Thread: 2008 Election: The REAL Numbers

March 27, 2007 at 15:24:40

2008 Election: The REAL Numbers

by Alex Wallenwein

http://www.opednews.com




Do you believe in polls?


Poll information can be very deceptive. The very manner in which questions are selected and phrased can profoundly influence the results. That makes them at the very least problematic, and at worst unreliable and therefore utterly useless - unless they are deliberately employed to sway public opinion one way or the other. In that later case they may not be useless (at least not to the proponent) but, in this writer’s opinion, they become even more problematic.



Is it possible, then, to find out what people are really thinking without goading or prodding them with skillfully and often deceptively phrased questions? How do you avoid what we shall call the "questioner's bias" for purposes of this article?


There is indeed a way, and the Internet makes it possible. What if you searched the online keyword-demand for the names of the current presidential candidate roster on both sides of the aisle? The data you'd get back would most certainly be "unscientific" - but that's exactly what is needed. Raw, unfiltered data. The real demand for candidate names as exhibited by actual online searches on the Internet, without goading or prodding. There would be no loaded questions to ask, no way to manipulate anything before it comes back. The only possible kind of manipulation would be the researcher's personal interpretation of the results - after they come back.


So I conducted a little experiment.


Before we begin, though, I have to tell you how I personally filter information. That means I have to tell you how and what I think so you can filter it out as my personal bias. I count myself as an enemy of tyranny in any of its forms - whether individual or collective, socialist or neocon, whether political, social, judicial, or religious. I value freedom of conscience and individual Liberty - if it's combined with individual responsibility. I prefer laissez-faire economics to the endless tinkering and manipulation by so-called "experts" who have no accountability and who couldn't give a whit about the consequences of their (usually) ill-conceived machinations. I believe in limited government a la the founders of this country (minus Alex Hamilton), and I believe war is justified only in defense of ones country - but then should be fought all out, without taking prisoners. You should also know that I am not a Republican and, oh yes, I favor building a reverse-iron curtain to our South, keeping out whoever has no right to be here - according to our criteria, not theirs.


The data below is completely unfiltered, and I make my interpretation of it as obvious as possible. The reason I tell you this is not because I consider it in any way "important" or because I presume that you care. I only tell you what I think so you can effectively filter it out.


The System:


The system I used to gather the reported data is based on Wordtracker.com, an internet search data provider that is most often used by online marketers to ferret out market niches that might be worth exploiting. However, I did not use Wordtracker itself, but another system which uses Wordtracker's data in determining the demand for any given search-keyword or key-phrase (combination of words) used on the Internet in appreciable quantity. That system costs money, which I am sure you don't want to spend just to verify my statements, but you can use Wordtracker's free trial.


You need to understand a bit how Wordtracker works. It does what is called a "vertical search" meaning it detects all search queries (covering over 95% of worldwide search engine use) that were entered during the last month containing the word(s) selected by any particular online information surfers. In the case of "Obama" for example, it returned all search queries used with that word in it, and that in all possible combinations entered. For example, you may get back things like "1 million barack obama president" and "adacity of hope barack obama." This means it brings back even misspelled search terms, as long as they were used by web surfers in appreciable numbers.


It also tells you the cumulative number of how many times each search-phrase was used during the preceding 30 days.


The Methodology:


My initial concern was to find out who among the Republicans was the real front-runner. I had a nagging suspicion that those candidates whom the press presents as having any kind of "electibility" really don't have any - or at least not much of it, in any case. I would then compare the results with the numbers generated by the Democratic front-runners, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.


With a few exceptions, I only typed in each candidate's last name to get the largest possible number of returns with all possible permutations. The exceptions are Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and John Edwards whose names I entered as first and last name combinations (these surnames are just too common in the world and would return too many unrelated results). Of all results, I picked only the top three or four highest-demand keywords and the related numbers to keep things to a manageable minimum. The numbers stated represent the number of searches Wordtracker measured during the last 30 days.


Here are the results, on a name-search only basis, in descending order:


barack obama 149,790

john mccain 24,600

ron paul 15,540

newt gingrich 15,390

duncan hunter 13,050

rudy giuliani 12,510

hillary rodham clinton 11,400

sam brownback 7,050


Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama came out on top. He just happens to be the mainstream media's newest darling. On the Republican side, John McCain's numbers are no surprise, either, because he has so much "broad appeal" (among the Left in both the Dems and Republican camps, and especially among leftist press goons)..


Surprising is that Ron Paul, who has suffered the most massive news blackout in my personal experience, (yes, this is my personal "filter" in action) is as high up in the field as he is. Don't count ol' Ron out! He was redistricted out of his old tried and true constituency in 2002 when they gave him a completely new district that included little of his old voting block - and he won with a 67 percent landslide. (By the way, "they" was the Republican majority in the state legislature. The Republican sell-outs don't like him since he consistently embarrasses them)


Also surprising is that Hillary "Ramrod" Clinton is so low in the field, as is Roodytoody "the drag queen" Giuliani, who is by most mainstream pundits misrepresented to be the "most electible" of the so-called conservative field.


Lies. All lies! (Sorry. I couldn't resist).


That was the broad perspective, the rawest of the raw approaches, by name search only, and no other criteria included.


Now we turn to online searches that include the candidate's last name together with the word "president". Better sit down. There are more surprises coming:


hillary clinton for president 3,990

ron paul president 1,590

barack obama for president 1,350

duncan hunter for president 1,080

john mccain for president 750

rudy giuliani for president 540

sam brownback for president 510

barack obama president 390

duncan hunter president 360

newt gingrich for president 360

sam brownback president 150


Here, Hillaria wins hands-down by more than double the number of searches compared to the next runner-up - but the name of the runner-up is a huge surprise: Hello, Ron Paul, "maverick" politician of the supposedly dead and forgotten "conservative base," the reputed stay-at-home election losers of the decade.


Who would have thought that of the much-despised and ignored "Dr. No"? What's more, Ron here beats Mr. Media-Darling Barack Obama by a couple hundred searches (remember: these aren't "likely voters". This little exercise only reveals online demand for keywords, but it is revealing in and of itself.)


If you want to get a grasp of the news blackout being perpetrated on Ron Paul, go to Google News or Yahoo news and type in his name and see what comes back: a few blog entries, and other than minor back-country papers with low distribution only the lone WorldNetDaily. Fox News? Even NewsMax, the supposedly conservative online publication? Drudge Report? Forget it! Not a whisper.


The same thing is true among the polls. Go to Rasmussen.com and look for Paul's name or mug shot anywhere. Good luck, by the way!


Sam Brownbag, on the other hand, was recently interviewed by Medved on his radio show. Brownbag claims the news media is blacklisting him, too.


Nope. Not so.


The 'New York Crimes' paper click here gives him considerable coverage for an otherwise unknown candidate. No surprises there, I guess: he favors amnesty for illegal migrants entering from Mexico. He'll probably also support pro-NAU legislation, like so-called 'conservative' Rep. Katherine Harris did when she proposed a bill last year that would create a common security perimeter around the US, Canada, and Mexico.


Also a surprise is solid conservative Duncan Hunter, who is in fourth place in this line-up behind Obama, but along with Ron Paul way, way ahead of the remaining pseudo-conservative field. Might there be a message for the GOP (mis)leadership? Hellloooo!!? Anybody listening?


I suspect the neocon Republican leadership, in conjunction with the press and media, are passing off the conservative field's actual back-runners as "likely front-runners" because they have already made their back-door deal with the Democrats' leadership, namely that the next president should be a Democrat (preferably one with the surname "Clinton"). George Bush, the younger, indicated as much in an offhand remark in early 2006 when he guffawed: "Yeah, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" on CBS' "Face the Nation" (see, http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_012906.pdf at pp. 8-9 of transcript).


Here is another (less than) juicy tidbit revealed by the numbers. The following are the top searches involving the name "hillary clinton":


hillary rodham clinton 11,400

hillary clinton gallery 5,070

hillary clinton nude 4,290

hillary clinton for president 3,990

... and in eighth place:

hillary clinton pictures 1,890


So, let me get this straight: those who want to know what information is out there on Hillary for president are outnumbered by those interested in how she looks naked, while a total of 11,160 last month wanted to see Hillary in pictures? How twisted a nation are we? Voluntarily looking at her mug shot is one thing, but Hillary ... naked???! P-lease!


Anyway: the numbers, though "unscientific" are very revealing at least. All we are legitimately able to conclude from these is what the total interest of the online public in these candidates is.


There are probably more people that would vote for a candidate than those who are searching for them online in combination with the word "president". There are probably also a good number who are only researching a given name in that manner because they are afraid that the person in question might be elected to this exalted office. (at least I would like to think so when looking at Hillary's numbers). However, the message to Republican party manipulators is real and palpable: "Give us a real conservative - or lose the white house!" That, as noted above, may unfortunately be the whole idea.


The message to the "lame stream" press (as Joe Farah of WorldNetDaily.com calls it) is just as clear: "Fail to report on the Ron Paul/Duncan Hunter phenomenon, and you'll keep losing precious market share even faster than you already are. People will know for sure that you are blacking out important news to suit your agenda - and they are fed up."


And the message to Fox News: "Stop pretending you're a conservative news outlet. You're just as much a sell-out as the Bushes are."


Well, okay, that's not really the numbers talking. It's just me. At least I warned you ahead of time.


Alex Wallenwein




Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Stop Blacking Out Important Election News

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

wwww.attorney-local.com

Alex Wallenwein, J.D., obtained his Juris Doctor degree from South Texas College of Law in Houston, Texas, and a BA in Economics from Florida Atlantic University. He favors the rule of law (not that of man or political ideology), and he just wants the US government to mind the business with which the People originally entrusted it - and stay the hell out of theirs. He wants people to remember what business they actually entrusted to their government - and to insist that it stay out of any other.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author



Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide
1 comments


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: The "New York Crimes" paper reports on Paul2008


After posting this story I found out that the NYT - whom I trash in the article - is the only major newspaper to actually report on Ron Paul's candidacy. Surprised the heck out of me. Does it demolish my claim that there is a deliberate news blackout being perpetrated on Ron Paul? Just check Google News and type in "Ron Paul". Other than the NYT the most "widely read" paper is maybe the San Antonio Express or the Kansas City Star.

Just trying to be fair.

Alex

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne ... _the_r.htm

Tell Your Members of Congress what you think

http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=1757

Letter: Presidential candidate Paul a real Republican

One can learn a tremendous amount about the character of a presidential candidate by how his opponents view him.

Montana's Congressman Denny Rehberg always refuses co-sponsoring bills like repealing the federal income tax, ending Social Security payouts to illegal aliens again living back in Mexico, and recently said no to getting the U.S. out of the United Nations.

Rehberg sits on the Liberty Caucus, whose chairman, Rep. Ron Paul, is running for United States president. Paul continually authors bills like these, common-man bills that career politicians like Rehberg despise.

Paul's a folk hero to those who still advocate constitutional restrictions on the federal government, community taken care of locally, gun protections for individuals not government, and the abolishment of every unconstitutional federal cabinet department. Additionally, Paul has refused the plush pension "given" our representatives by taxpayers, while also constantly returning taxpayer money to the Treasury from his office's allocated budgets.

Meanwhile, Giuliani and McCain openly refused to debate Paul in April in New Hampshire. Though, what could they possibly say in defense of themselves before a real Republican? Better to lead by cut-and-running from the voters.

Too often folks say, "I voted for the lesser of two evils." Send a message to Washington. Look up Paul, a statesman leading by personal example, not another media-picked, cowardly, camera-hogging "trust me" politician worrying over his pancake makeup tint before appearing on Larry King. And, yes, that means you, Rudy McRomney.

Tim Shea
Absarokee


http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles ... 7-paul.txt

hillary clinton nude 4,290

Okay, we obviously have some sick freaks out there. Who in the hell would ever want to see this?

Originally Posted by sippy

hillary clinton nude 4,290

Okay, we obviously have some sick freaks out there. Who in the hell would ever want to see this?

Every single ENTITLEMENT freak!

So, let me get this straight: those who want to know what information is out there on Hillary for president are outnumbered by those interested in how she looks naked, while a total of 11,160 last month wanted to see Hillary in pictures? How twisted a nation are we? Voluntarily looking at her mug shot is one thing, but Hillary ... naked???! P-lease!

I think this says it all.


I dont like how Ron Paul is being surpressed in the media. You dont have to be blind. I have a newsfeed that shows me stories of ROn Paul for President articles and they are few and far between.

Originally Posted by sippy

hillary clinton nude 4,290

Okay, we obviously have some sick freaks out there. Who in the hell would ever want to see this?

Hmmm... They could come in handy if you accidentally swallow some poison and have no syrup of ipecac on hand.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by sippy

hillary clinton nude 4,290

Okay, we obviously have some sick freaks out there. Who in the hell would ever want to see this?

Hmmm... They could come in handy if you accidentally swallow some poison and have no syrup of ipecac on hand.

True, but the emotional trauma would never be undone.

Hillary Clinton nude?

Just......no

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by sippy

hillary clinton nude 4,290

Okay, we obviously have some sick freaks out there. Who in the hell would ever want to see this?

Hmmm... They could come in handy if you accidentally swallow some poison and have no syrup of ipecac on hand.

CG, you've been killing me lately w/ your good ones! Keep 'em coming! Thanks for the laughs!

I almost did the same thing Altura did in another post. When I read that I was drinking my water and about spit it all over the monitor.