See Google's Real Time Trends in the First Debate
We learned that Google Trends kept up with debate-related searches across the nation at various points durning the First Debate. All candidates surged in the number of searches at some point during the debates.
Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey ended up being the most searched candidate during the debate. Sen. Tulsi Gabbard came in a close second.
Sen. Julián Castro, the former secretary of housing and urban development, surged in search volume and scored well in other metrics, as well.
See the live charts, below.
The first live chart shows the candidate search trends, minute by minute, on Debate Night.
The second live chart shows search trends for each candidate, week by week, since the beginning of 2019.
Booker also led the pack in most time spent speaking, a key metric for viewers at home.
Castro, a lesser known candidate, also scored near the top in terms of time spent speaking.
Now, below are the candidates most searched since the beginning of the year, but not including the debates:
Tulsi Gabbard ends up in the middle of the pack in the number 10 position.
Click Replay to see it again.
Put your cursor on a candidate's picture to isolate their trend line.
Comments
Very interesting graphics--made me dizzy
So after my dose of Antivert, I was pleased to see how many relatively long stretches during the debate where Tulsi (go, Tulsi!) was the most searched. Cory Booker probably got Googled (what a verb!) a lot in order to find out who Spartacus was. Lizzy didn't do so well, but she made no major gaffes--at least which the rapid-fire time frame allotted. Her ethnicity issue is going to, shall we say, scalp her? (Please, SJW's don't accuse me of "casual racism").
Of course, minute by minute analysis tells us little--it's the persisting impressions after the debate, which are often not instantaneous but made only after some digestion, which counts.
My bias is for Tulsi. Although I missed parts of the debate, she did well ion my view, shaped as it is by confirmation bias.
Thanks for the fun graphics--which should not be viewed by persons prone to vertigo.
But everybody knows it was lust.
Some people are just shit.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Horse race much?
...neck and neck into the final turn
question everything
Warren out of nowhere...
in the last minute?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I wonder how many people even knew about it.
Not to mention cared. How many people actually watched the stupid thing?
I did...
and I'll watch tonight too.
Have fun.
Actually...
I will.
I see no benefit in being close minded about it.
Totally agree,
if you're going to watch it, keep an open mind. I just would rather have a boil transplant than watch Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd for whatever length of time that is. From what I've gathered, they got more air time than all of the candidates combined.
Totally agree...
about Chuck and Rachael. But I'm not watching for them.
Seriously though, I like to think I can see through the propaganda, so sitting through a couple hours of it probably wont suck the brain right out of my head. Last night I heard a candidate say that the forever wars are bullshit and need to end. I know you probably wont take that on it's face value but how many times have you heard that lately sponsored on a MSM platform? That one little tidbit was worth wading through the Chuck and Rachael dog and pony show.
The boil transplant will have to wait until tomorrow though.
That's why
I tune into your daily news.
In case I missed something important.
Thanks again for all you do.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Imagining myself back in the old days of analog broadcasting
and shortwave and such, I can almost hear the 3 a.m. signoff message from “WJTC-TV” on the East coast and its affiliate “KJTC” in the West, followed by the national anthem, and then white noise as the transmitter is turned off.
http://www.tv-signoffs.com/
Followed of course by “WJTC / KJTC begins another broadcast day” etc. promptly at 7 a.m.
Just cannot stand watching these things.
I'm hoping those with stronger stomachs will post some interesting Youtube links.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I just turned it off....
bunch of damn birds jostling and chirping for air time. How stupid is this. My bitching made my husband turn it off actually. Total joke. They need to give the debate back to the League of Women Voters instead of this side show they call a debate.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
You know...
... The DNC imposes a gag rule. If you participate in any other multi-candidate forum, they ban you from the remaining debates.
They should call their bluff.
Pull out of the DNC debates and set up a set of campaign-sponsored debates (pick your own moderators, maybe invite the LWV to run them again) with 2-4 candidates each. Have a more reasonable format, like 5 minutes to respond to a question. Run it on-line only. Make the networks come to you if they want to air it. Leave the DNC out in the cold.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
I almost covered my laptop in 7&7
What are you smoking cause I want it. I'm guessing my sativa isn't enough.
There is the dnc and the rnc. There is no third party or choice.
Enjoy the suck.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
My List of Candidate Scores on Debate 2
I don't know enough about these candidates views on my specific issue. Most were very careful. Cagy about health care and war and fossil fuels. Not much boldness showing yet. Some too focused on beating Trump. These are my first impression scores. Those who score six and above include those I want to know more about. Ten is the highest score.
Edit to add:
The debate is a horrendous format. It still makes no sense to me that so many people raised enough money to run. Did they just think that Trump was so bad, maybe they would have a chance to win? Or did the Party really create this mess?
This is the 21st century. Bring on interactive television. Let the people broadcast their impressions. This debate format needs rethinking. Each candidate should produce a five minute YouTube video. Based on a manditory outline. And air them instead of the debates. It's too soon in the process for a debate.
I've been thinking about this
I'm sure DNC shenanigans have a lot to do with it. That's the DNC's modus operandi. Once a con artist, always a con artist.
However, there's another factor that I'm wondering about. Except for the "young 'uns" (Tulsi and Mayor Pete), all of the candidates are over the age of 40, some over 50. Most of them have been in politics for a while now.
For the entirety of their political careers (except early on in the '80s for Bernie and Biden), the Clintons have been the masters of the Dem universe. So during their careers to date, this bunch of Dem candidates have been under the Clintons' thumb, knowing that Hillary had dibs on the presidency, and having to kowtow and kiss Clinton butt, lest they destroy their careers and/or wake up next to a horse's head.
I'm wondering whether that fact has anything to do with the current flood of candidates. I know we've speculated about whether Hillary is waiting in the wings for 2020. But could it be that the pressure from the Clintons is easing up, and Dem politicians are starting to feel safe enough to stick their heads out of their hidey-holes?
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Good insight here.
That's got to be part of it. Plus, there's a shitload of donor money and a real chance to buy your very own President.
From here on out, I predict the Keys to the White House is going to play like a reality show. In light of that, I'm hoping the Buttigiegs move in and "Make the White House Faaabulous Again."
or miz chelsea?
OT: i'd gotten an email from mike gravel with an empty text box yesterday. once in awhile, if one forwards similar emails to oneself, the text shows up. i'd thought if i could find it, i'd bring it to one of these threads.
i tried it, and as i was forwarding it, i could at least read part of it which said that he'd bought an ad to play during (?) the debates. i looked at his site and on youtube, but couldn't find any mention of it.
i like howie klein a lot, but i do wish mike would run for the green party nomination. (i just emailed him to suggest it.) klein, sadly, is campaigning on his green party green new deal, as if that matters much at all by now, rather than the peace and justice warrior he's long been.
I read a comment by him somewhere.
He pretty disgusted that the Green Party is so marginalized. He doesn't want to follow the old patterns. He wants to shake things up.
In retrospect, after 24 hours of consideration, I've decided the Democrats were no more than wind-up toys. I already forgot what they were talking about. They're going to have to step things up if they want to turn this into a real race. None of them should utter the word "Russia"... until the hoax blows over and rolls down the memory hole.
when he first got in,
mike said he wasn't running to win, just to widen the 'debate' (they are NOT debate!). then w/ positive response on twitter by his millennial handlers, he emailed and said "we're in it to win!"
well, he ain't gonna even a primary, and i hear him on his disgust that the green party is so marginalized: Which Is Totally Down to the Democrats!
as not-quite side note: i just learned that his cancer caught up with him, and peace-and-justice black panther bruce dixon, editor of black agenda report crossed over yesterday, as did justin raimondo of anti-war.com, may they both keep kickin' ass on the other side.
but IF gravel wants to 'shake things up' for real, AND there is some sort of desire/cohort (gads, i loathe that term) for actual anti-war candidates (none of the Ds qualify, no matter what they virtue signal in the joint press conference stages), why not run as a Green and those who are truly anti-war can register as greens and tout him? i know, i know, hawkins is for peace and justice, but imo he's not behaving as that's as important as his GND.
end rant; i need some toast. ; )
Actually I was referring to Hawkins
...when I spoke of disgust at being so marginalized in the Green Party.
I was reading Bruce Dixon yesterday — and he was the one who make the case for Howie. His essay was a strong political take-down. I'll publish some of it here — RIP Bruce. If we could be half as mindful as you thought we should be....
The whole thing: https://blackagendareport.com/tulsi-gabbard-sheepdog-greens-howie-hawkin...
thank you for honoring
what may have been his final column (unless it was a pinned tweet on bruce's account) before 'his ride came for him', as john trudell said of his impending date with his journey to the great unknown.
but yes, i did bring his introduction to klein here (can't say it was all that well received), and i'd first introduced mike gravel here, as well. if you'd been speaking about klein, not gravel, i sure was unable to see that.
but for me, anti-war, anti-empire (sorry anti-war bern: you voted for the defense of nato/africom act) is just about everything, but i doubt gravel will run for Green, as he just hit us all up for further individual donations so he could make the july 'joint appearances'. sigh. sure, he'd get a couple embarrassingly stooopid Qs: did you push thru the trans-alaskan pipeline as an AK senator? did you run as a libertarian once? have you stopped beating your wife?
A few comments on your
first impressions, which I appreciate.
Marianne: I'm biased in favor as I like her personally and as a non-shallow non-pol motivational speaker/author who doesn't do pol-speak nor stay within the safe bounds of what's deemed proper and normal political discourse, she leaves herself vulnerable to snarky critiques from traditionalists. The system is badly in need of shaking up, and we need more unconventional voices like hers, even as ultimately I don't think it will work to offer an olive branch in going up against the Don.
Bernie: Still solidly in my top 3, maybe top 2 now, with Yang sliding a bit. This was a solid performance, but not a 10 by any means. For one, he needs a tighter, better-framed response on the question of a middle-class tax incr to pay for M4A. His answer last night was rather evasive. He concedes the point but notes that ultimately the MC will be paying less as they forgo paying premiums, etc. This needs to be made clearer up front. Instead, by avoiding it, he allowed the moderator an opening to follow up, repeating the MC tax increase charge. A 7-8 score overall at best, and no gaffes or major mistakes.
Kamala: Surely a 10 score. She got the attention on a sensitive and important subject, and gets the headlines coming out. No one is talking about much else. And major points from me for showing a fighting spirit and willingness to go toe-to-toe with the frontrunner, which feistiness and aggressiveness will be needed against Trump. From what I'm hearing here and there, people are watching with consideration for who will make a tough enough opponent in the general, and not necessarily for whose plans are slightly better than others.
Bootajudge: No more than a 6. Smart and articulate indeed. But had to spend time defending the police situation in his humble home town, and had to admit he had failed. Indicating that if he can't get the basics taken care of in his small Hoosier town, he may not have the chops to get things done in much tougher cutthroat D.C. Attention on this police scandal in tiny South Bend is not going to play well with the AA folks in Dem primary states. I think he's running for no better than VP at this point.
Lickenhooper et al: They are going nowhere. Possibly one might be considered for Comptroller of the Coast Guard.
Number of candidates: The example of a con man like Trump, with no political office experience, has given people the refreshing idea that the old rules no longer apply. As to the format, 10/night is too many by at least 3, unless they offered 3-hours/debate. My personal preference would be to go to the old LWV format, with a diverse panel of journalists from a variety of media outlets. 7 candidates/debate tops.
Clever and convincing
... , I get your point on Marianne. She does add something. She's another one on the Council on Foreign Relations bench — like Tulsi — getting groomed for the job. President or Secretary of State. They both have articles in Foreign Affairs, the CFR magazine. You can read both at the link.
Kamala did fine and perhaps could handle Trump. But, she's the type who will turn on the People the moment she's elected. It's Trump that's driving her Left.
Marianne
on the CFR??? That would be exceedingly odd. Didn't see her name at your link, and she's not on the CFR membership roster. And she's 66 -- too old to be groomed, except by her salon specialist, which has produced some pleasing visual effects.
Tulsi I was aware of. I believe she has a committee assignment in the foreign relations area.. Not sure if she is still on the CFR, and if any grooming was occurring it appears to have had the opposite effect.
Both trailblazers in their own way in the political discourse, plowing and planting the field now for future candidates to harvest.
Yeah. Marianne is a member of the CFR.
Someone sponsored her for some reason. The link for her article was at the bottom of Tulsi's.
And, "groomed" is really not the right word. Influenced, programmed, vetted,reminded, and incorporated are al better words.
The Councit on Foreign Relations has Julian Castro on their Presidential bench, as well. Castro is very involved with the CFR. In their article about him, the CFR says: "Julián Castro is seeking do what no Democrat has done in ninety-six years: win the party’s presidential nomination without first having been either a governor, senator, or vice president."
And, you know, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden....
And those who will fill key cabinet positions and Intelligence appointments, for the future President, are also members of the CFR.