Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Don't Be Fooled: Obama Leads Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes
huffingtonpost.com — How is this possible? The reason lies in the ever elusive math of the Democratic caucus.If a state pledged delegate does not represent a single voter... then why should a county delegate?
jjw269- 1717 diggs
- digg it
- DiggLive, on 04/11/2008, -16/+36"Leading Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes"
"anywhere between 2 million to 3 million voters"
Lmao, the headline is different than the text. This is way inaccurate also, because adding up some of the totals, and you'd get over the amount of registered Democrats in that state. Oops, they forgot about that.- mikelieman, on 04/11/2008, -14/+5Since it's all rigged in the first place, why bother being accurate in your "reporting"?
- alanr19, on 04/11/2008, -17/+8Well I guess no propaganda machine is perfect. If it were true there would be only one truth needed. Good hustle though Digg spammers/Obama worshipers.
What do all you good little Obama-programmed Digg-bots think?- theaceoffire, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9^_^ I think someone missed their nappy-poo.
- alanr19, on 04/11/2008, -6/+1Thank you theaceoffire, it's interesting that you answered when I asked for spammers/digg-bots to reply.
well done. you've proven my point.- worbd, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2Boo hoo, poor little racist is angry that a black man is winning :D
- staticneuron, on 04/11/2008, -8/+3Maybe they "misspoke".........
- Takfam, on 04/11/2008, -1/+22I'm not a registered democrat and I voted for Obama. Open primary for the win.
- Apokalyps2547, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2Oops, DiggLive forgot about that.
- jabberwolf, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5This is the Huffington post
What you expect ALL facts? Be lucky you get a few!- Dugout21, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Same goes for Digg in general. Facts don't matter here.
- cplusplus, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Either way its + or - a million which is approx a third of what we are talking about.
- tvfilm, on 04/11/2008, -62/+6Dont Be Fooled, your an idiot because you voted for Obama ala GW Bush 2000
- WasabiBomb, on 04/11/2008, -2/+28You're really reaching. McCain is Bush 2.0.
- MrErr, on 04/11/2008, -4/+3No one knows what McCain is. He is a maverick!
- pintomp3, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5it's starting to look like mccain is going to be worse than bush. bush said he didn't want to do nation building and wanted a two state solution in palestine. his primary goal was privatization of things like social security. it was people like cheney, wolfowitz, rumsfeld, and addington who pushed for the iraq war. mccain doesn't even need convincing to go to war with iran.
- sponeil, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1No. Hillary is Bush 2.0 (but with a different health care plan).
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+10neocons will say anything. I've never seen anymore vicious hate than what spews from a neocon's mouth.
- theaceoffire, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Is a neocon a type of bacon?
- forgiste, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7and what's even worse is he provides no evidence for his claim, just baseless finger pointing. And I think he means A.K.A., not ala...
- zeabu, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1he means "a la", that's french. Sounds educated.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6[Insert common grammar-nazi correction]
- WasabiBomb, on 04/11/2008, -2/+28You're really reaching. McCain is Bush 2.0.
- smacksaw, on 04/11/2008, -15/+16A legitimate gov't would have a transparent form of electing politicians. Once this is over, the Democrats need to go back to the drawing board and fix this.
- galeninjapan, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5Why would the democrats want to fix it?
- RRJackson, on 04/11/2008, -4/+2Exactly. It works perfectly. There's enough suspense to keep people involved in the process and enough control to keep the popular vote from being too important.
- cathpah, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3well for starters, this hillary/obama scuffle is only dragging both of them down in the polls when pitted against mccain.
- fantasticFlan, on 04/11/2008, -0/+9Much as I agree with you, this isn't the election yet. The Democratic party is choosing thier candidate and they get to decide how that works.
- galeninjapan, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5Why would the democrats want to fix it?
- wukillabee, on 04/11/2008, -22/+14thats it.... IM VOTING FOR NADER!
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+10When I heard Nader was entering the race, it sure made it tempting to vote for him. My vote for Obama is a vote against McCain.
- Mike415, on 04/11/2008, -7/+2Please don't. Vote for Ron Paul or McCain if you have to, but not Nader. Don't encourage him.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1Ron Paul is still running? He was my #1 to begin with (With Obama being #2). Sure I'll vote for Ron, I just thought he was out.
- sodade, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4Ralph Nader used to be a consumer advocate, but after the bosh/gore fiasco, the Neo-Cons turned him into their puppet - just to show America how far they could push their power curve.
- bsmang, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5No, don't vote for Nader!! The last thing we need is for McCain to win.
- TheWorm, on 04/11/2008, -11/+35Enough with these stories! We know Obama will win. Just let time do its thing.
- cathode, on 04/11/2008, -11/+1Yay, socialism!
- h4mx0r, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9Time will not do it's "thing". We gotta ensure that everyone pushes forward. We let our guard down and it can turn for the worse.
- TheWorm, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Posting sensationalist articles to Digg isn't "pushing forward", it's just preaching to the choir.
- Fr00sh, on 04/11/2008, -15/+25th!
- theaceoffire, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2I am sorry, there is nothing we can do for him. Lets just move on, shall we?
- SeafoodGumbo, on 04/11/2008, -29/+9From "20 questions for Barack Obama":
* You've made unifying the American public and putting our political divisions behind us one of the central themes of your campaign. Yet, National Journal ranked you as the single most liberal senator in 2007. So, which liberal beliefs of yours are you willing to give up for unity's sake?
* Along the same lines, John McCain has been behind numerous pieces of prominent bi-partisan legislation. So, if voters are looking for a candidate who can unify the country, wouldn't he be a better choice than you?
* If you didn't agree with Jeremiah Wright's racist and anti-American views, why did you take your own children to his church and expose them to what he had to say?
* If I may steal a question from Peter Weher, "With which elements, if any, of black liberation theology — as represented by Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ — do you strongly disagree? Do you think any of the core tenets of black liberation theology are racist?"
* Could black voters trust a white candidate to fairly represent their interests even if he attended an anti-black church and was close friends with a prominent white minister who was famously hostile to black Americans?
* John Conyers has said that he intends to "move legislation that could lead the federal government to apologize for slavery and pay reparations" if you become President. Would you support that legislation?
* Given our budget deficit, how can you justify giving away 845 billion dollars of our tax money to other nations over the next 13 years via your Global Poverty Act?
Those are just the first few. The rest of the questions can be seen here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/200 ...- serif69, on 04/11/2008, -2/+9These would be way better if they weren't so slanted. Some bring up good points, but they're way too Republican-biased to be taken seriously.
- SeafoodGumbo, on 04/11/2008, -4/+3Do you think the first question is a legitimate question that you would like to hear Obama answer?
Seriously, if we want a president to bring people together, McCain has a much better track record as a centrist who can cross the aisle, even when it angers his own party.- mrsammercer, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6*used to be a centrist. Is not now. Now he's just pandering to the far right as much as he possibly can to get their approval. It's pathetic, really. I liked McCain up until 2004 or so, but he's sold his soul.
- truthhammer, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2McCain is being a politician right now. He is more to the center then he's letting on presently. I think he'll go back to the center when the General Election debates start up, except regarding the war.
- serif69, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3Yes, I think the first question is legitimate. But then it just devolves into hype-driven, biased questions that can easily be dismissed with Obama answering, "I don't identify myself as a black person; I identify myself as an American." This is how, IMO, these same questions should read:
• You have made unification of the country and putting our political differences aside a central talking point of your campaign. How willing are you to compromise on your own beliefs to achieve such a goal?
• There have been other candidates who have also stated that they would unify the country and have a record of working with their opposition to create bipartisan legislation. Why do you think that you are the best candidate compared to the others who are claiming similar abilities?
• Given the recent media hype surrounding your former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, it is difficult to separate his name from yours. Do you feel there is a need to disassociate yourself from him? Why?
• ---withdrawn due to extreme bias----
• ---withdrawn due to extreme bias----
• What are your thoughts on race relations between blacks and whites? Do you feel that legislation is necessary to improve such relations?
• We are faced with the largest budget deficit in history, yet many of your proposed programs call for an increase in spending. What kind of impact do you anticipate on taxpayers and the Federal budget as a result of these programs?- yojiffyskippy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Those are much better written questions. Now if only he would answer them.
- scottc, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3The first "question" is not really a question - it's a statement being used as bait to get a reaction. Of course the writer knows that he won't get a reaction out of Obama. The reaction he wants is from his readers.
As you are probably aware, the National Journal tailors the criteria for its rankings so that the leading Democrat becomes the most "liberal". The point is to scare people who will hear their story without ever looking at the voting records.- yojiffyskippy, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Ok, so change it to "Given that you are one of the most liberal politicians in US politics, what liberal beliefs are you willing to compromise?" You can argue whether he's the #1most liberal or the #20th most liberal but that ploy is just "change the subject" politics. The bottom line is that to "reach across the isle" he will HAVE to compromise something. The bottom line is that it's a tough question and no politician can answer it honestly without committing political suicide.
- scottc, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1There is no need to answer a question that begins with a ridiculous opinion. As Obama often says "I reject the premise that....." and then he talks about something that matters instead of taking the bait.
If you are really interested in whether Obama can compromise or not just look at his record in the Illinois legislature or the US senate. He has demonstrated not just willingness to do so, but leadership by being the person to offer the compromise. You can even hear it in the way he answers questions and gives speeches - he tends to be more inclusive than any of the other candidates. (Of course that would be meaningless if he didn't have a record to back it up - i.e. Bush's campaign talk about being a "uniter" compared to his record in Texas.)
- scottc, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Also, I agree that McCain has a track record that would be called "centrist" in this country, which of course is conservative to the rest of the world. So does Obama. Right now each is pandering to the extremes to keep the party activists engaged - but that will change before November. It looks like we'll actually have two good choices in this election, at least compared to the ones we've had for the last couple of decades.
- truthhammer, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1That is true. He's not a afraid to do the unpopular thing. Look at the surge.
- mrsammercer, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6*used to be a centrist. Is not now. Now he's just pandering to the far right as much as he possibly can to get their approval. It's pathetic, really. I liked McCain up until 2004 or so, but he's sold his soul.
- SeafoodGumbo, on 04/11/2008, -4/+3Do you think the first question is a legitimate question that you would like to hear Obama answer?
- Flamancot, on 04/11/2008, -5/+3These are very bad questions. And you are a very bad man.
- kiddcode, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9You could just read his book "The Audacity of Hope", and find answers to many of your questions in his own words, probably not the ones specific to Jeremiah Wright though since that's too current. I'm surprised that people claim he hasn't stated positions on many issues, when it put them in a best selling book years ago.
- yojiffyskippy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Reading a politician's book isn't the best place to get an honest unbiased opinion. I'm also confident that anyone teetering on the political fence right now will not rush out and buy his book to help them make a decision.
- UpBeetRob, on 04/11/2008, -2/+9You'd vote for Bush again if you could wouldn't you?
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+9Town Hall is as Fair and as Balanced as Fox News. No slants there...noooooo, none at all
- SeafoodGumbo, on 04/11/2008, -9/+3McCain is more centrist than Obama who is a far-left candidate.
Why do you attack the source, but don't dispute the legitimacy of the specific questions?- Flamancot, on 04/11/2008, -0/+10"Given your past history of using cocaine, which is extremely addictive, would you be willing to regularly take drug tests during the campaign and when you're in the White House to insure Americans that you're not still using? "
Because they don't need to be disputed. These are awful questions to begin with, then simmered for eight hours over hate on medium heat.- truthhammer, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Whoa, didn't see that one...not cool
- serif69, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4Because the source shows no ability to be unbiased. Just like I don't take anything from rawstory or HuffPo seriously, I won't take anything from Fox News or Town Hall seriously. There are some of us who simply hate extremism.
- StarlessKnight, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2"Why do you attack the source, but don't dispute the legitimacy of the specific questions?"
By discussing the legitimacy of the questions, themselves, you give them the smallest bit of legitimacy in that their legitimacy need be debated in the first place. Given the cocaine question, these questions, and their intended purpose, need not be debated.
- Flamancot, on 04/11/2008, -0/+10"Given your past history of using cocaine, which is extremely addictive, would you be willing to regularly take drug tests during the campaign and when you're in the White House to insure Americans that you're not still using? "
- SeafoodGumbo, on 04/11/2008, -9/+3McCain is more centrist than Obama who is a far-left candidate.
- coyote1284, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5That question about Wright is just a disingenuous as asking "If you don't agree with your racist mother, why do you take your children to visit her?"
- truthhammer, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2Nonsense. You can't choose your mother. You DO choose your pastor.
- truthhammer, on 04/11/2008, -4/+4Legit quesitons for Mr Obama which, not surprisingly, he hasn't really been asked. No wonder you got dug down, lol.
- starkruzr, on 04/11/2008, -1/+4"* You've made unifying the American public and putting our political divisions behind us one of the central themes of your campaign. Yet, National Journal ranked you as the single most liberal senator in 2007. So, which liberal beliefs of yours are you willing to give up for unity's sake?"
What kind of completely pointless question is this? He has a record of working across the aisle and compromising. He worked with Tom Coburn to increase governmental transparency and accountability. You have a problem with this? http://www.usaspending.gov - br0ck, on 04/11/2008, -2/+7* You've made unifying the American public and putting our political divisions behind us one of the central themes of your campaign. Yet, National Journal ranked you as the single most liberal senator in 2007. So, which liberal beliefs of yours are you willing to give up for unity's sake?
You don't have to completely compromise your belief in something to reach a bi-partisan compromise to get things done. One of many examples of him doing that is when he managed to convince an extremely reluctant police force and governer that it was actually in their best interest to tape all police interviews.
* Along the same lines, John McCain has been behind numerous pieces of prominent bi-partisan legislation. So, if voters are looking for a candidate who can unify the country, wouldn't he be a better choice than you?
McCain and Obama both believe in working with the other party, but McCain's legislation and votes are for war with Iran, war with Iraq and torture.
* If you didn't agree with Jeremiah Wright's racist and anti-American views, why did you take your own children to his church and expose them to what he had to say?
99.9% of Jeremiah Wright's words weren't what you saw on YouTube and even what was there was completely out of context. For example, the 'come home to roost' comment was quoting an American diplomat and was actually a very thought provoking and truthful sermon: http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/218838
* If I may steal a question from Peter Weher, "With which elements, if any, of black liberation theology — as represented by Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ — do you strongly disagree? Do you think any of the core tenets of black liberation theology are racist?"
Do you really find this threatening: "Liberation theology is the effort to think clearly about the meaning of religious faith in the context of oppression, war, poverty, inequality and environmental destruction, and the effort to live a compassionate, courageous and life-sustaining response to those conditions, a response that both addresses the needs of those who are injured and oppressed, and also works to change the structures and ongoing processes of injury and oppression. iberation theology varies greatly according to the culture in which it arises, but its underlying themes are immediately recognizable across the world: the transformation of everyday life through a new awakening of compassion, courage, truthfulness and justice. It is a work in progress, born out of enormous pain and extraordinary hope, which is sure to inspire many and offend many. We hope you will be inspired by what you find here, and also that you will explore this world of thought and feeling with empathy and patience for the concerns of those with whom you may disagree." http://www.liberationtheology.org/
* Could black voters trust a white candidate to fairly represent their interests even if he attended an anti-black church and was close friends with a prominent white minister who was famously hostile to black Americans?
No, but Obama's church wasn't anti-white.
* John Conyers has said that he intends to "move legislation that could lead the federal government to apologize for slavery and pay reparations" if you become President. Would you support that legislation?
This is hilarious considering that one of Alan Keyes main campaign point in running against Obama was that Obama so vehemently opposed reparations. Maybe you could have tried Google on this one first.
* Given our budget deficit, how can you justify giving away 845 billion dollars of our tax money to other nations over the next 13 years via your Global Poverty Act?
That's 65 billion a year. Why do you multiply it over 13 years? Why not over 1000 years and call it 65 trillion? Anyway, help me out, I've read through the bill a few times and can't really figure out where that number is coming from. I can only find 25 billion split by 8 countries mentioned and can't find any other dollar values. Some conservative blogs put it at .7 percent of the GDP, but I can't figure out where they're seeing that. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...- yojiffyskippy, on 04/11/2008, -4/+1For the sake of the Obama camp, his response needs to be better than your response.
- serif69, on 04/11/2008, -2/+9These would be way better if they weren't so slanted. Some bring up good points, but they're way too Republican-biased to be taken seriously.
- BobKonysh, on 04/11/2008, -3/+6What does that matter, Gore lead Bush.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6that's the sad thing, really. McCain will probably win because the powers that be will make sure he's in.
- Sertis, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Exactly how I see it at this time..
- hardoff, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1McCain will probably win because the majority of people who vote in the USA are dimwits.
- yojiffyskippy, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1McCain will win because the Dems put up lame candidates. Just like 2000 and 2004.
- hardoff, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1McCain will probably win because the majority of people who vote in the USA are dimwits.
- yojiffyskippy, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1The Dems haven't lost (yet) and you're already placing the blame on the "powers".
- Sertis, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Exactly how I see it at this time..
- wacomwacoff, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Gore led Bush in all polls as well as the popular vote, yet mysteriously lost the election. I sincerely hope Obama can overcome the electoral college conspiracy.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6that's the sad thing, really. McCain will probably win because the powers that be will make sure he's in.
- fsjenkins2000, on 04/11/2008, -24/+12Don't be fooled Obama is the media's president, and he has DIGG in the palm of his hand. Digg me down Obama '08 DIGG squad.
- UpBeetRob, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5Ok
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+7That's my favorite thing to see in Digg. A Neocon will make his "1-2 one trick pony Punch" and then say "no digg me down." Wow, such a puss. Why don't you just stand by your argument instead of being a sissy and hiding behind "now digg me down."
- fsjenkins2000, on 04/11/2008, -8/+1Do you even know what a neocon is? I'll wait while you search google for a definition and then when you get back to me you can shut the ***** up. Thanks have a nice day, ***** face.
- zeabu, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1neo-conservative, no need for google.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3As a matter of fact, I've had a nice day...watching your bitch pussy ass getting dugg down...now you can go where your martyr flag that says FAIL on it.
- fsjenkins2000, on 04/11/2008, -8/+1Do you even know what a neocon is? I'll wait while you search google for a definition and then when you get back to me you can shut the ***** up. Thanks have a nice day, ***** face.
- jeremyduffy, on 04/11/2008, -2/+10Oh, you're such a martyr. Don't kid yourself. You're getting digged down because you stupidly make statements that Obama has somehow influenced digg users, not because there's some digg conspiracy.
- Flamancot, on 04/11/2008, -2/+5Not a problem. Buried
- AntBing, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Atleast they aren't sucking Ron Paul off anymore.
- vogelshock, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2I dugg you up, buddy. I completely agree that Digg.com is infested with partisanship on par with the worst of Fox News...
Digg me down, Obamanites!- zeabu, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1As a European, I'd like Obama to win.
McCain would 12 years or more of complete disaster, more 9-11 New York, more 7-7 London, more 3-11 Madrid, more Cassablanca... More problems in Israel+Palestina, more problems in Iraq, more problems in Iran, and because of that there would be one Giant warzone from Iraq, over Iran to Afghanistan, maybe triggering Nuclear Power Pakistan.
Hillary, she's too much a powermonger to be good. She proves that by not throwing in her towel, although it's clear she's second in the run.
That leaves us with Obama. who has been attacked with more dirty booby-trap lies, and yet, he maybe not gives the perfect answer, but the ones he gives is a second good, but a very genuine one. If you can be diplomatic in your replies to people who want nothing but you to fail, he'll do well with foreign countries who want to come to an agreement, but because cultural difference are difficult to cope with, as precarious these differences are. His proposal for a minimal health care, sound utter logical.
@Vogelshock, my "friend", there is no partisanship in my comment, just an outsider giving his view.
- zeabu, on 04/12/2008, -1/+1As a European, I'd like Obama to win.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/11/2008, -17/+21It will be so nice when the election is over and there isn't all this Obspama...
- worthone, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3Seriously, Obspama? I thought portmanteaux were supposed to ease up communication instead of making it more difficult.
- sponeil, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I agree with the sentiment, but I had to digg you down for that lame-ass pun.
- theaceoffire, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2It is probably just gonna go up once he becomes President.
- webyatri, on 04/11/2008, -2/+1I wouldn't be that hopeful. I would start bracing for 6 more months of diggobama and 4 more if he becomes the president. Digg will become more like diggobama
- phanophish, on 04/11/2008, -8/+21From a comment on the article....
"This is WILDLY inaccurate information. Please stop misleading people.
In Kansas, for example, by your estimate 732,680 votes were cast. That would be all fine and dandy, except for the fact that there are only 432,209 registered Democrats. Oops.
And Kansas is a closed primary, which means that independents wouldn't have been able to vote."
Obama supports don;t need to resort to the lies and misinformation that the Clinton campaign has in order to be successfull.- staticneuron, on 04/11/2008, -4/+3sooo..... um reblicans cannot vote for dems? or in your land the repubs will never vote for dems?
- Reylas, on 04/11/2008, -0/+7I am assuming this is serious, so here goes. In the fall election, you can vote for anyone, Democrat or Republican etc. But in the primaries, you can only vote for the party you are registered for. Consider this the pre-season. The real campaign starts in the fall.
- sigg14, on 04/11/2008, -2/+5did you not read "closed primary" ?
- JaronDiggGuy, on 04/11/2008, -3/+2many people (ie Republicans), sometimes at the behest of that douchebag, pill-popping Rush Limbaugh, switched party allegiances before the primaries in their state in order to vote for Hillary Clinton and prolong the Democratic nominee process.
- phanophish, on 04/11/2008, -1/+6No Republicans Can't vote for Democrats in the primary. They could register as Democrats the day of the election and participate in the Democratic primary, but the author of the article is using highly flawed logic to argue that Obama would have recieved 700k+ votes. It is simply not supported by the facts. By his logic nearly 50% of the entire population of Kansas voted in the Kansas Democratic primary and the state is mostly a Republican state (The Sec of States data indicates about 27% Dem and 45% Rep.) So out of 1.6 million Registered voters in Kansas, 740,000 are Republican. The authors numbers just do not add up.
Obama overwhelmingly won the Kansas Democratic Caucuses, there's not need to inflate the numbers.
- staticneuron, on 04/11/2008, -4/+3sooo..... um reblicans cannot vote for dems? or in your land the repubs will never vote for dems?
- alanr19, on 04/11/2008, -19/+12More pro-Obama propaganda spam. yayyy
I don't like any candidate running. But Seriously this ***** has to stop here on Digg.- coyote1284, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4Wait a few months
- diggduggDOOM, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3You must be a masochist to keep reading these threads and articles then.
Just can't stop yourself from clicking, can you? What's wrong with you? - behlib99, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Seems anytime anyone on digg doesn't like any candidate running for president, they get dugg down. Screw you guys.
- godd4242, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Haha did you give a ***** when it was Ron Paul?
- serif69, on 04/11/2008, -6/+15I like how the headline is "Don't Be Fooled" and the article is from the source of the most pro-bama articles on Digg. Don't worry, Huffington Post, I won't be fooled.
- graddatadda, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4Huffington is just slanting the other way. She's as bad as Town Hall and Fox News
- Hillsfar, on 04/11/2008, -5/+11I want to see Obama and his wife dancing at the Inaugural Ball in January 2009, dammit!
- RRJackson, on 04/11/2008, -9/+1Maybe they can tend bar instead? I'm sure McCain will be magnanimous.
- kent1146, on 04/11/2008, -6/+33I'm digging this down, for two reasons:
1) Unreliable source. The article author is using hypothetical reasoning to form a guess. I suspect that his motive is to create a sensationalist headline, and draw readers to his piddly newspaper with tiny circulation.
2) Irrelevancy to results. This democratic primary has clearly shown pre-election leads don't really mean squat. I'll wait until the ACTUAL results are out. - usgovterrorists, on 04/11/2008, -23/+1Don't be fooled, the elections are rigged!
Unsecure electronic voting machines and unsecure ballots equals rigged elections.
The power elites own all the horses in the race anyway, the election is pointless on many fronts.
Haven't you even noticed that all the politicians you vote for support the war, and NAFTA even though the public doesn't want it.
United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.
9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 was a lie! What happened to building 7?
Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!
Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!- alanr19, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7OMG teh ALIENZ riiginng our helicopters with uraniumz!!!!!!!!!!!!! we need megahurtz@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
. - sw33tsarin, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9Shut the ***** up. You post the same ***** in every political thread and its getting ridiculous.
- coyote1284, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5The dirt is not clean!
- usgovterrorists, on 04/11/2008, -5/+0It's the truth, and the terrorist United States Government knows it!
- JavanSClark, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1um.. tinfoil hat much?
- alanr19, on 04/11/2008, -1/+7OMG teh ALIENZ riiginng our helicopters with uraniumz!!!!!!!!!!!!! we need megahurtz@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Gloogle, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2To infinity and beyond!
- capainter, on 04/11/2008, -1/+9My Profile > Settings > Customize Topics > Unselect Political News, Political Opinion, & US Elections 2008.
Enough is enough for me.- SwampyUK, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3Sad to say, but you're right. As a Brit I'm interested in what's going on over in the US elections, but it's getting a bit tedious being hit over the head with the Obama-stick.
- GhostyBoy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I'm not there yet, but dugg for instructions that I will probably need sooner or later.
- Gloony, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Oblahmeh?
- SwampyUK, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3Sad to say, but you're right. As a Brit I'm interested in what's going on over in the US elections, but it's getting a bit tedious being hit over the head with the Obama-stick.
- RRJackson, on 04/11/2008, -9/+3The primary is within a percentage point or two even if this wild guess was accurate. As much as some of you would like to imagine it as a landslide for Obama, it's just not happening that way. It's going all the way to Denver where the DNC will order the supers to vote for Clinton in unison to avoid any chance of a brokered convention.
- JavanSClark, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1U hope.
- fani, on 04/11/2008, -0/+151-2 million votes ? Um... I love Obama, but c'mon...
is it 1 million or 2 million ? One # is 100% more than the other. We don't need sensationalist reporting, just basic facts.- brad3378, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Why do we need poll numbers? Can't we just base our votes on the issues?
- Po0py, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3Why are American elections so damn confusing?
- msliberty, on 04/11/2008, -2/+0The Democrats created this mess I believe in'92.
- goldstar10, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0Agreed! Seems like a way too long and expensive process.
- LeRenard, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3Because Americans think they live in a direct democracy, and don't understand they live in a representative democracy. These systems are a way to mask that fact, lest the public start getting cranky. On top of that, most Americans have no idea that "parties" are private groups, not part of the government, and are free to do whatever the heck they want right up to and including totally ignoring their votes.
- lewhich, on 04/11/2008, -4/+4I challenge McCain to bowling ... I bet he isn't any better than Bush 1 ... Hillbeast is clearly not even close.
BTW: the 3 AM phone rang 6 times and nobody picked it up because she realized Bill wasn't in bed- ileftfark, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5Just so you don't feel bad, I am also submitting a post devoid of any real content. Here. You're welcome.
- djcgmcse, on 04/11/2008, -0/+8Fool me once, shame on.. shame on.. If you get fooled, you can't get fooled again!
- ileftfark, on 04/11/2008, -0/+6"Since there is no exact number of how many votes are actually represented in a caucus, let's just round it out to 20 voters per delegate, out of morbid curiosity. That means each delegate, on average, represents about 20 people, and we will multiply the final tally by 20."
...don't mind the smell; the numbers came from my ass. - deuspater, on 04/11/2008, -1/+5While I'm a big Obama supporter, I still call BS on this article. 1. As pointed out above, the numbers even in the example they give don't add up for Kansas; their assumptions lead to more Democratic voters in Kansas than actually exist. 2. Their own exclusion of Texas, since those voters (in their words) are repeat voters from earlier in the day, invalidates their initial point -- the differing results between the caucus and primary in Texas show very clearly that whatever the caucus as an election forum was originally meant to be, it's become more a barometer of the most passionate voters than any form of generally representative government.
On the other hand, who cares? The Democrats have a system, the candidates were all educated on the system before the election, and one of them is doing the best job of winning within that system. Popular vote, for better or for worse, is not part of the equation. - Leader2light, on 04/11/2008, -8/+3In so SICK OF POLITICAL BS ON DIGG. JUST END THE ELECTION ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- starkruzr, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3Why don't you simply turn off the 2008 U.S. Elections category?
Maybe it's because you're a ***** moron.- alanr19, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Why don't you log out and pretend to be banned?
- starkruzr, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3Why don't you simply turn off the 2008 U.S. Elections category?
- rblancarte, on 04/11/2008, -0/+4Highly inaccurate - this is based on estimates.
To the Author - look, I know caucuses are not an exact science, but the fact is, the numbers were for people who turned out to caucus. They represent exactly one thing - themselves. They don't represent other voters or anything. The numbers reported are from the precincts that have records of voters, etc. This isn't the number of county delagets, etc. And even if it was, your numbers are WAY WAY off. Here in Texas, the place I caucused at received 63 county delegates, there were 450 people in the room. That is around 7.5:1.
I agree, not as many turn out to caucus, but by your logic, then people who didn't vote in the primaries are being represented by people that did vote, so why don't we just arbitrarily inflate the numbers even more? Add a zero to each voter total, and now Obama leads by 8 Million votes.
Buried - SEGA4life, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2www.diggobama.com : even if the "blog" is full of BS, digg it.
- alanr19, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Diggs influence on the democrat nomination is minimal. ~60% are ineligible to vote (under-age, not registered, foreign), roughly 15% republican, the rest number far too small to do any real good in the big picture.
Good hustle though.- stalefries, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1If Digg had any significant influence on politics, Ron Paul would've been a shoo-in last year.
- alanr19, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2Diggs influence on the democrat nomination is minimal. ~60% are ineligible to vote (under-age, not registered, foreign), roughly 15% republican, the rest number far too small to do any real good in the big picture.
- drmobutu, on 04/11/2008, -5/+3If Obama is going to win anyway, why should I vote for him? I kind of like supporting the underdog...and the Obama spam is getting increasingly obnoxious...
- JaronDiggGuy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+7You should never vote for who you think the winner or loser is going to be, it should always be based solely on your opinions and ideas, and what you believe in. That's why people wanted to vote for Ron Paul even though he never had a chance to begin with: it was to show the higher-ups in Congress that they believed in that kind of change. Vote for who you feel closest to on issues, and keep democracy going.
- chrissku, on 04/11/2008, -3/+5Oh Man! I used to have a lot of respect for the Clinton's before this Democratic Party nomination process began. I was even leaning towards Hilary Clinton in the beginning. However, I have lost a lot of respect for the Clinton's especially Bill Clinton. I understand that Bill is supporting his wife for the nomination, and rightly so. However, I perceive the Clinton's to be willing to say or do anything to win the nomination. The constant spin and stretching of the truth make them extremely disingenuous in my opinion
- msliberty, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4Face it, Hillary is gone!!!! She's staying till the end so suckers like Elton John can raise money for her to pay off her debts. Good riddance.
- liquidmetalband, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1The media knows what sheep the general public is, so will try and make out that Hillary still has a chance. Well she doesn't. Isn't it just obvious from the cult-like momentum that Obama has got (not necessarily good) that he is the clear popular candidate countrywide?
- WolverineBlue, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3Is it just me, or did the writer of the article just pull the number ten out of his ass, multiply everything by it, and call it good? I mean, I can see Hilary is losing, but I don't see the writer putting together any sort of well backed argument.
- JointVenture, on 04/11/2008, -8/+2Obama and Rev Wright believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Reference, Word of God, the book of "scriptures" he had his daughters studying on Easter Sunday.
Sure you're going to ignore this fact, problem is it really bothered you when Hucky spoke of God but you seem to be OK with it when Rev Wright and Obama say "I pray to Jeeeeeeeesus for guidance."
Hypocrisy.- pintomp3, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5obama - "I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry."
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/04/01/obam ...- JointVenture, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1You bought that? What do you think he says when hes in the pew?
Thats my point, he's two faced and plays the crowd. When its beneficial he says "praise Jeeeeeeeesus" when he's with the "progressives" he says "praise darwin".
Sucker.
- JointVenture, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1You bought that? What do you think he says when hes in the pew?
- JaronDiggGuy, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2It's one thing to pray to a God they believe in, it's another thing to wrecklessly set out on a platform that says it will change the ***** Constitution to fit the Bible. Don't be such an atheist douchebag. We know, we know, you're 'edgy'.
I'm an atheist too, but that doesn't mean that it's grounds for immediately counting someone out, at least not all the time. Fact of the matter is we're not going to see an atheist president do well in a general election for a long time to come, and you should get used to that.
Douchebag.- JointVenture, on 04/11/2008, -1/+1Im not an atheist, Im an anti-hypocrotist.
- pintomp3, on 04/11/2008, -0/+5obama - "I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry."
- theredrobin, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2What counts is the total delegates they get. Caucuses, directly elected, or super delegates. Besides, in the remaining primaries Hillary does have a chance to overrun Obama because she managed to turn the race to the race issue (pun intended) and the remaining states have large number of low income whites who traditionally have not move forward on race as much as the rest of the country.
- stalefries, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1I know, let's bury theredrobin because he is saying something logical! Hurrah!
- junkwheel, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2This race is corporate power vs the people.
If the nomination or general election is stolen from Obama then the international bank controlled government should be overthrown.- scamper22, on 04/11/2008, -2/+0sorry, corporations don't force me to buy their product.
For me, I fear Obama's union power much more than I fear corporate power. I can always CHOOSE not to buy a car or use gasoline.
I have no choice if Obama raises taxes or decides to spend money on any number of his fantastical ponies and candies he been promising.
Bush was just as bad of course.
This race is not about corporate power vs the people.
It's about the special interests (including corporations, unions, teachers, police, family values...) against the people. - hope4god, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0Junk, Obama is just as much as a corporate guy has the rest he is not a great guy so shake yourself, do you want a muslim hating America guy in the white house? or a bold face Lesbian lying scum like Hilary? how about a decorated Vietnam POW American who his whole family has spent their entire life protecting this great country America? NOT SELLING IT OUT LIKE Osama and Clinton just a thought..............
- scamper22, on 04/11/2008, -2/+0sorry, corporations don't force me to buy their product.
- pintomp3, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2hillary has all but lost, there is no need to start playing fuzzy math. she's been doing it and it's still not helping her.
- brownrecluse888, on 04/11/2008, -4/+0The race is NOT over....its still very close, clinton doesnt have a big chance of winning, but she has a chance. If she wins big in Penn. and wins most of the other states its a new race. Plus, it actually HELPS, yes HELPS Obama that clinton stays in. It is helping hone his political skills that he will definately need to run against the far right karl rove finely tuned political machine. You can thank your lucky glass of Obama Kool Aid that the Rev. W. story came out during the primary and not the general election. If it had, man, that could have been the end of Obama when McCain and his Bush crownies and there dirty bags o' tricks got thru with that one. If Obama can't handle campaigning a little more with Clinton, how in the world do you think he can beat McCain? Plus, all of these debates have definately made Obama a far more effective debater, go back and watch the first few now watch him now, he can now go toe to toe with the best debaters out there.
- rowlodge, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2the news media is so hooked on "polls", they can make it seem like hillary is ahead in anyway they want.
- Schmapdi, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3While the numbers don't really mean anything, the spirit of the article is accurate. All the people tallying the popular vote ignore the fact that if Obama won the caucus he most likely would win the primary too (especially considering how much he dominated in most of them) and therefore would be up in the popular vote substantially more than he already is excluding them.
- Asheis, on 04/11/2008, -2/+3Okay, I'm a big Obama supporter, and there's no way I could stand McCain or Hillary in office, but Huffington Post? They're notoriously Obama-biased. That's all I ever see from them. I can't take them as a realistic news source, in all truth. Buried.
- whodat51773, on 04/11/2008, -4/+3They're both fatally flawed...Clinton because America already knows her, Obama because the more America gets to know him the less they like him.
- zspade, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3You just said copied and pasted this comment from this very thread, and a reply to foxhaze from yourself. Jwoey debunked it handily with the following reply:
"Evidence would support the opposite is true of Obama. The more awareness people have of Obama, the more they like him. Take a look at polling in every state (even the one's he ultimately loses) 1 month prior to their primaries, and compare it to the actual results. Once he starts campaigning, people start coming over to his side."
there, now your ctrl-c/ctrl-v ways have been used against you.- whodat51773, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1The more money Obama spends trying to invent himself the better John McCain's chances in the general election. The democrats blew it! With either of these nominees they have suceeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
- zspade, on 04/11/2008, -0/+3You just said copied and pasted this comment from this very thread, and a reply to foxhaze from yourself. Jwoey debunked it handily with the following reply:
- rockets, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING
- mojonandha, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1What are the immigration/anti-immigration policies of all three in the run for president now?
- dmark77, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1"In fact, Obama leads in the popular vote by anywhere between 2 million to 3 million voters. How is this possible? The reason lies in the ever elusive math of the Democratic caucus."
Is it 1 to 2 million votes, or 2 to 3 million? - ahalbert, on 04/11/2008, -2/+4The amount of Obama articles on this sight is getting really old
- bernlin2000, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1The election is going dry...people are tired of hearing about it. I'd like the news to take a 4 month break: come back in September a few months before we vote and cover Obama vs McCain. Nobody wants to hear about Clinton anymore, she's finished.
- Seldon2639, on 04/11/2008, -0/+2This is what's called "bad math". The Caucus system is so massively different from a primary in terms of how it functions, and the way it creates delegates, that to try to find a way to compare one caucus vote to one primary vote is a little insane. There's also a strong rural tilt in the Iowa caucuses, we should account for that. But, more generally, due to the caucus system, fewer votes correspond to more delegates. That seems undemocratic, but whatever. Actually, in Texas, Hillary won more votes overall, but won fewer delegates. So, Huffington Post, which has also supported the abolition of the electoral college, which is more important: having won the right number of people in the right places, or having won more people over all?
- ljkelley, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Actually it is totally flawed. If you count all the votes currently including FL and MI then Hillary is in the lead. But going back to Caucuses. Lets say your meeting had 3 delegates. People split up and Obama get roughly 51% and Hillary gets 49% of the people. Obama gets 2 delegates (most likely) and Hillary gets 1. So you can't just multiply delegates to get votes, just like how Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but Bush 'won' more Electoral Votes.
But hey... delude yourself and digg me down. Its amazing to me how many people get this though, like when I was car shopping yesterday and ended up talking politics. The Democratic party has really messed up, and if things goes like they probably will then I will have a hard decision to make in November on who to vote for. - ralph12c41, on 04/11/2008, -1/+3Buried. Huffington Post isn't legit source for objective political news regarding election.
- nomad3d, on 04/11/2008, -1/+2Buried... Don't believe some biased reporter writing for a rag that's not good enough to wipe with...
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by