Google Data Suggest a BIG Trump Win

[Toro]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

Your "confirmation" is confirmation bias.

You are looking for information that confirms your bias and you are ignoring information that contradicts your bias.

Remember this when Trump gets crushed on election day.

 

[Norman]

You think google searches have a direct correlation to votes in this election? Haha, interesting theory but I don't think so

Interesting theory, but did you pull it out from your ass?

As was stated, there is a correlation.

 

[WheelieAddict]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

Agreed. It is just tremendous how bigly he will win. Yuge win.

 

[JimBowie1958]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

Your "confirmation" is confirmation bias.

You are looking for information that confirms your bias and you are ignoring information that contradicts your bias.

Remember this when Trump gets crushed on election day.

Lol, you make that unwarranted statement without giving even one example of a piece of data that I am ignoring.

The polls are in a variation of +4% for Trump all the way out to +12% for Hillary which is just horse shit. I would bet the house that Clinton wont win by more than 8%.

But she could be ahead by 4% in Reality regarding to what people would vote if they could vote online or push a magic button. But is she ahead among those people who will get off their ass and go stand in line for hours to vote for her? No, I seriously doubt that. I doubt that 80% of the black population will show up and vote for her and that goes for Hispanics and homosexuals, groups that Obama took by larger proportions than Hillary is pulling even in the rigged polls.

This election is not over and the current political system is not set up to handle a large influx of new voters with 80% of them going for one man; Donald Trump.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You think google searches have a direct correlation to votes in this election? Haha, interesting theory but I don't think so

It has in every election so far.

What is your basis for saying it is not now?

Because it hurts Hillary?

roflmao

He is scared....Trump is going to fundamentally change his little racist fascist democrat world.....

I find it particularly illuminating how the Dems get so made when you suggest that Trump has a chance to win.

They dont even want that to be a possibility in anyones mind, much less tolerate him.

That is why they feel no moral inhibition whatsoever in lying about Trump, promoting others that slander him and doing all that while hiding everything that points out the corruption and evil that is Hillary Clinton.

 

[Dana7360]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

People are checking out the lies of trump.

At one of the debates he lied again and said he didn't support the Iraq war. Hillary correctly pointed out his lie. Then told people to google trump/ Iraq war.

People did. In large numbers.

Hillary Clinton Told People to Google ‘Donald Trump Iraq.’ They Did. - The New York Times


Just because people google trump doesn't mean they're going to vote for him.

I just did a google search on him and Iraq to get the link I provided above. That doesn't mean I'm voting for him.

Meanwhile according to reliable and established polls:

2016 Election Forecast | FiveThirtyEight

That one is from the person who was the most correct in predicting the outcome of the 2012 election.

Right now, trump doesn't even have 200 electoral votes and Hillary had over 300 electoral votes.

In case you're a typical conservative and doesn't know how many electoral votes it takes to win the election, it requires at least 270 electoral votes.

You're making the same stupid mistake conservatives made in 2012. You're not believing the real polls and coming up with weird justifications for why all those real and reliable polls are wrong.

How's president romney doing?

 

[owebo]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

People are checking out the lies of trump.

At one of the debates he lied again and said he didn't support the Iraq war. Hillary correctly pointed out his lie. Then told people to google trump/ Iraq war.

People did. In large numbers.

Hillary Clinton Told People to Google ‘Donald Trump Iraq.’ They Did. - The New York Times


Just because people google trump doesn't mean they're going to vote for him.

I just did a google search on him and Iraq to get the link I provided above. That doesn't mean I'm voting for him.

Meanwhile according to reliable and established polls:

2016 Election Forecast | FiveThirtyEight

That one is from the person who was the most correct in predicting the outcome of the 2012 election.

Right now, trump doesn't even have 200 electoral votes and Hillary had over 300 electoral votes.

In case you're a typical conservative and doesn't know how many electoral votes it takes to win the election, it requires at least 270 electoral votes.

You're making the same stupid mistake conservatives made in 2012. You're not believing the real polls and coming up with weird justifications for why all those real and reliable polls are wrong.

How's president romney doing?

Seems Trump has enough to overcome your democrat voter fraud....

 

[guno]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

and just where will trump get more uneducated white rubes to win

 

[owebo]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

and just where will trump get more uneducated white rubes to win

Democrats....

 

[JimBowie1958]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

People are checking out the lies of trump.

At one of the debates he lied again and said he didn't support the Iraq war. Hillary correctly pointed out his lie. Then told people to google trump/ Iraq war.

People did. In large numbers.

Hillary Clinton Told People to Google ‘Donald Trump Iraq.’ They Did. - The New York Times


Just because people google trump doesn't mean they're going to vote for him.

I just did a google search on him and Iraq to get the link I provided above. That doesn't mean I'm voting for him.

Meanwhile according to reliable and established polls:

2016 Election Forecast | FiveThirtyEight

That one is from the person who was the most correct in predicting the outcome of the 2012 election.

Right now, trump doesn't even have 200 electoral votes and Hillary had over 300 electoral votes.

In case you're a typical conservative and doesn't know how many electoral votes it takes to win the election, it requires at least 270 electoral votes.

You're making the same stupid mistake conservatives made in 2012. You're not believing the real polls and coming up with weird justifications for why all those real and reliable polls are wrong.

How's president romney doing?

Trump did not support the Iraq War and he was slammed for it in the Republican primaries, not that you give a shit about factuality or anything.

 

[Toro]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

Your "confirmation" is confirmation bias.

You are looking for information that confirms your bias and you are ignoring information that contradicts your bias.

Remember this when Trump gets crushed on election day.

Lol, you make that unwarranted statement without giving even one example of a piece of data that I am ignoring.

The polls are in a variation of +4% for Trump all the way out to +12% for Hillary which is just horse shit. I would bet the house that Clinton wont win by more than 8%.

But she could be ahead by 4% in Reality regarding to what people would vote if they could vote online or push a magic button. But is she ahead among those people who will get off their ass and go stand in line for hours to vote for her? No, I seriously doubt that. I doubt that 80% of the black population will show up and vote for her and that goes for Hispanics and homosexuals, groups that Obama took by larger proportions than Hillary is pulling even in the rigged polls.

This election is not over and the current political system is not set up to handle a large influx of new voters with 80% of them going for one man; Donald Trump.

First, here is no evidence that there has been this massive surge of new voter registration amongst whites. In fact, 538 looked at this, and concluded that there as underperformance in new white voter registration. However, there has been a surge in Hispanic voter registration, and Hillary is leading Trump amongst Hispanics by 4:1.

Second, if Hillary wins by 8, she's going to crush Trump. Most of these poll averages have her ahead by 6-9. There has never been a time in modern political history where a candidate has come from that far down in the final two weeks of the campaign. Yes, there could be a swing of 3-4 points in the polls, but they could got to Hillary too. Thus far, early voting seems to be favoring Democrats in Florida and NC, and recent polls have her leading in Arizona and within the margin of error in Texas.

Google searches and rally attendances mean little. They are more likely to measure the intensity of support, not the breadth of support.

If - when - Hillary crushes Trump, it will have been there for all to see. But most Trump supporters will refuse to believe it. Instead, they'll whine about fraud and the election being rigged.

 

[JimBowie1958]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

Your "confirmation" is confirmation bias.

You are looking for information that confirms your bias and you are ignoring information that contradicts your bias.

Remember this when Trump gets crushed on election day.

Lol, you make that unwarranted statement without giving even one example of a piece of data that I am ignoring.

The polls are in a variation of +4% for Trump all the way out to +12% for Hillary which is just horse shit. I would bet the house that Clinton wont win by more than 8%.

But she could be ahead by 4% in Reality regarding to what people would vote if they could vote online or push a magic button. But is she ahead among those people who will get off their ass and go stand in line for hours to vote for her? No, I seriously doubt that. I doubt that 80% of the black population will show up and vote for her and that goes for Hispanics and homosexuals, groups that Obama took by larger proportions than Hillary is pulling even in the rigged polls.

This election is not over and the current political system is not set up to handle a large influx of new voters with 80% of them going for one man; Donald Trump.

First, here is no evidence that there has been this massive surge of new voter registration amongst whites. In fact, 538 looked at this, and concluded that there as underperformance in new white voter registration. However, there has been a surge in Hispanic voter registration, and Hillary is leading Trump amongst Hispanics by 4:1.

Second, if Hillary wins by 8, she's going to crush Trump. Most of these poll averages have her ahead by 6-9. There has never been a time in modern political history where a candidate has come from that far down in the final two weeks of the campaign. Yes, there could be a swing of 3-4 points in the polls, but they could got to Hillary too. Thus far, early voting seems to be favoring Democrats in Florida and NC, and recent polls have her leading in Arizona and within the margin of error in Texas.

Google searches and rally attendances mean little. They are more likely to measure the intensity of support, not the breadth of support.

If - when - Hillary crushes Trump, it will have been there for all to see. But most Trump supporters will refuse to believe it. Instead, they'll whine about fraud and the election being rigged.

No there has been a surge in PROTRUMP registration of all races.

But we can agree to disagree and simply let the election show us the Truth of this matter, lololo..

 

[Slade3200]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

Your "confirmation" is confirmation bias.

You are looking for information that confirms your bias and you are ignoring information that contradicts your bias.

Remember this when Trump gets crushed on election day.

Lol, you make that unwarranted statement without giving even one example of a piece of data that I am ignoring.

The polls are in a variation of +4% for Trump all the way out to +12% for Hillary which is just horse shit. I would bet the house that Clinton wont win by more than 8%.

But she could be ahead by 4% in Reality regarding to what people would vote if they could vote online or push a magic button. But is she ahead among those people who will get off their ass and go stand in line for hours to vote for her? No, I seriously doubt that. I doubt that 80% of the black population will show up and vote for her and that goes for Hispanics and homosexuals, groups that Obama took by larger proportions than Hillary is pulling even in the rigged polls.

This election is not over and the current political system is not set up to handle a large influx of new voters with 80% of them going for one man; Donald Trump.

First, here is no evidence that there has been this massive surge of new voter registration amongst whites. In fact, 538 looked at this, and concluded that there as underperformance in new white voter registration. However, there has been a surge in Hispanic voter registration, and Hillary is leading Trump amongst Hispanics by 4:1.

Second, if Hillary wins by 8, she's going to crush Trump. Most of these poll averages have her ahead by 6-9. There has never been a time in modern political history where a candidate has come from that far down in the final two weeks of the campaign. Yes, there could be a swing of 3-4 points in the polls, but they could got to Hillary too. Thus far, early voting seems to be favoring Democrats in Florida and NC, and recent polls have her leading in Arizona and within the margin of error in Texas.

Google searches and rally attendances mean little. They are more likely to measure the intensity of support, not the breadth of support.

If - when - Hillary crushes Trump, it will have been there for all to see. But most Trump supporters will refuse to believe it. Instead, they'll whine about fraud and the election being rigged.

No there has been a surge in PROTRUMP registration of all races.

But we can agree to disagree and simply let the election show us the Truth of this matter, lololo..

Question is, if Trump loses, will you accept it as truth or will you bitch for the next 4 years about a rigged election?

 

[HappyJoy]

More confirmation that the Hillary win is a figment of someone demented imagination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Over the past few years, we have both become interested in how data from the internet, particularly Google searches, might be used to predict events. People also tell Google things — a lot of things — that they may not admit to others. So can we use Google searches to predict whom voters will support in this election? It is not as simple as we’d hoped.

One indicator of support might be how frequently people search for a candidate. There is some evidence that if they search for you, they will vote for you. In primary elections, Google search volume for a candidate in a state has predicted electoral outcomes. It is also true that in each of the past three general elections, the candidate with the most Google searches — George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 — received the most votes.

This time around, nationwide, for every Google search about Hillary Clinton, there are two for Mr. Trump.

Your "confirmation" is confirmation bias.

You are looking for information that confirms your bias and you are ignoring information that contradicts your bias.

Remember this when Trump gets crushed on election day.

Lol, you make that unwarranted statement without giving even one example of a piece of data that I am ignoring.

The polls are in a variation of +4% for Trump all the way out to +12% for Hillary which is just horse shit. I would bet the house that Clinton wont win by more than 8%.

But she could be ahead by 4% in Reality regarding to what people would vote if they could vote online or push a magic button. But is she ahead among those people who will get off their ass and go stand in line for hours to vote for her? No, I seriously doubt that. I doubt that 80% of the black population will show up and vote for her and that goes for Hispanics and homosexuals, groups that Obama took by larger proportions than Hillary is pulling even in the rigged polls.

This election is not over and the current political system is not set up to handle a large influx of new voters with 80% of them going for one man; Donald Trump.

First, here is no evidence that there has been this massive surge of new voter registration amongst whites. In fact, 538 looked at this, and concluded that there as underperformance in new white voter registration. However, there has been a surge in Hispanic voter registration, and Hillary is leading Trump amongst Hispanics by 4:1.

Second, if Hillary wins by 8, she's going to crush Trump. Most of these poll averages have her ahead by 6-9. There has never been a time in modern political history where a candidate has come from that far down in the final two weeks of the campaign. Yes, there could be a swing of 3-4 points in the polls, but they could got to Hillary too. Thus far, early voting seems to be favoring Democrats in Florida and NC, and recent polls have her leading in Arizona and within the margin of error in Texas.

Google searches and rally attendances mean little. They are more likely to measure the intensity of support, not the breadth of support.

If - when - Hillary crushes Trump, it will have been there for all to see. But most Trump supporters will refuse to believe it. Instead, they'll whine about fraud and the election being rigged.

No there has been a surge in PROTRUMP registration of all races.

But we can agree to disagree and simply let the election show us the Truth of this matter, lololo..

A surge in Pro Trump registration of all races? Surely you have a link to this.