Some Ron Paul Statistical Comparisons You Definitely Haven't Seen

Alright, meow.

Well, I feel like I've stumbled upon a rather interesting bit of online trending and I think you will concur. Google has a tool called Google Insights For Search, which allows you to see actual search trends based on customized preferences, such as time frame, region, and content type.

I decided to compare the four remaining candidates, and the information speaks for itself. The search was limited to the United States, and within the last 12 months (the graphics are a little cut off since the graph was so wide). The results also include a breakdown by state, which becomes really important in our first case.. Well start now:

Mitt The Ripper



Hmm.. Are we all noticing the same thing here? This dude basically tied for Iowa, WON New Hampshire, and the main majority of internet search activity in his name came from the Mormon capital of the world? Smells fishy to me, a bit "Salt Lake" fishy to be precise.


Fig Newton Gingrich



Fair enough, a good show. A bit state-specific for me, however. But not too shabby.


Rick Sanitarium (i mean Santorum, sorry)



Oh Ricky boy.. The pipes, the pipes.. they called. And then they exhaled. Noticed the strangely low search trends through the long stretch, and then suddenly, God appeared! And then went back to... Utah?


Ron Paul The Destroyer



Lions & Tigers & Bears, Oh My! I don't know about you but I see a steady spread throughout the country and a higher-than-the-rest lead up to now (since july).. Also noteworthy is not much of a drop off at the end, as with Newt..

How can we interpolate this with current GOP Candidate poll data, or the mainstream media's "fair coverage" of said candidates.. And if it is as we've seen, the blatant censorship of Ron Paul in the media, then how on earth are these search trends so prevalent and obvious if nobody's interested???

I decided to test google a bit further, and you can do this yourself. You can do a specific search of sites with various terms through google using the following format:

Candidate's Name site:cnn.com
or
Candidate's name site:foxnews.com

Well I did this, and recorded the search results for each candidate, added them up, and calculated the percentages of each candidates' name appearing in the search results.. Here were the results:

Cnn.com

Ron Paul - 11%
Mitt Romney - 34.7%
Newt Gingrich - 20.3%
Rick Santorum - 34%


Foxnews.com

Ron Paul - 16.1%
Mitt Romney - 34.3%
Newt Gingrich - 29.6%
Rick Santorum - 20.1%


I'm curious to get ATS's thoughts on this.. Again, all this can be verified personally if you have the time.

Your thoughts?
Good day...

I live in Maine. Everyone that I know and my family says they know (that pay attention) support Ron Paul.

And,yet the MSM refuses to see it.
Just like a parent refuses to see that their little Jenny is pregnant.
Until the baby pops out.

I truly don't think anyone in the streets support the other candidates. It's just the corporate media telling us who we support. I seriously don't know anyone who doesn't support Paul. He IS the only logical choice...

Your candidate nicknames pretty much make this thread.

As for the data, that is interesting for sure. I for one have googled "Mitt Romney" "Newt Gingrich" and "Rick Santorum" but I am certainly not planning on voting for them. For all we know, having higher google searches means that people are less likely to vote for that person. It could also mean that people are confused - "Who is this Ron Paul guy?" Or, some of the major Ron Paul people google his name more often than other supporters google their candidates. There are a lot of ways this data could be interpreted, unfortunately; I don't know what this actually means for Ron Paul other than he has a bigger internet presence than the other candidates, which he has consistently shown. But a lot of voters don't use the internet; they use MSM to tell them who to vote for.

reply to post by spacekc929


I starred you at "Your candidate nicknames pretty much make this thread".

reply to post by rstregooski


Hmm.... Looks like a Conspiracy there to me . Perfect Place to Post it too............

Originally posted by kdog1982
And,yet the MSM refuses to see it.
Just like a parent refuses to see that their little Jenny is pregnant.
Until the baby pops out.

They see it.. I think it's painfully obvious that news corporations take direction on who they support. The GOP wants Romney .. and so the media will support Romney all day long. They also support Gingrich though don't think he could beat Obama, so the media gives stronger coverage for Newt than others. The GOP HATES Ron Paul. Absolutely despise him. Several leaders in the GOP call Paul's seat "wasted" and his nickname in Congress is "Dr. No" And that they "Can't count on him for anything, he just votes no on everything so we don't consider him in our tally"

I swear that if Ron Paul somehow DOES win .. the GOP would throw their support behind Obama.. that means their donors, their leadership etc.

However they cannot openly make fun of Paul or ridicule him or in any way openly insult him .. and they have no dirt except a 30 year old news letter that he had nothing to do with. If they were to disrespect him they alienate a huge bloc of Conservative voters that support Paul and risk turning them into 3rd party supporters.

So they ignore him and pretend he's not there.

Thanks much for sharing...been wondering. Ron Paul won Idaho's first straw poll(here). Good news, but, there's no doubt going to competition because of the Mormons.

reply to post by spacekc929


My wife,a dedicated democrat is 100% behind Obama.
I am surprised we are still married.



In reality,we are screwed.
We all know Ron Paul wont get it.
I like Ron Paul and his ideas,but he is to old,and a little on the crazy side for the most of conservative America.
They all took a chance on Obama,and got screwed.
When I voted,over the years I went for the underdog.
Ross Peroit (sp?)Remember him?

This election cycle is not at all good.
We would be better off electing my dog,cause that is what they are.
All dogs,being lead around with a tight leash.
Accept for Ron Paul,but people don't like an untrainable,free thinking dog,do they.

The only real strong leader electable would be Newt.
I hate that man with a passion,but in reality,if he can convince one wife to have an abortion,and another to have an open marriage,the man has got balls.
I probably got my facts a little wrong,but not to far off course.

Anyways,politics are not my strong suit,so in fairness these are only my opinions,thats all.

Originally posted by spacekc929
Your candidate nicknames pretty much make this thread.

As for the data, that is interesting for sure. I for one have googled "Mitt Romney" "Newt Gingrich" and "Rick Santorum" but I am certainly not planning on voting for them. For all we know, having higher google searches means that people are less likely to vote for that person. It could also mean that people are confused - "Who is this Ron Paul guy?" Or, some of the major Ron Paul people google his name more often than other supporters google their candidates. There are a lot of ways this data could be interpreted, unfortunately; I don't know what this actually means for Ron Paul other than he has a bigger internet presence than the other candidates, which he has consistently shown. But a lot of voters don't use the internet; they use MSM to tell them who to vote for.

edit on 1/20/2012 by spacekc929 because: (no reason given)

I hate to say it, but I think you may be right. There is no way to know why the data shows what it shows, and I also don't believe that just because he is being googled a lot, those people will vote for him. We don't know who the people are, what their intentions are, or what these results actually mean. We'll have to wait see what happens in the other states.

Kudos to the OP for presenting us with good visuals of browsing trends.

Just do a search to find which one is related to all of our past presidents now would be very interesting there since some say all but one of our presidents are related to the King of England and each other including Obama. But as for the graphs we just have to wait and see if this has an effect.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by spacekc929
Your candidate nicknames pretty much make this thread.

As for the data, that is interesting for sure. I for one have googled "Mitt Romney" "Newt Gingrich" and "Rick Santorum" but I am certainly not planning on voting for them. For all we know, having higher google searches means that people are less likely to vote for that person. It could also mean that people are confused - "Who is this Ron Paul guy?" Or, some of the major Ron Paul people google his name more often than other supporters google their candidates. There are a lot of ways this data could be interpreted, unfortunately; I don't know what this actually means for Ron Paul other than he has a bigger internet presence than the other candidates, which he has consistently shown. But a lot of voters don't use the internet; they use MSM to tell them who to vote for.

edit on 1/20/2012 by spacekc929 because: (no reason given)

I hate to say it, but I think you may be right. There is no way to know why the data shows what it shows, and I also don't believe that just because he is being googled a lot, those people will vote for him. We don't know who the people are, what their intentions are, or what these results actually mean. We'll have to wait see what happens in the other states.

Kudos to the OP for presenting us with good visuals of browsing trends.

I guess my point with this is, what interests me MOST is the lack of search activity on Romney and Santorum around the dates of Iowa and New Hampshire.. You feel me?

Originally posted by rstregooski

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by spacekc929
Your candidate nicknames pretty much make this thread.

As for the data, that is interesting for sure. I for one have googled "Mitt Romney" "Newt Gingrich" and "Rick Santorum" but I am certainly not planning on voting for them. For all we know, having higher google searches means that people are less likely to vote for that person. It could also mean that people are confused - "Who is this Ron Paul guy?" Or, some of the major Ron Paul people google his name more often than other supporters google their candidates. There are a lot of ways this data could be interpreted, unfortunately; I don't know what this actually means for Ron Paul other than he has a bigger internet presence than the other candidates, which he has consistently shown. But a lot of voters don't use the internet; they use MSM to tell them who to vote for.

edit on 1/20/2012 by spacekc929 because: (no reason given)

I hate to say it, but I think you may be right. There is no way to know why the data shows what it shows, and I also don't believe that just because he is being googled a lot, those people will vote for him. We don't know who the people are, what their intentions are, or what these results actually mean. We'll have to wait see what happens in the other states.

Kudos to the OP for presenting us with good visuals of browsing trends.

I guess my point with this is, what interests me MOST is the lack of search activity on Romney and Santorum around the dates of Iowa and New Hampshire.. You feel me?

I do, and I get what you're saying,... but supporters of these particular candidates are not very internet-savvy. They don't research their candidates online, they watch TV to do so. These are older people who either have no internet access, or don't know how to use what they've got. The spike in searches could have come from the younger voters who quickly lost interest in these candidates, but Ron Paul captured their attention and continues to hold it.

reply to post by rstregooski


Nice post, thanks! I think your analysis of site article counts does well to emphasize how meaningful this is. Exposure seems to be the name of the game and Ron Paul is killing it on the net.

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by spacekc929

 

The only real strong leader electable would be Newt.
I hate that man with a passion,but in reality,if he can convince one wife to have an abortion,and another to have an open marriage,the man has got balls.
I probably got my facts a little wrong,but not to far off course.

Anyways,politics are not my strong suit,so in fairness these are only my opinions,thats all.

I don't know what to say that wouldn't get me banned. As I could only imagine a mercury poisoning victim suggesting the possibility that Newt would make a good President. Only a psychopath would stick up for another psychopath.

reply to post by rstregooski


This is just an awesome thread all around. S+F for you.

Proof worth framing, IMO.

reply to post by korathin

I don't know what to say that wouldn't get me banned. As I could only imagine a mercury poisoning victim suggesting the possibility that Newt would make a good President. Only a psychopath would stick up for another psychopath.

SPOT ON.

Three guesses what kind of psychopath, he already gave some hints.

Most of the people that I know are voting for Ron Paul. The others are voting for either Santorum or Gingrich. Nobody is voting for Romney. Nobody.

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Most of the people that I know are voting for Ron Paul. The others are voting for either Santorum or Gingrich. Nobody is voting for Romney. Nobody.

Arggh, Santorum!! Is it me or does he just look like he's whining anytime he speaks? Well, presentation aside, this is my #1 argument to my Sanitarium-supporter friends..