digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Hillary's Approval Rating Plummets In NBC/WSJ Poll

huffingtonpost.com — As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37% positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ksjohnso, on 03/27/2008, -5/+205She's going down
    • Herrold, on 03/27/2008, -3/+67But not on Bill!
    • SuperWinner, on 03/27/2008, -13/+3Nope, on another old broad.
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 03/27/2008, -3/+49Too bad she still won't drop out. Its as if she is trying to help McCain.
      • Wargalas, on 03/27/2008, -0/+20Who's to say she isn't? :)
        • coviecarbine, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5Or she is just blinded by her quest for power.
      • heypetray, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1The feminists would rip her apart if she did that. That's really the only reason I see her staying in til the bitter end. Save Face and fight the man.
      • stretch611, on 03/27/2008, -0/+11If Obama fails to win against McCain, Hillary can try to run in 2012. If Obama wins it all, he will become the de-facto candidate in 2012 which means Hillary won't get the chance to run until 2016 when she would be nearly 70years old. (and more than likely have to fight the democratic VP at the time for the candidacy at that time)

        Essentially, if Obama wins the election in 2008, Hillary's dream of ever becoming president has no hope.
    • trispear, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Not on me, I hope.
    • xenuxenuts, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7faster than monica.
    • Gorgamel, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Funny, it sounded like she was already down as far as inhumanly possible according to the digg community.
      • betterth, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4With the political demographics that Digg mainly represents, she already is. However, her core demographics are also leaving her, bit by bit, which is why this is interesting.
        • aussiejan, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Her core demographics being older women and less educated men (blue collar workers). I expect that the latter will never see past the colour of Obama's skin or the foreign sound of his name but I've always believed that women are generally more ethical than men and much as they want to see a woman in the white house, I expect that many of them are coming to realize that this is not the right woman.
        • Paradoxymoron, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Visually, Obama seems to have less electability (his skin and his name), and so Hillary had suppourt from the Democrats who weren't really paying attention and the hard-core feminists. Now that people are actually taking a second look, they're realizing that Hillary is a total fraud who's campaign is about to go under and that Obama is a brilliant man with a lot of potential.
    • corneliusJones, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7I just hope she leaves the race before she brings the rest of the party down with her.
    • CelloZach, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Like a clown
    • sylvok, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5***** THE MPAA...
      Woops wrong topic...
      ***** HILLARY
    • milliamp, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1She better take evasive action!
  • RickHavoc, on 03/27/2008, -1/+110like a deflating parade balloon.
    • inigomntoya, on 03/27/2008, -2/+11Yeah, like one of those scary clown balloons.
    • jabberwolf, on 03/27/2008, -13/+2What was the poll question?
      I wonder if the below had anything to do with the results? DUH!
      "In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions"
      Buried for grossly inaccurate
      • jpbitzer, on 03/27/2008, -1/+16It's fun to make comments about things you don't understand.

        Oversampling means the polling data for that group is more accurate; groups are then correctly weighted for the composite result.
      • fluxion, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5quit yo jibba jabba
    • LuxFX, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1like a flan in a cupboard
    • SenorCardgage74, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Can we please have a grown-up political discussion without referring to the senator's genitalia?
    • senatorpjt, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3A balloon shot by a sniper?
  • soot, on 03/27/2008, -4/+177LIKE A ROCK

    OHHHH LIKE A ROCK
    • kahakauai, on 03/27/2008, -12/+2sinking..... like a rock...
    • chrisaug18, on 03/27/2008, -2/+9I guess she's not built ford tough
      • ZannaDiosa, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Isn't "Like a Rock" from a Chevy ad campaign?
      • chrisaug18, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Ahh crap...see that's where downloading all your shows off the internet get you ;)
    • lilianatota, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5This is our country!
    • mrwalsh, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1The Clintons are American on the outside, Chinese on the inside.
      • Paradoxymoron, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6What the *****?
      • IntegralKing, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0if by outside, you mean rude and shady, then yes
    • quamsta, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6"I’m not so sure how “solid as a rock” helps people forget the fact that we built houses in Iraq."
    • iDHype, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Dugg for being so ***** funny
  • bitfreak, on 03/27/2008, -11/+249Dropping...faster than Bill's pants at an White House intern convention.
    • provost, on 03/27/2008, -0/+26I would have gone with a layne bryant changing room, but yours works great too!
    • bjs3171, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4HA!
    • geddon, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5....faster than a president who supports torture and imperial war over the health of our... wait, he's still in office.
      • forgiste, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1It already feels like Obama has taken over. It's weird.
    • DeucesWild, on 03/27/2008, -2/+11That 'an' you have in there just bugs me.
      • BigLLamasHouse, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2yeah, he had it all typed out and then had to go add 'White House' in there without changing the goddamn article. bastard
  • rhabd0mancer, on 03/27/2008, -6/+688Please don't count out Hillary yet. She's been in tough situations before. Like that time she was under sniper fire in Bosnia.
    • stevetrojanman, on 03/27/2008, -2/+63My pick for quote of the day right there...
      • TimDigg, on 03/27/2008, -1/+24I keep saying they need a quote of the day feature
    • Mootabolife, on 03/27/2008, -3/+17Looks like she kept her cool to me...

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
    • cambob76, on 03/27/2008, -45/+1That was LIE rhabd0mancer... come on. Didn't you see the 29 articles about it on the front page? :P
      • atheistp3ace, on 03/27/2008, -1/+24I think he was being sarcastic.
        • brstilson, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5I think cambob was being sarcastic, too. He put a :P at the end of his post.
        • Paradoxymoron, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I think that cambob was being sarcastic, I also think that I'm restating the obvious.
      • cambob76, on 03/27/2008, -10/+14I know. Jesus, I wasn't serious.
        • OrangeSoda31, on 03/27/2008, -5/+23Your sarcasm sucks.
        • flossdaily, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Yes, you were.
        • Paradoxymoron, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1Or you guys can't recognize sarcasm, it's a common language comprehension disorder.
      • MattNF, on 03/27/2008, -13/+2Buried for use of annoying emoticons.
      • twertyto, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1TROLL
    • rand0mm0nkey, on 03/27/2008, -0/+13You made me spit out my coffee laughing.... thanks for that!
    • Eloosive, on 03/27/2008, -0/+15In Bosnia, "Sniper Fire" is an euphemism for "Many little girls with Poems". She was only using poetic license, which she learned from the trip. Nothing wrong with that!
      • noahhoward, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5It's all a part of her foreign policy experience...

        ... wait, what part of getting shot at counts as foreign policy experience anyway?
        • pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9it counts about as much as getting tortured does.
      • laserdog, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4In fairness, the little girls *were* reading Vogon poetry...

        (edit: doh, Idenity4 totally beat me to this below)
    • geddon, on 03/27/2008, -20/+1*applauds* Way to be a tool in an MSM smear campaign! *applauds*
      • betterth, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8Are you implying that publicizing her repeated lies is a smear campaign?

        Fact: Hillary Clinton lied to the public on several occasions to trick voters into thinking she was more experienced and better suited for the White House than she is. Just like she deceived voters in Ohio that she was against NAFTA, and won a lot of support there, regardless of the fact that she was a player in the original passing of NAFTA.
        • heypetray, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Fact: Betterth can sound like Dwight off of The Office.
          • betterth, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Really? That's actually a show I've never seen. I've never been a huge Steve Carrel fan, so I never bothered to watch it.

            Regardless, all I'm saying is that the similarity is coincidental, since I don't know who 'Dwight' is :P
      • geddon, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1You didn't put those facts together on your own: MSM packaged them in a series of sound bytes that you have elected to repeat. I want to know who is responsible for putting together all of these tasty little anti-Clinton morsels. They've certainly got more money and influence than your average Digger!
        • noahhoward, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Who is responsible for them??? HILLARY ***** CLINTON!
          Are you telling me you would prefer these bis of information DIDN'T come to light? No one forced the first bitch to lie on camera, no one forced her to lie to cover up that lie. No one forced her to run a campaign of negativity. If she had any experience to run one she would have never needed to attack her opponents. For someone to come along and suggest that this is a smear simply because the media happened to pick up on the highly obvious fact that she's a lying cow is beyond stupid.
        • geddon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I lost my faith the moment Eliot Spitzer was painted out to be a lying whore without any consideration for the article he wrote in the Washington Post detailing how the Bush administration helped cause the subprime housing crisis. Nothing in the article was half as tantalizing as the hookers on parade -- and the SAME is true of Clinton. When someone digs up a sound byte that contradicts itself, we all play the part of a mouthpiece for MSM. It's effing embarrassing.
      • Paradoxymoron, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Geddon, you might want to sit down, you just got pwned pretty hard.
        • geddon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1It's impossible to get pwned by MSM mouthpieces repeating the same sound bytes over and over and over again. It would be like giving the hand to a record player -- really, only one party is mentally active in such a scenario.
    • drbadass, on 03/27/2008, -0/+12haha i literally logged in just to digg that.
    • whalt, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8Where's Sinbad when you need him?
    • asskicker32, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6solid gold!

    • Identity4, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Well, lets play devil's advocate here... Do any of us actually KNOW what the poems were? They could have been reciting vogon poetry, in which case her life may have well been in danger!
      • karmicfreak, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Oh, frettled grunt-buggly, thy micturations are to me... (from memory, hopefully right)
    • DiggLive, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6It wasn't just sniper fire. It's sniper fire she could Xerox!
    • skyh, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1You can even win in IRONY!

      TOP SCORE!!
    • eddiefirmage, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0nice.
    • Bulk70, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Clearly you win the comments of this story.
  • Herrold, on 03/27/2008, -4/+29Its not just plummeting in a poll, its also falling amongst actual living US citizens.
    • jabberwolf, on 03/27/2008, -13/+2What was the poll question?
      I wonder if the below had anything to do with the results? DUH!
      "In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions"
      Buried for grossly inaccurate
      • PhillipJFry, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7You dumbass,

        It oversampled African-Americans in order to be able to draw statistically significant conclusion in the polling done exclusively in the African-American community. For the overall polling they are NOT oversampled..
      • bbatsell, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9Just as a general rule, you probably shouldn't comment on something that you clearly know nothing about.
    • BossKey, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Good lord, the poll included dead Americans?
    • Reaper2806, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I'm meeeellltiiiiiiiiiiing
  • InfamousAtheist, on 03/27/2008, -10/+87That's what happens when you get caught making ***** up.
    I'm all for Hillary falling flat, but this poll seems questionable (like so many of them do). Only 700 voters plus oversampling of African Americans? Only a pollster could say that makes the results more accurate.
    • samk, on 03/27/2008, -0/+19Polls are adjusted for demographics, so oversampling DOES NOT mean that African-Americans are given more representation in the results.

      The oversampling is done so that you have meaningful numbers in the smaller cells, such as a particular age/demographic group. If you have just 3 people in your sample who are African-American, 18-25, and Democratic, you can't draw meaningful conclusions from their answers.
      • saska, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1111% of respondents in the poll were AA. 13.4% of the US population is AA.
    • locamama, on 03/27/2008, -16/+1So I would assume that this means she's falling with the black's which isn't a surprise. Obama's their man - mostly. There are still some with sense enough to support Hillary.
      • stan205, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5".... with the blacks", the blacks...hmmmm. That doesn't have any hint of bigotry. None...at...all.

        /sarcasm
      • betterth, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3With some sense?

        By the fact that you support Hillary through her deceit, treachery and lies, we can see that you have no sense. You want a deceitful, treacherous, lying President. You voted for Bush, huh?
    • DeathMote, on 03/27/2008, -5/+0There's an awful lot of anti-Hillary articles on Huffington Post being submitted to digg anyway
    • HellDonut, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1While I agree somewhat, many polls so far have had similar low numbers. 700 is a bit below the average, I'd say, but still on par.
      http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
    • WhatInThe42o, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1What's wrong with a little poll smoking?
  • khail250, on 03/27/2008, -1/+301"Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think."

    No, i was pretty sure it was hillary
    • chrisatwork, on 03/27/2008, -1/+47Seriously, who would think its Obama? God I hate journalists that assume their opinion is the popular opinion.
      • MacEnvy, on 03/27/2008, -0/+19You just defined "pundit".
      • pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -1/+13they had been working overtime playing wright's comments in an endless loop on the cable news. they just assumed all their hard work would help hillary. the surprise is "we tried so hard it take him down and it didn't work".
        • senatorpjt, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3They're all saying "God Damn America" to themselves.
    • noclss2000, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2as did I, which was what I was hoping to see anyways.
      Down with the succubus!
    • rewquio, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3They're still hung up on the Wright scandal. The original article had 5 paragraphs devoted to Obama and Wright and not one that mentioned Hillary's "misstatements" about Bosnia.
      • Aensland, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Someone needs to forward them that video.
  • elint6, on 03/27/2008, -13/+27FTA: "In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll...."
    • ericthegreat, on 03/27/2008, -11/+12Saw that too. I'm no Hillary fan but this had to have some affect on the number.
      • aliengoods, on 03/27/2008, -2/+34No, it didn't. If anything it made it more reliable. Here's how it works.

        Say Black people are 10% of the country, Latinos are 10%, and Whites are 80%. If you poll 1000 people at random, you're going to be polling 100 blacks, 100 latinos and 800 whites. Now say you want to know how blacks as a voting block feel about a candidate or an issue. 100 black people isn't enough to get reliable information from that group, so you poll 500 blacks, but their cumulative answer still only counts for 10% of the total. Oversampling is done to get more accurate information from smaller groups, not to bias it one way or another.
      • noahhoward, on 03/27/2008, -5/+3If you assume everyones opinion is affected by race, then sure.
    • stealthboy, on 03/27/2008, -15/+5In other words: "we messed with the sample group until we got the answer we were looking for". And yet this poll will affect voters more than any fact, no doubt. Anyone else sick of the "measurement affecting the outcome" syndrome that politics and the media seem to have? I guess it's the stupid people that listen to what the media says to inform their decisions... but still, I wish the media didn't shape so much of the outcome.

      All the media has to do is print a headline "Candidate A is slipping in the polls!". Soon enough, people think Candidate A must not be very good, and people hate siding with the failing side, so they'll switch to Candidate B. Pretty soon Candidate A is *actually* slipping in the polls.
      • aliengoods, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7Um, no. You clearly don't understand oversampling. See my post above.
      • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5Go learn statistics.
    • jeopardydd, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3I believe that what they do is then weight it against what the numbers would be without the oversampling. For instance, discounting the final numbers by the difference between the black and non-black results multiplied by the percent they oversamples the black vote by (or something like that).

      Can anybody confirm that they properly weighted it after the oversampling of the black vote?

      • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Unless their regression analysis was outsourced to fifth graders, that's exactly what they did.
    • truthisjustalie, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8From saska's link below:

      Interviews: 800 total interviews
      Crossection of 700 registered voters
      Oversample of 100 African American voters
      Total of 177 African American voters

      Meaning the overall percentages that African Americans represent was not enlarged. They just averaged (or something like that) all 177 black opinions but only counted them as 100 opinions. It makes the black subsection of the poll statistically significant, and the only way it skews the overall poll is that 1.77 black people = 1 black person in the final results. As jeopardydd says...

      http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/W ...
      • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Yeah but dumbasses on freerepublic.com will still think that if you poll MORE people you stand a greater chance of getting the estimate or some such *****.

        It's funny how conservatives almost never seem to understand sampling methodology. If I had a nickel for every time one of them said "bbbbut they only sampled 1200 people - how can THAT be accurate?"
        • EtherGnat, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Sadly there are idiot liberals that say the same thing.
      • tastypaste, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Blacks are worth 3/5 of an opinion.

        *waits to get dugg down by morons who don't understand the reference.*
    • geddon, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2They should have oversampled me in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on bullsh!t polls.
      • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Because your opinion is *****?
      • avidwriter, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0hey, this sample says you're a moron
      • geddon, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1hey, the real sample says that John McCain never had more than 20 percent approval rating. the "reliable cross-tab" is bullsh!t.
    • jbdobd, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Over-Sampled, Not Over-Represented:
      There is a big difference in polling terminology. The pollster has released a memo explaining, as we suspected, that while blacks were oversampled to be able to get a statistically reliable subgroup for answers to questions specific to black voters, the horse race numbers were corrected for this oversampling and did not over-represent blacks.
  • saska, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7PDF poll results: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/W ...
    • pianomahnn, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Thanks for that. I was giving it a detailed look, and found the number of indy voters who will wait until the general election to vote sad. Indeed, voting in a Democrat or Republican primary isn't being indy, but neither will voting for either a Democrat or Republican nominated candidate.
      *sigh*
    • geddon, on 03/27/2008, -4/+1Those figures look as scientific as my ass (which has been said to be quite scientific by some).
    • jbdobd, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Over-Sampled, Not Over-Represented:
      There is a big difference in polling terminology. The pollster has released a memo explaining, as we suspected, that while blacks were oversampled to be able to get a statistically reliable subgroup for answers to questions specific to black voters, the horse race numbers were corrected for this oversampling and did not over-represent blacks.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 03/27/2008, -0/+36Awk, She canna take much more o'this captain... She'll fly us all apart!
  • fuhcough, on 03/27/2008, -4/+61i believe i speak for the majority when i say "Woohoo!"
  • pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -3/+59lying tends to do that.
    • corneliusJones, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Yet somehow Bush got re-elected...go figure
  • digitallysick, on 03/27/2008, -6/+28Who is hillary? wasn't she running for president a while back. Didn't know she was still around...
    • seand, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Hillary...Nadar...same thing. :)
      • james2die4, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2If she keeps up with tearing down Obama, Hillary will be the Ralph Nader of 2008.
    • wdfadude, on 03/27/2008, -8/+2Yep, she was running for president and even beating Obama in polls as of last week. The whole Democratic party is going down the crapper...
      • digitallysick, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2The rest of us live in the real world where obama is the clear winner.
  • Soulbow2, on 03/27/2008, -4/+36Her approval ratings are down already? She isn't even in office yet!
    • stretch611, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4At least her ratings are twice as good as GWB's!!! :)
    • 80hd, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I think rush limbaugh did a good job if making sure that Obama would become the winning democratic candidate. It wouldn't surprise me if a good number of true dems switched their primary vote from Clinton to Obama since Rush essentially labeled Hillary as guaranteed for last place, causing his idea to totally backfire.

      Oh yeah and the whole lying thing too....
  • inobla, on 03/27/2008, -5/+33Most excellent and rightly deserved. Her numbers need to continue downward the toward 0% percent mark.

    Vote NO on Billary.
    • ssn697, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I loved the "How trustworthy" poll numbers. McCain and Obama both mid-60's. Hillary low 40's...
    • inobla, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Damn. 26 digs? I figured I'd be buried and laughed at by a mob of Clinton supporting Grammar Nazi's.
  • EndersGame21, on 03/27/2008, -28/+8At least she didn't invade a country...
    • airburst, on 03/27/2008, -0/+10What the ***** does that have to do with anything?

      And technically she did invade a country when she voted for the resolution on Iraq. Despite what you might think, Bush didn't cause the invasion all by himself.
      • BossKey, on 03/27/2008, -5/+1That doesn't matter. Congress could not have voted on it if the Bush administration had not pushed so damn hard to initiate it.
        • jjmelch, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3If she had invaded another country, it probably would have been Bosnia again anyway.
        • airburst, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1What was stopping them from voting no? That's what a vote is. If they all had voted no there would be no war right now. How doesn't that matter?
    • Lugano, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4yet...
    • Identity4, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4At least Bush didnt exterminate millions of Jews... See? I can play the dumbass game too!
    • EndersGame21, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Wow, this would be an example of a little joke gone terribly wrong :P
  • Hypersapien, on 03/27/2008, -5/+25Good. She shouldn't be president.
    • davidlow, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7If such a huge "misstatement" is what happens when she's a little sleep deprived, imagine her answering the phone at 3AM.
      • jjmelch, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Neither Hillary or Obama should be President. Unfortunately, John McCain Shouldn't be either, Oh *****!
  • carl6855, on 03/27/2008, -2/+46"...but it's not the candidate that you think". It's -exactly- the candidate I expected to slip given recent stumbles on her part.
    • csteele, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2stumbles?!? mate, when people run around making BLATANT lies, it ain't a stumble.
  • samk, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Here's the original article:
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/ ...
  • jwiesenborn, on 03/27/2008, -1/+25"As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think."

    who else could it possibly be?
  • casuallyevil, on 03/27/2008, -17/+4Of course the WSJ headline to this (it's own poll) was "Democrats Are Tied in New Poll." It's pretty cool that HPo can figure out how to find the one number in that document to which they can assign the "plummets" and "Hillary" tags... good thing nobody diggs based on headlines, right?
  • HoratioHellpop, on 03/27/2008, -15/+3"approval rating" for running in a primary? I thot those only came in after being elected ...
  • Ell3, on 03/27/2008, -54/+5Too bad the polls don't pick the nominee. The Democrat Super-Delegates will determine the Democrat nominee, not the polls. It's highly unlikely that the Super-Delegates will pick an extremely liberal black man with a Muslim name.
    • mtjohnson, on 03/27/2008, -3/+20LOL CRY MORE NEWB
    • mustbepatient, on 03/27/2008, -0/+21Obama and Clinton are actually pretty close in terms of superdelegates so far, and of course Obama is way ahead in terms of pledged delegates.
      • argaen21, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Ya considering he start at minus a hundred something super delegates to begin with, I'd say he is beating the paintsuit off that beeyotch.
    • Chassit, on 03/27/2008, -1/+28You really aren't very intelligent, are you?
    • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -1/+26Whats wrong with a muslim name? Oh I forget ..they're satan worshipers. /s

      Sometimes, I can't tell if you're a Clinton supporter or just a *****-for-brains christian fundamentalist.
      • Ell3, on 03/27/2008, -21/+1Neither, just a realist.
        • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -3/+15Well then..buried for being a christian fundamentalist realist. (if there was a thing). Bye bye.
        • webdeshel, on 03/27/2008, -4/+2If being a fundamentalist makes someone fair game to be public attacked for their beliefs, than I publicly attack you for being a fundamentalist liberal.
          • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2what?? Never heard of a "fundamentalist liberal". You can't just make up a word.

            Burying you for talking out of your ass.

        • SlapTard, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9Neither, just a douchebag.
    • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9Then how does she only have 35 more superdelegates than him?
      • Ell3, on 03/27/2008, -9/+1The Super-Delegates do not have to commit until the convention. You are seeing nothing but political posturing now.
        • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6I'm seeing her leading in pledged superdelegates by only a narrow (and narrowing) margin.

          You have zero empirical evidence to back your assertion and your claim relies on the unfounded and illogical assumption that Dem superdelegates are more bigoted than rank and file Dem voters. D-
    • buhbyebot, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Got think much?
    • jotate, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Wanna bet? Seriously, I could use the extra cash.
  • RRJackson, on 03/27/2008, -32/+3And yet she'll still be the DNC nominee. Funny how polls don't paint the whole picture.
    • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -2/+14Hillary's douche bowl speaks. RRJackson..I seriously want you to win the prize for the most buried guy on digg. You are amazing! and now here's my contribution..Buried!
      • RRJackson, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Like agreeing with the majority is a badge of honor. The top four slots in the Nielsens last week were occupied by two nights of American Idol and two nights of Dancing with the Stars. If you look around and notice that a lot of people agree with you there's a fairly good chance that it's because you're a moron just like they are.
    • offspring06, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9The only way she'll win the nomination is if the super delegates vote her in. She won't catch up in the pledge delegates.
      • RRJackson, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1Neither of them will have enough pledged delegates by Denver. The only way either of them will get the nod will be through the supers.
    • eviltandem, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2oh thank fsm. All I had was professional statisticians taking samples of people's opinions to base this on.

      When will we all learn that the only opinion that matters is RRJackson?
      • RRJackson, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1Not my opinion. Look at the facts. Neither candidate will have enough delegates by Denver and one of the candidates is married to an ex-POTUS. Think.
    • Unriggable, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Funny how delegates do.
  • Ringding3, on 03/27/2008, -2/+9Good news
    • SpeshulEd, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1I figured out what that thing you just incinerated did. It was a morality core they installed after I flooded the enrichment center with a deadly neurotoxin to make me stop flooding the enrichment center with a deadly neurotoxin. So get comfortable while I warm up the neurotoxin emitters.
  • EarlOfLade, on 03/27/2008, -1/+16Hillary needs a good RickRoll!
    Lies after lies after lies and tears after tears after ... Just wait until the week of the next primary and Hillary will be crying again.
    • locamama, on 03/27/2008, -7/+1No, that will be Obama. Hillary is going to win PA. It's just a question of by how much.
      • pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4she would have to win every remaining state by at least 60% to catch him in the pledged delegate count and the popular count. that's not going to happen. she is trying to get pledged delegates to go against the voters, but that will end up in a meltdown of the party.
    • OrangeSoda31, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1We need to do it just like this http://xkcd.com/351/
  • Truckondo, on 03/27/2008, -3/+18And there was much rejoicing!
    • jabberwolf, on 03/27/2008, -5/+1What was the poll question?
      I wonder if the below had anything to do with the results? DUH!
      "In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions"
      Buried for grossly inaccurate
      • Kyan, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Yet another person who knows nothing about statistics. I'd bury you for grossly misunderstanding the idea of oversampling, but I'm feeling sympathetic to fifth-graders today.
      • zazzalicious, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2You shouldn't keep posting this comment. The over sampling is done for reliability amongst small groups. The clever pollsters weight the results proportionately so the outcome is not affected. It's standard practice.
        Also, the poll shows white voters as more negative towards Hilary than other groups! So, if they had over represented African Americans (which they didn't) in the results, that would have made her poll numbers better! sigh.
      • avidwriter, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1another uneducated ignorant waste of space product of middle-trash america. oh wait that's clinton country right ?
  • MasterJeweler, on 03/27/2008, -3/+33it's good that hillary's finally got something to go down on her...
    • GhostyBoy, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7*pukes*
    • darnit, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I see what you did there.
      • aristideau, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I see "I see what you did there" alot, is it meant to be funny? or does it mean that you get the joke, and if so why state it?
  • SpeshulEd, on 03/27/2008, -26/+9Ron Paul!
  • jjcyber, on 03/27/2008, -17/+4Old news is old.
  • ybotoby, on 03/27/2008, -5/+5that's exactly who I thunk
  • MikeFallopian, on 03/27/2008, -25/+7"In addition, we oversampled African-Americans". That really says it all right there. If you oversample a group that overwhelmingly supports Obama it's pretty damn obvious that Clinton's popularity will be lower than before. Not surprisingly, other polls don't show this effect.
    • SpeshulEd, on 03/27/2008, -0/+12That's not how statistics works. They oversampled blacks to get a more accurate view of their demographic, but they keep their percentage of the population the same. So while they sampled more blacks, each black individual's view will weigh less in the end.
    • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9I love it when know-nothings try to analyze statistics.
      • Aensland, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1That wasn't even an analysis, just more shooting from the hip.
  • oscenester, on 03/27/2008, -9/+10The Clintons are well known for things going down on them.
  • LiquidCure, on 03/27/2008, -2/+26"Ohhh... you cursed brat! Look what you've DONE! I'm melting! Melting! Oh... what a world, what a world! Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness?!" - Hillary Clinton to an 8-year old Bosnian girl on a tarmac.
  • cwcentral, on 03/27/2008, -22/+3Wow, NBC/WSJ(Fox). The 2 outlets that hate HRC the most and show it publicly. Honestly, I get my news from local channels or yahoo/google now as NBC is the equivalent of Fox, but for the opposing extremists.

    Not surprised the poll and the interpretation are in line with their already known position on HRC.
    • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5This would be the same Fox that ran the madrassah smear and replayed Jeremiah Wright's greatest hits for a week straight?
    • riseabove, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6sorry, but murdoch is a big time clinton backer. if you turn on FOX it's nothing but rev. wright anyway.
  • Houndstooth, on 03/27/2008, -2/+60Crazy thing is, her supporters are claiming this is due to the anti-hillary bias in the media. The overall feeling I'm getting lately is that her supporters support her, not the party, not the country, not the plans for the future, just her and will rabidly attack those who dare cross her in any way. While Obama's supporters may be a little overzealous in expressing their love for him, Hillary's seem to have more of a gang mentality.
    • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8Right..is that why they kept playing the clips from Wright's sermon for 5 days straight. Also SNL made an attack against that bias. Screw hillary. (not literally..eww).
    • stonewaljacksn, on 03/27/2008, -14/+2Um, no. One look at digg's front page will show you the "Hillary Gang-rape" mentality of Obama's supporters. If you douchebag diggers ever let a clinton supporter voice their opinion on this site, or even looked at the comments in pro-hillary articles before they are buried, you will see something very strange: Hillary supporters make it clear that they will happily back Obama if he wins the nomination. I don't like Hillary, but I really, really like her supporters. They show true loyalty to the party and absolutely ARENT in it just for Hillary. I like Obama, but his supporters are ***** pretentious douchebags.
      • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Hate burst your bubble .Digg is not a media site. If you haven't noticed..the stories submitted are contributed for the users. So its all about majority opinion.

        By the way..where did you get the idea that Hillary supporters will back Obama if he gets nominated? Show me a source if I'm wrong. The last few polls I saw indicated the opposite. About 18% of hillary supporters will vote Obama if he gets nominated versus 57 of Obama supporters will vote for Hillary if she gets nominated. There is party loyalty for you! Hillary supporters will destroy the party. Once again..please provide a source for your information and I will do the same.
        • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Correction..had a typo on my first line. "The stories are contributed by the users."
      • Houndstooth, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6I can't remember where I saw this poll, and it's just another poll so it's hard to take it too seriously, but it said that more Hillary supporters would vote for McCain if Obama won than the other way around. I realize DIGG is very pro-obama, but if you look outside of Digg and Huffington Post, it's hard not to see how the three headed beast is treated with kid-gloves and any error on Obama's part (real or associated) is magnified and replayed a thousand times a day.
        • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2well said. Obama might get a lot of coverage . But any slight screwup on his or his campaign's part is given a lot more scrutiny.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1First of all, so what if Digg is ruled by majority opinion? Does that mean it is not okay for me to rail against the majority? Are you saying that I should just shut up and not give a dissenting opinion? Don't mean to burst YOUR bubble, but I am not gonna shut up just so all you prObamas can peacefully build a bigger wall around your "community" free from all criticism.

        Where did I hear it? I heard it from people in the frickin real world. I hear it from real live people on the streets. I'm not a sucker for poIls, if you want to be that's fine, but they are all obviously manipulated by the media. I hear it from Hillary supporters who i DONT bury on digg. YOU are the one's destroying the party by alienating Hillary supporters implying that they are the cause of the party's problems. Your prObama pride is more important to you than reaching across lines that YOU HAVE CREATED WITHIN YOUR OWN PARTY by turning Hillary into the Darth Vader of your prObama bubble world. Hillary supporters are great people and I'm yet to meet one who has said they would not go with Obama if that's who the nominee is. Read the media manipulated stats all you want, but in the real world it's the Obama supporters who promise they would defect from the party out of spite if Hillary won, which she isnt. Which brings me to my last point: She ISNT GONNA WIN. Just because it's not technically over is no reason to be a bunch of crybabies. As Obama supporters, if you think there's a rift in the party, it's your job to start mending it now. All i see is prObamas making it wider.
      • eviltandem, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2"They show true loyalty to the party and absolutely ARENT in it just for Hillary."

        Because any true democrat knows to put party above all else! It doesn't matter WHO the democrats nominate, the important thing is you must vote for them even if you don't agree with them. Don't you guys understand how democracy works? It only works if you pick a political side and stick with it no matter what they do or what they say!

        I think it's time to kill the dumb people.
    • jimchou, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Hillary should have known better, she's a politician, but after seeing the actual tape of her talking about the actual incident I'd have to say this is just someone adding a little color and exaggeration, perhaps even unconsciously, to make a story sound better, nothing many people haven't done. If she weren't a presidential candidate it wouldn't even be an issue.

      Of course, she is...
    • soulkitchen, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3I think we know that reality has a well known anti-Hillary bias.
  • RadiatedAnt, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7aahhahahahahaa
    /points finger
  • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -2/+17Karma's a bitch.
  • davidg11, on 03/27/2008, -11/+4Yes.....my plan is working...Democrats warring with themselves to self-destruct...exxxxxxcelent....

    • BossKey, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5And the Republicans ended up with a candidate that half of that party openly despises...it's going to be an interesting final election.
  • sq2shooter, on 03/27/2008, -1/+36I'm guessing the people who were contacted by the poll were sleep deprived and really meant to say they loved her.
    • offspring06, on 03/27/2008, -0/+18Either that or they were under sniper fire.
  • kinsey88, on 03/27/2008, -10/+2Whatever became of American values, integrity? Does anyone honestly believe there is really any difference between the two parties? Seems to me any of them will say anything to get elected. Such inspiring roll models for our young.
  • kurosen, on 03/27/2008, -21/+4Regardless of who wins, I can't wait for the elections to be over. I'm tired of seeing all this back and forth mud-slinging between political diggers, and miss checking out the more interesting stuff that used to make it to the front page.

    SCREW OBAMA! SCREW CLINTON! SCREW RON PAUL!

    GIVE ME MY DIGG.COM BACK!!!

    Go ahead and digg me down, political diggers... I've said my piece...
    • stonewaljacksn, on 03/27/2008, -11/+2You are so right. Ever since the obama ***** douchebags infiltrated this site it ***** sucks. It's either an Obama circle jerk or a Hillary gangrape every stupid day.
    • saska, on 03/27/2008, -0/+13You could always remove the "Election 2008" category from your list of stuff you see. You know, so you wouldn't have to compulsively read the comment threads and reply to them.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 03/27/2008, -5/+1No, the fact of the matter is that i actually LIKE politics. I don't want to have to avoid political news just because diggers want to attack Hillary and make virtual love to Obama every day.
        My bad for happening to care about real issues. I forget sometimes that digg is apparently supposed to be a propaganda outlet. But you are right, me commenting about it in these threads is equally as futile as diggers thinking that making anti-hillary comments in these threads will actually change anything in the real world.
        • saska, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4I mentioned the "Election 2008" category specifically because there is a separate section for political news in general. You don't need to get all huffy at me.

          FWIW, I am sad every time a statement or discussion about real issues fizzles in Upcoming to be trounced by a love-fest or a hit job. But I'm sad about that all around, and not just on digg, which I guess goes to show that we do mirror the public consciousness and the media.
          • stonewaljacksn, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2lolo but i like to follow the election too! If i wanted propaganda I could watch foxnews though. It's hard not to get huffy when people go off calling you an evangelist republican on this site and tear you up just for disagreeing with the ridiculous bias here. The digg mob has that effect on people who find themselves in disagreement with the rest of the gang.
            And with the second part, I agree, but I thought that was what the internet was for...to be a place to drop all the ***** that we see in the mainstream media. What ACTUALLY happens, is that the internet merely compensates in the opposite direction instead of being the "bigger man" and remaining unbiased. By this I mean...say the evil MSM shows a bias towards Hillary. In response the anti-MSM interneters go on a Hillary hate spree, instead of taking the admirable unbiased stance. It's like they just use the internet to take out their MSM hatred instead of as a forum for making REAL progress. but yea...i guess that's just human nature.
    • RebeL5K, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1But McCain is ok? If you hadn't heard, Ron Paul exited gracefully, as Hillary should be doing.
    • kurosen, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I never said I didn't enjoy reading about politics on digg, but this mud-slinging... all the propoganda.... it's such garbage!

      Yes, I'd rather see lolcats than all this utter crap to influence the digg populace into voting based on a technological smear campaign for EITHER side.... If you are voting based on what is on digg, shame on you!

      @Rebel
      Why don't you scroll up a bit and count with me just how many times you see posts for Ron Paul despite that fact.... See what I mean?
  • jwiesenborn, on 03/27/2008, -21/+5…………………………………….__,,,,,,,---,,,,,,_…………………………………………………………
    …………………………_,,,--~’’¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’’-,,_………………………………………………….
    …………………….,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’~,_……………………………………………
    …………………,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,………………………………………
    ……………..,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _,,_ ; ; ;¯’-,…………………………………..
    …………..,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’_ ¯’-, ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………………
    …………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-~’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘;;;’, : :||; ; ; ; ; ‘,……………………………….
    ……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘/ :,-~’’~, : ‘,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,-‘ : // ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………………..
    ……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,| : ‘-,;;;;,-‘ : /’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,……………………………
    …….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,,___,,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………………………….
    …….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-,;;’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-………………………….
    ……,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-;;;;| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |…………………………
    ……| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘,;;;;|’’-~ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………
    ......| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;---,,,,,,,_,,,,-~’’, ‘-,;;;| ,,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………….
    ……| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’’~-,,,_ , , , , , , ‘,;,’,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;……………………….
    ……| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,~-,, , ,,’’,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………………
    ……’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,¯’’;;;;| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………………
    …….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,_,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,………………………
    …….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………..
    ……..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; …………………….
    ……… ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,……………………
    ……….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|……………………
    ………..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………………….
    ………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,--~~--,, ; ; ; ; ;,--------,, ; ,--~, ; ; ,,-~, ; ;,--,,;,,-~~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………..
    …………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ . ,,--,, . ‘-, ; ; ; ;| . ,-,, . ‘, | . . | ; ;’-, . .,,/ . ./’-,,--, . ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,………………
    …………| ; ; ; ; ; ; | . .,’ ; ; ;’, . .| ; ; ; | . .’-‘ . ,-‘ | . . | ; ; ; ‘-, . . .,-‘ ; ;,-‘ . ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,…………….
    …………’, ; ; ; ; ; ;’, . ‘-,__,-‘ . ,’ . ; ; | . .| . . . | . . |___ ; ;} . . / ; ; ;’----‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………….
    ………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ . ._,,-‘ ; ; ; ; |__| .__ ;|_____/ ; ;/__/ ; ; ; ; (¯) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,…………
    …….......’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,………
    …………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-,,_……
    …………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
    • khail250, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2ah 1984... go away, your hair sucks
  • offspring06, on 03/27/2008, -1/+23So her positive rating is approaching George Bush's positive rating. Ouch, thats gotta hurt.
  • nirav72, on 03/27/2008, -1/+15Clap Clap Point Point...
  • DCDouchebag, on 03/27/2008, -15/+1"In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup."

    I bet if you oversampled a different demographic, you'd get a different picture altogether. Warped poll imho.
    • saska, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5"As of July 1, 2006, the estimated population of black residents in the United States, including those of more than one race. They made up 13.4% of the total U.S. population." (US Census Bureau)

      The percentage of African-Americans in the poll is 11%.

      So technically, the poll may have "oversampled," but still does not reflect an accurate percentage.
    • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I bet you wouldn't.
  • snotrokit, on 03/27/2008, -2/+14Going down like Monica
    • jjmelch, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1No way Bill's letting Hillary near it!
  • Rioracer916, on 03/27/2008, -1/+12Heh she didn't dodge THAT bullet, now did she? You know...the truth.
  • mrgreenjeans9, on 03/27/2008, -0/+13what's best about it is that it's a result of her own doing. if she could keep her lying trap shut, she might be in a different spot. that being said, if she could keep her lying trap shut, she wouldn't be a politician
  • 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.