In 2018 Election, Google’s bias may have shifted 78.2 million votes to one political party

Sara Carter ^

[adorno]

Equal time.

Every time there is an add for one party, no matter what the election, there needs to be an equal time ad for the other party. Only parties with 10% of total voters may qualify for the equal time ads.

Google and Facebook and Twitter and all media companies would have to comply. The media companies would have brought on the equal-time mandate upon themselves.

[spintreebob]

I learned politics in Chicago. A precinct captain knows his voters and their hot buttons. For those who are swing voters he had identify what made them decide one way of the other.

In the internet age we can do the same. We can poing to the article of Wayne Allyn Root. A Message for Christians about Donald Trump, June 24, 2016. That message went viral on many prayer lists. We can see from the way it was forwarded from prayer list to prayer list that it was the deciding factor in Trump getting a higher percentage of Evangelicals than any presidential candidate in history.

We can point to anti-gun comments of Hillary, very specific comments and know that those comments specifically sealed a massive 2A vote for Trump.

Likewise on state and local level, we can point to Tea Party incumbent attacking a vet for her service rather than using the Democrat’s property tax increase as the winning issue. Then he sealed it by campaigning on “Pro-Life No Exceptions”. In that district one needs the combined vote of ProLife with Exception and ProLife no exception.

I was out knocking door-to-door for him. The voters said “We are not switching our votes because he is wrong on the issues. We are switching because he is stupid.”

So can anyone point to a specific voter whose vote was switched by google? or facebook? similar to the examples I give where we can put specific events and voters names to them?

[Svartalfiar]

I’m sorry but I don’t buy this, even a little. Only morons would change their votes based on internet reports and most of those morons were liberals to start with because you don’t have to be rational to be a liberal.

This isn't just about internet reports, this is informational anything. This isn't just about changing votes, it's about influencing votes. You may plan to vote straight 'R', but many voters (especially independents) don't do that.

So how do you learn about candidates? Does anyone really know the guys running for county dogcatcher? City council seat #3? City Court #6's Judge #2? Of course not. Most voters, if they even bother to do anything, just Google the names. And having an immediate page of biased results in one direction will definitely influence how people vote. They don't care about the position, but it is important to vote. So they won't do any deep research, just a few search results and their decision is made.

[LS]

I think 1-2m is the ceiling.

[OrangeHoof]

I have a foolproof plan that predates the internet. I look to see who my local commielib newspaper endorses and then vote just the opposite. Works every time.

Once again, only morons use the internet to decide what candidates to vote for and those morons are probably liberals already. If we have a nation of moron voters then we get the government we deserve. I don’t think most conservative voters need Google or F*ckbook to tell us who to vote for. We instinctively know that the MSM lies to us and the more someone is tarred as “extreme right”, the more likely I am to vote for them.

[Eagles6]

That’s what it said. May have been talking worldwide too. Not clear.

[Svartalfiar]

I have a foolproof plan that predates the internet. I look to see who my local commielib newspaper endorses and then vote just the opposite. Works every time.

And that's just as bad, if not worse, than the morons on the internet. You're picking your vote on someone you know possibly nothing about. Your only 'information' comes from a source that you admit is untrustworthy. If your paper endorses guy #5 for the Repub primary, how do you pick which of the other four to be your guy? You do realize the internet is just like your local paper, only bigger, with more info, and easier-to-access archives?

Once again, only morons use the internet to decide what candidates to vote for and those morons are probably liberals already. If we have a nation of moron voters then we get the government we deserve. I don’t think most conservative voters need Google or F*ckbook to tell us who to vote for. We instinctively know that the MSM lies to us and the more someone is tarred as “extreme right”, the more likely I am to vote for them.

And what makes you think all Conservative voters watch the news? I turn on OANN maybe twice a month. That's it. Most of my news comes from here, on FR: the internet. And sure, you may vote for the extreme right, but that dosn't mean everyone is, and especially not people calling themselves 'independent'. People who are generally the swing vote, and likely know the least about either side's candidate, and hence are more likely to do some cursory research. Doing some research on your candidate isn't being a moron, it's called being an informed voter and knowing what's going on, as well as the current issues and what your candidate believes in.

Blindly voting for the Repub is almost as bad as blindly voting for the Dem. How can you educate the morons who vote Dem 'just because', when you do the same for the Repub? When you talk with a Dem or Independent, how can you convince them to vote Repub if you can't argue the negatives/fakenews on your guy, because you don't even know what they are?

[OrangeHoof]

Most of my news comes from here, on FR: the internet.

Yes, and how often is FR linked on a Google search of what's trending? You're moving the debate far off from the original point. This Epstein guy says possibly 78 million votes shifted based solely on how Google ranks articles. That's a way different discussion than whether you visit FR or not. Just because they are both part of the same internet has nothing to do with whether one is relevant to the other. Almost every candidate today has a website where they (if they choose to) flesh out their positions on issues of importance to me. That's doing research. I am also on mailing lists of groups who advocate/support key issues I consider important and they send me voter guides of their preferred candidates. But by the time you get down to the general election, it's typically D vs. R and 95% of the time, I'll vote for the R. Sometimes, I will vote for the I if I think the R sucks. But back to the point. Google and F*ckbook think they can sway the elections based on skewing the trending and ranking of news stories. Fine. Let them. The only people who would actually change their votes based on that are morons and the morons are almost always already Democrats because if they actually used their brains they wouldn't be persuaded by Google and F*ckbook.