After Final Presidential Debate, Google Search Saw Quite a Spike Regarding Something About Voting

|
|
Posted: Oct 26, 2020 7:30 PM
After Final Presidential Debate, Google Search Saw Quite a Spike Regarding Something About Voting

Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Early voting is surging. The GOP is catching up, by the way, but there was a spike on Google just after the final presidential debate. People were searching for how to change their votes. Early voting usually breaks heavily Democratic. Tens of millions have already cast their ballots, so take what you will from this, but Biden’s last debate performance was bad. He looked tired, weak, and avoided really getting into any substance, whereas Trump was aggressive, but calm, collected, and most of all prepared. He eased back a bit from his chaotic first debate and allowed Joe to speak. As we predicted, Joe hung himself, especially when he announced late in the debate that he would lay the groundwork for the destruction of the oil industry. If Joe is for that, you know he’ll kill fracking too. He was also knocked off course with the revelations about his son, his shady deals, and Joe’s alleged involvement in them—using the office of the vice presidency to enrich his family, even going rogue to ensure those interests are protected. 

Now, this isn’t a first-time phenomenon. Many people ask about changing votes probably, but the timing is interesting. It also shows why early voting is a bad idea. The game isn’t over until it’s over. Let’s go back to 1972 and we find out that one half of the Democratic ticket had a history of mental health issues so bad it required electro-shock therapy. That happened. Thomas Eagleton, the VP candidate for the Democratic Party, was exposed as undergoing such treatment. Do you trust him with the nuclear codes? Let’s say a similar bombshell development occurs with Kamala. I’m thinking that a significant number of voters would feel like they made their decision too early. But let’s move beyond the issues with early voting because the focus groups for the second debate were also interesting. 

Frank Luntz noted that these undecideds were not too keen on Biden’s performance, calling the former VP’s elusive, vague, and unspecific. At the same time, Luntz said he expects Biden to win the election and if he loses, then his profession is finished. He doesn't think that a Trump 'win' in the second debate that is changing the race because Biden did well enough--whatever that means.

Oh, I hope so. Even Biden’s people are saying they’re not up by double-digits in the polls, though I am open that they could be lying to avoid letting their base become complacent like in 2016. At the same time, nearly a quarter of all of these attendees at Trump rallies didn’t vote in 2016, Democrats are being oversampled, college-educated voters are oversampled, suburban Democrats are oversampled, and some polls have young voter enthusiasm hitting their lowest levels since 2000. If one million fewer young people vote this year, which some people gave predicted, then there’s no way to gauge this race. There are also chunks of Democratic votes that won’t be in certain key states. The college kids that dot the Research Triangle in North Carolina aren’t there due to COVID protocols. 

We’ll know who will get bragging rights next week.