Pro-Hillary Academic Claims Google Manipulated Millions of Votes for Hillary in 2016
Trump: “Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election!”
There’s been a lot of noise surrounding Dr. Robert Epstein’s research that suggested that Google manipulated a “rock bottom” minimum of 2.6 million votes toward twice failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.
President Trump tweeted about it, the leftstream media went into “fact check” meltdown mode, and Democrats, including Clinton herself, parroted Google’s claim that Epstein’s report was “debunked.”
Dr. Robert Epstein is a psychologist, professor, and author. He’s the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.
Dr. Epstein is a liberal Democrat. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee (see below), he described himself as a “vocal public supporter” of Hillary Clinton. He said that to characterize him as not a Republican and not a conservative is “an understatement.”
Epstein testified that in the 2016 election, Google generated a minimum of 2.6 million votes for Clinton through deceptive manipulation of search results. He warned that if, in 2020, companies like Google and Facebook all support the same presidential candidate (as surely they will) they could affect up to 15 million votes, e.g. by “go vote” reminders sent only to those believed to be Democrats.
. . . . Epstein isn’t just a respected psychologist. He’s a liberal who supported Hillary Clinton. Epstein has no political interest in arguing that her vote total was inflated through manipulation.
The parallel claim cannot be made when it comes to those who argue that Russian efforts on social media swung the election to Trump. To my knowledge, those who advance this theory are all Democrats and/or Trump haters. They have a strong political interest in claiming “we was robbed.”
Last month, Epstein testified before the Senate on Google search engine manipulation.
Watch his exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):
President Trump, upon learning of Epstein’s research, tweeted:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163478770587721729
Here is analysis/testimony on @Google's impact on our elections to which President @RealDonaldTrump is referencing, and which Hillary Clinton and this era's totalitarian left are now trying to suppress. Read and RT. @drrepstein https://t.co/FmpCGzdHTshttps://t.co/RKDalw5Cpi
— Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) August 21, 2019
Epstein also took to Twitter to tweet his thoughts about Hillary and Google.
Now, switching to .@HillaryClinton: This is going to hurt me to write, because I & my whole extended family have been strong supporters of the Clintons for decades. I have a framed, signed letter from #Bill on the wall near my desk. But #Hillary should be ashamed of herself. pic.twitter.com/FKyLiKonyw
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
#Hillary has long depended on #Google for both money & votes. Her largest donor in 2016 was Alphabet/Google. Her Chief Technology Officer during the campaign was Stephanie Hannon, a former Google exec. And then there's #EricSchmidt, longtime head of Google – the guy in the pic: pic.twitter.com/dSV8wOPwAH
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
A leaked email showed that in 2014 #Google's #EricSchmidt offered to run #Hillary's tech campaign (see pic). In 2015, Schmidt in fact funded The Groundwork, a highly secretive tech company, the sole purpose of which was to put Clinton into office. https://t.co/rXMNH9bLYV pic.twitter.com/MRjGpCJcvr
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
Hillary called out Epstein in her response to Trump and claimed that his work had been “debunked.”
The debunked study you’re referring to was based on 21 undecided voters. For context that’s about half the number of people associated with your campaign who have been indicted. https://t.co/0zHnWvGjSv
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 19, 2019
Epstein responded on Twitter and on the Tucker Carlson show.
#Hillary: If my work has been "debunked," why was it included in a volume just published by #Oxford U.? Why have I been invited to speak about it at prestigious venues worldwide: #Stanford U., #Yale Law School (where both you & Bill went), even our #Senate (where you served)? pic.twitter.com/rmMeB1oJn3
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
#Hillary: If you examine my work carefully, you will find that it adheres to the very highest standards of scientific integrity. You will also conclude, I believe, that #Google poses a serious threat to the free-&-fair election & to human autonomy. See https://t.co/T2coTfZt5m
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 20, 2019
Here's my whole #Trump/#Clinton tweetstorm from yesterday – all 18 tweets in chronological order, with the photos & links – easy to read. You can even link back to Twitter from this HTML file. Give it a few seconds to load fully…. https://t.co/AUx70i0efS pic.twitter.com/5UYn4y3hGd
— Dr. Robert Epstein (@DrREpstein) August 21, 2019
Watch the clip:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There’ll be a big fuss for a week or two, and then Google, FB et al will go right back to trying to steal the 2020 election.
I am worried that Dr. Robert Epstein might be a suicide victim.
He’s already addressed that
And she still lost.
That’s been the biggest hush hush rationale on the lefty side. They were cheating so hard between loaded debates and tech companies that they figured the right must be doing something wrong.
It should also be noted that he felt the need to tweet out that he is not suicidal.
https://twitter.com/DrREpstein/status/1164212158541918209
Didn’t do Epstein any good.
All joking aside it must really hurt this guy to finally see that people he really liked, the Clinton’s, are dirty.
You support people for a long time and than you finally reach that point where you see behind the curtain and realize it was all a sham.
And his evidence shows why both sides really need to smash Google and the other tech giants. Neither side should want them deciding who is to become President.
Interestingly, he did not renounce his support for the Clintons.
It’s been documented that high ranking employees of Google visited the Obama White House more than anybody else. I have no doubt Obama and the Clintons were aware Google (and other Big Tech) were doing what Epstein claims they were doing.
I keep this excerpt from a book written by progressives explaining how they turned Colorado “blue” front of mind. Everything is about POWER and using government force to impose their worldview/values on everybody else:
“The reason it is so important to control government is because government is the source of enormous power,” Stein continued. “One president in this country, when he or she takes office, appoints…5,000 people to run a bureaucracy, nonmilitary nonpostal service of 2 million people, who hire 10 million outside outsource contractors–a workforce of 12 million people–that spends $3 trillion a year. That number is larger than the gross domestic product of all but four countries on the face of the earth.”
“So the reason we’re doing what we’re doing…and the way we get progressive change, is to control government,” Stein said. “That’s what this is about.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/a-lefty-explains-what-the-election-is-all-about.php
You support people for a long time and than you finally reach that point where you see behind the curtain and realize it was all a sham.”
Yes, that describes my feelings toward Paul Ryan perfectly.
A simple test will confirm the bold amount of censorship. And one needs to ask is Google doing this with science? History..particularly the history of the Democratic Party? The history of socialism/communism? The alliance between communist and Nazis? 20 million dead is China via Mao? 20,000 killed by Che? The 1920 pogrom against Jews by Muslims in the near east?
Google is evil.
“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.”
World War Z
Killerary said “The debunked study you’re referring to”
The truth is that she thoroughly debunked her claims that she was fit to be president. Her place in history will being known as the worst sore head loser.
Epstein testified before Congress weeks ago.
Yet, Hillary Clinton crawled out of her hole long enough to skwak on twitter in response to Trump’s tweet.
That is most telling.
Leaving aside the methodological problems with the study, the author, Robert Epstein, commented: “I have never said that Google deliberately manipulated the 2016 election.”
Thus my exclusion of the word “deliberately.”
Fuzzy Slippers: Thus my exclusion of the word “deliberately.”
Which definition did you have in mind?
The one Epstein uses since this is a post that is in large part about his claims in his Senate testimony, his study, and his defense of his work. His term, not mine. Maybe you can shoot him a tweet and see what he meant?
Fuzzy Slippers: The one Epstein uses since this is a post that is in large part about his claims in his Senate testimony, his study, and his defense of his work.
Epstein uses the term “search engine manipulation effect”.
If the weighting wasn’t deliberate, it could simply be a case of facts having a well-known liberal bias. Other studies have shown that Google tends towards conventional sources. Those may not meet your preferred criteria, but it’s not an unreasonable methodology. Ultimately, manipulating results is how Google makes its money. If you don’t like the product, you may want to switch to a competing brand.
LoL
No, liberals are well-known to have biased “facts”.
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” — Ronald Reagan
Finrod: No
We were paraphrasing the well-known scholar, Stephen Colbert.
Are you suggesting the Google’s search results and FaceBook’s actions were the result of happenstance? We’ll see if this stands up during the next election. Because if it happens again, it’s because they didn’t fix the problem. And if they don’t fix the problem, it’s because they want the results. In which case that would make them responsible at least the second time around.
DaveGinOly: Are you suggesting the Google’s search results and FaceBook’s actions were the result of happenstance?
Happenstance? Google doesn’t return random links, but provides a particular product. Links that are most linked, weighted towards conventional sources, are those that are given higher ranking.
DaveGinOly: We’ll see if this stands up during the next election. Because if it happens again, it’s because they didn’t fix the problem. And if they don’t fix the problem, it’s because they want the results.
As Fuzzy Slippers made clear, there is no allegation that Google purposefully politically slants their results, and other studies have shown that results are weighted towards conventional sources of information. If you don’t like the product, you are free to use a different product.
Fuzzy Slippers: Thus my exclusion of the word “deliberately.”
Yes, but many people have read it otherwise, including commenters on this thread, and including the president. While you may have thought just not using the word “deliberate” was sufficient, a clarification was obviously required.
You are hilarious, Zachriel! This is a great study in how straw man arguments are lost and why they are called “logical fallacies.”
Here is my title: Pro-Hillary Academic Claims Google Manipulated Millions of Votes for Hillary in 2016
Does Epstein claim this or does he not? Hint: he does. In his study (linked in the post), in his Senate testimony (embedded in the post), and on Tucker’s show (also embedded in the post).
You come along and add the word “deliberately” to the mix, when it isn’t there and never was (and still isn’t). You brought that up yourself and then proceeded to act as if it’s an actual part of the post/discussion. Do you see the absurdity of this? It’s just plain bizarre. And now you want me to explain why I didn’t explain words I didn’t use because Epstein (whose claims are the focus of this post) didn’t use them?
This post contains links to Epstein’s work, to articles claiming to “debunk” it, and to a host of other related materials. I put those there so that anyone who is interested can look into the claims further if they so desire. They can also use a search engine for further sources.
But the bottom line is that Epstein made the claim that Google manipulated the results of the 2016 election. Period. He made it over and over and still makes it to this day.
Fuzzy Slippers: Does Epstein claim this or does he not?
Epstein uses the term “Search Engine Manipulation Effect”. He explicitly stated he is not claiming that Google deliberately manipulated results.
Fuzzy Slippers: You come along and add the word “deliberately” to the mix, when it isn’t there and never was (and still isn’t). You brought that up yourself
Actually, the very first comment brought it up, then it was repeated by others throughout the thread. The president also used the term in that sense.
why do so many co-called conservative sites require you to use google to comment? I can’t even register on google to be able to comment. I wonder if this is because im conservative. does anyone else have this problem?
What?
Yes, what? Does Google even have a comment system? I’ve never heard of it. Only Facebook and Disqus.
Well let’s sort some numbers out here. Hillary supporters claim she won the national popular vote by three million people. She won the popular vote in the State of California by four million people.
She lost the popular vote in the rest of the country by one million people. I don’t know where the 2.6 million votes swayed or manipulated by Google were cast. Certainly some large number of those “Google votes” were cast in California. But when you spread what’s left over after California into the other states, Hillary’s thumping in the electoral college would have been a lot worse–but for those votes.
Imagine the state of high dudgeon the liberals would be in if they learned that G and FB helped skew the results of the election to DJT by influencing the votes of only a small fraction of 2.5 million voters. It’s not the number or the results, it’s the fact that it happened at all.
Now imagine if the results were skewed by Bechtel, Exxon, or GE, instead of G and FB. Think the liberals would say “They have a right to influence the election”?
DaveGinOly: Think the liberals would say “They have a right to influence the election”?
They do have a right to influence the election. However, there are a number of laws to reduce undue influence. And people have the right to complain about large corporations and their undue influence, but the complaint about Google is not well-supported.
Google listings emphasize links that are linked, weighted towards conventional sources, and weighted towards what is a hot topic. For instance, if you type in “Google” into Google, the first suggestion is “did google manipulate the 2016 election”. The first listings, however, are several conventional sources rejecting Trump’s contention.
Let’s start taking odds that Dr. Robert Epstein will commit suicide in the not too distant future…[sarc]
Along with “Don’t be evil (for some value of “evil.”)”, recall their old motto: “Organizing the world’s information.”
They didn’t say for who’s use or advantage.