Mitt Romney has gotten extremely popular on Twitter in the last 24 hours. In fact, he is receiving 25 new followers per second as I write this.
What’s happening? It seems to have started Friday, when Romney’s typical average of 3,ooo-4,000 per day increased some twenty fold to over 62,000 in a single day, according to TwitterCounter.com. But the new followers are highly suspect. From “empty” accounts to pornbots, spambots, Justin Beiber-related accounts, Obama supporters and foreign accounts, the followers tell a puzzling tale, suggesting spam automation, purchased traffic or perhaps even sabotage.
Accounts like “@banvardrazjzk” or “@etonyge” have ten or fewer tweets, some containing gobbledygook characters and despite only following a few accounts themselves, they each have hundreds of followers, implying it’s part of a mass-generated fake account network.
Romney’s account had over 673,000 followers on July 20 following his typical numbers, but his graph made a “hockey stick” leap yesterday, climbing to over 767,000 as I write.
With some onlookers assuming the Romney campaign is buying accounts to pad his numbers, we highly doubt they would be so clumsy. Last summer, Newt Gingrich received embarrassing national press when he had 1.3 million followers at a time no other GOP candidate even had 100,000 followers. The news then had sport reporting over 90% were fake accounts.
Just yesterday, Rush Limbaugh was exposed as it was discovered that New Delhi was the most popular source for “shares” on his “Rush Babes for America” Facebook promotion. This suggested he was outsourcing “astroturf” by paying experts in India to pad his traffic figures and perceived female support.
But Romney’s followers are not necessarily being bought. It could be that he has become more popular because his account is promoted more heavily by Twitter as a “you might want to follow” suggestion. Many of President Obama’s 17 million followers are also spambot or questionable accounts, in fact he could have more fake followers than Romney has followers – but Obama’s numbers have climbed predictably where Romney’s sudden spike invites more questions.
A study released in June showed Obama had a 25% advantage in “viral reach” over Romney for May, counting retweets, Facebook likes and followers. Another article published by the Philadelphia Inquirer just a week prior delineated the importance of Twitter followings for each of the candidates in swing states like Pennsylvania.
UPDATE: Romney’s campaign has denied buying followers and requested information from Twitter to explain the mystery. We’ve seen the reports accusing Romney of buying the extra followers, but highly discount the notion, as stated above. Granted, it could be a third party buying them for Romney, outside of the candidate’s purview, but with the story now featured by ThinkProgress, Alan Colmes, BuzzFeed and others, it’s likely doing Romney more harm than good.
Crossposted at OpedNews.com
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.









Pingback: Romney's TWITTER account surging with phony followers
Pingback: Major Fail ! Mitt Romney Is Buying Twitter Followers - KeepThis100 | KeepThis100
Pingback: Romney’s Twitter account surging with phony followers | eMusicBuzz
Pingback: Buying online popularity: Mitt Romney sure has a lot of Twitter followers (recently)! | Under the Mountain Bunker
Pingback: Mitt Romney Buying Twitter Followers? « Alan Colmes' Liberaland
Pingback: Open Thread–7/22/2012 » Politics Plus
Pingback: Where Do Mitt’s New Twitter Followers Come From? | The Penn Ave Post
Pingback: Where Do Mitt’s New Twitter Followers Come From? | SPH - Small penis humiliation
Pingback: Did Mitt Romney purchase thousands of Twitter followers? | The Capitol Column
Pingback: Romney campaign: We did not buy Twitter followers | The Capitol Column
Pingback: Twitter Political Index shows Obama trouncing Romney | The Capitol Column
Pingback: Romney campaign: We did not buy Twitter followers | The National Column
Pingback: Could Twitter’s ‘Twindex’ replace traditional forms of polling? | Smoke-Filled Room
Pingback: portable dvd player
Pingback: Hyun Varughese
Pingback: Isadora Reagan
Pingback: Tonja Magness
Pingback: Aliza Besarra
Pingback: Elma Piccola
Pingback: Randolph Punt
Pingback: Kathlene Kudasik
Pingback: Monte Monegro
Pingback: Cinderella Graefe
Pingback: Berry Zeiser
Pingback: Xochitl Lindberg
Pingback: Cinthia Attleson
Pingback: Sterling Fuentes
Pingback: Jody Avendano
Pingback: Vinnie Boehlke
Pingback: Lashonda Pittinger
Pingback: Charlyn Ferrick
Pingback: Robbie Vollmar
Pingback: Iva Cargill
Pingback: Clifford Egwuohua
Pingback: Lewis Lafferty
Pingback: Maryetta Barach
Pingback: Toney Mcpartlin
Pingback: Ruthann Condroski
Pingback: Michale Mcferran
Pingback: Jay Overgaard
Pingback: Keila Trelles
Pingback: Brittney Shalhoup
Pingback: Robby Martineze
Pingback: Necole Rozell
Pingback: Marine Chuang
Pingback: Scot Przedwiecki
Pingback: Carin Kalawe
Pingback: Beatris Shina
Pingback: Jesse Bachert
Pingback: Melynda Dimalanta
Pingback: Vaughn Prazenica
Pingback: Tuyet Demere
Pingback: Winston Loynd
Pingback: Sammie Madayag
Pingback: Carolina Sivertsen
Pingback: Irena Kuker
Pingback: Vernon Norse
Pingback: Laverne Staniford
Pingback: Dennis Sylve
Pingback: Stan Nate
Pingback: Elvina Colle
Pingback: Joan Chew
Pingback: Google
Pingback: Clarence Ruka
Pingback: Keenan Grueser
Pingback: Antonetta Mazzucco
Pingback: Rosendo Debey
Pingback: Christopher Sutkus
Pingback: Randell Gothe
Pingback: Emma Jenovese
Pingback: Ahmed Marucci
Pingback: Mel Provitt