Posted on 07/24/2015 10:43:48 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Alexa.com is a free online service that ranks websites by monthly unique visitor count. I thought watching the rankings of the websites might tell us a great deal about how the various candidates are doing. I have included links to Alexa for each candidate so we can check them over time.
Note that Walker's ranking will probably be skewed at the present time due to his late announcement.
All rankings will change daily and should give us a good sense of how the race is shaping up.
GOP Candidates:
As a bonus, I have included the Democrats as well:Donald Trump - 9,264
Rand Paul - 9,340
Ben Carson - 10,546
Ted Cruz - 13,027
Jeb Bush - 23,478
Marco Rubio - 26,069
Scott Walker - 26,260
Rick Perry - 31,925
Chris Christie - 33,500
Bernie Sanders - 1,500
Hillary Clinton - 4,192
Martin O'Malley - 59,681
Utterly MEANINGLESS....
Thx.
Christie could have done all those himself...
:)
I dont know if i’d go so far as to say it’s meaningless, but it’s certainly pretty low on the scale of importance.
But, like all data and information is helpful.
These are unique visitors. Christie would have had to set up a ton of unique websites from which to visit.
Also keep in mind, the nearer the rank to #1, the better.
Christie is actually coming in last. And note that Bernie Sanders is beating the tar out of Hillary.
Thanks for posting and doing all that work.
I think your data are interesting, but odd.
No clear trend jumps out. Some of the strongest candidates have very low hit counts. Some of the weakest have very high counts.
And, a technical question....
When I post links in Internet Explorer 11, my only option is to post the entire web address.
How do you condense your links down to just the candidate names? That’s clearly a superior method.
And it pretty much backs up recent polls.
Well Conservatives, hows them apples?
Ug.
Granted, this doesn’t mean a lot, but it sure is disconcerting to see Crispy Cream’s hits.
Re: “Christie could have done all those himself...”
He accidentally sat down on his computer mouse and, BAM, he “butt dialed” 10,000 hits!
For example, FreeRepublic.com is ranked 2,369 among all websites.
They’re hit counts, they’re rankings. Christie comes in dead last.
The counts that are used to establish the rankings are from unique user.
I’m not quite understanding your explanation.
How is the lowest number the most desired?
If we’re talking hits or unique hits, the bigger number should still be best.
What am I missing here?
They’re NOT hit counts, they’re rankings. Christie comes in dead last.
The #1 website is the most popular. And so on down the line.
It’s like the best football team is ranked #1.
For example, Amazon.com is ranked #3. Foxnews.com is ranked #46. Google.com is #1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.