What is Digg?87 Comments
- knupso, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30It won't make a bit of impact, because both parties only answer to special interest not the people.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23History will record the election not as a landslide but as almost dead-on average in post-WWII second-term presidencies.
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16umm what happened to all the talk in the media about hacked voting machines, antiquated voting machines, and vote tampering?? I am forced to be cynical here...it seems as if these stories dissappeared because the Democrats won.
- d3dm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Stem cell research is already in full effect. The only restriction is federal grants for embryonic stem cell research. Private industry is allowed to do all of the embryonic stem cell research they want.
Personally, I don't care where the stem cells come from, I just get a uneasy feeling when my government hands out my tax dollars to research something that could be performed by the private sector. If the technique is promising, there is no better motivator than being first-to-market with a new cure for a debilitating disease. - dstrube, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23So what title is saying is...
Democrats lose = "The election must have been fixed! The technology is worthless!"
Democrats win = "Maybe this whole voting-with-technology thing isn't so bad after all..."? - benhorstmann, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12What landslide? The dems only won virginia by ~7000 votes. Granted I'm excited about the houses changing hands to balance out the white house, but a landslide is a little inaccurate...
- Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Change is good, but that doesn't mean we can stop watching now. Bill Clinton was pretty bad for technology (remember the DMCA), so we can't blindly trust any party. Lets hope for the best, but keep an eye on them anyhow.
- badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I think it is silly that we are one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world with virtually unlimited resources at our disposal. We can create computers that calculate trajectories that will successfully navigate an object the size of a car to a destination millions of miles away using gravitational rotation.
... yet we can't make a better bean counter.
And I also find it fishy that no electronic voting technology rolled out this election had any sort of back up system in place and that none of the systems tried out had a paper auditing system. - sdpenner, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20You are proving his point. There were stories before the election, but nothing after. I guess the whole e-voting thing is working. You can call off the ACLU, the dems won.
- Shivetya, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13stinging rebuke?
Precedent shows that off year elections should always favor the minority party, the fact it didn't happen in 02 was what more amazing.
hell many of us have been counting on history to do just this.
ah, but the anti-Bush hate crowd is so wrapped up in itself. Where are the screams about faulty voting equipment and such?
Actually, just what in the hell do you expect a Democrat controlled Congress can actually do if Bush doesn't go along with it? Over ride it?
Why do you think the Clinton years were so great? Easy, because neither side could agree most of the time as to what to spend money on neither side did. There is something to be glad about having on one side of government controlled by a party - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Actually, they're complaining about it in Michigan where affirmative action was banned in government and public universities. The problem was being PRO affirmative action meant being AGAINST the proposal. They say people found this confusing. However, if you actually read the ballot or watch TV you'd know different.
- lordTalus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22and...
Democrats win = Democracy prevails
Democrats lose = Voter fraud, Voter suppression, Democracy fails - codyman, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19I like how Jesse Jackson and all the whole dem posse didn't complain about voter fraud or people being "turned away" or "discouraged" from voting because they were winning...now it republicans had been winning, there would have been outrage and lawyers would be running about
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I love it when people make the point that their lack of understanding of current events implies a story exists.
- NakedSnake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Correct "morganm".
A "landslide victory", according to most political scientists, is a victory margin of at least 20% or more. Most races last Tuesday would not fit this definition. Historically, people get what's called "the six year itch" and use the off-year election as a referendum of sorts, and elect the competing party to Congress during a President's second term. - dstrube, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Shhh! Don't let pesky facts get in the way of the hype.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is obviously written by someone young. Changes like this happen often. The republicans sweepingly took over in the 90s' and in '82 (IIRC) the dems took over hard as well. I'm guessing a swing back towards republicans in 2018 or so.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7And technically the dems LOST in Connecticut, but no one seems to be paying attention to that. It's more fun to ignore.
- sdpenner, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11It's going to be sad not having Bush to blame for everything. That was so easy. You didn't have to use your brain as much.
- 2percenter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I started reading the article, but had to stop after it became clear that it was quite lopsided. You could also argue that increased defense spending and funds to NASA that the Republicans normally favor helps "tech".
FTA: "Losers here? The oil companies, real estate developers and anyone who uses rhino horn to treat fever."
Ugh! Or does pharma R&D lose out with price controls?
Hey, I have my opinions on what effect the Democrats will have on tech (I'm betting little will change) but it certainly isn't a huge win for all things tech. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The one I in Vermont is a socialist. The other is Lieberman in CT. He'll vote with the GOP on domestic security and military issues, and with the Dems on social issues.
Something tells me Cheney will be making a lot of trips to the Senate as a tie breaker in the next 2 years. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16I can't wait for stem cell research to be in full effect. I have a family member that would greatly benefit from this.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Don't worry, dems haven't forgotten about 2000 and 2004.
Expect regulation on e-voting. Don't support that? You'll be accused of hating democracy. - slapout, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This was not a "landslide".
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Zeeeej, my point is that this really isn't big news and also won't really have much impact at all. If nothing else we're a bit more balanced now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Even if they found a magic "cure" tomorrow with stem cells, the process and trial testing it would have to go through with the FDA would take about 10+ years before your "loved one" can even see a chance to get at it.
- Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's 48 hours after the election. Many of the results aren't even certified yet (not to say they're in doubt). The new Congress doesn't get seated for at least two months.
It's a bit early to be making any predictions about what it really means for the future. There's no guarantee it won't all be turned around in 2008, after all.
Should perhaps resection to politics, as well. - apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually... stems cells aren't going anywhere anytime soon... these private companies are getting huge amounts of money for this research... why wouldn't they take their sweet little time if they are already locked into the dough?
- Doofy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Now all they have to worry about are all those pesky dead voters.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"History will record the Democratic landslide of 2006 as a stinging rebuke of President Bush's war policy and the end of one-party rule in Washington. "
WTF? Please! There were many embattled races that came down to a hair's difference in vote, and the House/Senate are still basically a statistical dead-heat. This is by no means the type of "land-slide" the Democrats were hoping for, so let's not get carried away shall we? It's easy to lose a sense of perspective over a blip on the political radar when you're as consumed with partisan "victory at all costs" like most Democrats are. The main reason the Republicans lost a few seats was because their leadership this season stank and people saw them caving to Democrat ideals time and again because of the fear of being called an ***** by popular media outlets.
People thought their elected Republican leaders were being complete pussies who were caving and so they didn't stick up for 'em, simple as that. Had the Republicans actually had strong leadership ability, that wouldn't have happened. They deserve their loss, but let's not assume it's because people are all of a sudden flocking to push across the ideals of the Democrats. It's more of a case of the Republican base becoming apathetic to their lack of leadership. - IheartZombies, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@badnewsblair
I don't care if you love the president or hate him, but that statement was so ignorant and profound at the same time. It's ignorant because it shows that all you want is an easy scapegoat. It's like you want to be political without knowing anything more than, "It's Bush's fault if it's broken". On the other hand it's profound because most of America operates this way. I personally don't like Bush, but I won't blame "everything on Bush because he's an easy target". I think the republicans have messed up a lot of things, and I think the democrats have messed up a lot of things, but I won't be so ignorant to lay the blame on an "easy target" because I'm too lazy to research the basis of my complaints. - DoubtingThomas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not to profound when you realize that mob mentality is an innate human reaction. "Well, if everyone hates X, I should hate X. Screw researching anything for myself, I'll just follow what everyone else follows and blame who everyone else blames."
Thank gawd I discarded my belief in a two-party system years ago. Anyone who thinks that this election is going to have any noticeable effects on government as whole needs to have his/her head examined. Republicans and Democrats are cut from the same cloth and will follow the money as soon as they get elected and that you can be sure of. - bbass74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Landslide"??? Only two seats of the seven that the democrats won over republicans in the senate were by 10+ majority! And the Dems only took 28 seats in the house, in 94' the republicans took over 50 seats, almost double, away from the democrats... that's a landslide!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"They say people found this confusing. However, if you actually read the ballot or watch TV you'd know different."
And this is the problem. You let ***** morons vote who have little concept of reading comprehension, and you get a bunch of people whining that they didn't know what they were voting for. Legalese is a bit akward to read for some people, but you can NEVER say that it isn't exact in its intentions and meanings. - JoelBushart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Interesting the "Landslide" was the smallest house/senate changeover of the 6th year of a two term president in history. Also there has yet to be a midterm election on the 6th year of a two term president where the president's party didn't loose both the house and the senate.
- sixspeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.getitstraightby2008.org/
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Stem cell research is already in full effect. The only restriction is federal grants for embryonic stem cell research. Private industry is allowed to do all of the embryonic stem cell research they want."
And please tell me why it's the government's job to fund this anyway? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making advancements in stem cell medicine, but it's not something people's tax dollars need to pay for. If the benefits are going to be as nice as people are hoping, venture capitalists would be MORE than glad to help out I'd imagine. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have to agree with zeeeej, the telcos need to be regulated to force net neutrality. Individuals and small companies will innovate best if left alone, but large corporations and monopolies actively resist innovation to keep from retooling and/or effecting profits. The telcos want control over the internet so that they can remove factors that would force them to be competitive.
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No. I am talking about media stories done AFTER the election was decided.
- fourinjuly4ij, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6you are sooo right!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@DSPGeek: Out of 300 million citizens. That's just over 10%. Yeah, that sure is some mandate.
Nevermind how many of those new Democrats are conservative Democrat (They exist. I used to be one pre-9/11) - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm curious why everyone categorizes the 2 independants as democrats. They may vote that way more often but it's hardly fair to their status and other independants to make such a broad statement. I suppose it's just more newsworthy then.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great hope it is. A hope to increase taxes on workers. A hope to drive tarrifs down so that Chinese can sell their electronics cheaper, to drive out of business american electronics companies. Great Article.
- LMControl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You're a ***** tool...... that's about as ignorant a statement as I've ever heard. I hope the last two brain cells you had to put that ingenious thought together don't pull your head to one side....
- marklj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@melvinwalker
That joke is getting tired kid. - drewlander, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4landslide != 51/49. The house and senate are still roughly 50/50. Stinging rebuke? Again, its still around 50/50. And as it was brought out, most of the races were super, super close. I did not hear much kicking and screaming about voter fraud. Some of you here really need a dose of reality and to LOOK at the raw facts, not what someone has told you (i.e. if you go to the election results of each state, you will see that the races are REALLY close), but I guess you did your homework before you posted like a good sheep, oh wait.....
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9Have you not been paying attention? There have been a multitude of stories about the problems with electronic (and regular) voting.
- spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't call it a landslide either. Whats more, many of the Democrats elected are more conservative than liberal.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3FBI is investigating Allen's campaign already. E-voting will be scrutinized by a dem congress as well. Some sort of oversight will result.
- Canthros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@skyshock: The VCs have been all over the adult stem cell stuff, or as all over as can be expected (it's still a financial risk without a likely short term payoff). There's been a great deal of agitation for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, because the VC's don't invest much in it (because the payoff is even farther down the line, and because the likely benefits aren't much greater than with adult stem cell solutions, and the risks higher, given the relative likelihoods of cancers, etc). Moral questions aside, embryonic stem cells just aren't a great investment.
-
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is