digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at dailykos.com

Barack Obama Wins the Popular Vote!

dailykos.com — Contrary to what hillary clinton would like us to believe, more people have voted for Barack Obama than any other candidate in the history of presidential primaries - not her. More importantly, however, delegates, not popular vote, is what decides a Democratic Presidential Nominee...no matter what Hillary and her sychophants say.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • marabout40, on 06/02/2008, -19/+86Give up the ghost hillary.
    • antiorblkflag9, on 06/02/2008, -3/+23She's beating glue at this point....
      • Kohlrabi, on 06/02/2008, -6/+1The pot calling the kettle black. The glue pot.
        • Brad324, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2didn't Bambi's mom teach you anything? "If You can't say anything that's not retarded, don't say anything at all"
        • Synthetik, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3That was Thumper's Mom, Bambi's Mom got shot like 5 mins into the movie.
        • OwdenBowden, on 06/02/2008, -9/+2Black Obama wins the Popular vote? nawww. Go away. (and yes I am using the word because this election since day one has been a play of the Race card and has ultimately divided this country bigger than the former Civil war. It is a very sad day in America because I though we would have gotten past this after all these years.)

          He is such an empty suite it isn't even funny. Too bad the DNC was so spiteful because they have just lost the white house to a 75 year old former POW and the American Public just got screwed once again - all for the better of "THE PARTY"

          Digg me Up or Digg Me Down - I really don't care.

          ANYONE BUT OBMAMA

    • clickmyface, on 06/02/2008, -17/+8Two enormous flaws: The rational that this author uses to NOT count Puerto Rico fails (and is disturbing). Their vote counts in the primary, by every measure possible, including as outlined by the Democratic Party, (and probably other measures like...civility..democracy?)

      Secondly, the assumption that all the uncommitted in Michigan were for Obama discredits Edward's supporters greatly.

      Apparently CNN is willing to use more rational reasoning than DailyKOS? Thats disturbing.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...

      Note above that even if you claim that Obama really had all uncommitted votes in Michigan, he would have the popular vote by .1% (point 1 percent). The margin of error is far greater, and there are still two states left.

      I caucused for Obama, but apparently for very different reasons than all of you.

      • EtherGnat, on 06/02/2008, -7/+23"I caucused for Obama"

        Considering all your posts are pro-Hillary and I can't find a single nice thing you've ever said about Obama I call *****.
        • poxonyou, on 06/02/2008, -2/+5Dugg up.
          Apparently all the remaining Clinton supporters are reading this article on Digg and are digging down anything negative towards her (and up everything positive about her or negative about Obama of course).
      • Fordi, on 06/02/2008, -2/+11"The rational that this author uses to NOT count Puerto Rico fails (and is disturbing)."

        The rationale this guy's referring to:
        1) Clinton claims better 'electability' for the general election
        2) She backs this up with the claim that in the states that matter, she won the popular vote.

        She fails on both counts, and that is honestly her last card. She forgot to call UNO when she won Puerto Rico last night.
      • marabout40, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5If Guam, Democrats Abroad, USVI, and American Samoa are not counted and included in the popular vote, then why hell would we count Puerto Rico?
        • kidcodea, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1because they voted and they belong to the population?
    • insomniacal, on 06/02/2008, -13/+3Give up the ghost? She won 7 of the last 13 primaries.
      • Fordi, on 06/02/2008, -2/+20You mean she won 20 of the last 54 primaries and caucuses (that is, the total number that have occurred this season).

        Picking an arbitrary point to which you may claim a (slim) majority is intellectually dishonest.

        That you can only count back to a slim majority is merely pathetic. (with PR, it's 8 in 14, but that's still pretty slim)

        Past that, you're *****, though.
      • SilentRamble42, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8That's barely over half, and when consider that Obama is barely even campaigning for primaries anymore, the number feels all the smaller.
      • KingPsyz, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2wow the blind followers of Herr Clinton sure are out in force today
    • Paul101590, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3I don't really like CNN (or the media) but they are reporting that she indeed has one the popular vote...not that it matters in the Democratic nomination process.
      • Kautylia, on 06/02/2008, -7/+7It's sad that a bunch of the people who are pointing at the rule book right now about delegates vs. popular vote were probably a lot of the same people who constantly bitched about Gore winning the popular vote and not getting presidency.
        • poxonyou, on 06/02/2008, -5/+3Get out the straw, we're making a big man here!
        • WilliamDavis, on 06/02/2008, -2/+5Instead of sad, I find it entertaining. People twist their little brains into believing whatever suits them at that particular moment. It's no wonder we don't elect leaders that rely on principles when the population can't muster it either.
      • nicktheawesome, on 06/02/2008, -5/+1Won. She didn't "one" it.
      • MxM111, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Of cause it matters, because super-delegates can change their vote.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 06/02/2008, -4/+1isnt this the same group of people who claim it's about the delegates, not about the popular vote?

      i've never seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites in my life. i can't wait until it comes crashing down VERY soon... =)
    • MxM111, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3The statement that she won popular vote of the primaries is a correct mathematical statement even according to the article, even if you give ALL the uncommitted votes of Michigan to Obama. You can argue with it on merits (that you need to include caucuses too), but not on facts.
    • LeeSoong, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1It's a Clinton and McCain race, with McCain winning with 42% of the vote, haven't you seen the Diebold reports yet?
  • tcbishop12, on 06/02/2008, -15/+151CNN is really disgusting today - and right now - in disseminating the Clinton campaign's spurious claims. I haven't had time to do much of an analysis lately, but by my rough estimates, Sen. Obama still leads by several hundred thousand votes.
    • Hillsfar, on 06/02/2008, -3/+56We need to flood the CNN comment pages.
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/02/2008, -3/+39Tell mediadefender CNN is hosting Indiana Jones on their webpage, it will disappear :D
      • maj0rm0j0, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3The hell with 'em. Just watch MSNBC and Olbermann.
      • bruce86, on 06/02/2008, -3/+1what are we 4chan? Digg isn't your personal army
    • actorboy, on 06/02/2008, -1/+22And not only does she neglect to account for caucus states, she also neglects to account states with *closed* primaries. There are 26 states in which only registered Democrats vote in the Democratic primary. Obama won the majority of those: 16, with another pending Tuesday (South Dakota where Obama leads in the polls).

      So let's speculate (since Hillary herself is so fond of speculating -- like how someone trouncing her cannot be elected). Let's assume those states will fall the same way in the general election as they did in the primaries. With what appears will be 17 of 26 states going Obama, how many more votes would he gain be from the independents and moderates who could not vote in the closed primaries. Certainly the majority. I know mine will be one.
      • silverbulletky, on 06/02/2008, -9/+2By 'his' estimates Hillary is losing the popular vote by 200,000 votes. How is that exactly trouncing?
    • birch25, on 06/02/2008, -0/+12the math wasn't exact because it's impossible to get exact numbers for caucus states, but it's close. what i find disgusting about the clinton math is that they don't try to get the numbers from the caucus states. those are millions of voters who cast ballots (so to speak) for the candidate of their choosing and the clinton camp, who is being high and mighty about counting every vote, completely omits them from their math. i just want obama to cross the 2118 threshold and be done with this whole thing. mccain has gotten a free pass for too long and i think it's time to start attacking him full force on his massive blunders and poor vision for this country's future.
      • mtg1287, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5If you watched today during the PR primary, they were saying that there were three different ways to "count" the popular vote - not that it really matters. I can understand people being upset if the popular vote were with her, but the reality is this - no precise number can be given because of the caucuses (like them or not). If the democratic presidential candidate were elected by popular vote then caucuses would not exist. There's no reason to bring it up because it doesn't matter at the moment!
    • macaca, on 06/02/2008, -1/+14This is why we need to put more money into education - perhaps people would understand mathematics better...
      • Pssdoff, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2Yeah, spend more money on the Dept. of Education... That will make your children smart.......
    • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2There is a reason it received the nickname of "Clinton News Network", no?
    • sb66, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4CNN's corporate masters don't want a real 'progressive' candidate.
    • MxM111, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Hold on guys! CNN does not argue that if you add all primary and caucuses then Obama wins. They say exactly that as well.
      However! They also say that if you do not count uncommitted as Obama votes in Michigan, OR if you count primaries only then Clinton wins. Do you argue with those statements? If yes, then support why, if no, then chill out.
  • rewinn, on 06/02/2008, -9/+131Hillary's entire argument on popular vote is that "In America, if you work hard and follow the rules, someone will change the rules."

    I really think we're better than that!
    • NoDrama, on 06/02/2008, -1/+20You know what's amazing? Harold Ickes was against the popular vote before he was for it.

      http://obamesque.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/who-is-h ...
    • clickmyface, on 06/02/2008, -23/+2You know what else is funny? The primary is not over.

      You know what else is funny? The "rule" to exclude Florida and Michigan was a failure of leadership and a failure of democracy. If not leadership and democracy, what measure earns Obama praise?

      And a big FYI...
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...

      Note that Obamas leads estimates are at most .4% (point 4 percent) and at the least .1%. Do you know what the margin of error is?

      • synergye, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6nice name...I suppose your face is the thumbs down icon?
      • Fordi, on 06/02/2008, -1/+13A failure that Hillary participated in, and later hypocritically complained about until she got her way.

        Then whined again when she didn't get *exactly* her way (ooh, they awarded Obama an insignificant number of delegates which he deserved from my lost campaign!).

        That does not say, "Presidential Material" to me. It says, "Sore Loser."
      • archiesteel, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3clickmyface, margins of errors are for opinion polls, where a larger result is extrapolated from a relatively small sample size. This doesn't apply here.

        Also, you should consider that a) depending on how you count, Obama may or may not have more votes that Clinton, and b) the winner is not determined by the popular vote, but rather by the number of delegates, where Obama leads by a comfortable margin.
    • 5suki, on 06/02/2008, -0/+19What is really unfunny is how someone who has won 33, soon to be 35, out of 52 (soon to 54) contests, has more pledged delegates and superdelegates (only 46 away from securing the nom), AND more of the popular vote, is still being considered by some to be beatable in this nominee selection process. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN - DEAL WIT IT!
      • clickmyface, on 06/02/2008, -11/+1Actually I think you missed it. There is an extremely high chance that the .1% (point 1 percent) popular vote margin he has does not exist. I really hope that we can agree that a popular vote is the purest form of democracy. These candidates are tied.

        Claiming that the primary system victory is somehow more democratic makes the rest of the world laugh (or cry). When a candidate can walk away a "loser" for tying the popular vote, or even winning it as Al Gore and now potentially Clinton did, we all have to agree that something is very wrong (regardless of who we voted for).
        • Fordi, on 06/02/2008, -1/+11"Claiming that the primary system victory is somehow more democratic makes the rest of the world laugh (or cry)."
          It's not, nor is it claimed to be (unless you're ignorant).

          The primary and electoral systems are features of a republic, which the United States has been for the last 200 years. The US is only democratic on the local and state level, where such things make sense, the voters have a larger stake in the issues, etc.

          The US Federal Government, however, is in no way, shape or form, a democracy - unless you consider the concept of states-as-individuals as democratic.
        • archiesteel, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Correction: the electoral system of the US is that of a Democratic Republic. Please don't repeat the old canard that the US is "a Republic, not a Democracy". In fact it's both: it's a democracy because the people elect their leaders (a "representative" democracy, as opposed to a "direct" one), and it's a Republic because the head of state is a president, and not a king, queen, prince, governor general, etc.
        • argaen21, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1The popular vote is fine with me. I wouldn't mind it selecting our leaders. However, if you are going to make the popular vote the metric for victory, then you need to make that the rule BEFORE THE ELECTION PROCESS BEGINS. Obama and Hillary both would never show up in places like Iowa, Wyoming and tomorrows SD/MO. They would spend near all of their time in the big states fighting for every vote there.
        • Fordi, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1@archie:
          The US is a democratic republic because it is democratic at the state/local level, and a republic at the federal level, not because of the semantics we use to name our elected leader.
    • barc0de, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1Wasn't there a Simpsons episode that covered this? Lisa was in a band competion, and the winners used glowsticks. So she complained and complained until it eventually got all the way to President Clinton (the 1st) and he overturned the judges decision.
      • Brad324, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3there will only ever be one President Clinton
    • proliance, on 06/02/2008, -9/+4Didn't Al Gore do the same thing? He wanted to keep recounting votes in hand picked counties he deemed favorable to him until long after the rules say you had to stop counting votes. Kathleen Harris said to stop recounting votes because that's what the rules said. It finally took the Supreme Court to say you can't change the rules in the middle of an election.

      Anyone who supported Al Gore and now is against Hillary is a huge hypocrite.
      • proliance, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1No one can tell me why it was OK for Al Gore to change the rules in the middle of an election, but not when Hillary does it?

        Because time and time again I read how the Supreme Court "gave" the election to Bush when all they did was uphold the law. The law that the Democrats seem to always want to change when it favors them.

        Hypocrites.
  • sloppyrobot, on 06/02/2008, -9/+197...never mind the fact that if the contest was for popular vote all along, O would have adjusted his game plan accordingly and smoked her just like he did with delegates.

    It's like telling the winning football team that it's actually about how many field goals you kicked, not how many points were scored..if they'd known.. they would have been kicking field goals instead of touchdowns.

    hows that for corny explanations.. i think CNN might have a desk for me..
    • hfactor, on 06/02/2008, -2/+3True. On another note: I wonder WHY the popular vote doesn't count in America. Isn't that what democracy is all about? What rationale is behind it?
      • Scottievm, on 06/02/2008, -0/+25The rationale is that each state receives significant attention from candidates during the election process. If only the popular vote was considered, then the large states (New York, California, Texas) would essentially be deciding the election. The delegate system (and Electoral College) forces candidates to campaign in smaller states, and be concerned with their issues, instead of focusing only on the larger states.
      • orion846, on 06/02/2008, -4/+5also, a reason behind the creation of the electoral college (essentially taking the general election results away from strictly a popular vote) was that, at the time all this was being set up, people were no where near as educated about candidates and politics as they are today. it was a pre-national media/internet world (obviously) and the founders didn't want to corner/lock themselves into doing whatever the mostly ignorant public wanted. the electoral college gives them an out, a legal way to say 'we know you wanted X, but we know whats best for you, and its Y' - it's a more out-dated concept today, but change in process is slow.
        • slicerace, on 06/02/2008, -3/+3You have no clue why the electoral college exists. The point is to have widespread support across the country, not "... the founders didn't want to lock themselves into doing whatever the mostly ignorant public wanted." You are sorely mislead and in need of a history lesson. Start here:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colleg ...
        • orion846, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3not every real behind the scenes reason something happens is on wikipedia
      • slicerace, on 06/02/2008, -3/+5We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. "To the republic, for which it stands..."
        • Wormfather, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Actually, its a Democratic Republic.

          We VOTE for people to REPRESENT us in congress but we dont vote for laws, yet we do select a president, not CONGRESS
        • MCMLXXXII, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3I am really pissed at people who bring up that the US is a republic every time the word democracy is mentioned. You guys need to go back to school an understand what each of those are. Republic is a form of government while democracy is a political ideology. It is possible to be both and that is what the US is. It is a representative democracy in the form of a republic.
    • Archer007, on 06/02/2008, -5/+1I think that's why they'd have an anti-desk for you...
    • poxonyou, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2No, CNN wouldn't, unless you argued the opposite of what you just said.
      If you haven't noticed, CNN has been heavily pro-Clinton this entire campaign.
      Many of their top Democratic pundits were part of Bill Clinton's team, and some are part of her team now.
      Donna Brazille, though now indirectly an Obama supporter, was also once pro-Clinton and was part of Bill Clinton's team in the past.

      Not to sound conspiracy-ish. I think they just hired many of these people back in the heyday of Clinton's presidency to have top insiders on their staff and they just never got rid of them.
    • bigbird1040, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6We're calling him O now? I didn't get the memo
    • Naieve, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1You've all see how chummy she is with McCain.

      I bet she is trying to throw it for him.

      McCain would gladly do some behind closed doors deals for that.

      Maybe even pardon a few contributors to the Clinton Foundation?
    • bernandoo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2I bet you were singing a different song in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote!
    • mrASSMAN, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1and the daily kos math didn't even include the Washington state primary, which Obama won. (no delegates were awarded based on the results, but that doesn't matter according to Hillary, so its popular vote should count toward the total).
    • cinmrc, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0nice football analogy!!
  • SheilaNoya, on 06/02/2008, -14/+70The only people believing Hillary's false claim of having the "Popular Vote" are all of those "lesser educated" people she claims make up her base.

    They are also too dumb to realize that even if it was true, the so-called "popular vote" is NOT how presidential nominees are chosen and it's not how the candidate wins in the General Election either.

    Is "DELEGATES" too big a word for these people to understand?
    • jerrycurley, on 06/02/2008, -24/+8Is it too hard for you to understand that no delegates have voted yet?

      (honestly, Sheila...based on your entire Digg history, you should NEVEr be talkign down about hte general population. You are NOT more intelligent than the average person. Not even close. You are not more intelligent than the average sea slug.)
    • insomniacal, on 06/02/2008, -6/+7Nice job calling half the Democratic Party stupid. A winning strategy there.
      • pcghost, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3If the short bus fits...
      • SheilaNoya, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I'll admit that the Democrats have some stupid people within our ranks. Now, will you admit that the vast majority of the Republicans are stupid for giving us 8 years of George W. Bush?
    • Kohlrabi, on 06/02/2008, -9/+1SheilaN is displaying ignorance and prejudice. I have a word for it. Bovine.
    • silverbulletky, on 06/02/2008, -3/+6Don't act like you weren't chanting "POPULAR VOTE, POPULAR VOTE" whenever Bush won but didn't have the popular vote
      • SheilaNoya, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1The fight was never over "popular vote" in 2000. The fight was over the way some votes were not counted in Florida in 2000 (Katherine Harris stripping 17,000 Democratic voters off the registered voter list, etc). In 2004, Ohio had all of those Diebold errors and skewed results that didn't tally up in a very close race.

        With that said, Hillary doesn't even have the most "popular votes" because her fake math is based on garbage. According to Hillary's math, none of the caucus states even voted, and no one in Michigan tried to vote for Obama. That's why Hillary has now changed her claim to "she has won more votes in PRIMARY states. That's not the same as having more supporters or even winning more states.

    • obamayomama, on 06/02/2008, -6/+1ANd they wonder why they're dubbed "elitists." LOL!
    • Gemfinder, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I can't believe she's proudly claiming dimwits and drop-outs as her "voter base."
  • NoDrama, on 06/02/2008, -8/+13Ickes has changed his tune since April: http://obamesque.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/who-is-h ...
    • BowieX, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Ickes changes his tune during his arguments:

      How can you go on and on about "fair reflection" but not include any MI Obama votes in the popular-vote math?
      • sinrtb, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Firstly Obama did not have any votes in MI but more notably Clinton barely won that race against Undecided. I am rather surprised more media attention has grabbed onto that little tidbit. That middle class white voters when given a choice between no-one and Hillary, Hillary barely makes it.
  • lilbugleboy09, on 06/02/2008, -9/+116This is flawed...you're only supposed to count the votes supplied by the Clinton campaign.
    • slearwig, on 06/02/2008, -1/+8You mean as in "Flawida"?
    • cankillar, on 06/02/2008, -1/+21Bitch didn't count my vote! (Washington state) I don't matter, though, because I'm not part of her demographic. >:(
      • macaca, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5and my vote in Kansas. People, I mean white people voted for Obama and she doesnt wanna count my vote in Popular Vote?
      • fireashes, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8My vote which i didnt vote because I thought that my vote wont count in the first place. I am from Michigan. My friend didnt find Obama in the ballot too.
      • mrASSMAN, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I voted both in the Washington primary AND Washington caucus.. neither of my votes were counted by Hildog.
    • Wormfather, on 06/02/2008, -4/+1***** and Yes, HILLDAWG all the way to the convention... TOOU (opposite of woot). NEW WORLD ORDER.

      Hill's votes are the only ones that count, the only ones that count.

      /chant

      Now if you'll excuse the Hillary Campaign we need to spread a rumor that Obama is a Nazi.

      /sarcasm
  • db0255, on 06/02/2008, -6/+51"This is obviously fuzzy math on the part of the Obama campaign to maliciously paint the race in their favor."
    -HRC
    • Fordi, on 06/02/2008, -0/+10Wow. She's an unapologetic hypocrite.

      Or, bad enough at math to be considered unfit to handle money.
    • MtheoryX, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Damn you, Billary! Don't talk about math like that...

      And, in case she really wanted to know what she is talking about, there's always this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Mathematics

      fuzzy math != wrong math
  • VacaN1g, on 06/02/2008, -43/+1Popular vote means nothing Bama boys. HA

    Luis VacaN
    • chaosium, on 06/02/2008, -2/+28Obama has more delegates AND popular votes, retard.
    • hawkspur, on 06/02/2008, -0/+19Why the ***** do you sign your posts? Your name is right to the left for any of us who want to see who to block.
    • Fordi, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8Fortunately, Obama's also got more delegates, supers, and states won than Mrs. Clinton.

      It may not be technically over, but the writing's on the wall, reading: "The fat lady sung a funeral dirge for the Clinton campaign a few weeks back; why can't Hillary hear it?"
    • mobbo, on 06/02/2008, -2/+3Only KOOL people sign their posts.
      • b0gus2008, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2Really!?! *****, no one told me!

        Bo Gus
    • kreneskyp, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3corrected with hillary logic

      "Popular vote means nothing, unless i'm in first place"
      • chaosium, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Popular vote means nothing until you disenfranchise the popular votes of caucus states.
  • brwright, on 06/02/2008, -9/+22I watched CNN all of this afternoon, I know Blitzer went over 3 of the popular vote scenarios a couple times, one in which Obama was winning. It does not matter anyway. It is over for Clinton. It is the beginning for Obama and for change in America.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I'm not trying to bash Obama or anything but how is he going to change America? I really don't think anything is going to change much no matter who wins. Just because he has a pretty smile and the bumper stickers say 'vote for change' doesn't mean it will happen.
    • eastcoast, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Why do you watch CNN? It's only a half-inch closer to the center than Fox Noise.
  • scrotumbrau, on 06/02/2008, -21/+5Seeing how much the popular vote helped Kerry, I don't see how this is relevant.
    • Julik, on 06/02/2008, -1/+8Your right.. Bush winning the popular vote really did not help Kerry.
    • dinot, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1EXACTLY. Can you please tell Hillary that?
  • Hangly, on 06/02/2008, -5/+6Is it official this time?
  • CryTekEmployee, on 06/02/2008, -16/+2Hilary Duff for president, IMO
  • tlo182, on 06/02/2008, -10/+43WHEN Obama wins the ELECTORAL vote in November, I guarantee that we are going to see enough diggs on that story to send the internets into oblivion!
    • jerrycurley, on 06/02/2008, -15/+2Are you kidding? If Obama wins the election in November, the morons at dailykos, and the ***** at huffingtonpost will IMMEDIATELY find things about him to bitch about.

      They don't like Obama. They just like to bitch. As does most of the people on Digg.
      • Fordi, on 06/02/2008, -1/+7Nah. The honeymoon period usually lasts about six months before people get bored with "Look at the great job our new pick is doing!"

        Fox News will be first out of the gate and at Barack's throat come November 3.
      • benecere, on 06/02/2008, -1/+7The "*****" at Huffintonpost?

        Wow; you are certainly an excessively incensed individual with an over-blown concept of your own entitlement and significance. I expect your issues run deeper than politics and that you (and we) would be better served if you either learned about boundaries or stayed away from the political arena altogether. It's time to grow up and grown-ups don't spew out words like "*****" when some one refuses to agree with them. It's not a good argument in the first place and it sounds unstable as hell.
        • Wormfather, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1*****, *****, *****, *****! *****, *****, *****, *****, ***** gum, *****, *****, tunc, *****, *****, optimus *****, SNC skits.

          Basically, relax, its just a word.
        • benecere, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1wormfather; The word, itself, doesn't bother me, Using it in this particular context, though, is simply weird and a little creepy.
    • Wormfather, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6us.gov is going to need a mirror.
      • camiloteram, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1The digg-effect will reach new meanings. haha.
    • lhughey, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Or like Mike Tyson said, "into Bolivian"
      "I guess I’m gonna fade into Bolivian.” - Mike Tyson
    • avatarpalin, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3i have my digg in a shiny box, ready to be pulled out at that moment.
  • johnmcd, on 06/02/2008, -8/+37She won't get the engineering community's vote, she can't do simple addition.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+7This is why she gets the uneducated voters. Because the educated voters know that 1+1=2.
    • Kohlrabi, on 06/02/2008, -8/+1Looking at these last two comments I'd say Obama has attracted a few of the uneducated voters.
      • theaceoffire, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Yes, cause clearly when adding 1+1 you must ignore the first one because not all the voters were represented.
  • mrfreeziexp, on 06/02/2008, -4/+15This is why I think HRC will suspend her campaign soon and not take it to Denver. Only her supporters believe this lie, the rest of us, including the DNC, can see reality.
  • insomniacal, on 06/02/2008, -15/+3"More importantly, however, delegates, not popular vote, is what decides a Democratic Presidential Nominee..."

    Yes, yes, I remember Democrats dutifully pointing out this similar principle when Bush beat Gore in the Electoral College instead of the popular vote.
    • dagamer34, on 06/02/2008, -2/+7Democrats weren't complaining about the electoral college. They were complaining about the Supreme Court basically giving Bush Florida and Al Gore decided enough was enough. If only he had fought a little bit longer.

      Anyway, Bush is out in 7 months! WOOHOO!!!!!
      • insomniacal, on 06/02/2008, -3/+3I don't mind Bush being out in 7 months. We need change.

        But your memory is wrong -- Democrats did complain about the electoral college. At the time they argued for its abolishment in favor of a straight popular vote.
      • KeithOlbermann, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2Democrats WERE absolutely complaining about the electoral college. Their were calls by democrats to abolish it.
      • dagamer34, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I stand corrected.
    • benecere, on 06/02/2008, -1/+4Well, I think it was more like "untampered" voting chooses a president. Bush has violated every damn thing for which this country ever stood. He is, possibly, the greatest enemy this country has ever faced.

      I believe it was, and IS, fully his intention to destroy any part of American ideas and ideals that get in his way. Those of you who are fine with the trashing of the constitution, rigged elections and a war that has no intention of ever pursuing Bin Laden are not the "true-blue Americans" you keep telling everyone you are. You actually have absolutely NO respect for this country or its founders.
      • insomniacal, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3For the record, I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution, I demand fair and open elections, and I am disgusted by the way we have handled Iraq.

        All that and I still wouldn't call myself a true-blue American! But at least my conscience is clear of some of your charges.
    • Danjak, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4What the hell are you talking about? Did Gore ever say to throw out the delegate count and only use the popular vote count?? The FACT of the matter is that as soon as he lost the Florida recount battle with the Supreme Court, he conceded the election to Bush.

      God I hate Republicans. They just make ***** up to satisfy their own sense of superiority and smugness.
      • Dsanders78, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0I think Dems were crying foul about popular vote in relation to certain states and votes not being counted, thus giving the electoral points to the repub.

        Also, dems and repubs both like to pull "facts" out of context to support their arguments, it's not a one sided thing.
    • paigeinphilly, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1insomatical?..this is about Hillbilly's claim to the popular vote..

      which is yet another lie.

      stay with us.

      Obama/Webb 08
  • ilikemonkeys1, on 06/02/2008, -3/+9Now it's starting to sound like a broken record.
  • JordanAustin, on 06/02/2008, -17/+7Vote Ron Paul.
    • obelisky, on 06/02/2008, -3/+2but i *like* black people?
    • Danjak, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1Who?
    • trugamer510, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Wow, what happened to digg? Now everyone who doesn't want to lick the sweat off of Obama's balls gets voted down? A few months ago this site was all about Ron Paul and now even the Paul supporter gets voted down.
  • diskit, on 06/02/2008, -6/+7More like "Barack Obama is Winning the Popular Vote" since the election isn't over.
    • iofthestorm, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2That doesn't necessarily matter, if he had more than 50% of the total votes currently and enough to be more than Hillary no matter what the other primaries turn out like. There are currently only three primaries left anyway.
      • jerrycurley, on 06/02/2008, -3/+0What do you mean by "necessarily" here? There are only 3 primaries left. And Obama currently does not have THAT big a lead that would guarantee that the defecit can't be made up. Hence, declaing him the definite winner of hte popular vote now is idiotic. (But par for the course for dailykos.)
        • sinrtb, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I dunno unless you really favor Hillary in the way you count votes Obama has a very very commanding lead the only way Hillary can get ahead in delegates or in pop-vote is if she gets something close to 80% of the next three primaries as well as 80% of the remaining superdelegates.
  • DannySpace, on 06/02/2008, -5/+6Hilla-who?
    • paigeinphilly, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1seriously...if we just all ignore her...maybe she will fly away.

      then i woke up.


      Obama/Webb 08
  • mooseontheloose, on 06/02/2008, -43/+5He's definitely popular among blacks and Muslims

    Amongst whites and educated... not so much.
    • mattman202, on 06/02/2008, -3/+14So black people aren't educated?
      • djpaec, on 06/02/2008, -17/+2he didn't say whites or educated, he said white and educated. Don't you know the difference? Guess you're not educated.
      • Disgod, on 06/02/2008, -15/+2It is actually a person by person basis on whether or not a black person is educated.

        /This is just me being snarky
        //Don't dig me down for a joke, that is actually true.
    • ducky3tjh, on 06/02/2008, -2/+20He wins among those who are educated, no matter their race by significant amounts. Look at any exit poll except Puerto Rico where Hillary just told the people whatever the ***** she wanted.

      And he wins among whites who aren't racist, look at any state west of the Mississippi. He has dominated by gaining the support of states with a majority of white residents. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota. All by significant margins.

      Get a clue.
    • jkoski, on 06/02/2008, -3/+18Actually, it's the UNeducated whites that he's having problems with. No surprise there.
    • Disgod, on 06/02/2008, -2/+7Actually if you ever bothered to do a little research or read about politics, Obama has actually been doing really well with educated white vote. It's the blue collar white voters who are her main support group, hence her claims to being one of the people a few weeks ago, and the whole "I learned to shoot behind my daddy's shed" BS. This was actually one of her key claims to being the nominee, that she was winning the blue-collar white vote, forgetting that almost every other group, including the educated and middle class white vote.
    • InnerRayg, on 06/02/2008, -2/+6...That would be what we call a "lie". If by educated you mean working class, blue collar, and hispanic vote, then yeah, sure, but um....if by educated you mean something like "went to school" or "been to college and gotten a degree", then that would be right in Barack's playing field. He's got the young vote cornered, remember? That's the college kids.
    • Fordi, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6Actually, from what I can tell, Obama's got a LOT of support from the educated. Hillary? Not so much.
    • ParaSwarm, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6Wow, you totally haven't done your research. Please do not post in topics you are uninformed about.
    • obelisky, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5kkk meeting canceled this morning?
    • BSeffrood, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1its clear that you are confused and ignorant. Clinton is the one that is getting the uneducated vote because they are to stupid and racist to vote for Obama.
    • dinot, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1"Amongst whites and educated... not so much."

      Irony FTW
    • lfroker, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1hey, youre an idiot. if your gonna try and slam obama get your facts right.
      From the New York Times, February 8

      "The socio-economic divide was as apparent in the Feb. 5 primaries as in the previous Democratic contests. Senator Obama’s support was more affluent and better educated, while Senator Clinton’s was more working class"

      A Pew Research Report:

      "There is also a stark gender gap, with a plurality of women rating Clinton as the most inspiring, and a plurality of men choosing Obama. But the largest gap in perceptions is across educational lines. By an overwhelming 48% to 18% margin, Democrats with a college degree see Obama as more inspiring than Hillary Clinton. But among Democrats who did not attend college, Clinton has a large advantage (43%-21%)."

      From USA Today/Gallup:

      "Combined results from the four most recent Gallup surveys finds 92% of Democrats with a post-graduate education rate Sen. Barack Obama favorably while 86% rate Sen. Hillary Clinton favorably. Among Democrats with a high school education or less, 66% rate Obama favorably while 86% rate Clinton favorably."
  • homesickalien, on 06/02/2008, -13/+8Obama may win the popular vote, but he'll need to learn how to rig Diebold voting systems in order to win his presidency.
    • sockpuppets, on 06/02/2008, -2/+17It's easy, slip the key off McCain's chipmunk neck when he's dozing off in congress.
  • 1aaaa, on 06/02/2008, -2/+12I'm for Obama and find the talking points of the HRC campaign disingenuous but the math in this article is a little flawed. You can't use the Texas caucus numbers since there was a regular election in Texas. That doesn't drop Obama from the lead but puts the two into almost a tie.
    • dougmc, on 06/02/2008, -0/+11Bingo.

      To be more precise, in Texas 2/3rds of the delegates were decided by the popular vote, and 1/3 by the caucuses. You only get to caucus if you voted earlier in the day in the actual election.

      Clinton won the actual election by a small margin, but lost big in the caucuses. (Why? There's lots of theories.) She claims to have won Texas, and did in the popular vote, but overall Obama got more delegates from Texas than she did, so he can claim a win in Texas too -- in the way that actually matters.

      In any event, if you count the caucus votes, you're basically counting the votes from those people twice, because everybody who voted in the caucus had to have voted in the general election already -- those were the rules. (Though I don't remember them actually verifying this when I signed in at the caucus.)
    • ZenMojo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5Technically, Washington State had a Primary and a caucus, and the Primary gives Obama 20,000 votes more than the caucus did...so why not use the primary instead of the caucus, even though everyone knew that the primary wouldn't count (never stopped her from using Michigan's votes ;-} ).

      And 30,000 Obama write-in votes were thrown out in Michigan, so we need to add that back in.

      There you go, an extra 50,000 Obama votes according to Clinton's rules of "fairness."
      • poopoo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Those 30k write-in votes are nothing more than "write-in" votes. Since the contest wasn't sanctioned the write-in votes where not tallied. No one knows exactly who's names appear on the write-in and how often. To say that all 30k are Obama is a really big assumption. At least a 1/3 are probably Mickey Mouse and Ralph Nader.
  • lnsomnia, on 06/02/2008, -33/+3Obama will never be president.

    He will be even worse than Bush.

    If you're all smart vote Ron Paul :)


    Otherwise John McCain!!!
    • obelisky, on 06/02/2008, -3/+3ron paul is trash
    • theaceoffire, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4I must ask, what things do John McCain and Ron Paul agree on?
    • JoeVet, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1I prefer the bill of rights to stay intact so I will not be voting for Ron Paul under any circumstances.He has some how convinced his supporters that taking away their right to religious freedom, privacy and equal protection and giving control of those rights to majority rule some how protects them when in actuality he is simply taking those rights away from the individual. Do some critical thinking on your own and don't swollow the cool aid that this right wing fanatic is handing out.
    • wacomwacoff, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1It's a little late to vote for Ron Paul. Time to give up, you sad little man.
  • m3arvk, on 06/02/2008, -8/+10I'm for Obama but this article is relatively weak. It's based on estimates which can be, as we all know, slanted or altogether wrong. If you're going to post a pro-Obama article, or digg one, make sure it's something a little stronger than this. Cheerleading with hypothetical information is really just a kind of desperation and it's the kind of thing that the Hillary camp would do and is doing.

    The fact is that unless the DNC redefines the rules retro-actively, Obama will receive its nomination. If they do redefine the rules, I'd take it as a strong indication that the latent globalist agenda has had its way and 1984 is already here.
    • deskimo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+9Hillary Clinton's claim for the popular vote is based on the fact that Obama, having removed his name from the ballot in Michigan, received 0 votes there, and that caucus states have not released their vote estimates, thus giving him another 0 votes for every caucus state vote that he's won. Now, these make her claims to have won the popular vote equally or more spurious than the claim by the diary linked to here. Either way, the popular vote is not the metric by which select a nominee. The metric that we use, is, of course, delegates. The claim that Obama lost the popular vote and Hillary won it is a naked attempt by the Clinton campaign to blunt the legitimacy of Obama's claim to the nomination, which he won by following the rules under every single possible metric.

      The Clintons are sabotaging the Democratic nominee's chances and unless we force them to rally behind Obama (through some inducement, I don't care) this is going to end up being a disaster. What once was an ace in the hole election for the Democrats could turn into a third Bush term if the Clintons continue to push absurdities like this. I really think that if getting Clinton in the administration in some form or another is the only way to achieve party unity the Clintons will do everything in their power to undermine Obama. It's sad that we may have to offer them a high-level cabinet position or even the VP spot in order to get them to reign their supporters in, but if that's what it comes to, that's what it comes to. They still have leverage. We can't risk a third Bush term because of the resentments that our party infighting has built up during this tense primary campaign and if the only way to achieve party unity is through a unity ticket, then so be it. I don't care.

      • m3arvk, on 06/02/2008, -1/+0I like the Clintons and will continue to but Obama is the better candidate in my estimation. Actually, if Hillary hadn't continually tested the bounds of grace so many times, I think the Obamas and their supporters would be much more willing to consider her for VP or some position of note.

        If I'm not mistaken the article states that even if Obama is given all the "uncommited" votes in Michigan (or even give him the same number of votes as Clinton) he is still narrowly behind:

        "Under MY primary math, Obama is still slightly behind Clinton in popular votes. But remember - there are FOURTEEN states that held caucuses which are NOT included in any of the math so far. So I went out and did some estimating."

        Hence my comment about the article being based on hypotheticals.
      • dougmc, on 06/02/2008, -3/+1While I prefer Obama, I'm not sure it's fair to call McCain `the third Bush term' if elected. If elected, he'd probably be a much better president than Bush was. (Granted, this isn't a very high bar.)

        I think Obama would be even better, but McCain wouldn't be another Bush. Bush is in a league of his own. (Well, I hope so anyways.)
        • m3arvk, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2While McCain would be better than a third Bush term, McCain panders too much to the kind of people who still support Bush. This, to me, is enough to consider he has too little integrity and that is reason enough for him not to be president. I see this same flaw in Clinton. Wasn't she for NAFTA all those years ago? She tells people what she thinks they want to hear instead of just being herself and honest. I'm tired of this brand of politics myself and so are a lot of people.

          In any event given the path of destruction (or certainly lack of betterment) left by the Bush administration, we need an equal but opposite force to balace things out. If we are extremely lucky, Obama and eight years will be enough. McCain isn't up to it and everyone should know it. Time for partisanship is over, we need real change and real integrity. There's only one person I see who fits the bill.
  • pidgas, on 06/02/2008, -21/+11DailyKos!! - Digg!! - Huffington Post!! - Digg!!

    can you hear me now? now? now? now?

    Tendentious - boring - spam - buried as such.
    • themonkman, on 06/02/2008, -3/+6Why did you even bother to comment, then? Simply hit the bury button and get on with your life. Or even better, don't read it at all This is an election season, so to expect anything less than this is a bit naive, IMHO. By commenting, your only giving the subject more exposure.
      • pidgas, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1I comment and bury. What's the difference to you?
      • pidgas, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1It's my time to waste, and I only do it when I want.
  • gavinhudson, on 06/02/2008, -5/+7Wait... where have I seen this before? ...

    Hopefully this time the popular vote will count for something.
  • iFred, on 06/02/2008, -11/+5Its strange how the lot of you can change your support based on whether the person has a (D) or an (R) next to their name. If I remember right, a few years ago, the (D)'s were in love with McCain, but now he is McCain(R), he is the worst thing since Hitlers summer trip though Europe.

    *Le Sigh*

    Why cant we all just get along?
    • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -0/+12Your argument makes no sense. Under your assumption that "all us (D)s loved McCain but hate him now because he has an (R) - um, he had an (R) a few years ago too. And 10 years ago. And 20 years ago. The problem is that McCain has Gone from -----|-R--- to -----|-----R in order to try to have his cake an eat it too - get the far right wing vote but still play the long-gone "Maverick" card.
    • dougmc, on 06/02/2008, -2/+4No, _Bush_ is the worst thing since Hitlers summer trip though Europe.

      McCain is just the enemy. And really, I don't recall the (D)s ever being `in love' with him, though perhaps they dislike(d) him less than some of his peers.
    • themonkman, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6When I was a Democrat, I was never in love with McCain. I'm not a registered Republican, and I still dislike him. I, of course, dislike many of the Republicans. I don't pick a party for it's candidates and members. I pick it on it's platform.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8I respected McCain in 2000 for standing up to Bush. By 2003 he was full of *****. Now it's 2008 and he's completely sold out.

      If a man has a D or an R in front of his name and it determines how much we respect him, then wouldn't we have respected him LESS in 2000 because of the R in front of his name, or could it be the fact that he has become a completely different person?
    • Fubeman, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1First off, Democrats were NOT in "Love with McCain" a few years ago. We just respected this true Republican based on his principles and the way he stood up to Bush and the Christian fundamentalists. Now, he's totally turned around and done a 180. He's chumming with the Christian right, getting fundraisers by Bush, never wanting to leave Iraq and aligning himself with any political base he can get his hands on. Sorry, this is not the same McCain from 2000.
  • Dash-2, on 06/02/2008, -5/+3In other words, it doesn't matter who gets the most votes. It all depends on the few delegates that make the decisions for the whole country...
    • JekJob, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1The delegates are apportioned to each candidate based on the popular vote they receive in a particular area. But the superdelegates are supposed to use their "professional discretion" to decide who to support, although I'm sure that most of the time they go with the will of the people. So the nominating process is somewhat based on what the people want.
  • Reap, on 06/02/2008, -10/+6Quotes from the article I found relevant:
    You'll note that I gave "Uncommitted's" popular vote back to Obama because it's ludicrous to assume that NO ONE showed up to vote for Obama (eye roll).
    Michigan 237,762 (obama) 328,151 (clinton)

    His overall totals-
    17,780,516 (Obama) 17,589,514 (Clinton)

    The Michigan blank slate votes are what put Obama over the top. While I would agree that Obama would PROBABLY be leading in the popular vote given reasonable math, assuming that EVERYONE who voted for a blank slate in Michigan is a little bit much; the truth is almost certainly somewhere between Obama getting 0 and getting all the votes, which is somewhere between him winning the popular vote and losing it.
    • Fordi, on 06/02/2008, -5/+1I would ask how LOSING Michigan puts him over the top. If you feel the Michigan vote is flawed, in this case, don't count it.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/02/2008, -0/+10The Michigan DNC determined that Obama would have swept the uncommitted votes. Add to that 30,000 votes they admittedly threw out because Obama's name was written in illegally...
    • Reap, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2I'm not saying he ISN'T winning the popular vote, because I think he probably is.

      Just that the information given does not conclusively show this.
    • MightyE, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1But how many voted for Hillary in Michigan because they saw her name, and three other names they didn't really recognize (wanting to make sure those unknowns didn't somehow end up taking all the delegates from MI)?

      There'd be far more people who voted for Hillary because they just took the best option presented to them than people who voted blank slate and also would not have voted for Obama. Frankly it's telling that so many people chose to vote "Nobody" instead of for Clinton - these are people who almost certainly *dislike* Clinton, instead of being ambivalent (just like Kerry won as many votes as he did because people were voting *against* Bush).

      Hillary should *lose* votes in Michigan for failing to uphold her obligation - which she even stated strongly in advance that she would - to remove herself from the ballot.

      FL and MI should consider themselves lucky they got to seat any delegates, they broke the party rules, and the party rules very clearly stated that if they did this, they would not seat any delegates. Anything they're given at all is unfair.
      • scaaven2, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1The choices on the MI ballot were:

        Hillary
        Uncommitted

        and you weren't allowed to write in your candidate.
  • RRJackson, on 06/02/2008, -5/+4What's the spread again?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...

    A few thousand votes out of close to twenty million?
    • ZenMojo, on 06/02/2008, -1/+314 of the states were caucuses and Obama won 13 of them. The margin would be a LOT larger if they were primaries, but primaries are expensive and all of the states thought they would be looking at the pledged delegates and not the popular vote.
      • RRJackson, on 06/02/2008, -7/+1He's run an effective campaign. It didn't surprise me that in states with caucuses his people were able to influence the outcome. It doesn't change the fact that close to 35 million people have voted in these primaries and each candidate has almost exactly half the vote. The spread is less than one percent. Both candidates are trying to claim a clear victory, but neither of them have managed to do anything but split the party. Say it with me: "President McCain." You'll be hearing that for the next eight years while these two do book tours.
        • archiesteel, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3I disagree. The long Democratic primary process has not really helped McCain that much, if one looks at the polls. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that, by monopolizing the media with their contest, the Democrats have basically shut McCain out of the debate, and marginalized him to a small extent.

          Then again, you have been trying to poison the Democrat's well for months now, so I don't expect you to recognize this as true...
  • thelastwarrior, on 06/02/2008, -4/+10Michigan and Florida knew what they were getting themselves into... So STFU YOU WHINEY BASTARDS!!!!
    • theaceoffire, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1True, they got far better than they deserved.

      Normally breaking the rules means something.
  • offthewagon, on 06/02/2008, -15/+9Enough with the Hillary posts. Please. I ***** beg you. On my knees. I can't stand looking at them. It's the same thing every goddamn time. Hillary sucks. Just quit, Hillary. Hillary lies. Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. It's the political equivalent of O rly. It's an lol cat that won't stop watching you masturbate. It's the most annoying ***** thing in the history of internet memes and knowing that it will be transformed into months of McCain bashing makes me want to stop being a Democrat.

    Digg could make the Devil seem like a sympathetic figure if he ran against God in a general election.
    • barackoblogger, on 06/02/2008, -4/+9you could just ignore it and digg the cat articles.
      • offthewagon, on 06/02/2008, -2/+6When I see a snarling mob walking down the street--each member brandishing pitchforks and shouting obscenities--I have trouble looking away. Especially when they stop on my lawn and crap all over it.
        • turtled28, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2ok, I just wanna say, if I could digg you up multiple times, I would, for such a vivid mental pic. Thanks for that. ^_^
        • anstice85, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1Digg isn't just yours. Get some perspective.
        • offthewagon, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and you dugg me down because you believe in the equality of digg, and not because you want to give Obama a hand job.

          That's another wonderful digg trait. Pretending your opinion is based on some moral principle, when it is really based on a much more visceral human emotion--in this case petulant fanaticism.
    • marabout40, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2You reall are "offthewagon" aren't ya.
  • Zuwxiv, on 06/02/2008, -13/+10I'm going to get buried so far down for this comment that I should write it in Chinese.

    I recently did a very similar analysis, but instead of using voters I used delegates. What I focused on, however, is not who has a 0.05% advantage in a popular vote if you count it one way, or a 0.05% disadvantage if you do it another way. It doesn't matter to me, it's roughly equal with a general edge towards Obama it seems though. Still, too close to make a meaningful difference beyond the semantics of saying "I won the popular vote."

    What I focused on with delegate vote was blue states and swing states.

    Draconian to completely ignore democratic voters just because of location, I know. Good thing the Democrats don't act that way - like towards Florida or Michigan voters... whole different issue there. Anyway.

    When the math came out, Clinton has 7 more delegates from swing states than Obama. They're dead equal - 675 delegates each - from blue states.
    Read it at http://thoughtisquick.com/blog/?p=11 for full list and some of my analysis.
    • axcess99, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3That is an interesting analysis. but i do find your conclusion "But the current (and badly wanting in future analysis) statistics indicate that Clinton may well be a stronger candidate in the general election" unwarranted. You start off with the valid point that the popular vote between the two is statistically insignificant, but then you claim that totals of O+17, C+7, C+31 (based upon how the Fl and M are counted) out of 800 to 1000 swing state delegates i.e +2%O to +3%C are somehow an indicator?

      Sounds like both are statistically equally electable by that gauge.
      • godd4242, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1This is a primary. There are no Blue states and swing states, it's all democratic voters.
  • jerrycurley, on 06/02/2008, -7/+2OK, since dailykos acknowledges that the popular vote doesn't matter and only the delegates vote does, I guess that means that they (and all the other samming websites) shutthe ***** up until even ONE delegate votes.
  • 5suki, on 06/02/2008, -2/+13Why do people insist on trying to redo the DNC vote? Even if this race were close on all fronts, which it is not, I believe the superdelegates would go to Obama's corner, if out of nothing else, out of a respect for his fair play and historical grassroots campaign fundraising and organizational efforts, completely unmatched by the debt-ridden opposition.


    • poopoo, on 06/02/2008, -2/+0This race is close on all fronts. The Obama lead while painted as incermountable really isn't that large. Also, both Obama and Clinton have played fair. This is politics and both have lied, pandered and told half truths. Obama would not have been nearly as successful as he has been in the fundraising department if he had not been running against a Clinton. I know many people that gave Obama money simply because they don't like the Clinton's. He has benefited greatly from the Clinton "legacy".
      • argaen21, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1The race is close, but a near 200 delegate lead is not. Obama benefited the most from Hillary's refusal to apologize for voting for the war. If she did that, she would have been able to bear on near equal terms with him on this issue from day one, changing the dynamic of the race.
  • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -7/+5I just wish the bitch would give up already so I can go back to liking her - I hate it when we fight.
    • theaceoffire, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3She has destroyed my opinion of the Clintons.
      I am not sure what it would take for me to like her.
  • Abnormal77, on 06/02/2008, -4/+13I swear are some of you people even real?
  • happyseamonster, on 06/02/2008, -5/+5Popular schmopular. It's the delegates stupid.
    • hawkspur, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5And he's ahead in those too. Who is stupid now?
      • theblt, on 06/02/2008, -4/+1You for spelling "Whose" when it should have been spelled "Who's".
      • hawkspur, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3Can you not read?
  • Abnormal77, on 06/02/2008, -3/+10I'd like to see a great president in my lifetime!
    • DuffyDirect, on 06/02/2008, -3/+5have fun by the wishing well
    • SuperVepr308, on 06/02/2008, -7/+3I did. Ronald Wilson Reagan.
      • Somedude2137, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAH..... thx for the laugh
  • TJATL, on 06/02/2008, -13/+7Talk about fuzzy math! You may love Obama, but this guy made ***** up and he says so, why is this on the frontpage? Inaccurate.
  • Abnormal77, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2MATH hysteria. Ha, get it


    • turtled28, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1puntastic.
      • theaceoffire, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1He wouldn't addmit it, but he was divided with self doubt about the validity of this punny story.
  • dougmc, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2Wouldn't it be appropriate to not declare a winner of the popular vote until the popular vote is over?
    I believe that the last votes happen tomorrow, so we don't have to wait long ...
  • Ricemanstm, on 06/02/2008, -12/+7Daily Kos! Buried!
  • Jordan117, on 06/02/2008, -2/+10Her popular vote argument is so hypocritical I don't know how they put it out there with a straight face. The ONLY way Clinton beats Obama in the popular vote is if:

    * You give Clinton and Obama all their votes from Florida

    * You give Clinton all the votes she won from Michigan, while giving Obama ZERO (Clinton *was* the only major candidate on the ballot, but even then she only beat "Uncommitted" by 15%. Refusing to give Obama any votes in Michigan assumes that not a single Michigan voter who voted for "Uncommitted" supported Obama)
    * You don't give Obama ANY votes from the caucus states of Iowa, Washington, Maine and Texas, which he won

    I find this argument incredibly dishonest and hypocritical. I mean, here's the Clinton campaign claiming the moral high ground on Michigan and Florida, likening Obama's people to fascists for "refusing" to count the votes in those unfair contests, while at the same time disregarding the millions of votes that Obama won in the caucus states so she can (incorrectly) claim to have won the popular vote. It's disgusting and wrong.
  • Portfolioso, on 06/02/2008, -8/+8CNN = Clinton News Network
    Fox News = Biased towards conservatives

    The media sucks.
    • Paul101590, on 06/02/2008, -3/+3To keep with your scheme of making a working acronym
      Fox News Network = Fixed News Network
      • theaceoffire, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3Fox News Network
        Fanatics, No News.
    • saturnx8, on 06/02/2008, -5/+4digg - obama coolaide drinking brainwashed liberal wusses who smoke to much pot
    • opensourcer, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1The media is just bad. I can't believe I'm getting more reliable news on Comedy Central. Thanks Jon for no hurting America.
  • MasterTroll, on 06/02/2008, -5/+4Please feed me. I accept all types of donations.
  • brownrecluse888, on 06/02/2008, -11/+2digg=obammaspam=obama=JESUS.....
    • OrangeTide, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1These digg people are hilarious (or sad). Blindly worshiping power hungry US politicians? I can think of hundreds of people who deserve adoration more than than horrible scumbags like Obama, Hillary and McCain.
  • storyFX, on 06/02/2008, -2/+5After spending 2 hours on Hillary blogs, I come away aghast. Conspiracy theories, patently false lies (about both candidates) and this popular vote thing - I cannot believe the core of Clinton supporters would go along with "count every vote" conveniently leaving out the 30,000 write-in votes etc from MI, the caucus states, and so on.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.