As can be seen from the graph above, Mr Clegg is leading the way in online buzz on Twitter with regards to the TV debates and with two very noticeable peaks around the time of the debates themselves. With the last one having taken place last night, it will be very interesting to see how this will play out.

If nothing else, Mr Clegg is causing an unsettling stir (at least for David Cameron and Gordon Brown) since he may actually cause a hung Parliament. This does, unfortunately, not involve the hanging of MP’s (in my opinion the only way to truly change politics in the UK) but would mean Gordon Brown staying in office a little longer because no party has won a clear majority. History shows that a hung Parliament can cause uncertainty in the upper echelons of Government which then trickles down to the masses and can lead to ‘unsettling’ times.

Also, what can be observed from the pie charts below is that Mr Clegg is clearly the winner when it comes to the buzz around TV debates across social media sites Facebook and Twitter.

In addition to the increase in Twitter and Facebook chatter, Mr Clegg also has the TV debates working in his favour since it has launched an almost unknown political figure into the stratosphere of political life. As can be seen from the Attentio BrandMaps picture, he is being talked about much more with regards to TV debates and hung Parliaments than the unimportant things like the economy, and spending cuts.

Oddly enough, very few people are talking about tax which probably serves all three leaders politically since it is widely speculated that a tax increase is on the way whoever is in charge.

In the next blog post, I will be talking about the parties in relation to social media and whether or not they are using it to their advantage.

This week, I want to play on a theme introduced in the last blog. Social media and government–in this case, social media and statehood.

Edward Bernays, the alleged “father of public relations”, thought that to successfully rule the people, government had to be hijacked by a skilled elite. Then this elite needed to successfully sell themselves to the people.

Bernays did not believe debate and measured opinion equalled votes or even effective government. A former propagandist for US President Wilson during World War II, Bernays thought it best to appeal to the irrational masses, not the rational individual citizen. Earn their appreciation and acquiescence, then do what’s best for them. After the war, Bernays went into business and branding. He was incredibly successful.

Veton Surroi, a Kosovo statesmen, told The Economist that earning national sovereignty–the recognised right to govern yourself–requires a certain amount of nation branding a la Bernays. Prior to setting up a government for the people, most of the people must buy into the idea that the nation exists. This means marketing your nation to the international community as well as the people that must eventually make up the nation. Kosovo is a controversial brand at the moment. Not even the European Union can afford the new nation, although some nations have made an early investment.

Rather like some populations and national leaders begun investing in the new hot nation-brand, Tibet. While no one can afford to isolate the established brand that is China, Tibet has picked up an impassioned consumer base–on the ground and online. There are hundreds of websites and many more blogs closely following the territory and its people’s movement for independence. Tibet has sailed past Kosovo as the poster child of national independence. And other groups are Buzzing about more autonomy as well—who will be next to adopt the trend towards statehood? Time will tell which state sells its sovereignty with the most success.

Project one tracks the overall popularity of the Democratic candidates in social media.

While Hillary Clinton and Obama have about equal coverage in the news, Barack Obama is one of the most popular personas in the blog-o-sphere, outstriping Clinton (and McCain) in several social media sources.

Project two follows issues and then candidates. The project links issues that are important to the American people with the names of the candidates. In this project, Clinton (that is, Hil) consistently rates higher than Obama in relation to the issue.

Hillary ranks higher in correlation to Iraq, to health care, and to the economy. Clinton even outranks Obama in relation to one of his pet policies, education. Clinton outstrips Obama here in both English and that language of increasing importance in the USA, Spanish.

The US and the world are smitten with Obama, it’s true. He’s good-looking, idealistic, and popular enough to win the couer of the people if not the Democratic candidacy. Clinton complains she’s become the damned in the media, while they darling Obama. Clinton claims that her policies are more practical and her politics more tested. But does that matter if Obama can win the heart of the people?

Barack might be fit enough for the media, but is he fit to lead the country? Buzz suggests possibly not, as he’s not well-connected to the issues that the US citizens hold dear. But in the modern culture of cult celebrity, one need not be connected to anything to sell clothes, magazines, or, well, anything really. In such a climate, is it really necessary that Obama push his abilities and policies, or is he safe enough to simply sit back and watch his general popularity grow?

What wins an election, word of mouth (WOM) or experience?