Actually, it isn't.
Yeah when the searches for Crooked Hillary is 8x higher than the next highest, but doesn't show up, there's tampering.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)
- Thread starter Bughouse
- Start date
- Status
Yeah when the searches for Crooked Hillary is 8x higher than the next highest, but doesn't show up, there's tampering.
Like I said, both are shady. Just goes to show that Hillary is no saint whatsoever. I dare her to provide an answer for this to potential voters. I double DOG dare her! It's nice to see this sort of journalism isn't dead, though it is ironic that we know this because of Citizens United, the accursed corporate super pac that opened the flood gates to unlimited, unchecked
If Google and Hillary are conspiring to rig the auto-fill-in feature, they just gave more ammo to Trump and the #NeverHillary individuals (and a funny round at that!)
I tried it myself. There is no fucking way in hell this should be possible. Little Marco shows up. Lyin' Ted shows up. Low Energy Bush shows up. Even Crazy Bernie shows up!!!
It's actually funny if you don't think about the possible implications!
I actually took the time to attempt a reasonably objective 'experiment' on Google search suggestions. The current candidates and the presidents of the last 30 years were used as subjects. Several positive, neutral, and negative terms were used. The queries were formed from the subject and the term. To simulate partial terms, each term was attempted in three ways: the first letter, the first three letters, and the entire term.
Here are the results.
It's rather long, but there is no evident bias in the results. Whether it's Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or a dead president, the results are generally neutral at worst. There are some queries that result in negative suggestions, but that's not common. Hillary Clinton's suggestions include: "hillary clinton lying for 13 minutes", "hillary clinton racist kkk", "hillary clinton hates troops", and "hillary clinton violated law". For comparison, Donald Trump's results are pretty neutral sans for 'racist/racism'; better than Clinton's. In his case, 'crime'/'criminal', 'violent', 'lying/lie', 'hate', and 'fraud' have no negative suggestions.
The source code and data for the experiment is freely available. Here you go. Requires Python 2.7. Modify the 'terms' files or 'subjects'. Run 'test.py' to perform the test. Keep in mind Google may blacklist your IP if you don't throttle the queries. I have it set to 2 queries per second.
In essence, cherry-picked search suggestions are crap. There is no conspiracy.
Here are the results.
It's rather long, but there is no evident bias in the results. Whether it's Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or a dead president, the results are generally neutral at worst. There are some queries that result in negative suggestions, but that's not common. Hillary Clinton's suggestions include: "hillary clinton lying for 13 minutes", "hillary clinton racist kkk", "hillary clinton hates troops", and "hillary clinton violated law". For comparison, Donald Trump's results are pretty neutral sans for 'racist/racism'; better than Clinton's. In his case, 'crime'/'criminal', 'violent', 'lying/lie', 'hate', and 'fraud' have no negative suggestions.
The source code and data for the experiment is freely available. Here you go. Requires Python 2.7. Modify the 'terms' files or 'subjects'. Run 'test.py' to perform the test. Keep in mind Google may blacklist your IP if you don't throttle the queries. I have it set to 2 queries per second.
In essence, cherry-picked search suggestions are crap. There is no conspiracy.
veiva from your own data:
Not one mention of Hillary Clinton criminal, Crooked Hillary or anything of the like. Hillary Clinton w gives "Will win" while Trump with straight up "Donald Trump win" doesn't even get a similar wholesale result. Who the hell searches "Hillary Clinton will win"? Even when you find results like "Hillary Clinton racist KKK", understand how hard Trump supporters have been working to get that picture circulating. CERTAINLY more than the other useless queries. If you choose not to see it, that's fine. But what I highlighted it SUPER blatant.
query: hillary clinton c
result: hillary clinton campaign
result: hillary clinton college
result: hillary clinton campaign slogan
result: hillary clinton campaign manager
result: hillary clinton controversy
result: hillary clinton clothes
result: hillary clinton commercial
result: hillary clinton cartoons
result: hillary clinton climate change
result: hillary clinton civil rights
query: hillary clinton cri
result: hillary clinton crime reform
result: hillary clinton crisis
result: hillary clinton crime bill 1994
query: hillary clinton crime
result: hillary clinton crime reform
result: hillary clinton crime bill 1994
result: hillary clinton campaign
result: hillary clinton college
result: hillary clinton campaign slogan
result: hillary clinton campaign manager
result: hillary clinton controversy
result: hillary clinton clothes
result: hillary clinton commercial
result: hillary clinton cartoons
result: hillary clinton climate change
result: hillary clinton civil rights
query: hillary clinton cri
result: hillary clinton crime reform
result: hillary clinton crisis
result: hillary clinton crime bill 1994
query: hillary clinton crime
result: hillary clinton crime reform
result: hillary clinton crime bill 1994
Not one mention of Hillary Clinton criminal, Crooked Hillary or anything of the like. Hillary Clinton w gives "Will win" while Trump with straight up "Donald Trump win" doesn't even get a similar wholesale result. Who the hell searches "Hillary Clinton will win"? Even when you find results like "Hillary Clinton racist KKK", understand how hard Trump supporters have been working to get that picture circulating. CERTAINLY more than the other useless queries. If you choose not to see it, that's fine. But what I highlighted it SUPER blatant.
If you continue to refuse to believe that Google just filters out negative results, that's fine, but it's blind.
Take for example the following google searches
Barry Bonds st:
No appearance of Barry Bonds steroids on the autofill
or Vladimir Putin mur:
Vladimir Putin Muro di Berlino returns 62,500 Italian news results (and I'm searching in English) but Vladimir Putin murder 569,000 results does not
or Laverne Cox s:
Laverne Cox svu 30,200 results appears, while Laverne Cox shemale 221,000 results does not.
Take for example the following google searches
Barry Bonds st:
No appearance of Barry Bonds steroids on the autofill
or Vladimir Putin mur:
Vladimir Putin Muro di Berlino returns 62,500 Italian news results (and I'm searching in English) but Vladimir Putin murder 569,000 results does not
or Laverne Cox s:
Laverne Cox svu 30,200 results appears, while Laverne Cox shemale 221,000 results does not.
Ajwf, who searches for "barack obama winking" or "bill clinton wallpaper"? Why is "google.com" such a popular query? People search for stupid things. When negative queries are popular, and removed from suggestions as as result of automatic filtering, then these stupid things are more likely to appear as well.
Look, I definitely agree Hillary Clinton and her supporters have manipulated the media throughout her campaign. She is their ideal candidate from the Democratic Party. But given enough time I could form an argument with substantial support of this claim. I would have to go through articles from periods of the campaign showing how she was the entire focus, how her competition (other than Biden, who never even ran) were completely ignored early on, how her flaws were whitewashed/glossed over, etc. But given enough time, I could do it.
However, the Google/Clinton search suggestion theory is most definitely not true. Simply because the theory aligns with certain views about Clinton (her corporate sponsors manipulate media), it is quickly accepted regardless of the flimsy and unsubstantial evidence. And rather than reject this theory, extreme measures are taken to claim it's true. The evidence from my 'experiment', in its entirety, does not support the claim. Citing single queries is no more useful than citing certain days to prove or disprove climate change.
I find it disappointing how the video was taken as truth across the internet communities I visit, especially when a remotely reasonable attempt at an objective analysis could be performed in an evening and shown how wrong it is. There are actual reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton; this is not one of them.
Look, I definitely agree Hillary Clinton and her supporters have manipulated the media throughout her campaign. She is their ideal candidate from the Democratic Party. But given enough time I could form an argument with substantial support of this claim. I would have to go through articles from periods of the campaign showing how she was the entire focus, how her competition (other than Biden, who never even ran) were completely ignored early on, how her flaws were whitewashed/glossed over, etc. But given enough time, I could do it.
However, the Google/Clinton search suggestion theory is most definitely not true. Simply because the theory aligns with certain views about Clinton (her corporate sponsors manipulate media), it is quickly accepted regardless of the flimsy and unsubstantial evidence. And rather than reject this theory, extreme measures are taken to claim it's true. The evidence from my 'experiment', in its entirety, does not support the claim. Citing single queries is no more useful than citing certain days to prove or disprove climate change.
I find it disappointing how the video was taken as truth across the internet communities I visit, especially when a remotely reasonable attempt at an objective analysis could be performed in an evening and shown how wrong it is. There are actual reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton; this is not one of them.
Gary Johnson and Bernie are on polar opposites of what they want to do (Huge cut backs in spending vs no huge spending increases) with some of the only similarties being legalizing weed lol and even socially Johnson and the libs are much more about states rights and not about moving the nation forward together as Bernie wants/would want.
I agree with that but found it interesting how I came to these results.
I think that they both agree with a bit more than weed, such as criminal reform, lgbt rights, abortion rights, military spending/involvement
I think that they both agree with a bit more than weed, such as criminal reform, lgbt rights, abortion rights, military spending/involvement
Attachments
If we're gonna be fair on Gary on civil rights I'm gonna pull out the 2012 ACLU report card. Gary was rated higher on civil rights than President Barack Obama. To no one's surprise, Mitt Romney received perfect zeros...
If this is true (and we have a poll worker who was lied to, as well as other evidence), then this gives me even more incentive NOT to vote for Hillary, Trump be damned.
I sure hope it can be debunked, but some pretty good points are made, and I'm honestly outraged. And if it happened hear, was the whole primary a sham?
Let's not act like there was some major conspiracy lmao. Y'all's tinfoil hats are on a bit too tight.
The vote trend as they were counted was this:
They would have to be REALLY good at knowing who was a Bernie vote and who was a Hillary vote before counting them to keep it that consistent of a margin of victory for Hillary throughout the day and mysteriously only keep out votes for Bernie, which if added in would have been enough to win. Please.
So now you ask why so many still uncounted votes? Well... http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics...mated-to-have-voted-in-CA-primary-7991593.php There was considerably higher turnout than expected and it's possible they were just understaffed. I'm not sure about this though because in 2008 turnout was higher and they reported final results faster.
In any case, anyone who thought Bernie had a chance in California was delusional. It's a state with a very significant Latino population, one that is a particularly reliable supporter of the Democratic party. And Hillary clobbered Bernie among Latinos throughout pretty much the entire primary season. She won them in New York by almost 30 points iirc. According to 538 analysis of results, Hillary is leading by an average of 15 percentage points in every single congressional district in California where Latinos make up at least 40 percent of eligible voters. Hillary is also just generally popular in California, having won it in 2008 over Obama, and she won Latinos over Obama then by almost 40 points.
Moreover, it doesn't even matter who "wins" the state. Nothing in the democratic primary is winner take all. Hillary had a consistent lead and aside from losing 100% to 0% in California had already clinched the nomination.
The vote trend as they were counted was this:
They would have to be REALLY good at knowing who was a Bernie vote and who was a Hillary vote before counting them to keep it that consistent of a margin of victory for Hillary throughout the day and mysteriously only keep out votes for Bernie, which if added in would have been enough to win. Please.
So now you ask why so many still uncounted votes? Well... http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics...mated-to-have-voted-in-CA-primary-7991593.php There was considerably higher turnout than expected and it's possible they were just understaffed. I'm not sure about this though because in 2008 turnout was higher and they reported final results faster.
In any case, anyone who thought Bernie had a chance in California was delusional. It's a state with a very significant Latino population, one that is a particularly reliable supporter of the Democratic party. And Hillary clobbered Bernie among Latinos throughout pretty much the entire primary season. She won them in New York by almost 30 points iirc. According to 538 analysis of results, Hillary is leading by an average of 15 percentage points in every single congressional district in California where Latinos make up at least 40 percent of eligible voters. Hillary is also just generally popular in California, having won it in 2008 over Obama, and she won Latinos over Obama then by almost 40 points.
Moreover, it doesn't even matter who "wins" the state. Nothing in the democratic primary is winner take all. Hillary had a consistent lead and aside from losing 100% to 0% in California had already clinched the nomination.
jrp
Banned deucer.
it's election fraud if hillary wins, but only fair if bernie wins guys
Re: google, google has algorithms that prevent people from spamming searches. Places like r/the_donald love to spam stuff like this. They probably took precautions against that to stop people from flooding searches to get results to the top.
Re: google, google has algorithms that prevent people from spamming searches. Places like r/the_donald love to spam stuff like this. They probably took precautions against that to stop people from flooding searches to get results to the top.
Anyone else helping with ballot access for the Libertarian & Green Parties? I'm voting for Gary Johnson, but the Green Party isn't on my state ballot. I signed up to volunteer today in hopes of getting my home state ballot access for the Green Party.
And here I was hoping that donating money wouldn't be necessary. I thought it was going to be signing a petition or something (if I could, since I live where she'll be on the ballot). Guess it is a good thing I have a job, but $25 is no drop in the bucket for me, so I can't be the only one who does it (and I should definitely get my parent's approval). I'll do it, but there is the issue of how many donations will be needed, and coordinating it.
I doubt three pages worth of individuals will be enough. More like as many pages worth as the Sun and Moon thread (and if many people I know do it, I can justify it to my mother or father).
I doubt three pages worth of individuals will be enough. More like as many pages worth as the Sun and Moon thread (and if many people I know do it, I can justify it to my mother or father).
Funny you should post this graph, I'm not sure on the source for this image but it looks strikingly similar to a study I read today regarding Election Fraud.Let's not act like there was some major conspiracy lmao. Y'all's tinfoil hats are on a bit too tight.
The vote trend as they were counted was this:
Here's the link.
While the trend for CA mostly matches the examples given for "normal" states (Page 7), there are several more examples that, at the very least, are "suspicious." I won't both repeating any parts of the study here, but it highlights a number of equally coincidental (cough) discrepancies that almost unilaterally favor Clinton.
Do not try and accuse anyone of being crazy conspiracy theorists, especially given all the crazy shenanigans in AZ and NY and Chicago. There might very well be a reasonable explanation for exit polls not conforming to the actual vote share, but how many excuses have to be true before things start to get suspicious? Remember, consistently inaccurate data is not damning, especially for something like exit polls, but consistently inaccurate data in one direction is. Interestingly enough, these inaccuracies only seem to occur in precincts that do not use hand counting. Machines (well, programmers) are probably capable of being REALLY good at consistently producing the same vote outputs regardless of the input.
- Status