digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at time-blog.com

NPR Poll: McCain Loses to Obama, Tops Clinton - Real Clear P

time-blog.com — This is a no brainer, no secret, Americans are wakeing up! And ready to elect Barack Obama for President.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Kent4jmj, on 05/16/2008, -87/+31Oxymoron of the Week.

    Americans are waking up and ready to elect Obama.

    ROFL
    • JekJob, on 05/16/2008, -11/+45Moron of the week:

      Kent4jmj.
    • halleyscomet, on 05/16/2008, -7/+12Oxymoron: a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.” - dictionary.com

      Where, exactly, is the Oxymoron is the concept of Americans waking up and being ready to elect Obama? Do you not understand the term "Oxymoron"?
      • Gorgamel, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3*whooooosh*
        • djholybolt, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0no woosh is neccessary here.
          kent is infact stupid for not knowing what an oxymoron is.
      • OstrakonX, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1I could see what he was trying to say. As in, "If Americans were 'waking up' (i.e., becoming cognizant of their actions), they wouldn't be voting for Obama." Hence, the contradiction, at least according to him.

        He's still a moron, though.
    • misguidedmonkey, on 05/16/2008, -16/+7Actually, I think America woke up when it discovered Ron Paul. But as lazy as we are, we went back to sleep and went to Obama. Wake back up you lazy *****!! Obama is an empty suit. He tells you what you want to hear. He doesn't speak truth or logic.
    • Chronoped, on 05/17/2008, -0/+3might as well have just posted "FIRST"
  • DiggLive, on 05/16/2008, -28/+94This is a national poll, not the Electoral College (which needs to die). Obama loses currently because of close losses in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. He can beat McCain if he improves his support slightly. We'll have to see where these maps stand in 2 weeks or so, and see what impact Edward's endorsement has.

    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/M ...
    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps ...
    • notBrit, on 05/16/2008, -5/+67Because polls taken 6 months before the election are perfectly accurate. Just ask President Kerry.
    • zephyear, on 05/16/2008, -5/+24you honestly think a democrat is going to lose wisconsin and michigan?

      and yes, polls 6 months before elections are in no way close to how the actual election might go
      • aliengoods, on 05/16/2008, -0/+13Agreed. I'm from Wisconsin and they voted for Gore and Kerry when Bush was actually popular, and right now people absolutely hate the Republican brand at the Federal level. Obama would have to ***** up pretty big to lose Wisconsin, and even then McCain would have a tough time.
      • RajAtWork, on 05/16/2008, -11/+5> you honestly think a democrat is going to lose wisconsin and michigan?

        Michigan, yes. They are going thru tough economic times, losing population, and when going gets tough, liberals are the first ones to packup and leave.
        • schuder, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Not to mention most of the contests have Obama winning Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, North Dakota, NH, it's kind of a dream world scenario. While I personally like Obama's charisma and personality more (politically libertarian so not quite sure who to vote for) I don't think he honestly stands a chance. I want to know how the race quotient plays into the polling data, because as much as I'd love it for us to live in a color blind society, we don't.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/16/2008, -4/+16Ahhh Ohio... the national sinkhole...

      If Obama wants to win here he better do some HEAVY campaigning starting tomorrow because everyone here still thinks of him as a Muslim.
      • DevilInPgh, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8Four words: Mistake by the Lake.
      • Eezyville, on 05/16/2008, -7/+3Hey I live in Ohio and you're 100% incorrect. Don't call a place ***** just because things didn't go Obama's way, ***** happens.
        • DevilInPgh, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Yeah, yeah, but you'll still always be the Mistake by the Lake.
      • dognose, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Well, I certainly wish the mainstream media would show the electoral polls instead of just national polls. We'll end up with end up with more screaming people about how someone stole the election even though they were behind in meaningless polls. If you want your candidate to win, you gotta win in enough states. Getting 100% of the vote in the big cities and none in the country is not enough.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 05/16/2008, -11/+16I'm getting pretty sick of this "The Electoral College needs to go away / die" crap. Take a few minutes to read about the EC and you'll realize that it mirrors the way this country was built and is supposed to run as it relates to the Federal and State governments.
      • schuder, on 05/16/2008, -2/+11To an extent I'd agree, but it sucks when you live in a state and your vote doesn't matter. Any solid red or blue state and why vote? The electoral college was nice when people couldn't get news easily and many were illiterate. That has changed (to no one watches/reads the news even though it's widely available and many are just stupid or ignorant).
        • vexingmodstwo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4It may suck that you live in a "solid red or blue" state and you are in the minority, but you're actually highlighting why it was suck even more if you had a national election. Imagine how you'd feel if the entire COUNTRY was "solid red or blue" and in order to make any change at all you would have to try to win the hearts and minds of an exponentially larger audience than you would at a state or local level. You have two choices right now: You could move to another state or you could try to educate your community and get the pendulum swinging in your desired direction. That's literally impossible to do on a national level.
        • schuder, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I can see both sides, ideally the whole goal of government is to slow any sort of change which is usually good. "Change" always means more intrusive government (economic for Dems, privacy/liberty for GOP), which is bad all around.
      • homercles337, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8No. The EC was conceived of and setup when we were an agrarian society. We are no longer an agrarian society, as such the EC should go.
        • vexingmodstwo, on 05/16/2008, -6/+3By your moronic logic, the Constitution, which was conceived of and setup when we were an agrarian society should go then too.
      • redlantern64, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Okay. I'll shut up about the electoral college if people will then stop feeding me the crap line that I live in a democracy. Democracy is defined as "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised DIRECTLY by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." If a state's electoral votes were divided up based on the proportion of popular vote a candidate won, I'd be satisfied. But as it stands now, I only INDIRECTLY vest power in the executive branch if my candidate wins my state's popular vote. And if my candidate loses, my voice goes unheard completely. That's, by definition is NOT democracy.
        • vexingmodstwo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4You do live in a democracy. It's just not a pure democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republ ...

          What's really scary is that I learned this stuff in the eighth grade and it looks like they don't teach this stuff anymore.
        • bpoteat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1That's part of the problem. At one time, people voted on who they thought would make the best decision for who should be the president - for the "Electoral College": vote for the most intelligent, sensible people and they will discuss it go over all the candidates and then decide who would be the best person for the job. The party system ruined it from almost the beginning - it was destined to not really work.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but this is actually the second attempt at building the country and this time they made it so that you could change the constitution on a 2/3rds majority.
    • unpluggedboy, on 05/16/2008, -10/+6I doubt Edward's support would have any effect whatsoever in the general election.
      The man couldn't even win his own state for crying out loud.j
      On top, any of the states that could have been affected has already had the primaries.
      Let's face it. Edwards is just a douchebag trial lawyer who not only has no achievements, he didn't even have the balls to come out and support Obama until his endorsement was worth jack.
    • juanchopanza, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1California's petition might be a problem. If the petition to ban homosexual marriage becomes a major flash point a lot more non-Obama voters will go to the polls than would have prior to yesterday.

      Edward's indorsement impact: nil, it's just more of the same.

      Now Amadinijad's indorsement, that will really ripple. Expect it after next week's elections in Kentucky.
      • gobbleplex, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Well Iran endorsed Bush in 2004, and it seemed to work wonders in getting him the election.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because California's going to go Republican in the national election...^
    • jonamerica, on 05/16/2008, -2/+10For anyone who doubts the electoral college please read the article, "Math Against Tyranny." It's a great discussion about how, mathematically, the EC empowers voters, and is one of the greatest aspects of American democracy.

      http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

      America has never been a true democracy, we've always been a representative democracy. It's how the system was designed, so learn to love it, move, or run for office and offer a bill to change the system.

      Posting a comment on Digg certainly isn't going to anything.

      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7If I could digg you up 100 times I would.
      • dezholling, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0@jonamerica

        I agree with the article you linked that talks about how a candidate should be well-rounded location-wise in an election, but the complaint that I (and perhaps others) have about the electoral college system is about its representation. If you check the numbers, then a vote in Wyoming has 3.8 times the weight of a vote in California, mostly because the electoral votes include the representatives from the Senate.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_b ...

        To me there is no justifiable reason that a person in a less populated state should get more representation than one in a more populated state. Perhaps it could be overlooked if it was caused by rounding, but having a vote in Wyoming = 4 votes in California is inexcusable in my opinion.
        • dezholling, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0As an addition, I did some more math and since California has 11.95% of the population, if all states and DC were to get California's representation, then there would be 55 / .1195 ~= 460 electoral votes. That means that there are 538-460 = 78 electoral votes that are essentially "allocated" to smaller states.

          And for the record, while I like the Senate and House configuration even though the Senate over represents small states, this is because it is a check to the system, as a bill must pass both. However, the Electoral College is an addition of the two systems, which doesn't result in a check, but rather just a bias towards small states. I would be perfectly happy with the Electoral College if you took out the Senate seats and had only 438 electoral votes.
        • babar77, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2That's the whole point! The point is to protect against the tyranny of the majority. This whole system we have here is to ELIMINATE TYRANNY. This representative democracy we have was chosen as the tool to do just that. The founding fathers were far more interested in making sure that this land was ruled by reason and ration then majority votes. They felt the only way to do that was to distribute and diffuse power as much as possible through a complex system of checks and balances. This includes taking power away from large voting blocs so that they have to at least acknowledge the existence of the smaller ones and not completely exclude them like what happened with the Serbs in former Yugoslavia.

          It forces us to deal with all of us, and not just dismiss completely those that disagree. In other words - it forces us to be adults.

          Either way, your math is faulty. In fact you made the exact error that the article pointed out by only weighing votes evenly and not factoring the closeness of the election in your district. The closer the election, the greater the chance your single vote will change the result. So your vote would be worth more in California because it's a much closer race than Wyoming currently is.
      • jonamerica, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I can agree with you. The system was never designed, or intended to be a directly elected federal government. In fact the founders were distrustful of a strong central government, and wanted to ensure that states were able to maintain sovereignty.

        State elections are, as far as I know, all pure democracies. You vote directly for your elected official in state office. The federal government is made up of elected representatives. We vote to elect someone to represent our _state_, not the people, in the federal government.

        We also vote to elect someone to represent our state to vote for the President. It was never intended that we, the people, elect the President directly.

        Now it's true, Wyoming has 3 electoral vote, which is 0.55%, of the college. California has 55 votes, which is 10.22%. If you look at pure population, Wyoming has gained 0.38% of the electoral college voting power compared to their % of national population, while CA has lost 1.73% (from their 11.95% of the population).

        **When you see Wyoming turn red this fall just remember to say to yourself, "Don't worry, it's only 0.55% of the EC**

        However, each state makes up 2% of the union, and WY is only being represented by 0.55%, while CA gets 10%. There were those that argued this was completely unbalanced, and that even the largest states should only have 1/13th (today it would be 1/50th) of the vote, regardless of population!

        Now, you say that a voter in Wyoming has 3.8 times the weight of a voter in CA. However, I would argue, under the current system, a vote cast in WY will only ever have the possibility of being worth either 0% or 0.55%, while a vote in CA will be worth either 0% or 10.22%.

        When I go to the polls this fall I know what I'm voting for. I'm voting for my 2.23% of the EC vote (MA). I want my 2.23% of the EC to vote for my candidate. I may lose and get 0, but at the end of the day I know that if I'm with the majority I will be represented by 2.23% of the vote.

        In my mind, that's much better than 0.0000003268% my vote would be worth in a pure democracy.
        • argaen21, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1This argument is currently *****. States don't get have the self independence that is guaranteed by a small central government elected by the EC. State rights don't matter when the EC is what is keeping the republicans in power so they can overrule state legislation. Just look at California on the previous issue of gas mileage standards.

          ***** this EC *****. The world is too small now. I want one vote = one vote.
        • dezholling, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0I understand the want for state representation, which is why I don't oppose the Senate. However, to me, a senator represents the state, while a president represents the country. Therefore, I don't see why there should be any small state bias in electing the president.
        • jonamerica, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2I think you're confusing your branches of government. The representatives go to the legislative branch.

          The three branches work, to some extent, on all levels of government.

          Local: Local judges, selectmen, mayors
          State: State judges, states reps, governors
          Fed: Supreme court, Congress, President

          You could argue that the local represents the interests of the town, the state the state, and the feds the county as a whole.

          However, our federal reps are supposed to keep in mind the interests of the states they represent in the federal govn't (hence pork-barreling).

          It's true they also deal with international matters, but again it's really in (state) self-interest. "No, I oppose the war, too many from my state will die and I won't get re-elected." "No, I oppose NAFTA, too many from my state will lose their jobs and I won't get re-elected." "Yes, I support spending $17 billion on a jet fighter that is only slightly better than the previous one, because it will mean more jobs for my state and I will get re-elected. And the people in my state will be taxed, and their taxes will pay for the $17 billion jet... it's a vicious circle, but whatever... Ooo an intern!"

          Now, where does the President fall into all this? Well, let's think of the mayor. His job is oversee the offices of the local government (police, trash collection, city parks, fire department, etc.) The mayor is the town executive.

          Governor - oversee the offices of the state government (state taxes, other things I'm sure). The Governor is the state executive.

          President - Oversees the IRS, NASA, DOA, DOC, DOD, (and the other 800 some agencies). He is the head of the Executive branch.

          I agree, the president it a "representative" of the country to the rest of the world. He is the most visible, his actions have impact on the entire country, often the world. However, his main job is maintaining the union and "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed". In doing so he protects the interests of the country, the states, the cities, and the people, sometimes at the expense of international relations. (This self-interest is pretty much guaranteed if you follow Rational Choice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice )

          I wouldn't say we've elected him to "represent" anything. He isn't siting with a group of peers at some world government (think U.N., but with power). He's just the CEO of our country.

          If you think we should have a popular vote so our country is represented by someone popular (meaning either cool, or just won't embarrass us by turning the country into a giant frat party for his cronies), then shouldn't we also vote for our movie stars, pop-music stars, athletes, etc?

          If your argument is that he represents (as in "To stand for; symbolize," or "To serve as an example of") then what you're asking for is a popularity contest. And, in that case, I'm voting for the The Fonz. God bless America. Aaaaaaaaa.

          If your argument is that he is a representative, then I would argue he's not. He's merely an executive.
        • dezholling, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Okay, so maybe "represents" was the wrong word to use.

          Nevertheless, to use your analogy, if the small state bias is needed electing the man that is "executing" in the best interests of the nation (and not of any particular state), then why isn't a similar small county bias or small community bias needed/used when electing governors or mayors?

          To be clear, I am not terribly upset about the current election methods, I am simply questioning the representation system of the Electoral College out of principle. Why, exactly, do we feel the need to give a small state bias?
        • jonamerica, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Well, to enhance the status of minority groups. Require widespread popular support to win. Encourage stability. Neutralize disparities between states. But largely, a national popular mandate could undermine the legitimacy of the other two branches of government, and potentially result in tyranny.

          For example, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was elected by a popular vote, but I think one could argue to some extend that his popularity has allowed him to become tyrannical. Another example would be Hitler. Although he lost the presidential election, his vast popularity and populist rhetoric got him appointed Chancellor, and ultimately allowed him to suppress opposition through murder (Night of the Long Knives), without large public outcry.

          When founding the union of states, the representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, were interested in state sovereignty and preventing a strong (tyrannical) federal government. At that point the union was more like the EU, than what we think of the US today.

          There's a wealth of information out there and, it seems to me, the majority of articles written by political scientists and economists, support the EC. There must be a reason that we still have it after 200 years.

          From an abstract, "...we view the electoral college as a critical force in shaping American political development. With its structured system of competition for doubtful states and pivotal groups, the electoral college injects a unique logic into the dynamics of national politics."
          http://www.jstor.org/pss/2585764

          Another, "Our results are in line with previous analyses indicating no significant bias within the electoral college. We conclude that parties and their presidential candidates are rational political actors who utilize sophisticated campaign strategies which allow them to efficiently employ their resources and limit any institutional disadvantages they may face."
          http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j ...

          Honestly, if you want to talk REAL bias, look here:
          http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do
          http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/

          In the end, we shouldn't be worried about the bias of Wyoming. It's a conservative state. That's 3 electoral votes for the Republicans, and 0.55% of the EC. Nobody has ever said, "It's just down to Wyoming."

          It comes down to swing states. To win swing states you need to campaign. To campaign you need money. Money doesn't guarantee you a win (Mitt Romney, I'm looking at you), but it certainly doesn't hurt to be swimming in it.

          See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004CampaignAtt ...

          In the end its the volatile swing states that typically determines electoral college victory. To win those states you need an army of supporters and money.

          Money is the real bias.
        • dezholling, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0Agreed, I'm also not a big fan of corporate influence on government, and I think that is a much bigger problem.

          However, to stick to the subject, let's say the EC was based solely on the House representatives. So California gets 53, Wyoming 1, and Iowa (the swing state where I vote) gets 5. How does that change the swing state mentality of the election that your article and the experts advocate? This is what I advocate, though I agree there are much bigger problems than this.
        • jonamerica, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1In the current system no small states are under-represented. However, in what you propose, small states are. Montana has 0.31% of the population, but it gets 0.22% of the vote.

          In fact, in the system you propose, Idaho, Montana, Deleware, South Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Mississippi, Oregon, Minnesota, Indiana, Washington, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida are under-represented (16 total), while 7 out of the 10 most populous states are over-represented.

          In the current system Arizona, Washington, Virginia, New Jersey, and the 10 most populous states (14 total) are under-represented.

          I think many would ask, why adopt a system that under-represents the minority states? Would we want a system of popular vote where white votes were worth 1.1 votes, while minorities were worth 0.9? If we wanted to empower the minority to be able to protect itself from an overbearing majority, wouldn't we want the opposite?

          Why would CA, which has almost 62% more EC votes than the next most populous state need MORE representation!?

          No President has won office without winning Ohio since 1964, why would Ohio need to be over-represented? Ohio is already going to get lots of attention, why give it even more power? Same with Penn. and Mich.

          No system is perfect. Even a direct vote has its flaws. In a direct vote system candidates would spend all their time in the most populated areas, campaigning almost entirely in cities, where they get the most out of their money. Rural voters and small states would be entirely ignored. New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, and Phoenix make up 21% of the population.

          Currently, candidates must appeal, to some extent, to a broad electorate. In a direct system they need only appeal to an urban demographic. I don't see how this would be better.
    • phantom_mullet, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3I agree with vexingmodstwo. I'm not sure why the Electoral College gets so much flack. Our founding fathers designed the Electoral College in order to prevent a huge delay in determining the president in the event that the popular vote was too close. If the national popular vote was close, where would you start in the event of a recount? It's safe to say that, with the Electoral College, it would be much easier to recount the votes in a specific contested area. The 2000 election prompted an attack on the Electoral College, but I see nothing wrong with it.

      Just my 2 cents...
      • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1The reason for the Electoral College had nothing to do with recounts.
    • rmxz, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6"Obama loses currently because of close losses in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. "

      If one actually believes Obama is behind in a contest vs McCain, they should put their money where their polls tell them and bet in the real-money prediction markets. Such systems have Obama well ahead in contests against McCain by about 57/37. One of the bigger real-money prediction markets can be found here http://www.intrade.com
      • vexingmodstwo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2heh... I remember those sites back in 2004. Most of them were wrong.
        • rmxz, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If you're confident they're so error prone, it seems you could make some easy money by betting against them.
      • Nonplussed, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah. Obama's ahead but that margin's just ridiculous. And rmxz, way to completely ignore the entire point of the statement you quoted: the Electoral College.
      • br0ck, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2--vexingmodstwo: You remember incorrectly. "Internet-based wagering, which saw millions of dollars change hands as gamblers laid odds on the presidential candidates and also on a handful of hotly-contested Senate races, emerged as a good predictor of the outcome of an election and proved it is much more accurate than the over-quoted opinion polls. ... "Betting Web sites did a better job of predicting the election results than I could have ever imagined," he said. The odds on Web-based betting outfits like Dublin-based Tradesports.com, where $16 million was wagered on the U.S. election, accurately predicted the Electoral College vote in every state and also the outcome in key Senate races in states like Colorado and South Dakota, Vaughan Williams said. ... Betting Web sites saw their best election triumph in Florida. Even though polls put Kerry ahead in that state, or said the race was too close to call, odds offered on betting Web sites consistently showed Bush would win." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6355395/
    • verevi, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Not if Hillary has her way:

      http://digg.com/politics/Why_Hillary_Won_t_Quit_2
    • ptheroux, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2If either candidate wins the popular vote by more that 1% they almost certainly will win the electoral vote too. At this point, national polls are more informative than state polls.
    • spankaccount, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2Electoral College is too important to kill off. Silly Diggbot.
  • Kent4jmj, on 05/16/2008, -53/+11I'm still laughing. Obama is bankrupt of any sane political philosophies that are rooted in the Constitution. And I know his supporters do not understand our Constitution either. You are the ones who are sleeping. Sleeping while your personal freedoms are being legislated away. Sleeping while the dollar loses its value because our government spends money the federal reserve prints out of thin air and charges us interest on. Sleeping while we wage undeclared war and unjust wars. Keep sleeping and vote for Obama.
    • x0rcist, on 05/16/2008, -4/+16Yeah well I don't want George Bush again, so I'm voting for Obama. Thanks for your input though. It really made me think twice.
      • Kent4jmj, on 05/16/2008, -13/+5George has already served two terms. The Constitution says what about number of terms Pres. can serve?
        • oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Damn dude. Your daft as *****. McCain is just Bush Jr., Jr. Hence why everyone is calling him McBush.
        • animefx, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Kent4jmj you don't get it... John McCain is pretty much another George Bush, same policies.
        • SomeDrunk, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3@ oscenester
          Really? I thought it was McSame.. Anyway, that's like saying if Hillary won, it'd be Bill's 3rd term. Kinda disingenuous.
        • Gerz1219, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Hillary's entire campaign was based around the idea of Bill's third term.
        • headzoo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Wow, I think everyone with two brain cells to rub together understood what x0rcist meant.
        • oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Apparantly Kent4jmj is under your understanding requirement then lol
        • Kent4jmj, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Only negative 40. Common you socialists, you can do better than that.
      • halleyscomet, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Who do you plan to vote for Kent4jmj?
        • Kent4jmj, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I will write in Ron Paul or vote for Chuck Baldwin the Constitution Party candidate.
        • Kent4jmj, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2Kent4jmj you don't get it... John McCain is pretty much another George Bush, same policies.

          Oh yes I do! That is why I can't stand the SOB and I don't mean superintendent of business. How anyone can equate me with him is beyond me. I have written nothing that would give the slightest hint that I like the jerk.
    • swrostmore, on 05/16/2008, -5/+14"Constitution...Constitution...federal reserve..."

      lol, bitter Ron Paul supporter is bitter.
      • forgottenhope, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1What is more than bitter, is that when someone references the constitution, they are mocked.

        The founding document on which this country was founded and men died for is now a joke to people like you.

        Read this. ***** you. You ideas of "change" are what exactly.

        What is it that obama is going to change? Nothing, hes not going to change a ***** thing, universal healthcare is a ***** joke if you know what happened to social security.

        Then again for anyone who mocks the constitution, Im sure they are more worried about american idols than they are their own lifes.

        America will fall as did rome, and you chicken hawks can go die in your own war on terrorisms.
    • DocOctavius, on 05/16/2008, -10/+7Typical hollow Republican banter. You're afraid because you don't understand, but that's ok. You're in the minority this time.
      If by "sane" political philosophies you mean using logic and communication to try to solve problems instead of putting a band-aid on everything by cutting taxes, cutting education, rolling back civil rights laws, letting corporate polluters police themselves, ROBBING the US public outright, every single day, through government contracts in the Iraq "war"... then ok? He's "insane" to think that we can fix the system, just a bit? Nobody's claiming a magic fix to every problem- we just want someone who's a bit more human and honest- plus he's really got a good track record so far, and the kids like him, so that's enough for me.
      • forgottenhope, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1What is obama going to change? I hate john mccain hes a ***** idiot. Im not voting for him, or at all for that matter.

        But this obama change. What ***** change is going to happen? What, some obama supporter please tell the entire world what the ***** obama is going to change?
        • shitforbrains, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If all that happens is that the ***** Patriot Act goes away and we see no more of FISA, then its worth it. The biggest tax in the world is the one we're paying for the ***** war. Why do you think your gas costs so much. It's because Bush is spending money we don't have and printing it like a madman. The more he prints, the less every dollar you have is worth. If Obama kills the war (saving us a Trillion dollars every 5 years, then he can spend a few bucks to "make healthcare affordable" and it won't kill me so much. Just saying.
    • Kent4jmj, on 05/16/2008, -14/+6Yes I'm in the minority. But time will tell. If Obama is elected we will crash and burn.

      Typical Republican banter? Now thems fightin words as many Republicans are Neo-Con idiots who do not know the Constition either. They've been listening to Rush Limbaugh to much, jack asses.

      Yes I support Ron Paul (which further proves I'm not a typical Republican) and am proud to have found someone who speaks the truth about our problems and has some damn good common sense ideas on how to fix them.
      • oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4"But time will tell. If obama is elected we will crash and burn"

        Then I guess time won't tell, because you already have told us.
        Good thing we don't need an irrational thing like time when we've got the truthseer over here...

        • Kent4jmj, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Yes based on Obama lack of sound monetary policies and lack of a foreign policy that will bring our troops home I can extrapolate that we will be bankrupt and experience a depression the likes of which the world has not seen. A historical understanding of unsound monetary policy and Imperial militaristic nation building shows that a country who engages in them will crash and burn. And yes time will tell because it does not happen overnight but over time which is running short.
      • animefx, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2As a Ron Paul supporter you should know that he has spoken out AGAINST John McCain and said he won't vote for him.
      • Manther, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0I don't really understand then. A Ron Paul supporter who, what supports Hillary now?? I too was an RP supporter, I thought his common sense would go a long way, and now without him, Obama is the only guy I think can keep us from crashing and burning. McCain is a better choice than Hillary IMHO, but I get the feeling that either of them would just give us more of the same that we got from G.W. If you remember, when Bush got into the white house our economy was doing pretty well, and look at what he's done to it, and to us. No child left behind penalizes the smart kids, and don't try to tell me it doesn't unless you've got hard proof (which doesn't exist). Our country is being flushed down the toilet, and we need someone as unlike Bush as possible to try and turn the ship around.
        • KennMac, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I'm sorry. But if I had to choose the lesser of 2 evils, it sure has hell wouldn't be McCain.

          You lose all credibility when you say you're a RP supporter but you'd still put one in the McCain column if it came down to it. You realize McCann and Ron are polar opposites, right?

          And the fact that you 'were' a RP supporter really just means you never were. You were just along for the ride.
        • Manther, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0OR: Hillary is the worst candidate of the three IMHO, so maybe I should have said I'd rather not vote than vote for either her or McCain. Forgive me for not being clearer, though you did misread, and I didn't actually say I'd vote for him, just that he's better than Hillary.

          Also, 'just along for the ride' is very inaccurate. You don't know me dude. I donated money even. It's just that I'd like my vote to count, and therefore can't justify throwing it away on someone who doesn't stand a chance to win. Personally, I feel that if I were to vote Ron Paul in November, at this point, I might as well put one in the McCain column, because I'm taking a vote away from Obama, who could win.
  • romistrub, on 05/16/2008, -74/+104Here's to bitching about the comment system:

    1) Comments load in erratic order.
    2) Comment overflow is amateur (example_example_example_example_example_example_example_example_example_example_example_example_example_example_example_example_)
    3) "Add a Comment" box behaves stupidly after adding above comment (2)

    4) (http://www.youtube.com%29 Algorithm is terrible at finding links in text
    5) http://www.youtube.com/asdohasoiuhasoihdfsudfdsohf ... - Long links still do not work after edit period
    6) Design needs improvement. Seeing how far nested a comment is becomes extremely difficult depending on the comment arrangement. Visual cues are required.
    7) "Thread" button doesn't seem to do anything useful.
    8) Yellow faded background skips to the wrong background colour after entering comment.

    I'm sure there are more, such as Opera crashes. Please, devs... I'm sure you get paid nicely. As someone who's barely worked in web dev for a mere year, I cannot understand how you keep your jobs. Try harder, please.
    • PhoenixAvatar2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7Pet peeve: sort controversial isn't sorted.
    • Bartboy919, on 05/16/2008, -3/+44Is this really the place to be venting?

      http://digg.com/bugreport
      • romistrub, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4A couple of these aren't "bugs" per se. (6) and (1) in particular. Just bad design.

        Also, I doubt the comment system would have changed in the first place if people hadn't kept bitching about it.
    • Snuff99, on 05/16/2008, -7/+26A tad assholish.
      • romistrub, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7I know, but whatever. It's the truth. I thought about fluffing it up with *****, but decided against it.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 05/16/2008, -8/+3I have no idea what you're talking about yet I still agree.

      Digg is poop now.
    • aladrin, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7That's awesome:

      His comment:
      romistrubromistrub
      12 hr 51 min ago
      Here's to bitching about the comment system:

      First comment:
      Kent4jmjKent4jmj
      29 minutes ago

      I have to agree... That's pretty erratic.
      • romistrub, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I think it would make far more sense to load comments top to bottom, instead of one "nesting level" at a time. It's more natural to read in that order.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -9/+1You obviously aren't smart enough to use the reply system so why would anyone want to hear your complaints?
      • romistrub, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Who should I have been replying to?

        Also, that's a non-sequitur. Thanks for your time.
    • romistrub, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8There's more:

      9) Profile page digg count is mismatched with comments page digg count.
      10) Burying a digger has an unintuitive response. Hiding the entire tree makes no sense in this context. If you are burying someone, odds are that you disagree with them (unless it's spam), and most often, replies also disagree with parent comments. Therefore, replies will agree with you, and hiding them automatically makes no sense.
      • absurdist, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4That one is my biggest issue with the new comment system. Makes no sense whatsoever.
    • normalkid0615, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10yeah it looks better but I never read any comments anymore, I used to read the artice, unbury the buried ones, rebury them, digg some cool stuff, then add my lame useless ranting comment like this one. THIS THING SUCKS!! ILL WRITE IT MYSELF, DO IT LIVE!!!
    • orlyfactor, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1Way to bitch about something that's ***** FREE.
      • romistrub, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1You have a funny concept of "free". Time is, quite accurately, money. If I spend my time on another site, that site will make more money. Why? Ads based on stats, probably.
      • rdoger6424, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Don't ever complain about getting sick. Ever.
        Free has 3 meanings
        Free as in beer
        Free as in speech
        Free as in herpes
    • Todash19, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1Your a little touchy over a free service arent you?
    • Lokyho, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Sadly, this is a clear example of someone who knows a little code and suddenly think he's the best god dam developer the world knows. Plus the OP seems to lack the ability to even make constructive criticism in the correct place.
      • romistrub, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3"Sadly, this is a clear example of someone who knows a little code and suddenly think he's the best god dam developer the world knows."

        Are you kidding me? I have no qualms about how average I am. I can barely consider myself a "developer". It just pisses me off when a *professional web dev* cannot do as good a job as I can. IF I considered myself "the best god dam developer the world knows", then my argument would have no credence!
        • ahff, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1if u are so average, i doubt that u have any idea of the complexity underlying a comment system when it has to handle as many comments as digg gets. I doubt you could do a better job. That is not to say you should not express your thoughts, but you might want to use a different - less arrogant - tone.
    • seanmc303, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1My favorite part is that the new comment system consistently makes Opera 9.5 beta crash on a very consistent basis. That has been my experience. Way to test these new scripts.
    • Jordan117, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Also, upon first loading, many comments are shown to have only 1 digg. This only changes to the correct amount after digging it.
    • diggdiggerid, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Do you comments-apologizers not realize that Digg.com, Inc is a MULTI MILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION? It can do a better job, come on.
  • lukas88, on 05/16/2008, -23/+32Yeah it is not the americans who listen to NPR that we need to worry about
    • Diggnabbit, on 05/16/2008, -0/+23Yeah, that's why they didn't poll Americans who listen to NPR. They polled random people, just like every other poll, and it was conducted by "the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies and the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner" not NPR directly.
    • purzzzell, on 05/16/2008, -0/+11RTFA
  • hinchb, on 05/16/2008, -13/+6***** you, Frank.
  • buffyangel108, on 05/16/2008, -5/+17Can't wait to see Hillary's response to this one. "Sure, I'm behind in delgates, superdelegates and the popular vote. But only I can win the crucial pantsuit-wearer market in November"...
    • cdigioia, on 05/16/2008, -7/+2***** you for decrying pantsuits.
    • noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6She's the only one who can bring out the frigid bitch vote.
    • Gerz1219, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7Bitter candidates cling to pantsuits out of frustration.
    • mal1964, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"Can't wait to see Hillary's response to this one"
      Diggers are far more politically savvy when compared to your typical average voter.
    • junkwheel, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Sting is gonna play her out.
    • skylights, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Obama fan here, but...

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/107323/Gallup-Daily-Oba ...

      "At the same time, the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking data on the national election, from May 11-15, finds John McCain moving slightly ahead of Obama, 47% to 45% among registered voters, after the two were tied at 45% in Thursday's report. There has been no change in voter preferences in a McCain-Clinton race, with Clinton holding a 3-point advantage, 48% to 45%."
  • pjpark, on 05/16/2008, -13/+15Why do we waste all of this time, energy, and money on election campaigns and voting when NPR can just tell us who the next President will be?
    • oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Hell I don't know. Lets hang the current administration and get Barack in there tonight. Im all for it man...
    • dafragsta, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Oh, you are so right and [media outlet that skews to your bias] has never reported or conducted polls.
    • Labourer, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2forget opinion polls . If you want a decent forecast go to the bookmaker.
  • slayerab, on 05/16/2008, -8/+13Hmm, Kerry and Dukakis were also supposed to beat their competition up to two weeks before election day, beware, the republicans might slip some sleeping pills to the people again.
    • flashingcurser, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Do you believe that americans are more energized to vote when their candidate is very low in the poles? I'm inclined to believe that we like to vote for the winner and less likely to show up if our guy is not doing well in the poles. If there is conspiracy to skew these poles, do you think the press would skew them FOR republicans? I love NPR, but seriously from NPR?
      I might expect that from Fox News but not the rest of the media.
    • veganpunk, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2or slip something in the voting machines.
    • WayneCA, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1It's called rigging an election. Only takes a swing state.
  • AbsurdParadox, on 05/16/2008, -37/+17I think Obama has a great personality. However, he is still a big-government borderline-socialist. People voting for him are not "waking up".
    • stealthboy, on 05/16/2008, -11/+5Borderline?
    • Smiths, on 05/16/2008, -4/+26As opposed to the big-government borderline-fascists we have now?
    • Defuser, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6Dear dumbass: all governments are Socialistic. That's because they define a "society". If you want anarchy, be my guest, but remember: In the system you apparently endorse, I'd be perfectly free to walk over to your house, shoot you, and take all your stuff. Because that's now a purely "capitalistic" system would function.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1He would also be free to blow your ass away as soon as you took a step in that direction...

        Just sayin'...
      • lustyrusty, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Hmm...isn't the first rule of economics that there must be law governing the transfer of goods? Wait..."rule of law"? Yeah, in a "purely 'capitalistic' system" you would have no more right to go shoot someone and take all there stuff than anyone else because the "purely 'capitalistic' system" requires the rule of law.

        And I think you might be combining different definitions of Socialistic. Politically, governments by nature are not Socialist because Socialism defines a certain type of government/policies the government uses. Your statement may be true if you are using a non-political definition of Socialistic. But when discussing the political views of a political candidate, you really can't define Socialistic with any other definition than the political.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Dear *****: Wow, you seriously have no idea what you're talking about, on so many levels.

        I would debate your points, but you started with name calling so ***** off. :-)

    • sfgeek, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5You sound like you are trying to say something nice about a fat chick. "She has a great personality."
      • ehalasey, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that you steal all your good jokes from fat chicks.
    • MsArtGeek, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If you take a look at a lot of his and Hillary's policies they are not that far apart. Look at http://www.politicalcompass.org and find the comparison of 2008 primary candidates. (This is a really interesting site which charts political beliefs on a two-axis system, one for economic attitudes and the other for social control issues).
      • bradtacs, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I have said it before and I will say it again, the United States has a moderate right wing party (The Democrats) and a Far Right Party (The Republicans)

        The idea that Obama is a socialist is ridiculous, he would still fall well right of our Canadian Conservative Party.
    • pr0crast, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1The biggest big government program is unnecessary war.

      You're fully allowed to have your views about Obama being socialist/big govt as long as you're planning on voting for RP and not McCain.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Does whom I would endorse for president change the validity of my previous statement?
    • bradtacs, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I have said it before and I will say it again, the United States has a moderate right wing party (The Democrats) and a Far Right Party (The Republicans)

      The idea that Obama is a socialist is ridiculous, he would still fall well right of our Canadian Conservative Party.
      • Chaoticfist, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Ya. Me being a Canadian He seems a like a mix of the conservatives and the liberals. Some of his policy's are to an extent right wing. But he is much better than McCain.
    • luv2lrn, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Hilarious comment. The reality is the old political joke: A Democrat and a Republican come to a T intersection. The Republican says "I think we should turn right." The Democrat says "I agree but can we put on the left turn signal?"
    • withears, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Like people woke up and voted for George W. Bush? LOL
      LOL
      LOLOLOLOL
      • AbsurdParadox, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Did I endorse or support George Bush? wtf
    • apophenic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Of course, people who don't think the exact same way as you are sheeple and need to wake up. Got it.
  • mjones77, on 05/16/2008, -23/+13Obama will never win. He is too stupid too win. People don't want there taxes raised, they are high enough already, and once the word gets out that you taxes are going up a lot with him, people will not vote for him.
    Ok digg me down like I know you are going too
    • stealthboy, on 05/16/2008, -4/+9Then again, people are even more stupid. They hear "universal healthcare for everyone!" and forget that someone has to pay for it (taxes).
      • oscenester, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1We still end up paying for it when all those poor people wait until whatever condition they have is life threatening, end up in hospitals, don't pay their bill, and the government has to front the money anyway.

        Put in universal healthcare, make it cheaper than healthcare i am paying for now (since it will be one huge group getting insured - huges discounts) and give everyone lots of preventative services which are a lot cheaper than treatments for serious illnesses and diseases.

        Ya, I'd rather go for that....but hey I have common sense.
    • dsendecki, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3I'm digging you down, not for your argument, but for your inability to articulate what it is you want to say. Kevin James, is that you?
    • Akairenn, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10Oh, he'll win. Taxes are going up whether he or McCain get in, and people would rather masturbate over ill-run, overpriced national healthcare that won't be around when the economy finally collapses.

      Can't say I blame them, if the government is going to raise taxes and continue rampant, uncontrollable spending, we might as well get something out of it besides stirring up more crap and hatred in the Middle East.
    • oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -3/+9It doesnt matter who gets elected jackass. Taxes will have to go up to pay for this illegal war thing we got going on in Iraq. Something about trillions in debt that makes cutting taxes sound pretty stupid, ya know?

      Difference will be, with dems, the rich (who've been getting a free ride almost for the past 8 yrs) will pay a more fair share. With Rep, the rich will just get richer, while the rest of us foot the bill.

      Next question.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. The "rich" (I'm assuming you mean everyone making more than you) are paying an overwhelming amount taxes AND supporting you whining liberals. They must be putting something in all the government cheese you're eating to make you stupid otherwise you would understand who pays the most taxes. I'm not "rich" but I'm sure as heck smart enough to compare the amount I pay in taxes and the amount the "rich" pay. It's common knowledge. So put down the Kool-Aid and government cheese and educate yourself. You're rhetoric is pathetic.
        • oscenester, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1As they should you *****. It's only because of our efforts (ie. those less fortunate than the 1% that hold the 90% of the wealth of this nation) that they are even in their position. They take advantage of us left and right, accumulating their wealth in massive proportions that they will NEVER be able to spend, and for what? All they would have to do is let go of a very small portion of their wealth that they ammased in the year, and help balance out the economy. It's not like they would miss the money...they'll still be making plenty of it.

          But whats with all the tax cuts, and workarounds for them? WHy are they allowed to get around tax laws using century old loopsholes that are well known and well exploited?

          Probably because those in power go golfing with these people on a regular basis...

          So why don't YOU put down your Kool-aid and stop kissing all of THEIR asses for ABSOLUTELY no reason!

          Plus, the majority of those rich ***** (ie. kennedy's, bush's, etc.) all got their by being drugdealers and bootleggers. Then they turn around, and hypocritically make it illegal so that they stay the only rich ones and then help just each other out.

          Very cool man. Very cool.

          Your LACK of an education is whats pathetic. Your lack of common sense SHOULD strip you of your right to live...

          "Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill them"
        • oscenester, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Plus...I'm actually more for a universal approach to the tax system anyway.
          Get rid of the IRS, save billions in salaries, etc. get rid of a constant nuissance in the wrong peoples lives, establish a european "flat-tax," like a federal sales tax basically, and everyone can pay the exact same amount of tax, be them rich, poor, business or individual.

          No more loopholes to hop through, no more deductions and exemptions that make it so simple for business to get away without paying their fair share, and for the rich to reduce their responsibility to this nation..
    • animefx, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6Mjones... where do you think the government gets money to pay for things we need? Taxes. What happens when the government has to pay for things we need and there isn't enough money? They either have to increase taxes or borrow money (often from other countries) Do you want to be owned by China, Germany, and Japan or have a small increase in your taxes?

      More importantly the tax increase will be on the rich who can afford it. Taxes were high in the 90s and we end up with a surplus by the end of Bill Clinton's 2nd term.

      This is simple economics.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1"..simple economics." More like liberal propaganda. Why is it that you liberals don't get it? You balance a budget by BOTH cutting spending and increasing income. The US government has been taxing it's citizens using an unfair system (the more you make, the more they take) and enough is enough! It's now time to CUT SPENDING! Stop the unnecessary wars, stop the unnecessary government aid (foreign & domestic), stop the liberal loving hand-outs and get back to fiscal responsibility!
        "More importantly the tax increase will be on the rich who can afford it." That comment is just ignorant class rhetoric spoken like a true liberal Democrat.
        • oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Actually, thats a fairyland pipedream.

          Yes, we need to cut spending. On wars we shouldn't be fighting. On retarded defense contracts for defense against imaginary foes. On more ways for the government to keep tabs on what I do, when I do it.

          Now, until we get this ridiculously expensive war out of the way, other countries are gonna be footing the bill for us by loaning us money. How are we paying it back to them? Oh, we got printing machines! Inflation..its such an awesome thing! Our money becomes worth less and less, and all those corporations who employ us make more and more worthless money, while dragging out giving us raises until the majority of us will be ***** because we can't even afford to GET TO WORK anymore.

          What don't you republicans understand...your party sucks. They claim cuts in spending, but every term served by republicans, the percentage of our GDP ( gross domestic product- all the money made by us here in the USofA for you retards) to Debt goes up, while under Democrats, with "ALL THEIR SPENDING HABITS BLAH BLAH BLAH", the percentage has ALWAYS GONE DOWN.

          Read the numbers. stop being sheep.
          Don't complain about the higher taxes either. we're gonna pay em either way. The deficit is just not sustainable and we have to start paying it back or risk losing everything.
      • vinnyvenus, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Rich according to democrats are defined as households making more than $100,000. I pay huge amount in taxes I don''t want my taxes going up to support more government programs. If Obama was supporting reduction in federal government I will gladly get behind his plan to increase taxes to balance budget and reduce deficit. But he doesn't want to reduce federal government, infact he wants to expand it.
    • sodade, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3What are you doing on digg if you make 200k? Oh, you don't? Then don't whine about taxes going up - the 200k+ voters can do that for themselves. Oh, your a middle class day trader and capital gains increases will hit you? Do all of your investing in your retirement accounts - if you make less than 200k, you shouldn't be gambling with your savings.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3So you have to make more than 200k to be smart enough to know that the government taxes are too high? How much do you have to make a year to be smart enough to know that the government spending is (has been) out of control?
        • oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I love how you're complaining about government spending when the moron in office almost doubled the deficit in just his term.

          You say I'm drinking the kool-aid? I'd rather drink the kool-aid than have my head so far up Bush's ass that I can even recognize that he's the one that will ultimately be responsible for YOUR taxes going up, moron.

          Telling me to get an education? Sorry man. I got one. A better one than you apparently as I can understand simple mathematics.

    • sindex, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7I'm digging you down because you asked me to. Also because you're accusing one of the smartest men in the country of being stupid, and then continue with a run-on sentence with grammatical errors.

      Whether you agree with Obama politically or not, he is anything but "stupid."
    • PaisleyTeal, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I'm digging you down not for your opinion, but for your improper use of too/to, there/their and typo you/your.
  • biggrz, on 05/16/2008, -22/+39NEWS FLASH, the people that will vote for McCain aren't listening to NPR, they are listening to NASCAR.
    • halleyscomet, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3First of all, that's a terrible stereotype. I know a number of Democratic NASCAR fans.

      Second, they would be WATCHING NASCAR, not listening to it. Keep your action verbs straight.
      • theaceoffire, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3They do not have a nascar radio station?
      • CHAD3814, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0Have you ever been to a NASCAR event? Are you a fan? I don't think you are qualified to say that NASCAR fan don't listen to the event. In fact, the hard-core fans listen to the team chatter on the different radio frequencies while at the track.

        Also I might point out that I have yet to see a silent telecast of NASCAR, to be a dick, if you are watching you are probably listening.
    • dngbauer, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I agree that the McCain voters aren't listening to NPR however, they are NOT listening to NASCAR.
    • winmywii, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2When to Fox News start covering NASCAR?
  • futureisours, on 05/16/2008, -20/+14HAHAHAHA. Wait until the media honeymoon with Obama turns sour like it always does. This guy is the most liberal person in the senate. The mainstream public, once they find out, will vote for someone more moderate. I'm sorry most people don't want higher taxes, a cut and run in Iraq, gay marriage or gay soldiers, gun control, no borders, (insert any liberal issue here). What diggers think is a very limited sub-set of the population. You're preaching to the pulpit and all your hundreds of Obama stories are worthless.
    • dsendecki, on 05/16/2008, -2/+9I am digging you down, because you are, you must, be trolling. Did you actually write "Bill O'Reilly has helped a lot of people and is a best-selling author" in another thread. Remove head from ass, please.
    • notBrit, on 05/16/2008, -3/+2You're still waiting for it to "turn sour"? You apparently don't own a television *couph*Jeremiah*Wright*cough*
    • dukeochutney, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4he is trolling. spends his entire insulting 'diggers' cept he is one.....buried
    • noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4So the nation-wide polls that completely contradict everything you just said are... what exactly? Does the truth factor in to anything you just typed?
    • Smiths, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4OK, I'm going to spell a couple of things out for you here...

      1.) "Lower taxes and continued involvement" in Iraq is an oxymoron. You want one, without the other? It's Unpossible!
      2.) Gay marriage and gay soldiers (wtf?) are a red herring issues that appeals to bigots and religious nuts (e.g. the republican base). This has no impact on your well being or way of life in any way.
      3.) Far too complicated an issue, but I'm sure you have some one liner that is devoid of complex thought that you're basing your stance on.
      4.) No borders? Really? That's what you think? Give me one quote from Obama to support your stance (I'll save you some time; you can't).
      • floorman56, on 05/16/2008, -1/+24.) No borders? Really? That's what you think? Give me one quote from Obama to support your stance (I'll save you some time; you can't).

        Oh yea?
        July 26, 2007
        Obama Rules Border Security "Not Germane" To Homeland Security
        Ed Lasky
        Via Hugh Hewitt, we get this little niblet about Senator Barak Obama revealing that he and the Democrats don't consider border security part of protecting the homeland. GOP Senators were attempting to bring up border enforcement provisions and attach them to the Homeland Security funding legislation. The Democrats were appalled at this maneuver and with Obama sitting in for Robert Byrd as President Pro Tempore, Harry Reid asked for a ruling on the germaneness of the amendment:

        HR: We have to have a ruling here first.

        BO: The chair is not aware of an arguably legislative provision in the House bill, HR 2638 [the homeland security funding bill], to which Amendment number 2412 offered by the Senator from South Carolina [the border security funding amendment] could conceivably be germane.

        Judd Gregg: So the amendment is germane?

        BO: No, that the chair does not believe that the defense of germaneness is appropriately placed at this time.

        A potential commander-in-chief sees no tie between border security and homeland security? As President, his first responsibility would be to protect Americans-especially in this age-when our nation has repeatedly come under attack (or potential attack) from people from outside our borders. Should we expect David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager, to again come to the rescue and "explain" what Barack Obama "really" meant?
        • elipabst, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1He sponsored the Secure Fence act of 2006 that was supported by Bush and was signed into law.

          "This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."

          - President George W. Bush, 10/26/06
    • elipabst, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Obama doesn't support gay marriage. He supports civil unions, which I think is a reasonable stance. He also authored the "Secure Fence act of 2006" which your fearless deciderer supported and signed into law. Most people will actually get tax breaks under Obama, unless they're in the top tax bracket.

      The truth is, the more people find out about him and hear what he has to say, the more they realize that the lies people like yourself spread are *****.
    • daveydla, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Dude, seriously, you are so lame. Please get out of your mom's basement and go out and meet people. This way you wont have to rely on people writing back to you about how stupid you are for self validation.
  • PyrosMagus, on 05/16/2008, -17/+11This is the NPR were talking about. i think they are just short of most left when it comes to news. second place to AL Gore's failing "news" network
    • Lexrst, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7I listen to NPR on a daily basis and I don't understand why people say that the news coverage is left-leaning or biased. They regularly have commentators from all over the political spectrum and it has always seemed to me that the reporting is about as neutral and even-handed as a news organization can get.

      Please note that this may not extend to shows that aren't under the 'news' ruberic (Fresh Air, Car Talk, etc.), but I don't consider those sources of news - they are entertainment or opinion, but *not* news.

      If you truly think they are biased, can you give me an example of a report that illustrates it?
    • johnpaul191, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4RTFA! You look like the ***** when you take shots at NPR. They actually hired 2 polling companies. NPR paid for it, but look who did it. They made an attempt to be unbiased, while you expressed your prejudice.

      New NPR poll (May 7,8,10) conducted by the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies and the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner shows John McCain losing to Barack Obama in the general election by five points but nipping Hillary Clinton by a single point:

      Obama 48
      McCain 43

      McCain 46
      Clinton 45
    • djlosch, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1due to complications like landline telephone (non)use, polls haven't been accurate for at least the last few years. if you recall, the primary polls predicted giuliani vs. clinton. most of the original primary polls had mccain in 4th place or worse.
    • JoeOfParma, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Yes, the same news organization that said Bush won in 2004 with a "mandate" is a real left-leaner.
  • jp12380, on 05/16/2008, -10/+8What I find interesting is that a republican firm was the one that conducted this and yet they still released the results. Just a a little suspicious. Almost like the republicans want to get him nominated.
    • stealthboy, on 05/16/2008, -6/+5Of course we want Obama nominated! Then the truth of just how liberal he is will come out, and it'll be an easy win. Muwahahaha.
      • halleyscomet, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Care to give some examples, supported by his voting record?

        I'm perfectly happy to flat out ignore his speeches. He is a politician after all, but please back up your claims with references to his voting record, as opposed to vague repetitions of Rush Limbaugh's talking points.
        • floorman56, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Care to give some examples, supported by his voting record?

          That the problem...HE'S NOT VOTING !!! Look here it's Just his voting record
          http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=4006 ...
          Why won't he vote? ..Why won't he take a stand?
          Oh yea he doesn't want people to know how he really feels on stuff
        • halleyscomet, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1floorman56,

          Most of those missed votes have been while he was campaigning for President. McCain has had a similar spike in missed votes:

          http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=3000 ...

          Even Clinton has a spike, but she seems to be better about voting than Obama:

          http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=3000 ...

          In short, all three candidates are missing votes as a result of their presidential campaigns.

          Obama has missed about 20% of the votes since he started his term. Are you telling me you can't get a picture of his views from the remaining 80% that he made??
    • Diggnabbit, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1It was "conducted by the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies and the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner."
  • PacketPaul, on 05/16/2008, -2/+23One problem. The election is not determined by the popular vote ... just ask Al Gore. If you look at the electoral college map ... John McCain is in good shape against either candidate. What is interesting is the battle ground states change based upon the Democratic contender.
    • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Things looked pretty good for Hillary before the primary, too. Don't underestimate Obama's ability to run a world-class campaign.
  • reaper527, on 05/16/2008, -14/+14waking up, falling victim to rhetoric keywords such as "change", i guess those are the same things to the OP. the only thing obama will "change" is the tax rates, as he raises them astronomically for the rich, and exorbitantly for the middle class.
    • winmywii, on 05/16/2008, -5/+3***** we should just cut taxes and spend more money on the war. Why do we need taxes? Just get rid of them. We can print money right? I mean they could just send us stimulus checks every month while they're at it.
      • flashingcurser, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Why don't we just stop spending? The spending is the problem, not the agenda.
        • winmywii, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I agree. Cut Spending. Republicans always claim they will lower taxes and cut spending. Then they always cut taxes and spend away. I'm not a big Ron Paul fan but I think he believes in cutting spending and smaller government (I'm sure somebody here can correct me if I am wrong). Smaller government would be better all around. The situation we are in now it seems that it would be better to cut spending and keep taxes the way they are until we can get out of debt.
      • forgottenhope, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I could be wrong but im sure he was being sarcastic. Spending isnt the problem, its the idea that america can police the world and kill hundreds of thousands of people with made up charges of weapons of mass destruction.

        Put it simply, the united states has caused more death to the Iraq's than saddam had ever done. Then again we sold saddam the weapons he used on his own people.

        America is a country that only cares about war profits. The world doesnt like us, and they shouldnt like us anymore for the mccain or obama ***** we are about to unleash on the world

        Obama is slime, just like mccain and hillary. hillary and bill put more coke through arkansas than any other govenor there and this stupid ***** country full of idiots is about to elect the 2nd part of that evil again.

        America, you get what you deserve, your politicians might be racist war mongers but thats what america is.

        Dont forget to kill brown people near sand. Got to love killing those brown terrorisms.
    • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Right, why worry about change when we can have more of the same. Like McCain ignoring every economist on earth and pushing for his gas tax holiday which the experts agree will only benefit the oil companies and increase our debt.
  • witerider, on 05/16/2008, -6/+12Please, learn to spell.

    Wakeing=Waking

    It's not hard and it takes even less time to spell the word properly.
    • Defuser, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Ever notice that people who use any form of the phrase "wake up, America!" are almost universally illiterate?
    • hypnobear, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0But how can I spell without my spell check?
  • Bromskloss, on 05/16/2008, -7/+22Ron Paul used to be all the rage around here, but suddenly, it was Barack Obama. What made it change?
    • crapmatic, on 05/16/2008, -2/+16Hey buddy, are you getting on the bandwagon or getting off?
      • markgl, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2thats funny.
      • corcoranp, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0I'm no Borat...I mean barak fan...but that's funny stuff...
    • reaper527, on 05/16/2008, -0/+21people who have no idea what they want. the two candidates are polar opposites.
      • userperson, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2I think they want to stop the war and feel like they're not being rolled over by the powers that be.

        If elected Ron Paul would do his probably best to change things, but it would likely backfire badly.
        If Obama were elected he would give lip service to these things ... but likely the status quo would generally remain intact save for a bump here or there.

        The way things are going now I think McCain will be elected, and the status quo as well as the war will continue their unabated decline.
      • identitymatrix, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2While the two candidates differ in many ways, they both agree on what I, and I guess most everyone else here, think are the most important issues:
        1) They both want to get out of Iraq
        2) They both are against the PATRIOT ACT and support civil liberties
        3) They both oppose drug laws

        These 3 issues are the issues that affect everything else that is important:
        -Getting out of Iraq now just might save the economy from total collapse
        -Both want to shutdown Guantanamo Bay
        -Both want to restore habeus corpus
        -Drug laws routinely detain and imprison innocent people. Drug tests come back positive for all sorts of illegal drugs even if you just use a single aspirin for a back ache or cough medicine.
        -parts of the PATRIOT ACT that were originally meant to be used only against suspected terrorists are now commonly used against recreational drug users.
        -vagueness of these recent laws against civil liberties are quite possibly what compels security at trainstations, malls, etc, to handcuff people that try to take pictures.
        -both want to CIA to report what goes on during interrogations
        -both think the Iraq war is just plain dumb
        -both are against torture
        -neither wants to attack Iran

        The onyl reason everyone favored Ron Paul earlier in the election was that he had a much stronger stance on these issues - he was more consistent than Obama. Now that he has virtually no chance of winning (though hasn't dropped out), most people see Barrack Obama as the best candidate. Clinton and Obama have similar stances on these issues, but Obama is the one that really talks about change in Washington DC with the most enthusiasm and Clinton says all options are still on the table regarding Iran, which leaves people questioning her stance on issues. Also Obama's campaign has gone much better than Clinton's which is now in debt.

        While Ron Paul and McCain are both in the Republican party, they are diametrically opposed on these important issues, so the republicans that once supported Ron Paul hate McCain. For example, McCain hates habeus corpus and CIA reports, loves Guantanamo and the PATRIOT ACT, and loves Bush's policy of "pre-emptive war".

        Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/
    • Verfel, on 05/16/2008, -9/+0I think Ron endorsed Barack at one point or another, I'll have to read back through old articles.
      • reaper527, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2he said he agrees with the "stick your head in the sand" isolationist foreign policy of barack obama. as far as domestic policies go, he couldn't disagree more, and as such explicitly said "this is not an endorsement"
      • Defuser, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Yes, because clearly, everyone that currently endorses Obama was previously endorsing Ron Paul. That's obviously the only answer. It couldn't possibly be that Paul's people aren't posting as much since McCain clinched the nomination, and Obama's people are posting MORE now that he's obviously going to win the Presidency.
        • reaper527, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1"and Obama's people are posting MORE now that he's obviously going to win the Nomination, and lose the general election."

          there you go, i fixed your statement for you
        • johnpaul191, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I was never a Ron Paul supporter, but he did get something like 15% of the vote in PA (longer after McCain seemed to be the obvious nominee). McCain only got 74% of the Republican vote in PA, the rest going to Paul and Huckabee. Seems the Democrats are not the only ones that can't unify their party behind one candidate.
          PA did have a TON of people switch to Democrat from Republican (as opposed to new voters) before the closed primary. It's not really clear if the bulk of them were trying to mess with the Democrat's results, tired of the Republican party, or just wanted their vote to mean something.
          Traditionally PA goes Democrat in national elections, and that is because of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh having such dense populations compared to the rest of the state (which leans Republican). Obama did blow away Clinton in Philly (and the surrounding burbs), even though the Mayor and Governor endorsed Clinton. Clinton took Pittsburgh and the rest of the state, which was enough for her to win the state by about 10 points.
    • UnWeave, on 05/16/2008, -10/+7Um, when it became clear that there was no way Ron Paul was going to win. Next best for most was Obama, although I personally think RP was an idiot.
      • shauncorleone, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Fortunately you've easily proven you can be labeled right along with him. Even if you had a ladder, the point is way over your head.
    • TJATL, on 05/16/2008, -3/+8That's because there's tons of political idiots on Digg. People use to say that Paul and Kucinich should run on the same ticket. Dumb ***** people.
      • Chronoped, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1God I'd still take Kucinich over the lot of 'em any day...
    • WayneCA, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Both have a deep respect for the Constitution. Paul's voting record shows it. Obama taught Constitutional Law previously and has made statements that show he'll actually respect the Constitution and restore checks and balances. Many of the other candidates... don't need the Constitution if it gets in the way of national security.
      • personalj, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Obama also wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons. How is that constitutional? Oh yeah, that's right, it isn't!
    • yohnstoppable, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3A lot of diggers are late teens or early 20s, and haven't fully shaped their views on political matters. Others are idiots who follow the herd. Also, there are still a ton of Paulites around. I know multiple people who are writing in his name.
    • smackjack, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1After Dr Paul placed 5th in Iowa and New Hampshire, the excitement went downhill from there
  • Infowarmachine, on 05/16/2008, -14/+9i didnt know wether to laugh or cry at the stupidity of the comment the poster made.. 'we are ready to wake up and elect some other jackass who will ruin the country in new and interesting ways'

    although its nice to finally break the succession of bushes and clintons spanning 20+ years.. but obama is no better. if america were really waking up we wouldve elected ron paul
    • Defuser, on 05/16/2008, -4/+3Ron Paul was insane. As were his followers. By the way, does the fact that you don't know how to Capitalize or use apostrophes have anything to do with your support of a guy that thought gold was Magic God Money?
      • flashingcurser, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Ad hominem and grammar nazi-- good show! In the past tense even. Excellent rebuttal.

        "Magic God Money"? I would love to see a link with that quote. If you are referring to the fact that our money has absolutely nothing backing except the whim of a private corporation of international bankers then I guess many here would have to back gold as "magic god money". Money needs to be backed by something tangible.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 05/16/2008, -32/+8HAHAHA - As much as hate McCain (and I'm saying that as a conservative) Obama doens't have a snowball's chance in hell.

    And thank God for that because his policies are ruinous.
    • Defuser, on 05/16/2008, -6/+1It must be nice to live in a world as unconnected to facts as the one you inhabit. Tell you what, *****- come back after the elections, and let's have this conversation again.
      • wharrislv, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Internet intellectual tough guy.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Defuser - I'll be quite happy to meet you right here at 8am EST the day after the election polls close.

        I live in a world that will accept whatever outcome because it will be an American election process.

        I stand by my assertion that Obama will not have a chance. I won't even call YOU an ***** because you disagree. Maybe because I've grown up.

        See you soon.
    • DoubtingThomas, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Wow! Defuser has mastered the art of the ad hominem attack. I don't think I have read a single comment of his that didn't begin with "You dumbasss" or "Hey *****".
  • dogididog, on 05/16/2008, -3/+6Ughh... Not another one of these posts.
  • markgl, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7eh, these polls don't mean squat until later in the year.
    • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I agree they are useless for predicting who will win, but they're interesting to track movement and trends. For example McCain was essentially tied with Obama in an average of major polls two weeks ago. Now Obama is up by 4.2%. That doesn't mean Obama is "winning", but it does show that Obama is being effective getting his message out, or that McCain has tripped recently.
  • toshirosan, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1The neocons will never let that happen in the real race. Sure Obama will be in the race against McCain but they will stole the election, again, and McCain will win, thus continuing their goal of destroying the entire world.
  • Number23, on 05/16/2008, -10/+12There’s no indication whether it’s adults, registered voters or likely voters. That ALONE makes this poll meaningless, never mind the fact it’s not an EC breakdown

    If you digg-tards want to feel all warm and fuzzy that Saint Obama has a razor thin lead now in a meaningless poll, please, party on.


    • Diggnabbit, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Click through on the article. It's a poll of 800 likely voters, obviously adults...
    • Cyrus042, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Further 95% voted in the previous election, so they would have to be at least 22 years old. However, I'm more concerned with the methodology of how individuals were chosen. It's obviously not a phone interview (they collect phone data at the end) and I doubt its a door to door interview (because they're statistically inaccurate unless you're operating in several states) .

      So the only thing I can imagine is that it might be among NPR listeners which bias' the sample because well, it would exclude many conservative listeners who listen to conservative talk radio.
  • bclinton, on 05/16/2008, -14/+6LOL - You liberal fck tards. Obama will never get elected. West Vagina was just a taste of what mainstream voters will be coming out of the would work to stop him. Remember - blacks are only about 8% of the total population so he will need a bunch of whiteys to help him. He has too many bones in his closet. Muslim schools, Lewis Fararacist, Rev. Wright-Ihateamerica - the list goes on and on. It will be open season for talk show fodder soon.
    • Hypersapien, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7Fortunately, not everyone in the US is as idiotic as you are.

      Obama never attended a muslim school. He did attend a school where the student body was predominantly muslim. He also attended a catholic school.

      Obama has nothing to do with Lewis Farrakhan

      Rev Wright might be a little nutty (the 'US created AIDS' thing, and his recent badmouthing of Obama) but he is right about a lot of things he said, and he doesn't hate America. Try listening to the whole sermon instead of the 10-second sound bite.
      • bclinton, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1OH ya I forgot to say that your statement "He never attended a mulsim school. He did attend a school where the student body was predominantly muslim." is a classic.

        What do you call a school with all Muslim students? I call it a Muslim School.

        Too funny.....
        • Hypersapien, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Is a school with all christian students a christian school? Even if they don't teach christianity there?
    • bclinton, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1>Obama has nothing to do with Lewis Farrakhan

      Dude - There's a photo of the two that has already been in the news. There are also numerous quotes that Obama made that praised him. Oh ya, about the Muslim issue - he has a muslim name and that's enough. If I'm running for the president of the NAACP I wouldnt want my name to be Billy Bob - LOL
      • Hypersapien, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4"he has a muslim name and that's enough"

        You just cemented my opinion that you are a moron.
      • rdoger6424, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1where are these supposed quotes?
    • purzzzell, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I normally knock grammar nazi's

      but you said "coming out of the would work" I lol'd - if your education level is similar to that of the rest of the conservatives, you've just negated your own point.


      and all Barack's bones (though I would say "skeletons") don't add up to Chuck Hagee alone, disregarding the other carcasses in McCain's closet
    • Andrwmorph, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Oh noes Barack Obama has been within 10 feet of a Muslim! Religious orientation is the most important thing to consider when electing a president! Death to the terrorist candidate whose name rhymes with Osama!
  • ronaldst, on 05/16/2008, -11/+12"This is a no brainer, no secret, Americans are wakeing up!"

    Are you sure? I don't see anything about Ron Paul. It's only lists people who are unqualified for office.
    • johnpaul191, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2importantly, those polls NEVER include a 3rd party. The machines are automated, so you have to pick one of their responses or just hang up.

      I got called before the PA primary and the wording of the questions was kind of slanted. It asked who i would vote for in the primary of Obama vs Clinton. Then asked about McCain vs Obama as well as a McCain vs Clinton. The thing at the end saying who was responsible for the poll was so fast i couldn't catch it.
  • bclinton, on 05/16/2008, -15/+17I've learned a new trick.

    Scroll down through the comments in Obama articles and look for the one that gets dugg down the most and that will be the most intelluigent one written. Watch this one.....it will be the winner....
    • Loonacy, on 05/16/2008, -0/+14So far, the one dugg down most is the one saying Obama would turn the White House into a mosque. I agree, that's the most "intelluigent" post so far.
      • blckngldhwk, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Based on this flawless logic you have the most 'intelluigent' comment being...

        neogoblin
        1 hr 59 min ago Below viewing threshold. Hide (3 replies)
        Barack Muhammed Hussein Obama will turn the whitehouse into a mosque.

        ...with a staggering -26 diggs.

        Awesome 'trick'.
    • headzoo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I've never seen anyone get dugg down for making an intelligent, compelling argument against Obama. In fact, most diggers appreciate intelligence from another user, even if the user is bombing their favorite candidate.

      No, the reason a lot of the anti-Obama comments get dugg down, is because the user makes an ass out of him/herself. These users either make unsubstantiated claims ("Obama wants to start WWIII by nuking Iran!"), they make racist remakes ("Obama is just a monkey!"), they say blatantly stupid things ("Barack Hussein Obama will turn the White House into a mosque!") or they simply act like 10 year olds.
  • NelsonR, on 05/16/2008, -7/+4My friends, (John McCain) I promise you Osama Bin Laden will be captured or killed by 2013. Now he will say he will abhor wars, Republicans will not be hypocrits, Republicans will not be deficit spenders, Republicans will by honorable and trustworthy, Republicans will not toe dance in mens stalls and the list is endless. Anything for a vote, McCain thinks Americans are stupid.
    We attacked nations with wars while a small group of covert operatives and spies could have erradicated Bin Laden, the mad religious terrorist who thinks his GOD condones his acts, without our treasury depleted and many good Americans dead. For what, elite Republican uppper crust.
    • Diggnabbit, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I think I agree with you, but frankly you're so inarticulate that it's hard to tell.
  • clippypog, on 05/16/2008, -8/+2you mean like calling reporter sweetie is not a guy thing
    just another Obama "get me in the news" thing to bolster his positive perception again (vs. what McCain said to his wife) (or the PR dump on the guy who met with Hamas that by his own admission, had nothing to do with Obama campaign)
    this clone stamped politican should be booted out anyway
  • quadforce, on 05/16/2008, -4/+9It's my belief that the only chance the republicans had to beat the Dems was Ron Paul.. All the other Repubs will be slaughtered.
    • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I respect Ron Paul, but you're dreaming if you think he could have won. He barely had any support among Republicans, much less the population at large. Maybe in another 4 or 8 years, if his popularity continues to grow.
      • apophenic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1You do realize he's older than McC