Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Google: Obama will win TX and OH

financialaidpodcast.com — Real-time trend analysis says people are more interested in Obama than Hillary. Check this out!

Bury

groundctrl 225 days ago

112 diggs
digg it

DMXell, on 03/04/2008, -5/+11Was there any doubt that Obama wouldn't win?
- aldenhg, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2A little. Clinton, until very, very recently had leads in both states. It seems that when people actually see her her numbers go down while when people actually see Obama his numbers go up. So Clinton is good on paper, but Obama is actually good.
- eschompthis, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7sorry to burst your bubble but polls havent closed
  - tomgsmyth, on 03/04/2008, -2/+0read the caption dummy it has nothing to do With the polls. "Real-time trend analysis says people are more interested in Obama than Hillary. Check this out!"
    
    It says real-time trend analysis not polls..... *****
    - netant, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Are you people total idiots???
      
      Its GOOGLE SEARCHES, not polling. Are you trying to claim internet users are the majority of voters?
- LloydBentsen, on 03/04/2008, -0/+5Don't pop the cork yet. I've been working the election during part of the day here in Texas, and there have been many normally Republican voters crossing over to vote for Hillary in the Democratic primary. Not only that, many of them plan on showing up to the caucus tonight. BTW-- the Democratic turnout in our last primary in our area was 28. (no I didn't forget a digit) Our turnout as of 5:30pm was over 500 voters. This should give you an idea of the crossover taking place in heavily Republican areas such as my own.
- PocketWatch, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Um...yes. As of now there's still a fairly big doubt that he'll win Ohio.
AllMyCauses, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4Very cool... I hope there is a real correlation!
yndy, on 03/04/2008, -4/+32Because everyone in Texas that votes uses Google to search for candidates...

Seriously, if Obama wins he wins... but this is not any better of an indicator than asking 100 people on the street.
- DesignEx, on 03/04/2008, -0/+7It's a worse indicator. Obama traditionally has a bigger 'Internet Vote', in the same way Hillary (traditionally) has a bigger 'Hispanic Vote' or 'Womans Vote'.
- eastwood24, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Agreed, The internet sample is not indicative of actual populations...AKA old people who lean towards HRC don't use the internet as prevalently
tylerbanfield, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5Although it's obviously not the most scientific method, I definitely like the creative use of Google Trends.
- netant, on 03/04/2008, -0/+3Nah, its not much different than a quick SEO analysis. I'd put more weight in idea exchanges.
BarbaraKolbe, on 03/04/2008, -2/+5Ah, but that's what's significant about this primary election: we haven't seen this interest in a primary since the 70's. Thus, normal *street* folks do matter this time. And while this google chart is silly, it does show one correlation between the two candidates we all love on digg: Google!
girlasaurusrex, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4Yes, excellent. Now, if we can only get them off the Internet long enough to go vote.
LiquidIse, on 03/04/2008, -2/+10Inaccurate. Google is making no such statement, Google Trends is simply reporting higher interest online for Obama. If this was true then RP would have taken primaries by storm...
gypsi, on 03/04/2008, -0/+4well mccain gets more lookups than ron paul, so there's some hope for humanity
MalachiConstant, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2If only the internet mattered in politics. Not yet, friends. Not yet. All this does is confirm that the hipper younger demographic is on board the good ship Obama. If they all get out and vote is a whole other thing entirely.
Gabberwok, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6Google trends has clearly shown that there is a higher level of interest in Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton on the internet for most of the primary process. It has predicted Obama would win in every state he has won, and also every state he has lost. It is not a strong indicator of actual election results - just look at the Google Trend analysis for Ron Paul versus the other Republican contenders...

Just because people are googling a candidate doesn't mean they are voting for him. That said, if you live in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, or RI, get off of Digg and get your butt to a voting booth so that Obama can clinch this thing...
shaka776, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5Using your flawed logic, that puppy-tossing marine should be doing very well...
jdh24, on 03/04/2008, -5/+2I SAW OBAMA THE OTHER DAY AT A RALLY AND I FAINTED!!!!!!!!! MY MOM TELLS ME I'M IN A CULT OF PERSONALITY BUT WHAT DOES THAT BITCH KNOW?!
- UnterDenLinden, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Neon Lights?
arbouler, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1what percentage of people actually refer to the internet when it comes to researching the candidates?
i'd assume most of the searches come from younger americans. while most of the older ones still cling to word of mouth and msm.
i support obama, but that stat is just flawed. and not very scientific to determine the election winner...
Infidelcastr0, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2This is the biggest news since the anal fisting spike of 2006.
Lutremi, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1Obama and Paul dominate the internet population, Hillary just gets the remainder of the inferior ones
Digg4This, on 03/04/2008, -1/+1hahaha yeah please, Ron Paul won this too. Don't get me wrong, I personally think Ron should be president, but all I am saying is I CALL BS!
theuniversal, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2I'd like it to be true. But people already know Hillary Clinton pretty well, so less reason to google her.
mach68, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1I want Hillary to LOSE BIG TIME today so much. If she wins any, then that would be suspect since this high voter turnout is IN FAVOR of Obama. So for her to win would be a disbelief.
mrfreeziexp, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Only time will tell.
DeepFriedFetus, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2When are people going to learn that Google Trends doesn't mean anything in relation to the election...the 78 year old retirees who actually vote in the primaries aren't spending a lot of time on the web.
lechuga, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2This is not relevant. This doesn't take into account the bias that internet users have towards barrack obama.

Take a look at california in february!!

http://www.google.com/trends?q=barack+obama%2C+hil ...
webaddict, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1The honest truth is that if Google predicted winners through it's trend tracking then Ron Paul would basically have already won the election. Using these trends and relating them with actual poll results does not work.
canewediggit, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2this is just as bad as paulspam and i'm burying it the same. google trends prove nothing and mean nothing. otherwise ron paul would be lord of the universe.

by the way, exit polling as of 8pm est has hillary winning w/ 62%. i wish that wasn't the case, but it is what it is.
- canewediggit, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1in ohio, the exit polls in ohio.
Spoomeister, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Uh huh. Stare at these for a moment and tell me the article's comparisons mean more:

www.google.com/trends?q=%22ron+paul%22%2C+obama&ctab=0&geo=US&date=ytd&sort=0
www.google.com/trends?q=cake%2C+death
www.google.com/trends?q=yankees%2C+%22red+sox%22&ctab=0&geo=US&geor=all&date=all&sort=0

I mean, c'mon! This is bloody silly. Buried.
- ostrakon16, on 03/05/2008, -0/+0Amazing Monty Python reference!!! Lovely!!!
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Google: Obama will win TX and OH

Login or register to add a comment