A very cool article in the Washington Post yesterday about technology that tries to see trends before they break into the mainstream. The problem is that by the time a product or political meme breaks into the mainstream, it is already too late to do anything about it. If you can catch it early, though, then you can respond before it is too late. I obviously can’t speak to how well the technique described in this article will work, but it is a fabulous concept. [via IP]

The most startling thing about the VP debate, I think, is the variety of reactions. On the whole, Kerry supporters seem to think the Edwards won and Bush supporters seem to think that Cheney won. But there are notable exceptions on both sides. For instance, Becky (who watched the first two thirds of the debate) thought that Cheney won, but is definitely a Kerry supporter. Andrew Sullivan thought that Edwards won definitively, even though he supports Bush is a conservative.

As for me, I basically thought it was a tie. I think that gives the edge to Edwards though. Remember, this election is a referendum on GWB. Kerry and Edwards need only point to the record of Bush and Cheney and show themselves to be viable alternatives. I think Edwards showed himself as a viable alternative last night. The sit down format definitely favored Cheney. Both candidates hit hard. I thought that instead of coming off as a grandfather, Cheney came off as an angry dad. He relied too heavily on his experience, I thought, to try to paint Edwards (who is 51 years old) as a kid that didn’t know what he was doing. I thought that this backfired a bit and he came across as condecending.

The most important thing to figure out, though, is how the undecided voters responded. And early indications are that undecided voters favored Edwards. In any case, I don’t think this debate is going to have much impact.