digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Digg Presidential Data! Who's hot and who's not!

spreadsheets.google.com — Here is some data from the last 30 days of Digg News submissions. Find out how many stories have been submitted about each candidate, how many have made the front page, and more! Obama, Clinton, McCain, Giuliani, Ron Paul... Who's really big with Digg?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -58/+28Almost 8 times as many stories have been submitted about Obama than about Ron Paul. What are Obama supporters afraid of anyway that they have to bury articles about Ron Paul?
    • cornfednbred, on 10/12/2007, -23/+4I doubt the big orange soccer ball crowd supports Obama.
    • patr84, on 10/12/2007, -12/+55Let's not assume that it's the Obama supporters who are burying Ron Paul articles. Though it would be interesting to see who the culprits are composed of. My guess would be the neocons...
    • starbirix, on 10/12/2007, -16/+17You seem to be advocating some kind of "teach the controversy" action on the part of this Ron Paul character.

      I'm looking at the data seeing that about half of the stories get buried about him. That would indicate to me that there's a minority of enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters who aren't quite appreciated by the rest of Digg. Submitting to Digg is easy enough, so it's really hard to tell if the ones that didn't get buried were appreciated or if they simply weren't seen by enough people.

      Judging by the low success rates of the rather large number of submitted stories it seems the spamming allegations aren't entirely unwarranted.
    • nate5182, on 10/12/2007, -24/+65Who's Ron Paul?
    • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -23/+8Ru Paul? Typo?
    • motbob, on 10/12/2007, -26/+64
      Listen, the reason that Ron Paul supporters are accused of spamming Digg is because of this: http://www.yourfreepoll.com/xzwsmxqnsp.html
      There are 5-6 times as many Obama supporters than Ron Paul supporters! Yet, there are only 6 less front page stories about Sen. Paul than about Sen. Obama.

      Also, take a look at the submitted-to-front-page ratio: one in only 52 stories about Obama make it to the front page. Compare that with 1 in 11 for Ron Paul. Yet, Ron Paul has fewer supporters on Digg! How can this be statistically possible?

      The answer, of course, is that it is not statistically possible. Ron Paul's supporters are systematically getting their stories to the front page through a friend system, and not by the normal Digg democratic process. The data backs my conclusion up. So, thank you, Mr. Submitter, who just happens to be a Ron Paul supporter (check his dugg record.) You just made my argument a lot easier to make.
    • MediaMoguls, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26dugg for using google docs
    • Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6@motbob

      Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

      Assuming that EVERY Ron Paul supporter voted in that poll.... That would conclude that (as of right now) 1 in 13 Ron Paul supporters submit a story (1497 votes / 113 stories). You are saying that 1 in 11 is "statistically impossible". Well it's not. Do the math.

      And you are also assuming that these stories are all pro-candidate stories. Half of those Obama stories could be negative towards him, and the same could be true for everyone on the spreadsheet list.

      Whoever compiled this spreadsheet apparently didn't say wether these are all positive stories, or what they are. It was probably compiled by some script that just looked for the person's name in the title or description.

      And BTW, I am not a Ron Paul supporter... I fall under agreement of the "Who's Ron Paul?" comment...
    • jjaacckk, on 10/12/2007, -17/+11I'M SURE ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE REALLY FOCUSSING ON THEIR DIGG RATINGS EH? I MEAN THERE'S NO MORE IMPORTANT MEASURE OF THEIR LIKELY SUCCESS IS THERE?

      /sarcasm
    • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40"Yet, Ron Paul has fewer supporters on Digg! How can this be statistically possible?

      The answer, of course, is that it is not statistically possible"

      It is very statistically possible given the harder core fanbase that underdogs are prone to have. Ron Paul is more likely to have dedicated Diggers digging all of his fewer stories than Obama fans are to digg his many more stories. It's comparible to Apple fans digging every little feature about the iPhone while a MS releasing a whole new OS may actually get less diggs.
    • tmanka, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Still no Al Gore....as diggers we need to start some Internet style grass roots action. I think it might add a new aspect to politics in this web 2.0 world.
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13DisposableRob:

      You're right. And that sort of minority dedication is the reason the majority is likely to despise this small group of passionate individuals. You see, when someone is trying desperately to go against the grain (often for the purposes of evangelizing for their cause), everyone else tends to look at them disapprovingly.

      It's also worth noting that these dedicated people are also extremely insulting by their very nature. For example, Apple fans in general behave in a stereotypically smug, holier-than-thou fashion that comes off as incredibly grating and annoying. Similarly, Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters (these two groups tend to overlap) act in a very similar way, often just telling people outright that everyone but them is a stupid idiot, and trying their damnedest to convince people of their supposed superiority. I wouldn't be shocked to discover that they are reading this right now and thinking to themselves, "But it's true! We ARE smarter, more knowledgeable, and more rational!"

      Are you surprised that the majority of Digg users (or indeed the majority of any community, online or off) would become hostile towards such behavior? Are you honestly surprised by this? Because I'm not. And I would hope that most truly rational people are not, either. I don't think it should be expected of this community to embrace such behavior.
    • headswine, on 10/12/2007, -17/+9Who is Ron Paul?
    • DonWilson, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11You can clearly see liberalism dominates digg.
    • wild, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Its not that people bury stories about Ron Paul, its that they bury SPAM about Ron Paul. And then they muck up the comments with "Ron Paul is great. You should vote for him."

      There are many acccounts here on Digg directed soley at Ron Paul articles. They only submit and Digg things that relate to him. They are gaming the system. There is a reason thats frowned upon.
    • next, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9ilyag:

      It's nice to know that by clicking a button to vote on a story, that I'm being insulting 'by my nature'.

      I'll be careful next time to avoid voting for stories that people might disagree with. It's not like a digg user just looks at the front page and diggs the stories they liked. No, nothing of that is the norm here. Move along.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2ron paul is a fag.
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4next:

      No, it's not insulting to digg a story you want to promote. It's insulting when someone (not necessarily you) starts writing comments akin to "you're a stupid moron if you don't agree with me by supporting Ron Paul" or "It's all an evil anti-Libertarian conspiracy by *stupid* people!" (which was the purpose of THIS specific story submission). And I'd like to point out to you that no one was speaking directly to YOU, so I don't see why you saw fit to try to defend yourself, or assume that you're some kind of a general representation of an average Ron Paul supporter on Digg.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10any candidate (like Ron Paul) who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, which just so happens to be run by the most powerful people in the world, WILL be shot in the face mysteriously if he ever comes close to winning.
    • StripeyMagee, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Libertarians are rightwingers on acid.
    • masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The author completely misses the +/- aspect of an article. There could have been 500 articles bashing Clinton however the results of this wouldn't show it in the same way.
    • amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Some on here might need education on what a libertarian is: http://www.digg.com/politics/What_is_a_libertarian_anyway
    • dave11980, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6motbob,

      "Ron Paul's supporters are systematically getting their stories to the front page through a friend system, and not by the normal Digg democratic process."

      You have to be kidding me. You really think there is a group of hundreds of people (10-20 ain't gonna get something to the front page of dig) calling/emailing each other with links to go vote for Ron Paul stories? That has to be the most ridiculously paranoid leftist statement I have ever heard.

      Just maybe its the fact that the things Ron Paul says actually make since and without even knowing who the person saying it is Digg users are promoting the message all the way to the front page.

      And for everyone who doesn't know who Ron Paul is he is a congressman from Texas who votes with the constitutionality of things instead of for the pork bellies, special interests, and party line.
    • PongGod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I keep seeing the word "SPAM" thrown around a lot on Digg. Would someone please elaborate on the difference between a posting that is SPAM and one that is not? According to Digg's FAQ, all I can gather is that anyone can flag any posting as SPAM for any reason, hardly an objective definition.
  • 1337Einstein, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30I refuse to get worked up over ANY of this until fall 07, at the earliest. I mean, sure, it's important stuff whenever you talk about it, but it is just too early to do anything other than bias yoursef early on.
    • jmoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Couldn't agree more! Yes this stuff is important but its WAY to early to get into this.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm not getting worked up over this at all. Digg is hardly representative of the general population.
    • brocklese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah its hard to say anything bad about a democrat because digg is pretty much all liberal, these charts show it.... :/
  • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25I'll just be happy to see the ***** circus of an admistration get the boot in 2008/2009.
    • deadlikeoscar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25Oh yeah, that "well, at least he's not Bush" attitude worked out for you real well last time huh?
    • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -23/+3Last time as in what.. 2004? or 92?

      I can't believe you're sticking up for Bush, like he's done a phenomenal job or something.
    • LocalDocal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24^ He's not sticking up for him. He's telling you to support a candidate because you believe that candidate will be good for America, not because "he's not Bush."
    • heffae, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Well unless Jenna has suddenly decided to run it should be very easy to support a candidate that isn't Bush.

      Though I do wonder if Jeb is every going to run. I remember reading some where that he was the son that they were grooming to be president someday. Or has George destroyed any chances of that family taking the presidency again. Then again the American public has a short memory and Jeb Bush != George W. Bush
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just because I'll be awfully happy to see Bush out of the White House doesn't mean I won't vote for a person I believe in. How are those two things even remotely mutually exclusive? The "anyone but Bush" problem wasn't with voters anyway (if everybody had voted for somebody other than Bush he would have lost), it was with the Democratic Party. They thought they could sit on the sidelines and Bush would self destruct, and that didn't happen.
    • mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If Jeb were to run this time it would start to look dangerously like a royal family dynasty. I don't think American's are really interested in that. The halls of power are inbred enough without 16-20 years of one family running the Executive branch.
    • patik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@mcduckov
      "If Jeb were to run this time it would start to look dangerously like a royal family dynasty."

      If Hillary wins it'll be nearly as much of a royal family dynasty, albeit a little back-and-forth: #41 Bush, #42 Clinton, #43 Bush, #44 Clinton...
    • PongGod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I'll just be happy to see the ***** circus of an admistration get the boot in 2008/2009."

      Only to be replaced by the next circus, no doubt.
  • Scopitone, on 10/12/2007, -9/+35This is the first time I've ever heard of Ron Paul.
    • lightningrod220, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25"Ron Paul"....


      For some reason, that sounds to me like it's a porn star's name.
    • Dominus_Mundi, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5sounds to me like Rupaul
    • VhaidraU, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19That is because of stories about him keep getting buried her by those that fear his candidacy.
    • chefsam, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20So many people have never heard of Ron Paul. Many Paul supporters, myself included, believe firmly in his platform. That said, my hope as a supporter would be to spread his name as far and wide as I possibly can, with the hope that you, the people who haven't heard of him, will at least take a minute to do a bit of research. Some may get onboard, others not, and that's okay.
    • deety, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13Some of you seriously think there are people who fear Ron Paul's candidacy? How adorable! Persecution complexes are cute.

      (Most of us just don't really care one way or the other about him, but see the repeated stories about him as spam.)
      • 3ugene, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1That is your opinion about yourself not "Most of us". I find it idiotic that you don't believe the private bankers in charge of all of our money wouldn't be afraid of a man who wishes to abolish them.
    • mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Anyone who hews closely to ANY -ism will have hardcore supporters who also hew to the same -ism. By necessity these groups will always be marginal in terms of electability in national elections.
      • 3ugene, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1For me it is Freedomism. If that is an -ism. I support Ron Paul this year, but don't worry I'll be back next year also.
    • BrutusCato, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@lightningrod220
      Thanks I like bumper sticker that can make:

      Vote for the Porn Star, vote Ron Paul in 08.
  • pschwar, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29The Republican party is divided into three ideologies: The current ruling "religious right" (Bush, Romney..), the conservatives (McCain, Guiliani...), and the libertarians (Ron Paul).

    Ron Paul and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party are the only group who represents any real change in the party, this gets people very excited.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21Giuliani is conservative? Apparently the only thing you know about Giuliani is his name.
    • RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21I agree with treo. Giuliani is anything but conservative.
    • ChronicColonic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14McCain is not a conservative either. In many cases, he is a RINO.
    • AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I'm a libertarian that far easily identifies with Democrats than the Republicans (forcing social values on me? No thanks.)
    • ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"I'm a libertarian that far easily identifies with Democrats than the Republicans (forcing social values on me? No thanks.)"

      Forcing taxes and universal healthcare costs on me? No thanks. I care more about my specific livelihood than the off-chance I need to get my girlfriend an abortion (which i still possible under the current administration anyway) or gay rights which don't affect me. Sounds harsh, but it's rational. I care about my best interest rather than things that are improbable to affect me and voting in people who care about those improbable events and who will DEFINITELY affect my livelihood with anti-corporate and pro-tax/universal healthcare policy.

      I'd prefer if I could have both freedom from people and their morality from the Republicans (but also see Tipper Gore and her campaigns for movies/music/video game ratings - thats morality too folks) and from the socialist fiscal burdens put on by Democrats.
    • AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Like I said, its what I find more appealing. In the war on privacy and in the corporatization of the government (ie hiring lobbyists to regulate what they use to lobby for), I simply swing Democrat that way.
    • BrutusCato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If by conservative you mean shamelessly statist and pro-War, then yes Guilliani is as conservative as you can get.
  • javasharp, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5WTF is this? who cares about all these nonsenses.How come this is in the front page?
  • tekrat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38I admit it; I've buried a few of Ron Paul stories myself. Of course I voted against them, mainly because the stories were completely redundant or pure propagandist tripe. You can see only so many border stories that are just blog copies of an original article, kind like the Blood Diamond stories from a couple of weeks ago.

    I did vote for the original and factual Ron Paul stories, not the ones that claim he was the second coming or Ronald Reagan. Call me a neocon if you must, but I believe I'm not a neocon. I actually believe in shrinking the government, not growing it through unconditional spending.
  • truck87bp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5This is a total waste of time apparently because it is not confined to the USA. The spam issue makes this Poll useless in my opinion.
  • geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23That is quite interesting how Ron Paul stories have been buried at least 3 fold (usually more times) than any other candidate. I don't think this is simply a matter of the digg community not caring, because burying a story requires active participation. A good example of not caring would be with Mitt Romney, who's had a total of 107 stories submitted and not one has made the home page.

    I'm not one to come to conclusions of conspiracies, but it's damn odd how Ron Paul is clearly being targeted. By who and why? I have no clue. But clearly there is some disdain for Dr. Paul dwelling here.

    edit: motbob's comment above would be a good explanation. If someone's been spamming then that would be a good reason for all the buried stories.
    • Opiate, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19Because the truth hurts.. Ron Paul will never be president simply because he is for the people.
    • kelbear, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Maybe it's because the articles themselves are being buried for being of poor quality. Perhaps more Ron Paul would be acceptable if it wasn't weighted down by the opinions and bias of the submitter.

      Something simple and clear like Ron Paul's voting history laid out, WITHOUT a summary, leaving the interpretation to the reader.

      That sort of clear information is far more digestible for the Digg crowd, and way less grating than hippie ohmygodhe'sthelibertarianmessiah talk. That kind of language only appeals to those that are already ingrained with that language.

      You're trying to appeal to those who are NOT using that language. This is the major problem with the Ron Paul submissions. It has little to do with Ron Paul, and a lot to do with the submitters.
    • jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Also, while pretty much all of the Obama stories were all real NEWS stories, and many of them were negative towards Obama, the majority of the Ron Paul stories were "Video of Ron Paul Talking about federal reserve". Rather Irrelevant, and all Pro-Paul.

      I wish someone would write up an anti-ron paul story and put it up. Oh wait, it would probably get buried.
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@jivatmanx

      Can you give me examples of what you consider legitimate news stories about Obama so I understand your argument? Most of what I've seen about Ron Paul, including his anti-Fed videos, tell us his position on issues that affect us. How is that irrelevant? Which Obama articles that recently made front page below are more relevant, in your opinion:

      Barack Obama Hops on the Web 2.0 Bandwagon
      Obama launches social network
      FOX reporters no longer welcome on Obama campaign after Madrassa slam

      And here are some recent front-pagers of Ron Paul:

      Ron Paul 0wnz the Federal Reserve
      Ron Paul Introduces The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 to Congress
      GOP(!) House Members Introduce Bill To Abolition Income and Other Taxes

      Which of the above seems to focus on the man, and which on the issues? All I can glean about Obama from those headlines is that he's doing his best to take his campaign to the internet and that he definitely denies being a terrorist. From those Ron Paul articles, I know he loathes the Fed as do I, he supports hemp farming which is fine by me since people should be able to grow whatever they want on their land, and I know he'd rather reduce than raise my taxes.

      You want to know what I would consider newsworthy digg articles about Obama? Here:

      Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

      Gunmakers may get suit-proof vest
      http://obama.senate.gov/news/050729-gunmakers_may_get_suit-proof_vest/index.html

      Barack Obama's Speech Urging Universal Health Insurance
      http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaHealthIns.htm

      The above stories tell me that he isn't anti-war with Iran, just conditionally pro-war. He also blames gun manufacturers and retailers for people's reckless behavior, meaning eventually he'll want to sue Bed Bath & Beyond for selling deadly steak knives once he's taken guns away (from everyone but the bad guys). He also wants everyone to wait a long time to receive substandard health care from disgruntled wage-capped physicians, since that's how it works in Canada and I doubt we'll be any more efficient here in the land of pork.

      Put some more of those articles on the front page so we know what Obama thinks about certain issues, instead of just telling us how much he loves the internets and hates Fox News.
  • fisticuffs, on 10/12/2007, -14/+7Buried. Interesting, but I don't buy into the conspiracy theorists view it takes.
  • malfourmed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23The spreadsheet's author highlights the high stories buried / stories submitted ratio for Paul and asks "Who is being treated fairly and who isn't?"

    But based on the front page stories / stories submitted ratios, I'd say that Ron Paul is being treated more than fairly:

    Obama: 16/841 = 1.9%
    Clinton: 5/530 = 0.9%
    Edwards: 3/227 = 1.3%
    McCain: 4/191 = 2.1%
    Giuiliani: 3/158 = 1.9%
    Paul: 10/113 = 8.8%
    Biden: 2/99 = 2.0%
    • Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11an 8.8% is too high actually. I wouldn't be surprised if digg was being gamed for Ron Paul, especially when you take a look at the percentage of his stories being buried soon afterwards.
    • elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Of course. Its the same active libertarian diggers who were organizing their digg efforts before. However I don't know if I would call it gaming digg. Just because they are organized doesnt mean that they dont have the right to submit their stories and we dont have the right to bury their stories, which we appear to be fairly effective at as a whole.
    • mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Further analysis

      http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p6jfwtfhCi7vF9ZAoDX7IXw
  • slapded, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8data is biased. data is only from internet users. probably 98% males between the ages of 17-34
    • inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Dont know why you are getting Dugg down for that, because it is a valid point.
    • brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Um, the article is about DIGG presidential data.. or... "What people on digg think about the people running for president". Of course it's biased. It isn't targeting anything but the stats from digg users.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Well... considering Digg is a WEBSITE... where are you expecting data from? Amazonian tribesmen?
  • atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Its not all that surprising about Ron Paul. For whatever reason, you guys really seem to like him a lot.
  • gharding, on 10/12/2007, -14/+14Giuliani is a douchenozzle. That is all.
    • Toupee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm digging you down, but I do kind of like the ring of "douchenozzle."
  • atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Hey, what about Pat Buchannan?
    • guntherg16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Patrick J. Buchanan is a great American.
  • pschwar, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23I'm a big supporter of Ron Paul, I've been following all the blogs and news referring to him. I've been around online communities supporting him. And I can honestly say that there's no such efforts to spam Digg.

    He's just a candidate that's very different from the rest, represents real change within the Republican Party, and gets people very excited. He just announced his candidacy, so naturally there's a bit of hype at the moment, it will soon die down.

    Anyone who thinks there's some big conspiracy to spam Digg with Ron Paul articles should go hunt down some 9/11 conspiracy articles, cause I'm sure you'll enjoy them and believe them.
  • BitVector, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6The funny thing is that the bottom presidential candidate, Bill Richardson, is quite possibly the best choice for president out of all of them, since he has the most experience (a fact), and he could do a better job at healing diplomatic relations with other countries (an opinion). Read up on him, and you'll find out.

    • truchas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Richardson is an idiot, believe me, I have lived in the state where he is governor for the past 8 years, and I would hate to see him as president of the US, because if he screwed up our state so bad, I can only imagine what he would do to the rest of the country, and yes, i am a democrat
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm not a huge Bill Richardson fan but I've voted for him a couple times in New Mexico. I'm curious what you think he has screwed up (honestly--I don't follow state politics as much as I should). There's certainly no shortage of screwed up things in the state but most of the things I'm aware of predate Richardson.
    • guntherg16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Doesn't Bill Richardson support amnesty for illegal immigrants?
  • Treoinmypocket, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Not that any of this matters much because the Digg community isn't representative of the VOTING populace.

    And just for accuracy - Ron Paul is NOT a Republican. He may have an "R" next to his name but he is 100% a Libertarian. Why is that important? Because if you want change in this country you should start from a position of truth and build from there.

    People forget that The United States was founded as a MULTIPARTY system - not a TWO PARTY system.
    • BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Perhaps a position of truth would mean he shouldn't have that R next to his name. I don't like the idea of corporate rule anymore than I do government so his ideals are meaningless to me.

      With him in charge I can imagine the loggers in my area would be happy, but not me.
    • Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@BGFeltenink

      Here's a big misconception nobody seems to get. Ron Paul is a Republican who happens to think Libertarian, so much so that at one time he was the Lib Presidential Candidate. Now under Ron Paul Corporations might not do as well as you'd believe. Ron, just like other Libertarians, doesn't believe in special interests (which is where all the other candidates get their campaign money) and Ron also stands for Free Market Capitalism not Corporate (Monopolistic) Capitalism that's invaded its way into the Republican camp.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Not really, Ron has many issues that goes against the libertarian viewpoint such as immigration just to take one example. He is more of a borderline libertarian/small government repbulican/constitutional
  • bustaballs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16I'm always happy to see any article dealing with any candidate as long as it's not purely bashing them. I'm personally voting Ron Paul because he seems best fit for the job. I don't understand why people would bury a Ron Paul article just because it says "Ron Paul". If it's a dupe story then go for it but just because it has the guy's name? That's being immature.
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6Who cares...It's 2007.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Political geeks cares to read political science and news articles...
  • JHW539, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5Of course digg buries Ron Paul. His positions are so far away from any historical precedence of a successful government that they qualify as a religion, and we all know religion flies as well as a pot of petunias on digg...
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Erm..."so far away from any historical precedence of a successful government"? What country do you live in? Ever heard of one called the United States? You might be interested in doing some research into its origin.
  • musicbaker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30A large number of Ron Paul articles exist for submission because Ron Paul writes frequently and gives speeches before congress full of memebers who often don't bother to show up. His writing is knowledgable and expresses genuine concern and insight into the problems facing this country and his speeches are thorough and compelling. When compared to the typical party line soundbites we get from other candidates ("I am a God-loving patriot who supports the troops and will protect you from the boogey man and cut taxes" versus "I'll steal from the rich and give to the poor because it's their right to have everything the rich have, and I'll let you have an abortion" or the meaningless sensationalized gossip surrounding personal attacks) Ron Paul's in-depth speeches and article are refreshing as is his lone opposition to the ever expanding role of government in our lives. This is why so many Ron Paul articles are submitted. It's not some conspiracy or spam, there are simply a wealth of thought-provoking Ron Paul articles and speeches out there to read.

    I think the fact that so many of them are burried is a good sign. It means that a lot of Diggers fear that Ron Paul could pose a threat to their beloved establishment candidates. And they're right. Keep submitting those articles and be grateful for the ones that make it otherwise people will never know that Ron Paul exists because the MSM will surely not give him any good press.
    • xoxuxox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I first heard/read about Ron Paul from this: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

      "In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein - though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

      It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

      There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned."
  • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7Ron Paul is the only Pro-Liberty and Anti-War candidate. You anti-war and pro-liberty people are gonna have to put your money where your mouth is and vote for him.

    I think that's why democrat diggers are afraid of him, he's a lot more electable than the old bitch Clinton or Obama.
  • smokecheck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19 Please be aware, that the real issues are not partisan; that is just a tool to keep folks from focusing on real issues at hand. Ron Paul is trying to protect our constitution and Bill of Rights. There is a 6minute video on you tube, the link does not work, however if you type in RonpaulPec into you tube , it will come up.Here's another link..http://dailypaul.com/ In closing:
    The U.S. Constitution is my Patriot Act
  • mcd9236, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@pschwar

    Well put!

    The fact that there are less total stories and more front page stories about Ron Paul only shows that there is more support, yet less total news. Lets see more news about him, and let's keep them dugg!
  • cl52059, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Time to write about Obama and Ron!
  • Darel99, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16Dr. Ron Paul offers the people what our nation has been missing for years. Yes, I voted for the phony conservative view touted by BUSH.

    In the case of Dr. Ron Paul do your homework and visit:

    http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

    Just look at the way the man has voted he has not voted for special interest groups or 'Big Government Ideals" at all.

    Compare his record with others who have a voting history and decide for yourself.

    The point I appreciate about Dr. Ron Paul is his dedication to the people. He even has a weekly update regarding important topics.... You can call 1-888-322-1414 to hear his weekly message.

    I did notice Ron Paul has had more front page stories buried then Obama. Yet, he has had fewer stories submitted. I think this really speaks for itself.

    Further, I did notice a comment by a few who suggested that Dr Paul must have a buddy system. What they have failed to realize is that many will recognize Dr. Ron Paul's "Just and Fair" leadership and as individual citizens we are simply happy to share the news!

    I applaude Patrick Rodriguez for Digg's presidential data information.

  • fearziz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2the fact you're leaving out half the candidates means this poll is irrelevant.
  • jmreid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Can I get edit access please? I need to make a few changes.
  • jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1i always like a little data mining
  • bb112266, on 10/12/2007, -12/+0In electing the person to be the President of the United States of America, remember this: That person will be the Commander and Chief of the United States Arm Forces. If the candidate perceives him/herself as a coward, then that person should not be considered a candidate. In times of war that we are in right now due to whatever reason, the President of the United States of America needs to be 100% full of courage. If any of the candidates for the 2008 election are wanting to remove the troops out before they complete their mission, then is that person a coward or courageous? This and many other factors must be looked at to see if the person will be able to handle the responsibilities of being the Commander and Chief of the United States Arm Forces.

    That is the main job of the President of the United States of America. The other job he/she has is to veto bills that Congress makes if it is necessary. That can hold wait in this country, but when it comes to war, that job is not all that important when electing one for the President of the United States of America seat. The issues of electing someone for being the President of the United States of America has nothing to do with any campaign promises. What should be observed with each candidate is can this person up hold the Constitution of the United States of America, and can he/she be courageous during war time as the Commander and Chief? Everyone's vote does count more then you might realize.

    When voting for anyone think about what kind of a future that your children will have as the result. The children is the future of the United States of America. If the wrong person is voted on the will make a giant difference in how that future will be. Vote with intelligence and not be emotions. Vote with care and not with fear and pride. Vote for the liberties that we have today. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA can form a more perfect union if we know what we are doing when we vote for a candidate for the President of the United States of America.
    • PhreakMac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Intelligence > Courageous

      Ron Paul '08!
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So whether or not we actually ought to be fighting a war has no relevance? I'm sorry, but I'd rather vote for somebody who stops to consider the goals of a war, whether those goals are desirable and obtainable, and if it's worth the price (both in human lives and economically). I don't see how continuing to fight a bad war (if you believe it is) is courageous.
  • thereisnospoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Google Trends perspective:
    http://www.google.com/trends?q=Barack+Obama%2C+Hillary+Clinton%2C+John+McCain%2C+Rudy+Giuliani%2C+Ron+Paul&ctab=1&geo=all&date=2006
  • ispcaster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2
    It is amazing to see this story at all.. In the grand scheme of things Digg has no real influence on the 2008 presidential elections. While the Internet is a powerful tool, Digg is less then 1% of the total picture. The more appropriate study would be who on Digg actually understands political science?

    If any of the posters understood this lame outlook they would understand that there is more then a 90% chance that any candidate who starts their run for President over a year out does not win. This is a true fact, not just a lame poll.

    Next..

  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Obama is a Nationalistic Socialist (read his policies and plans), he is nothing short than the nazi party from germany.
  • kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I do not think a transvestite like rue paul could get elected at this time , the country is not ready.
    sorry you are taliking about ron paul. MY BAD.
    • chefsam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4...and so shall ye be buried for thy stupidity.
  • kaiser44, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ chefs am, sorry, bad joke. It is early to take any of these political whores seriously at this time.
  • LakeshoreBaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3 Have you guys seen the film "Hacking Democracy" from last year? Unbelievable film. Highlights the paper and electronic voting machine analysis done by a housewife that sifted through election poll garbage dumpsters and an ex-hacker who obtained a Diebold vote memory card, highly suggesting what people had suspected in Florida and Ohio for so long. That both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were manipulated for a republican outcome. So, given the fact that Diebold, who is still partially owned by a republican senator (name?), and the other companies haven't had to account for this because it was never officially investigated, the next election will probably have a fixed outcome as well. I would encourage everyone to see this film and tell your friends about it. The republicans tried hard to get the film pulled before it aired on HBO but were unsuccessful until after it aired once. Since then we haven't heard much about it at all. Getting involved in monitoring the next presidential election would also be a great idea.
    I had never heard of Ron Paul until recently, but I have to say I was impressed on how he came out in congress last week against the privately owned Federal Reserve which collects our taxes. The Federal Reserve is privately owned? Jeez, who would have thought that. And the Grace Commission report done under under Ronald Reagan showed that almost none of our income taxes goes into running the country. So apparently we are paying taxes to a private corporation who just pockets it. Go figure. Why haven't we heard about this before? Apparently there is a great film about this as well on Google called America: Freedom to Fascism, that explains how this scam works.
  • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think this data was meant to confuse people into believing that supporters of Ron Paul did not spam Digg.
    With a quick glance at the data, how it's presented, one might be lead to believe that to be true.
    But there are actually 2 statistical facts, and one implied common sense, depicted in this data.

    The first statistical fact was pointed out for you. Although Ron Paul supporters didn't post any more articles than others, his were buried substantially more often.

    The other statistical fact I believe explains this. More of his articles made the front page than any other candidate to an extreme amount. This to me implies article rank boosting. The following are the percent of articles that made the front page compared to articles submitted. No other candidate had more than 2% of their articles hit the front page, but a whopping 8.8% of Ron Paul's articles hit front page:

    Obama 1.9%
    Clinton 0.9%
    Edwards 1.3%
    McCain 2.0%
    Giuliani 1.8%
    Ron Paul 8.8%
    Biden 2.0%

    Despite being mislead by this data, I believe this same data, clearly shows that their was some funny business going on with the articles posted by Ron Paul supporters. I think common sense tells you that if an article hits front page it gets more scrutiny, and would be more likely to be buried. I think the data shows why their articles were more often buried, because Diggers did there job correctly, and buried the boosted articles.

    [I'm not a supporter of any of these candidates, and am politically stupid. I'm just not fooled by numbers that are presented in a misleading way]
  • jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ron Paul is getting buried because people are saying, "Who is Ron Paul?"
    • chefsam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Oh... he's John Galt.
    • kokoBware, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0If people don't know about a subject, then why are people voting to either "Digg it" or "Bury it". I think the correct vote to take when you don't know about something is to NOT vote.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How stupid do you have to be to ask "who's Ron Paul?" on an Internet forum? I mean, really, Google is just a click away!

      (It might make sense to ask "which Ron Paul?", if fifty different "Ron Paul"s came up and it wasn't obvious which one it was...but they don't, so it doesn't)
  • jron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This article is more interesting when compared with the numbers found here:
    http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Digg_s_2008_Presidential_Poll_Revised

    Ron Paul came very close to the numbers of Hilary Clinton and Rudi Giuliani; he actually beat John McCain. It is also very possible that many votes submitted for Ralph Nader will end up being switched to Ron Paul given that Badnarik has recently announced his support for Ron. Given all this, I feel Ron actually has a chance in the primaries. Ron in a debate? anything could happen.

    http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/23/libertarian-badnarik-endorses-ron-paul/
    • Darel99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Observation. My local Republican committee members are even now stating Ron Paul has a strong chance in the primaries.
  • napk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Ron Paul sucks, that's why.
    • amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But he doesn't swallow and that's why he'll never win the Presidency.
  • Rkstar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3When I first saw the subject of this story, I was thinking it was going to just be straight numbers, etc. But when i read the link, it immediately seemed really biased... implying that supporters of ron paul on digg are victims, and those opposed systematic villains. From that obviously biased standpoint, the whole chart lost all credibility with me. Out of curiosity, I looked at the poster's (patr84) recently dugg stories, and as I expected - 10 out of 15 of his stories were pro-Ron Paul. I just can't 100% trust any chart which was designed to promote one candidate. It kind of reminds me of churches paying scientists to debunk evolution, and exxon-mobil paying scientists to debunk global warming. Facts get fuzzy when you're motivated to prove an opinion instead of simply finding the truth.
    • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2lol...looks like patr84 dugg every story with Ron Paul's name in it, that and '25 Reasons to Smoke Marijuana'.
    • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Actually patr84's digging history of Ron Paul articles that never left 'upcoming stories' makes patr84 look very suspicious of personally participating in the boosting of Ron Paul articles. Devoted political follower or sleazy Digg cheater?
  • dexton77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ron Paul is the only candidate that I know of that is honestly pro-constitution and pro-personal liberty... while other candidates such as McCain and Gingrich have offered up gems like wanting to jail and fine political bloggers and severely restrict free speech on the web and elsewhere. Ron Paul has a consistent voting record in congress of pro-constitution and anti-totalitarianism. It seems that any strong views that stray from the status quo obviously gets buried on digg quite a bit... that's just the way it works. Keep in mind though that the status quo is many times not the best direction to follow. Do your own research and then if you must, then bury. It is patriotic to think for ourselves and have free open debate. Thank you.
  • LucidMovement, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I am having a hard time understanding why so many people are burying Dr. Paul's stories. There lacks sufficient evidence of organized conspiracy, though considering who would be affected by the changes if he were to be elected it certainly would not surprise me if there was. He is talking about getting rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve, both of which are big money entities. For those who don't know, the IRS income goes to pay off the National Debt which goes directly to the coffers of the Federal Reserve, which is a privately held organization. Created by bankers for the benefit of bankers, that is not supposition, one can easily make the mental leap required by looking at who lobbied to have it put into place (J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller etc). I can understand the worry about this man becoming president from their viewpoint. I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing everything they could to squash him and his viewpoints. Based on my reading (independent of what Dr. Paul has said) it would indeed be one of the best things we could do for this country to disband those two organizations. Living in rural Georgia I am also in favor of anyone seeking to re-legalize hemp production as it can be a very profitable crop for the farmers and despite what you may have heard the farmers are suffering. If you doubt it come visit sometime. I'd be happy to show you around and introduce you to the people who would be directly effected by this. Furthermore I'll introduce you to the legions of poor around here who have nearly 45% of their incomes taken from them before it even reaches their pockets. A disbanding of the IRS would have a direct positive effect on standard of living in places like I live and indeed many other places in the US. I have nothing against the other candidates and they do all have interesting platforms, but Dr. Paul's seems to make the most sense in terms of much needed reform. I think this is news worthy and should be covered somewhere because it is not making it to the major news services, despite its immense importance.

    If you don't know who Dr. Paul is, take a moment to educate yourself about him and his platform before burying news articles relating to him. The same goes for the other candidates. Who are we to censor the news?

    http://www.house.gov/paul/ - Main site.
    http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm - Texas Straight Talk: A good way to see what this guy really stands for.

    If you want to keep your freedom, consider most carefully who you vote for.

    • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2You failed to view the statistics in the article which implied that there was funny business going on with the articles he posted. These statistics showed it was likely that people were cheating to boost his Digg articles to the front page. This has nothing to do with his political views or him as a person.

      but instead, you use your comment to spam more crap about this Ron Paul guy. You yourself and your comment need buried...
    • LucidMovement, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There are several issues with your comment.

      Firstly, you make the assumption that I failed to view the statistics. I did, in fact, view the statistics. I fail to see verifiable evidence of funny business.
      Please define how someone can "cheat" to boost his Digg articles to the front page? I can see how many people who agree with his viewpoints can click on a link. However you are implying something more than that. How does one cheat on Digg?

      Crap is a relative term. What you consider crap is obviously not what I consider crap. As for spamming, there is no spam involved here. I stated my opinion, then I left links for the people who are asking "Who is Ron Paul?". Well here are few links for people to educate themselves as to who Ron Paul is. Had someone said "Who is Obama?" I would have posted links as well. But they didn't.

      As to your comment that my comment needs to be buried. By all means click the button. As to the comment that I myself need to be buried, that almost constitutes a threat, semantics exist for a reason, I suggest you educate yourself to them before someone mistakes your meaning.


    • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Look at the digg history of the submitter of this article, patr84, you will see he only dugg Ron Paul articles, and a couple more. 10 out of 15. When working as a group, these people cheat the digg rating system.

      The fact that 4 or more times as many of the Ron Paul supporter articles hit front page than any other candidate, then were quickly buried, in it's self, shows that there was cheating or 'funny business' going on. Then looking at patr84's digg history just confirms it.

      This comment thread's topic is about a statistical analysis of digg related to Ron Paul. One that eventually lead to an accusation of Ron Paul supporters trying to cheat digg. Questions about "who is Ron Paul" are obviously sarcastic meant to imply that Ron Paul is a nobody. With those considerations you can easily understand how your comment can be interpreted as spam.
    • LucidMovement, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Yes when one looks at his history it is clear to see that they are a Ron Paul supporter. Looking at the spreadsheet will tell you that by noting A) the first paragraph, which should have been omitted. B) The bolding of the text pertaining to Ron Paul. This does nothing but establish that the poster is a Ron Paul supporter. What did that information gain us? Nothing that wasn't immediately noticed anyway. Is the data itself biased? If the data is suspect then using it to prove that Digg is being manipulated by Ron Paul supporters is not valid as the original data is considered suspect.

      The fact that there were four or more times as many articles related to Ron Paul on the main page does not prove in and of itself that funny business was going on. The subsequent burying of the posts doesn't prove funny business either. What the first one proves is that the articles related to Ron Paul received more clicks. What the second one proves is that there are a large number of people who attempted to bury the article for reasons undisclosed. I fail to see where funny business comes in to this. You appear to be capable of complex connections on limited data.

      I see that you are reading into the meaning of posts instead of reading the post. "Who is Ron Paul?" does not equal "Ron Paul is a nobody." You were not the poster of the comment and thus you cannot know of a certainty that they were sarcastic, that is your interpretation, not what they said. Sarcasm is undetectable in text unless accompanied by other statements. If I were to ask someone "Who is socokoolaid?" Does that imply that I already know who they are and feel they are a nobody? No. It is a question, one that when read, is simple and to the point. Who is this person. Questions are not statements. With all of that in mind I cannot agree with your assessment that my comment can be interpreted as spam.
    • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Whatever dude.... save the "what does 'it' really mean" speech for the political rally.
    • socokoolaid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think Ron Paul has been exposed http://www.digg.com/tech_news/I_Bought_Votes_on_Digg
  • kokoBware, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2lucidmovement, you are right on... People are showing their colors around here, let the truth be told. I don't think they are Obama supporters either. Ron Paul's integrity as a congressman is lauded by those on the left and right. He has strong principles like believing that the Federal Gov. does not belong in people's personal lives and should hold to it's responsibility as a "referee" more than a "father". Those who oppose his views are welcome, but those who try to smear him or create disinformation with regards to this man are only pushing clear-thinking people away from THEIR viewpoints with their tactics.
  • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I knew Digg was left leaning....I didn't realize it was wacko left! Am I one of the few Conservatives on Digg?
  • Amin001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1its great that ron paul is getting so much attention

    whether negative or not

    • Aalfman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The above is a perfect example of why Ron Paul makes it to the front page.
  • dtschwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ motbob

    the poll is not limited to digg and does not represent just digg users.
  • whch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In a democracy wherein so many know nothing about their political leaders and too many do not vote, it seems to me that at least a few more people now know who is Ron Paul. It would seem that the effort of Mr. patr@gmail's effort has had it's intended effect, and, like any decent scientific inquiry, it has stimulated further talk, if not further inquiry. But is it enough to reach critical mass? Too early, surely. While it may be true that early candidacy equals unelectability, tell that to Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. For an un-reknown like Congressman Paul, Digg demonstrations like this may be the tossed match that lights the brush fire. We are talking about grass(roots), aren't we? Isn't that how Digg started? Digg-on!
  • BoneDaddy64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Observing the reactions with respect to Dr. Paul I find amusing. As Dr. Paul is the only "constitutionalists" in Congress or potentially in this race, it stands to reason that those opposed to his efforts are "anti-constitutionalists." Neo-conservatives exist in both of the tax-subsidized political parties. How naive to believe anything will change by voting for Clinton, Guiliani or any of the other big-government candidate. How hypocritical is it to demand respect for ones rights when one votes for a statist who is all but ready to deny the rights of others.

    I disagree with the notion that it is too early. The primaries are only none months away. Organizing volunteers in every state takes time and money.
  •  

    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.