View Full Version : Google election already has the election results posted for tomorrow?
TheCaliforniaLife
02-10-2012, 07:23 PM
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results
February 11:
Romney
45.7%
5,489
Gingrich
33.5%
4,022
Paul
10.5%
1,263
Santorum
9.7%
1,165
They even have the date listed as tomorrow!!!
CTRattlesnake
02-10-2012, 07:23 PM
i see nothing
justatrey
02-10-2012, 07:25 PM
I freaked out when I saw this too. Don't worry though, apparently a glitch which happens with Google sometimes. It's just garbage.
lucent
02-10-2012, 07:25 PM
It's as if people have never seen a script become bugged before.
TheCaliforniaLife
02-10-2012, 07:25 PM
http://i43.tinypic.com/2qxz446.jpg
that's weird
we're obviously not going to be 4th place tho
TheCaliforniaLife
02-10-2012, 07:27 PM
I freaked out when I saw this too. Don't worry though, apparently a glitch which happens with Google sometimes. It's just garbage.
It's scary though... how real these numbers seem... you have Mitt winning with Newt in second and Ron and Rick trailing.
Jeffster
02-10-2012, 07:27 PM
If Newt Gingrich gets 4,000 votes in the Maine Caucus, I will legally change my name to Moon Colony McNewtLover.
braane
02-10-2012, 07:27 PM
Test data. Whoever was writing the script threw in some data to make sure everything was clicking and forgot to remove it. I am sure that's all it is.
NYgs23
02-10-2012, 07:28 PM
Is it time to post that Onion Diebold video again?
TheCaliforniaLife
02-10-2012, 07:29 PM
Test data. Whoever was writing the script threw in some data to make sure everything was clicking. I am sure that's all it is.
They must not be fans of Ron Paul ;P
AlexG
02-10-2012, 07:29 PM
Test data. Whoever was writing the script threw in some data to make sure everything was clicking and forgot to remove it. I am sure that's all it is.
what a meanie
kill the banks
02-10-2012, 07:31 PM
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjQBwcCtzwG8dEdGUWZjS1FwTW8wTzVyOEJ6dmg4cH c&authkey=CKT21ZkH&hl=en_US
a whiter shade of pale
evadmurd
02-10-2012, 07:31 PM
If that turns out to be even remotely accurate I will officially give up on the human race.
hb6102
02-10-2012, 07:34 PM
According to that Maine has no counties
fearthereaperx
02-10-2012, 07:37 PM
It's odd that it's so close to the internal numbers but switched out with different names
phil4truth
02-10-2012, 07:37 PM
If that turns out to be even remotely accurate I will officially give up on the human race.
Lol
blazeKing
02-10-2012, 07:38 PM
It's at 0% for me..:confused:
It's at 0% for me..:confused:You're probably on a different Google CDN server. Many of Google changes don't propagate at the same speed throughout their CDN network.
GunnyFreedom
02-10-2012, 07:43 PM
zero here too
libertybrewcity
02-10-2012, 07:48 PM
if this is a mistake, how can this even happen?
eleganz
02-10-2012, 07:48 PM
this thread needs to be deleted...lol
thoughtomator
02-10-2012, 07:52 PM
It's called test data, nothing to be concerned about.
TheCaliforniaLife
02-10-2012, 08:11 PM
It's called test data, nothing to be concerned about.
I don't recall this type of "test" being done with any other election.
Tinnuhana
02-10-2012, 08:15 PM
If it's test data, the figures probably reflect the results of one of the other recent contests, say, MO or somewhere
andrew1229649
02-10-2012, 08:17 PM
I bet it ends up like that but put Paul at first, Romney in second, and Newt third.
soulcyon
02-10-2012, 08:19 PM
If it's test data, the figures probably reflect the results of one of the other recent contests, say, MO or somewhereexactly what I was thinking... where did they cook up these numbers? A real test would've simply showed 25% for all candidates and a colorful map of the caucus areas (testing the geometries).
I smell fishyfishy
guys, if it's test data it's random. you type in random numbers for test data, you don't waste time looking for other results.
and... it's pretty clearly test data since the results should be nothing like that.
andrew1229649
02-10-2012, 08:24 PM
Ya'll get too worked up. I would bet you $100 (if there was a way to prove it) they do stuff like that and watch pro Paul sites(like this one) just to get a reaction. lol
harikaried
02-10-2012, 08:29 PM
It's test data, unless you believed these were real when they appeared on Google too:
http://ed.agadak.net/google-testdata.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?348815-Google-quot-glitch-quot-shows-the-NH-results)
Bachmann over Romney.. in New Hampshire!
fearthereaperx
02-10-2012, 08:30 PM
nm
soulcyon
02-10-2012, 09:34 PM
google has ronpaul haters, all that it means
idiom
02-10-2012, 09:44 PM
At least we beat Santorum. That guy was on a tear.
Mckarnin
02-10-2012, 09:58 PM
If Newt Gingrich gets 4,000 votes in the Maine Caucus, I will legally change my name to Moon Colony McNewtLover.
We'll be holding you to that Mr. McNewtLover...lol~
RonPaul101.com
02-10-2012, 10:00 PM
If Newt Gingrich gets 4,000 votes in the Maine Caucus, I will legally change my name to Moon Colony McNewtLover.
Me too.
These numbers would be over a 100% increase in the overall turnout... I'm pretty sure that alone is unlikely as the order, no?
SCOTUSman
02-10-2012, 10:27 PM
google has ronpaul haters, all that it means
Nope. Just test numbers. See New Hampshire.
anaconda
02-10-2012, 10:44 PM
i see nothing
I see 0% reporting. 0/600.
AngryCanadian
02-10-2012, 10:45 PM
I believe the 45% for Romney was a test run and aren't the real results.
iamse7en
02-10-2012, 11:18 PM
It's probably Evelyn de Rothschild testing out how he's going to input the numbers tomorrow night.
Carson
02-10-2012, 11:28 PM
Did they also already have Ron Paul not mentioned?
Ron Paul!
Carson
02-10-2012, 11:30 PM
If that turns out to be even remotely accurate I will officially give up on the human race.
The weight of the world hasn't crushed your little spirit yet?
Carson
02-10-2012, 11:33 PM
Can't always fudge the numbers on the right day.
Savvy Jack
02-10-2012, 11:47 PM
It's gone viral!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnxeD-3Agv8
Looks like about 6:30pm her time
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.