What is Digg?221 Comments
- redcolumbine, on 05/08/2008, -16/+67What must the world think of us? Bunch of sleazy players who are only good at backroom shenanigans and payola. I can remember when we were admired.
- aussiejan, on 05/08/2008, -13/+61As a resident of The Rest Of The World, I can tell you that we are a little dismayed at your democratic process. To us (most of us that is), Obama is clearly the superior candidate yet the media have allowed silliness like Rev. Wright and flag pins to distract voters from the quality of the man. Add to this, a fellow Democrat teaming up with a Republican to try to drag him down in the mud. On the sidelines are the party heavies who have let this go on for months now when the writing has been on the wall that Obama is the man. Yes, we are dismayed and dumbfounded.
- cg4et, on 05/08/2008, -6/+40Call me old-fashioned, but if I were a McCain supporter, I would vote for McCain in the Republican Primary.
- superkendall, on 05/08/2008, -1/+19This story makes little sense - think about it - 11% of the voters were Republican. Only 54% of those republicans voting, voted for Hillary. But the other 47% voted for Obama increasing his margin! So the whole Republican effect was 6% of 11%, less than 1%
- jedreport, on 05/08/2008, -12/+29I'm just amazed that so many mainstream pundits are ignoring this, and focusing 100% on Rush Limbaugh. He played a role, but by focusing just on him they are ignoring the basic and obvious math of what actually happened.
- Schmapdi, on 05/08/2008, -3/+17You must be old.
- toastgodsupreme, on 05/08/2008, -0/+11I lol at gun laws. Because criminals really care about gun laws.
- inactive, on 05/08/2008, -4/+15"Obama is far left compared to what the Majority of Americans believe. For example... Bush is a moderate"
***** hilarious. - willk281, on 05/08/2008, -1/+11I will probably end up voting for McCain simply because his beliefs are a little more in line with mine than Obama's. The only reason I would see us McCain voters doing this is to avoid an election against Obama (duh), but I would definitely have voted for Obama in the primary, because in the (likely) event that McCain loses the election, I would so much rather have Obama as the democrat alternative. I wouldn't be too, too confident that McCain would win the election if Obama loses the primary, and I definitely couldn't stand to see Hillary in office. That said, enough Obama spam :P
- doctorfungi, on 05/08/2008, -3/+13He's saying that because Clinton is closer to the right-wing than Obama, he would vote for Clinton to make sure Obama didn't get the nomination. That way, come the general election, the two candidates are the two most right-leaning out of the three. There's no point voting for McCain in the primaries anymore, even if you do support him. If you supported him and wanted him to win, the best thing you could do, now that he's got the nomination, is try and set him up against an opponent that he's got the best chance of beating.
- wiachy, on 05/08/2008, -9/+19Operation Chaos.
- Beevo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10Rush isn't a LITTLE anything.
- Jordan117, on 05/08/2008, -4/+13First of all, primaries are not general elections. They are designed specifically to allow party members and like-minded independents to choose that party's nominee. Each party holds one in order to choose the one person that best upholds their ideals, who can then move on and represent them in the general election.
To pretend to be a supporter of another party and then vote for that party's weakest candidate merely to sow discord and disunity is the antithesis of democracy. It is the embodiment of every bad and corrupt impulse in American politics. Instead of letting everyone vote in good faith to achieve the best result, these crossovers insist on throwing in a monkey wrench and sabotaging the process of their fellow citizens -- citizens with whom they may disagree, but still citizens and countrymen nonetheless.
It pains me to see these conservatives hold up the American soldier as a great defender of democracy, as the force that paid for our right to democratic government with their blood, only to sully and disrespect that legacy by openly undermining that same process with a devious grin. It's shameful and disgusting. - kelalo, on 05/08/2008, -3/+11Read the comment. the "most of us" refers to "The Rest of The World", in answer to the original poster's question, not to Diggers.
- LeggoMyEgo, on 05/08/2008, -4/+12The internet is serious business.
- Gamer2k4, on 05/08/2008, -15/+22*gasp* We're letting the people vote democratically? Who let that happen?
- alliekins619, on 05/08/2008, -2/+9Aha, but not if you were participating in Operation Chaos. McCain already has his nomination; now it's time to ensure he's the strongest candidate by keeping his opponents tearing each other apart as long as possible. The longer Hillary stays in this race the more she damages the Democratic Party- which is exactly what Republicans want.
- superkendall, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7Of course, I agree - but my point is that there is not some hidden 5% Obama could have collected otherwise due to Republicans, because if you take out ALL the Republicans you have less than a 1% increase for him.
More disturbingly, from what I can tell the article is complaining about EVERYONE who voted for Obama, who would otherwise vote for McCain - including Democrats (which is how they arrive at 5%)!! I think if a Democrat's preference is Hillary, McCain, Obama they should still be allowed to vote in the primary, and there's no "hidden votes" there either as you can't just say "If only people voting in the primary had all gone the same way".
Obama people need to take what they have, which is a pretty damn marginal victory by Hillary, and be pretty happy with that given she was going for something much higher. That was an important state to convince superdelegates what Obama can do and he seemed to be about equal with Hillary. - zenithmbr, on 05/08/2008, -4/+10more evidence that our primary system is completely flawed
- gahal, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6Settle down Beavis.
- brad3378, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8Why bother? He already has the nomination wrapped up.
- inactive, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6Because him voting for McCain at this time is a waste of his vote. If his vote were to have meaning, it would be to vote in the Democratic primary. This is a free republic, and the right to vote, is the biggest right/power given to citizens.
- inactive, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6that can loosely organize and motivate a good portion of the American population. Hell, he doesn't even like McCain.
- maliath, on 05/08/2008, -4/+9Look, if we're going to throw polls around:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
HOWEVER, I'll vote for whoever wins the Democratic primary. And it looks like Obama is the winner. Any Democrat who sticks to the party's general policy and ideology is better than McCain. - bluetytanium, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6Hey:
***** you. - obliviousfool, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6Yeah, like the Department of Homeland Security. How could people vote for that monstrosity?
- kelalo, on 05/08/2008, -3/+7I don't know what kind of skewed scale you're using to make that analysis, but compared to the rest of the world almost all of US politicians are to the right, and to the extreme right for most Republicans these days. Take a look at France, for example--the UMP and Sarkozy are considered conservative there, but to compare Sarko's policies with Bush's, it's obvious that Sarko is incredibly liberal comparatively. So, if anything, Bush, Cheney, et al. are incredibly far-right and Clinton & Obama more moderate--certainly not to the left like the PS, PC, MoDem etc. in France.
- schnikies79, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4@kelalo
Sorry, but I will never give up the right to protect myself. With out without the help of others. The government has a duty to protect it's citizens but it should also let them protect themselves. They are not everywhere all the time.
That being said, I don't carry or own a handgun because I don't feel the need to. I do own a shotgun for hunting. - mrkmrk, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Well, McCain did sing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!"
- lordmike, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6Please prove your thesis with some facts...
- JEAH, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6can we drop it?? was this old news to you? I haven't heard about this from an major news outlet. I have nothing against clinton, but this seems like important information when trying to determine the strongest candidate chosen by DEMOCRATS
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4LMAO!
- Joeyrev, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4I believe his comment was more of a theory than anything, and the fact is Barack Obama is a more liberal candidate. He received a score of 92 out of 100 for the liberal test, while Clinton scored an 88.8. Sure, we're talking less than a 4 point difference, and really at that point you're just splitting hairs. But I'm sure those couple of points make a big difference for republicans.
- Gerz1219, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6Why bother? Because the purpose of voting is to demonstrate support for a candidate. It is unethical to vote for a candidate you don't support, purely out of spite.
- DaDrake, on 05/08/2008, -8/+12I doubt this has much to do with "who is the weaker candidate". The fact is, Cliton is more socially conservative than Obama. For example... if democrats do win... who do republicans want? A candidate who may reinstate the assault weapon ban or the candidate who promised to ban ALL semi-automatics AND reinstate the assault weapon ban AND to create a nation gun and bullet registry.
- Hulapop, on 05/08/2008, -3/+7They are not worthy to wear American Flag pins anymore.
- cawpin, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Nobody should have voted for Hillary. She is a lying, incompetent bitch who can't do anything on her own.
- superkendall, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5This isn't about Republicans - it's people telling DEMOCRATS they should not have voted for Hillary!
- thenagman, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6Look, this argument is specious at best. This campaign has polarized a lot of people on the democratic side. Some of them dislike the other democratic candidate enough to say "I'd vote for the republian guy first" We'll see how that plays out in the general election, but saying it was republicans voting dirty is speaking to facts not in evidence by the poll data.
- houndeyex, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Indiana is very slammed to the right, but just because anyone's vote "feels" worthless doesn't give them an excuse to not vote.
- inactive, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5of course it's flawed...usually it's over by super tuesday. half of the country usually doesn't get to decide the nominee...
- McHoffa, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4do you know how many lazy asses are on welfare for no reason and we have to pay for it? Is it fair that I pay for a bunch of crack heads to do nothing with their lives while i struggle every day?
- Metman, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3This is not a new practice by either party. This has been going on in political circles since the 1960's. Of course then, it was kept on the down-low and we didn't have asshats on the radio encouraging the actions. For those of you who think that these political woes we are dealing with are new, almost all of the issues have roots much earlier in our history. The information age and nefarious motives have brought the underworld of dirty politics to the fore-ground. Just another indication of how far we have fallen.
- peaceninja, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3i really don't understand why this would anger anyone, i remember websites such as voteswap popping up in the 2004 election where democrats were trying to throw the election in their favor, and now the republicans are doing it in a much less sophisticated manner. dont get mad at radio pundits for this situation, you should get mad at the system itself.
- quarkie, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Personally if I were you guys I would be more concerned about that 2% extra that would vote for McCain if he were running against Obama.
That could translate into a huge swing in electoral seats. - dirtyfrog, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3It's the goverments job to create law, enforce law, and protect its citizens from invasion. If you want a system to help take care of people (who doesn't?) it should be handled in the private sector. Start a non-profit business whos purpose is to help those in need. I work for a non-profit business who assist adults with developmental disabilities and after working here for the last couple years I have no idea why more businesses aren't setup in this way.
The community, government, volunteers, and employees help support the company. The company follows the laws created to regulate the industry set in place by the government. If one organization is better than another people switch. Having the goverment handle these programs does not allow for the best system to work itself out. As an employee it is one of the most rewarding experiences knowing that I am helping people when I come to work, and working in a position that I love. - awtripp, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4no, Republicans got McCain because the Republican field was full to the brim with weak ass candidates. There was Ron Paul, but the pundits couldn't deal with his radical change attitude; so you got the asshat McCain who just wants to be born-again-bush -- only Iran will be his skidmark in the Annals of US History.
- Barackalypse, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5You see, a long time ago Democrats used to have visions of doing great things like putting a man on the moon, now their greatest ambition appears to be healthcare. Oh, wait, you meant America. Well, America is still awesome, its only our government and the people that rely on it for their sustenance that suck.
- obliviousfool, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5Well, one reason would be so that you could vote in the Republican primary. People who crossed over to take part in the Democratic primary must not care too much about the differences between all the folks running for local offices on the Republican side.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 216 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is