What Would Google Decide?

Gary Stock, the guy who invented the Googlewhack, tried a bit of Google election predicting last night. Using a methodology that is entirely indefensible, and which he does not try to defend, Stock asked Google to call the results on Michigan's five referendum questions. The result: Google's answers to two questions were spot-on, two questions were answered correctly but underrepresented the 'yes' vote, and one question was reversed. An 80% accuracy rate has got to beat any number of the pollsters and pundits who have been shouting at us since last August, no?

Comments

"Better Know A District" predicted it

[kurtmckee]

> An 80% accuracy rate has got to beat any number of the pollsters and pundits who have been shouting at us since last August, no?

No. Stephen Colbert noted last night that everyone who was featured on his segment "Better Know A District" won last night. I think a humorous 100% is better than an indefensible 80%.

Re:"Better Know A District" predicted it

[alienmole]

Sometimes, as in the case of Waxman (my rep), he interviewed the "challenger" because the incumbent couldn't be bothered to interview. ;)

"Couldn't be bothered" is not an accurate characterization. Many politicians are afraid to go on Stephen Colbert. Nancy Pelosi has advised Democrats not to appear. Similar admonitions have gone out on the Republican side. These people don't really understand the show, or the younger-than-them generations which watch it, so all they see is people being made fun of and they can't understand how that could possible help a candidate. So a better characterization would be "chicken" or maybe "shit-scared".