Google Announces Its Most Popular Search Term on Election Day: You're Not Going to Believe It.

60 percent of people polled did not know who the candidate's running mates were.

Ridiculous.

reply to post by MRuss


Tell us, where did you get that statistic? I see no link to an article. I even did a quick google search of the exact statement and was unable to find anything to validate it. Plus you have no idea how many people were polled to get that statistic and if you do; then you should make that fact known as it would help your argument.

I can make statements without supporting them too, watch:
MRuss eats cat poop to reach website front page.

Hell I can even provide a fake link to back up my statement: MRuss eats cat poop to reach website front page which is more then you did. Even if it's not true I still put more effort into this simple mocking post then you did with your statement which is presented as though it were fact. You sir appear to be a troll and a bad one at that. I tend to troll trolls for the endless entertainment it provides.

Originally posted by MRuss
60 percent of people polled did not know who the candidate's running mates were.

Ridiculous.

60% OF PEOPLE POLLED. That means it was a sample of the population, not the entire population. Do you think that polling agencies seek out the most intelligent and highly educated of voters or something?

Really? funny thing about things like this, is it looks funny on the surface but has no substance. All they know is people searched that phrase they have no means to measure the motivation behind the query.

Shocking . My country is dying in front of me .. It was nice knowing you ........ Scum bags took over . Looking for $$$$$$$$$ from the govt.. Cause they can't do anything in life with there "POOR ME" attitude .

Originally posted by MRuss
60 percent of people polled did not know who the candidate's running mates were.

Ridiculous.

Yes because you can always trust polls to be accurate for the select population who pick up the phone for blocked or private numbers.

Isn't that a good thing?
It means a lot of people aren't watching the mainstream news sources....

Originally posted by MRuss
The most popular search term on election day was this:

"Who is running for President?"

Yes, the dumbing down of America right before your eyes.

A chart on the Google Trends website shows the skyrocketing popularity of a search for the term, “who is running for president” -- as if it were possible to miss the omnipresent radio, TV and Web ads for Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.

Lord help us all.

www.foxnews.com...

How many kids do you think were online researching for history class or whatever to do a report... especially on that day, my daughter searched it up she's 12 and not old enough to vote, a lot of kids are kept away from politics. But the school teaches them about the election therefore they have probably been asked to write a report on the candidates and then watch the results etc.

Originally posted by Trustfund
This thread and article is just an excuse for people to feel superior to others. It is kind of sad.

I couldn't agree more! And whats more is that we are all average people, but no one wants to think that they are stupid/dumb/ect... It's always 'someone else' who is average and stupid, ever notice that when people make comments such as the OP?

At very least at least they are researching and trying to educate themselves. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. It's so much better than letting main stream media do the thinking for them, at least they are educating themselves, that alone says they are not stupid.

If average = stupid then we are all idiots, but of course no one wants to think that. I don't think it because I simply do not believe it is true. We all have our areas that we do better in, are quicker about, ect.. and areas that we may not know as much about. There is no shame in ignorance, ignorant only means that you are unaware or uninformed.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant in a reply there.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
How many kids do you think were online researching for history class or whatever to do a report... especially on that day, my daughter searched it up she's 12 and not old enough to vote, a lot of kids are kept away from politics. But the school teaches them about the election therefore they have probably been asked to write a report on the candidates and then watch the results etc.

My 11 and 13 year old sons both had to do a write up on the candidates as well as the debates. My 13 year old looked at me after the first debate and said "seriously?? These are the people they chose? Isn't there anyone else" After I quit laughing I told him to go look it up on google and find out who all the other candidates were because there was most definitely more than two people running!

So there.. at least one kid who probably googled "who is running for president"

So. Does anyone else agree with me that voting should require an IQ test?

reply to post by TehSlenderMan


No, once you start making restrictions on which citizens can and can not vote, you'll be going down one slippery slope that ends in spikes. Next thing you know, you'd have to have a certain amount of money to vote or people of certain religions being barred from voting.

reply to post by MRuss


OP,

I've been reading your replies and I really think you're giving this more than it deserves. If anything, I'd be happy that my people don't know anything about politics. Presidential Election is a big scale scam that I don't want my kids to participate in, even better, not even know who's running for president because you know what?

It doesn't matter! It's not gonna make a difference! It's not like if they choose Obama something will happen, and if they choose Romney something "else" is gonna happen and their choice is what decides what's gonna happen. No. This is not how this works. What's really happening is that TPTB reveal to you their future plans through "letting" any of them win. So really, we're all just watching TPTB change moods. At Bush's time, it was mood for war, therefore, you know you should expect Bush to win. Today, it's just isn't the mood for Romney so they're not letting him win because it's not time yet for bad cop. Apparent bad cop that is because I believe it's all a bad cop situation disguised into a good cop bad cop situation.

You do give off a tone of a pissed fella. You're talking about ATS members' spelling mistakes and narrowing down your explanation to the piece of news to just: people are uneducated and dumb. There are many explanations you know? My favorite was when someone told you it could be that people want to know about other ignored choices. It could be immigrants in America. It could be international queries. It could be someone who DOES know who's running but trying to pull a wikipedia article to read more about it. It could be anything.

Do you REALLY think that people who know nothing about politics are considered ignorant and uneducated? Because I think they are awesome.

As you will note, the google trends data is indexed, meaning that the number of searches done for this phrase might actually be very small indeed. All we reallly know is that about five times more people searched the phrase in November than in July. That should be no surprise. Nor do we have any reason to believe that the people doing the search were voters. As many have already pointed out many of the people doing the search were likely children. or wanted information about third parties.

It's the Fox News article that is stupid, not the American people.

The way FOX is writing that article is so disgusting it makes me wanna puke.

A chart on the Google Trends website shows the skyrocketing popularity of a search for the term, “who is running for president” -- as if it were possible to miss the omnipresent radio, TV and Web ads for Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.

Did you see that "as if it were possible to miss the omnipresent radio, TV and Web ads"? It's sending an angry tone on a news piece. It's not informing you about the Google facts. It's telling you: look, dumb$h!t, this is why Romney lost. Because of your ignorant a$$. And they prove my case by saying:

They’re not undecided -- they’re completely uninformed.

As if getting informed = voting for Romney.

Sorry fellas, but, uninformed people are those who know a lot about politics and still choose to go vote.

It is highly probable that they were looking for alternatives outside of the two puppets presented.

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
reply to post by MRuss

 

Tell us, where did you get that statistic? I see no link to an article. I even did a quick google search of the exact statement and was unable to find anything to validate it. Plus you have no idea how many people were polled to get that statistic and if you do; then you should make that fact known as it would help your argument.

I can make statements without supporting them too, watch:
MRuss eats cat poop to reach website front page.

Hell I can even provide a fake link to back up my statement: MRuss eats cat poop to reach website front page which is more then you did. Even if it's not true I still put more effort into this simple mocking post then you did with your statement which is presented as though it were fact. You sir appear to be a troll and a bad one at that. I tend to troll trolls for the endless entertainment it provides.

* for the link

Originally posted by MRuss
The most popular search term on election day was this:

"Who is running for President?"

Yes, the dumbing down of America right before your eyes.

A chart on the Google Trends website shows the skyrocketing popularity of a search for the term, “who is running for president” -- as if it were possible to miss the omnipresent radio, TV and Web ads for Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.

Lord help us all.

www.foxnews.com...

Others have likely said it, too, but in case they haven't, here are some alternative explanations as to the prevalence of this search phrase:

1) People may want to know what alternative, third-party candidates are choices
2) Google isn't just for Amurikkens; there may be people in other countries also interested in who is running, and haven't been inundated with information on it -- and they, too, may be curious about third-party candidates.
3) US students may well have been given the exercise of seeing who all was running, as part of a civics lesson

Did you consider these possibilities before creating this thread?

No doubt there are some Americans who don't know who was running for president, and that doesn't say much for them. I remember reading, for instance, that Octomom had not heard of Romney until she was asked about the election. But I would also say that so much of the campaign has been negative, particularly against Obama, that there may be some people who actually do watch the news some or read the internet, but primarily hear about kinds bad stuff about Obama, so they have no idea who's running against him. This last possible reason is due, in large part, because Romney was not a darling of the GOP or the political right, so the campaign for him was more of a campaign against Obama. Riddle me this, how much time has Rush Limbaugh spent harping on Obama compared to touting Romney? I would imagine that it is a very lopsided ratio.

That you didn't consider the three alternatives I and others have posed, and that you didn't notice that this google analytic is for worldwide -- not just the US -- and because of your misleadling headline (because it wasn't actually the most searched term of the day), I'd same you are the one with IQ problems. While on the subject of IQ, what you are really talking about is knowledge/ignorance vs. intelligence/stupidity. The fact that you don't understand the difference also doesn't make much of a case for your intellect or knowledge.

Seriously, talking about a "pot calling the kettle black" thread. You get the award for it this month, Einstein.

Originally posted by TehSlenderMan
So. Does anyone else agree with me that voting should require an IQ test?

No I don't. A knowledge of civics and current events, along with some general knowledge is another matter. The fact that you don't know the difference between intelligence and knowledge would having you failing any voter's knowledge test that I would approve of.

reply to post by MRuss


Ok that has officially made me although i am not surprised by this, i am a little.