What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
171 Comments
- redigit, on 10/10/2007, -5/+61Do Americans matter in Election Politics?
- neckfire, on 10/10/2007, -5/+34Yes. It gives us a medium to realize how royally ***** our voting system is. If we don't adopt more secure transparent systems our vote won't matter. (We know who won after 18 hours of counting? Things like vote fraud and missing votes are an oversight? Well slap my ass and call me sally, I have 100% faith in our system!) .
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+28I think that the pundits are totally wrong. Maybe if the election were going to be held in a couple of months, the Internet support wouldn't amount to anything, but there is more than a year to go.
People who inform themselves on the Internet tend to know more and care more about politics then the regular TV viewer. I think that given the length of this campaign the Internet pols will have time to influence people they work with, family and friends. I know that it is true in my case and time is the key because it takes time for traditional thinkers to accept something new and different.
More people will use the Internet for information about the elections as they get closer. They will be more likely to accept Ron Paul or Obama. I think that everything might get turned on its head this year - dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -14/+36Uhh... Rudy's been gettin his ass whupped in the straw polls.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23Ron Paul hasn't been to every one of the straw polls either, but he seems to be doing better than Rudy nonetheless. Research my nuts on your chin.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20"Does the Internet Matter in Election Politics?"
No
"Does the Internet Matter in Election Fundraising?"
yes - TheGrunt, on 10/10/2007, -6/+23Internet = young people without landline phones + old folks who figured out internet
Polls = only older generations with landline phones
I would vote that neither are accurate at this point, as there's not enough people from all age groups in either of these groups for an accurate sampling. Primary 2008 will be very interesting, to say the least. Of course, this is just my opinion based on my observations, so take it as you will. - Speciou5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Article dugg down because it treats the number of Myspace friends as something important.
- ThndrShk2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1385% of young americans with landlines don't take random phone calls, especially from pollsters.
- goeatsmsht, on 10/10/2007, -11/+22Old folk don't use those intertubes, and the young'uns don't have enough vote power to do any real damage YET.
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Two huge mistakes in your post, old man.
1) Ron Paul is running as Republican, so you don't have to choose between Obama and Ron paul.
2) You may not be naive, but one Bill Clinton walked into his election with less visibility and personality/potential than our current "no way" canditates ( Paul,Kucinich,etc, ). So screw Naive when it's happened in the last 20 years. - FredoBerfil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Talking doesn't seem to help Rudy much.
- bagelpirate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Whats a landline? That smaller ethernet cable?
- LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10still vote damnit
- sarge96, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The best explanation is this: Obama and Paul supporters tend to be more progressive, and therefore more involved in the online community. Both Obama and Paul appeal to people like us, people who use Firefox and Digg and Facebook. I'm an Obama supporter because I think he represents change. I'd bet Paul supporters think the same about him. However, most of the party base of both parties are older people who tend to inform themselves through other media, newspapers, and cable news. Those people don't add support for Mitt Romney on their Facebook page, becuase they don't HAVE Facebook. It goes the same for other candidates because they aren't portrayed as "progressives" and don't attract the Internet community.
- moocow1452, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Don't vote for the Apathy Party '08.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9In Iowa maybe, where everyone loves cookie-cutter conservative Mitt.
- Joe_rigby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8You may say that your vote doesn't count, but some who seek power DEPEND upon this happening.
When a vote is upcoming, it's your responsibility as an American to cast it. While the system may have quirks, the majority will still be overwhelming enough to impart change. - Russellk30, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13The Internet leans left? Since when? What information do you have to support this claim? I think your assertion of this is based off of the websites "you" visit. I am sure an individual that spends all day on conservative websites would say the net leans right, which is also inaccurate.
To say that the net has no real impact on politics is too simplistic and mostly inaccurate. Tens of millions of dollars will be donated to candidates through websites. The CNN/Youtube debate was by far the most watched debate. Every candidate is heavily invested in their Internet presence and only the net can provide substantial nationwide organized grassroots support.
"the net is the least reliable, most irresponsible, and unverifiable in terms of news stories and their sources. This equates to it having no real impact on political races. It's more of a hotbed for controversy, hearsay, and unsubstantiated rumors."
That statement is entirely opinion. Again you use an argument that is not supported by facts or even logical argument. If the net has such a bad reputation for providing accurate information, than why are you on Digg looking for news? Wouldn’t this be a waste of you time?
I will agree that the net is full of misleading and inaccurate information, but accurate information is also widely published. How often does the MSM use sources? On the other hand, most of the information on the Internet is easily sourced. The MSM only broadcasts information that they believe will garner a profit. When profits supercede accuracy, questionable information is likely to be produced.
The net may not directly put a candidate in office today, but it certainly will have a substantial affect. As the fools that rely solely on the MSM die off and more people become accustom to using the Internet to verify and attain information, a bunch of online dorks will have an increasing effect on politics and will eventually be choosing our politicians. - Joe_rigby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I think they definitely made a difference in the last election, young voter turnout was pretty high.
- whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Only time will tell.
- gregms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6See I recalled the young voter turn out still being pretty low in the last election. I was surprised because I was expecting it to be big.
- neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8But no fags got married and we're still killing the ragheads, c'mon! Also nobody tuk errr gunnnzz or tuk err jerrbbzzzzz
/sarcasm - fotbr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The internet is real good at showing you what you want to see.
If you want to see ron, rudy, bill, dick, harry, or jane in the lead, you can probably find an internet poll to agree with you. If you want to see only far right news, there's sites for that. Same for only seeing far left news.
Hell, you can even find gay midgets doing animal bondage porn, if thats your thing. After all, if there's things like meatspin, goatse, tubgirl, lemonparty, etc, there's a part of the web for anyone. - Pingspike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6How come the web is so bad? you're kidding right ? Perhaps you should be asking how come the media is so deluded ? hmm ?
I'm honestly astonished the logic escaped you.
Here's a question you should consider: How come no one asks the right frikkin questions anymore?
Hell you might be surprised, this Ron Paul guy might actually answer honestly. - backness, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Amen!
Baby boomer's are incompetent halfwits - mookiemookie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+870-75% of young Americans still own landline phones. That's still a large majority.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18659835/ - Bajeda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7They don't if you don't bother voting. Saying "we had no chance anyways" to try and excuse your apathy is *****. I wonder what a difference it would make if every person who said that actually slapped themselves in the face and got up and voted for a change.
- FredoBerfil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Four years ago, investing in the subprime lending market seemed like a good idea.
- AgarwaenUmarth, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10What the *****? Trillions of dollars in debt and you say 'Thank God?' 3,600 dead American soldiers in a futile and pointless war? Rampant fascist/protectionist/militarist government and you say 'Thank God?'
Come back after you grow a couple of neurons and we can talk. - UtahApocalyse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The process is changing. With social sites such as facebook, myspace, and digg it easy to get involved. You have more access to more information then has ever been available for a election. people are able to come together and organize like never before. I think that national polling, and old land line phone polls are way behind the curve. Things will change, for the better. The American people can be more informed, and active voters this time.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+59/11.
- afruff23, on 10/10/2007, -1/+61. Obama was not in congress to oppose the war at the beginning of the war. So big whoop.
2. Obama is just as dangerous as Hillary. he has military action against Iran as an option, attends AIPAC (the Israeli lobby) meetings, and supports the patriot act. - EricMiIIer, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5I'm from Iowa, and no I don't like Mitt. You should be a bit more accurate when you use blanket statements like "Everyone".
- Quick2822, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It is an assumption that young people (18-25? -- 18-29?) don't vote. That is why people who campaign try to appeal to the older people. Those politicians who appeal to younger American's are going to come out ahead.
Voters ages 18-29 were 21% of the electorate (41.9 million) in 2006. By 2015, 1/3 of the 18-29 population will be voting.
# Approximately 10 million young voters went to the polls in 2006, up nearly 2 million from 2002, according to 2006 exit poll analysis.
# The 2004 elections marked the largest increase in young voter turnout since 1972. Over 20 million young people ages 18-29 case a ballot (42 million were eligible to vote), an increase of 4.3 million voters. This was a 9 point increase in turnout over 2000, more than double that of any other age group. In 2004, there were more voters under 30 years old than voters over 65 years old.
# In the 10 most competitive 2004 battleground states, turnout was 64.4% among young voters, compared to 48% across all other states. Like older voters, young people will turn out in higher numbers when targeted.
# Young people care about politics. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 77% of 18-29 years olds say they are interested in local politics, up 28 points from 1999, and 87% are interested in national affairs.
http://www.yda.org/tools/19/youth-statistics
I believe in the next decade, to successfully win a Presidential run (or any run for office), the normal trend of ignoring young voters will go away as they realize we ARE voting, and we DO care.
This is a perfect time to go out and register to vote. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Wow, you just had to go there, didn't you?
- lead2thehead, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6The internet isn't a huge influence. Too many people base their vote solely on whether there is a "D" or the "R" next to the candidate's name.
- NJank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yet = not until they're the old folk, and then the new young'uns will wonder why the old folk are still mucking about on that interweb thing that's scheduled to be shut down at the end of the decade...
- cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Two words: Vocal Minority
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Internet polls are bad at predicting general trends because they are not a random sample of the population. Therefore the statistics collected cannot be extrapolated in any meaningful way to the general public.
- sgglynn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4My feeling is, this will be the first election where the internet is an extremely important factor, as long as we remember to vote that is. The more Americans we make realize how disgusting this country has gotten, the more impact we will have.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yeah and now we have a bunch of fake liberals in Congress who vote for ***** like spying on Americans. I donated and voted for those ***** cause they said they were against ***** like that!
- skyfire1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Lets send all of the old people into the sun.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You sir, are not the average 23 year old. Take that as you will.
Here's one: I'm 24, have never owned a landline, and I vote.
Neither of our personal situations are relevant, but the fact that fewer and fewer young people sign up for home phone service every year is. - FredoBerfil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How did you learn about lemonparty, may I ask?
- MatttK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How many internet supporters are of voting age? How many bother to vote? It's easy to put "I support Obama" on your Facebook profile but if you're 15 years old or an apathetic 25 year-old, your support doesn't matter in the end. That's the problem with internet support. It doesn't materialise at election time. Digg me down but when Ron Paul is obliterated in the polls (and he will be), you'll have to face reality - or make up a conspiracy as to why he lost.
- sodade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I am going to vote all right. I am voting for a write in candidate named "flush the toilet and start from scratch" - if you all join me, then maybe we can get rid of all these sleazebags.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How are "scientific" polls done today? Do they still just call people only on wired lines? If so, how many people still use them ? And of those people, how many do not use caller ID to screen their calls? And of those people, how many do not use their answering machine to screen calls? So who is included in "scientific" polls? (Answer)--Only the people still using 1970's phone technology.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's getting him into more trouble. Especially when he's start talking about how he was @ ground zero as much, if not more, than the first responders. His own mayoral record states that the first 3 weeks after 9/11 he was there as much as some of the first responders were in 2 days (approx 31 hours I think).
- tophu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4God! Why do people keep getting this wrong? Some idiot yesterday said it was 99.9%. You were closer, at least, but geez people. It's 47.6%. That is a far cry from 75%...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is