Expert says that Google manipulated MILLIONS of votes in 2016 and they can do it again in 2020

An expert testified in Ted Cruz’s judiciary hearing the other day about Google that the top search company manipulated millions of votes in the 2016 based and suggests they can do it again in 2020:

Dr. Epstein first corrected Ted Cruz, pointing out that the 2.4 million was just the low number in a range that he believes could have been as high as over 10 million votes.

He then testifies that Google did this manipulation via techniques that he’s been studying for years, such as the “search engine manipulation effect”, “the search suggestion effect”, “the answer bot effect” and a number of others.

Ted Cruz pointed out something very relevant about Dr. Epstein on Twitter, noting that he was a Hillary Clinton supporter in 2016:

“This witness, a respected academic, publicly SUPPORTED Hillary Clinton in 2016. Nevertheless, he’s deeply dismayed w/ his research showing that Google was deceptively manipulating millions to vote for her. If they do it again in 2020, he predicts it could flip 15 million votes.”

I remember when Google got rid of their motto “Don’t be evil”. Now it all makes sense.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

96 thoughts on “Expert says that Google manipulated MILLIONS of votes in 2016 and they can do it again in 2020

  1. So Trump should have won the popular vote too. When the Left realizes that, their only consolation will be gone.

  2. But do they really have “that much power over our elections?”

    Or is their power really over a very stupid, willfully ignorant, and easily led sheep herd of an electorate?

    I very much object to the notion that Google manipulated “votes.” They didn’t. What they did was they manipulated people.

    Now, I won’t go so far as to entirely blame the victim. Just like any con, it takes a pretty bad scumbag to pull one in the first place. But… there’s also something to be said about people who allow themselves to be conned. And, frankly, to apply that to voting and elections – what I see is a total abdication on the part of the voter to perform their civic duty in being an intelligent and informed voter.

    If we’re just blindly following where Google leads us – that’s our fault, not Google’s. Google’s shitty for doing it, but we’re worse for allowing it by virtue of our laziness, apathy, and willful ignorance.

    1. You’re correct AT. I’ve thought this for a long time. It really is a combo of both Google and lazy willfully ignorant people. Google took advantage of the latter but the latter also offered themselves up willingly. I’m constantly amazed at the people who spend hours out on Facebook, watching uninformative YouTube videos (Have you seen how many cat videos are out there?!) or just doing searches that are all about morality deprived pop culture (I could care LESS what Kim Kardashian wears or does!). None of those people have any idea how our country started, who was involved, how our government is supposed to work, who and what is involved in the running of the government, etc. They have no clue about history!! Oh, they want to vote but they have no intention of researching anything or anybody. They want to sit on their hind ends and have someone TELL them who to vote for. Enter Google to tell them who or what to check the box for! Aaaahhhh! It’s enough to pull my hair out!!

  3. If anyone is dumb enough to be swayed which party they will vote for based on Google searches they shouldn’t be voting anyway. They could divert 100% of my searches to left wing supported sites and it would never change my vote. The people he’s referring to are those that don’t know crap anyway.

    1. kong, you don’t know what you don’t know. The manipulation that is involved here is so insidious that even if you’re looking for it you may not always see it – and most people aren’t looking for it.

    2. True for people like us, maybe. But I have people in my social and family circle who aren’t into politics. They might look stuff up here and there, but they aren’t working hard at it. I think that they’re influenced by the easy availability of certain types of information.

      I’ve found *many* times when looking for information on an event that the leftist media outlets all get top prioritization. The NYT, WaPo, USA Today, etc. have stories all over the front page of search results. But what if you want to read what Fox News reported, or the Daily Caller, etc.? Often times, that’s when you have to click to the second page of results. You have to get creative with your queries to pull up the stories about the original event that may have taken the Democrats to task for their part in it. These effects add up.

      1. I agree with all that but I also believe that even if they get their information from left wing sites they would notice the extreme bias and search for other sites if their views don’t match the pushed agendas. If they don’t it’s more than likely because they don’t disagree.

        I think society defaults to Democrat if they are uninformed and that’s the party they vote for out of ignorance. Our kids’ schools and colleges all push liberalism and so does the MSM, so we are only going to get votes from people that know the difference and aren’t swayed by where Google sends them.

        In the end I agree that votes are swayed, the ignorant vote which we wouldn’t get anyway.

        1. “they would notice the extreme bias”

          I think it’s more subtle than that. People who don’t know better look up an event, read the narrative from the top stories, and they’re okay with it. I had a very educated friend who did this all the time when we’d discuss politics last year. When I did the digging to pull up information that went against the narrative, he would admit that I was right. But he would never seem to want to do that work himself and just went with whatever the top stories told him.

          “I think society defaults to Democrat”

          I think that people tend to be more conservative. I think that they’re inundated with Hollywood, the news media, and their teachers with leftist narratives that warp the natural conservative attitudes. Google search results that present leftist narratives are just an extra little nudge that most people don’t notice, but that influences public perception of reality.

          1. “I think that society tends to be more conservative.”

            But do they know that? There was that one representative Hispanic that voted Democrat for years and never realized that her views were conservative. She had been brainwashed for years by the schools and the media that Democrats care about the people and Republicans care about rich old white men.

            That’s why I think uninformed people vote Democrat by default even if they are conservative (and don’t know it). They are being told to by the education system and the media.

            I can agree that if Google sends them to left wing sites then they see the same agendas they have had bred into them over the years and they see nothing challenging those views and they have no reason to switch parties. So in that sense I agree that it does impact the vote of the uninformed.

            1. We’re kind of saying different things. I’m saying that people without the subtle political influences would be naturally more conservative (and vote that way). That example of the Hispanic representative is a case in point.

              To me, what you call “uninformed people” have already been subtly influenced by the media, teachers, and companies like Google.

              I think we basically agree, but are just coming at it from different perspectives.

      1. I tend to think that that group of people would vote Democrat anyway. The default vote for the uninformed is Democrat. No one votes Republican without having a base set of principles to begin with that direct them to Republicans.

  4. This issue needs to be addressed aggressively before 2020. Trump may win…or not based on these machinations. What bothers me most is that people don’t know their own minds. They let Google or Twitter, or Instagram sway them one way or another, and it probably changes several times before the enter the voting booth. But based on what, exactly? This is why IQ testing should be given before allowing people to vote. I know it will never happen, but I’m just saying…

    1. And before them, it was their newspaper. This problem is as old as the hills. One thing is true, though, is that you cannot mandate thoughtfulness, especially by government fiat. Yet so many people here are advocating for precisely that.

    2. hey let Google or Twitter, or Instagram sway them one way or another

      Is that Google’s fault, or their own?

  5. For those who didn’t watch these hearings live 2 days ago, you can find them here:

    They are broken up into two panels. The first one is the questioning of a Google executive, some moron named Karan Bhatia. His answers will floor you, they are so idiotic.

    The second panel consists of four people, Dennis Prager, some forgettable guy, a woman who claims her statistics “prove” there is no bias at Google, and Dr. Robert Epstein, a confessed liberal who says he voted for Hillary Clinton. But his testimony, including what is seen above, is DEVASTATING to Google. He is a scientist who says he puts facts and country above any one person or Party. In short, an intelligent and honest man. If you watch nothing else, you must hear what he says.

  6. The DOJ is already investigating Google. I don’t like gov’t intervention but in this case Google needs to be broken up and broken down. This has to violate anti trust laws.

    1. When Google starts tampering with votes and trying to cheat the election process then I think government intervention in this instance would be warranted. This goes way beyond free speech to trying to control the government and private citizens. Google has the right to support whoever they want as a company but they have no right to keep others (customers/users) from having that right as well. Yes, they are a private company but so are the phone companies. The phone companies have no right to cut off people who use them just because they don’t like what they say. Can you imagine if one of them told you that you can no longer make calls because they disagreed with you or the person you’re calling? Google needs to be treated like the phone companies. Unless there’s a credible physical security threat where law enforcement has a warrant to observe a website Google should have no idea what we’re talking about and who we’re communicating with. In other words force them to act as a platform and not editors.

      1. and that is why Google should be treated like a publisher and not a platform. They should follow the same rules as other publishers. Rules that prohibit censorship.

      2. Show me where Google tampered with votes and I’ll agree. Until then, there is no vote fraud, or voter registration fraud.

        The phone system could make the difference between life and death. What search engine you use does not have nearly the same impact. In fact, they’re not even comparable.

  7. Private company, free speech, free press, blah blah blah. The answer is not to break up Google, or investigate, or bother them in any way with government pestering.

    The answer is to quit using their service.

    Yes, it’s hard. Boo freaking hoo. No, the alternatives aren’t as good. Cry, cry, cry. Sure, YouTwitFace has 99.9999999% of the market share. So what. Find a competitor, or quit using the service all together.

    Or better yet, start your own!

    /rant off

    1. When you are up against an information disseminator as large as Google then sure, you can start your own “alternative.” But you will be preaching to the choir while not solving the real problem of Google controlling unsuspecting minds and manipulating political outcomes.

      And yes, I haven’t used Google for years, ever since I first heard about them using their stupid “doodles” to push their anti-American agenda.

    2. Do you have a multinational bank in your back pocket that you can pull out when the leftists shut down your new site’s access to the credit card processors?


      Then your way Will Not Work.

      1. Exactly. People do not realize how large google is and the power it wields. Google has its tentacles in everything and Big Tech seems to be in alignment with large Banks and multi-national corporations.

      2. Sir, I run a gun company. There are, and I have, ways to get around all that lefty-banking strong arm garbage. And so does anyone else who is sufficiently motivated to look.

  8. Want to see Google’s bias with a real world example?

    Try to find Scherie Murray’s campaign website with a google search.

  9. Would that be like brainwashing since Google didn’t technically manipulate an actual vote at the ballot to be A instead of B?

    1. Information literacy is important. Those who aren’t informationally literate cannot effectively use the amazing tools now available online and through Apps. They are perhaps the digital equivalent of an unlicensed driver. Rather than having an elevated risk of an accident, they cannot distinguish between useful and useless information, accurate or inaccurate information, etc. That’s a much broader issue than how Google’s algorithms function.

      1. Sadly what people who follow politics may not realize, is that a large percentage of the voters are not knowledgeable and do not follow politics and they fall for the career liars. Google helps these career liars by propping them up on their search engines.

      2. Only if you’re willing to really stretch the truth to serve your cause, which I guess you are. Nobody is being brainwashed by Google, because to be brainwashed means you have no alternative. The alternatives to Google are numerous and just one click away.

        This is the difference between brain-dead populism and thinking conservatism. Populism thinks that people are helpless infants controlled by the environment. Conservatism recognizes that everyone is responsible for their own choices and that they make choices. Of course there’s some middle ground there, but not much.

        If people CHOOSE to BELIEVE Google, then shame on them.

  10. Just compare the search results between Google and a search engine like DuckDuckGo. If tabloids sell in stores across the nation, why is it nearly impossible to find something negative about a Hollywood celebrity with a Google search, unless they happen to be a target of the political left?

  11. I don’t know what can be done about Google in regards to the ‘government’ getting involved considering how they tend to screw things up. They can pass laws with good intentions only to find unintended consequences down the road.
    However, “manipulated millions of votes tells me there are many voters using their computers too much for information about politicians versus using their eyes and ears to make a decision. Google, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook didn’t influence my vote at all in 2016. I watched, listened to the candidates and made up my own mind.
    But just to be safe, let’s put all these companies CEOs in front of a firing squad. /sarc

  12. This is very hard to fight. Once again, the GOP should be running ads 24/7 on TV radio social media and all media exposing this. Ask voters if they like being manipulated and used.

    1. Excellent point.

      Imagine an ad exposing this very issue, calling out Google and Facebook, showing the bias and swayed voters. A half dozen airs on Fox would outrage the grey hairs!

    1. There’s a sci-fi series called Continuum that comes to mind. In it, the corporations of the future become so big and powerful that they supplant government, and impose a high-tech surveillance police state on the populace. Suddenly it doesn’t seem so far fetched.

    2. I think Hawley and others on Capital Hill who value freedom verses communism know how Google and IBM and other tech companies are helping the Chinese, which is why the questioning by Hawley was intense.

      The zero hedge article is extremely credible.

  13. ^ THIS ^ is terrifying.

    And those pukes on the left keep suggesting Russia interfered?

    ANY Google search on a Republican candidate will likely result with the “top results” that are anything but flattering. Meanwhile, any Google search about a Democrat and you’d think by those “top results” that they cured cancer.

    1. That is to distract from the real meddling. The more the left screams and accuse Republicans of a dirty deed, the more likely that the Democrats are the ones committing the act.

      1. … dirty deed, the more likely that the Democrats are the ones committing the act.

        Fixed it for ya.

        1. I’m going to be humming AC/DC all day. Good thing that’s the one song of theirs that I like.

      2. Agreed steph.
        It’s the rules for radicals playbook which is their Bible.

    2. Seems like whenever the left is up in arms, it’s a deflection from their own transgressions.

  14. O/T
    Ugh…just saw on Gab that Jeffrey Epstein is going to be granted bail so he can flee to a Muslim country where he has property. And probably will never be heard of again.

    1. A Muslim country so he can have sex with girls since it’s legal? Can probably even purchase a few – no need to convince and groom anyone.

    2. Which leaves media to continue to smear Trump and be relieved of investigating/prosecuting all the rich and famous – namely BJ Clinton?

  15. I’ve heard this guy talk before. These big tech companies have become powerful, not just monetarily but with information gathering and influence. What’s worse is they all seemed to have formed an alliance, a sort of conglomerate to push a common agenda. In the future it may not be the government we will need to be afraid of, but the corporations.

    1. That is the frightening aspect of all of this. Remember how Obama gathered them all in a room for meetings? Remember how Waters almost let the cat out of the bag at one of the hearings when she inadvertently said that the Democrats were collecting information?

    2. There are no corporations without government. A corporation is just a business that has paid an official bribe in return for the government limiting their liability.

    3. As the owner of a corporation, I disagree. All corporations are not the same. Neither are all people. Neither are all search engines. You get the idea.

      I swear. The level of critical thinking on this site has really gone down the toilet.

      1. I didn’t say all corporations did I? It’s these giant tech companies they weld enormous power and influence who are in cooperation together to push a common agenda. This article pretty much highlights why there is reason to be concerned. But if you want to put your head in the sand be my guest.

  16. Hey, it’s not like their motto was ever, “Don’t support evil.”

    Um, we’re all agreed that Hillary is evil, though. Right?

  17. According to Peter Thiel, Google is also helping China. These companies will be the destruction of the U.S.

  18. This puts our country at great risk. Legislation needs to be crafted and passed to make this illegal

    1. Maybe there are existing laws that would be effective. Congress is too busy bickering amongst themselves and attacking the president to enact meaningful legislation.

  19. Google has been meddling in elections since the Bush years. Remember the Bush bomb where the top search results when searching for “miserable failure” was Bush’s bio page on WH website? Not to mention that top search results for “George Bush” were all pointing to sites critical of him. I’m very glad that this is FINALLY getting some limelight!

    By the way, NewsMax reported on meddling in 2012 election as well.

    Obamas’ technology adviser Megan J. Smith is a former Google executive, Google lobbyists have been to the White House 230 times – dwarfing the 20 visits by its chief rival Comcast in the same time period.

    Further, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt was in Obama’s Chicago campaign office on election day 2012 working on a voter turnout system aimed at re-electing the president.

    1. I can recall seeing, first hand, the burying of articles I had read recently but couldn’t access just days later. I think it was probably 10 years ago and I haven’t used g since. The trouble is that many browsers are built on G platforms. Yuck!

    2. Obama offered the Secretary of the Treasury job to Schmitt, but he turned it down.He probably knew he would be exposed through the confirmation process.

      1. Interesting. I didn’t know that. Bush wasn’t great on his Secretary picks. I think hands down, his pick of Paulson and Powell were the worst. Paulson just decimated our economy and resulted in Obama presidency.

    1. You know who founded Google, right?

      Sergey Mikhaylovich Brin
      Серге́й Миха́йлович Брин
      August 21, 1973 (age 45)
      Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union

  20. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for posting this. I found this to be the most interesting piece of the hearing and it was not really be publicized well in conservative spaces. Of course the MSM would not report this but I expected to see this go viral in conservative media.

      1. It was hard to find as well as the Prager video.I found it while searching for the Prager testimony. .I wonder if CPAN3 intentionally tried to hide it, hmmmm..

        1. Me too, steph. I stayed up late last night listening to the c-span clip. I’d like to throw a shoe at Hirono!

          1. Hirono was unbearable. Did you hear her ask Epstein about Russian meddling at the end when Epstein had responded to Cruz’s questions and was making his points? I almost fell over?

            1. That was what I was thinking when I typed my comment, but it is a given that stupidity will roll off her tongue every time she opens her mouth. I despise her!

  21. I hope you didn’t swallow Googles old motto. I knew the first time I heard when they said it, it was a flat out lie.

Comments are closed.