digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Obama widens lead in CA, takes lead in MO, draws even in NJ

reuters.com — Barack Obama has widened his lead in California since yesterday, and now is ahead 46% to Clintons 40%. He has wiped out her lead in Missouri to take a 47-42 lead, and is dead even with her in New Jersey each with 43%, and has a 17% lead in Georgia. The momentum is certainly with him. MAKE SURE YOU VOTE!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • eminiguy, on 02/04/2008, -11/+112If this is true, then it's HUGE!
    • RIMberry, on 02/04/2008, -43/+5A HUGE Real ID in your wallet? To save us from all those bad terrorists?
      Papers please...
      • br0ck, on 02/04/2008, -3/+17The senate never had a direct vote on Real ID like the House did. Read this letter from Obama which explains that he doesn't like it and explains how it was sneakily pushed through by the Republicans in the House as a rider to a Tsunami relief package: http://www.eduwrit.com/blog/?p=1004

        And for a slightly off-topic rant.. why do you and other Ron Paul supporters parrot 'real id', 'muslim', 'cfr' and 'patriot act' over and over again in every Obama thread? Do other candidates actually go to Ron Paul threads and crap all over them with falsehoods like these that have been debunked hundreds of time? Most of the comments in your profile are negative inflammatory comments posted into every candidate's stories. Have you ever considered how poorly all this negative campaigning reflects on your candidate? Do you think he'd be happy with you representing him as a slanderer and liar?
        • asskey, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3Yes, actually some do like to parrot falsities in the Paulite threads. Everyone gets ***** from someone, maybe we all should be a little nicer but take note, because that includes you too ;)
        • SlimFastForYou, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Well I don't think the RP supporters are the ones claiming Obama is a Muslim. As for CFR, Real ID, and Patriot Act, Obama is pretty much a prime target for it, like it or not. Why? Because the people still wanting McCain or Hillary in the White House are so uninformed that it would be useless. People who are voting for McCain think it's the patriotic thing to do, and people who are voting for Hillary either are voting because they think she's anti-war or merely because she's a woman and they want to see a first female American president. Many people think we've got a honkey dorey democracy because they read it somewhere. If they can't grasp the fact that this war was a bad idea, how could they be expected to understand the Patriot act, our shadow government, controlled public opinion, etc?
      • jriggs420, on 02/04/2008, -6/+1Um...yeah, it's called politiks
    • m00kie, on 02/04/2008, -7/+46In Arizona primaries are closed. As an R i'm voting for Paul in the primaries, but if Obama is candidate in the general election, I'm voting for Obama.

      Democrats voting in primaries. .. remember the street creed .: "Bros before Hoes"
      • senatorpjt, on 02/04/2008, -1/+6Yeah, it sucks. I changed my registration last may so I could vote for Paul in the primaries, but now that the campaign never really took hold, I have to watch Hillary win my state with my hands tied. Of course, I never thought the elections would still be running this close when NY came around. Then again, the idiots in this state made her their senator, knowing full well the only reason she ran here, and pretended to give a ***** about the state was so she could use it to run for President - and she (transparently) lied about it the whole time.
    • TheUngod, on 02/04/2008, -6/+20We'll see. Hillary pulled out her Trump card and cried again.
      • asauterChicago, on 02/04/2008, -2/+10Are you being serious?
      • echolyean, on 02/04/2008, -3/+6I'm in no way a supporter of hers, but I think anyone with some humanity in them could easily get misty eyed over something like that. Someone from her past, a mentor, was introducing her to the crowd to which she was about to speak. She hadn't seen him in years and his words moved her emotionally. Absolutely understandable and there's no need to make an issue of it. Still, G08AMA!
        • wphj, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4I just have trouble believing that she's actually crying because she's moved by the moment. Cynically I think she's doing it to get sympathy votes, knowing how it worked last time. Idealistically, maybe you're right and it's not all a scam. It is true that the road all these candidates are on is tough.
          • echolyean, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1I think there are better and more appropriate ways to make the case as to why Obama should be chosen over Clinton other than whether or not she cried. I've never seen "Doesn't get misty eyed" on the list of rules for becoming President. And some of even the best actors can't cry on cue. That takes skill.
        • phr33ksho, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Usually the mentor would be the one crying when they are saying how proud they are of someone, not the other way around. Hillary on the other hand gets so happy she cries when someone complements her. Give me a break
    • xlar54, on 02/04/2008, -18/+2How about letting your own voters actually vote. (see Florida and Michigan) Ill never vote democrat for that bullsh*t. Arent you guys supposed to be the party of "democracy"? Ask those folks how "democratic" the process is.
      • echolyean, on 02/04/2008, -2/+7Not when they try to make up their own rules of how the process should go.
        • xlar54, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2When people make up "the rules", isnt that what democracy IS? It's really disgusting. And people will remember.
          • EtherGnat, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1The primary isn't about democracy exactly, it's about the Democratic and Republican parties deciding who they want to run. The parties can run themselves however they choose. If you want to be a member of that party then you probably ought to follow the rules. Remember that the primaries have nothing to do with any Constitutional mandated elections. The parties could just as easily choose a candidate by pulling a name out of a hat if they choose.
      • babar77, on 02/04/2008, -1/+6All Michigan and Florida had to do was move their primaries back to Super Tuesday, and the delegates would've counted. Having a few smaller states go first one at a time allows for the country to get introduced to candidates with lower finances.
        • xlar54, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2The voters of both states had nothing to do with the movement of the primary dates. Why punish them and remove their right to decide because a small group of folks make such a change? This is not democracy - its damn near criminal. People will remember this.
          • illegalcortex, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4Because they elected these people to make decisions for them?
    • meteors, on 02/04/2008, -7/+10To all of you who claim to hate the idea of the White House being in the same two families for 25...35...80 years, I'd like to ask a serious question:

      Where the hell were all of you when Bush ran in 2000?

      (You voted for Nader??)

      I find it not a coincidence that this argument has suddenly become popular.
      • ngmcs8203, on 02/04/2008, -2/+7I voted for "Not Bush". What about you?
      • chicagodigger, on 02/04/2008, -2/+11I wonder how many of the users here could actually vote in 2000....where was I? Voting Gore.
      • meteors, on 02/04/2008, -5/+2My point is, no one said anything about these dynasties in 2000. Yet, in true Democratic cannibalistic form, people are whining about it now, just in time to defeat the stronger Democratic cadndidate: Hillary.
        • illegalcortex, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5Are you smoking crack? PLENTY of people brought it up in 2000. Along with the fact that Jeb Bush was governor of Florida and was a likely contender for president in the future, too. Though at that time, Bush had not been in power, so the same two families had been in the White House 12 years. That's a lot less profound than 20 years or a minimum of 24 years if Hillary is elected. Can you honestly not see the difference in that?
          • meteors, on 02/04/2008, -3/+1Bush 41 had been in the White House for 12 years, incluing 8 years as VP, and 4 as president.

            And I'm a pretty astute follower of politics, and remember very few people complaining about the dynasty.
          • illegalcortex, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1The VP does not live in the White House. If you're just counting having an office in the White House, then all kinds of people count. Saying the VP is "in the White House" makes about as much sense as saying the janitorial staff is "in the White House."

            And while you may or may not be "pretty astute," I believe you either have a short term memory or are not exposed to enough people who express political opinions. Personally, I remember plenty of people complaining. I was one of them. And here are a couple of mainstream news articles, both from 2000, talking about the Bush's having a presidential dynasty:

            http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1 ...
            http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20000807,0 ...
      • jdotter, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I know me and my then GF now wife were voting for Gore and concerned about the dynasty factor. Where do you think the King George moniker came from? It's time to put someone in office who wants it not because they think it's there right but because they actually believe they can do something with it. When you think it's your right the sincerity of your desires is lost. I want more than pointing at the other side of the aisle and saying they're wrong, they're evil! The say-anything, do-anything, divide and conquer politics of the past 30 years needs to be left right there, in the past. It's time to stop talking about experience and actual deliver on some real, fundamental change.
      • diggimator, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1The other stupid argument I've been seeing lately is..
        1. The Bushes were presidents for a long ass time
        2. Bill Clinton was president for a long ass time
        3. ????
        4. Bush = Clinton
      • qwerter, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I voted for Gore. Just like the majority of voters in 2000.
    • Darkside2984, on 02/04/2008, -24/+2Osama Hussein Obama. Terrorists Win.
      • bahamutxd, on 02/04/2008, -1/+8Musharref Saudi Bush.. I can play name games too!
      • babar77, on 02/04/2008, -1/+7Normally I try to reason with people but,
        You = Retard = Fail.
      • theblt, on 02/04/2008, -2/+4I'm not a huge fan of Obama but ignorant comments such as yours only help his case. You're a moron.
      • Hurrz88, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3Thank you for being a serious American. Are you one of those people who see a muslim and screams terrorist? What is wrong with you?

        And for the record, Barack Hussein Obama. Stop trying to find dumb reason why we can't have a good country again.
    • theblt, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5Unlike the Republicans, I have a good feeling that Super Tuesday isn't going to yield a definitive Democratic nominee due to their nomination process. This one's gonna get interesting. Only furthers the fact that if you really do want change, go out and vote.
      • Oktoeatfish, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that proportion vote that the Dems have is gonna make it a race down to the very last day.
    • Chirp08, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3He wasn't even ***** close in Jersey the last time I checked, a few weeks ago, thank ***** god he is making a charge here, I was actually dissapointed when I saw him trailing :/
      • MaxPayne3476, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Really? I don't know a SINGLE person who actually likes her. Course I'm from South Jersey :)
    • orchids, on 02/05/2008, -5/+0It's amazing how quickly people fall for the lipstick'ed statements of Obama. It's not to far in the past that Mr Bush Jr made similar pledges for America. I can't believe Americans are so credulous that they will believe anything and everything. Gosh! how quickly people forget everything, it's incredible. You will never get back the America of past glory. No matter who you vote for. They are just making fools of you people over and over again! Good luck.
    • darnit, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Just donated another $100 - I know a drop in the bucket but I'm not super rich.... :/
      https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yes ...
  • phr33ksho, on 02/04/2008, -17/+243This is in fact true, but the polls will only be correct if people get out and vote. MAKE SURE YOU TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW IN A SUPER TUESDAY STATE TO GET OUT AND VOTE FOR OBAMA. And if you know people who aren't voting for him slash their tires (just kidding).
    • The_Wallbanger, on 02/04/2008, -7/+126Kindly remind the Clinton supporters that Super Tuesday will be on Wednesday. (It's because of the leap year!)
    • SpookyPig, on 02/04/2008, -2/+17You're not kidding.
    • galador, on 02/04/2008, -27/+1I would dig you up, but you have +69 digs. :(
      • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -1/+13You have -7 for some reason. Let's see if we can get to -69.
    • johnhummel, on 02/04/2008, -1/+8I've been doing the volunteer phone bank to call people in NJ and New York - after I'm done with dinner, I may hit the phone line again to call people in CA. If you want to support - volunteer!
    • phr33ksho, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Talk about irony, someone slashed my bike tires today...
    • Knucklecallus, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1But seriously, If they don't vote, you don't have to slash their tires, just let the air out a little so they get worse gas mileage. Passive aggressive, for the win.
  • theuniversal, on 02/04/2008, -9/+171Great news, but don't start feeling overconfident. Better to operate as if Obama still had a 5 point deficit that needs to be made up by tomorrow.
    • Ajajadude, on 02/04/2008, -4/+27Indeed. Just look at the Patriots: played like they should be handed the trophy rather than play like they needed to earn it...and they lost.
      • rootofunity, on 02/04/2008, -4/+19nah the Patriots just got owned.
    • Codee, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3"Great news, but don't start feeling overconfident. Better to operate as if Obama still had a 5 point deficit that needs to be made up by tomorrow."

      Exactly. Remember a place called New Hampshire. Polls mean nothing. This is for all the marbles, so don't let up one bit.
  • tmoney100, on 02/04/2008, -6/+37Great news. I still worry about all those early postal voters from when clinton was riding high in the polls in cali.
    Looks like this could be a real close call.
    • aliengoods, on 02/04/2008, -4/+12Clinton will win California because they expect half of the votes to be early postal votes, but she may not get that many more delegates than Obama. Also, if Obama splits delegates with her on Super Tuesday, or gets more, then he is definitely the front runner, as Hillary has exhausted her 2 biggest states (CA and NY) and Obama has tons of momentum going his way.
      • phr33ksho, on 02/04/2008, -2/+7actually only about 20% were early postal votes. Given that Obama had about a 10-15 point defecit vs. Clinton in the mailing period, this corresponds to giving Clinton a 2-3% edge going in. This is definitely something which can be overcome tommorow.
      • senatorpjt, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3She'll win on Tuesday because she started crying again.
    • green67, on 02/04/2008, -3/+12@tmoney100....well....fyi...I'm a mail voter in CA. and I voted for Obama.....something tells me I'm not alone....
    • wraptor347, on 02/04/2008, -2/+8I voted early for Obama and I know my sister did the same.
    • matthafling, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I don't understand the thought process that would make you vote early if you are able to make it to the polls on Tuesday. No way 20% of the population wasn't able to make it to the polls. What if your early vote was for John Edwards. Then you just wasted a vote. What if Hillary came out today and said she has changed her stance and thinks we should stay in Iraq. I don't understand why you would vote early unless you lived in another state or physically couldn't make the polling - which I doubt accounts for 20% of the populus. I wish the DNC would get control of the this early voting stuff. I think it has the potential to skew actual voter choice.
      • wolfzombie, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I think you just answered your own question: "it has the potential to skew actual voter choice"
      • bill679, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3So you're critical of people who vote early because one of the candidates might change a critical position (say, on the war in Iraq) or drop out of the race entirely in the closing days and hours leading up to their state's primary or caucus? Wow. You do realize that we're only talking about a few weeks or so (I think?) that the window to vote early was open. In the grand scheme of what we're doing here as American citizens choosing our next leader, that's really not all that much time. I voted for Obama early because I believe he is the best to lead this country. Period. Today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Not just because I agreed with his positions as I pulled into the parking lot of my local polling place unless he changed his mind an hour before that.

        I guess in my view there should be an element of trust we have that our President, whoever will occupy the Oval Office next January, would have the judgment to make the best decisions for our country whether that be the first day in office or the eighth year, and it's that trust in his or her vision and leadership that would cause us to vote for who we believe in.
        • matthafling, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1all I can go on was what the polls showed in Florida. On the day of the primary - Obama won the votes cast that day. The thing that put Hillary over the top was early votes that were cast. That's a statistically significant difference - one could reason that given the chance to cancel their early votes - the primary would have come out different. While you yourself might not have changed your mind - enough people have. Just look at the recent polls. 3 weeks ago Obama was down by a significant margin in California. Now he is not. Again I'll say - early voting skews actual voter choice.
    • ganlet, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Not all of us with absentee ballots actually turned them in early. Both me and my roommate still have ours (they came really late) anyways not all absentee voters turn their ballots in early I am planning on hand mine into the Registrar of Voters tomarrow (tuesday)
    • dohidied, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2My Mom voted for Clinton before I helped sway her towards Obama. She said she just wanted a woman in the White House and didn't really look into the candidates. I'm a little worried that a lot of people did the same, but these polls show a lot of promise for Obama.
    • chall85, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I voted absentee for Edwards before he dropped out. I live in MO.
  • oceanrain, on 02/04/2008, -26/+8This is good news because the Hildabeast must be defeated. I really do not want my wages garnished for her Marxist programs.
    • Spytap, on 02/04/2008, -3/+26I'm not voting for her either, but calling Hillary a Marxist is like calling Che a republican; it shows you don't actually know what the ***** you're talking about.
    • futureb, on 02/05/2008, -1/+6nonono, what he meant was that hillary supported universal healthcare. and b/c people like oceanrain believe all the republican talking points generated by lobbyists, this means she is a marxist. i speak oceanrain's language & can translate
      against tax cuts = liberal scum
      for helping people = socialist
      for universal healthcare = marxist
      for raising taxes to pay for healthcare = terrorist
  • vishcool1, on 02/04/2008, -7/+26If you've got any undecided or Hillary-supporting friends, show them this and it should make them rethink their position.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR7ADjNiseA
    • illegalcortex, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2I agree with some of his logic, but I do not believe his claims about McCain being the best choice for the Republicans in terms of winning the general election. I spend a lot of time around conservative, Republican-voting friends in a state that is overwhelmingly Republican. They absolutely do not like McCain. They grudgingly support Romney. If you look at the talk radio and Fox news circuit, you will also see that they also intensely dislike McCain.

      Independents are no longer behind McCain like they once were. They feel as if he has sold out. They would have voted for McCain2000 but can't stand McCain2008. I put myself in this category.

      Having McCain get the nomination will likely have a significant effect on depressing Republican votes. Running against Hillary may be enough to overcome that, but it may not.

      It would actually be fairly funny to see a McCain/Clinton matchup, as it would be almost the exact opposite of the Kerry/Bush one. Republicans would have to hold their nose and vote for McCain to prevent their archenemy Hillary from winning. And we all saw how well that worked out for Kerry.
    • KJSatz, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I didn't know Lincoln founded the country!
    • whatsupimphil, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1The Rick Roll turns me against Hillary every time.
  • DiggLive, on 02/04/2008, -8/+45Vote 08ama!
    • Wenchmark51, on 02/04/2008, -1/+19I see what you did there.
      • Philbert, on 02/04/2008, -13/+2What the joke about voting for obama? Yeah that was awesome! I'll have to remember that one.
    • charliecharlos, on 02/05/2008, -4/+1I remember when everyone used to say vote Ron Paul, before they gave up, got distracted, and saw the shiny new thing. Don't worry, I also supported the Giants during the last minute of the game. And that's how one picks a winner.
  • Ianki, on 02/04/2008, -2/+17In defense of just how tight these races actually are, half the polls in CA give obama a slight lead, while the other half give it to clinton. Pollster.com gives a an average of all of these polls to get a better idea what the population average is, but even these are misleading as they are not weighted by sample size and the different polls can ask a number of differing questions to get their values so they might be measuring any number of things. In a race as close as this, we can really only wait and see. but the trends are there for a potential Obama insurgency.
  • infinity777, on 02/04/2008, -13/+31Lets help him any way we can, I gave $50 and I plan to contribute again...
    http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute
    http://action.barackobama.com/page/s/volunteer
    OBAMA 08
    YES WE CAN

    (they need people to phonebank for them TONIGHT)
  • N3tw0rk, on 02/04/2008, -8/+80Don't trust the polls! Remember what happened in NH? Obama was ahead by a wide margin, then Clinton somehow came out on top. Don't start feeling over-confident. Get out there and campaign for the only democrat who can unite this country. We don't have much time left. Obama 08
    • TheBogie, on 02/04/2008, -4/+19This is true. Hilliary will do ANYTHING to win. This includes voter fraud, lies about opponents, etc.
      There is no limit to her ambition. Now Obama is the only one that can stop the disaster that a Hilliary presidency would be.
      • Gemfinder, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1But there WOULDN'T be a Hillary Presidency. If Hillary gets the nomination, there would be a REPUBLICAN Presidency.
    • senatorpjt, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2Yeah, she started crying. And, of course, she was crying this morning again.
      http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/20 ...
    • leetninja, on 02/04/2008, -8/+5what are you talking about ... hillary is never on top ... she takes it from behind like the bitch she is...
      • Philbert, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3If you were trying to get reported you did a good job.
      • leetninja, on 02/05/2008, -5/+1oh noooooooooooooooooooooo not that phil!!!! NOT THE REPORT BUTTON THAT NO ONE CARES ABOUT!!!! OH NOOOOOO!!!! WHAT WILL I DOOOOOOOO????? OMFG!!!!!! why dont you #1 get a life and #2 since you are so offended by the word for a female dog in our language - go flag everyone who says it, or everyone who says *****, or everyone who "swears" in general. its people like you that will elect this SOW into office
    • moiremusic, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1Actually, Obama and Clinton received the same number of delegates in New Hampshire. So even though she had more votes, it was essentially a tie. Though your point still stands. Obama was predicted to come out ahead by a wide margin and didn't.
  • N3tw0rk, on 02/04/2008, -7/+89Don't trust the polls! Remember what happened in NH? Obama was ahead by a wide margin, then Clinton somehow came out on top. Don't start feeling over-confident. Get out there and campaign for the only democrat who can unite this country. We don't have much time left. Obama 08
    • N3tw0rk, on 02/04/2008, -5/+28Digg this down, I don't know how Digg duplicated my comment.
      • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -2/+30I thought it was worth saying twice. :)
        • Philbert, on 02/04/2008, -11/+2I thought they both were a waste of space.
    • jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -1/+4Sounds even better the 2nd time. ;)
    • Knucklecallus, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I like how the duplicate comment has more diggs than the original
  • LilBoyLuver, on 02/04/2008, -5/+36Make a sign and go stand outside or make some phone calls. Don't be Digg armchair activists, get out and do something!
    • Ireland, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1"Digg armchair activists" - I like that one.
  • Stonedonkey, on 02/04/2008, -5/+28If you talk to anyone who thinks that Obama isn't "electable" for some reason, point out that he's gotten at least as many delegates as Clinton in *every single primary/caucus so far.* Hillary may trumpet this or that win, but she has yet to actually gain more delegates in any of the votes so far. Then point out how he's leading her in almost all the recent polls.

    If they say they want to vote for Hillary because she's "familiar" to them, point out how she voted for the war and how Obama made a speech against the war. Send them the speech he made: http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeech ... I don't advocate spam, but... I would strongly recommend spreading that text around.

    If they still have doubts, ask them what they're worried about. If you've been following the elections closely, you'll probably be able to give them an answer or at least an educated guess. You can also direct them here: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

    • Stonedonkey, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I could edit it in time, but the URL for the speech got messed up with a period at the end. Way to parse!

      http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeech ...
    • geekee, on 02/04/2008, -6/+3He wants to bail out subprime mortgage borrowers and has them gall to call them innocent. Pathetic. They borrowed way more than they could afford, put no moeny down, and now Obama wants YOU to pay for their gamble that went bad.
      • Stonedonkey, on 02/05/2008, -2/+2The gamble that went bad was on the part of the lenders, not the borrowers. The borrowers got nailed not because they couldn't afford the payments, but because the Fed ratcheted up interest rates after all those deals had closed. The margin of error was very small, and the banks were able to flood the market with these weak securities because of the de-fanging of the Glass-Steagall Act.
  • RIMberry, on 02/04/2008, -35/+8Here comes the National ID card HORAY!!
    • RIMberry, on 02/04/2008, -20/+7Yeah Digg it down, blindly push Obama...
    • Nougat, on 02/04/2008, -5/+8Yeah because a national ID card is sooo much different than a state ID card.
      • rootofunity, on 02/04/2008, -2/+6the national ID card is just a waste of money. Thats all it is.
    • killias2, on 02/04/2008, -4/+12Oh great, what's your next comment. "North American Union!" "We must return to the Gold Standard!"
      • chaosium, on 02/04/2008, -1/+6"WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION"
      • doronster195, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Uh. Reagan said that great nations fell when they left the Gold Standard. If you could explain to me the reasons the gold standard is bad I would love to hear it. RP basically wants to legalize it for competition rather than force you to use money that is losing its value every day.
    • 0xception, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5Please... the biggest problem with the Real ID act was the RFID and while i believe this is still an issue (i haven't kept up on the bill) besides it already got passed because it was attached to i believe a tsunami relief bill
    • jdh358, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2Rimberry - You could always move out of the country. Iran is nice this time of year. Please take your friends with you.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1No offense to Obama supporters but I think it may be a little shortsighted to insult and ridicule Paul supporters. Many of them might just vote for Obama and in an election this tight they could swing the vote. I would try pointing out that Obama may not be Paul, he did speak out against the Iraq war and other reasons why he is better for Paul supporters than the other ***** Republicans.

      If Obama is trying to unite the country he would do a lot better if his supporters would help. Paul supporters are sick of being marginalized. Welcome them, you never know it might win you the election.
  • sjmorton, on 02/04/2008, -14/+27I'm feeling the Obamentum!!!
  • wilhoitm, on 02/04/2008, -16/+6Obamabots Unite!
  • soot, on 02/04/2008, -15/+6ITS OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!
  • amawg9, on 02/04/2008, -6/+27If you are in a Super Tuesday State get out and vote.
  • xlar54, on 02/04/2008, -14/+19How the heck do you have a "lead" when no one has even voted yet?????
    • theblt, on 02/04/2008, -2/+4Exactly. If there's anything we can take away from this election it's that polls haven't proved a damn thing. Remember Mr. 9/11?
  • fatlip, on 02/04/2008, -1/+7probably isnt the place to be asking this question, but i'm going to anyway... are there rules for pres/vice? like what if a democrat wanted a republican as a president, are there rules against that? or has it just not been done?
    • spokenorigami, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4There is no rule prohibiting that. They are private groups, so a dem can choose a republican or independent as a running mate. There are no "formal rules against it. It'd be a pretty ballsy move, but then again, Obama is a ballsy guy.
      • fatlip, on 02/04/2008, -5/+1::dreams of a BO/RP team::

        if only...
        • illegalcortex, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3That would be a sure-fire way of eroding Obama's support, while only possibly picking up the single-digit percentage of people who support RP and wouldn't feel betrayed by him hitching himself to what in theory is a candidate as bad as all the rest. It's a no-win situation.
          • fatlip, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2i retract my statement and agree with ronaldinho ^
      • ronaldinho, on 02/04/2008, -1/+6I say Obama/Colbert '08!
    • rickpelletier, on 02/04/2008, -2/+5Originally, the vice president was supposed to be the person receiving the second highest number of votes (from Wikipedia):

      "Under the original terms of the Constitution, the members of the U.S. Electoral College voted only for office of president rather than for both president and vice president. Each elector was allowed to vote for two people for the top office. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be president, while the individual who received the next largest number of votes became vice president. If no one received a majority of votes, then the U.S. House of Representatives would choose among the five highest vote-getters, with each state getting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen president would become vice president. If there were a tie for second, then the U.S. Senate would choose the vice president."
    • merper, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5In answer to your question, no, Obama is not going to pick Ron Paul as his running mate.
  • exomni, on 02/04/2008, -5/+67***** the survey polls. This is not good news. Good news will come when you GO TO THE POLLS AND VOTE FOR HIM TOMORROW.
  • natsmythe, on 02/04/2008, -3/+8What good are high polls when we can expect the Clinton machine to "help" count the votes? Mr. Rove always said that the Republicans would prefer to run against Hillary; a lot of people know the Clintons are crooks. This article
    http://www.scragged.com/articles/tears-of-a-crook- ...
    discusses the funny numbers in New Hampshire. Hillary won where the voting machines couldn't be checked, Mr. Obama won towns with a paper trail which could be checked. The left-wing blogsphere claim that Hillary's people stole the election from Obama. The evidence, if true, is staggering. The right wing is staying quiet, I believe, because they want to bring it up in the general election if she can steal the nomination.
    • theblt, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1I wouldn't be taking my news from a biased source like Scragged. If there were any sort of voting fraud on the machines, as much as I know nobody loves the mainstream media, you'd most definitely see it on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
      • mattxb, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2that kind of thinking is why they could get away with it
        • theblt, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1What kind of thinking?? About the MSM?? Why the ***** do Diggers think the MSM is ran by "The Man" who's trying to censor everything?? Just today I saw Lou Dobbs talking about a possible errors with the voting machines. If there were ever any "fraud" with the machines, we'd know about it. Much of the MSM is rooting for Obama, and they'd be the first to let us know if Hilary was "fixing" the election.
  • RevJonathan, on 02/04/2008, -19/+13I'm guessing a lot of digg users support Obama. That's fine, to each his own. I am a lifelong Republican and probably won't be voting for a Democratic candidate, even though the field of Republicans is nothing short of depressing this year. I'd like to voice a concern of mine, and maybe you can help me understand a litte. Obama was elected a State Senator of the 13th Illinois district in 97. In 2005 he assumed office in the Senate. This guy only has 3 years experience at the national level. At best he has 11 years elected experience, but I hardly consider the Illinois state senate worthwhile. No executive office experience whatsoever. It looks like Obama is about to get the nod, I'm just wondering why Democrats aren't concerned. The Oval Office is all about dealing with the other branches of Government and other Nations. He is a charismatic fellow and I'm sure he'll do great at the ceremonial aspects of the office, but I worry about my President handling matters of foreign policy and handling dealings with congress. Obama doesn't seem to have that experience.

    Just some wonderings, feel free to digg me down, curse me and make evil voodoo dolls of my name.
    • oceanrain, on 02/04/2008, -6/+9It's called "Anybody But Hillary".
      • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -1/+5No, it's called "we need the type of inexperience that doesn't cater to lobbyists and blindly support wars we never should have gotten involved in".
      • Gemfinder, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1The "ABH" argument has been getting a lot of sneers lately, but at its root, it's a good one.
        I was an ABH since she announced her candidacy, mostly because I knew the Republicans would bring up Whitewater...as an appetizer. My personal ABH issue is that we've had 24 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush in the White House, if you count Bush Sr's tenure as vice-prez under Reagan. This is not a democracy, and it won't continue on my watch.
        I started out with Richardson because of his experience. To me, he clearly was the one for the job. But, when he bowed out, I had a choice between Hillary, John Edwards, and Barack Obama.
        Hillary's disqualifiers I've already gone into, and I didn't like her Dragon Lady campaigning style (still don't). I agreed with most of Edwards' stances on the issues but I worried about him driving more jobs overseas by making the country unfriendly towards big business; if they all packed up and went offshore, it would slaughter the economy. Which left Obama.
        Frankly, yes, he's a settle. But he's a good one. I went through a serious sit-down-and-think and his short resumé concerned me. So did his anti-gun stance. I thought, "Experience got us where we are today; maybe we need to shift gears away from Experience and go with something fresh." So far, my gut tells me I went with the right guy. Your mileage WILL vary.
    • brownr21, on 02/04/2008, -4/+17Dick Cheney had the best resume out of anyone. Look at all the 'great' things he has done.
    • disillusioned, on 02/04/2008, -3/+28Well, Bush managed to have experience as a governor and the "leader" of an oil company for many years and managed to do more harm than one would have ever thought possible.

      Here's why: Bush has trouble thinking at a high level for himself. He takes his own backwards agenda and applies the advice around him to fit that agenda. Then he lets the agenda of his closest advisers flesh things out and further form his administration's stance on a host of issues he doesn't understand or have the capacity to.

      Obama has experience as the president of the Harvard Law Review and in other leadership roles where he actually lead, instead of being grandfathered into a position of power. What's more, the man isn't just charismatic. He's brilliant. He's someone who will be able to independently take in all the advice and points of view around him and come to a balanced, intelligent and creative solution for the problems ahead.

      Leading isn't just about knowing all the answers yourself. No one in the position of the president possibly can. That's what he has a cabinet and immense staff for. But true leadership is knowing how to recognize the best and brightest and to be able to surround yourself with them, and then knowing which way is up when they begin to offer you the advice you need. And I think Obama will handle that better than everyone in the field.
      • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -2/+5Holy smokes, that was an excellent comment.
      • walkable, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2Yes, that was an excellent comment. The Obama campaign could use you!
    • theillest1, on 02/04/2008, -4/+12I'll take Obama's "inexperience" over any of the Republican candidates' unabashed conservative illogicality. But you know, to each his own.
    • catalysis, on 02/04/2008, -1/+12Experience has never been a critical factor in determining how well a president does in office, so I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal out of it this year. No president is experienced at being a president when they start.
      • fotbr, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Except for Hillary, who already has 8 years of being "co-president". Which is why the republicans like her -- they can bring up bill's blow-job, selling ***** to china, and all the other stuff they bitch and moan that bill did.

        But hey, if you like her, vote for her. If you don't like her, vote for someone else (Obama). If you're retarded, vote for McCain or Huckabee. If you're a Paul-bot, maybe you can help him finally make a double-digit percentage.

        But if you sit at home and don't vote at all, then shut the hell up - voting is your chance to have a say, not internet polls.
    • michaelpinto, on 02/04/2008, -1/+18As a good Republican by your argument Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln weren't ready for the White House. Barack Obama's parents met at the East-West Center in Hawaii and he spent some of his childhood growing up in Indonesia, so he saw more of the world by age 20 than most Americans do their entire lives. I spent 9/11 in Manhattan and still work here and I'd feel more safe with Obama in the White House than anyone else running.
    • fourty_two, on 02/04/2008, -1/+12How much elected office experience does Hillary have? Bill's experience doesn't count just like my wife cannot claim my experience on her resume.
      • fotbr, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Doesn't stop her or her followers from claiming it does.

        Most people are smart enough to see through it.
    • larsone86, on 02/04/2008, -4/+12Besides experience Obama's also got something that no other candidate has: the ability to unite and lead.
    • kneelB4zod, on 02/04/2008, -4/+6"but I worry about my President handling matters of foreign policy" oh ***** that was funny and they say Americans don't know irony. My granny who is dead and has been for quite some time could a better job of handling matters of foreign policy than your ***** joke of president, he is hated and loathed world wide, Bush is widely seen as a walking ***** by everyone out side the US. I don't that much about Obama's foreign policy ideas but at least the man can talk without sounding like a retard and as for Hillary ***** her and McNutjob they'll keep having wars till the end of time.
      • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -2/+4I agree with you, but is the bad language so necessary to get your point across?
        • chaosium, on 02/04/2008, -3/+1Not at all, but I can sympathize with the sentiment.
      • illegalcortex, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3Enough about your promiscuous grandmother, kneel.
      • joshuabowers, on 02/05/2008, -2/+1"*****"? My, you British have crazy euphemisms and idioms.
    • spokenorigami, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4I think an argument that Obama makes is that we should collectively be making decisions, not just leaving it I I e
    • YankeesSuck, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3What about all the "National" experience Bill Clinton had before becoming president?
    • br0ck, on 02/04/2008, -0/+7"The same old experience is not relevant: You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience." Bill Clinton in 1988 when asked about his lack of experience compared to Bush Sr.
    • likesoy, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080106/cart ...

      / I'm a registered conservative and will vote for Obama if given the chance!
    • KyleGoetz, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4Hillary has only 8 years of experience, period. That's less than Obama. Oh, and being First Lady gives about as much credence as the fact that Donald Trump's fashion-model wife is married to him ought to make people believe she's a whizbang real estate woman.
    • cheesegrits, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3If we look at the great presidents of the past, how many actually had experience in national politics in a leadership role?
      Sometimes we have to take a leap off the cliff and hope for the best. The voters did so in 1932, 1952, and 1960. And even with Reagan, he was "only" a governor-no national experience at all. But he turned out to be the best thing since sliced bread for most conservatives.
    • jdh358, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4Before anyone becomes President they have exactly zero experience being the most powerful person on the planet. The only other experience you need, obviously, is a couple years voting and learning the system as a senator. The experience issue is so ridiculous. Look at what experience has gotten us. Time for a totally fresh face, ideas, and someone leading the country who hasn't been co-opted and had all their idealism squeezed out of them by the "experience" everyone expects to save the day.
    • RevJonathan, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5I'd like to thank you all for the well-thought and articulate responses. Almost all of you responded in polite discussion, something we need more of in this country.

      To clarify when I say Obama has no executive experience, I mean he's never been a Governor, Mayor, etc. that would give him a good background. My personal preference in Presidential candidates is gubernatorial. A few have mentioned President Clinton, but I'd consider his history as Governor in the late seventies and again in the eighties more valuable experience than a 3-year Senator.

      The answer seems to be that people want a fresh look at the way the office is run. That's fair, but I urge you to consider how often that has been said throughout history. Ah well, to each his own. Thanks for the responses, and remember to vote!
    • Gemfinder, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Also, take a look at the experience he *does* have: he was a Constitutional lawyer. The Constitution is the supreme law of this country and a candidate that's well-versed in it, who knows how to take it into the future (as opposed to the past — like a certain OB-GYN also in the running) should make a terrific President.
  • hurtmetomysoul, on 02/04/2008, -7/+19Go Barack!
    You are the last remaining hope for some sanity in American politics!
  • blacktriangle, on 02/04/2008, -21/+3Ron Paul 2008!
    • intotheforest, on 02/04/2008, -2/+4I am an Obama supporter however i like Ron Paul's ideas as well, the unfortunate fact is Ron Paul is not going to have a chance this time. He is relying on a party that still supports the war to vote for an anti war president. I think we should put aside our differences and all pull together for Obama, he is the only chance we have of ending this war, and saving our country.
    • ganlet, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3We are at the point where Ron Paul has absolutely no chance. I don't see the need for more spamming. If you believe he best represents what you believe in then by all means vote for him, but at this point just spamming his name is getting a little old.
  • bigronpaulfan, on 02/04/2008, -16/+4What kind of changes is he proposing? I mean, he's pro-war, he represents special interests. He really isn't any different than the typical politician we've seen our whole lives. He's full of wondering generalities and that's about it.
    • hurtmetomysoul, on 02/04/2008, -4/+11care to back up any of those claims?
    • SwordofKahless, on 02/04/2008, -8/+4But he wants "change".

      The change in our pockets.
    • larsone86, on 02/04/2008, -1/+7Sounds more like Hillary than Obama.
    • icantbecool, on 02/04/2008, -7/+2He's trying to be like Martian Luther King to bad he isn't going to win jack On Super Tuesday.
    • rjn17960, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4Sounds more like McCain.
    • madmage, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2"Sounds more like Hillary than Obama."

      "Sounds more like McCain."

      Sounds like both, actually. Hence me voting for Obama.
  • spauldingd, on 02/04/2008, -4/+11According to the polls, Obama was leading going into New Hampshire as well. Don't take it for granted, get to the polls tomorrow. We Iowans did our part, now its up to you.
  • theillest1, on 02/04/2008, -7/+21F*ck polls! Get out and vote and wait for the REAL results!

    OBAMA 4 LIFE!
    • gincarnated, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5Or at least 8 years.
      • caketank, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4How about at *most* 8 years. Jesus, I like the guy, but let's not crown him.
    • runCMD, on 02/05/2008, -2/+0You're an obsessed little devil are you.
  • kneelB4zod, on 02/04/2008, -12/+7Good news but doesn't the Evil ***** have a hole bunch of "super delegates" that she can pul out the bag and crush "hope" with?
    • empath, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4most super delegates are uncommited. They'll go whichever way their state goes.
    • mustbepatient, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2I doubt the Democratic party would go against the majority of their voters so that Clinton can win on technicality - they would stand very little chance of winning the general election with that sort of internal split.
      • kneelB4zod, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I thought she had them all ready? sorry I'm not from the US :)
        • ganlet, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2it was thought she did because it was thought based on early polls that she had most of the states, now once we are getting closer to election time more people are aligning themselves with obama which should affect the super delegates decision.
          super delegates have a habit of voting whatever direction the state votes.
        • madmage, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1Senators don't historically though. And National chair-people like Howard Dean go whichever way the party leadership wants them to.

          Although with Kennedy on one side, and Bill on the other, I don't think the party leadership knows what they want them to do.
    • FlaG8r, on 02/04/2008, -2/+5I´m a Obama supporter, but when I see people try and vilify Hillary with phrases like ´Evil *****´ it does make me feel more supportive of the former First Lady.
  • cohortq, on 02/04/2008, -6/+16I'm a registered Republican, so I'll be voting Ron Paul on this run in California, but don't worry, come general election time, I'll vote Obama, you democratic guys just need to get him there.
    • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3Well, if you already feel that you'll vote for Obama in the general election (assuming you believe Ron Paul won't make it), why don't you just vote for him in the primaries so that he may beat out Clinton? It's a pretty close race.
      • cohortq, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4In California, only Republicans can vote in Republican primaries, and In Democratic primaries Republicans and Independents can vote.
        • qwdggtryj887m, on 02/04/2008, -3/+0"In Democratic primaries Republicans and Independents can vote." ... as a note, only if you specially request the ballot which, in my haste to get registered, i did not do. :-( seems that anyone should be able to vote in the primaries, regardless if they are 'independent,' since when it comes down to it, people really only get to choose between democrats and republicans.

          /rant
      • cohortq, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Also here's some informative reading for you about what a Closed primary is
        http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline. ...
      • akatsuki, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Now, of course, if there is a write-in...
    • geekee, on 02/04/2008, -9/+2Obama is a socialist. Vote for McCain in the general election.
      • GhostyBoy, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1McCain is an idiot. Vote for a stapler for better results.
  • empath, on 02/04/2008, -4/+6Make Calls to Feb 5th states tomorrow!

    http://my.barackobama.com/feb5calls
  • maiku00, on 02/04/2008, -6/+9feb 5! make sure you get out to vote tomorrow
    i just donated another $15.00
    • SwordofKahless, on 02/04/2008, -9/+2When he wins we will have no choice but to donate large sums of money out of our pay checks to pay for his expansion of government, higher taxes and interventionist foriegn policy.
      • Sic133, on 02/04/2008, -3/+7So when people donate to Ron Paul is fine, and when it comes to Obama is bad?
  • 11b1p, on 02/04/2008, -13/+2If you want the republicans to win vote for Obama. Then for every idealist change minded voter will be 2 or three hillbilly cromagnons to vote for whatever republican corpse is propped up with a picture of jesus behind him. OBAMA Can not win the general election. There are too many weirdos that have nothing to do on election days and get out to vote. ***** our school budgets get voted down every year because they bus senior citizens to the polls. Or even worse they have them in the Senior citizen center!
    • spauldingd, on 02/04/2008, -2/+5Do you think Hillary is more "electable" than Barack? No way. I'm a registered Republican (I was young and impressionable), and I will vote for Obama, but I will stay home if my only options are Hillary or McCain.
    • cheesegrits, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3"***** our school budgets get voted down every year because they bus senior citizens to the polls. Or even worse they have them in the Senior citizen center!".
      So what should the election officials do? Have an age limit on voting school bond issues? But then you would have to have a age limit on paying school-related taxes.
      Sounds like the young parents are outnumbered at the voting booth. Time to get the young parents to even show up and vote (which they do less and less each election).
    • rheaume, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2Watch the truth get dugg down
    • illegalcortex, on 02/04/2008, -3/+1Those people ALREADY vote republican. Having the Republican annointed antichrist Hillary as the opponent isn't exactly going to convince them to stay at home.
    • jdh358, on 02/04/2008, -3/+1Might as well curl up and die then.
  • MrFlesh, on 02/04/2008, -3/+7keep in mind hillary has this singular ability to do better than the polls in places with electronic and optical scan voting.
  • shaundee, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Good for him, hope he burns her off big time, get yr asses voting
  • saturnx8, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4yeah I'd like to see other proof. One source is just an opinion, multiple sources are a validation. But i wouldn't say the lead is widened, its not super Tuesday, no one has voted aside from mail in votes, and reuters isn't the most exact or correct polls, its kind of biased based on the audience it panders to.
    • neveroffline, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1You cannot trust Zogby, not even close. Anyone listen to Pen and Teller? Sheesh. Zogby polling is a joke.
  • SwordofKahless, on 02/04/2008, -13/+3Yes I cannot wait for Obama to win so he can take more of my money to expand government, create more regulations to control my life, execute his intervenionist foreign policy, promote elimination of our borders through globalist polices and give drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
    • phyl0x, on 02/04/2008, -3/+4Well you only have a few more months to wait! Jan 20th 2009!

      Vote for Change!

    • cheesegrits, on 02/04/2008, -4/+5And I cannot wait to for him to win to show folks like you that your paranoia is misplaced. Propaganda and rote are no match for intelligent discussion.
    • phr33ksho, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3Anyone with any grasp of the issue should support drivers licenses for illegal aliens. It is a public safety issue, as if someone does not have a drivers license they are significantly more likely to commit hit and run accidents. Additionally they are less likely to obey orders from police to pull over for fear of being deported. Xenophobia will only make this country worse
    • adamwho, on 02/04/2008, -2/+2Looking over the last 30+ years it is the "small government conservatives" that have expanded government the most and the "Big Government" liberals" who have shrunk government and reduced deficits.
      • SwordofKahless, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1It was a Republican congress during the Clinton years but that is irrelevant since niether were responsible for the technology boom that brought a period of economic prosperity this country had never seen before. Therefore with increased revenue more taxes were paid which allowed them to reduce the debt.

        The idea of "shrunk government" by liberals is a fairy tale. Both have expanded government and niether will reduce deficits. Just because Obama is for "change" does not mean he will be the one to shrink government and reduce the deficits . Because I point this out does not make me a supporter of either candidate or party.
  • ronaldinho, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3I just wished I didn't have to click "next" on that article twice. Can't they put it on one page? Are they cracked?
    • OpinioNate, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Click the link at the bottom: View article on single page

      Obviously they do that for the maximum number of ad impressions.
  • Optic7, on 02/04/2008, -3/+11This would probably be a good opportunity to mention that if you are registered Independent or Republican, you can still vote for Obama in many Super Tuesday states which have open primaries.
    These states are California, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota.
    If you are in any of these Super Tuesday states, you should be able to vote for Obama regardless of what party you are registered with. I know that in California you just have to ask for the Democratic ballot.
    Vote Tomorrow!!!
  • stellandfly, on 02/04/2008, -1/+15Bottom line is, people need to vote. Don't sit on your asses all day digging every Probama story that makes it to the front page, and then fail to show up at the polls. Get out and VOTE!
  • saturnx8, on 02/04/2008, -5/+2oh yeah if you look at some of the other graphs they got there, both Clinton and obama will lose to McKain.
    • walkable, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3CNN's polls this morning showed they would both beat McCain and Romney. There's still a lot of time until November. McCain's campaign was in huge trouble just a few months ago, and he's come surging back. You never know what will happen.

      With that said, I think if Obama can beat Hillary, he will be our next President.
  • SwordofKahless, on 02/04/2008, -12/+4Yes VOTE!. Vote against Hillary or Obama to stop Socialism, expansion of government and against higher taxes.
    • jsebrech, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0Q: What's the difference between having to pay taxes to get health insurance and having to pay a company to get health insurance?

      A: Taxes don't include a profit margin.
  • defwheezer, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3Polls are meaningless unless you actually get off your ass and vote (and vote using a ballot system that has a paper trail at that!)...
    ...but, ru still undecided about who to vote 4?
    Think there is an uncanny similarity between the policies of Bush/Clinton/McCain?
    While the Lizardz are hoping to fool you'all again this election cycle, the Pluri Media Group counter propaganda wing has endorsed Obama in '08, and PMG gives you the fundamental mindwash why should Not vote for McCain or Clinton: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BeakPO1ci98
  • cheesegrits, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/ a sampling of numerous polls and various states.
    • adamwho, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I wish they would weight the polls by the number of delegate from the state. A win for Obama in CA is worth several smaller states for Clinton.
  • ReggieNoble, on 02/04/2008, -7/+2The press is clueless and obviously rooting for Obama. Hillary's probably ahead with the non-polled. Polls are not news. Thank you, come again.
    • phr33ksho, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3Ahead with the non-polled? Do you understand the concept of polling? Clearly you don't. Let me explain, they take a random sample of likely voters (determined by the makeup of voters in past primaries, registered democrats etc), and because it is if enough samples are taken, it starts to become more and more representitive of the population as a whole. You know the margin of error they always give with polls? that is a calculation based on the ratio of sample to population size which gives the range in which the true population vote lies, i.e. the amount of leway due to the randomness of the sampling. Usually this is given with a confidence interval (I think this poll used a 99% interval) this means that there is a 1% chance that a variation greater than the margin of error could occur due to random variation in the sample. Please educate yourself before posting
  • cwcentral, on 02/04/2008, -2/+4They are poll numbers: I hope this doesn't end up like a past Futurama episode (I forgot to vote!)
  • motbob, on 02/04/2008, -1/+6Because of the delegate system that the Democratic party works with, there are very few winner-take-all states in this primary. So, no matter what, you should vote. I was about 20 minutes late getting to the post office to send my absentee ballot for Obama. Don't make the same mistake I did: go out and vote!
    • nedzeve, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4You should take your absentee ballot to your precinct tomorrow and see if you can exchange it for a regular ballot. I'm not sure which state or county you live in, but we can do that in mine.
  • indiefan, on 02/04/2008, -15/+3wow, i guess it's more important than ever that i get out there and vote for Hillary. I've never seen a candidate rely solely on ethos more than Obama. I'm tired of the "believe in me" rhetoric, that's the same ***** Bush pulled.

    "Yes We Can!"
    Can what?
    "Hope in Change!"
    Change what?
    "Present."

    ***** that.
    • cheesegrits, on 02/04/2008, -3/+1Remember ol' Bill said, "I can't believe you all are buying into the fairy tale...". We do need less mayonnaise and more bread from Obama.
    • Sic133, on 02/04/2008, -3/+1more important than ever to vote for Hillary? pleaaseeeeeeee.
    • Tmax88, on 02/04/2008, -2/+0You'll probably get dug down all the way to china in the time it takes me to write this, but at least you said it. All the "08ama" "yes we can" fanboyism and dickriding is really comical. I'm gonna laugh my ass off when he loses.
    • madmage, on 02/05/2008, -1/+2Yes we can!

      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

      Hope in change!

      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

      Read, idiot.
      • SoulGrub, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Not to mention like 17 debates where they were grilled on the issues. If all you heard were the rhetoric and soundbites, it's your fault for not paying attention.
  • BMP91981, on 02/04/2008, -5/+3I never understood why anyone listed to the polls. They are almost never right. The only way to know for sure how people are going to vote, is to wait until they finish voting.

    And to those pronouncing that the voting machines are rigged, guess what, the whole process is messed up. Anyone with an ID can vote, that's all it requires. You don't have to have any knowledge about the candidates or the process. You don't have to know anything besides your name to vote. That to me is a flawed system. People should be casting educated votes, not just voting for the person who they recognize, the person who's the same gender/race/religion/political party as them. I'm not saying people should have a degree to vote or anything like that, but until there is a way to filter out all those people who will blindly vote for someone because they are a certain religion, race, gender, political party, from xx state, or whatever other useless reasons some people will use to vote this election, then we will continue to have a flawed system.

    Vote for a real reason, Vote for someone because their policies, ideas, or some other substantial reason. Don't be a sheep, who cares what everyone around you will do, make an educated choice.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/05/2008, -1/+1I don't know why people are digging that down. Sounds right on the money to me.
  • nova9, on 02/04/2008, -5/+1For Hilary.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 89 of 89 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.