Predicting Election Results With Google 205
destinyland writes "Google announced they've searched for clues about the upcoming US election using their internal tools (as well as its 'Insights for Search' tool, which compares search volume patterns for different regions and timeframes.) 'Looking at the most popular searches on Google News in October, the issues that stand out are the economy,' their official blog reported, adding, 'we continue to see many searches for terms like unemployment and foreclosures, as well as immigration and health care.' But one technology reporter also notes almost perfect correspondence between some candidate's predicted vote totals from FiveThirtyEight and their current search volume on Google, with only a small margin of error for other candidates. 'Oddly enough, the race with a clear link between web interest and expected voting is the unusual three-way contest [in Florida], where the breakdown between candidates should if anything be less clear-cut and predictable.' And Google adds that also they're seeing national interest in one California proposition — which would legalize marijuana."
Prop 19 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another instance of the Observer Effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how physics principles apply to the socio-political domain. First it was popularity and election polls, now it's Google Predictions. In both cases the 'predictions' tend to become self-fulfilling. With this press release, the mere fact that Google is making these predictions will become a factor now and in future elections, just as it has become a factor in the success or failure of businesses that do or do not successfully manipulate their Google rankings. Politicians, political parties, lobbyists, and astro-turfers will all be scrambling to have Google 'predict' their success.
Make no mistake, Google is a kingmaker in our world. I find that a really scary state of affairs, especially given Eric Schmidt's pompous pronouncements on subjects such as privacy.
Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again (Score:1, Insightful)
It is utter flamebait of you to suggest that that democracy isnt perfect.
Re:Prop 19 (Score:5, Insightful)
What politicians won't say: want to win the drug war? Lose it! [time.com]
Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.
Hardly surprising Prop 19 is interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Which party is ascendant does not appear to affect the larger sweep of history by all that much. Loads of Democrats voted for the War. Banking deregulation did start under Reagan and Bush I, but continued merrily under Clinton. Obama was supposed to be this big transformation, but all the civil rights slide and the wars continued untouched; banking and health reforms were way more timid than expected.
As for the Stalinist Obama Takeover....they're arguing about whether income over $363,000 should be taxed at 35% or 39.6% ...spare me.
But Prop 19, that's the first crack in a very, very big wall that has stood there for over 75 years, making a crime out of a handful of leaves. Several tens of millions of people know that the underlying assumptions of that law are utterly false, Literally millions of people who work jobs, raise families, pay mortgages fear arrest because of it, and have all their adult lives.
It's a big deal. And enough has happened in recent years (complete decrim in Portugal, popularity for medical use) to make this, well, umm, change we can believe in. For those of us who thought it was surely going to happen in the 80's, before a sudden rightward swing brought stupid arguments (and lying ads based on brainwaves of coma patients) right back to fhe fore when we thought them defeated at last, it's starting to look Really Possible at long, long last.
Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again (Score:3, Insightful)
One step better would be to allow the states to decide individually whether to make it appointments or direct elections. For states like TX, CA, NY and even WA it would likely be harder to buy a senator than it would in less populous states.
Re:Prop 19 could really use ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Many people want to smoke pot, prop 19 proponents think they should be allowed to, and they think that creating a (regulated and taxed) legitimate industry to serve that desire would be of greater benefit to society than the prohibition which is current policy.
So far as I know, that's the main thrust of the pro side's arguments... everything I've heard on it basically boils down to one or more of those points.
The opposition's main point seems to be, essentially, pot is bad, smoking pot is bad, and we should continue to prohibit the cultivation, distribution and use of pot because doing so is in the best interests of society.
Again, their arguments seem to pretty consistently fall into these points.
Is there a class of argument that I've not witnessed which is fundamentally dishonest?
As some one who has smoked pot, quite a bit of it in fact, but no longer does and has no intention of ever doing it again (it tends to trigger panic attacks, paranoia, and crippling neurosis... none of which I find enjoyable in the slightest), I feel that the pro side has a much stronger case... if only because it is my general opinion that an activity should only be banned when it poses substantial and immediate danger of real harm to society. I support banning impaired drivers regardless of what impairs them (and yes, pot does impair one's ability to drive in ways similar to but somewhat different from alcohol... much like being high is similar to, but somewhat different from being drunk) based on the danger that they pose to others, but I also view that ban as substantially and obviously separate from an outright ban on consumption etc.
Re:Prop 19 (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'd have to agree there's no reason to change the spelling from UK English to U.S. It's not like U.S. book publishers do that sort of editing to UK/Aussie/ect. books. And /. readers should be intelligent enough to realize that the post didn't spell "colour" wrong, it's just non-American English. Shame on the editor in that case.
What I was complaining about is how when commenting on a political story I may say something like "we need to vote for candidate X" and then some snarky foreigner says, "I'm not American you insensitive clod! Who's this 'we' you speak of?"
Re:How do they tell the difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Because nowadays most Americans only watch/read sources that they already agree with.
Re:Prop 19 (Score:5, Insightful)
I will personally beat to death the first Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.
If they were simply drunk, talking on their phone, or otherwise distracted you would let them off with a mild beating?
Re:Prop 19 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Prop 19 (Score:5, Insightful)
I will personally beat to death the first Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.
Yeah, good thing that would never happen unless someone legalizes marijuana!
It's statements like this that make me really shake my head. It's like assuming there aren't any gays in the military because of DADT. Worries about unit cohesion? They're already there! The people already know who is and isn't gay in most cases. There IS no unit cohesion problem.
Marijuana and gays are harmless, already here, and are actually useful in many ways. There are actually things that ARE harmful and already legal that people should be worried about.
Re:Prop 19 could really use ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Driving after using Cannabis is a bigger deal, I've used and driven and it was at least as impairing as drinking alcohol.
The DOT has done studies [erowid.org] that show even at the higher range of recreational doses Cannabis is not as impairing as legal doses of alcohol. In fact, cannabis users over estimate their impairment and over compensate for it, which is what I expect you experienced.
Also, you can't tell me that coffee impairs you worse than Cannabis while working.
Depends entirely on the person and the type of work. I don't smoke before work, but I know people who do and they're all good at their jobs. Even high pressure jobs dealing with lots of information and deadlines. Give some of these same people 2 cups of coffee and they may well have a panic attack before lunch.
Re:Prop 19 (Score:2, Insightful)
...Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.
Obviously, the only reason this hasn't happened yet is because laws have kept stoned drivers off the roads for years. Once it's legal than that means driving while intoxicated will become legal, right? Laws stop crime, right?
I am not some Randian Tea-bagger, but it is safe to say that legality of one's actions rarely factors into the decision making process of a criminal. I doubt legalization of marijuana would suddenly change the laws regarding proper and lawful operation of a moving vehicle in any way. However letting someone grow marijuana in their back yard for consumption in their own home is probably better for public safety than a bunch of paranoid, gun-toting and stoned drug-dealers driving around between their clients houses to make deliveries. Also, marijuana is a serious boom on the delivery industry, which is telling on many levels. In other words, assuming that legalized marijuana would have any effect other than diminishing the level of intoxicated people on the road is at best fallacious, and at worse flies in the face of common sense.
And for all the libertarians out there, even if you agree with me on this point, I still think you are a fool, child, or both. But we just happen to agree on this issue. The Tea-Bag 'movement' needs to crawl back into Ron Paul's lower orifices where they fermented from.The attitude of the typical Randian Objectivist can make Chairman Mao look like a teddy bear. Plus, there are already many great Randian-Objectivist nations already on the map, like the C.A.R., Nigeria, Seychelles, Somalia, and many more, just take your pick! All of these places don't bother with public projects and things that get in the way of making a profit like the police and public schools. If your house catches fire, hey guess what? The government will be so uninterested in your personal affairs, you won't have to even make the decision as to whether to ask the government for help putting it out, because you simply won't have that option. Doesn't that sound just like the eternal paradise filled with candy canes and s'mores that libertarians promise us through indiscriminate slashing of government nuisances-to-freedom like the FDA. Won't a world where half your children die of preventable diseases be so much better, nothing gets in the way of a strong bottom line like children. Sounds like a Randian* paradise to me!
*If you are among the majority of tea-baggers who have never picked up a book that didn't have a picture of Glenn Beck dressed like a Nazi on the cover. Randian Objectivism is the base philosophy of your 'movement' that rejects all governmental (and in many ways, personal) altruism that was concocted by the very bitter (her wealthy family had its wealth redistributed by Bolsheviks when she was a child) Ayn Rand. I am not directly referring to Ron Paul's son Rand Paul, even though he is certainly a major practitioner of it.