vote splits down the middle? That probably won't happen, but with the number of states which are close, it is possible this could cause a lot of damage to Trump.

Wayne Borean

Talking about how racist Trump is, and how racists totally love him...

Eduardo M

As Tomi explains, the Republican autopsy after the 2012 election said they should appeal to latinos, but the had done the exact opposite.

I have a question about that. In the 2000's the Republicans were split on latino immigration, with many, including J Bush Jr supporting a path to citizenship for illegals. Then at some point (2008?) there was a change where suddenly almost all Republicans became militantly anti-immigrant.

Does anyone know how this happened, and why? Was there some secret meeting, and why did the whole party unite around this political policy and strategy? Has some journalist published a report it?


Eduardo: Obama was for it, so...


The Nature magazine has a nice edotorial endorsing Hillary:

Hillary Clinton will make a fine US president
And not only because she is not Donald Trump.

Millard Filmore

@Eduardo, @Twinsdad9901: "Obama was for it, so..."

I believe this has become known as "Cleek's Law"

“Cleek’s law” is actually a restatement of a Groucho Marx-ism: “Whatever he’s for, I’m against it!” (“Horsefeathers,”

As Groucho sings:
"As I've said
since the day
that I commenced it ...
... I'm against it!"


@Millard, @Eduardo, @Twinsdad9901: "Obama was for it, so..."

I think the comment already said it:
"Then at some point (2008?) there was a change where suddenly almost all Republicans became militantly anti-immigrant."

This was the rise of the Tea Party. The Tea Party rose as a reaction of the "Nativist" (=racist) faction against the election of a black president. That nativist are against all emigration is part of their definition and raison d'etre. Nativism is to the USA, what Apartheid was to South Africa.


Some Sense:

Reaction to the Hillary/Weiner Email ‘Bombshell’ is Hilarious, Hypocritical, & Predictable

"To me, you have to remain at least somewhat consistent in your narrative for it be credible, and conservatives especially have been all over the place with Comey. Unless he is some sort of schizophrenic, their theory, what there is of one (Rush Limbaugh theorized today that this is both a conspiracy to help Hillary as well as one to get on Trump’s good side before he is elected!) simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny."

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Eduardo & Winter

Yeah on the immigration reform. Great question. So the 'sensible' Republicans understood that they had to 'be nice' to Hispanics or lose them like they have lost the black vote. So the black vote was lost in the 1960s and has voted for Democrats by about 90% ever since. It means for non-black Americans, the Republicans have to win 55/45 just to get to 50/50 final election result. This is dumb. But the racist wing of the Republicans achieved this in the 1960s against the blacks and had never been able to win those voters back (the Republicans USED to be the PARTY of blacks, by a big margin, up to the 1950s). The GOP treatment of Obama had only angered the newer black voters even more, who would be too young to ever remember the violence of the 1960s.

So yeah, as Winter said, the Tea Party was part of it. The Tea Party came into view in the 2010 mid-terms when the Republicans took over the House. It was strongly fueled by anti-Obama hate on the right wing and received a lot of convenient Koch money in the freshly made Citizens United decision, which allowed suddenly enormous amounts of money from 'dark sources' = Koch brothers to flood the mid-term elections, making Republican candidates wash with cash, to bury Democratic rivals in TV ads and help create that wave election which too the gavel from Nancy Pelosi. The 2012 Presidential election (Romney loss) was the first that the Tea Party witnessed as a 'political power' and they didn't like to be lectured on how to run their country or their party. So the autopsy met immediate objection by the Tea Party, already in 2012.

But the Republicans joined with Democrats in the SENATE to create a compromise by what was known as the 'Gang of Eight'. It was created by a bunch of compromise-oriented older experienced Senators on both sides who honestly wanted to solve this issue, with Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin on the Democrats and John McCain and Lindsay Graham on the Republicans; who then got a few younger Senators to join, most famously.. Marco Rubio on the Republicans. This legislation was to provide a 'pathway to citizenship' for undocumented aka 'illegal' foreigners living in the USA. They would not get instant 'amnesty', they would have to pay some fines etc, but they wouldn't be deported either. And this way the illegals could come out of the shadows, join the society and not live in fear. And everybody could live happily ever after.

So four Republican Senators and four Democratic Senators - when the DEMOCRATS held the Senate - agreed to this and were going to get it approved. Along came a Tea Party Congress, now in the fresh new Congress where John Boehner was the new House Speaker, and the Tea Party screamed 'Amnesty, amnesty!' and the Tea Party torpedoed the legislation. Now, if John Boehner had been any sort of real leader and understood what the nation needed and what his party needed too, he would have put the Gang of 8 law onto a vote in the Congress. All Democrats and at least a quarter of Republicans (most of the non-Tea Party Republicans in Southern states most definitely) would have voted for it, in 2013, and the matter would have been over with and TODAY there would not be the dire split in Hispanics where 18% nationally are voting for Trump. He'd still have bad numbers but probably more like 25% not this bad. The Republican party is seen as the enemy of Hispanics and actively trying to split up their families deport their uncles and aunts and granparents - of legally US-born citizens - and the Democrats are the only friends trying to prevent this from happening.

The power to the hysteria is the Tea Party wing of the Republicans. It was already part of the nationalistic xenophobic racist elements of the Tea Party in the 2010 wave that brought them into Congress but the anger from just being anti-black to being more broadly also anti-brown, that was accelerated by the Gang of 8 'amnesty' law and its backlash. Incidentally, Marco Rubio's calculation in 2013 was that the Gang of 8 law would help Rubio become the first Hispanic President in 2016.. The law which had so strong bypartisan support in the Senate, from Schumer to McCain - would definitely pass in a Democratic-controlled Senate - and then he, Rubio, could refer to this big achievement when he would run to become the first Hispanic President partly powered by the new enlightened Republican Party that would be winning something near 50/50 of Hispanic voters to begin with, and with Rubio on the top of the ticket (against a white woman) he'd actually get to 70% or more of the Hispanic vote - because of his heroism in voting for the Gang of 8 law, even as a Republican, because it was the right thing to do, putting the nation ahead of politics.. Sounded like a good plan back in 2013.

There is a really nasty element to the Tea Party, the nationalists, the KKK and Nazis, the Alt-Right White Supremacists (Pepe the Frog etc). And it is strongly fuelled by the Koch Brothers money who promised to pour 900 million dollars into this election until they saw it will be Trump who was going to be a rogue cannon they - Kochs - couldn't control (and someone they, the Kochs also probably despise). So instead, the Kochs have been funding down-ticket campaigns to ensure they - Kochs - have still power in 2017, especially as the Tea Party is kind of the Koch Brothers private political party. If Citizens United is killed either by a new Supreme Court or by legislation if Democrats can take both the Senate and the House (House now, or in 2018, or in 2020) then the Koch Brothers power base with the Tea Party collapses. BUT up to then, they are propping up their thugs and the longer they stay in Congress, the harder they will be to dislodge because they also have all their other nasty money-grubbing gambits going on with other nice little lobbyists who can fund them and help them stay in power..

Tomi Ahonen :-)

Tomi T Ahonen

Following up on Eduardo's question

So haha, first, I loved the 'was there a secret meeting'.. I love the idea... Did I miss the memo? Was there a secret meeting that I forgot to attend, where my party decided its not enough the blacks hate us, we now will also make the Hispanics hate us? So now 25% of the country will not vote for us?

And I am sure you know Eduardo, that 'type' of meeting did happen in 2009, just as Obama was about to be sworn into office, the Republican leadership including Mitch McConnell leader of the minority in the Senate back then, and John Boehner, leader of the minority of the House back then, plus other Republican leaders like Paul Ryan, came together to decide, they will block everything Obama does. They will not agree to anything on the princples of 'bipartisanship' even if it meant that Obama gave them 75% of what they wanted and took only 25% in the compromise for Democrats. Remember, this mad strategy was announced when the Democrats had control of the Senate and House, and were about to get their President.

There is always a 'honeymoon period' for a new President, when they are highly popular freshly-elected first-term President, and then the opposition in Congress will 'go along' with the new Presiden't mission(s) because of a 'national mandate' from the just-ended election. In 2009 the Republican party decided that there will be no honeymoon period and no legislation will get Republican votes, and they will just obstruct everything.

They honestly feared that Obama with his post-partisan rhetoric would enact a series of very moderate laws, end the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, close Guantanamo, give citizenship to then-11 million undocumented foreigners, see the end of the great recession so Obama would inherit the corresponding 'great recovery' that was inevitable - and because all of this - he'd be a darned great President to begin with. Then he'd do his Obamacare healthcare miracle for Americans (with a REPUBLICAN idea, stolen from then-Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts) - and Obama would be the single most popular politician in US history, and they would have to put his face on Mt Rushmore.

They literally feared that fact, they feared that Obama's face would be put on Mt Rushmore (where they felt Ronald Reagan deserved to go). So they did hold this semi-secret meeting and after that, no matter what bipartisan proposals Obama made from his cabinet nominees to any legislation, the Republicans stood essentially steadfast and said no. It was mostly a symbolic and shaming-effort from 2009 to 2010, where Obama lost his popularity with his OWN SIDE has Obama tried repeatedly and failed to get Republicans to accept his bipartisan ideas - when the Democrats held both chambers of Congress and even briefly had a Filibuster-proof majority of Senators (60/40 majority in the Senate). And instead of Obama using this power to ram through a broad range of popular progressive/liberal leftist Democratic base ideas, Obama instead wasted all his time on several attempts of various compromises he negotiated with the MINORITY leaderships in the Congress, to get 'bipartisan' agreement to his ideas - giving stuff away for Republicans, who refused to take YES for an answer. Once Obama is dead (you can't get honest political review from both sides until after that politician has died, sadly) this period will be seen as the age of stupidity by the Republicans. They could have extracted FAR more than 'their fair share' of concessions out of Obama to feed a genuinely conservative agenda, just because Obama was so eager to get his compromises, to fulfill his promise to the US voters that he would govern as he promised, as a post-partisan President. It would also have been a beautiful ideal for the USA and the world.

Its possible that the Republican obstruction-madness might have ended in the 2010 midterms, if the Democrats had won that election; or the re-election of Obama in 2012. But when the freshly Republican-majority House came into power in 2011 after the mid-terms, with the Tea Party - that is when Washington broke down and we had the past 6 years of ridiculous gridlock. Including the govenment shut-downs and all the nonsense like now not holding hearings and a vote for a Supreme Court Justice - that both sides admit, the man is qualified. Its just obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

So the concept of a secret meeting, a kind of secret suicide-pact in fact - that does have merit. The GOP did do this, at the start of Obama's first term.

Now the last point, about the math. If currently the Democrats own the black vote (90% of it) and after 2016 they will own nearly as much of the Hispanic vote (80% of that) and about 25% or 26% of the final vote of 2016 will be black or Hispanic - it means about 22% of the nation will be 'locked Democratic' by either loyal black or loyal Hispanic voters rejecting the GOP. In that world of non-black, non-Hispanic American voters, the Republicans will now need in any national election to win... 65% of the remaining voters (which still includes several OTHER minorities that may view Republicans very suspiciously like American Indians, Asians, the gays, etc...) So instead of a tilted battlefield where you have to win 55/45 of any normal election because 90% of the black vote (about 12% of total electorate) votes against you; now after the 2016 nonsense, the Republican party has managed to tilt that game even more against themselves and would have to win the remaining vote by 65/35. That is impossible. That is why in national elections (White House) this strategy this year, and Trump, has destroyed the GOP until it fixes this illness, cures this crisis, kicks out the racists and becomes a party friendly towards minorities (and women) again.

This was not a surprise. But this is supremely stupid. Now WHY is this happening? In gerrymandered districts for CONGRESS, your party always wins. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, if you draw the voting districts so that your party has a natural majority in that district - it means you become 'more poisoned' by your own side. You don't HAVE to reach out to the 'other side' because there are too few of them. And it becomes a foolish thing to even try (if you happen by some accident, to be a nice human being and thinking of doing what is right for your own voters, all of them, not just those of your own party) because if the district is gerrymandered, it means that your PARTY always wins. And then if you are not 'obedient' to YOUR PARTY - then the party will nominate a MORE EXTREME rival to you, and you will be 'gerrymandered' out of office. And instead of moderate Republicans (or Democrats) we get ever more loonie extremists. This was already typical decades ago, when the famously extreme STATES would send in the extremists. The 'Massachussetts liberals' who would want us to kiss the trees and hug the climate or get free healthcare for everybody, or the equally extreme 'Wyoming gun huggers' who would want everybody to carry guns on their hips and have no speed limits on the roads and no seat belts in cars, etc. The states would breed a kind of sentiment, and the states would also ATTRACT a kind of voter and citizen, and those who didn't like it would move out - people who liked Democratic ideas would move out from the inlands to the edges where the big cities were on the coasts, etc. This all would kind of 'purify' the process and over the decades the red states became 'more red' and the blue states 'more blue'.

BUT gerrymandering brought this to the Congress (and ushered in and enabled the Tea Party). I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will strike down gerrymandering or at least severely limit it, once the 9th Justice is appointed. If not, then I am somewhat less hopeful but still hopeful that once the Democrats get hold of the House (this year, possible, if not now then 2018 possible, 2020 very likely by the latest) they will make gerrymandering illegal. It is an incredibly corrosive political method that purifies the obstruction and hatred.

Now, separate from that, the STATE legislations are likely to work against gerrymandering to some degree and the Democrats as a party, who got blind-sighted by the redistricting after the 2010 census, that gave us the current gerrymandered Congress, will respond by 2020 for the next census, and I do hope/wish we have kind of witnessed 'peak gerrymander'. BUT the peak Tea Party will linger for a good while past both 'peak Citizens United' and 'peak gerrymander' because incumbency has such strong benefits. And the Tea Party may well hold half of the Republican party after this election (they currently hold less than half). So the Republican party may be headed to even worse crisis for the next two years, than it has had in the past 6. And its possible Paul Ryan is voted out of office, he could be then replaced by a Tea Party chairman instead of what is at least a sane politician in a tough place, who has run the Republican House infested by the Tea Party better than his predecessor John Boehner managed.

If you look at how McCain ran against Obama in 2012, and how Romney ran against Obama in 2016, and compare how now Trump ran against Hillary, the TONE is vastly different 'lock her up, she should be shot' etc. This to me, signals a horrible era of vitriol and hatred and just mean-spirited politics that is headed for Hillary's first term.

I do hope that she gets a majority in the House but am afraid she won't. And as the Tea Party will have an even larger SHARE of Republican party's seats, they will obstruct her far worse than Obama got. And they'll hold all sorts of sham investigations and just make a ridiculous spectacle of Congress. That will mean for the most part, they will obstruct anything and everything that Hillary wants to get done inspite of winning a majority in the Senate. If that happens, however, then I would see the 2018 mid-terms as the year when the Democrats kick the Republicans out of the House majority and the USA can get back to some sanity in Congress too. Currently the Democrats are behind by 30 seats. But they should pick up at least 20 of those maybe 25 this time. If its down to less than 10 seats for 2018, that is something they could win, especially if the House is seen as the rotten apple of the government (and once Citizens United money has been eliminated or at least severely curtailed mostly via the Supreme Court in this scenario).

But that meeting, haha, I didn't get the memo! Was there a memo? I didn't attend the meeting where my party decided to commit political suicide!!! Haha... very funny

Tomi Ahonen :-)


"So instead of a tilted battlefield where you have to win 55/45 of any normal election because 90% of the black vote (about 12% of total electorate) votes against you;"

Which explains why the Republicans want to abolish democracy altogether. If they cannot convince the voters to vote for them, the voters do not get to vote at all.

Btw, this is akin to the position of Putin et al.: Every government has the right to select the population they want.
See how the Russians are helping Assad in Syria to get rid of an unwanted populace.

Wayne Borean

Let's talk Gerrymandering. I'm going to use a generic state, rather than a real one because I am functioning on four hours sleep.

Our hypothetical state has a population of 10 million, of which 5 million are Republican, and 5 million are Democrats, and the state elects 10 Representatives. Under normal circumstances you'd expect to see the Representatives split evenly between the parties, but the Republicans ended up with control of the statehouse, and implemented gerrymandering.

The state government draws up District borders so that 3 million of the Democrats are in 4 districts along with 1 million Republicans, which means 4 safe Democratic districts and 6 safe Republican districts.

Then you have 6 districts that contain 4 million Republicans and 2 million Democrats. The problem is that if something weird happens which causes a shift in the electorate, the safe Democratic districts are unlikely to change party, but the safe Republican districts are more likely to swing.

Apply this to the current U.S. election where Donald Trump is the something weird. We have certain demographics which were 60% Democrat are now 80% Democrat, other demographics which may be driven to vote at far higher levels because they don't want to be grabbed by the pussy (and many already have been, and hated the experience and the misogynistic bastard who assaulted them), etc. Also you have migration so that what was once a heavily white area becomes more diverse, diluting the gerrymandering.

The numbers I gave above are examples, and while one 'safe' district might be very heavily Republican, others would be less so. That's why I think that the House is play. There are a lot of districts where a 5% vote swing would see the safe district change from Red to Blue.

Tomi T Ahonen

Hi Wayne

Totally agree and the math is actually even more favoring a wave election upset. Usually most gerrymandered districts are done so, to ensure MAXIMUM party advantage. So yeah you pack the opposition into districts where they outnumber your party by 8 to 2 or 9 to 1. Totally utterly solid. But YOUR districts, you arrange them to be only marginally, but consistently better, at 55/45 and at most 60/40. If you do your side like you showed, at 66/33 that gives your side less districts to grab. So where it has been done (by either side) its usually to such narrow but consistent advantages of about 55/45 and no more than 60/40 for your side.

And that means, in NORMAL elections, no problem. The party that did the gerrymandering will easily hold any surprisingly strong rival or a stupidly weak own candidate and still keep that seat. Yes, there is the occasional total freak election result but over most elections, this holds very well (see North Carolina, Michigan for example right now for very lopsided House seats vs actual votes cast). BUT because the threshold of advantage was designed to be low, only a ten or at most 20 point buffer, if you have a collapse of your side's support (or say, a Libertarian suddenly stealing your side's support); or you see a sudden erosion of part of your base of support (National Security oriented Republicans, or women, or Hispanic Republicans suddenly deserting their candidate); or you see a surge in the opposition, then this gerrymandered lock can be broken yes.

I really hope you're right Wayne. Certainly the Democrats are making a play for it. They've targeted 30 seats they think they can flip and have money and surrogates and the ground game assisting to flip those. It would be a very healthy development to get that distortion unlocked (and hopefully also outlawed) and then if the voting districts are not deliberately set into imbalance, more rational sensible moderate centrist compromise-oriented politicians can run and win in those districts again.

Tomi Ahonen :-)


Let's not forget that gerrymandering is not new. It has been a problem in the U.S. for more than two hundred years:

I have little hope that it's going to be declared illegal by the Supreme Court. There's far too much legal precedent for maintaining the practice in the U.S. Worse, whichever party in power in 2020 is going to be sorely tempted to redraw the districts yet again to benefit them. Why not? Political parties have gotten away with up until now.


The irony is that the gerrymandering was introduced by Democratic-Republican Party!

Eduardo M

@Millard, @Twinsdad9901, @winter, @Tomi,

Very interesting discussion.


On the meeting to obstruct Obama after he was elected, yes I remember that, but I had forgotten that it included immigration reform.

On the gang of 8 and the tea party, that's another one I had forgotten.

Let me say some more about the republicans before the radical anti-immigration reform swing. Many republicans wanted to appeal to latinos because they saw they have conservative values like re: family and right-to-life, and so might be won over to the party.

Also many conservative businessmen, large and small, greatly valued latino workers, including illegals. And conservative economists mostly agreed that immigration is good for the economy.

It was very surprising to me that all of these groups almost overnight basically stopped saying what they believe and went along with the switch to a radically anti-immigrant policy. That makes me wonder why they decided to do that. Was it because they decided that party unity is more important than pushing the correct policy on this issue?

Millard Filmore

Now here is a good reason Trump is not getting good polling information.

"FEC filings show that the Trump campaign is disputing a payment of more than $766,700 to pollster Tony Fabrizio's firm, as the Washington Post reported Monday afternoon. The Trump campaign also owes Fabrizio another payment of $55,300, which the campaign is not disputing, according to filings."

This polling company was hired by Manafort back in May. Maybe the company didn't show polling that had Trump winning.

Millard Filmore

@Eduardo M: "It was very surprising to me that all of these groups almost overnight basically stopped saying what they believe and went along with the switch to a radically anti-immigrant policy."

The groups you describe are the "responsible Republicans", and I am not sure they have really changed their position on immigration. Trump managed to push the Racist button of an astonishing number of people which brought to light that much of what the party leaders want is quite low on the priority list of their base. The voice of the "responsible Republicans" has been drowned out.


You are saying now: "Most likely is a 5% Election."
Have you abandoned your landslide prediction? BTW Clinton is up by only 2.8 at RCP four way race. Expect this number to continue to shrink. I think by Nov 8 Clinton will be up by roughly 2 in the same race at RCP.
I predicted about two weeks ago a 7% win by Clinton. I could not foresee that Comey would endorse Trump for president, so now I have to downgrade that to a 5% win for Clinton.

@Eduardo M
I read an article about 10 years ago (sorry I don't have a link). We know that for any country the ability to pay the debt depends a lot by the size of the economy. The economy can't grow if the workforce doesn't grow. They calculated that the US needs an influx of about 150 million immigrants for the next 30 years (that as 10 years ago so 20 years left in that 30 year window) in order to keep the economy growing.

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