Friday, July 22, 2016

"Google finds Americans searching for a 3rd party candidate is surging"

Buffalo NewsGoogleTrends shows that voters are searching for an alternative to Republican nominee Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in big numbers.

Over the last week, searches for a third-party candidate in the 2016 Presidential Election is up by more than 1,150 percent, data shows.

Who's on third?

Segments of the American electorate are asking and Abbott and Costello's "I Don't Know" is not a good answer.

Not in 2016, anyway.

Over the last week, searches for a third-party candidate in the 2016 Presidential Election is up by more than 1,150 percent, data shows. The leaders appear to be in the states of Missouri, Colorado, Washington and Michigan, the data shows, with the biggest hits coming from the nation's largest metro areas including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Dallas. (charts at the link)

22 comments:

chickelit said...

Google finds Americans searching for a 3rd party candidate is surging

Google is not impartial in this election.

edutcher said...

Cruzzers.

All butt hurt, as someone would say.

ndspinelli said...

Google probably has one of those services in India doing hit searches to drive those numbers. Or, they are simply lying. Google lobbyists are the most frequent guests to the WH.

edutcher said...

You may have something there.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Google, it seems to me, is confusing search hits for "third party" or "third party candidates" as a desire to HAVE a third party. Google searches are to get information. For instance I may be interested in learning more about tattoos. That doesn't mean I WANT a tattoo.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Plus a percentage increase quoted in these instances always makes me very skeptical. If 5 people like something and then 50 people like or are googling something...that is a 900% increase. Sounds impressive that there is a 900% increase, but really? 50 people out of how many?

Same deal with the market. When they want to make it sound like there was a HUGE drop in the market they quote numbers. The DOW dropped by 500 points today!!!! ooooo aaaah Sounds like a big deal doesn't it. Well that is 2.7% Big deal for a one day drop. However the trend may be important.

Calculate the difference between the two numbers being compared:
Difference = New Number - Original Number

Divide the difference by the original number and multiply the result by 100:
Percentage Change = Difference ÷ Original Number × 100


Be skeptical when they start quoting statistics and percentages. The same goes for polls. Statistics are the easiest way to tell big lies because most people don't understand them.

bagoh20 said...

By definition, looking for a 3rd choice has no party bias.

Rabel said...

Follow the links to the Google trends page. In the box for "+ add term" add "Hillary Clinton" then add "Donald Trump."

Look at the resulting graph for the three terms. You will see that you are being bullshitted.

edutcher said...

Rabel, there's acres of inside stuff like that which needs to be shared.

Good one.

Rabel said...

You might also want to click on the question mark after "interest over time" so that you understand what Google's numbers mean.

Rabel said...

For shits and giggles add Kim Kardashian.

Jim in St Louis said...

I do not understand why there is not more robust third parties in the US. San Fransico or Portland can’t elect even one Green Party congressman? Really? TX or TN cannot elect a single Constitution Party person to congress?

Our nation is so diverse politically- but that is not reflected in the two party system.

Jim in St Louis said...

As a sort of off topic question: Would you be interested in vote pairing? If you live in a deep blue state that is going to go for Clinton no matter what, would you be willing to pair up with a libertarian voter in a toss up state? You vote for Johnson and the Libertarian agrees to vote for Trump. (and the vice is the versa)
Why is the internet and social media not doing this? A million republican NY voters who agree to give their votes to Johnson matched up with a million Libertarian IL voters who agree to vote for Trump. Would not both side benefit?

Jim in St Louis said...

And another thing!!! ;-) - why the hell is the electoral college a winner take all thing? Why is it not proportional? I’m kinda sick of there being 5 or 10 states that a candidate has to win and they get the whole kitty.

ricpic said...

Any vote for some "other" is a vote for Stalin in a pantsuit. People who can't see that....well, they can see that but they're willfully blind and deserve nothing but contempt.

AJ Lynch said...

I was thinking this was a "look over there" bull crap story and Rabel proved it. And like Spinelli noted, Google has been an almost daily visitor to the Obama White House.

edutcher said...

They are going to do anything they can to make it look like she's unstoppable.

Jim in St Louis said...

And another thing!!! ;-) - why the hell is the electoral college a winner take all thing? Why is it not proportional? I’m kinda sick of there being 5 or 10 states that a candidate has to win and they get the whole kitty.

Because that's the way it was written and that's the way people live nowadays (Lefties want to live with "right-minded" people like themselves) so you have 20 Conservative States (more like 30) and 10 or so hard Left states with big packs of electoral votes and everything gets decided by the few in the middle (the fact PA is actually in play this time is a biggie, anything else Trump puts into play is all to the good) and because the people who wrote it didn't want a parliamentary system where you have a dozen parties and coalition governments that can't get anything done and wanted just 2 parties.

Remember, the Narzis came to power through a coalition government.

Jim in St Louis said...

Not so, the constitution does not say that the state has to be a winner take all. Maine and Nebraska split it up by congressional district- the winner within the district gets one electoral vote- and the winner of the most votes statewide get the other two. Not sure how ties would work.

So think about IL- Chicago land would go Democrat in a big way, but downstate there are 5 or so districts that would be Rep.

I might question that our current duopoly system was what the founders wanted or intended, I doubt that something like Obamacare could have been rammed thru if there were multiple parties with multiple goals. Seems like only the bills that had broad support would get passed thru the congress.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

why the hell is the electoral college a winner take all thing? Why is it not proportional? I’m kinda sick of there being 5 or 10 states that a candidate has to win and they get the whole kitty.

Agreed!!!!!! Living in California and not voting Democrat, my votes and the votes of millions of others who don't vote Democrat are ignored.

If the State votes 51% for Hillary and 49% for Trump then 49% of the population is erased. It should be proportional in dividing up the electoral college votes. Long past time to fix this.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

In our area (the real northern California) we vote about 70 to 85% Republican. But because we get outvoted in the blue counties our voices are drowned out not only in a National Election but also in the State. Our wishes and our lives are controlled by people in LA, SF and other areas who have no idea what the effects of their votes are on US. Nor do they care.

State of Jefferson !!!! Set us free.

edutcher said...

oopsy, imagine what happens if all the illegals are deported, the sanctuary cities are emptied, vote fraud is prosecuted, and the Reichskomissar in Sacramento is shown the door.

Jim in St Louis said...

I might question that our current duopoly system was what the founders wanted or intended,

There have been some modifications to the system due to difficulties with party politics, particularly the XII Amendment, but it's basically worked the way outlined. Electors can choose whomever they want, but the majority of electors swings the state.

rcocean said...

I'm sure plenty of "Moderate" Republicans on the West Coast, New England, NYC, and NJ will vote 3rd party - and who gives a shit?

Because those places are going Hillary no matter what.

In California the Republican party is a complete party joke. Does it even exist? I know nobody who belongs to it. They stand for nothing except "me Too" and they still lose every state wide office.

rcocean said...

Of course, there are parts, as DBQ stated, that are Republican strongholds like the area North of Sacramento and parts of Valley and SoCal. But on a state wide level the party is completely and totally dead.

Of course, a lot of us saw this coming 20 years ago, if immigration wasn't stopped. But the precious moderates didn't want to "Scare" the Hispanics, or be called racist by the MSM.

So here we are. And what happened in California will happen in the whole USA if its not stopped.