Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Survey: Majority of Americans Agree with Dennis Kucinich
dennis4president.com — In the political equivalent of a “blind taste test” taken by more than 67,000 participants, an independent website surveying public attitudes on various issues is reporting that Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is the first choice of 53% of respondents. Those taking the survey vote only on the issues, not the candidates themselves.
n3rdvana- 1378 diggs
- digg it
- chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -19/+86While the Republicans and most Democrats struggle to win the right wing's votes, the center and left remain ignored by almost every candidate.
Except one. Dennis Kucinich for President!- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -12/+45Haha, wow, Kucinich has suddenly become the new Ron Paul on digg..
(he's my favorite candidate, just think it's funny how digg switches politicians to spam-submit every month)- chaosium, on 10/10/2007, -17/+10It's because Ron Paul makes Kucinich seem reasonable and moderate by comparison.
- kingkilr, on 11/14/2007, -9/+15I would like to see their algorithm, because I just entered Barack Obama's campaign platform in it's entirety and it gave me Kucinich.
- knightboat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10They link right to it and show you how they measured each candidate.
- kingkilr, on 11/14/2007, -6/+3Ok, having looked over this, the algorithm consists of giving them points if you agree, and subtracting them if you disagree, and spitting out those numbers, it also doesn't take into account the severity of the belief that the user enters, in other words, it takes your words out of context. Pretty dumb IMO, plus views are more then just Yes/No.
- seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7I couldn't agree more. This sort of bizarrely wide spread (see http://www.dehp.net/candidate/candi_graph2.jpg ) suggests something other than a preference for Kucinich. Besides, these sorts of stories are cheap. Issues can't be boiled down to Yes/No/Maybe. If issues were that straightforward and lacking in subtleties, our congress would be a model of efficiency.
I like Kucinich in concept (I voted for him in the 2004 primaries), but it's a hopeless cause. Supporting him isn't hopeless, since it shows people believe in his platform, but he's just not electable.
Finally, keep in mind the type of people who'd end up on this survey website. Surely they have a large sample size, but it's hardly representative of the entire country.- boxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The only reason Kucinich is not electable is because people assume he's not electable. Nearly everyone I know says they would vote for him, but he's not electable. Guess what, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy!
- urinnerchild87, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6kucinich is WAY too liberal to even have a chance, i have a hard time thinking this poll reflects all of america. even the writer admits its flawed and should be taken with a grain of salt.
- BlakeEM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Mine came up in the order I thought it should.
Paul 58
Gravel 40
Kucinich 36
If one of these 3 gets though the primaries I'd vote for them. Kucinich is a bit too liberal for my taste but I agree with him on some key issues. As I see it all 3 are against the war and the patriot act and that shows that they are for the people and they won’t cave to special interests. Any of them will be a fine president and even though I don’t agree with them on all issues, I’m sure they will try to do what’s in the best interest of the people.
All the others, as I see it, would be horrible choices.
- knightboat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10They link right to it and show you how they measured each candidate.
- rebrad, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5I see Denny is going the Ron Paul route. Great entertainment for about 3 minutes. BTW, Denny needs to eat a Big Mac or something. He look frail.
- outhouseinput, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5That's probably because most ideas on the left wing simply do not work, and the center is not very politically viable in the US system until after the primaries.
By the way, this poll does not use truly random polling, because it's visitors tend to have certain criteria because it is an online poll. (Young, male, etc.)
In my opinion, I think that it is just fine to vote for someone based on who they are as well as where they stand. Character is a HUGE part of being a politician; you can find hundreds of politicians with the same exact views, but only a small percent of them ever make it big -- it's character that counts.- Grummond, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Well those "left wing ideas" work just fine elsewhere. Take a look at the Scandinavian countries, and their economic successes, while basically being socialist-democratic wellfare states mixed with market economy. Reality proves you wrong.
- ScottMaximus1, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3You neglect to mention how the entire population of Norway(4.5m), Sweden(9.5m), and Finland(5m) are roughly equivalent to the New York Metropolitan are(18.7m) Not to mention the fact that the Scandinavian population is extremely homogeneous, whereas the United States is anything but. Scandinavia(Finland + Sweden + Norway) is also roughly 1m square kilometers whereas the United States itself stretches for 9.6m square kilometers.
- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0What a clever bit of copy and paste, Scott. Your Mother must be sooo proud.
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1dream on
- ssecca, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yes, they work very well. For example, forcing people in their fifties to retire in order to keep unemployment down and devaluing the currency so that everybody can get raises every year (this is Sweden, specifically) are just shining examples of economic success. Look closer--reality proves you wrong.
- jroyale, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10Oh right, because all of Bush's right wing policies have worked out so well. Face it, all the Republicans want to do is monitor your bedroom, enrich corporations and drown the government in a bathtub. But somehow universal health care will destroy America.
Jesbus, I can't wait for Jan 20 09- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8oh come on, they don't want to drown ALL of the govt - just the parts of it that can actually help people. They seem quite keen on the violent, oppressive govt. agencies.
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Bush has done a great job with the economy, especially since he was handed a bubble that led to a recession from slick willy. If you can't see that you are hopeless.
Jan '09 we get congress back!!- ibookfast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A great job with the economy for whom? Since the 70's the economy, by design, has been benefitting the top tier disproportionally. Reagan even gave the idea a nice innocuous name... The Trickle Down Theory. You are making two big mistakes... 1) That Clinton was liberal on economic issues, like Carter he favored the 'haves'. 2) That Repukes consider you part of the 'we', do you make millions? No? Well they don't give a ***** about you.
BushCo. delayed the bubble bursting by orchestrating 9/11 and the inevitable crash via hyper-governmental spending.
- ibookfast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2A great job with the economy for whom? Since the 70's the economy, by design, has been benefitting the top tier disproportionally. Reagan even gave the idea a nice innocuous name... The Trickle Down Theory. You are making two big mistakes... 1) That Clinton was liberal on economic issues, like Carter he favored the 'haves'. 2) That Repukes consider you part of the 'we', do you make millions? No? Well they don't give a ***** about you.
- Grummond, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Well those "left wing ideas" work just fine elsewhere. Take a look at the Scandinavian countries, and their economic successes, while basically being socialist-democratic wellfare states mixed with market economy. Reality proves you wrong.
- Andrej73, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If anybody want to be president, (s)he MUST to do 2 things:
1. Say, what most of the voter think.
2. Look like THE person, who capable to execute own dreams.
Kucinich fail in the 2.- ibookfast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Bush didn't have either of those criterion, he just stole the office, twice.
- rationalthinker, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Thats settles that. Dennis should be nominated... PLEASEEEEE nominate him so the Republicans can continue to dominate.
- sumgi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Honestly who would you rather have in a crisis situation? Kucinich or Ron Paul? It's not just about the politics, the guy has to be a leader as well.
- Buddhaismybuddy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Kucinich.
- skyteria, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Kucinich
- Buddhaismybuddy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Dennis Kucinich Vs. Ron Paul
http://digg.com/politics/Dennis_Kucinich_Vs_Ron_Paul - cjhowe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We should have a president whose policies prevent crises from occurring in the first place.
- br0ken1128, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Kucinich .. I mean I like Ron Paul but he seems slow .. not razor sharp, it's probably his age.. and I don't mean intelligence folks, he's smart.. he's just ... slow .. Kucinich is younger and a quick thinker .. I like him .. if it came down to it, I'd be happy with either, but certainly happier with Super K .. :)
- Buddhaismybuddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dennis Kucinich Vs. Ron Paul
http://digg.com/politics/Dennis_Kucinich_Vs_Ron_Paul
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -12/+45Haha, wow, Kucinich has suddenly become the new Ron Paul on digg..
- whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -29/+48The only problem with this is that it is on a pro-Kucinich site. It's not that I disagree, it's just that I prefer far less potentially biased information.
- knightboat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Kucinich's site links directly to the full results on a different site.
- drakaan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, no, it links directly to the survey.
- tablespork, on 10/13/2007, -3/+4I tried the survey weeks ago, long before I knew that Kucinich linked to the site. Kucinich was my top result.
- StormTrooperVII, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6comment buried for not RTFA
- xTRUMANx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's the message that matters, not the messenger.
- drakaan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, that's partially true. If the main link to the survey comes from Dennis Kucinich's website, it stands to reason that the results will be skewed significantly towards the views of people visiting his site.
I matched most closely with Giuliani and second-closest with Clinton. Knowing that the voting public is nearly evenly divided (still) between conservative and liberal views, I would expect the overall trends to be a lot more even, and I'd expect to see at least two candidates with a significant number of corresponding submitters matching their views...
In this case, the message is partly a function of the messenger. If there was a similar link from, say, Giuliani's website, I expect the stats would look a bit different.
- drakaan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, that's partially true. If the main link to the survey comes from Dennis Kucinich's website, it stands to reason that the results will be skewed significantly towards the views of people visiting his site.
- Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It also has a lot to do with who wrote the survey and who decided which candidate stood where.
That, and you also have to deal with people who simultaneously hold contradictory viewpoints. Most people say that the government is too large and controls too much but many of those same people want more dollars for education and federal health care.
I'm not saying that the numbers are meaningless, just bringing up the kinds of points that should be considered with ANY poll. - parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pay attention please, the news rport is on a Kucinich site, the poll and results linked are not a pro Kucinich site!
- skygal12, on 11/02/2007, -0/+0probably a right-wing shill.....
- knightboat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Kucinich's site links directly to the full results on a different site.
- Vagabond91, on 10/10/2007, -2/+47http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ is the actual site.
- dasilva333, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php
is the link to the 100k+ people who've voted - magni, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I like the survey but nobody will say they support torture. The people that "support" torture call it something else. "Enhanced interrogation techniques".
Yes it should be called what it is but let's face it our language in these discussions is always skewed to minimize or maximize impact. This is how our society has been fooled for so long by the republicrats.
I like Kucinich because he is honest and consistent in his statements.
- dasilva333, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php
- LiberalJarhead, on 10/10/2007, -6/+31He's a pretty refreshing voice - it makes sense that when people actually look at his history as a mayor, his voting record in Congress, and his positions, instead of just buying the standard line that he's too radical, they decide he makes sense.
- warsql, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8His history as Mayor, as in when he caused the city of Cleveland to go into default and faced a recall vote?
- zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yes, a bitter pill to protect the city from a gang of thieves. Nice context, warsql.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Plus, he has the best designed website of all the candidates. Winner.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I take that back, it's not too great.
- Trublmakr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Personally, I don't even see what's wrong with the "radical" moniker he's been pinned with,.. America needs a "radical" change in it's political direction.
- Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1To "LiberalJarhead", yeah, he must be refreshing. Kucinich is one of the most liberal candidates running.
This is utterly innaccurate. You can't say "majority of Americans" or "most Americans" when you take such a small sample of people on an internet poll. It doesn't work that way. This is completely bogus propaganda. Many people will find this, DING DING, through Kucinich's website! How pathetic.
Where did Kucinich end up with my results? With his face in the mud at -54. This man is the absolute wrong direction for the country and a move toward a socialist state. He does not speak for the majority of Americans, that's a fact known from the 2004 primary.
- warsql, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8His history as Mayor, as in when he caused the city of Cleveland to go into default and faced a recall vote?
- subman697, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20Interesting approach to a survey, and one where I can find some value to the result. I will point friends towards this. It is very refreshing to me that Kucinich is the candidate I most agree with, despite having voted for Big Ronnie way back when. So much for the "people don't change" BS that gets thrown around.
- Arcesius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That whole "people don't/can't change" thing comes from the people who won't/don't want to change.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apparently I'm with Ron Paul first.. who knew? I'm not even a Ron Paul-er.
- crazymonkey1, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6I wonder if we could have a voting process like this for presidents in the future. Might deter future "Bush"'s.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -20/+8Another silly internet poll? Buried Inaccurate.
- SteelChicken, on 10/10/2007, -19/+6Ive never even heard of this guy. Pollsters lie? Never.
- thelastcivilian, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Ahhh.... bliss.
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Generally if you only watch corporate broadcast media you're only going to hear about whom they want you to hear, e.g., Hilary, Obama, Edwards and Mitt McGuliani. I think a LOT of people might be surprised by how well defined a candidate Kucinich is if he'd get more air time/press. Same with Bill Richardson.
- datastorageguy, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3While a majority agree with him, only one woman named Helga who lives on the wisconsin/canada border, and who raises cats for their fur, would date him.
- gabewhite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Well, that one cat woman... and his hot wife, huh?
- CDHarrisUSF, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Seriously, has he not seen Elizabeth Kucinich?
- FREETHINKER2008, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Yeah lets keep focusing on looks, because that's important in voting for president.(sarcasm)
- niczar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Do you guys seriously ignore that 60-something Kucinich is married to a 29 yo red-head hottie?
- tHePeOPle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If he can do that, think of what he could do for the country!
And yes... I am so disillusioned with the current state of politics that I would vote for a guy based entirely on the hotness of his wife. I mean *****, I'm gonna have to look at her for the next four years too, right?
- tHePeOPle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If he can do that, think of what he could do for the country!
- niczar, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Do you guys seriously ignore that 60-something Kucinich is married to a 29 yo red-head hottie?
- dillibob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1he got himself a good lookin wife
- it5five, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Have you seen his wife? Holy ***** is she hot.
- gabewhite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Well, that one cat woman... and his hot wife, huh?
- Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -22/+5Source: www.dennis4president.com
Enough said...- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13That was covered above. Keep up.
- tominabox1, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8w00t I get Ron Paul with a score of 54 :D
Try it, its fun.- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10see, I thought i'd like paul...this survey only gave me 22 with him... I'm way up there (tied) with Gravel and Kunich...marked "no disagreements" with gravel..
Go figure. - bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8No wonder I don't support him... I got him at -2
Look at that... Kucinich with +74 for me... as if I didn't already know. - SenatorPenguin, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality? I think we're facing a crisis on digg.
- chaosium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No, their support for "freedoms" ends where the corporations and the state-level begin.
- Jorenko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The thing about libertarians (and make no mistake, Paul is still one at heart) is that they're against everything but smaller government. It's not that he necessarily thinks that the net shouldn't be neutral, but that he thinks the government shouldn't have to regulate it, and that the free market should work it out by customers leaving ISPs that charge sites extra for priority bandwidth or availability.
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10see, I thought i'd like paul...this survey only gave me 22 with him... I'm way up there (tied) with Gravel and Kunich...marked "no disagreements" with gravel..
- allaboutdatiki, on 10/10/2007, -3/+33Say what you might, but save your words until *after* you take the poll:
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/
It's eye-opening.- mydigga, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Freaky, I had Richardson at 40 w/ Kucinich at 39. I learned a little bit about myself today!
- mydigga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Romney at -41... no surprise
- goldfenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Haha! I got Romney at -55!
And so the contest begins... ;) - LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Romney was my guy too, although I was hoping Thompson would have rated higher.
Kucinich was the furthest away for me
- goldfenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Haha! I got Romney at -55!
- mydigga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Romney at -41... no surprise
- willcode4beer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I took the poll, it said Kucinich but, I dis-agree with him on the issues it showed by his name.
weird- fotoman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5as well you should. The issues it prints out are the ones you disagree with the candidate on.
- dillibob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i got kucinich. and i support him
- dmgordon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Paul 62, Gravel 39, Kucinich 23. Sounds right to me.
- trajomoreno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Took a more in-depth poll at selectsmart.com. Got pretty much the same results this time...Kucinich is in the top 10, but Obama is still at the top.
- ubuntuedgy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Holy crap...Kucinich. Wow, I guess I better go read up on the guy.
- fotbr, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Figures. I agree with none of the candidates. Paul topped the list at 15, and I don't even like him.
- mydigga, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Freaky, I had Richardson at 40 w/ Kucinich at 39. I learned a little bit about myself today!
- terradyn, on 10/10/2007, -21/+7Ok. This was the last straw from me. Between the Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich propaganda articles, I've become pissed enough with the whole process to actually block out all Political articles. Click on Customize above and uncheck Political News, 2008 U.S. Elections and Political Opinion. See ya on the flip side.
- Grummond, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Yes...close your eyes...people really AREN'T looking for a change from the repugs...
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Great, so you'll never see how buried you're getting.
- joel.smith, on 10/10/2007, -7/+29I've been behind Dennis since the first Democratic Presidential debate earlier this year. His views and where he stands on a lot of today's issues just make sense to me. I really get from him that he actually cares about the American people, and not about power.
After 8 years of the ***** that we, as Americans--and the world, too for that matter--have gone through, it is time to wake up and actually have something be different. I feel Dennis Kucinich is the difference this country needs. We have a lot of healing that we need to do as a nation, and Dennis feels like the right person for the job.
That's straight from my heart.- sailor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I appreciate your comments...but the ***** started a lot longer ago than 8 years.
But anyway, tell me why your party is putting people like Hillary and Obama first? I know the answer but I wonder if you do.
I know there are viable Democrats to run for the presidency, but they don't get approval unless they bow to the party and liberal ideals (if you can call them that).
I wish more people would look at the real issues at hand, and look at them with a eye on the future as well. I say this because liberal change generally means a short term gain for some that leads to more of the same of that which it claims to cure.- subman697, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pardon my jumping in for joel here (nice post joel), but why the "your party" stuff? I know I don't have a "party", I have positions on issues, and look for the candidate that fits those positions. I have voted Democrat, Republican, and "other" over the years, based on candidate position.
It is unproductive to play the "why are they putting up so-and-so" game. All that does is play into the mainstream. Try playing the "what do I want for my vote" game instead...
- subman697, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Pardon my jumping in for joel here (nice post joel), but why the "your party" stuff? I know I don't have a "party", I have positions on issues, and look for the candidate that fits those positions. I have voted Democrat, Republican, and "other" over the years, based on candidate position.
- sailor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I appreciate your comments...but the ***** started a lot longer ago than 8 years.
- 69Liters, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8But, but, but, Ron Paul!
- Bahimiron, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4The problem is that they probably don't take into account the importance of specific issues.
God knows that there are people out there who could agree with a candidate on everything, then find out that his stance on abortion is different and they'd simply never vote for him. Or find out he's Catholic. Or find out he's not a he at all.- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12The poll asks you to rate the issue's importance...
"Pwnd" - wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The poll tries to take that into account. For each issue it asks you about, it asks you how important it is to you: meh, important, or key.
But you're right, that's a good point. - flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I think what Bahimiron is that, to work, it needs a "my candidate MUST agree with me on this point or I won't vote for him/her" importance option. Because some people DO vote that way.
- sticksnstones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Hence the "key" option?
- drakaan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Key is weighted strongly, but flygirl was talking about all-or-nothing type issues...they'd be factored in as either 1 or zero times the rest of the survey...fail to agree on that point, and score a zero regardless of anything else. Not that I understand single-issue voters (I wouldn't be able to vote for anyone ever again if I thought that way), but that's a real phenomenon that should be accounted for.
- subman697, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't get the single issue voters either. Talk about myopic. It is a good point though (unfortunately).
I don't completely agree with Kucinich' stance on gun control. It won't stop me from supporting him. There are DEFINITELY people who will not vote for him over that issue however. Probably the same with gay marriage (and probably the same people)...
- sticksnstones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Hence the "key" option?
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12The poll asks you to rate the issue's importance...
- RGWX, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5Is there a way to digg this down for insanity?
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3No, the Diggerals have gone rampant, this got to the front page with 68 diggs.
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/10/2007, -9/+22Kucinich's views are very reasonable. Of all the candidates he makes the most sense to me.
Pity he doesn't have much of a chance against the Clinton & Obama cash machines.- binkomatic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Why not? You can vote for him, I can vote for him, that whole 53% can vote for him. Lever's right there, same as the other ones.
- binkomatic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Why not? You can vote for him, I can vote for him, that whole 53% can vote for him. Lever's right there, same as the other ones.
- brownr21, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2Sure we agree with him, but we sure as hell aren't going to elect an alien.
Backwoods retard is ok, but alien? Psh! - JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Paul 39
Thompson 27
Tancredo 26 - tical2756, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7This site is much better
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6It really is. The questions on the previous quiz were more relevant to those with a Liberal leaning. FUD.
- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So how did your results compare? Mine were almost identical, at least for the top 5
- lukifer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I took this one as well, and Kucinich came out #1, with Obama as a close runner-up.
Also, this is freakin' hilarious: "What religion should you join? The Belief System Selector will tell you." - Grummond, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6How is it better?
It gave me the same result. Kucinich ftw... - mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I got
1. Obama 76%
2. Kucinich 71%
3. Al Gore 70%
Very accurate.- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Eco-Socialist!
- jhourcle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Hmm...
19. What would be your ideal candidate's position on ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES?
Would favor positions of environmental groups like the League of Conservation Voters.
Would oppose positions of environmental groups like the League of Conservation Voters.
So um ... for those who don't know what the views are of the League of Conservation Voters, we have to keep looking up other reference materials to take the test?
... and they want an e-mail address before they give you the results? I'm confused by your definition of 'better'.- wiggles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They don't require the e-mail address -- that box is an ad designed to fool you. Scroll all the way down the page for your results.
- drakaan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Interesting...vastly different results for me on this one (which makes sense, since the questions were phrased far differently, and I'm an odd duck as far as affiliation is concerned).
Original poll gave me Guiliani > Clinton > Richardson as the top three, this one gave me McCain > Tancredo > Paul.
I'm inclined to think that the results from the original survey better reflect my views (although there was no marijuana question on the first one), just because I know that there are certain positions that second set of candidates have that keep me from voting for them (they're too conservative, in certain respects). - parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2While this one seems good too, I think the original is more accurate (to me anyway) and easier to take (took less time and questions were less confusing).
Kucinich came in top for me in both.
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6It really is. The questions on the previous quiz were more relevant to those with a Liberal leaning. FUD.
- Bahimiron, on 10/10/2007, -13/+19Man, I'm 100% for Mitt Romney.
...haha, just kidding. I'm not a caveman.- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6You scared me there for a second.
- geekwithsoul, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Or not a caveman with multiple wives, a belief that Jesus came to North America, and that thinks God provided gold tablets to a con man in New York?
- goldfenix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1(Scene opens with Bahimiron sitting at the table with a caveman in a fancy resteraunt)
Bahimiron: "I just didn't know you guys would have sane political views..."
Caveman: "Well maybe you might want to do a little research next time."
(Shamelessly stolen from Guico.)- cmilki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Guico?
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1geico
- cmilki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Guico?
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1not a caveman just a diggeral
- 69Liters, on 10/10/2007, -9/+323 Kucinich
21 Richardson
19 Clinton
15 Gravel - dylansbeard1, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3so when a democrat gets 53% its the majority but when Bush wins at 52% the left says half voted against.
- CDHarrisUSF, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The reason this is significant is not that a Democrat has the majority. That was pretty much guaranteed by Bush. The significant part is that the Democrat most people agree with is one that is hurting in the polls... being beaten by richer, more attractive candidates with backing from the media.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2You can't really say "most people" agree with him. Its really "most people who responded to an internet poll" agree with him. Very big difference.
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Here's the deal dumbass, when Bush stole, er, got his 51-52%, it was between TWO CANDIDATES, not one dude out of a field of, what, nine? THAT's when 53% is big... real big. When there are two people splitting a pie and one gets a slightly bigger piece you still call it halves. When several people are splitting a pie and one dude gets 53% it's a big deal.
You should see a statistician about your acute *****.
- CDHarrisUSF, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The reason this is significant is not that a Democrat has the majority. That was pretty much guaranteed by Bush. The significant part is that the Democrat most people agree with is one that is hurting in the polls... being beaten by richer, more attractive candidates with backing from the media.
- Tyrsson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21I like the approach of this survey. Not surprisingly, the candidate that most closely matched my positions on the issues was Ron Paul. However, I can't help but notice once again the disconnect between mainstream media and what people are really interested in. If most people resonate with Kucinich, then why do we only seem to hear about Clinton and Obama for the Democratic side and Giuliani for the Republicans?
- nicku, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12$$$
- BlinderBomber, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4We also don't hear much from him because, while his views might be reasonable, he doesn't have a commanding presence. Being president takes a lot of things, but money and charisma are two that Kucinich really doesn't have.
- ruforealz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2no, that's just what's been shoved down our throat... no reason why Kucinich can't be president... look at the ***** chimp in office now.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -21/+4Tancredo/Hunter 4prez!
Buried inaccurate. STOP MAKING UP ***** TITLES.
Its like you ***** don't care anymore. Make up any half-truth ***** to get on the front page so you all can have a libtard circle-jerk.- AiguilleDuMidi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Potty mouth. Do you talk to everyone like that, or just your friends in your 6th grade gym class? Act like an adult and have some respect. Sheesh.
- gjmcnamee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4A person who habitually pretends to be something he is not.....give up? a pos3r!!! So, if he pretends to be a fag hating conservative, he must be a FAG! :)
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I like how you use "fag" in a derogatory manner. I'll be sure to forward this to all your LGBT friends & family.
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Dude, what's the main disconnect with you? Do you just not see that far back in the thread? YOU were the one using "fag" in a derogatory manner - qjmcnamee was simply pointing out your ironic use of the term, by exposing your penchant for using anti-gay comments to mask your own obvious homosexuality. It's okay here... it's the internet, you can remain relatively anonymous and still be gay, p0s3r. But don't go pulling stunts like so many "conservative" politicians do and get caught soliciting little boys, propositioning cops in public restrooms, etc.
Above all, just love yourself for all your gayness. Celebrate your "hot man on man" tendencies. It's okay. Just give up on the self-hate. It's not helping you and it hurts others needlessly.
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Dude, what's the main disconnect with you? Do you just not see that far back in the thread? YOU were the one using "fag" in a derogatory manner - qjmcnamee was simply pointing out your ironic use of the term, by exposing your penchant for using anti-gay comments to mask your own obvious homosexuality. It's okay here... it's the internet, you can remain relatively anonymous and still be gay, p0s3r. But don't go pulling stunts like so many "conservative" politicians do and get caught soliciting little boys, propositioning cops in public restrooms, etc.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I like how you use "fag" in a derogatory manner. I'll be sure to forward this to all your LGBT friends & family.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Ron Paul - "The new Mike Gravel!"
Kucinich - "The new Ron Paul!"
(Digg Politics)- InsultComedy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4At least we never supported Hillary. We has some logic to our madness, at Digg.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Indeed.. if it were Hillary I would have to delete my account.
And if it were Giuliani I would drive down to San Fran and burn digg to the ground.. and if it were Brownback I would be pissing on the flames.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Indeed.. if it were Hillary I would have to delete my account.
- xTRUMANx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2LOL
(sorry for comment abuse, but that made me laugh) - PoeticExplosion, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I've always supported all three. They're the best candidates this election cycle.
- InsultComedy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4At least we never supported Hillary. We has some logic to our madness, at Digg.
- NoTiG, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Ron Paul #1
- seandaly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Ron Paul can suck my ass...
- thegreathal, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Make your vote really count.
Do it!!!
We're working our asses off for DK, this poll being the spirit why. As to why the link is coming from dennis4president.com, this has been floating around the internet for weeks, blame the news coverage. - bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What the hell is that IP address doing as a candidate in the stats? 24.107.14.26
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php- xTRUMANx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Perhaps a candidate who legally changed his name for the geek vote.
- spearce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5i didn't understand the stem cell one. do i support or oppose stem cells? what is the context of the questions? anyone?
- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I too have nothing against the stem cells
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm guessing it's whether you support funding research on stem cells or oppose.
- revisrev, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I felt the same way about the wiretapping issues... I now understand why I had to write up my science homework in complete sentences.
I'm sorry I ever doubted you Mrs. Jacobs... I'm sorry. - tablespork, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Do you support or oppose federal funding for stem cell research?
- sticksnstones, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yes
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes you oppose?
- sticksnstones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2An ambiguous response to an ambiguous question.
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Or is it?
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes you oppose?
- sticksnstones, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Yes
- internbrian, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2It's supposed to be read as if you support stem cell research.
- Tyrsson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It was a poorly worded question. I support stem cell research. However, I am less certain that federal funding is the best resource. None of the responses reflect such a position.
- AiguilleDuMidi, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Well, if that poll is accurate then Kuchinich should just throw in the towel and save himself the money and time. It’ll be a cold day in hell when Americans are informed enough about their candidates to actually vote for the ones who match their views. I mean really, we want to know if he goes to church every Sunday and if he’s chummy enough to have a beer with.
- hockeywhore, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Dennis would be my 1st choice in November. He was the only one with the kahunas to speak out against against Bush when he went to war. I got chills when I read his speech to congress. It reminded me of Paine.
Meanwhile, Hillary was voting yes to invade. As much as I would love to see a woman in the oval office, she's got nothing on Dennis.- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I thought Ron Paul spoke against the war, too. His supporters are always pointing that out.
- quisph, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think you mean cojones... Although if he had gotten Hawaiian shamans to speak out against Bush's war, that would have been pretty cool too.
- subman697, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I lived in Hawaii for many years. You can use Kahunas there as silly slang. Think "Big Kahuna", then think 10-15 years for it to twist.
How did I end up adding to this thread?!?!?
- round427, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5What's his stance on illegal immigration?
- way2muchsense, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Agreement on issues doesn't mean the guy is qualified to be President. Take our current Resident for instance. He did his best to align himself so closely with Al Gore you really couldn't tell the players apart without a scorecard. Listening to them talk, now that's another story. Still, it lent credibility to Ralph Nader's claims that there wasn't much difference between the two. Plenty of people agreed with Nader on a good many issues, but would you vote for him? Only if you were a raving moonbat.
If DK wasn't so damned busy running for President on the "I'm not your garden-variety Democrat" ticket, he might have earned enough brownie points by now to snag a House committee chairmanship. There he might actually do some good.- sticksnstones, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Dug down for use of "moonbat".
Just what the hell does that mean anyway?
As far as I can determine, it seems to be an epiphet used by right wingers.
- sticksnstones, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Dug down for use of "moonbat".
- NoTiG, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10The list and questions are flawed... for instance "net neutrality" . That is a play upon words. If someone was actualy neutral then they would not be for regulating it... it should say "net regulation" as opposed to net neutrality.
Also... "against stem cells" is incorrect... because it may just simply mean "federal funding of stem cells" as opposed to banning stem cells outright. The list is in desperate need of clarifications.- Subliminational, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Agreed. It is unclear in many instances and only gives simplistic responses to complex questions.
- powerhouse, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15From Wikipedia : Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that includes a ban on the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.
Can his supporters just overlook his obvious hatred of the 2A?- bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Gotta take the good with the bad. No one is perfect. And other cliches.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6So shredding the constitution is ok, so long is it's being done by a Dem?
- bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Chill with the "Dem" crap. I said nothing of the sort and your hyperbole is uncalled for. According to the poll the only thing Dennis Kucinich and I disagree on is the assault rifle ban. Besides that one stance there are all those other issues he addresses that are important enough for me to deal with the handgun laws at later time.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Yeah, because the 2nd Amendment just isn't as important as Universal Healthcare. Neither is the 1st or 13th, right? I mean, they're just silly "amendments", not even part of the original constitution, they're so unimportant they had to be added after the fact!
- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4poser, did you even read bightchee's comment before replying to it or does that ***** just fly out of the end of your fingers uncontrollably?
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I was just impressed with how cavalierly he dismissed Kucinich's attacks on the constitution.
- drakaan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There's an old saying: "As long as there is a second amendment, there will be a first amendment".
If you are truly concerned about the state of the union as regards the erosion of our first amendment rights, you should be wary of efforts to further erode our *second* amendment rights.
Leave self-defense out of it...if an armed militia entered your neighborhood and we became an actual police state, how would citizens armed with nothing rectify the situation? It's a practical matter. I'm all for registration and background checks and preventing people with a history of mental illness from having firearms, but not for banning them...they're too important in an "in case of emergency break glass" scenario. - Palmetto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you are good with reparations for slavery then.. yeah, it wasn't on the poll but just checking.
- bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Chill with the "Dem" crap. I said nothing of the sort and your hyperbole is uncalled for. According to the poll the only thing Dennis Kucinich and I disagree on is the assault rifle ban. Besides that one stance there are all those other issues he addresses that are important enough for me to deal with the handgun laws at later time.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6So shredding the constitution is ok, so long is it's being done by a Dem?
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Since when does the Constitution mean anything to the left wing?
- ubuwalker31, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6The constitution has many important things in it, such as the 14th Amendment, which the right wing loves to ignore.
- adooga, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4...and the 1st, ditto
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Are you kidding me? The left is usually ridiculed by the right for taking the consitution too seriously. And the right is ridiculed by the left for taking the bible too seriously.
- Tyrsson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Let's face it. We have lost our way such that the Constitution means very little to extremists on either side of the imaginary left/right divide. One side attacks the Second Amendment while the other tries at every turn to violate the establishment clause of the First. Both sides do what they can to stifle free speech and everyone cheers as long as the "right kind of rights" are being taken away.
- ubuwalker31, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6The constitution has many important things in it, such as the 14th Amendment, which the right wing loves to ignore.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9The party line on this is that rifles and shotguns are for hunting, and that's fine, but handguns are only for killing humans. I don't agree with that logic...actually, it's completely stupid, but there it is, for what it's worth.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7So the right to bear arms actually means the right to hunt? I don't think so.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Nor do I.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7So the right to bear arms actually means the right to hunt? I don't think so.
- ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I don't agree with that stance of his whatsoever. Unless an amendment is passed, the constitution should trump his views. Nevertheless, when it comes to other issues, I find the other candidates to be much worse off. No candidate is perfect. Careful weighing must be done or else we'll be stuck with another dangerous president.
- round427, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6If Kucinich really favors reparations for slavery and amnesty for illegal immigrants, I'm pretty sure there's a few better candidates than him.
- ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6He favors reparations for slavery? I must have missed that. Could you link me to supporting information? It would be appreciated.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/07/kucinich_supports_slavery_repa.html
- ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Ugh. Thanks. Good thing there is more time to investigate these candidates. Kucinich goes down several notches in my book for that.
- ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6He favors reparations for slavery? I must have missed that. Could you link me to supporting information? It would be appreciated.
- round427, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6If Kucinich really favors reparations for slavery and amnesty for illegal immigrants, I'm pretty sure there's a few better candidates than him.
- ubuwalker31, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4A complete handgun ban is not something that the majority of democrats, nor the "left wing" want. However, the radical far "left wing" would be in favor of it. And not to worry, a complete handgun ban would be ruled unconstitutional. I'd hope.
- sherifftruman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5We'll talk about the second amendment as soon as a well-regulated militia comes along.
- parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WOW, it's amazing to see someone who has actually read the second amendment and isn't just spouting off believing it protects the right of all to own arms. I'm so sick of both people believing it means something it doesn't and this backwards constitution worship that acts like that document was written by god and is therfore flawless. Thing are not right or wrong based on what the constitution says. After all the second amendment was an AMENDMENT!
- LaggedRabbit, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5And this is were Americans differ from the rest of the civilised world.
handguns SHOULD be banned and why the hell would any civilian need a handgun anyway ?
Finally a there is a US Politician with both a brain and some balls- skipdog172, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5To defend yourself against another person with a gun? It's not even the self-defense aspect that is so important. We don't think everybody needs to be toting a gun so we can have a safe society. It is the concept that "the manager may very well have a gun in his desk". It is that threat of "armed robbery not being safe if the owners have guns" that halts the crime-rates. This is why typically in cities where they have a local ordinance not allowing concealed weapons and signs all over the place, has higher armed robbery rates. These are signs that invite criminals to come and commit armed robberies.
Seriously, do you think it is possible to ACTUALLY rid America of handguns? What a joke. Look at drugs...
If you were to ban handguns, the only people who would turn them in, are the law-abiding citizens. Not the criminals.
How could they possibly take all of our handguns? Search every home in America? What a joke. The war on drugs proved that simply making something illegal, doesn't make it go away.
Look at what the handgun ban did in D.C....how is that not enough proof for some people? - drakaan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why should handguns (or assault rifles...or bazookas) be needed by a civilian? You must *really* trust your government. Think about the reason that the authors of the first 10 amendments to the constitution thought a well-organized militia (not Army...militia...civilians with weapons) might be important to the survival of our republic. That clause is there because they knew that governments, no matter how good they are for the people they are meant to serve, do not necessarily always remain so.
- skipdog172, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5To defend yourself against another person with a gun? It's not even the self-defense aspect that is so important. We don't think everybody needs to be toting a gun so we can have a safe society. It is the concept that "the manager may very well have a gun in his desk". It is that threat of "armed robbery not being safe if the owners have guns" that halts the crime-rates. This is why typically in cities where they have a local ordinance not allowing concealed weapons and signs all over the place, has higher armed robbery rates. These are signs that invite criminals to come and commit armed robberies.
- fotoman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6And what part of the US 2nd amendment do you think this is not in line with? The part to keep arms to form a militia? It's a contextual amendment, there's no period in there. The 2nd amendment is all about forming a militia.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."- powerhouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3umm this part:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0What's wrong with the people only keeping and bearing single shot "long weapons"? A militia doesn't NEED handguns. For that matter, the people don't need AK47s to hunt.
- powerhouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What does the 2A have to do with hunting? What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand? It was written by a group of people that just overthrew its government. If you don't like the 2A fine, repeal it legally don't just pretend it doesn't exist.
- Palmetto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My sentiments exactly powerhouse.
The 2A is to protect ourselves from government, not so I can shoot squirrels.
- Palmetto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My sentiments exactly powerhouse.
- powerhouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3umm this part:
- parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Please take note of those above me that have actually read the second amendment!
I'm so sick of both people believing it means something it doesn't and this backwards constitution worship that acts like that document was written by god and is therefore flawless. Things are not right or wrong based on what the constitution says. After all the second amendment was an AMENDMENT!- powerhouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The first 10 amendments are the bill of rights, and yes they are taken seriously because it is the supreme law of the land. Luckily our founding fathers have a process to remove and change amendments like what was done with the prohibition amendment. So if they don't like an amendment they need to work to get it repealed.
I personally find it sickening someone who has swore and oath to uphold the constitution would try to pass laws ignoring it. - TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2With out those 10 "AMENDMENTS", the constitution would have never been ratified because it did not specify the rights of the people, state and federal governments. Did you fail your high school civics class?
- powerhouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The first 10 amendments are the bill of rights, and yes they are taken seriously because it is the supreme law of the land. Luckily our founding fathers have a process to remove and change amendments like what was done with the prohibition amendment. So if they don't like an amendment they need to work to get it repealed.
- bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Gotta take the good with the bad. No one is perfect. And other cliches.
- Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Anytime you see the words "Internet Survey" or "Website Survey", be cautious. There are a lot of companies who engage in junk survey science. This isn't even one of the better known ones like Harris Poll, or Zogby. In fact, the base site, dehp.com, is simply a blog; a blog with three entries. I would, based on that, begin to disregard this survey.
- geekwithsoul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually whenever you see the word "Survey" or "Poll," regardless of the modifier, be suspicious. It's all junk science. Pollsters can throw all the numbers around that they want, but with the built-in assumptions of public polling, they really aren't accurate and should be regarded as entertainment -- much like astrology, Ms. Clio, or our current administration.
- Leomarth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, a good scientific survey can be done. But it's difficult, and it takes a lot of money. It's not to be done on a blog that claims to have 170k votes, while having it doesn't have enough content or entries to justify that kind of traffic.
- geekwithsoul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually whenever you see the word "Survey" or "Poll," regardless of the modifier, be suspicious. It's all junk science. Pollsters can throw all the numbers around that they want, but with the built-in assumptions of public polling, they really aren't accurate and should be regarded as entertainment -- much like astrology, Ms. Clio, or our current administration.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5This poll doesn't leave any room for nuance. Do I oppose or support the Patriot Act? Well, I oppose the portions that blatantly violate the constitution and support those that aided communication between our intelligence agencies. Do I support or oppose NCLB? Well, I support some level of testing, but do not support removing funds from failing schools, thus dooming them to do even worse. Etc...etc.
- spriggig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Welcome to the Representative's world. They have to vote for the Patriot Act or against it.
- parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well it's pretty hard to poll based on nuance. But I do agree with you.
- mkriss5681, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3I like Dennis a lot but I was a little upset to hear he opposed the Sirius/XM merger. I'll still vote for him if he gets the Dem nod.
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I like him too - I think his stance on the Sirius/XM merger was based on the overall corporate media consollidation issue. Can't say I blame him.
- parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why would you support monopoly? That is why he was against it, 90% of all media is owned by 6 multi-national corporations, that needs to end or free speech is dead.
- Cirbirus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How is it a monopoly? If I make "Biff's Hair Spray and Aftershave" would that be a monopoly simple because I'm the only one selling it? No. Sirius/XM are choices in the radio market. A choice the actual monopoly (or triopoly) of commercial radio wants you not to have.
It's ironic that Clear Channel, a monopoly that has single-handedly destroyed broadcast radio, is complaining about monopolies. Now that we, the consumer, have abandoned their 10 song play lists in droves and they are forced to convert all their stations to Spanish language formats, they want to destroy the only good radio out there.
If you haven't listened to Sirius, you haven't listened to radio, and it chills CCC to the bone to know they have to compete now. They are pissed that they payed off all those lawmakers to allow them to have a monopoly and now a better format is wiping the floor with them.
- Cirbirus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How is it a monopoly? If I make "Biff's Hair Spray and Aftershave" would that be a monopoly simple because I'm the only one selling it? No. Sirius/XM are choices in the radio market. A choice the actual monopoly (or triopoly) of commercial radio wants you not to have.
- mkriss5681, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1I like Dennis a lot but I was a little upset when I hear he opposed the Sirius/XM merger. Not too big a deal. I'll prob still vote for him.
- ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5It was fairly accurate for me. Previously, I considered myself a supporter of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul (supporting Kucinich the most). That's exactly what the results of this poll displayed, and it pretty much marked where I had disagreed with them in my research before as well.
- bowens44, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6He could have won before the advent of TV.
- hmmmok, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7It's about time we had a hobbit for president.
- vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Come on, hmmmok. That is just childish and mean. They like to be called "Elves", not hobbits. Stop being so insensitive.
- Squidly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Lawn Gnome is also acceptable amongst casual acquaintances.
- vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I guess I can agree with "Lawn Gnome". But I would ask him first, just to be sure he doesn't mind. Just don't call him "End Table". Only they can call themselves "End Tables".
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wow - I bet you guys could make some really funny jokes about skin color, eye shape, hair texture and other things people can't control. You're so funny! I bet your moms are really proud of how they raised you.
- vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Come on, hmmmok. That is just childish and mean. They like to be called "Elves", not hobbits. Stop being so insensitive.
- yamyogurt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3"Gravel 21
Abortion Rights, Kyoto, Universal Healthcare"
...except i put "oppose" for all three of those- ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Exactly. That's why they were listed. It's a list of disagreements. You oppose them; he does not.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4..which is why it was listed. That means Gravel supports those three things that you oppose.
- BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7In our current political system, it doesn't matter if you don't have the $$$.
- petsheep, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Something positive, he is a vegetarian.
- Squidly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not according to Michael Vick.
- sticksnstones, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Vegetarian or vegetation?
- drakaan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why should that matter in the context of how well he will govern the United States of America? I admire his choice (although I wouldn't make the same one, I am a carnivore), though.
- withoutxstars, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Actually he is vegan. Witch is an even better thing in my book.
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yet another person I shall have to eat three animals for...
- Namakemono, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0He's actually vegan.
- philz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He eats me food's food!
- crmypotato, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I guess I'm weird. I got negative 27 points for Kucinich.
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I got negative 28.
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Got you both beat. Negative 35.
- JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3No, it means that you actually have a brain in your head. Denny is quite possibly the worst candidate that ever raised his weasly Liberal head.
- JoesRevenge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i got negative 37 for DK, and who the hell is cox? Romney was my number 2.
- parabolee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1What are you all fascists?
No seriously, are you?- JAVandiver, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4No. We, like the vast majority of Americans, and unlike many digg users, are not Socalist Liberals.
- aogail, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Kucinich -43
Oh yeah.
- j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Just goes to show that the majority of Americans are ready and willing to go down with the ship. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who follows the constitution, and if you think any other candidate comes even remotely close, then you need to reeducate yourself on liberty.
- jhoward23, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I very much doubt that more Americans side with Kucinich than one of the more moderate Democratic candidates, considering he's the most "out there" Democrat of the bunch, short of Mike Gravel. For instance, he favors reparations for slavery, affirmative action, and full gay marriage. He opposes the death penalty. He would decriminalize marijuana. He supports required fingerprinting in order to purchase a gun. Would create a new "Department of Peace" and "make all war obsolete" (his quote). Would grant amnesty to all undocumented immigrants. Without voicing my personal opinion on these issues, suffice it to say many Americans would disagree vehemently with Kucinich's positions. Gay marriage is a good example. Take a look at these polls:
http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm
57% of Americans do not support full same-sex marriage rights compared to 40% who do, with a margin of error of 3%.
Here's more info on Kucinich's positions:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm -
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
