Ron Paul on Google Trends

what do you make of this?
www.google.com...

first off, it bugs me that there is no label for the lateral on the graph.. 0-what? and what exactly is it measuring. id like to know what the numbers are for that peak back at the beginning of 2008.
Google is like this in everything though, reminds me how their maps never have a legend so you just have to guess what all the symbols mean.

second, ummm, did anyone else expect his popularity to be a lot higher than it was in 2008?
im forced to question whether or not i can trust this, look at this link of trends for today www.google.com...
ron is number 7!!!

so why no peak on his graph?

maybe i just dont know how any of this works, but Google sure isnt helping me figure it out.

Ron Paul is the most popular candidate among Internet-Users. He was at the last election too. If only Internet-Users (= Well-read people) voted, Ron Paul would be President. If he would get more support from his own party and the media he could actually make it. He's the guy people want. His fiscal policies are a threat to the left and his other policies are a threat to the far-right, so he does not get much airtime in a media-environment that are dominated by the left/right paradigm.

How is 7th on the list a "Mild". That's a 1/5 on the activity scale.

I'm not gonna jump to conspiracy, but that is really fishy.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Ron Paul is the most popular candidate among Internet-Users. He was at the last election too. If only Internet-Users (= Well-read people) voted, Ron Paul would be President. If he would get more support from his own party and the media he could actually make it. He's the guy people want. His fiscal policies are a threat to the left and his other policies are a threat to the far-right, so he does not get much airtime in a media-environment that are dominated by the left/right paradigm.

edit on 13-8-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Well said!

Its funny to see the dominated msm both on the left and right play him down.

I will still vote for him and teach my children his values

www.google.com...

Look at that.

No way, that Tim Pawlenty is getting hundreds of times more searches than Ron Paul.

Either we're missing something(like maybe it only looks at news articles), or there's foul play.

I'm still hesitant to call foul play.

~
Worked around it:
www.google.com...

Make more sense now?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Yes Sky I think you are correct. In 2008 he was the latest flavour of the month hence the spike. Now Paul gets too close to the truth, too often so the mainstream media simply silence him, by not reporting his comments over and over like they do the others. We can't have any of the truth being bandied about in public forums, especially in the so called democratic (what a joke) old US of A...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Ron Paul is the most popular candidate among Internet-Users. He was at the last election too. If only Internet-Users (= Well-read people) voted, Ron Paul would be President.

Internet users are real people who vote.

The vote is rigged however, thus explaining the situation.

An example, here in PA he was not allowed on the ballot and they told me if I voted for Paul they would throw it in the garbage. FACT.

Rigged election = nullifies your comment.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Ron Paul is the most popular candidate among Internet-Users. He was at the last election too. If only Internet-Users (= Well-read people) voted, Ron Paul would be President.

Internet users are real people who vote.

The vote is rigged however, thus explaining the situation.

An example, here in PA he was not allowed on the ballot and they told me if I voted for Paul they would throw it in the garbage. FACT.

Rigged election = nullifies your comment.

If you could've had a hidden recorder on you or something. That'd be such a big deal.

Whatever you did, talking to whoever, or whatever. Get someone else to while they secretly record it, in case something like that is said again.

Or at least see if anyone else in your local area got told that too. Collect the testimonies and try to do a group lawsuit or something.

I would not roll over and give up just being told that my votes not gonna be counted. I'd do what I could to draw attention to that misdeed.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Ron Paul is the most popular candidate among Internet-Users. He was at the last election too. If only Internet-Users (= Well-read people) voted, Ron Paul would be President.

Internet users are real people who vote.

The vote is rigged however, thus explaining the situation.

An example, here in PA he was not allowed on the ballot and they told me if I voted for Paul they would throw it in the garbage. FACT.

Rigged election = nullifies your comment.

what alarms me is how different i must be from people like you, the ones who always get told this sort of thing.

my immediate reaction would be of intense burning screaming tantrum throwing outrage, it would be like a bomb went off and it would be my mouth. no one within a thousand miles would be able to drown me out.

but its never said to people like me, only people who apparently just shrug it off and only mention it in passing on internet message boards.

interesting.

edit- curious.. do you drink fluoridated water?

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Worked around it:
www.google.com...

Make more sense now?

actually it makes LESS sense now. shouldnt the "ron paul" searches include the "ron paul 2012" searches?

and still, there are no numbers for the lateral on the graph, so the peak could be 10 people or 10 million. so they are entirely useless for comparison to other candidates. im sure each graph is adjusted to fit, so one candidates peak could be 10, and the others 10 million.

thats pretty much graph making 101, to not include it seems intentionally misleading.

im starting to hate google more than apple.

Originally posted by BohemianBrim
and still, there are no numbers for the lateral on the graph, so the peak could be 10 people or 10 million. so they are entirely useless for comparison to other candidates. im sure each graph is adjusted to fit, so one candidates peak could be 10, and the others 10 million.

No, they balance the graphs from changing the search index numbers.

Though, oddly, it doesn't seem right compared to what you'd expect. Not at all, so maybe you're right.

reply to post by BohemianBrim


What are you talking about?

I did protest, however it was in more of a civilized manner than your suggestion.

How could you have known if I threw a fit or not? I am just informing you that you assumed incorrectly.

This was a well-known fact during the last election cycle, Paul wasn't even allowed on several states ballots.

I am not going to harm anyone over it though, I just refuse to vote as my solution. And try to inform others of the situation that is going down.

And no I don't drink fluoridated water...how would you know that anyways without doing a chemical analysis on either my water or me?

well.. there's a HUGE thread somewhere on ATS about this last election and using google trends using the big 3 however, when i input all 3 now in 2012 GT posts BO is listed as the #1 search btwn them but getting low news hits; meaning, the entire USA is searching for RP .. but, the news is keeping him quite.. yep and this was 2008.. it's the RP show vs media 2.0 as of last election..

don't believe me.. check this out GT on Ron Paul & Hillary Clinton

see the news reference volume .. yea.. that tells it all !!

edit to add: 'TPTB will put in who THEY want in since the last election the a massive CIA op

Very verbose image from google rank

above chart - search rank
below chart - news references