digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at politico.com

The Politico: Obama claims delegate lead

politico.com — Clinton ’s opponent captured more states and, by the latest network counts, more delegates.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • digduggler, on 02/06/2008, -9/+279Why has every major media outlet seemed to have gotten this wrong?

    And more importantly, why do I still pay attention to them?
    • norman619, on 02/06/2008, -4/+10Do you really have to ask that question?
      • nospinhere, on 02/06/2008, -9/+2He captured more states, but what the Obama supporters won't tell you is that several of those states are states are Republican states that always vote for the Republican in the General elections. Clinton won more democratic states.
        • norman619, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5What does it matter? It find it pretty interesting that people can't get out of that us vs. them gang-like mentality. That's the thinking the media seems to try and encourage. The same media which has been trying to downplay his victory.
        • LLamaStar, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6isnt that a good thing? Meaning...he might have a chance to actually win those states in the general, since it's a given he'll win the democratic states in the general?
        • nospinhere, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1Negative, those are states that never voe Democratic.
          • Gemfinder, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Keep in mind that we've never had an African-American or a woman candidate running for President before.
            Said the cat that hocked a hairball into the sugar bowl, "That remains to be seen."
        • lettruthout, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Maybe he'd have trouble wining every Republican state but I think Obama has a much better chance at wining Republican votes than Hillary does.
          • Gemfinder, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Wining? [visualizing marinaded Republican votes]
            Burgundy or chardonnay?
      • LLamaStar, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1...
      • biotch, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2They were going by delegate counts through the night. The delegate counts have only recently evened out. I remember numerous accounts on CNN where they talked about how Clinton might be celebrating too early. Furthermore they rarely specified which states were caucus states making it look like Obama was the big winner of the night because he took more states. Save your suspicions for media bias cuz its unfounded here.
    • HenvY, on 02/06/2008, -3/+26Fox is reporting it, I guess they hate Clinton as much as us(tbh, who doesn't?):
      http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/06/georgia- ...
      • mywhitenoise, on 02/06/2008, -2/+24Apparently half the democratic voters?
      • MellerTime, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Burrrnnn
      • fictionalOne, on 02/06/2008, -5/+11Hate Clinton? What are you going to do when they are on the same ballot in November?
        • hansonc, on 02/06/2008, -2/+10vote for Obama on the top of the ticket. It's not like anyone cares who the VP is....
          • MWeather, on 02/06/2008, -0/+8That must be why nobody knows who Al Gore is.
          • ngmcs8203, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4Wow... that's a very uninformed response. I voted for Obama and definitely care who the VP is. Same goes for the Republicans. McCain is going to need Huckabee on his ticket to get the evangelic vote, otherwise he will have no chance against the Democrats.
          • ninsei, on 02/06/2008, -1/+12Yeah, who cares that Cheney was in the white house all these years? What did he ever do?
          • Mr.RX99, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4Well, he accidentally shot someone, for starters.
            And helped orchestrate an invasion.
            Just a few small things that ended up being huge mistakes...
          • gopherpride, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Yeah, Cheney helped start a war because he was a major player in the administration's Neocon circle, and GW was so impressionable after 9/11. If Hilary gets the nomination does anyone really think that she'll let Obama do anything besides pose for pictures? Sticking to the senate would be a better career move for him.
        • walkingdogs, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Not going to happen. Edwards, maybe, even probably, but I don't see it being Clinton seeing she has such different views compared to Barack on how to accomplish the goals the Dems are looking for. Plus the whole motto about change would seem pretty hollow if Hillary is the VP.
          • theaceoffire, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
          • fictionalOne, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Edwards views for how goals should be accomplished are even more different from Barack than those of Hillary's. Too bad the whole "first black pres/ first woman pres" displayed by the media took away his chance of winning the nomination. I would love to see him as VP, but I don't think it would be a smart move for the democrats. The best way to reunite the democratic party (all this anti-Hillary bashing) is for both of them to be on the ballot in November. Listen closely to both their speeches from here on out. Unless Edwards' 20+ delegate votes end up choosing the final nominee, I don't think he will be on the ballot.
      • sponeil, on 02/06/2008, -2/+0Apparently evangelical Christians don't hate Hillary (or not as much, anyway). Many of them are claiming they'll vote for her if McCain wins the Republican nomination and she wins the Democratic nomination. I doubt they really will because McCain is pro-life, but they're threatening to:
        http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/06/roland.mart ...
      • willster580, on 02/06/2008, -10/+1Anyone else feel like Fox is becoming a little bit more fair than it used to be?
        • roomforpanic, on 02/06/2008, -0/+10You picked the wrong place to say that.
        • ninsei, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3lemme thi ... no!
        • crweaks23, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Fox reports a lot of news fairly, as long as it is in line with their agenda. CNN isn't much different, but since their agenda doesn't include promoting fear, I tend to be so uncomfortable about it. That's not to say that I condone it, I'm just saying I'm not all up in arms rallying against it.

          Get your news from multiple sources and think for yourself.
      • Tetraca, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I find it a little funny that they got a digg button.
      • nebion, on 02/07/2008, -2/+0Rupert Murdoch has actually endorsed Clinton...maybe Fox is straying away from its founder - they're simply consistently right-wing (and care fairly little for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is - so they can afford to be objective there) while Murdoch is consistently for whatever serves his fortunes the most.

        • MacEnvy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1He didn't endorse her, he just threw a little cash her way. Hedging his bets by giving an amount of money that is negligible to him, essentially.
        • delafere, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Or... he's looking at the polls that show that Clinton has a smaller chance than Obama of beating the republican ticket in the general election.
    • staxofmax, on 02/06/2008, -5/+86The major news outlets are unable to comprehend that those living outside of New York and California don't give a ***** about the opinions of New Yorkers or Californians.
      • RatherDashing, on 02/06/2008, -38/+7...what might surprise you is that the people in NY really don't give a ***** about your opinions. Stop ***** your sister and go live some place that matters.
        • staxofmax, on 02/06/2008, -1/+29Ouch, a little oversensitive, are we?
        • scoffey, on 02/06/2008, -2/+20just reinforced every stereotype i hold about NY residents
          • MacEnvy, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Ouch ... just remember, half of us New Yorkers are rural! I can't even get freaking broadband access where I am :(

            EDGE via Bluetooth tethering FTL :(
        • bigsteve, on 02/06/2008, -1/+17You're just upset because the light at the end of your tunnel is New Jersey.

          / I kid I kid
        • wafla, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3Updug RatherDashing's forceful and entertaining post. /Mississippi
      • hmunkey, on 02/06/2008, -0/+12CNN is based here in Atlanta.
        • mizatt, on 02/06/2008, -0/+11I'm going to go out on a limb and say CNN cares a lot more about viewership in NY and Los Angeles than Atlanta
          • Exbzurg, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3As a Georgian, I say the above statement is true.
      • ganlet, on 02/06/2008, -0/+9I'm born and raised in Southern California, I dugg you because I think your right we each get to have our own opinion, not one based upon other states. That being said I think part of the reason Obama didnt win my state was he did very little campaigning here. I went to see my mom in Santa Barbara and she was giving a "town hall" there at UCSB then I went home (San Diego) and a couple weeks later she was here doing another "town hall" at SDSU. Except for the rally and debate in LA, I have yet to hear of any campaigning Obama has done here.

        That being said I voted Obama.
        • barfooz, on 02/06/2008, -1/+10"I went to see my mom in Santa Barbara and she was giving a "town hall" there at UCSB then I went home (San Diego) and a couple weeks later she was here doing another "town hall" at SDSU."

          ... Chelsea Clinton, is that you?
        • ganlet, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry for being unclear, I shouldn't have used the word "she" when I meant Hilary. As for my mom, she has lived in Carpinteria(10 miles south of sb) for the last 20 something years and most people from carp will know her; she was manager of fosters for years.
          (That is by far the most personal information I have ever posted on any website, I only did it because being accused of being Chelsea is just revolting.)
      • bxblox, on 02/06/2008, -3/+1the feelings freakin mutual

        /with ny accent
    • Kautylia, on 02/06/2008, -8/+3Hillary currently has more pledged delegates and more super delegates according to CNN. She only has 1 more pledged though, so it's a close one.
      • cyberdork, on 02/06/2008, -0/+21Just that CNN has barely updated their number is the last 12 hours!!!!
      • ngmcs8203, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7The fact that this ticket will come down to the Super Delegates is what is interesting. 20% of the delegates are super delegates and any one of them can vote for whoever the hell they want. Obama and Hillary will be using any means to squeak out those extra votes.
    • mal1964, on 02/06/2008, -7/+5LA Times who endorsed Obama ,
      Clinton 845 +584 +596 +670
      Obama 765 +569 +584 +690
      this story is pro Obama . here is a trick how you can tell, look at the profile pictures. Hillary's are horrible, Obamas are of family and nice,,
      http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2008/ ...
    • Jvlach, on 02/06/2008, -10/+4Digg is now controlled by outside forces, I have proof. Does any one remember the story and video about diggs involvement in the Bohemian Grove. Well I found the link from a google cache from Jan 30: http://digg.com/politics/Digg_co_host_member_of_Bo ... Try searching for the story using the digg search. You will not find it. These bastards are controlling the Internet!!!
      • DSGalvin, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Why are people digging him down? He just made an observation (though the first 4 sentences would have sufficed).
      • bingobongony, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1ait? Digg is the internet? And who cares? Ooooh! A SECRET society that everyone knows about! EVIL! EVIL I tells ya!
        You arew being buried for being just incredibly pathetic.
    • etandrib, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7NYTimes has a nice explanation of how they count delegates:
      http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/2008delegat ...
    • affanjam, on 02/06/2008, -3/+11GOBAMA!
    • MxM111, on 02/06/2008, -6/+3I do not know where they took the numbers. I still see Clinton leading on CNN site:
      http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/
      (total/feb 5)
      Clinton 818/575
      Obama 730/560
    • j031397, on 02/06/2008, -2/+22the article is talking about pledged delegates. it is true, and major media outlets such as CNN are reporting it. It's just buried in the articles. CNN seems to be a huge Clinton supporter. Last night, they projected Hillary as the winner of a bunch of states when the race was still close, but they wouldn't admit that Obama had won Kansas until 75% of precincts had reported even though Obama had almost 3/4 of the Democratic vote there. they did this with many states, probably to try to influence people in later voting states to pick Clinton as the "more likely" candidate.
      • bingobongony, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3Sop, because you don't understand how they "call" states for one candidate based on the current reuslts AND EXIT POLLING, it means that they were purposely waiting to call a state for Obama?
        • jollins, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3bingobongony is right. CNN is not conspiring against your precious Obama. Please be informed before you make claims like that.

          and yes, I voted for Obama.
      • KJSatz, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Naw, CNN was more conservative in calling races than, say, MSNBC was. They waited longer on all of them. And they waited an especially long time on California when all the votes coming in were going for Hillary.

        G'Obama!
    • Gerz1219, on 02/06/2008, -0/+12The MSM has actually been very reluctant to call Super Tuesday a victory for either camp. If anything, the media's insistence on treating yesterday as a national election -- projecting winners on a state-by-state basis -- biased the results in favor of Obama, since he won a lot more states. I think they've been consistent in qualifying their remarks whenever discussing victories and losses. The delegate counts are inconsistent across every news outlet because the final numbers will take very long to tally, and there's a lot of confusion over whether to count superdelegates vs. pledged delegates.

      I don't think there's a media bias in favor of Clinton or Obama. I think there's a bias in favor of calling the race a tie, because it's a juicy conflict and they'll get a lot more coverage out of it if it goes all the way to the convention.
    • iainc, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5I'm really hoping Obama is leading. But not being American, I'm confused why the BBC and CNN have HRC just ahead of BHO? Could someone explain this for me. Apologies for the cluelessness. Thanks.
      • slightlygifted, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2this article doesnt count super delegates.
    • ICanRead, on 02/06/2008, -1/+13I have a lot of hopes riding on Obama.

      I will not vote for more corporate candidates such as Hilary and McCain.
      I expect Barak to be a superhuman workaholic as president. I don't care how draining the campaign process is.
      This country needs healing.

      As future leader of the USA, he will be an influential leader of the world.

      The ship needs to be righted and it starts with the Captain.

      (not registered Dem or Rep)
      • coviecarbine, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5Congratulations you have 2/3 of your candidates names spelled wrong.
    • beargrylls, on 02/06/2008, -10/+2Digg is a fantasy land.
      • hierophantus, on 02/06/2008, -3/+4Don't digg him down. He's really Bear Grylls. He's tough as ***** on the computer and in real life. That's fact, not fantasy.
        • Kurlumbenus, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2So we should digg up or down based on who makes the comment, not what the comment says?
    • Gabberwok, on 02/06/2008, -2/+10Everyone, Hillary's already dipping into her own pocket to finance her campaign. If we keep up fundraising for Obama, she will not be able to keep up. She lent her campaign $5 million of her ~$41 million this month to try to stay competitive with Obama for advertising, she can't afford to lend herself much more. I just donated to a political candidate for the first time today (Obama of course), and all of you should too! We're so close and we can win this!!
    • mal1964, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Crooks and Liars, Mike Allen the writer of this story, is the topic ot this story."Mike Allen of the Politico gushes over Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani"
      http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/10/mike-alle ...
    • mal1964, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2Just digg what makes you feel good, never mind the facts. but you can spam digg until election day and maybe get 4 votes. If you really want to help Obama instead of pretending on digg, then go to his Campaign office and volunteer.
    • caution, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1MSM? Check out the money trail of "The Politico" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Pol ...

      Some real indy news you guys digg up.
  • Sedako, on 02/06/2008, -7/+92This is great news if true. All the MSM sites seem to either not have updated results, or are simply wrong.
    • MrTito, on 02/06/2008, -0/+40MSNBC has it updated, finally.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475
      • MacEnvy, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Nice! You can download an OS X Dashboard Widget or Windows Sidebar Gadget that updates the delegates in real time from that site. Thanks!
        • wild, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Its not working for my Mac, damnit...
          • MWeather, on 02/06/2008, -1/+9That's odd. It should just work.
          • MacEnvy, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1It worked on my Leopard machine. Impressively well, in fact - it's one of the best widgets I've seen thus far.
      • Entroper, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2They've updated, but they are still roughly 120 delegates short of having the full count from Tuesday.
    • Hillsfar, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4It's okay. The next primary won't be until February 9. The networks may be reluctant in updating their numbers, but update the numbers they will... in time to usher in the next Obama victories.
    • Entroper, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3As I understand it, the media outlets are only updating their pledged delegate count to reflect KNOWN pledged delegates, that is, from those districts where the results are final and the delegates have been awarded. NBC at least is also PREDICTING that the eventual count for Super Tuesday alone will be 841 Obama, 837 Clinton, plus or minus 10.

      The count currently shown on their website is not complete for Tuesday, but does include the results of the January primaries, so as the results continue to roll in, Obama will pull out a larger lead (very slightly). IF the results match NBC's predictions, the pledged total will be Obama 904, Clinton 885.

      This is of course only for pledged delegates. Superdelegates are currently in Clinton's favor by about 70-90 depending on the reports, and they can change their minds at any time up until the convention.
  • swilber1579, on 02/06/2008, -7/+150This is a huge upset. All the momentum is with Obama now.
    • Synova, on 02/06/2008, -2/+117More importantly even, if you look at the next primaries that are coming up, Obama has a huge advantage going in.

      02/09/2008 Louisiana Democratic
      02/09/2008 Nebraska Democratic
      02/09/2008 Virgin Islands Democratic
      02/09/2008 Washington Democratic
      02/10/2008 Maine Democratic
      02/12/2008 District of Columbia Democratic
      02/12/2008 Maryland Democratic
      02/12/2008 Virginia Democratic

      Most of these are already predicted to go Obamas way.

      YES WE CAN!
      • skipdog172, on 02/06/2008, -0/+12The average person who goes to check at CNN.com or Foxnews.com would get the impression that Clinton has a small lead at this point. I wonder how long it will be until they update.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/06/2008, -2/+9Only political crazies like me and presumably many of the people on this article's comments actually check constant updates for delegates. There's really no point in doing it unless you have fun in the process, and most people do not. They will just watch evening new, etc. and be given the right numbers, or will be soon corrected.
          • cyberdork, on 02/06/2008, -1/+22I'm German, living in Europe. I got up early to check the results. Have been checking the numbers most of the day (CNN and NYT). But it looks like there is almost zero progress. I think in the last 12 hours CNN has only added 40 delegates in their count. Maybe it's time for the American parties to change their ridiculous voting system?!?
        • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/06/2008, -1/+4In Primaries people tend to give up on going to vote when there's a clear winner (as in someone already has the required #s) if it's close, people will just be that more motivated!
        • davidrools, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1You'll get a lot of wrong impressions reading those sites ;)
      • rz8472, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Nebraska, Washington, and Maine are also caucus states. We've seen how effective Obama is with caucus states yesterday, and (not to sound racist or anything) all the primary states have large african-american populations of 20% or more.

        Not to mention - Obama has the momentum AND the money! Most of Clinton's corporate donors already maxed out at $2300, so she will begin to run dry.
    • Houndstooth, on 02/06/2008, -0/+12I posted this in another thread, but it applies here too. Obama is the only one advertising in Nebraska, the only one sending personal to Nebraska, and the only one speaking here before the caucus. I realize we're small on population and delegates, as are some of the other states listed, but together we can make a difference.
    • staxofmax, on 02/06/2008, -0/+18The Obama movement has been ongoing for months in Washington State. Hillary finally sent some paid staffers out here just last week. It's clear that she did absolutely zero planning post Super Tuesday, as she assumed that she would have the nomination locked up by now. With funding now squarely in Obama's favor, she's *****.
    • BeanTeddyMagic, on 02/06/2008, -4/+12all the momentum is with ron paul!

      right?
      • ziptnf, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7Wrong.
      • staxofmax, on 02/06/2008, -0/+17Exactly! His crushing defeat is part of his overall strategy, amirite?
    • ahoyhoy1, on 02/06/2008, -4/+4RonBots are crashing all over the internet! Anyone have the number for the IT department?!
  • Aspire36, on 02/06/2008, -6/+46The delegates are still being allocated... but if this is correct... yay.

    I wonder if Clinton has seen it?
    • Tishiablo, on 02/06/2008, -1/+22No, we haven't seen a 3rd video of her crying yet.
      • Harbinger67, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3...there was a second? Where can I find that?
      • cambob76, on 02/06/2008, -1/+7I heard about the second one too. Putting the fact that she's a woman aside, do you really want a president that cries like a little girl?
    • KaiSe7eN, on 02/06/2008, -0/+8She's crying as we speak.
  • joaob, on 02/06/2008, -9/+38Clinton supporters are eating their hope crushing words all across the country today.
    • Napoleone, on 02/06/2008, -56/+2Hope? Is that what your vote is based on? Are you 5 years old?

      Does anyone here even know this man wants to get the troops out of Iraq and into Pakistan? Exactly what is it you think re-deploy means? You think they're coming home? Look at who's supporting the man: Oprah and the Kennedy clan. A bunch of aspiring aristocrats. Are you blind to the fact that he's a member of the CFR, an organization dedicated to open borders and a world governed by corporations and elites? It's on their website: www.cfr.org

      Read as much as you can. If you read enough of it you'll see the truth of their agenda. These are people who prop up dictators and mass murderers. Pervez Musharaff and Henry Kissinger were keynote speakers in one of their latest events. Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are at the core of their membership. These people have a history of homicidal actions that no decent person should ignore.

      I pity the apathy of my fellow citizens. Your sons will be drafted into war. You are bringing them chaos in the guise of "change".
      • plat0, on 02/06/2008, -1/+25what the hell are you talking about?
      • logicalnoise, on 02/06/2008, -1/+23obama never said he wants to invade pakistan he said he'd consider sending troops if the need arouse. Meanwhile hillary is towing teh bush line with iran. Obama is camapigning as a diplomatic president not a war mongering one.
      • br0ck, on 02/06/2008, -2/+38"troops out of Iraq and into Pakistan" Obama said that if Pakistan won't strike a known terrorist at a given location that it would make sense to go in to get that terrorist. And as show recently, Pakistan is OK with this. The CIA performed an airstrike in Pakistan that killed a terrorist just last week and they were perfectly fine with it. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/31/alqaeda.death/

        "Oprah+Kennedy = aspiring aristocrats" Aspiring to what? They already are wealthy beyond imagining and have all the influence they could possibly want. What are you suggesting that they would gain from endorsing?

        "he's a member of the CFR" Obama is not CFR. You've said that Obama's a member of the CFR more than 100 times on Digg and have yet to provide a shred of evidence. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+sit ...

        All your ranting about the CFR that follows may or may not have any validity as you haven't provided a shred of evidence... but either way it has nothing to do with Obama and because of that your entire post makes no sense in a story about Obama winning Super Tuesday.
      • digjam, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1Tell me one thing, How do you think clintons universal healthcare would work ... dont u think that would raise taxes enormously... why would a healthy person who keeps himself fit pay for a obese morone who's lazy enough to exercise?
        Essentially , you will be footing the bill for lifestyle fitness for the entire country even if they go or not... I dont want to do that.. ! and I DONT care about you.
      • neognostic, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5Nappy is a RPbot, ignore him. he is a poor loser.
      • Eiknujrac, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Just because your butthurt that Ron Paul is losing so horribly, does not mean you can make up all these false allegations against Obama and think people will believe you.
  • joaob, on 02/06/2008, -21/+33Is it any surprise that this story is being buried?

    No.
    • Kautylia, on 02/06/2008, -2/+25Absolutely it is. When was the last time you saw a pro-Obama, anti-Hillary story not get front-paged?
      • DanCMH, on 02/06/2008, -10/+4I'll believe CNN before I believe some Obama spam site anyday. As of right now CNN has Hillary leading...it's a very small lead but eat it...
        • DSGalvin, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6^^lol at the tool :p
        • ronaldinho, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2If you say BBC, maybe people will digg you up. I say the most objective news on this election comes from news outlet not in this country
        • nonsequitor, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3CNN's delegate totals are way below the ones in the article, they must be waiting for official results before updating their site, which they have been all day. They could both be right.
        • LLamaStar, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1lol cnn and msnbc have a ton of ties with politico.com
  • jdubya56, on 02/06/2008, -3/+65Who knows what the vote totals would have been in California - and the corresponding delegate counts - if independent voters weren't baffled by their ballots.
    (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-vote6fe ...
    Obama's results indicate a steady growth of support as more people become aware of him and his message. If Super Tuesday had been two weeks later, Obama would have won convincingly.
    Time to kick it up yet another notch.

    • dreathon, on 02/06/2008, -23/+1Obama needs time to 'become aware' because he just popped up out of nowhere. And people seem to trust this stranger. This person whose only tactic is blah blah blah CHANGE. Yes, people need to become aware. Aware that voting for someone so unbelievably inexperienced and new could be a disaster for this country. We need change, yes. But it doesn't have to come from him.
      • LBobRife, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5Unbelievably inexperienced? He has some experience, and is by no means not qualified for the job.
      • neognostic, on 02/06/2008, -0/+15Ignore dreathon, she has been on Digg all of two days, and all nine posts are anti-Obama. Hillary shill.
      • NJank, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5ready... set... block!
      • Synova, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1One term; That's how much more experience Hilary has. I'll take 4 less years over a candidate bought by corporate interests and lobbies ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.
      • goomba323, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7Qualifications of President:

        1.) Natural Born Citizen
        2.) At least 35 year old
        3.) You have to reside in the US for at least 14 years

        Now, where in those qualifications does it say "serve in Senate or Congress or as Governor for 20 years"...it's a made up pre-requisite that we have all gotten used to. It makes the President even MORE disconnected from the American public and makes it seem even more like an exclusive club. If a 40 year old, intelligent professor of a University, or a highly intelligent Lawyer wanted to run for President, what stops him? The experience argument. Get over it, "experience" is overrated..
      • Eiknujrac, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Don't you people realize that experience in TODAY's Washington is EXACTLY what we're trying to get rid of by voting for Obama? Do you realize how much "experience" people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have in Washington? Because I can tell you those two have a lot more experience than your precious Hillary.

        I'm not looking for someone who has experience in the politics of today, I'm looking for someone who has judgment and leadership qualities to move us to the politics of tomorrow.
    • bingobongony, on 02/06/2008, -4/+2So, you are saying that Obama supporters are too stupid to follow simply instructions?
      You racist bastard! Implying the black people can't read.
    • Takfam, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1I voted in California. I'm an independent. The whole voting process took about 5 minutes for me. There is no reason why any voter with half a brain should have been confused by the ballot, it's the same one we used 4 years ago to elect a president.
      • f54280, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0> There is no reason why any voter with half a brain should have been confused by the ballot, it's the same one we used 4 years ago to elect a president.

        And look at the result !
    • AnnaBannana48, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0The LA Times story from that link has been taken down...
    • louspants, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0I also want to say that I have at least "half a brain," yet I was confused. It was my first time voting in California, as I previously lived in Texas where they hold semi-open primaries. If California had a semi-open, none of this confusion would happen and counts would be more accurate. With the way California works, only a person aware of the "choice" that non-partisans are supposed to have would have been able to vote Democrat. Non-partisans unaware would simply have asked for their non-partisan ballot and seen ZERO Presidential candidates listed.

      System's fault, not the people.
    • yacks, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I voted in California(Riverside County) as an Independent(decline to state) and the polling place actually ASKED me what ballot I wanted, if I wanted the Democratic one or any of the other ones I could vote in. My friend however is decline to state as well and where she voted, they didn't ask her, they just handed her a ballot with just the state props on it.
  • jdotter, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8The war of perception is on. This is why the Clinton campaign was playing up lowered expectations Sunday and Monday. They said California was in play when anyone who followed this election new otherwise. Early voting, aprox. 1/3 of the voters in CA, was going to heavily favor Clinton because up until about 8 days ago she had a massive lead there, along with NJ, MA and CT. CT and MO where surprises that are being under played because expectations were so high for an Obama stunner in some of those other states. You can't make up 20 points in 8 - 10 days. I felt Obama wouldn't come within 8 - 10 points of Hillary in CA and that's right where it ended up. This will be very interesting going forward.
    • bingobongony, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1Except Clinton DIDN'T say that California was in play. All the pro-Obama websites said it.
  • MagicXB, on 02/06/2008, -5/+61It's amazing that Obama has come so far in such a short period of time to actually SURPASS Clinton as the frontrunner....considering mainstream media was virtually hailing her as the inevitable nominee a few months ago.
    • dreathon, on 02/06/2008, -13/+1Ummm what television have you been watching? The media is all over Obama. Obama is all over the media. Hillary has been attacked left and right on television, on blogs, on the radio. People have no problem attacking her while falling head over heels for the young, new guy. Unfair harassment has yet to happen to the godly, saintly and just all around perfect Barak. After all, that would be considered racism.
      • ElCazador, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Are you dissin' Obama? That's RACIST!

        But seriously, you're a TROLL. Go away.
      • Rodman930, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2"all around perfect Barak"
        That's a slight overstatement. I'm sure there's something wrong with him. We just haven't seen it yet. (maybe he has a disfigured toenail)
      • LLamaStar, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah, now they're all over obama...before it was all hillary. Hell, even in the republican debate questions they ask what they would do against hillary because they just assumed she would easily win.
      • Eiknujrac, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1If you're going to attempt to criticize BARACK Obama, please spell his name right.
    • citizen782, on 02/06/2008, -0/+9It's nothing compared to McCain's come back. I would still NEVER vote for him but you've got to admit the guy was pronounced politically dead and broke not long ago and the two guys they were telling him to lay down for are out of the race now. Once again, wouldn't vote for him but I'm glad he destroyed Rudy and Fred.
      • r00fus, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4I enjoy it for the single fact that the right-wing nutjob radio hate him... like completely.
        Dobson said he would recommend people not vote if McCain was the candidate.

        Meanwhile, Glenn Beck hangs up on Huckabee.

        What (I hope) we're seeing is the collapse of the modern republican party and the death of neoconservativism.
        • citizen782, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1"the collapse of the modern republican party and the death of neoconservativism"
          I will throw a party and drink heavily at the funeral.
    • gopherpride, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0Shhhh, don't tell anyone! The whole comeback kid image is his biggest asset at this point. He should film a commercial at the Meadowlands.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1First McCain, then Guilianni, Then Mitt Romney, then Huckabee, then McCain again.
  • snotrokit, on 02/06/2008, -1/+22every media source I can find is listing them differently. Maybe by the end of the day we will see something, but if this is true, this is truly HUGE.
    • bingobongony, on 02/06/2008, -2/+1Polittco is not counting super delegates. Now, there is nothing wrong with their approach, but to blast the REAL media (politico is not) sites for including them is absurd.
  • jh9110, on 02/06/2008, -23/+236God...The Bitch is going to cry again
    • Falldog, on 02/06/2008, -3/+15"Having found the bomb we have used it." - Hillary Clinton
      • zaqarov, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Hillarisms.com

        edit: damn already taken
      • ElCazador, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Er, don't you mean 'Harry Truman'?
        Oh, I see what you did there...
    • artwork, on 02/06/2008, -10/+4You mean your wife?
    • cambob76, on 02/06/2008, -7/+2Maybe she can play to the US's enemies' sympathies by crying her way to victory? On second thought, they'd probably resent the fact that a woman got elected...
      • 3szoom, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3***** Pakistan (probably an ass backward nation in your mind) had a women elected as president until 2000.
        • Beveridge89, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2hmm yes, then they blew her up. To me, that sounds like the extremists resented it.
        • badplacebo, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1She was elected as Prime Minister... not President.
    • DSGalvin, on 02/06/2008, -1/+6I don't think she ever really cried in the first place...
  • mooseontheloose, on 02/06/2008, -55/+11You mean Obama claims "hope change hope change change hope". Or does he actually know other words?

    Funny though how when Clinton does it, she's whining, but when Obama does it he's "setting the record straight"

    You guys realize that they're the same exact candidate, right? Probably not. Start reading up on Pakistan's geography, you'll want any edge you can get when you're over there fighting.
    • Bing11, on 02/06/2008, -5/+20"Exactly the same candidate."

      Buried for not knowing that one of them (Hillary) voted for Iraq (and Iran) while the other (Barack) opposed it. I don't care that Hillary SAYS she'll do everything Obama says he will when her voting record says the opposite.
      • dreathon, on 02/06/2008, -15/+1Ummm. Barack 'opposed' Iraq perhaps in his HEAD? He wasn't even in the senate at that time so who knows how he would vote?! Sure, he can assume that he would vote against it. But people can definitely CHANGE in seven years. I mean, isn't that what he's all about? Change?!
        • Bing11, on 02/06/2008, -0/+12Actually, in 2002 Barack is on video opposing the Iraq invasion: http://myingling.googlepages.com/iraq2002.html

          As for Barack on change: he's change from people like Bush and Hillary, not "change" in the way you're pushing it. You can't just change how someone means a word when it fits your agenda.

          Also there's a video of Hillary supporting the Iraq invasion at my link too.

          I'd be interested in hearing your reply...
          • dreathon, on 02/06/2008, -3/+0i'd be interested in hearing you say 'bing' one more freaking time.
          • Bing11, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1@ dreathon

            Does that mean you're going to stop saying they're "the same"? Or am I too optimistic in hoping to draw a retraction from you?
          • wakananda, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1First off: Billary is Dixie Mafia trash, a total whore to globalist forces that are methodically undermining the USA's national sovereignty. But suprise - the handsome and well spoken Barrack Obama is on his back for these money-powers too. He's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR. So is his wife, and so are most of his advisors. What is the CFR? It's behind the "North American Union" idea, the plan to liquidate America and incorporate it into a "Superstate" with Canada and Mexico, along the lines of the EU. Wonder how in the world the dollar could have been allowed to slide into the gutter in the way it has? Why pitiful, token half-measures (proven not to work in the past) are the best we can see in response to extremely dark clouds on the economic horizon? We're meant to be on our knees, desperate and shaken, before the mainstream corporate media *finally* starts covering the NAU plan. Before you will want the new currency, the "amero," in your pocket, the dollar will have to be debased to a shameful remnant of it's former value. You will be reduced to begging for their plan before they publically admit to it's existence.
            Barrack Obama voted FOR the treasonous Patriot Act, an Act so unconstitutional on it's face as to be positively ANTI-Constitutional. He's smart, well-spoken, young, handsome, and a complete tool for anti-american, anti-democratic, globalist forces that want a two-tiered, neo-feudalist, "zero growth" society. Don't turn up your nose and turn on your idiot box. You have a brain: research the matter. It is too important to leave to paid pundits to interpret for you.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
        • Kurlumbenus, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Get ready for a long wait, Bing.
    • notque, on 02/06/2008, -18/+8They are the same candidate. If the news focused on the issues, that would be apparent. A good reason to avoid the issues and focus on gender and race.
      • Bing11, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1I hate to double-post the same message in the same thread, but...

        How are they the same? Hillary may have the same stance on things as Obama, but what she says she will do isn't in line with what she HAS done before.

        Here's videos of them talking about Iraq in 2002, Hillary for, Obama against:
        http://myingling.googlepages.com/iraq2002.html
    • enki25, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2They're definitely more similar to each other than they are to any Republican. What's the point in saying they're the "same"? Maybe you're trying to gloat about how wonderful it is to have the Republican base splintering into three opposing groups of weirdos, each supporting a candidate that caters to their particular neurosis.
      • Kurlumbenus, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Wheras the Democrats pander to the same neurosis.
      • wakananda, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1They're both globalists, selling out the USA and it's Constitution. They're both CFR, whose main project now is the "North American Union." Not only are BIllary and Obama the same, the demos and the repubs are the same. Only Ron Paul is for America. The rest are for a global, financial elite who operate at the expense of the USA's blood and treasure.
    • LLamaStar, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah, you learn a lot about a canidate from 10sec media clips. Go do some research on the canidates instead of basing your opinion off of what the media is feeding you.
      You'll find obama is the least scarriest canidate running for president.
  • Falldog, on 02/06/2008, -15/+1All morning the local news programs said that Hillary won. I want to believe this by my faith in 'any' news source is tainted (more so).
    • Oktoeatfish, on 02/06/2008, -1/+4Sean Hannity program just reported that this story is true and that it wasn't picked up on by the media.
      • nmcvicke, on 02/06/2008, -2/+8And he's reliable..... (I'm making the jerk off motion with my hand, you just can't see it)
  • notque, on 02/06/2008, -27/+7Hillary and Obama are about the same. Obama being the slightest bit better. They talk up these radical differences to divert you from the fact they have the same views on the major issues. Views that do not mirror the public's.
    • sfgeek, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6That's funny, I'm the public and his views on most things mirror mine. Heck, he got Lawrence Lessig's endorsement.

      And there are major differences in war and public policy between them.
      • quaxon, on 02/06/2008, -5/+2your right, a major difference being that obama would pull the troops out of iraq only to put them in pakistan and a bunch of other countries. They are both members of the CFR, if you havent heard of them you should look them up. Both are slimy ***** who wont do any good for this country.
        • Eiknujrac, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Buried for retarded CFR comment, please go put your foil hat back on and sit in the corner. Oh and watch out, they're probably listening.
        • wakananda, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1The CFR is real. Sophmoric ridicule, to shoo away the uninformed, won't change that. The Council on Foreign Relations intends to dissolve the United States and replace it with a "North American Union" with Mexico and Canada. We will NOT have the same Constitution, or the same freedoms. There will be no middle class, only a "two-tiered," "zero growth" society (i.e., one with only masters and serfs, and zero opportunity).
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
    • dreathon, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2By 'better' do you mean 'younger' or 'taller'?
    • LBobRife, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6Your last sentence will be put to the test in November. I somehow doubt it is correct.
      • notque, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1The last sentence wouldn't be put to test in November. That was exactly my point. The issues are not discussed, so the choices are not informed, or based on the public's views.
    • enki25, on 02/06/2008, -3/+4Yeah like their crazy view about the war which is supported by the majority of America. Or their crazy view about universal health care, also supported by most of America. Or their view about undoing Bush's tax cuts for the top .1% of the country, everybody except the top .1% agrees with that view.
    • Kurlumbenus, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Sorry to disappoint you, buddy, but the public doesn't mirror your interests regarding pooping in socks and trolling craigslist for trannies.
  • Dhalsim007, on 02/06/2008, -22/+7Obama won 13 states, Clinton won 8 .... also: "The Obama campaign attached an Excel spreadsheet containing “state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night, which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton — bringing the to-date total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton.”

    Very nice job Obama! (aka Team Oprah!)
    • CrimsonBlur, on 02/06/2008, -2/+15I'm voting for Obama, but you got buried for "Team Oprah". How does her support suddenly make his campaign "Team Oprah"? WTF?
      • SkippyDoorknob, on 02/06/2008, -8/+1Vice President Oprah?
        • Kurlumbenus, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Vice President Bill Clinton would be cool. SO MUCH BLING.
        • Qtip42, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Oprah is the person who got every soccer mom with no brain to vote for obama, he should be happy.
  • staxofmax, on 02/06/2008, -3/+32Considering where Clinton's and Obama's campaigns were a month ago, this virtual tie is a pretty major defeat for Hillary. Hell, a few months ago she thought she would have the democratic nomination by now. Now with momentum on Obama's side, and the next round of primaries and caucuses expected to go in his favor, it isn't looking too good for her.
    • Oktoeatfish, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4He's got Nebraska, Hawaii, D.C., Lousiana, (Hopefully- my state - Ohio) and Washington going his way.
      • merper, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Where are you getting Ohio from?

        The governor's endorsed Clinton.

        And the polls show it strongly in her favor(And before you knock about the polls, keep in mind, every error they've made has worked in favor of Clinton's inertia):

        http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/ohio.html

        Can he pull ahead, in a month? I hope so too, but I doubt it, considering Clinton will be focusing on the state, while he has to go around the country. Hopefully he can pull a Cali and come within 5-15% of her, let his smaller victories fill in the gaps.
        • floatingpoints, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Uh, endorsements aren't votes, buddy.

          The governor can endorse whoever the hell he wants, but it doesn't mean the people will vote that way :)
        • merper, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2That still leaves the issue of the latter statistic. Trust me, I want to be proven wrong, but California and New Hampshire made it clear that people don't always follow the flow of the tide.
        • Oktoeatfish, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2I said 'hopefully'. I'm fully aware of the Hillary support in Ohio because, as I said, I live there. I just want to think of my state being better than that. Strickland's a dumpy bitch anyway, he only got elected because he ran against a dumpier republican bitch. I know the county I live in (and surrounding) are ultra conservitive and we still got a Dem as governer, so who really knows.
      • hobbitsareneat, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4I live in Washington and I wouldn't be surprised if my state went with Clinton. I'll be voting for Obama though, and so will my friends. :)
        • LBobRife, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4As will I, a fellow Washingtonian.
        • Shadic, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I'm a Washingtononian too, despite currently residing in Portland (Hell, it's close enough.) I'm going to try in at least mail in my vote.
        • staxofmax, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1It's a caucus, gotta attend one for your vote to count, unfortunately.
    • skipdog172, on 02/06/2008, -1/+6Momentum isn't on his side until the major news outlets report Obama getting the most delegates yesterday, not Clinton.
  • rhabd0mancer, on 02/06/2008, -3/+55Pantsuit Lady is in trouble. Obama has the delegate lead, Obama has the money lead, Obama has the momentum.

    Gobama! Gobama!
    • Protoss, on 02/06/2008, -0/+9The correct term is Obama-rama.
    • wild, on 02/06/2008, -0/+12Pantsuit Lady made me spit my coke!
    • dreathon, on 02/06/2008, -10/+1Pantsuit Lady? Wow. I'm glad to know Obama has some real mature supporters.
    • bjs3171, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3Obama wears a pantsuit too.
    • D4r7h3v1l, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1The mystery is why the buttons are on the wrong side.
  • colincornaby, on 02/06/2008, -2/+38I'm an Obama fan, but keep in mind Hillary is still winning overall. Not because she's won more delegates total... Obama actually has more pledged delegates, but Hillary is still winning because she has twice as many super delegates as Obama. Hillary is still winning by about 100 delegates overall with the superdelegates included, so don't start celebrating yet...
    • Quactaur, on 02/06/2008, -1/+22The superdelegates will hopefully recognize a democratic mandate for Obama if he can claim the next set of states, and switch allegiance. Notice that Obama's campaign has been constantly building momentum, whereas Hillary's has been running out of steam; her tactic at the moment is to glide into the nomination.
    • JavanSClark, on 02/06/2008, -0/+14One thing to take into account hoever:

      the upcoming Feb 9 states favor Obama. WA (my home state) and otehrs are Caucus states. Obama Dominates in Caucus states. He could come away losing the delegate count by less than 30 by this weekend. He is making up the difference.
      • usaar33, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Agreed.

        Obama should be able to pull massive momentum in February. I'd only give Clinton much of a chance in the primary state of Wisconsin (just going off of demographic trends - and the fact that Obama has been able to dominate caucuses).

        The problem comes in March though. Primaries are occurring in some large states - Texas and Ohio - where Clinton should be able to win.

        That being said, I'll be realistic and use the intrade numbers - it is a 50/50 coin toss right now.
        • vingtdeux, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I'm in agreement with your agreement. heh.

          It just means that us volunteers need to do more work in other states. I'm thinking of canceling a trip with friends to Park City in favor of a volunteer trip to Ohio. This is the time to stand up and make change more than just a word.
    • LBobRife, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7In addition to what JavanSClark said, keep in mind there are 500 or so superdelegates yet to pledge. I have not heard any estimates of where people think they will go.
    • floatingpoints, on 02/06/2008, -3/+15Super delegates are *****.

      Who the ***** are these assholes to override the choice of the people?
      • Gavagai80, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2They're the members of congress (and others) who the people elected.
      • LBobRife, on 02/06/2008, -2/+19Caucuses and Primaries are not run by the government. They are party events. If they wanted to they could just nominate a person and not let us decide at all. Be glad that you have a voice in who gets the nominations.
        • r00fus, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Yeah, that's not how it works.
          If they did something like a backroom deal, there would be mass disaffection (if not a civil war) in the party.
          Superdelegates have had virtually 0 impact since they were conceived in the 70s.

          Don't worry, the Republicans are set to have Superdelegates by the next election, too :-)
    • cambob76, on 02/06/2008, -1/+7The US election system is way too complicated. How do you guys trust it at all?
      • bitspace, on 02/06/2008, -0/+12We don't, but it's all we have.
        • Cunninlynguist, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
      • ahoyhoy1, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2*teardrops*
      • bxblox, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3We dont really. Mostly playing along and hoping for the best outcome...
    • blackjack75, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1How about you just wait till november and ask actual people to vote for one of the dozens of candidated available? That's quite a simple and efficient system that's available in many countries. Delegates are such a thing of the past (probably created because of technical reasons at the time).
      • vingtdeux, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0You would think, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
    • aaroh, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2bill clinton is a superdelegate, thats sooo uncool
  • cyberdork, on 02/06/2008, -6/+55Can somebody please explain to me why the delegate count takes so friggin long? They have to solve some complex differential equations or what?

    For a foreigner like me this looks like a third-world election where you only get the results a week after the voting. What's going on here?
    • Quactaur, on 02/06/2008, -0/+14They assign the delegates by a PR (proportional representation) system. Most of those kind of systems need a certain mathematical value calculated from the total tally, so an entire state's vote count often needs to be collected before delegates can be definitively divvied up.
      • digjam, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2So basically, the delegates are assigned based on how much % you won in every district?
        • Quactaur, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Yes. There are huge debates as to whether FPTP (winner takes all) or PR (representative) elections are better for democracy

          FPTP tends to produce stronger and more coherent governments whereas PR offers a better democratic representation, whilst potentially risking stablitiy.
      • noahhoward, on 02/06/2008, -0/+11Which doesn't stop the media from guessing at half count and prematurely gushing over the results.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/06/2008, -0/+15Technically the primaries are a PRIVATE function run by the parties, not by the government. Which is why the GOP and the DEMs votes delegates are different. Anyways, in the past, especially with the Democratic convention, sometimes the candidate isn't fully known until the day of the Convention!

      Tradition's a bitch. It's time to change it.
      • digidelia, on 02/06/2008, -2/+2i thought a caucus was run by the parties
        primaries are run by the state
        • neognostic, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6Primaries rules are set up by the parties, the state just administers the voting process.
    • rritterson, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5Some delegates are assigned via a proportional system across each state, so as Quactaur mentions, the entire state tally needs to be in. Other delgates (many in fact) are assigned at the congressional district level, which, for a state like California, means dividing the state into 53 small regions. In order to assign those delegates you need to again use a PR system and you have to have the total for each district. So, basically, you need almost 100% of the vote counted in order to properly assign delegates.
      • cyberdork, on 02/06/2008, -3/+2Give me a break. Here in Germany (population: 82million) the country is divided in 299 (!) election districts. And the final results are usally available withing 6 hours after polls closing. Oh yes, and we almost exclusively use paper ballots.

        I guess SpaceMonkey has the best explanation. The primaries are actually a privately run show, and the parties can report as fast or slow as they want.
        • LBobRife, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3Perhaps they can predict a winner 6 hours after the polls close because the races aren't at close as the democratic one is right now. I doubt they count 82 million ballots in 6 hours.
          • cyberdork, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Of course it is. There are around 3000 official governmental voting offices which count the 50million votes (casted in 50.000 polling stations). This means one office has to count 2000 ballots per hour (last time the end result was announced after 7:35h). You can easily do that with a couple of people per office.
            The result of the mandatory recount is however always announced one week after the elections.
    • egbert, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2It is actually a very complicated formula that is based on the percentage of votes state wide and the percentage of votes in each voting precinct. The actual count can not be calculated until all precincts report. See http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml for a complete explanation and http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/23/135024/707 for a good example.
      • egbert, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3To further expand each Democratic primary has
        - District Delegates are proportionally allocated according to the vote in each Congressional (or other) District.
        - At-Large Delegates are proportionally allocated according to the statewide vote.
        - Pledged PLEO Delegates are proportionally allocated according to the statewide vote.
        - Unpledged PLEO Delegates vote their conscience.

        In California you have 241 District Delegates, 81 At-Large Delegates, 48 PLEO Delegates, and 71 Unpledged Delegates.
    • cougar618, on 02/06/2008, -0/+10It's only been 15 hours man.. calm down.
  • quaxon, on 02/06/2008, -31/+6obama is more or less gonna bring more of the same *****. He is part of the CFR (one world government, NWO, etc.), his top foreign adviser is Henry Kissingers protege Zbigniew Brzezinski (for more info about this guy and what he really stands for read his book "The Grand Chessboard," the fact that obama would chose him for this important position speaks volumes), and hell one of the biggest reasons not to trust him is that he is adored by the mainstream media. We should all be very suspicious of someone who is plastered on MSM because they are all owned by major conglomerates who have a big interest in seeing corporate friendly politicians become elected and therefore will only give those with corporate friendly policies the proper airtime. Just look at what they have done to the campaigns of Kucinich and Gravel, the only two candidate who would have actually brought about real change.
    on the outside obama sounds great, he has great speeches and makes you feel like he will actually bring some change, but when you start to research him a little you find out he is the in the same pockets as all the other mainstream candidates and is just another slimy politician there to serve the corporations and old money, not the citizens.

    check this out for more info +sources
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/The_Truth_About_ ...
    • enki25, on 02/06/2008, -1/+10Does your tinfoil hat give you a headache?
      • quaxon, on 02/06/2008, -4/+1i dont get it, when has the government or mainstream media ever done something good for the american people? The ones with these so-called 'tin-foil hats' are the ones who can truly see what a messed up society we live in and the are the only ones who actually want to bring a good change to this country.
        • LBobRife, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Everybody thinks they are the ones that are right.
          • quaxon, on 02/06/2008, -3/+1It's not about right or wrong, its about facts. Obama IS a member of the CFR, obama DID appoint Zbigniew Brzezinski as his top foreign adviser. Why dont people understand that politicians are only loyal to those they have close ties with in washington and anyone with such affiliations will not bring about any positive change to this country.
    • dreathon, on 02/06/2008, -9/+3FINALLY!!! Someone that isn't kissing Obama's butt! And finally, someone that seems to actually know what's going on.
    • quaxon, on 02/06/2008, -3/+2instead of burying me down id love to see someone try to refute these claims. I mean, do you guys already know about this stuff but just dont care because you are so blinded by the hype or what?
    • Cyberen, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2quaxon is completely right, unfortunately, others are too afraid to admit the election process has been completely bought and paid for. It might cause people to become depressed at the fact that we now have to fight for democracy.
  • Ajnag, on 02/06/2008, -7/+78"But I cried on national television twice, before primaries! How could all you other women do this to me?"
  • kurby, on 02/06/2008, -13/+10This story is inaccurate and misleading. Different sources are reporting different over all counts. So to put the headline as its stated is misleading.
    • rritterson, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5it depends on which meaning of the word 'claims' you mean. The are reporting Obama himself made a written claim that he had more delegates,which is 100% true.
    • mrgreen4242, on 02/06/2008, -0/+8The headline is perfectly accurate. It says that The Politico said that Obama is the delegate count leader. Other sources could be reporting differently, but The Politico is reporting that Obama took the lead, and the headline here reflects that announcement.
  • majorkrell, on 02/06/2008, -20/+8Can ANYONE give me a valid reason to vote for Obama ? And...PLEASE...do not mention the word "CHANGE" without some specific examples of the changes he plans.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/06/2008, -14/+4The girls think he's dreamy!
      • majorkrell, on 02/06/2008, -7/+2A valid reason to deny women the vote.
    • WiZZLa, on 02/06/2008, -16/+3Ron Paul (someone had to say it)
    • murraj2, on 02/06/2008, -5/+18He's not Hillary.
    • Quactaur, on 02/06/2008, -2/+23On the home front, he's realisitic (Clinton's first shot at universal healthcare failed for a reason; a mandate will only get you so far in Congress) and still optimistic.

      On the foreign policy front, he offers a face for America that will regain its standing in the world. Numerous international commentators have pointed out that for the US to elect such a cosmopolitican individual, who is perfectly capable of representing their interests, the US's standing abroad would skyrocket.

      Plus, on a personal level, he fills me (and i imagine others) with hope. Clinton looks like a cynic and i have yet to see her smile sincerely.
      • majorkrell, on 02/06/2008, -12/+2This is the typical non-answer I get. for your info, england, France, Germany and s. korea have all elected pro-americaxn leaders. Our standing in the civilized world is just fine. Univeral health care means a govt bureaucrat gets to decide who gets health care and who does not...probably based on party affiliation. Personally, he strikes me as having ZERO wisdom (do not confuse education and wisdom...they have nothing in common).
        • Quactaur, on 02/06/2008, -1/+6I don't want to get over the points, but the perceived support of the USA in German and the UK have dropped below 50% for the first time since i think the end of the war. France hates the states. Gordon Brown does not like Bush, irrespective of the special relationship. Clinton would be a capable leader who could repair the relationship with Europe, but so could Obama. Obama would however garner support and hope from the rest of the world, or at least be far more successful than Hillary.

          Also, its hillary who wants universal healthcare so i'm glad we agree on that point.

          The US government's standing in the world is probably the worst it has ever been. Think about the negativity of Vietnam, against a far more justifiable enemy, and then drag that out by a few more years.
        • rubicante, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5On the issues, I cannot support Clinton because she does not support a guest worker program, Obama does. Also, you have to understand that your ability to judge their character is not unimportant and SHOULD be part of the thought process. In this respect, many Democrats feel that Clinton relies on dirty politics -- politics which remind them of the status quo -- and Obama does not. I also know that Clinton is much deeper in bed with the unions than I care for in any political representative. Then again, if you believe our international standing is fine then you jumped off the fact train a long time ago.
        • owanderhoffe, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7Yeah our standing in the world is fine. People love us enough to bomb our buildings with our own planes full of our own citizens. Things are dandy now that we're fighting a war on several fronts and meddling in countless other places.
          England, France, Germany, and South Korea are NOT the areas of the world we need to worry about as far as diplomacy, and I'm assuming not the places that Quactaur was referring to.
          To start moving towards stronger relationships with the rest of the world, we need a leader who is optimistic and open-minded. These are two qualities that I believe Obama has, while Clinton does not.
          I'm wondering what your definition of wisdom is. If age is wisdom, obviously Clinton wins. But age is not wisdom as far as I'm concerned. Admitting ignorance is the telltale sign of wisdom, and Clinton seems reluctant (at best) to admit ignorance.
    • nblsavage, on 02/06/2008, -1/+16I don't know why I'm pandering to the lazy, but here we go.
      Foreign Policy:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
      Healthcare:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
      Homeland security:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/homeland/
      Economy:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
      Immigration:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/
      Energy & the environment:
      http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
      • majorkrell, on 02/06/2008, -17/+2Except is is WRONG on all of the above. Socailism does not work, and his adherence to it shows me he lacks wisdom.
        • nblsavage, on 02/06/2008, -0/+13You going to switch to private police and fire service? Going to build your own roads?
        • staxofmax, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6You're going to vote for Ron Paul, aren't you?
        • Eiknujrac, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3It's ok, we'll have PRIVATE companies make sure there no lead or mercury in our food!

          You're adherence to the free-market system shows me you lack intelligence. Would you kindly look up the history of any of the following countries: Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Poland....

          Free markets screw the poor and middle class, any way you look at it.
      • ch33sehead, on 02/06/2008, -1/+4Let's not all forget Network Neutrality. He's for that too.
    • staxofmax, on 02/06/2008, -1/+13Hillary accepted 10x as much campaign contributions from lobbyists than Obama, Hillary voted to go to war in Iraq, Hillary's health care plan is a joke, Hillary has a creepy ass marriage with Bill, shall I go on?
      • majorkrell, on 02/06/2008, -10/+1Those are reasons to NOT for for hillary, but they are not reasons to vote FOR B.O.
      • ch33sehead, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Hillary accepted infinitely many times more campaign contributions from lobbyists than Obama, since Obama accepted none.
    • zerosumgame, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3Pragmatically speaking for the Dems:

      Obama is less polarizing, Can play up the Iraq War opposition, and his health plan has a better chance of making it through congress.

      If you are an economic moderate: his kinder words for Reagan indicate he is perhaps less socialist leaning than Hillary

      News stories about shady Bill Clinton Kazakhstan dealings with Hillary as CIC would be amusing though
      • majorkrell, on 02/06/2008, -5/+1Actually, Obama is the most socialistic member of the Senate. His words mean nothing...i look at his voting record to see what he is really going to do.
      • insurgente, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2NO DEMOCRAT IS A ***** SOCIALIST, GOD ***** DAMN. LIBERALISM IS NOT SOCIALISM.
        • zerosumgame, on 02/07/2008, -1/+0what euphemism do you prefer for progressive taxation and favoring benefit programs?

          Majorkrell is right about Obama emphasizing egalitarian economics as per voting record though.

          Hillary's talk about regulating private Hedge Funds is what strikes me as supremely anti-RonPaulian
          • insurgente, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2It's still not socialism until the means of production are socialized (commonly owned and controlled). If they are not socialized, there is no socialism. Period.

            Progressive taxation is nothing more than progressive taxation, and benefit programs are just that, benefit programs. They are not inherent in socialist ideology.
          • noodless, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I think you're confused between the communism that existed in places like the USSR, that they called socialism and socialism that exists in modern democracies. The two are very different, in our modern democracies socialism refers to policies that wish to 'socialize' ie through taxation and redistribution parts of society/ the economy.
            In the Uk the labour party considered itself socialist but it never wanted to socialise the means of production, just take the edge off capitalism. Most social democratic parties in europe also call themselves socialist but this has very little to do with socialising the means of production, it more refers to social democracy.
            In america it seems you cant say socialist without meaning communist, which is a false.
          • zerosumgame, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0So state controlled insurance and health care would not be a socialist institution?
          • zerosumgame, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0You are right that progressive tax and benefits are not per se socialism, they are just characteristics that tend to correlate with nations that employ socialism
        • LLamaStar, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1But this is American politics...we only deal with extremes!!!!!! You're either completely conservative which means omg jesusland or you're completely liberal which means OMG SOCIALISM.

          people are ***** stupid. :[
          • Eiknujrac, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Dude, you're either with us, and a patriot. Or you're against us, and you're a terrorist.
            How hard is that to understand?
    • Condemned, on 02/06/2008, -8/+3Well....he's black
    • foetus, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8Ultimately, Hillary and Obama are *basically* the same on a lot of issues. When it comes down to it, though, Obama is a MUCH more effective public speaker, and when the race for the presidency starts, Obama would sway more "in-betweens" and Republicans than Hillary would.
      • majorkrell, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3After 8 years of the uirrelevant Bubba, the idea of "Slick willy II" is more than I can bear.
    • Spektr4, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7The major change I see is moving away from using division as a tool to Karl Rove one's way to a 51% majority. Obama's been uncompromisingly insistent on taking the country beyond the old divisions. A lot of the Hillary supporters like her because voting for her feels like hitting a Republican over the head. But we'll be stuck in the politics of the past with her. It's not a slogan; it's the truth.

      I like Obama because he's... pro net neutrality, pro open government, consistently opposed the Iraq war (yes, he did vote to fund the troops which is a different thing), refuses lobbyist donations and has actually passed anti-lobbyist legislation, I like his take on health care (public alternative, but no mandates), favors progressive taxation, chooses honesty over pandering far more often than other politicians I see, and generally inspires people. Imagine what it would be like to *want* to tune in to presidential speeches, instead of kicking your TV as is the case today.
    • Misanthrope, on 02/06/2008, -2/+6Honestly, no one can convince you of anything if you're aren't willing to look for yourself. If you don't like him, fine, don't vote for him. But asking people to give you reasons, as if you're somebody that really matters, even though you've clearly made up your mind about him because you don't think he has "wisdom" just makes you sound like a jackass with an agenda. Who are you, exactly, to judge a persons wisdom anyway? What makes you so wise? Just giving thoughtless, contrary responses that amount little more than one sentence, snarky, ***** doesn't really convey your wisdom.

      So shut up.
    • dumpyhumpy, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6I hate when people get buried when they ask a legitimate question.

      I voted Obama. Really, I voted not Hillary. For a number of reasons. Most importantly is my desire to be able to vote "not republican" in November and having a good chance of winning. The world can't suffer another 8 years of the Rove/Cheney/AEI republican party.

      I bet almost all of Hillary's supporters would vote Obama in November if he were nominated.
      Obama draws independents too. Not all of his supporters would vote Hillary.

      If the super-religious right feel disenchanted by the party for nominating McCain, whom they don't adore, some will stay home.
      If Billary runs, the Republicans will reminisce about the 90s, re-taking the house, "the contract with America", "shutting down the government" when Clinton was in office, impeaching somebody for getting a blow job... times were good, there were no terrorists in he world yet... it's possibly the one thing that could unite the shattered Republican party and turn out a huge vote in their favor.

      Obama's a safer bet. And he doesn't carry that stench of the nasty, hateful, divisive politics of the last 50 years. Anybody who didn't vote for Bush in 2004 HATES the man. I feel like the Clintons evoke that same hatred in a very large number of Republicans (even though I don't think it's justified)

      Obama and Clinton's platforms are very similar. Where they differ, I generally agree more with his position, but regardless, he's safer bet to beat the Republicans, and I think he would portray a great image to the rest of the world... whom we must start talking to, befriending, being honest with, helping and encouraging to be positive.
    • Chode2235, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1He is not a republican, and he is not a clinton. I do not think the country really remembers the Clinton fatigue that cost Al Gore the election, despite peace and prosperity. Of course you could vote on the issues, but if you are aligned with democrats he would be your best option to win the election. Not sure what is important to you, so it is hard to best answer.
    • ToolGuy93, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I think that the biggest CHANGE that almost everyone wants is to simply move beyond the incessant partisan warfare of the last 16 years. Obama might be able to do that -- Hillary certainly can't.
    • Aidje, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I have a friend who is voting for Obama for one reason: he thinks he'll get $4000+ out of it.
      "Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit: Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Obama will also ensure that the tax credit is available to families at the time of enrollment by using prior year's tax data to deliver the credit when tuition is due."
  • kwansolo, on 02/06/2008, -6/+85seriously, who is still voting for hillary?
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 02/06/2008, -0/+21Roughly half the democrats
    • RRJackson, on 02/06/2008, -11/+6Me. Most of my friends. And two-thirds of white voters, according to the Boston Globe.
      • typographics, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3you are your friends are idiots, and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
      • bradg2, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1Leave him alone, they can vote for whoever the hell they want.
        /from somebody who hates Hillary

    • citizenme, on 02/06/2008, -3/+4I seriously don't know.
    • neognostic, on 02/06/2008, -2/+24According to yesterdays demographics, women over 60, hispanics, and people too lazy to do the research to realize there is a difference.
    • staxofmax, on 02/06/2008, -2/+17People that are ok with the status-quo, people fearful of change, cynics.
    • VotingFraud, on 02/06/2008, -13/+1I am voting for Hillary Clinton because I love my country.
      • typographics, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2that doesn't make any sense, being that she is a horrible candidate.
      • blackjack75, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Which is?
      • alterImperson, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1If you loved America, you would not use that as justification of your actions.
    • imnojezus, on 02/06/2008, -4/+1the same people who still fall for this
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
    • Gavagai80, on 02/06/2008, -2/+7Well, at least in California Clinton won 82% of the high school dropout vote. (Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ... )
      • ch33sehead, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1The uneducated, the religious, the people who care about gender, the poor and apathetic...
        Just look at the exit polls.
        • coollettuce, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1The religious aren't voting for a a pro-choice woman. They tend to go for Romney or *****.
    • TheSeptimHeir, on 02/06/2008, -3/+5Clinton is getting the majority votes of uneducated people (people without college degrees), the majority votes of seniors (over 60 years old), and the majority votes of Latino and Asian voters. In my personal opinion, this alone suggests Obama (who is more popular among younger people, educated people, and independents) is the far better candidate to lead and unify America, but to each their own.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 02/06/2008, -3/+5voting for hillary is voting against the democratic party. there is NO WAY she can beat mccain
    • dmoffitt, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1snky republicans with open primaries? :D
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Nobody. The Polls have closed.
    • Anthop, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I am. Seriously. I will be throwing my support behind Clinton in the Washington caucuses. And if you want to dig me down, go ahead, but at least read what I have to say first.

      Before that, like someone else mentioned already, anecdotal evidence is far from representative. Digg is it's own little political enclave and it's a mistake to start thinking that you're really the "oppressed majority." Also, I resent the implicit generalization that the uneducated are voting for Clinton. I, for one, am in college. (And yes, I know that's anecdotal evidence, but what I'm trying to say here is that both ends of the spectrum - using anecdotal evidence and making generalizations - are bad.)

      There are plenty of reasons for me to vote for Clinton. The biggest reason for me is that she seems to know better what's she's doing or what she's going to do than Obama. At the very least, she has presented more concrete policy for her presidency than Obama has. Obama tends to make more general statements about positions but doesn't go much into what he would do to actually support those positions. Clinton says more of that, and that's something I can appreciate.

      Just as an aside, I don't hate Obama. In fact, I am very happy that he's the other Democratic candidate because in any other race, he would probably get my vote. He's simply a close second in this race, and I would be happy if either of them win. (And if Clinton and Obama form a ticket together, that would be a bit of a dream ticket for me.)
  • digjam, on 02/06/2008, -2/+13As much as I would love to see Obama win the Elections.. I would keep my fingers crossed until the final numbers are announced. The Clinton news network (CNN) is still claiming Obama lagging behind by atleast 70 delegates.. and thats updated a minute ago.. so I m still praying..
    08AMA!
    • krnldmp, on 02/06/2008, -3/+5Crying wont help ya. Praying wont do ya no good.
      • artwork, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3Yes, and using empty catchy slogans will.
    • floatingpoints, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3Yeah but CNN has been known to lie just as bad as Fox.

      Don't go to CNN. Stick with MSNBC or NPR.
    • blackjack75, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2What a world.. now the trusted source is one that starts with MS ? Damn, how things change.
  • Quactaur, on 02/06/2008, -0/+17As a piece in a UK paper pointed out, this song is pretty much totally vacuous and has no significant meaning. Yet if you take this along with spelt out policy on his site, Barack Obama really is the most inspiring figure in US, if not global, politics in a long, long time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY (been digged before, but still)
  • Jvlach, on 02/06/2008, -10/+3Digg is now controlled by outside forces, I have proof. Does any one remember the story and video about diggs involvement in the Bohemian Grove. Well I found the link from a google cache from Jan 30: