digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at news.aol.com

It's Official - Clinton Lost Texas

news.aol.com — The Texas Secretary of State is set to certify the official election results for the Democratic primary. As predicted, Barack Obama has beaten Hillary Clinton. While Clinton won the state's popular vote, Obama racked up more caucus support, so that, now that the final tally is in, the Lone Star state's delegate total reads: Obama - 99 delegates...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 03/12/2008, -9/+71Delegate count problem, they said Obama won 38 from the caucuses and Clinton won 30. That adds up to 68... one more than the 67 being allocated.
    • saleem, on 03/12/2008, -2/+203seen this one before: it's because of the slopes of the triangles aren't equal.
    • LloydBentsen, on 03/12/2008, -0/+11It's because it is an estimate based on the precinct conventions. The delegates from the precinct convention go on to the Senatorial Convention, where they select delegates to go to the State Convention. At the state convention, national delegates will be apportioned. That could be why you get 68 rather than 67.
      • cwcentral, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1That's the whole f'd up problem with caucuses in general. It's all subjective.

        It should be an exact science, like counting votes, but then again, the primary results are f'd up as well.
    • Worldchrisis, on 03/12/2008, -4/+11CNN has it 99-94 for Obama
      • LloydBentsen, on 03/12/2008, -3/+4Again, they are estimates. They are most likely going to favor Obama, but it is way too close to claim a victory in the delegate count.
      • LeeSoong, on 03/12/2008, -17/+1Obama / Ahmadinejad '08 !
    • peaches017, on 03/12/2008, -9/+2http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/I_Will_Never_Vot ...
    • ScottKeeler, on 03/12/2008, -20/+2Losing the popular election but winning the election. Obama just gets more like Bush everyday.
      • fletcherrr, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5Shut up.
      • ShinRaTDR, on 03/12/2008, -1/+13Don't pull any muscles on that world-class stretch
      • julianp, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3roflcopter
      • GawtMilk, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Popular vote = {the vote + the caucuses}. Let's say that 1,000,000 people voted in the caucuses, seems fair. 56% Obama, 44% Clinton. According to [a rounded version of] the NYTimes for the overall popular vote:

        Obama : 560,000 [cauc] + 1,360,000 [pop] = 1,920,000
        Clinton : 440,000 [cauc] + 1,460,000 [pop] = 1,900,000

        Overall, Obama one both the Caucus and the Popular Vote.
  • SheilaNoya, on 03/12/2008, -3/+53HUH? According to local Texas news today (3/11/08), they have received the caucus results from 170 precincts but have only gone through 13 of them so far. They still don't have the final results for 33 precincts and the county chairmans still have until March 29th to state their preferences, so this still isn't over yet.

    It looks like a definite win for Obama, but none of the results are final yet according to the El Paso Times:

    http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_8533756?source=most_ ...
    • Tufriast, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7And that's why El Paso, is El Paso, and the Texas Secretary of State is telling them "no."

    • CrazyDave303, on 03/12/2008, -2/+18Dam the US needs election reforms. How the hell can people be secure in a system that you don't actually vote for the person on the ballets; you vote for the person that will most likely vote for who you intended to vote for. (yes I know that sentence barely makes sense, but nether does the voting system. And that's if you can vote in the first place)
      • thealpal, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4That's the way the founders set it up. They didn't trust the people to make collective important decisions. Most that stuff you learned in grade school about the founders being all about democracy is bull. We live in a democratic republic. Just read the Federalist Papers. The founders set it up to make you think you had a big say in the matter, when really they installed a bunch of filters to dilute your input.
        • CrazyDave303, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1The only thing I learned in school was how to cheat, steal, and violently hurt someone before they have a chance to do it do you.

          It took me almost 15 years latter to learn I was doing the same thing I hated my government for.
    • thcobbs, on 03/12/2008, -11/+6Wait... Hillary won the popular vote, but lost due to a secondary voting process that's not representative of the state? And people are GLAD that she is being certified the Loser?

      Wasn't there a major uproar about this sometime around 2000 when the winner of the popular vote didn't win the election?
      • stephenturney, on 03/12/2008, -1/+10Texas has a hybrid primary/caucus. The Caucus gets 1/3 of the delegates from Texas and is most definitely representative of the state. Typically there would be about 80 people at each polling place, but outside of Dallas (where I'm from), There were upwards of 800 people in line waiting hours to vote. Part of why the counting for the caucuses is taking so long is because there are so many votes making it very representative of the state. This secondary voting process is just an additional way to vote for delegates. I think its stupid to make it so complicated, but it representative none the less.
        • fluxion, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3wtf dugg this guy down? god some of you people are retarded.
        • vanimal, on 03/12/2008, -3/+1The process is representative of the people with nothing better to do than spend all day voting.
          • neognostic, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3The caucus did not start until 7:15 pm, do some research dumbass.
      • qwerter, on 03/12/2008, -1/+12This remains to be seen. According to NPR, over a million people participated in the caucus. Assume the percentages hold steady once all the votes are counted (no guarantee there, of course)--Obama 56%, Hillary 44%. Divide them into one million, and you get:

        Obama 560,000
        Clinton 440,000

        The primary vote tallies (according to nytimes.com):

        Obama: 1,358,785
        Clinton: 1,459,814

        Add the two together:

        Obama: 1,918,785
        Clinton: 1,899,814

        And Obama takes the LEAD on the popular vote. I don't mean to belittle your point--all I'm saying is let's wait until all the votes are counted before we jump to conclusions (though if the numbers hold steady, there should be nothing to worry about).
        • dsmyre, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Adding the two together is counting the same people twice. In Texas, only people who voted in the primary were eligible to vote in the caucus. So it's not two different sets of voters being counted. The caucus voters are a subset of the primary voters. Not that I don't want Obama to lead in the popular vote by more than he already does! But we can't calculate it this way in Texas.
          • qwerter, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Considering the "support" she got from the Dittoheads, the caucus numbers may actually better represent the true Democratic vote--it would be easy for Rush's people to vote in the primary, but how many of them would be able to stomach a caucus?
      • bocaJWho, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2You must be new here.
    • bocaJWho, on 03/12/2008, -0/+13Diggs comment system needs an "oops" button.
    • Cattywampus, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3I read the same thing today, that the results won't be in until March 29th. I bet the folks in New Mexico feel better now ... it only took two weeks or so to settle the outcome there (lots of provisional ballots that had to be counted).
    • gogog0, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2since when does the news media wait for official results to post who won a state. (this isn't a criticism of the media, i'm just stating a fact)
  • SheilaNoya, on 03/12/2008, -2/+36Here's another story stating the official results for the Texas caucus won't be in until March 29th.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_el_pr/te ...
  • light65733, on 03/12/2008, -21/+294Good, now Hillary can quit as she promised.
    • gannondork, on 03/12/2008, -7/+53Hillary keep a promise, yeah right, if she kept her promises the world wouldn't know who Monica Lewinsky is.
    • SirBrittanicus, on 03/12/2008, -8/+8I seriously hope the crabby bitch does.

      If not she'll need to be led out into a quiet meadow and put down.
    • p51d007, on 03/12/2008, -4/+11Oh she will keep going......you can BANK on it!
      Even for the "good of the party" she won't go down (sorry...bad pun) without a fight.
      She, like her husband, craves power beyond anything else.
      • homanh, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Lame digg (pardon the pun) at Bill Clinton, buried.
    • EntropyFan, on 03/12/2008, -15/+8But what if the super delegates throw enough support behind her for her to win?
      Oh that is right, every moron is whining about 'the will of the people' and the 'popular vote', right up until Obama loses the popular vote but takes delegates...
      But it is unfair when only when it favors Clinton.

      I'm not saying one is better then the other, but the ***** hypocrisy of the Obama fan base is stunning.
      • chiefslady1, on 03/12/2008, -7/+3AMEN
      • OoO3xOoO, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1those are the rules in Texas. Not saying they are right, but Clinton sure wasn't trying to sue when Bill won the state with the same rules in the 90s.

        And Obama is currently winning the overall popular vote by a lot. Keyword: overall.
      • tomvale13, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Hypocrisy in a fan base is one thing; hypocrisy in nearly all facets of your candidate is a f'ing joke. Oh, wait a second.. no, no I was right - sHRC is a slimy vindictive woman. P.S - BUSH Sr. / Clinton / Bush / Clinton? yeah go for it, it seems to be working well. God damn you Americans can be "Stunningly" retarded when you put the entirety of your minds into it. Change? nah, I'd like a serving of turds with my already ***** situation thanks.
    • dcollins, on 03/12/2008, -22/+32If Obama won the popular vote but lost the delegate vote, people would be on here bitching about how the delegate system needs to be reformed. Digg has become one big Obama jerk circle.

      Go Ahead, Bury me, I'm sick of reading all this *****.
      • kerrybreyette, on 03/12/2008, -8/+8Go outside.
      • Keatonguy, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4As an Obama supporter, I agree with you 100%. That's why I always wear a raincoat when browsing digg.
        • rkho, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Patrick, is that a raincoat?

          Why, yes it is!
      • Zasz, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Whether or not the delegate system needs to be reformed, people will accept the results of the vote just as they accepted the 2000 election. But this is a moot point as Obama will win both popular and delegate votes.
      • drakethegreat, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Normally I would agree with you but caucuses in this case are how many people are passionate about the candidate and thats what determined who got more delegates. Its not super delegates in this case so I think you are wrong in this particular case.
      • wild, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Turn off the politics tab?
    • skyfox2k, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3I hope she does. I cant wait to see the faces of all of her racist supporters. Have you guys read some of the stuff in the comments after this article? Look at the stuff by xuxu2 for instance. MY GOD.
  • aznromeo4u, on 03/12/2008, -132/+10barack hussein obama
    • SheilaNoya, on 03/12/2008, -9/+104His name has a nice ring to it.
      The more the hate-mongers repeat it, the more I like it.
      Now get used to saying it, because he's going to be your next President.
      • JimmySpaza, on 03/12/2008, -45/+4Obama is NOT going to be President. He'll lose to McCain. Better get used to it now while you still have a supply of tissues for the crying.
        • saxreturns, on 03/12/2008, -2/+24Why, would there be a tissue shortage under a McCain administration? If so I am concerned about his leadership skills.
        • ezco506th, on 03/12/2008, -2/+11Get used to being dug down. Compulsory BITCH.
        • archiesteel, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Actually, McCain will lose. We already see how vulnerable he is on his connections to lobbyists. But I wouldn't expect a right-wing fanatic to think logically about this issue...
      • sgtbutterscotch, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3How about no one guarantees a victory for anyone, whether you are a lefty or a righty or in the middle somewhere. You'll look stupid if you're wrong and even if you're right, you're an ass.
        Btw, Albert Howard is going to win.
    • Hobbes24, on 03/12/2008, -3/+7you suck.
    • Aeaus, on 03/12/2008, -8/+2Hint: This man is being ironic. (Whether it's on purpose or not).
      • Matt2k, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4I am confused by this new definition of irony
    • p51d007, on 03/12/2008, -16/+3Why is it NOT ok to use his middle name?
      William JEFFERSON Clinton
      Hillary RODDAM Clinton
      John FITZGERALD Kennedy
      Lyndon BAYNES Johnson
      Ronald WILSON Reagan
      Just because he has a name that is associated with a thug, no reason not to use it.
      • Andareed, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5How often do you use the above in casual conversation, though?
      • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -2/+12I don't think anyone called Bill Clinton by William Jefferson clinton , or Kennedy by John Fitzgerald Kennedy or or Reagan by Ronald Wilson Reagan. Middle name is irrelevant to rational people. Only of importance to ignorant *****-for-brains assholes like you.
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 03/12/2008, -8/+1While you are right, you are also an *****.
          +0 digg
      • chase001, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3It's not ok when you think that he is linked to a middle east dictator by having a very common name in the middle east. It's actually quite ignorant.
      • Cloudime, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Because "Barrack Hussein Obama" is something that smear campaigns use, if he had said "Barrack Hussein Obama ", it would have been fine, but the fact that he JUST said his name there makes it obvious that he's just spamming with the smear campaign crap.
      • sgtbutterscotch, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6Isn't Rodham her maiden name?
      • ezco506th, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5Nothing. p51d-*****-007. nothing at all. I like this game, let's play some more sometime.
    • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -1/+5@aznromeo4u - looking at your profile , you seem like a Hillary supporter. For a democrat , you sure are a tolerant one. I guess its ok for the Obama supporters to the start woman bashing now?
      • Digger1218, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Judging by the comments, they have been for some time.
    • chase001, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8Meaning: The Arabic name Hussein means - little; handsome

      How horrible.
    • rkho, on 03/12/2008, -2/+9It's better than Hilary SADDA- I mean RODHAM Clinton.
    • Sean42, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Shouldn't you have snickered like beavis after your comment? Hehhhehheheehhheheehh
    • TripcodeMel, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4SCARY SCARY MUSLIM SCARY
    • stouffer67, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I still don't see why people still criticize him for his name. Someone's name has nothing to do with their personality. For example, just because someone has the last name Bush, it doesn't mean they are a complete retard.
    • imgstacke, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1People like you remind me of a kid taunting his little sister... swinging their fists in their sister's face while repeating, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!"

      Grow the ***** up.
  • antiorblkflag9, on 03/12/2008, -14/+55BOOM SHACKALA
  • phr3akster, on 03/12/2008, -19/+113Good. Get this mudslinging bitch out of the race already.
    • Gerz1219, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4This would have gotten her out of the race had the results been in on election night, which isn't impossible -- just ask Iowa. But because Texas waited a week, the public perception is that Hillary had a huge comeback last Tuesday. In reality, she needed 20 point wins in Ohio and Texas to catch up in delegates, but the newspapers have already long since gone with the Hillary-resurgent headline. Now the story is going to go on until the summer, since Hillary will almost certainly win Pennsylvania.
    • da_bradler, on 03/12/2008, -5/+1Makes me laugh that the Obama supporters are whining about Clinton playing dirty. your eyes are going to be completely dried out by 2009 with the none stop crying you're gonna be doing when the republicans get at Obama. Seriously do you people think Obama's cry baby tactics are going to work forever? Fox news is going to rip this guy to pieces.
      • MrTarot, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3You meant Fox Opinion right? I don't know the last time I saw anything resembling unbiased reporting on Fox. Journalism is supposed to be neutral in bias and let the viewer decide but alas, that's been lost somewhere down the line in most major news agencies and never really existed at Fox from the start.
    • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Obama supporters have no idea that they've lost already, Hillary knows the system and has it setup to win, she's the fighter, Obama thinks he can win by using his deep low voice to make everyone feel good. I just hope they don't cry and vote for a republican. After all he'll still have the VP slot and a nice house to live in on the Naval Observatory. Then he can settle that messy real estate issue in Chicago.
  • gianttoolbox11, on 03/12/2008, -26/+47Will the bitch quit already?
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 03/12/2008, -5/+11Proper term is woman....regardless of how mean she is.
      • creationism, on 03/12/2008, -6/+2She is both a woman and a bitch.
        • djruden, on 03/12/2008, -3/+1I prefer Bee-yotch!
        • Chakat, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4She's not a bitch. Bitches have four legs, tails, bark, and play fetch with you. She's just a bitter, vintictive person who will do whatever it takes to try to become president, rest of the country be damned.
    • da_bradler, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3Gotta love how the Obama supporters just fear any sort of process that resembles democracy. "WHO CARES ABOUT PRIMARIES!" "WHY WON'T EVERYBODY ELSE JUST QUIT SO WE CAN WIN!" seriously if you don't think you can win the party nomination fairly how do you think he's going to win the presidency against the republicans who won't show and ounce of mercy.
      • tannerpetry, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1The only realistic way that Clinton can win now is via the superdelegates. And the longer the democratic primary is drawn out, the worse off Clinton and/or Obama will be in the general election. They are blowing through tons of money competing against each other and are creating a mini civil war within the democratic party. Everyone knows the neocons won't show an ounce of mercy, so we need to reunite the party, not draw this out and divide the party any further.
  • UltramegaOK, on 03/12/2008, -16/+4Epic Win.
  • lawngnomes4pres, on 03/12/2008, -12/+90How many times is this going to become "official" on digg? WE KNOW OBAMA WON TEXAS.
    • theaceoffire, on 03/12/2008, -2/+29I predict three more front page stories, followed by five more when she sues Texas, followed by 2 more when she loses the lawsuit.
    • jaznova, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4It troubles me how long this is taking to leak into the mainstream
      • ChaserHimself, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1On ABCNews just today, they mentioned her "resounding" victory in Texas.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 03/12/2008, -1/+7Somehow, Hillary yet does not. She's too busy going "lalalalalalalaiwontexas."
    • ronaldinho, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1well, I have to say, the count isn't quite complete until March 29th, as reported by comments above. I'm holding my breath here but it certainly looks like Obama has all the momemtum still
  • mogebier, on 03/12/2008, -26/+35[sarcasm] But I thought that the Democrats always went with the "popular vote" [/sarcasm]
    • rstarr, on 03/12/2008, -6/+21After 2000, we take what we can get...
      • mogebier, on 03/12/2008, -19/+7That is a little thing called "Hypocrisy", you know.
      • cwcentral, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Actually, I hope Obama wins by delegate vote vs. the popular vote.

        It validates Bush's legacy. As stupid as it sounds, it does, really.
    • p51d007, on 03/12/2008, -11/+7ONLY when it is in THEIR best interest
    • plr4ever, on 03/12/2008, -3/+10Hmm, html doesnt seem to recognize [sarcasm] tags. What are those?
    • KyleGoetz, on 03/12/2008, -0/+6I think you'll find that Obama is ahead in the popular vote, even if you include Florida. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_D ...
      • Crosshare, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1What does the gray on the chart mean? Obama won Colorado by more than just half.
    • mrASSMAN, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3It's completely misleading to say he didn't win the popular vote. A smaller number of people voted in the caucuses, but Obama was still proportionately the most popular candidate by far. He had the highest percentage of win-margin in the combined contests, therefore it doesn't make sense to consider the popular vote to apply only to the individual person-vote-count rather than the proportional margin of support. Just because Clinton supporters are either too lazy or too stupid to attend caucuses, doesn't make Obama's win unjustified.
  • llawlessl, on 03/12/2008, -9/+21I would've liked to say, that'll shut her up! But it won't...it won't...
  • BamaStangGuy, on 03/12/2008, -33/+17Only Digg users can be so hypocritical to say Al Gore won the election because he took the popular vote but Hillary Clinton lost Texas because she didn't have the Delegates, even though she won the popular vote.
    • tones1, on 03/12/2008, -15/+7Your damn right. And we'll also digg you down for pointing it out.
      • BamaStangGuy, on 03/12/2008, -11/+2Awww how adorable. You go girl!
    • yellowsnowcone, on 03/12/2008, -6/+8yep ... he says what everyone is thinking. Hillary won more votes, but Obama has been cleaning up at the caucuses because he's better at getting people mobilised ... it's UNDEMOCRATIC when a candidate gets more support from the people but fewer delegates, but the Obama mobs will digg you down for pointing that out.
    • petrodollar, on 03/12/2008, -8/+3Why do you love Hitlery?
    • TheAkolyte, on 03/12/2008, -7/+4but in this case, when Clinton loses, we don't have to have a chimp in office.
    • stuman77, on 03/12/2008, -6/+5I love the fact that the comment is completely reasoned out, yet people bury it because they don't like it. It's as bad as the anti-evolutionists, or the 9/11 conspiracy theorists: they have a priori assumptions.
      • Cloudime, on 03/12/2008, -3/+1"yet people bury it because they don't like it"

        So I guess this is your thinking process:

        "Man, I completely disagree with what this guy has to say, I think the exact opposite. ...Dugg!"
      • Zasz, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5I buried it because I haven't seen a person say Al Gore won the election. It would be quite stupid for someone to do so in fact, as they can see that Al Gore is not in the white house. So, the post was buried because the poster just assumes people are retarded and feels justified in taking a shot at the other side.
    • ezco506th, on 03/12/2008, -2/+9Uhm. Clears throat. Ahem. Barack Obama has the lead in popular votes, and delegates last I checked.
    • starkruzr, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3One's a national election, the other is a primary which is more or less a private matter in a political party. The Founders didn't even want us to HAVE political parties.
    • Loulou07, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Come on Hitlery loose even with the help of Mr. Diebolt, that's really incredible
  • kurtcs, on 03/12/2008, -8/+12[sarcasm] Time for recount, just like Gore requested....
    • da_bradler, on 03/12/2008, -5/+3So basically your saying Obama is the new George bush and Hillary is getting screwed like Al Gore, thanks for the support.
  • fnv2001, on 03/12/2008, -12/+48
    Let me say it one more time...BARACK OBAMA HAS WON THE STATE OF TEXAS.

    Print THAT, NY Times.
    • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -4/+12NY Times won't do that. They endorsed Hillary. bastards.
    • runCMD, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Obama won only because Texas allows voters to vote a second time in the same election in an attempt to capitalize on the Rock Star mentality of fans. They believe it will pick a person who can win - not necessarily the better candidate. That's just stupid. : )
      • neognostic, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Blame Bill Clinton, his people set up this process for voting in Texas years ago.
    • slabdigger, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2so Obama only won according to the rules.
  • P8ntBal1551, on 03/12/2008, -21/+5W00t for not americans!!!
    GO CANADIANS!!
    • cheezintern, on 03/12/2008, -2/+7..you must be referring to America Jr.
  • pintomp3, on 03/12/2008, -7/+11unfortunately, you can't unring the bell. i found it strange that the media was falling over themselves to declare a big win in texas for hillary. i guess they were compensating because of her charge that they were biased against her, despite the fact that they declared her a defacto winner for over a year.
    • imikedaman, on 03/12/2008, -4/+5They called her the winner because she *was* the winner. After the official results are completed in a few weeks, you'll see all the major news stations and websites calling Obama the winner of Texas overall. That's just reporting the facts.

      Any bias you perceive is all in your head.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
      • Zasz, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3How did she win before all the votes were counted?
  • P8ntBal1551, on 03/12/2008, -19/+4w00t for not americans!!!!!
    GO CANADIANS!!!
  • indigit4l, on 03/12/2008, -11/+20It's on the internet. It must be true
  • chicoer2001, on 03/12/2008, -10/+50Note to media: You're not on a comeback if you win three states after losing 13. You just got up and whiped the dirt off your ass.
    • mrASSMAN, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5Especially when she split the states with Obama 2-2.
    • Crosshare, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Not to mention when you're only winning by 5 - 15% in those three and they split the delegates, comes off looking more like a tie.
    • cwcentral, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Note to media: California, NY, FLA, Ohio, Texas, i.e. 5/8 of the country's population doesn't matter in an election. Representation of true people density doesn't matter, just land and property (i.e. states' boundaries)
  • Jenadae, on 03/12/2008, -6/+56I'm pro Obama but c'mon you guys stop talking out of both sides of your asses. If Clinton won the caucus it'd be ridiculous how they work but now that Obama won she needs to shut up? Meh... It's a victory for both of them but in the end i see it as more cannon fodder for Clinton to spew around after the nomination has been settled.
    • PoonGnarfler, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2The fact remains that Obama did win the total delegate count when both candidates knew exactly what the rules were... I ***** hope that at least Hillary does as her husband won Texas through the same same way Obama is now.As this is the case, Hillary should shut up, not because it is an unfair, biased system (which it very well might be) but because she stated she would back out of the race if she did not win Texas and Ohio. It's not anyone's fault that she believed caucus members didn't have enough power that they needed to be catered to.
    • Crosshare, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2I think this is more of a revolt against how the MSM reports election results and skews the overall picture. Making Hillary look like a front runner where she isn't.
    • mustbepatient, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Jenadae, yes, they both have wins they can point to. However, the general media only seems to be reporting how Hillary won, and not really mentioning at all how Obama won Texas in terms of delegates.
  • inobla, on 03/12/2008, -12/+12Old news already... but thank you Texas! Not out of love for Obama, but for my loathe of Hillary.
    • dizturbd2, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3You are welcome. I voted Democratic just to vote against her, myself.
    • runCMD, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Why do you loathe Hillary Clinton ? I know there is a mob mentality to dislike here here on Digg - but what has the woman done to cause you to poison your mind with hatred ?
      • combatchuck, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3She voted for the PATRIOT act. She voted for the "war" in Iraq. She voted to deny prisoners of war their right to habeas corpus. She wants to make flag burning illegal.
      • inobla, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3I've hated her *long* before digg ever existed. If everybody else I knew loved Hillary, I would still hate her. I can promise you that. I'm not a fan of fake people. She resembles John Kerry to me a lot more than she does Bill....and I refused to vote in the last major election because I'm not going to play the lesser of two evils game.

  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 03/12/2008, -9/+19Will the mainstream media recognize this as an Obama victory?
    It all means nothing if CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc, are all still saying Clinton won "Ohio and Texas".
    • topgigmedia, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2NPR got it right (but they seem to have pulled down the article which I did see a few days ago with my own eyes on NPR.org) - reference: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/7/11339/5 ...
    • leaknoil, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3They still like to say she won Florida and Michigan. Little chance they'll get this right. This winning states thing is so meaningless anyway in the democratic primaries. Its all about delegate counts. At some point someone is going have to sit down with Hillary and explain the math. She is starting to be a bit of a Huckabee. I dont care if she stays in till the end but, she need to stop writing McCain's ads for him.
      • nkassi, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1It would be up to pledged delegate IF one of them could get a majority of them but that won't happen so, it's up to the Superdelegates which are Clinton's strong point. And you can say it unfair but in the end primaries are hardly fair. Caucuses are a joke stuffed with party extremists. And what about ignoring one of the largest states in the nation because of the states legislatures decision to move up there primary. That's their choice not the DNC. Primary in other countries are held ON THE SAME DAY not over one year. This is just a joke to pick a head of party. Other countries do away with the stupidness and pick a leader. If you want, you can have multiple of each party, why not. Let the voters choose between 5 people. The president is supposed to be independent from the congress anyway so why should they even be in the same party.

        • mustbepatient, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Clinton's lead in terms of superdelegates is actually quite small now, with all the announcements of the previous month. Nobody in politics likes to be on the losing side, so the shift to Obama has already started in earnest.
  • test5477, on 03/12/2008, -18/+8More Obama spam on Digg, there's a surprise. There should be some kind of filter, first one would be to omit all huffington stories and then obama.
    • grakker, on 03/12/2008, -5/+5God yes. I've almost stopped coming to digg because of all the Obama people. They're more annoying than the Ron Paul supports. I didn't think that would be possible, but then again, Paul isn't an empty, albeit shiny, shirt.
      • starkruzr, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Saying something doesn't make it so.

        Do the research on Obama and you'll realize he's not an empty anything.
      • imgstacke, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Change is good for you...
    • PoonGnarfler, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3Both of you need to realize that their is a tab that Digg has that can filter out political articles. Every person on Digg doesn't want to see every article made popular, but most don't feel the need to complain like you. It's not like the article title tricked you, as it's pretty ***** blatent on what the content is.
  • virtualball, on 03/12/2008, -12/+7At this point, I don't give a ***** which democratic nomination will win. I'm going to get Dugg down sooooo much for this, but we need a Democrat in the white house and when it comes down to it, their views are similar. If they keep cutting into each other, no one will vote for the other. So when November comes and Obama is the nomination, Hillary supporters might not vote for him because of all the trash she said about him. I'm NEVER for voting by party, but in this situation, our country can't afford to stay in Iraq for "100 years," let alone one. We need to get rid of the Bush tax cuts because that is helping no one right now except those with money. We need at least some form of change!
    • JimmySpaza, on 03/12/2008, -7/+2" We need to get rid of the Bush tax cuts because that is helping no one right now except those with money."

      Well, of course only the people with $$$ get tax cuts since they are the ones who paid the taxes. HELLO?!?

      Anyway, the people with $$$ are the ones who start businesses and create jobs. They need the tax cuts in order to expand business. HELLO?!?

      Are you suggesting that people who don't pay any net taxes be given tax cuts?!? How can this happen when they don't pay anything anyway?

      ...unless you want to expand welfare. :-(
      • grakker, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4Did you actually write HELLO twice? Jesus. I didn't think that you Regan believers still existed. But then again, a lot of people believe in a god as well. Go figure.
        • JimmySpaza, on 03/12/2008, -4/+1Do you have anything substantial to say...or just whinage?
          • petrodollar, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4I support Bush's tax cuts but I think your explanation/defense of them is idiotic and shallow. His biggest tax cuts were on dividends, which are now only taxed at 15%. I think you fail to understand the significance of that move, as the benefits from those cuts do not directly accrue people "who start businesses and create jobs." Furthermore, saying that tax cuts "create jobs" means nothing if those jobs are created in Mexico and China.

            Finally, I don't know who you're referring to when you talk about people who "don't pay net taxes." Much of the agit-prop on this point is poorly reasoned and fallacious. For example, it is commonly spouted in conservative circles that the "top wage earners" account for 90% of gross tax receipts or some *****. This is true but largely irrelevant to the ongoing political debate as the richest Americans do not earn wages but instead reap capital gains. You present this as a black and white issue when really there are multiple shades of gray.

            And again, I say this as someone who SUPPORTS Bush's tax cuts.

            Please get an education, or better yet, jump in a vat of slow-acting acid and die slowly.
      • petrodollar, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4lol @ the fact that a guy named "JimmySpaza" repeatedly uses "HELLO?!?" as a rhetorical device.
      • shortysmyname, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5If the businesses actually passed some of the profit down to the employees, the Bush tax cuts would work. Businesses are not passing down the wealth, jobs are being lost in every sector. Obviously the Bush tax cuts are NOT working as intended. Time to try something else!
        • petrodollar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1The tax cuts are working fine. What's not working is Bush's out of control spending. The $2 trillion we're set to spend on Iraq is but one example.
    • cheezintern, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5Hillary voted for the war....
    • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3You know I think Obama can probably get by on half of the Hillary voters since he has a lot of independent votes and even some moderate republicans..While Hillary would need all of Obama voters to beat McCain. Which ain't happening. Most Obama voters I know have threatened to stay home and throw away a vote instead of voting for her. No way in hell is she getting the independent votes or even some cross over moderate republicans. That feeling is pretty common.
      • shortysmyname, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3If Obama wins the popular vote, and the pledged delegate vote and the supers still give it to Hillary, I indeed will be staying home on election day. I will not partcipate in another fixed election.
  • EpicSelekta, on 03/12/2008, -8/+3Clinton pulled a Gore!
  • nittanylion06, on 03/12/2008, -16/+9She's going to *crush* Obama in Pennsylvania... let's let the convention decide this baby!

    Hillary 08!
    • meridian300, on 03/12/2008, -5/+3lol, she need 60% in ALL remaining states to even have a chance...
      HAHA! suck it!
    • shortysmyname, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2No, let the voters decide this.
      • da_bradler, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2If that's your opinion then we shouldn't count caucuses. you can't on one had say super delegates are undemocratic if they vote against the delegate winner and on the other hand support Obama who has his lion share of delegates coming from caucuses which are less democratic then even the super delegates.
    • PoonGnarfler, on 03/12/2008, -2/+0Pennsylvania is one state... not 50
    • ezco506th, on 03/12/2008, -2/+0You don't like that thing called *reality* very much do you? Here is a reality sandwich to go with the appetizer comments. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and all the remaining states will not give her a delegate victory, and she may not even get the popular vote in that event. She is fighting a very difficult battle, and to think that she has the notion of a chance is not just pathetic but incredulous at the very least. She is a poor sport, and a selfish person. The thought of her representing one state as a Senator disgusts me enough, let alone the Nation. The DNC will go Obama, (pause) BABY.
      • nittanylion06, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2She won't get a delegate victory, but NEITHER will Obama. She doesn't need to lead in delegates, only stop Obama from getting the majority. Yeah, sure, she's got to win by HUGE margins in order to secure enough delegates -- but the thing is, so does Obama in order to secure enough delegates for a majority. She can't win it before the convention, but she will win it there.
      • da_bradler, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1exactly and you can't say it's undemocratic that Obama doesn't win by getting more of the state delegates because a massive share of state delegates were picked threw caucuses which operate basically like little smaller party conventions and are extremely undemocratic.
    • starkruzr, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Why do Hillary supporters hate democracy?
      • da_bradler, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1as opposed to Obama supporters who think that primaries wins should be discounted just because there Candidate is good at winning the extremely undemocratic caucuses? seriously if Obama had actually been winning the majority of the primaries you could hide behind the democracy talk but since he is only in the lead because of a undemocratic system you need to quit your whining.
        • DigitalDisease, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Do you think the caucus system is undemocratic because you were told that they were or because you've been involved in one? They're actually very democratic and part of the foundation of the concept of democracy. Look back at the way the greeks conducted political business, it was in a large open space where people could voice why they would support something one way or another. The typical primary "drop your vote in the box and be done" doesn't actually engage people. The caucus system is great for selecting a party nominee, simply because it gives people in the same political party the chance to actively discuss why they support their candidate over the other. Once you get past the talking points that your campaign has laid out you can actually get into a real discussion about how your candidate is going to deal with the issues at hand. This is important for democracy because the only way that democracy continues to exist in a form that is conducive to proper government is by having an informed voting population.

          Also, Bill didn't whine when he was winning various caucus states during his run, so they were democratic then, just not now that Hillary is losing them.
          • malfourmed, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I've heard this argument before. That, basically, the caucus system rightfully favours those who are more engaged in their party; that is, more prepared than "mere" "drop your vote in the box" primary voters to invest time and effort debating which candidate is best for the party and the country. It's an interesting perspective with some validity.

            And yet those who put forward this argument never seem to follow it to the logical conclusion: Which people are the ones who've demonstrated the MOST engagement, the MOST interest, the MOST active involvement in the party? Who are therefore - arguably - the MOST qualified to judge what is best for the party and the country, more so than mere "drop your vote in the box" or mere "show up at a caucus" voters?

            The superdelegates. Who, it then follows, should be able to make up their own minds rather than blindly following either the popular vote or the pledged delegate count. Because that's basically what they were set up to do. There is nothing other than popular, media or campaign pressure that insists a superdelegate has to follow the delegate count or the popular vote. They're SUPPOSED to make up their own minds.

            Now there are decent arguments for getting rid of the superdelegate system (just as there are some decent, if not entirely convincing, arguments for getting rid of the electoral college), but for as long as it's there in the way it's been set up, I certainly don't blame the Clinton campaign for wanting to take advantage of it.
          • archiesteel, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1The issue with superdelegates is that their vote is worth a lot more than those of people participating in primaries and/or caucuses. That's the main issue, it seems.
    • imgstacke, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I can see it know ...
      BUT BUT CLINTON! (is gonna win Puerto Rico)...
    • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Obama supporters and Obama has no idea how to win, Hillary does and she's executing it.
      I just hope they understand that this is a Presidential Campaign, and not for the low voice Kumbaya inspirationating preacherlike speaker.
      Obama will like the VP slot for 8 years, or not, it's up to him. He can't win enough pledge delegates either.
  • blondeheroine, on 03/12/2008, -11/+45President Obama. I love the sound of it.
    • itspuddingtime, on 03/12/2008, -0/+8... Mayor Goldie Wilson! I like the sound of that.
    • Ilona12, on 03/12/2008, -9/+0How about Obama Bin Laden?? How does that sound?
      • neognostic, on 03/12/2008, -0/+4Sounds like a racist comment from someone who's education stopped in the third grade.
      • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Sounds like a republican lie, to be used as the swiftboat lies were used against John Kerry. Are you listening Obama? Better come up with a good response.
    • beatleman, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Sounds almost as good as President Palmer. Sucks there's no 24 this year :-(.
      • mrASSMAN, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1or Commander Adama.
      • ruyen, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Bush and Cheney share your dismay that their favorite show isn't on the air. Too bad too, 24 weeks of torture porn and fear-mongering will be missed. Guess we'll just have to rely on the Administration to fabricate stories themselves. Bush already vetoed the ban on waterboarding, I see an "interesting" story arc involving Iran coming up, regardless of what the NIE said about them giving up their nuke program in 2003... if anyone can write a story about attacking Iran it's this admin.
    • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0You left off the Vice.
  • Sniper, on 03/12/2008, -21/+15♫ Ding dong the bitch is dead? ♫
    • amoirae, on 03/12/2008, -9/+3Your mother died and you sing about it.

      Sad.
    • DeadFox1, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2While I enjoyed your musical segment, i have a feeling there is still fight left in this "monster."
  • parkhead, on 03/12/2008, -23/+6buried as innacurate
    clinton won the popular vote and the primary
    • wilhoitm, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4But not the Caucus which counts in the totality of Barack's win!
    • ezco506th, on 03/12/2008, -2/+0A stretch by the most gratuitous of imaginations.
    • ronaldinho, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1You are true, but Obama won the caucus and overall. Actually, this headline is sensationalist because 1) it appeals to pro-Obama diggers so they will digg it, and 2) not all the delegates count have been accounted for yet and they won't be all in until March 29th. But since being a Democratic nominee requires delegate counts and not completely popular vote, Obama is the winner at this point
    • imgstacke, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Let me help you 2/3 + 1/3 = 1
      see your forgot to add the 1/3 portion of the delegates.
  • scot333, on 03/12/2008, -5/+10Do you think if i tried to hug obama, he would let me?
    • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -1/+11You'd have to get past some dudes in black suits and earphones sticking out the side of their ears. But if you can manage that, I'm sure he might let you do a man hug.
    • imgstacke, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2I'm not gay and I would like to hug Obama...
  • Bactame, on 03/12/2008, -4/+6Well i voted for Obama and hope that enough support for him can develop once he is President. There's a lot of ding-a-lings out there so it won't be easy.
    • runCMD, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2When you disparage others to heighten your own sense of right - you actually diminish the value of your argument.
    • Crosshare, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I have no problem disparaging the type of people that call him "Obama Bin Laden" (llona2 I'm looking at you) o_0
  • rainchild, on 03/12/2008, -6/+7CNN is irresponsible , why haven't they updated their election site for TX? http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...
    it's only showing 41% reporting even though official results have been announced tonight. They were quick to announce Hilary victory, now update ur numbers ...also why don't the NY Times election vote tallies match CNNs' on a state by state basis. What or who is the authoritative source for vote counts?????
  • Troy64, on 03/12/2008, -11/+5Who cares!
    • shreyans, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1The thousands of diggers who are digging this?
      • Troy64, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Besides the fact there has already 10 stories about this on Digg, it will not make any difference. Hillary is in until she gets kicked out at the convention and a 1000 stories on Digg won't change that.
        • shreyans, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I understand what you're saying, and I agree to some extent.
          The point that I was trying to make is that digg is a social news site, so for this to have gotten the thousands of diggs it has received... someone must care. Many people must care.
  • chrispix, on 03/12/2008, -3/+10It is funny. Hillary won the democrats in small voting counties for the most part Obama in the large populated areas. If you look at the caucus though, you would probably say that most democrats should vote in the same percentages at the cacus as they did at the general polling places. e.g. 10% of regular democrat voters show up for cacuses. Then why did Hillary loose lots of small counties?
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ... : Shows OBAMA in highly populated areas winning while Clinton taking hispanic & rural areas.

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...
    What is this? Voting for Obama in more areas? While Clinton did not make inroads in any of Obamas primary wins?

    I bet it was lazy republicans in these areas who did not feel like they could caucus.
  • z28com, on 03/12/2008, -11/+6Why can't it be official for Ron Paul land-sliding it all? I spent every penny I had maxing out all credit cards to donate to him.
    • da_bradler, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3Good you deserve to go broke as that's what would have happened to all of America if that lunatic had won
    • addurobi, on 03/12/2008, -0/+7What an idiot. You donate when you have the extra cash. You do realize you won't get the money back even if he becomes president right?
  • Crabcakes, on 03/12/2008, -7/+7Some of the comments on that site are absolutely ridiculous. The wild pro-Hillary claims, the calling of Obama a "Muslim *****" that will rule africa, people saying caucuses are undemocratic and all that matters are the delegates from the popular vote. Are they totally blind? Do they not see that pretty much the only way for Hillary to win is an undemocratic overturn of the popular vote?
    • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1As wild as Hillary threatening to go after Obama's pledged delegates (Not superdelegates). She's already made that clear in a recent interview. There is nothing democratic about her.
    • malfourmed, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1> The wild pro-Hillary claims, the calling of Obama a "Muslim *****" that will rule africa
      As opposed to the wild pro-Obama claims, the calling of Clinton "bitch", "whore" and "*****"? Which are only three of the epithets directed at her that have appeared - often repeatedly - on Digg in the past few weeks.
      • Crabcakes, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1Whereas those are people's opinions of the woman. Calling him muslim and saying hes going to rule Africa are totally ridiculous and false.
  • xrisnothing, on 03/12/2008, -7/+9This is the first time in my life, that I've been proud of my home State Texas.
    • pyxopotamus, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Texas FTW!
    • KUKBAHLAM, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4There is a lot to be proud of Texas. Unbelievable national and state parks, Austin... OK, your right. Thats about it.
      I would like to find a real Clinton supporter in Texas though. I have seen signs but no actual human will admit to supporting her. Personally I can't stand her.... but thats because I have an education and read up on the issues.
      • KyleGoetz, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1There are a few out there; some of my friends are convinced that the Rezko thing is going to destroy Obama in the general election, so for strategic reasons they think Clinton is the only viable candidate (also, is it just me, or does anyone else find themselves constantly having to fix their "Obama and Hillary"s with of "Obama and Clinton"s?).
    • PixelDJ, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Man, I thought everyone loved Texas. I see those I *heart* Texas shirts everywhere, and I live in Utah. I guess everyone here just wishes they lived in Texas.
  • coolkatz321, on 03/12/2008, -2/+12So I guess this means that Hillary "officially" won Missouri, right? After all, she lost the vote of the PEOPLE in the state but won more delegates. It will be very interesting to see what happens if she wins the popular vote but has less delegates...
    • tricks574, on 03/12/2008, -8/+7Don't use logic on them. Obama could go on a shooting spree in an orphanage and they would find something good to say about it.
    • petrodollar, on 03/12/2008, -2/+4He still leads her in the popular vote even with MI and FL factored in.
    • coolkatz321, on 03/12/2008, -0/+5I'm not denying that at all, I'm just trying to say that in the event it happens, I think it will be fascinating to see what the result is.
    • PoonGnarfler, on 03/12/2008, -5/+4You might also forget that Obama didn't campaign in Missouri or Florida, while Hillary, against party rules, did. A retard could win the primaries if they essentially ran unopposed, but Hillary managed to still lose the popular vote. I'll concede that she "won" the state, just like Obama "won" Texas, but at least there was competition between the two in Texas.
      • fictionalOne, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I think you meant to write Michigan, not Missouri
      • coolkatz321, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Hillary didn't campaign in Florida, so you need to get your facts straight. Going to the state AFTER the primary ended to thank voters isn't campaigning. However, some of Obama's ads snuck into the northwestern portion of the state, making HIM the one breaking rules. You really need to be a little more informed.
    • da_bradler, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3Obama supporters don't care about the outcome being democratic it's just the current thing there hiding behind to try and convince people that Hillary should drop out(which would be undemocratic). Obama supporters don't want to play a pure primary game because they will lose and they don't want to play by party rules which allows super delegates to vote as they please because they will lose. Sorry Obama supporters but either way you look at it Obama is going to have to go back to being a do nothing nobody.
      • neognostic, on 03/12/2008, -2/+3I would like to nominate you for the dumbest person on Digg, you post constantly with no facts or logic.
        Obama and his people did not set up how the primaries are run in the states, these rules were set up years ago. I am looking forward to your comments when HRC does lose the nomination, then you can go back to being a silent moron.
  • PamalaLauren, on 03/12/2008, -4/+4Wasn't this posted last week?
  • chuckpenzone, on 03/12/2008, -4/+7And Missississippi!
  • eggy123, on 03/12/2008, -12/+12After this win, it looks like Obama has that VP slot all sewn up ;/
    • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -5/+6whatever..dream on. Even if he doesn't win the nomination...he's already made it clear he has no intentions to be in a VP slot for hillary. So guess hillary will have to win over the obama votes. Which ain't happening..as divisive as she has been this election.
      • PoonGnarfler, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5The winking smiley face should have told you that that comment was sarcasm...
      • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0It's funny because it's true.
    • jon30041, on 03/12/2008, -1/+4I caught your sarcasm, eggy, don't worry.
    • PamalaLauren, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2I got it, apparently not many other's did.
      • PaulRay, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1yea, got it here too... nirav, you suck, get off the stage! :oP
    • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0and he's smart enough to take it. Or it's forced on him. Don't cry ladies, he can be President in 8 years.
  • SwabTheDeck, on 03/12/2008, -2/+9This article uses the term "popular vote" in place of "primary vote" which kind of makes it misleading. Hillary won more delegates than Obama in the primary portion of the vote, but this does not necessarily mean she won the "popular vote". The popular vote is having a majority of the total number of voters in the entire state and, in the case of Texas, this includes the sum of voters from both the primary and the caucus.
    • link5280, on 03/12/2008, -3/+2Well she won the popular vote by 100,000... But when factoring in the caucus Obama won the delegate count by 4, so he won more delegates. The Republican primary system is looking better each day. Democrats sure know how to screw things up.
    • booshack, on 03/12/2008, -1/+3It is impossible to calculate Texas' popular vote as it is possible to vote in both primary and caucus.
      • malfourmed, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2My understanding is that you HAVE to have voted in the primary in order to vote in the caucus. In which case the popular vote is equivalent to the primary vote. Caucus voters in Texas effectively get two votes.
  • Santiak, on 03/12/2008, -5/+7So why all the media reported that Clinton won Texas?
    Because the big media represents the interests of big corporations, just like the Clintons. Hillary is their great hope, a Republican candidate under Democrat clothes.
  • threemagic, on 03/12/2008, -6/+3FINALLLYY, BA RACK has won Texassssssssss
  • nirav72, on 03/12/2008, -2/+9Newsweek had a small interview with Hillary , in which she actually suggested that she might even go after Obama's pledged delegates! (The ones that he has already won) The story is on digg somewhere.
  • indyhouse, on 03/12/2008, -3/+3http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/4728/safariscre ...

    *Gasp!* CNN took a few days to acknowledge what everyone else knew.
  • 55mph, on 03/12/2008, -4/+6how did Hillary win Ohio? Don't those idiots realize it was her business partner that pushed NAFTA through? How fukin stupid are they? Don't answer...
    • bonelifer, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1very...
    • runCMD, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2How did Hillary win Ohio? ... LOL, good one.

      A: fair and square.
      • argaen21, on 03/12/2008, -3/+1That and the fact that people from Ohio are ***** racist.
    • ChrisSlagle, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't call us all stupid. If I was legal age to vote, I would've voted for Obama. Go Hillary! ...NOT!
  • micropublisher, on 03/12/2008, -1/+18Here's a question for diggers: If Obama loses the party's nomination, who would you vote for?
    • Gerz1219, on 03/12/2008, -11/+6McCain. Just to spite Hillary. I'm serious too.
      • Tikisam, on 03/12/2008, -1/+7^^^Indicates exactly what I've been saying for the past few weeks. Obama supporters who are Hillary haters care nothing about policy b/c the two are identical. They merely select "the best candidate" which in their mind is "the most likable candidate"
        • Gerz1219, on 03/12/2008, -1/+2Well, since they are pretty much identical on policy and experience, they can only be judged on personality and character. We don't have much of a legislative record to go on for either of them, so if I want to get a good idea of how they'll manage the country, I have to look at how they've managed their campaigns -- it's the largest operation either of them has ever directly overseen. Obama has shown shrewd judgment, careful planning, and an ability to use his rhetoric to achieve real-world results. Hillary has shown herself to be arrogant, undisciplined, overly reliant on her husband, unable to adjust her strategy to unforeseen consequences -- and above all, she has engaged in one tactic after another which I find to be grossly, abhorrently unethical. Say that I'm just judging on likability all you want, but I think we've gotten a good view of what each candidate's presidency might look like, and I will do anything I can to keep Hillary out of office. Even if it means voting for McCain. I can listen to McCain speak without getting angry.
        • fictionalOne, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Gerz, you are not defending your view very well. You are pretty much saying that you would rather listen to McCain say we will continue this horrible war than hear Hillary say that we are pulling out our troops. I hope that there aren't many voters who think like you, but am worried that the numbers are larger than I think.
          • Gerz1219, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Eh, you know what, you guys are making a good point. I simply harbor an irrational hatred of Hillary on a personal level, even though I actually agree with most of her policy positions, at least a lot more so than I do with McCain. But I'm not the only one who feels this way, and that visceral loathing is not something that I or other Hillary-haters can just turn off. If Hillary wins the nomination, she will have done so by crushing the only politician who has ever inspired me in my adult lifetime, and I will never forgive her for it. Maybe I won't vote for McCain. Maybe I'll just stay home. I will never ever vote for her.
          • ruyen, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2@ fO:
            I guess that depends on if you believe what she says and if she actually believes the liberal ideas she's using to get the democratic nomination. Personally I used to support her, before I started really looking into her votes and past, and before her campaign went negative. Now I don't trust her, I don't believe she truthfully wants out of Iraq, changes to trade/nafta, and other things to help out the average citizen. When she was on the board of directors at Walmart for 7 years, she sure didn't have a problem with it. If you look at her past, she was a republican first. IMO she switched parties once she realized that she would have a better chance at a career in politics if she was a Dem. I think she might be closer to Bush/Cheney than McCain honestly, and crazy psychos like Coulter think the same and support her over him.

            Bottom line: I think she's a neocon in disguise: Supporting war, big business, lobbyists/special interests, health insurance companies, free-trade w/o limits, high spending, negative/anything-to-win campaign tactics (like Bush used on McCain in 2000)
          • fictionalOne, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1@Ruyen:
            While I don't agree with you, those are much more justifiable reasons to cast your vote than I just don't like her.
    • afpunk, on 03/12/2008, -3/+11That's a good question, and one a lot of older democrats don't understand. Despite being extremely liberal, there's no way in hell I'd ever cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, even if it meant that McCain would win the election. My choices would be between writing in Obama, Kucinich, or voting for Nader from what I see. Yeah, in strategic terms, any one of those would be a meaningless vote. However, what other option is there?
      • malfourmed, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2The option to get over your personal dislike for one candidate and cast your vote based on policies relative to the other candidate. If you're extremely liberal then ask yourself: who is more liberal? McCain or Clinton?
        Extreme right-wingers will claim there's no difference, but anyone else who informs themselves will know the spectrum goes something like:
        Obama - - - Clinton - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - McCain - - - - - - - - - Bush
        • afpunk, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1The problem is, despite what her stances supposedly are, she has made just as many, if not more, policy decisions that infuriate me than McCain has. I really don't know what the lesser of two evils would be in this case, so instead I would choose to vote for a good and have a clear conscience.
      • ruyen, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1@malfurmed
        As I just posted in my reply above: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/It_s_Official_Cl ...
        I am almost Extreme left-winger who agrees with those extreme right-winger nutjobs like Coulter in saying that Clinton is arguably more conservative than McCain. She doesn't sound like it publicly b/c she's trying to get the Dem nomination, but anyone else who informs themselves will know the spectrum goes something like:
        Obama - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Clinton/McCain - - - - - - - - - Bush
    • novenator, on 03/12/2008, -7/+8Clinton. She isnt as demonic as many make her out to be, and it would be nice to have Bill as a VP!
      • LogitechG15, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Bill would not be able to serve as vice president because in the event that Hillary died he would become pres. Read the 22nd amendment.
        • novenator, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Just did as you asked on wikipedia. very confusing. I thought it would be OK for him to assume the presidency in the event of her untimely demise, but the wording of the 22nd am. seems unclear to me. Does it mean he could only serve 2 years if she passed on?
      • LeeSoong, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2It would be so nice to have Monica coming in the White House again...
        • fictionalOne, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I don't think it was Monica who did the coming. Zing!
    • MarkusGarvey, on 03/12/2008, -4/+25The Flying Spaghetti Monster ...
    • PoonGnarfler, on 03/12/2008, -8/+6Not Hillary, not McCain, I'd be about 50-50 between not voting or writing in Ron Paul
      • Tikisam, on 03/12/2008, -3/+4Why would you support Obama, and if not Obama... Ron Paul?
        The two are diametrically opposed on policy... oh but that's right Obama supporters don't care about policy... they care about moving speeches and feel-good words.
        • amoirae, on 03/12/2008, -2/+2O-bama, my lord, O-bama..

        • ruyen, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Or maybe they care about voting for someone they trust, even if they don't agree with everything they say. I'd rather vote for someone who honestly cares about improving the country, even if they have a different view of how to get there, than someone like Hillary.
          Who says she's against the war but voted for military force against Iraq and Iran; who says she's for labor unions and yet worked for Walmart for years and said Nafta was a success; who says she wants universal healthcare but takes tons of lobby money from health insurance industry; list goes on and on but I have to go to lunch..
      • PaulRay, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Yeah... All those pointless words like : "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The "Words" that Obama holds dear, The "Words" that Ron Paul Holds dear, the "Words" that our way of life was built upon. The "Words" the Bush administration has shat upon. "Feel good words" fuel revolutions and build freedom. Never forget that!
    • PamalaLauren, on 03/12/2008, -7/+5McCain
    • SzaszMan, on 03/12/2008, -5/+7I'd pull the lever for whoever the Libertarians nominate. I'm willing to vote for Obama, but I would never vote for Hillary and would just as soon gargle with rusty nails before I vote for that bat-***** insane old fool McCain.
    • lamprey187, on 03/12/2008, -1/+8I would not vote. In a McCain vs. Clinton election I would be unable to cast a vote trying to decide who I disliked less. Besides, the crap Hillary is pulling, and would have to pull to get the nomination would split the dems so severely and energize so many people to vote against her, McCain would win if he just ran a simple campaign. She is dividing her own party. I hope she goes down in flames. Just my personal opinion.
    • diskit, on 03/12/2008, -2/+7Obama
    • KyleGoetz, on 03/12/2008, -2/+5Obama write-in, Nader, or McCain, in no particular order. I honestly cannot see myself voting for Clinton; I have specific policy reasons why I wouldn't (e.g., there was a petition for the candidates to sign from both political parties pledging that they believe any debate video OUGHT TO be freely traded among the citizenry -- as in, CNN's video would be quasi-copyright-free -- and Clinton was the ONLY CANDIDATE FROM EITHER PARTY to not sign it).

      Her recent attempts to imply McCain is a better candidate than Obama show she cares more for power than for loyalty. Let's not forget her implied assertion that Congress has a role in censoring video games.

      John McCain captured my interest in 2000, and if he'd remained that person up to now, he'd be giving Obama a run for my vote. As it stands now, between the two major parties, I'd go McCain over Clinton without batting an eyelash (albeit with shedding a tear because I didn't get to vote for Obama). And this is coming from a guy who doesn't hate Bill Clinton.

      I could go on forever about this. I absoultely cannot vote for Clinton. I'd say I loathe her, but I don't have the capacity for any level of hatred towards any human being.
    • Revovisionary, on 03/12/2008, -3/+1Blasphemy!
    • lanemik, on 03/12/2008, -4/+2Nader
    • slowbox, on 03/12/2008, -0/+3Tina Turner
    • canthony, on 03/12/2008, -0/+0I hope people - Hillary, the media - understand this: It's not like I just prefer Obama over Hillary. I like Obama, and I despise Hillary. I would seriously consider voting for McCain over her, or most likely not voting at all. And I think this is the case for a great percentage of Obama supporters, especially young or African-American voters. All that support will completely vanish, and a generation of voters will once again lose interest in politics.
    • drband36, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Nader...shedding tears and ripping my hair out the whole time.

      Barack Facts: Fast Obama Facts vs. Falsehoods
      http://www.barackfacts.blogspot.com
      Hillary Facts: She stoops to conquer
      http://www.kitchensink08.blogspot.com
    • RhodesSkolar, on 03/12/2008, -0/+0I would have to vote for Eliot Spitzer.
      • cwcentral, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1legalized and safe prostitution FTW
  • obxjdt, on 03/12/2008, -5/+2......old news........
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 111 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.