If you do it only for Hollande and Aubry, now. The results are the same... Aubry 29 Hollande 39, difficult to prdict a second turn with more than 30% not turning up.
We'll see next sunday if it's a coincidence or no.
This sounds like one of those phenomenons that suffers when too many people find out about it.
The more it's written about, tested, and the more people in the disgruntled minority (or majority) with what appears to be the statistics on a given Monday --- the less accurate this'll likely be on Tuesday... rest of the time.
Reminds me of Asimov's "psychohistory". He conceived of a science capable predicting future events with probabilities but two of its foundational principles are that 1) the population sample is sufficiently large 2) the population is unaware that they are being observed or unaware of the variables/mechanisms used to predict their future.
Part of what made his writing interesting was that this science was very believable.
Those google numbers are 30-day averages, so it's possible to get plenty more than 100%. Looks like coincidence.
In the US now we have:
michele bachmann 14
herman cain 36
mitt romney 11
ron paul 34
rick perry 33
All that said, I will be watching Insights and Trends now to see how it pans out. It might be coincidence, but it's potentially very interesting coincidence.
Seems like selection bias to me. Voters who search for candidates are a subset of all voters. Plenty of voters (probably a shocking majority) watch the commercials and that's the extent of their research.
Ron Paul got better results than Perry, but he's not in your top two? If anything this demonstrates a major flaw in using this technique to predict elections
Google is getting thought samples from the brains of a billion people. Whether this particular method is valid or not, I expect they can make such predictions, and more. Flu trends, elections, real estate by region, box-office openings, popular conflict ("why are Tutsis so..."), traffic, stock prices in some cases ("xbox red light", "how to buy krispy kreme stock")...
12 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 38.7 ms ] threadIf you do it only for Hollande and Aubry, now. The results are the same... Aubry 29 Hollande 39, difficult to prdict a second turn with more than 30% not turning up.
We'll see next sunday if it's a coincidence or no.
"la hollande" is the country Netherlands, and has absolutely nothing to do with the man of the same name.
The more it's written about, tested, and the more people in the disgruntled minority (or majority) with what appears to be the statistics on a given Monday --- the less accurate this'll likely be on Tuesday... rest of the time.
Part of what made his writing interesting was that this science was very believable.
In the US now we have:
All that said, I will be watching Insights and Trends now to see how it pans out. It might be coincidence, but it's potentially very interesting coincidence.Also:
In MA:(as much as I wish Ron Paul got the nomination)