Just food for thought. There are such things as paying for views inherent to Youtube. Now apply that example to search engines. There are such things as paying SEO companies to prime key phrases in search engines above others.

I don't think this is as earth shattering as Sourcefed is making it out to be. You can have a site (i.e. Google) crawl through you site to place & rank it in it's search engine, so a one-to-one analysis of the engines won't necessarily be the same as you can specify for Google to crawl through your site via Google Analytics, which could account for this difference.

The lack of articles pertaining to the trend is curious, but at the same time, often those have to be denoted as such to be picked up by that particular engine.

Once more, the last bit of them connecting the dots seems to be logically leaps, I mean, do you understand how huge Google / Alphabet is? It's not to say they couldn't know, but 110 grand is a drop in the bucket for them. It's not illogical to say that of course so low-high level employee could get that sort of money to fund the campaign. It's good publicity for them (until instances like now).

I'm just saying, don't take the picture that they present to be as crucible. There is a lot of misinformation going around, and I imagine someone heard something and just ran with it. It's pretty hardcore clickbait if nothing else. It's not say that Google doesn't gain something from Hillary winning, or that they haven't done something, but it's not a brand new instance. Google images for instance populate radically different from Bing or Yahoo images, but no one goes writing up manifesto pieces on that.