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)."
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)."
He was probably excluded because he was a fringe candidate* whose supporters engaged in questionable internet tactics designed to undermine serious results from any search engine one cares to study. Of course including him screws up the results. That was his supporters' goal.
*Yes, he was. Get over it. He was a candidate so far to the racist, paleocon fringe that even many libertarians were troubled by him (See, e.g., The Volokh Conspiracy, and I can provide others). He's not a serious candidate now, nor was he ever.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
The asshole who published this now has a disclaimer. So, fuck you in accusing me for not reading the goddamn article.
I think most of the Ron Paul searches were geared mostly along the lines of "Who the hell is this guy...."
and were in many cases followed by
"This guy's absolutely crazy"
Although he was an appealing candidate on the surface (Fiscally conservative, against Iraq, etc....), once you dug a little deeper, there were many things about him that didn't sit well with most voters (He literally voted against everything that crossed his desk, and was tied to some pretty scary people in the 90s)
Had a more reasonable candidate arisen as an internet meme, something might have come of it (you could argue that Obama owes a large degree of his initial success to coverage on the internet and from the independent media). Anybody that seriously thinks that a fundamental libertarian like Paul could have done well in an election is seriously deluding themselves.
Granted, if he wants to run as an independent, I'm sure he can (and would) fuck up the election, because his level of support isn't quite negligible.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose