Which candidates are REALLY top tier? (Digg's election)

[Nathyn]

I don't know if this has been posted yet (I searched but couldn't find it), but I found something interesting a while back.

Digg.com has an ongoing election:
http://digg.com/elections/

Anyone who can join Digg can choose a candidate as a "friend," to cast their vote.

Anyway, given the popularity of Digg (117th most visited site, according to Alexa) and its demographic (young, college-educated technogeeks), I think the results are pretty intriguing.

The media repeatedly refers to Obama, Hillary Clinton, Giuliani, and Romney as "top tier."

But their conclusions are based upon polls among the general population of likely voters -- not targetting those likely voters who actually know where the candidates stand and decide based upon that. In such a poll, people like Giuliani and Hillary are going to automatically get a lead over people like Obama and Ron Paul, not because they're genuinely popular, but simply because of name-recognition.

Grassroots popularity is more important in the long-run than name-recognition. Think back to the 2000 elections: George Bush was relatively unknown early in the election, but he won due to grassroots support.

And when you look at grassroots groups like the DailyKos or Free Republic, Kucinich is every bit a "top tier" candidate as any other, and the same goes for Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee.

In conclusion, on the Democratic side, while the media seems to be casting its vote for Hillary, I think Obama has a greater likelihood of winning the primary. Because he's got a lot of name-recognition from his early announcement and a lot of media coverage leading up to the primaries, while at the same time seems to be supported by a genuine grassroots movement. If Kucinich drops out of the race due to lack of funding, it would even further solidify Obama's lead over Hillary, as he'd have full control of the partisan vote. Meanwhile, Hillary would end up splitting the independent vote with John Edwards, and possibly even a few independent votes could go towards Obama.

Considering the recent growth of the youth vote, the Digg results above are even more striking.

[ServiceSoon]

I never personally participated in Digg. This does show what type of internet support a candidate has.

[Puppycow]

Considering the recent growth of the youth vote, the Digg results above are even more striking.

Really? How much has the youth vote grown? From what I've heard, young people are less likely to vote. Some actual numbers would be interesting.

[juniper_ann]

"The media repeatedly refers to Obama, Hillary Clinton, Giuliani, and Romney as "top tier."

But their conclusions are based upon polls among the general population of likely voters"

That sounds like a good plan.


Anyway, given the popularity of Digg (117th most visited site, according to Alexa) and its demographic (young, college-educated technogeeks), I think the results are pretty intriguing.

But their conclusions are based upon polls among the general population of likely voters -- not targetting those likely voters who actually know where the candidates stand and decide based upon that.

Considering the recent growth of the youth vote, the Digg results above are even more striking.

"Young, college-educated technogeeks" are an interesting demographic, but I can't imagine why you think they would make a more prophetic poll population than "a representative sample of people likely to vote". Why would technogeeks be more likely than the average person to understand and care about political issues? More importantly, why would they be more influential among other voters than the average likely-to-vote person? Are you even sure that they are likely to vote themselves? Young people may be more likely to vote than they used to be, but they are still less likely to vote than older people.

When Digg says "Ron Paul" and Gallup says "Hillary Clinton", I'll go with Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx?

In such a poll, people like Giuliani and Hillary are going to automatically get a lead over people like Obama and Ron Paul, not because they're genuinely popular, but simply because of name-recognition.

Grassroots popularity is more important in the long-run than name-recognition. Think back to the 2000 elections: George Bush was relatively unknown early in the election, but he won due to grassroots support.

The popularity/name recognition dichotomy is interesting. However, I’m not sure that your assertion that “grassroots popularity is more important in the long-run than name-recognition” is true.

Bush didn't have name recognition? He was governor of Texas and the brother of the governor of Florida. He was the son of a former president--he even had the same name. Practically every person of voting age in America had heard the name “George Bush!”

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yeah, young people don't vote.

Which is really annoying, because I like politics. The best discussion I get is with my aunt :p .

[NeoRicen]

HA! Digg hardly shows what candidates are REALLY top tier. Digg represents a very niche audience (relatively speaking) of mostly techies (from when Digg was a purely geek/technology site) and young internet users, and alot of non-americans.

Polls taken from a cross section of the voting population solely in the United States are a MUCH better indicator of the real top-tier candidates.

[Puppycow]

HA! Digg hardly shows what candidates are REALLY top tier. Digg represents a very niche audience (relatively speaking) of mostly techies (from when Digg was a purely geek/technology site) and young internet users, and alot of non-americans.

Polls taken from a cross section of the voting population solely in the United States are a MUCH better indicator of the real top-tier candidates.

Good point. One of the big Ron Paul backers on this forum is a German.

[Oliver]

Good point. One of the big Ron Paul backers on this forum is a German.


I have no Idea what this Digg is about.

[gtc]

I have no Idea what this Digg is about.

Very funny.

[Oliver]

Very funny.


No - seriously: I have no Idea why people are hyping Digg all
the time. I don't consider it as a good source for news. Might
be a Gameboy-Generation thingy.

Added:

Anyway - most potential voters over 30 probably might think
the same way. So I see no sense at all to hype Ron Paul at
this site for the "older Generation". And it's time to address
them as well - which might not work via the Internet ...

And concerning the youngsters - if they didn't stumble over
Ron Paul on the Internet yet, then there's no hope for them
anyway. It's really hard to miss Dr. Paul on the Internet - and
for some it's even getting annoying. So this could fire back in
some ways ...

Time to focus on the "older" voters as well - time isn't our
friend in this case...

[Oliver]

Good point. One of the big Ron Paul backers on this forum is a German.


So? ... Paul's ancestors are Germans as well. At least from
his Grandfathers side...

[NeoRicen]

So? ... Paul's ancestors are Germans as well. At least from
his Grandfathers side...
His point is that you can't vote for him. International support means NOTHING when it comes to determining top-tier candidates as they can't influence the vote.

[Oliver]

His point is that you can't vote for him. International support means NOTHING when it comes to determining top-tier candidates as they can't influence the vote.


When it comes to "Top Tier" candidates, no average voter has
influence about what the media presents as "Top Tiers". No matter
if you can vote or not. You should've figured this out by now.

The only way to change this is to get enough support so the media
can't ignore someone any longer - and even then it's very hard to
make a difference, thanks to "democracy". And it doesn't matter
if you can vote or not to push someone. That's what I'm doing.

[juniper_ann]

When it comes to "Top Tier" candidates, no average voter has
influence about what the media presents as "Top Tiers". No matter
if you can vote or not. You should've figured this out by now.

The only way to change this is to get enough support so the media
can't ignore someone any longer - and even then it's very hard to
make a difference, thanks to "democracy". And it doesn't matter
if you can vote or not to push someone. That's what I'm doing.

Are you saying that having one vote in a nation of millions with the same one vote is not a lot of power, or are you saying that the media misrepresent voter preference?

Oh, and is everyone using "Top Tier" to mean "candidates most likely to win the election" or are some using it to mean "candidates whom I think should win the election"? Nathyn, how are you using it?

[Oliver]

Are you saying that having one vote in a nation of millions with the same one vote is not a lot of power, or are you saying that the media misrepresent voter preference?

Oh, and is everyone using "Top Tier" to mean "candidates most likely to win the election" or are some using it to mean "candidates whom I think should win the election"? Nathyn, how are you using it?


I'm saying that you don't even know half of the people who
are running for president. Why is that? Because the Media
doesn't cover them. Keyes is a good example for that. Also
the amount of coverage candidates get - or the amount of
questions people get in the debates - is a good example for
a misconception in this system.

If I tell 100 people about Candidate X, I probably had much
more influence concerning the elections than just give a
vote to a computer.

[WildCat]

I'm saying that you don't even know half of the people who are running for president. Why is that? Because the Media
doesn't cover them. Keyes is a good example for that.
Keyes!? You think people would vote for that idiot if only they knew more about him? You should have seen his comical run for Senator here!

:dl:

[Nathyn]

OK, so I admit that in my partisanship my original argument doesn't really follow.

I still think it's interesting, though, that this one very large group of well-informed young people are very, very different from the general population.

No - seriously: I have no Idea why people are hyping Digg all
the time. I don't consider it as a good source for news. Might
be a Gameboy-Generation thingy.

Added:

Anyway - most potential voters over 30 probably might think
the same way. So I see no sense at all to hype Ron Paul at
this site for the "older Generation". And it's time to address
them as well - which might not work via the Internet ...

And concerning the youngsters - if they didn't stumble over
Ron Paul on the Internet yet, then there's no hope for them
anyway. It's really hard to miss Dr. Paul on the Internet - and
for some it's even getting annoying. So this could fire back in
some ways ...

Time to focus on the "older" voters as well - time isn't our
friend in this case...
I used to think the way you do.

The problem is that you're not selecting the right tabs. If you just go to Digg's main page, yeah, who the hell cares about the Wii, Steve Jobs, or some randomly funny image on the net?

Their politics page is very informative:
http://digg.com/politics

I go there more often than I check CNN. It's like a Drudge report run by smart people.

[NeoRicen]

Your mistake there is calling them well-informed and smart. They are far from it.

[ZenFountain]

If Digg was true indicator of tangible support, Ron Paul would be elected with 90% of the vote and replicate into 535 Paul bots to occupy congress. I actually like Paul on a personal level and believe he is a model citizen worthy of emulation (what he does, not what he thinks). Does that mean he'd be a good President? Nope. Dean had far more money and support than Paul did in the 04' primaries comparatively and was crushed. Cynically speaking, I hope Paul supporters pressure him into a third party ticket so he spoils.

[OneShotKi11]

Keyes!? You think people would vote for that idiot if only they knew more about him? You should have seen his comical run for Senator here!

:dl:

If nobody knows about you then you get zero votes!!

Of course if the lesser known candidates were tossed around the television like they do Hillery they would get more votes!

The only reason i even heard of Ron Paul is because while researching 9/11 i couldnt help but notice the amount of people who supported him in there Sigs!

Thank God for the internet, otherwise i would have never known that more then 4 poeple can run for president!:boxedin:=Me without internet!!!

[gtc]

Good point. One of the big Ron Paul backers on this forum is a German.

I have no Idea what this Digg is about.

Very funny.

No - seriously: I have no Idea why people are hyping Digg all the time.

I'm sorry. I thought you were making a joke.

In English 'to have a dig at someone' is to insult them, usually in a short off topic comment.

Puppycow was 'having a dig at you' and I thought you responded by making a pun about how 'dig' and 'Digg' sound the same.

You should claim that you knew this all along as it makes you seem quite witty. In fact, I will nominate you for the pith award.

[Foolmewunz]

OK, so I admit that in my partisanship my original argument doesn't really follow.

I still think it's interesting, though, that this one very large group of well-informed young people are very, very different from the general population.


I used to think the way you do.

The problem is that you're not selecting the right tabs. If you just go to Digg's main page, yeah, who the hell cares about the Wii, Steve Jobs, or some randomly funny image on the net?

Their politics page is very informative:
http://digg.com/politics

I go there more often than I check CNN. It's like a Drudge report run by smart people.

Smart people? Nathyn, I've read some of your other posts, and you're surely saying that with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

The most dugg article on that page is a rant by a commenter who cites Rense.com, RonPaul.org and Naomi Wolf as must-see sources.

There's also an article with a fairly high digg rate on Bush's grampa's financial assistance to Hitler(ho-hum, so 90s), yet no one's digging the interesting one on the bigot-idiotic Arkansas state senator.

The political page is very informative because it lets you see that there are idiots in every group. Digg is about as reliable a source for information as TGOB (The Guys at O'Malley's Bar).

[Nathyn]

Smart people? Nathyn, I've read some of your other posts, and you're surely saying that with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

The most dugg article on that page is a rant by a commenter who cites Rense.com, RonPaul.org and Naomi Wolf as must-see sources.

There's also an article with a fairly high digg rate on Bush's grampa's financial assistance to Hitler(ho-hum, so 90s), yet no one's digging the interesting one on the bigot-idiotic Arkansas state senator.

The political page is very informative because it lets you see that there are idiots in every group. Digg is about as reliable a source for information as TGOB (The Guys at O'Malley's Bar).
I say they're smart based on the fact that their main focus is on consumer technology -- the latest PCs, graphics cards, videogames, handheld devices, and software. I can't back it up with evidence to prove it, but it seems to me like only geeks would be interested in that kind of stuff.

I'm sure you can agree that if you regularly scan blogs and newssites for the latest information on politics and world news, you're probably more informed than the average American, which is depoliticized and more interested in entertainment.

A high digg doesn't necessarily mean agreement with an article, but just a belief that the article is interesting. Sometimes, juvenile posts come up, but overall, the news that seems most relevant to me is ALWAYS there, whereas when I go to CNN, it seems like their editorial boards tend to pick irrelevant crap... They regurgitate the same types of stories on the stockmarket, the weather, random white women missing, and they tend to repeat the news a lot.

For instance, I used to listen to CNN radio on the way to work. At one point, they literally mentioned the same NASA story (with minor differences) like 4 days in a row. First day: scientists realize they need to repair the shuttle discovery, but it might be risky and unnecessary. Second day: Scientists thinking of repairing shuttle discovery. Third day: Scientists still thinking about it. Fourth day: Scientists decide they didn't need to repair it, after all.

Another example: They regularly do a ton of stories on Bernanke and the Fed. If a person is actually serious about following the Fed's policy, though, CNN is the last place they'd look. You can't do any serious analysis with a news article and if you're not actually doing analysis, the article is irrelevant and boring to readers.

Digg has a fairly logical methodology of making all the news they post the most relevant to people. While editorial boards that are even more educated than the average digg user may sometimes find critical stories that Digg won't publish, that's rare, because the average CNN viewer is at least just as dumb as the average Digg user. So, they run stories on how black the hurricane katrina survivors are, and so on.

You underestimate how confusing new media is to a lot of people. I guarantee you that I know several people right now who wouldn't even know what a blog is. So, if you read a blog -- no, even the fact that you're post in Randi's forum right now -- no, if you can name a handful of logical fallacies offhand -- that makes you part of America's intellectual elite.

[ZenFountain]

Digg is great for finding interesting articles from around the net that you might otherwise not find. However, touching on the Ron Paul phenomenon again, there are obvious flaws and abuses with the presentation. For the past four to five months, day in and day out, networks of Paul supporters on forums and though Digg friends have been purposefully abusing the shout system to digg up every article, tidbit and video featuring Paul. If you look at who's digging the articles when they are up and coming it's the same people in the same network doing it every time, as though it's their job to digg up Paul related submissions.

Given the gadfly and bandwagon nature of the Paul net promotion efforts, almost without exception Paul related submissions are dugg up to popular and appear on the main page. You could say, well that's what is supposed to happen in a popular vote system, but is it really popular when it's the same people "seeding" (for lack of a better definition) the articles? Not only does it artificially inflate support of Paul, but it has also become an extreme annoyance to many members of Digg. When you read the comments for Paul submissions you get the same copy+paste, throw away leaflet in many of them with systematic burying of anyone who leaves legitimate criticism.

Paul has been embraced as a de facto libertarian candidate and I know there are many intelligent libertarians that subscribed to the philosophy long before the Paul campaign. Those people seem to have been brushed aside by an army of zombies spamming the same videos and tired, uninformed arguments devoid of any substance. I read Reason articles and their net blog regularly (I actually do like Nick), even they seem to have cooled down on the Paul campaign. It's difficult for me to put all my thoughts on this matter in perspective, but suffice to say libertarians are being sold a bit short by the bizarre assortment of people on the Paul bandwagon. I honestly don't think most of them have a clue what they are talking about other than what they saw in youtube videos and hastily prepared leaflets that don't adequately expound the libertarian philosophy...which is never a good thing when you're gearing up for full scale revolution.

/end Digg rant :o