Two explanations for the google result (As in, why would people suddenly google her now?!). It's likely a combination of both, but seeing as it is google whose short-term results are easy to manipulate, I lean more towards #2.Kriegsspiel wrote: Tulsi Gabbard was evidently the most searched candidate post-debates on Google.
1) Democrat[ic voters] had a "What is Brexit?"-moment after seeing the first debate. Gabbard is in the bottom top10 of the polls leading up to the debate---that would put her in the center of the peloton in a field of 20.
2) A concerted effort from 4chan and reddit trolls drove up Drudge Report's online polling. Gabbard was then reported as the winner of the debate on The Hill and The Daily Mail. And right-wing readers of those three sides looked her up on google: "Who is this winner of the debate that I had never heard about before?"
2b) Also a lot of the google traffic could have been driven by the troll brigade itself. Remember Santorum?
Note that MSM didn't talk much about her following the debates.
Expect more of this kinda of poll-trolling and manipulation of the voting process going forward. Why pick Tulsi Gabbard to screw with the information flows? Well, she's notable in the nihilist online troll community (thanks Joe Rogan) and sending a bottom 10 to the top would screw with the process if nothing else screw with the MSM insofar they had fallen for it.
Note that being anti-war is mostly a libertarian position and thus a stance that would endear any democrat or republican candidate to the libertarians---whereas it's not really a stand-out selling point as far as the democrats are concerned (not in the primaries, not in the general election) since hawkishness is not a defining feature of the left. This is why I don't believe at #1 represents the majority of google results.
I guess we'll see who is still around for round two.
Speaking of which, here's another example of trying to mess with that process. https://twitter.com/jeffroe/status/1144439268258877441 calling for Republican voters to donate to Marianne Williamson (she's the out-in-the-left field candidate who wants to "conquer Trump with love" and a bunch of other ehh... "interesting" ideas). (Why are the number of donations relevant? ... because the DNC use it as a criteria for who gets invited to the debates.)