Potomac Fever is the blog of the Hamilton College Semester in Washington Program.
Just out of curiosity, entered these search terms in Google:"Obama blames Bush" - 193,000 results"Bush blames Clinton" - 30,900 results
The fact that Bush screwed up much more than Clinton did has nothing to do with those results, obviously.
When Clinton left, the economy was booming, the country was not in a war, and he had great approval rating. Would exactly would Bush blame Clinton for?Yea some people say he could be blamed for the housing market crash but that happened 8 years after he left office, would people really have taken Bush seriously if he used Clinton as an excuse for his actions?
Of course those results reflect the fact that Clinton left the country in great shape and Bush did not. Just thought it was an interesting statistic, so to speak.Still comparing apples and oranges, but another interesting, and possibly more telling example"Reagan blamed Carter" - 11,000 results
Which also brings the problem that news coverage and media were much smaller and less present as it is now. Back in 1980 there were maybe 3 major networks and some newspapers, which also brings the question of getting those articles and specials online to be found on google. I would say that is even a worse comparison for a google search.
I don't think it's as much a difference in news coverage as it is in the number of people using the Internet. Some schmuck in his basement can type "Obama blames Bush" and it shows up in Google. Obviously, that couldn't happen in the 1980s.I would not propose using rudimentary Google searches as the measure of a candidate or his rhetoric. I just think it's interesting, and may say more about news and communications than about politicians or even politics.
Post a Comment