Google search results for the leading Democratic candidates

[pruner]

Clark

"Wesley Clark" – 474,000

"Wesley K Clark" – 16,700

"General Clark" – 48,600

"General Wesley Clark" – 45,800
overlaps with "Wesley Clark"

"General Wesley K Clark" – 5,410
overlaps with "Wesley K Clark"

Total # of unique results = 539,300


Dean

"Howard Dean" – 4,160,000

"Governor Dean" – 21,600

"Governor Howard Dean" – 28,300
overlaps with "Howard Dean"

Total # of unique results = 4,181,600


Kerry

"John Kerry" – 294,000

"John F Kerry" – 17,300

"Senator Kerry" – 19,800

"Senator John Kerry" – 30,900
overlaps with "John Kerry"

"Senator John F Kerry" – 4,930
overlaps with "John F Kerry"

Total # of unique results = 331,100

[elperromagico]

1. Dean has a strong 'net presence

He's using the Internet like no presidential candidate has before. I really think it's the future of presidential campaigns.

FDR was the first president to master the radio, JFK was the first president to master television. Could Dean be the first to master the Internet? Who knows?

[tedoll78]

2. I actually wondering..

if he brings a few million new voters to the polls. Voters who wouldn't have voted..

If the presidential race moves into another 50-50 situation, it might be what tips the scales..

[peabody71]

3. Assuming fair elections.

We need a Constitutional guarantee to our vote. First of all.

[elperromagico]

4. Good point

The Dean campaign certainly has the potential to bring new voters to the fold. The question is: If Dean is not the DNC nominee, will they still vote?

The Internet holds great potential for our party. Radio and television have been regulated to the nines, and are dominated by conservative voices. The Internet is still young enough so as not to be consolidated. If we can draw the undecideds to us and inform them on the issues, the 2004 election might have the biggest voter turnout in years. And we might be able to pull a large enough vote to keep Diebold from even becoming a factor.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I think there's a huge potential here.

[dobak]

5. how did you get those numbers?

I got 2,290,000 when I typed in "Wesley Clark" in Google???

[dobak]

6. and....

3,910,000 for Howard Dean

[pruner]

7. you need to use quote marks

otherwise it's looking for the words independently and not the exact phrase.

[dobak]

8. ahhh!

Thanks!

BTW: Do you think the difference has to do with Dean's internet presence or the fact that he has been in the race for over a year, and therefore there are more articles and stories about him?

[pruner]

10. I think it has a lot to do with all the grassroots sites

the Dean campaign provides all the tolls necessary for supporters to create their own sites, which link to other Dean-related sites, in turn creating a giant network.

[dobak]

18. hmmm

I think it has more to do with news stories and articles

I typed in "Kobe Bryant" and got 3,870,000. While I am sure that Kobe has sites devoted to him, I would guess most of those 3+ million are news links

[elperromagico]

9. I got 3,970,000 when I typed "Wesley Clark"

with quotation marks

5,890,000 for "John Kerry"

9,100,000 for "Howard Dean"

2,500,000 for "George W. Bush" (13,800,000 for "George Bush," but many of the ones I saw referred to his father)

[pruner]

11. are you using google?

I've performed the search multiple times and keep getting the same results found in my original post.

[elperromagico]

12. Yes, I'm using Google n/t

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dobak]

14. weird

I just got 5,110,000 when I typed in "Wesley Clark", with " "

[JohnKleeb]

15. I get the same

[elperromagico]

16. Check for yourself

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22Wesley+Clark%22

If you get different results, Google is fucking with us.

[pruner]

19. when I click on that link it shows 474,000 results

n/t

[dobak]

20. when I click that link...

I get 5,110,000


????????

[elperromagico]

21. Well, imagine that

So Google is fucking with us.

[dobak]

24. what could cause a difference like that?

Internet connection speed?

I get the same # using Internet Explorer and Safari?

[elperromagico]

26. I would assume...

that we're doing something different somewhere... there's no reason at all why four different people should come up with three different sets of results.

[dobak]

27. ok, get this

I just tried it again, and got 3,970,000

[elperromagico]

29. Oh come on!

This is too damned bizarre.

[ReadTomPaine]

30. 4,010,000 here. FYI.

It may be cookie or region related.

[elperromagico]

31. Wow!

Just clicked it again, and got...

474,000 results.

Copious apologies to pruner.

[elperromagico]

17. You should bear in mind

... that it is possible that you are mistaken as well.

I won't stoop to calling you a liar, but that's just me.

[pruner]

22. I didn't call anyone a liar

I said it's one of two possibilities… the other being that the person is mistaken, which is what I'd figure to be the case.

I've now performed the same searches using two different computers in excess of 20 times and have the gotten the same results (for every phrase I listed) every time.

[elperromagico]

23. I don't particularly like the suggestion

Shall I send a screenshot?

I have been presented with two alternatives, neither of which I particularly like... if I can prove both wrong with one fell swoop, I'll be more than happy to do so.

[pruner]

25. sorry

it's just that I trust my eyes more than the word of an anonymous poster on a message board.

that being said however, I didn't and don't mean to offend you, or anyone else coming up with different results than what I posted.

[elperromagico]

28. It's not a big deal

What's left of my Southern "dander" was aroused. But I calm down quickly... I don't bomb foreign countries when angry, like some Southerners do (looks in Dubya's direction).

But I'd still like to know why four people came up with three different sets of results. Are you doing something different, or am I, or is someone?