DEBUNK THIS: Google trends of various elections: Is google more accurate than polls? (It has predicted the winner in all the last 4 elections)

So, what are you all butthurt that I found 1 example that proved your trend thing wrong. I'm sorry you have missed the whole point. If she is correct that there was fraud with Brownback based on your say-so, then she must also be correct on fraud with Trump based on your same say-so. You do realize that Brownback was a republican, right? Clearly the woman is most likely a liberal and you want to side with her? The only articles I see taking her seriously on this Brownback issue are all democrat rags.

If this actually predicts the election, it won't even be close. I'm not sure the last four elections is enough of a record, but it does look compelling. If it works out that way, the fraud would have to be massive to elect Joe and Ho.

You misunderstood me.

I'm not but hurt and you were not wrong about Brownback.
Brownback is a cheat & a Republican.

Just because he is a republican does not mean he is not a cheat.

You found one example - so far it's the exception that confirms the rule - and it does look like he cheated.

:)

Last Edited by JADR+ on 08/24/2020 10:00 AM

Exactly ... the fraud is nearly impossible. We're taking 10's of million of fake votes.

There will be fraud ... but it will not change the outcome.

Wow, you took one person's opinion and now you are certain of fraud. You need to be careful here.

From another article I can't post here for some reason, they are saying that what she did was reckless. She admitted in her own words it was not necessarily fraud. She found a small statistical anomaly that most likely was a result of underlying demographic drivers and not fraud, such as a precinct in the city adding a surge when it gets added in (like a part of the city that is more Republican than Democrat). I would link the article, but I can't. If there was true fraud going on here, the whole country would have heard about it before now, not just some little democratic rags picking it up.

Once more from your own article:

"Clarkson emphasized that the results don’t definitively prove fraud, though the results of her analysis are what statisticians would likely see if someone had tampered with the voting machines. She stated that there could be other explanations for the patterns. For that reason, she would like to perform an audit."

[link to sunlightfoundation.com (secure)] (Emphasis added)

Last Edited by TrustNoOneKS on 08/24/2020 10:23 AM

Most of that graph comes from the fact that Biden wasn't announced as candidate yet. There towards the end it gets much closer. We will see what it looks like in another month.

No I checked over 20 different elections of the last 16 years.

Data always match the result

You gave me an example where it didn't

The winner was booed and highly unpopular

There has to be an explanation.

Either he is an out-layer - or he cheated.

If I'm going to trust the data - this is consistent with Cheating.

Now .. question for you: out of 100 elections: How many cases which confirm the rule would you require to say that it works?

70%? 80%? 90%? 99%?

Biden has been candidate for at least 60 days.

All those places will vote red to prevent NY and Minneapolis from happening in their state. Fact! They will SAY they are voting blue to not get attacked. Remember all those Hillary voters?

They all read your post and are now spamming Google with biden searches.

Well, I hate to ruin your trend again with another race, but Ron Estes (R) won over James Thompson (D) for the House of Representatives in 2018 in Kansas. Once more, the loser, had far more than the winner on the trends:

[link to trends.google.com (secure)]

Interestingly, he beat the same guy in the special elections in April 2017 to replace Pompeo, and the trend also favored Thompson then as well:

[link to trends.google.com (secure)]

Last Edited by TrustNoOneKS on 08/24/2020 11:11 AM

Nope!
filter by Kansas (click on the state in the map)
And set the proper date .. it was in April 2017!

[link to trends.google.com (secure)]

Totally legit!

Someone check (B-1 Bob) Dornan and (Loretta) Sanchez. I can't.

[link to trends.google.com (secure)]

Bownback still loses if you filter by Kansas.

(I think it's a reasonable assumption to filter the data by the state in which people vote)

So, I also started to check surrounding state governor's races and found one also for Nebraska:

Dave Heineman defeated David Hahn in 2006, but the bar clearly favors Hahn:

[link to trends.google.com (secure)]

Yes, I would think hundreds of millions of searches a day would provide better data than polling 1234 people every few days.

1998 - data starts in 2004

Didn't know you could break it down by state. I used the January date because you are going 3 months out ahead of the actual election for your analysis, so that is what I was doing.

EDITED TO ADD: Actually, you are going 5 months out ahead of elections with using June 1st.

Last Edited by TrustNoOneKS on 08/24/2020 11:41 AM

Not if you filter by Nebraska.

[link to trends.google.com (secure)]

Rule confirmed again

Your date was date=2018-06-01%202019-06-01

The election happened in 2017

It makes sense to filter by the state to avoid the noises of the rest of the country.

Good thread!

OK ..I just thought about it - the last date should be a week after the election.

What do you think?

The 2018 date was for the 2018 election. I used 2 trends for 2 different elections. I used 2017 for the 2017 special election.

Well, yeah, it should probably end right after the election so that it's not picking up articles that have nothing to do with what was trending before the election.

EDITED TO ADD: I was talking about 3 months before the election though when I was picking the January 1st date for that special election.

Last Edited by TrustNoOneKS on 08/24/2020 11:48 AM

Ron Estes clearly wins when filtered by Kansas

[link to trends.google.com (secure)]

But hillary w9n the popular vote.

Dont underestimate the voter fraud.

Biden will likely win the popular vote (thanks to dead and illegal votes.

Pittenger was Harris's opponent in the Republican primary, not in the general election. The comparison should be with Democratic candidate Dan McCready: [link to trends.google.com (secure)]

This ended up being a narrow win for Harris voided by the state board of elections due to evidence of questionable election ballot tactics by one of Harris's staffers.

This is a very good observation! Thank you!