Obama is Google, Clinton is Microsoft

It seems to me that there are common emotional reactions to democratic candidates that parallel those to the leaders in the computer/search industry.

Obama, like Google, is the candidate that we love to love. Having surfed the wave of emotional support and peaking, pundits and consumers alike are becoming aware of cracks and waiting for a gotcha moment.

Clinton, like Microsoft, is the candidate that we love to hate. Having built up valuable experience and having been involved in concrete actions, they are viewed as establishment and precipitate suspicion.

[humour, btw]

Comments

[Cobb]

McCain is IBM.

[Anon]

McCain is Blackwater

[anon]

Obama is definitely not Google. Obama speaks clearly and takes time to explain himself and his positions. Obama hasn't fallen into the "talking point" trap of most politicians.

Google, on the other hand, is very obfuscated. It's hard to get a clear answer or position out of them, on their core focus (search). They tend to dislike explaining things. What little they do talk about tends to be very talking-point-ish.

Maybe I'm out on a limb here. But the emotional connection I feel toward Obama and toward Google are extremely different. Not a similar feeling at all.

[anon]

Let me say this another way: I get the emotional feeling from Obama that if he and I were in a room, and I had concerns about the way our democracy was running, he would take the time to listen to and understand my concerns, and might actually make changes to certain policies, based on our conversations.

I get the feeling from Google that they have no interest in listening or understanding. Their attitude has too often been "do things our way, conform to our tags, our policies, our way of doing things, or you just won't be 'heard' by the great Google ranking algorithm."

Oddly enough, I have the feeling right now that Microsoft would be more willing to listen, than Google.

But the point is the same: Google does not feel like Obama.

[Mary McGlohon]

Running a few quick queries on OpenSecrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp ), it seems that employees of Microsoft have a slight preference toward Clinton, while employees of Google overwhelmingly support Obama. (At least, in cases where donors indicate where they work)

Microsoft -> Clinton: $169K
Microsoft -> Obama: $157K

Google -> Clinton: $74K
Google -> Obama: $249K

And you thought you were kidding. :-)

[anon]

He's not talking about whether or not employees of Google and Microsoft favor Obama or Clinton. I'm frankly not surprised that Googlers favor Obama.

What he's talking about are the perceptions of the rest of us, as "third parties", toward Google, Microsoft, Obama, and Clinton.

[Mary McGlohon]

Right, I'm just drawing additional similarities, and mostly kidding as well.

One could go out on a limb and suggest that employees of a certain company identify more with the plight of one candidate, based on third-party reactions they often receive as a representative of their company. But if I had to put money on it, I'd just attribute the preferences to age demographics.