Slashdot Mirror


Examining Presidential Candidates Via Google Trends

Michael Giuffrida writes "Google Trends is a free application produced by Google that shows how often a given keyword is searched for, over time. After seeing how candidates in the 2008 primaries have done in Google Trends in different states, it's clear that this tool can be very useful for campaigns." Read on below for some of the specifics about how these candidates have fared, Google-wise. "For example, in New Hampshire, in the days leading up to the Jan. 8 primary, Clinton was searched for the most, followed by Obama, followed by Edwards — which was how the primary results turned out. In other words, the candidates most searched for on Google by users in New Hampshire were also the candidates with the most number of votes. This works for many other states as well.

For the first 37 Democratic primaries and caucuses, 32 states had enough data on Google to make a prediction. This method correctly predicted 27 of those 32 sates. Predictions aside, the tool is also useful simply in finding out how popular a candidate is in different states, assuming that the more popular candidates are entered more often as a search term in Google (an assumption that was verified, at least for the Democratic primaries, by the positive association found)."

7 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. In case anyone looks at the pretty graphs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...without actually RTFA:

    "For the Republican Primaries, last names could easily be used. Ron Paul was excluded. His last name is too common. Using his full name is not a good solution either, because he had massive popularity on the Internet, becoming a meme of sorts, which did not at all correspond with his actual successes (or lack thereof) in the primaries."

  2. Not the whole story by shma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems their method does rather poorly when looking at republican primaries. Overall, they comment: "In reality, only about half of the "predictions" before the 2/12 primaries were actually accurate. "

    Still, one would expect logically that interest in a candidate is related to their poll numbers. But you need a better way to distinguish between negative interest and positive interest: how many people are searching "Obama AND Wright video" vs "Obama AND race speech"? With a more detailed model they could be on to something.

    --
    I came here for a good argument
  3. Re:Cherrypicking the data to reach false conclusio by CecilZephyr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Good thing someone did compare Ron Paul to everyone else in Google Trends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iW5kOB1pmg

  4. Where is Ron Paul? by bbagnall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why include Giuliani and Thompson and not Ron Paul? I would rather see Ron Paul than those other two who Ron Paul consistently beat. He was kicking butt in terms of Google searches.

  5. Re:27 out of 32 by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "Interesting, but I don't think it's that hard to beat an 84% accuracy rate with traditional methods."

    I think if you want to predict the presidential winner, you should go with the tried and true method....see which candidates halloween mask sells the most!! That has been an accurate predictor for decades now....It appears at least so far, now that they are tracking the masks throughout the primary season too, that Obama has the lead in the mask poll .

    I dunno...at this point, I figure dressing up as Obama or McCain would be equally as scary to most of us....

    :-)

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  6. Re:Excluding Ron Paul makes perfect sense by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I did, in fact, do some research. :)

    Had it been one article, I could buy that, but we're talking _years_ worth of racist venom in his newsletter. There wasn't a flood, but there was a steady enough stream that even the most laissez faire (rim shot) editor should have noticed it.

    And something from Anti War Radio and Prison Planet? Come on, there's got to be better material in his defense out there. At the risk of engaging in the ad hominem fallacy, that station is largely populated by complete lunatics and 9/11 conspiracy theorists (but I repeat myself). I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time of day, much less balance out years of racist vitriol under Ron Paul's banner.

    --

    Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
  7. Weekly Reader Poll by OakDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Every election cycle, you can find stories like this about the Weekly Reader poll:

    Pundits come and pundits go, but one group has quietly predicted the winner of the presidential election every four years since the Eisenhower administration: kids.

    Most political junkies won't give it the time of day, but the Weekly Reader presidential poll of schoolchildren has pegged every winner since 1956.

    As far as informal polls go, this one is supposed to be one of the most accurate.