Google search results from other regions (for example .au) are normal, ONLY the .com ones are altered like this.

Google search results from other regions (for example .au) are normal, ONLY the .com ones are altered like this.

You misunderstood me.

I meant to say: This ("the big, evil company") is not what Hillary stands for, but what Trump stands for.

I am not doubting that you get different search results (how could I doubt that, first of all I don't know and have no way of knowing, nor did I even bother to compare e.g. google.com to google.de or google.uk myself, but also it's pretty well-known that no two people on the planet get the same search results for the same keywords, this has often been criticised as a detrimental positive-feedback spiral, same for Facebook too, by the way).

However, I am doubting that Google has a motive (as postulated previously) for doing so on their own. A democrat president is not a president Google would arguably want. Thus my conclusion: unless someone forced them one way or the other, they would rather not blacklist information that is bad for democrats, would they?
The more dirt about democrats is publicly available, the better for the republican candidate -- which is just the one candidate that they would arguably want.

Trump has privately owned companies that mostly rely on a strong middle class (Casinos/resorts/hotels/property values etc) to thrive. Building wealth among the low/middle class is in his best interests even from a greedy view.

Hillary's "business" is taking bribes/"speaking fees" (For speeches that were never given in some cases) from companies that are trying to get a better profit margin by outsourcing/deregulating industries.

Which of those is google?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/julian-assange-google-hillary-clinton_us_5633acc9e4b0631799123a7d

Assange was referring to The Groundwork, a stealthy startup funded by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt that’s providing consulting services to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign. According to Quartz, The Groundwork is building digital infrastructure like the Obama campaign did in 2012, laying “the groundwork’ for personalized, data-driven electioneering in 2016.

While Schmidt has said that he would not work in a Clinton administration, he does support her presidential campaign. Google also has a number of close ties to the Obama administration, with a number of former employees serving in top positions, from U.S. Chief Technology Officer Megan Smith to the head of the U.S. Patent Office, Michelle Lee. The chief technology officer of Clinton’s campaign, Stephanie Hannon, was also hired from Google.

You've got it backwards.

Hey guys let me just see what I can vote for this election season https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=presidential+candidates What does Trump call Hillary again? Let me check google Crooked something?

I think it's more likely that people's search queries don't fit the worldview you've been spoonfed by fox news, and less likely the managers and engineers and testers at google have somehow colluded to manipulate search results to favor a political candidate, all while preventing any knowledge of this from leaking out.

I mean... Occam's Razor?

Hey guys let me just see what I can vote for this election season https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=presidential+candidates What does Trump call Hillary again? Let me check google Crooked something?

I think it's more likely that people's search queries don't fit the worldview you've been spoonfed by fox news, and less likely the managers and engineers and testers at google have somehow colluded to manipulate search results to favor a political candidate, all while preventing any knowledge of this from leaking out.

I mean... Occam's Razor?

No, I'd say it's a very reasonable assumption that the majority of america is likely to google "Hillary criminal" / "Hillary indictment" than "Hillary crime reform" / "Hillary indiana", even if they are pro-Hillary, because of how much it has been in the news. (i.e. even pro-Hillary supports who don't think Hillary is a criminal, might still google "Hillary criminal" to check up on the latest news, as a shorthand for "Hillary criminal accusations" or "Hillary criminal investigation").

Since conquestor brought up those clearly censored results, I did twenty seconds of googling, and found this article, where it shows that Google censors the results for almost every combination of "<person name> + <something bad>" when it comes to auto-suggestions (probably so Google won't be liable for libel by suggesting a correlation not specifically asked for).

Google leaving Trump out of the Presidential candidates is a pretty big "mistake" though, and seems hard to "accidentally" do, but I'd suspect a single employee intentionally ""forgetting"", than a top-down corporate policy.

Trump denied the veracity of allegations that the Kremlin directed Russian intelligence agencies to hack the Democratic National Conventions’ emails in order to benefit his campaign. Then, he said he hoped that such hackers would find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.

How can that be interpreted as anything but a joke? Oh wait, Gawker's reporting it.

Occam's razor favors google tweaking searches. It's proven that Google's senior staff have a large presence in the democratic government, and work with Hillary's campaign, even setting up new companies to support her.

If you were a Trump supporter who worked at google, and found out that your peers/managers were involved in intentionally tweaking search results to favor a candidate, what would you do? If this were happening in any kind of significant way, *someone* would have found out about it. I find it very hard to believe that this could be kept undercover. Someone would have reported it.

Do you really think it's in google's interest to risk damaging their reputation this way?

Would google really think not listing "crooked Hillary" (and the other things you mentioned) in their autosuggest is going to change people's minds enough to be worth that risk? I mean, that really seems like a terrible business decision to me. It would make for a great tv show, though.

I think, as Servant of the Lord suggested, this is more likely just things happening by accident, or as a result of algorithms that limit liability (Nothing bad autocompletes for Trump on google either) or possibly by individuals/small groups within google. The fact that wikileaks being marked as spam was quickly corrected lends credence to this.

In fact, just comparing Bing and google, it's clear to me that google is adjusting its autosuggest results to in fact make Trump look good!

Trump denied the veracity of allegations that the Kremlin directed Russian intelligence agencies to hack the Democratic National Conventions’ emails in order to benefit his campaign. Then, he said he hoped that such hackers would find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.

How can that be interpreted as anything but a joke? Oh wait, Gawker's reporting it.