Very interesting when you compare Clinton, Obama and Paul together, it seems that they're doing the very same thing to Obama. However, Hillary seems to be getting many more google searches, yet she is behind Obama in the polls. So, does an increased amount of web traffic necessarily equate to an increase in votes?

Maybe people are looking to see what's wrong with a candidate, or the people who are voting aren't always the people web-searching...

It can't be argued that the news media isn't still a massive influence on public opinion though.

Isn't Google Trends tracked globally not just US local. There was more interest in Ron Paul outside of US.

Take a look at the 'Regions' section in this Google Trends page that was briefly shown in the video:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=hillary%2C+obama&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Obama has had twice the hits coming from US when compared to Hillary, while the latter obviously has her PR bureau in New Zealand. Seriously, I'm not even trying to kid; can anyone come up with a better explanation for these stats?

What I would ask:

1) Is the Internet crowd representative of the US population, in terms of age, gender, political views, etc.?
2) Can a Google search be considered as an endorsement?

The other conclusion could be that Ron Paul's high "popularity" on the web was an anomaly and that he had the media coverage he deserved considering his chances to win the GOP primaries. I think the point here is that Ron Paul did suffer from media bias, but you need more than Google Trends and YouTube to prove it.

Edmund Hillary, New Zealander, died Jan '08.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

When you remove the 70%+ of internet users whos first language in their nation is not english, and is not from an OECD nation, the percentage of internet users that would have even the slightest of effects on Ron Paul searches, skyrockets from 18% of population useage to over 50%.

How many of those external to the US in the remaining nations actually give a shit about US elections ?

I doubt very many, the majority of Ron Paul "meetups" were in the US. Over 90% of them (google map Ron Paul meetup groups), some were in Aus, the UK and Europe, but the vast majority inside the US.

So when you ask:
1) Is the Internet crowd representative of the US population, in terms of age, gender, political views, etc.?

I would say overwhelmingly, for this topic, yes. Yes it is.

As for google searches being considered an endorsement, well noone is suggesting that it is, its meerly a measure of popularity. Wether it be for infamy, or true fame, Ive no clue. Theres not enough data from search results alone to determine that. Youd need to check how people rate his video's (of those whom watch and rate them), and how many people fully watched the videos that they began etc.

However, despite the absence of that knowledge, its still blatantly clear that Ron Paul has had a massive media suppression in spite of a massive internet popularity.

Appauling, but not supprising.

There are some glaring errors in here, first of all the polls with 1 or 2000 people may sound small, but they are surprisingly accurate. Pollsters have been doing this for years, and they are really good at finding representative members of society.

The internet is for porn, kitties and email attachments. While I dream of the day when we get true democracy via this net we have, that time is not yet. The rabid fans of Paul are a big internet-group, and they are a big group among those who use the internet for politics, but they are not a big slice of the actual population. In other words, this is the very opposite of "representative", even if the numbers are in the millions. Anyone vaguely familiar with statistics will understand this.

Since this is the whole basis for his argument, I'm afraid it crumbles a bit.. Perhaps Ron Paul "Should" have had more coverage overall, but I'm not sure it would have changed the results.

They should do the same searches with the candidates' names misspelled

My thoughts echo grubets. Until there a study done that provides data showing that google searches have a direct correlation with how someone votes, then this theory is just a theory.

Normally people “google” something to get information. So wouldn’t you think they’re googling Ron Paul just to figure out who in the hell he is? If they do that doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for him.

The internet will become a greater force in elections once everyone uses it. Imagine if the one of the biggest voting groups, the AARP, actually surfed the web? THEN you might see a correlation with voting and search results. This could happen several years down the road once generation X and Generation Nexters start voting regularly (as apathy decreases when people get old).

In my personal opinion Ron Paul would have had better mainstream coverage if he had more money. He would have that money if he actually voted yes to something in Congress and accept money from lobbyist. In addition he’s not cooperative in helping others pass bills by saying no so as a result he will not get support from anyone. The main reason he’s still in Congress is that he never breaks his promise to his constituents in Texas that he’ll never raise taxes. As a result he’s got name recognition in Lake Jackson after being in office for decades.

Interesting yet still inconclusive. I wouldn't hang my hat from a rack made of this data, seems kinda flimsy. Although it's a start for a hypothesis.

>> ^dw1117:
My thoughts echo grubets. Until there a study done that provides data showing that google searches have a direct correlation with how someone votes, then this theory is just a theory.
Normally people “google” something to get information. So wouldn’t you think they’re googling Ron Paul just to figure out who in the hell he is? If they do that doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for him.


But isn't that the exact reason why media outlets needed to give him coverage in the first place? To tell the people, who are(were) clearly interested, what his message and candidacy were all about.

Clearly a media bias towards Ron Paul can be seen in this Google Trends comparison:

http://google.com/trends?q=%28ron+paul%29%2C+%28naruto%29&ctab=0&geo=US&geor=all&date=all&sort=0

Naruto for President!

umm, i don't know if i can do this, but... *election08 ...obviously. and i voted, so when things go to shit, i'm allowed to complain

Invocations (election08) cannot be called by rgroom1 because rgroom1 is not privileged - sorry.

Prime example of using, or misusing, statistics to prove a point. Yes by looking at the data there appears to be a correlation, correlations (of any sort as far I know) do not prove causal relationships. Correlations prove relationships, and whether those relationships are positive or negative. A causal relationship might exist in a correlation, but you need another type of statistical analysis to to actually prove the relationship.

There are a variety of them, and which one you use depends on the specific nature of the data and the question you wanted answered. For the most part they all require the researcher the ability to manipulate the variables he or she is looking at, as well as controlling for other unknown variables. This is not something you can do with data generated by google. While the correlation certainly is interesting it is certainly not proof, as the presenter's many assertive statements would lead you to believe.

total bull.

According to this methodology, there is a mainstream media suppression campaign against both porn and lolcats.

Maybe it was just because most people didn't think he was a good candidate? Whodathunk?

Hes gunna get shot by the CIA.

Consider the possibility that people are less willing/able to think about who's a *good* candidate when they're being told by their peers and the telescreen, what to think. Evidence of this suggests that people do what the herd tells them. An unfortunate side effect of being a social animal, I guess.

I practically live on the internet, and there I've come across many enthusiastic supporters of Ron Paul and zero enthusiastic supporters of John McCain, prior to McCain's clinching the nomination.

It may very well be that McCain is more popular then Ron Paul due to mainstream media coverage imbalance.

The comparison in this video is really only representative of those using computers, who are therefore both literate and understand technology invented since the telegraph. So it would clearly show a bias towards Ron Paul's supporters over McCain's.

I think John Edwards has a far greater case of being buried by the media.

Does anyone remember that Hillary came in third in Iowa, behind both Barack Obama and John Edwards? They barely mentioned Edwards' name on the news between Iowa and New Hampshire, and totally ignored him from there on out.

The press wanted a two-way battle between Obama and Hillary from the start.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
The internet is for porn, kitties and email attachments.

...and flash videos, man. How could you forget flash videos?

I don't think there's any question the media was blacking out Paul. I don't think there was a single interview through all of 2007 where he wasn't told that his chances were "slim" and he was a "longshot" and ultimately asked "will you run on a third party ticket." I remember seeing a Fox clip covering the 6 million dollar day and the ticker at the bottom said "Money for nothing?" I kid you not. None of the other candidates got treated that way, and he raised more money and got more votes than a lot of them despite it. Imagine what it would have been if he had gotten a fair shake. I imagine the powers that be want to regulate the internet now seeing the influence it had for a truthtalker like Paul.

People are so weak minded that that's all the media really has to do. Plant the seed of doubt in their mind that he has no chance, and they will effectively believe it in a self-fulfilling prophecy along the same lines as "I don't want to waste my vote on someone who won't win." I think if there was an election between media-loved Hitler, media-loved Stalin and a blacked out libertarian candidate, Hitler or Stalin would win.

There are several flaws in this I see:

1. Google searches does not show support. If you check the words "Nazi, Democracy" in google trends, Nazi continuously has more hits. Does this mean more people want Nazism than democracy?

2. Media coverage does not reflect public interest. What should be compared here is how well viewed Ron Paul coverage was compared to any other candidate. If Ron Paul pieces receive very few hits, then it's little wonder. It is interesting to note that Ron Paul hits do still follow the same curve as coverage. He may have a point here, but even so, it's hard to tell which is the cause and which is the effect.

3. Youtube does NOT represent the voting population. That's like doing a political pole at an elementary school. Over 50% of the voting population in the US is over 50. Most people I know who are that old probably don't even know what Youtube is, let alone post content to it. He also didn't compare hits, just posted videos.

4. Last, but certainly not least, he fails to acknowledge that the internet may not be a reasonable gauge for the public opinion. Many people still don't use the internet for finding information (after all, you can believe every thing you see written on a webpage, right?). It's a good concept, but still has some very flawed reasoning.

I R over 50 n I 'tube.

Get offa my lawn!