Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

2006 Election Maps Mashups

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the red-and-the-blue dept.

105

John Fitzpatrick writes, "Search Engine Watch has an article on the launch this week of map-based search tools to follow the 2006 Congressional elections, from both Google Earth and the map-based real estate site HotPads.com. The Google Earth Blog notes the release of two election-oriented layers outlining the borders of the congressional districts and linking to Google News articles related to the different races. And HotPads is offering the 2006 Election Edition. From their blog: 'The 435 congressional districts are outlined on HotPads Maps, with red and blue designating the party affiliation of the districts' current Representatives. By clicking on the districts' "I" buttons..., users can view quick facts about the districts including the current Representatives and the candidates in November's contests. By clicking on the quick facts bubble, users can get more detailed information [from] Wikipedia articles with detailed information about the candidates and the close races.'"

cancel ×

105 comments

YOU AND YOUR PARTY WILL LOSE SLASHFAGS (0, Offtopic)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 7 years ago | (#16564658)

So fuck off.

Re:YOU AND YOUR PARTY WILL LOSE SLASHFAGS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16564726)

kinda hypocritical you spend all day reloading slashdot for first post, can't get more fag than that..

Re:YOU AND YOUR PARTY WILL LOSE SLASHFAGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16564814)

Aww, does somebody need a hug?

NO BUT SOMEONE NEEDS A KICK IN THE BALLS (1)

CmdrTaco (troll) (578383) | more than 7 years ago | (#16564862)

Namely you.

Re:YOU AND YOUR PARTY WILL LOSE SLASHFAGS (1)

adamofdoom (1005365) | more than 7 years ago | (#16564852)

What party is that exactly?

Re:YOU AND YOUR PARTY WILL LOSE SLASHFAGS (0)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565414)

Judging from the dubious security of the Diebold voting machines as reported on /. numerous times, I'm going to guess that it'll be the same party as President Elect Mickey Mouse, who apparantly won in a landslide write-in campaign.

Re:YOU AND YOUR PARTY WILL LOSE SLASHFAGS (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565592)

Please do not feed the trolls.

Re:YOU AND YOUR PARTY WILL LOSE SLASHFAGS (1)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565980)

Re:YOU AND YOUR PARTY WILL LOSE SLASHFAGS
What party is that exactly?

Judging by current polls, I think be believes all you Slashfags are Republican!

Re:YOU AND YOUR PARTY WILL LOSE SLASHFAGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16570794)

The losing one. Duh.

This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16564768)

This has been done before.

On that note, I'm going to go "invent" fire.

Re:This is news? (1)

slowhand (191637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16576292)

I want royalties for using my concept. I call it "Invention". Its a "meta" sort of thing.

OR... (4, Informative)

Zwack (27039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16564810)

Or there is still Electoral-Vote.com [electoral-vote.com] from Mr Tanenbaum himself. Z.

Re:OR... (1)

klenwell (960296) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565188)

I loved Electoral-Vote.com during the 2004 election. But it doesn't cover the Congressional races (last I checked). I have to give credit to Old Media here -- I really like the New York Times' election map. It is Flash-based, but impressive and insightful:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2006ELECTION GUIDE.html [nytimes.com]

Re:OR... (1)

DreamerFi (78710) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565452)

Check again [electoral-vote.com] . The house races are there, and the current projection is 229 Democrats, 205 Republicans, 1 Tie.

Re:OR... (3, Insightful)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567006)

Neither site notes the Libertarian candidate for Tom Delay's district, TX-22
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/hothous e.html#TX [electoral-vote.com]
They note one of the (several) Republican write-ins, but ignore someone who is actually on the ballot.
Part of the whole red-blue trend that ignores other possibilities.

You can drill down and see if ... (1)

God-fearer (610855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565566)

your vote was counted.

wrong predictions last time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16566074)

Last time he had wrong predictions if i recall correctly. Hope he figured out the reasons for this misprediction and adjusted.

Anyone know?

Re:wrong predictions last time (1)

Zwack (27039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566422)

I'm not sure that he could adjust his "misprediction". What he is doing is taking multiple independent polls for each race (House and Senate) and using them as a predictor. Last time, there were many polls, including exit polls, that showed a different result than the final result. This raises the question of election fraud, but with so many electronic machines being used (and the lack of a guaranteed recount on them) it is hard to say. For more information look at this link...

http://usliberals.about.com/od/electionreform/a/vo tingrights1_4.htm [about.com]

In particular the comments about how 800 registered voters in one ward produced 4,518 votes.

Z.

Re:OR... (1)

Viper Daimao (911947) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567130)

I like to visit My Election Analysis [myelectionanalysis.com] for good frequently updated predictions. It's a bit of a cross between a blog and Electoral-Vote.com

Election Projection (1)

Athenais (922233) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567382)

There's also Election Projection [electionprojection.com] , who track house, senate, and governator races. It's kind of interesting the few differences between these sites--EP is projecting two independent senate wins (if you can consider Lieberman an independent), whereas E-V appears to only count Republicans and Democrats.

Re:Election Projection (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16577766)

EP is projecting two independent senate wins (if you can consider Lieberman an independent), whereas E-V appears to only count Republicans and Democrats.
That's because Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders have said repeatedly that they will caucus with the Democrats when it comes to organizing the Senate.

So John Fitzpatric, how much is a slashvertisement (4, Informative)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 7 years ago | (#16564832)

Mr. Founder of hotpads.com.

http://www.inman.com/InmanINF/mris/story.aspx?ID=5 0080 [inman.com]

Re:So John Fitzpatric, how much is a slashvertisem (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#16564954)

In the interests of equal time, since Mr Fitzpatric gets free advertising, I quote from the article parent mentioned: The founders say they view their main competitors as major pay-to-list sites such as Apartments.com and ForRent.com, along with other classified listing sites such as Craigslist.org.

Re:So John Fitzpatric, how much is a slashvertisem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16564970)

I just submitted a story, too.

The headline? "John Fitzpatrick, the human lump of dogshit."

Doubt it will get posted, though.

Re:So John Fitzpatric, how much is a slashvertisem (2, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565008)

Does it matter? Is this info still of interest to you or maybe other slashdotters? Sometimes you have to promote your own products... and sometimes it's a win-win for everyone.

As for me, I never pay attention to who submitted an article, and usually not to the summary either -- it's immaterial. Either the article stands on its own merits, or it doesn't.

Re:So John Fitzpatric, how much is a slashvertisem (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565114)

Does it matter?

No, it doesn't. A disclaimer would be nice though. As would phrasing it "from our/my blog".

Slashdot, with all their journalistic integrity, slaps disclaimers on stories from OSDN.

Re:So John Fitzpatric, how much is a slashvertisem (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566180)

Whose site just got /.'d....

Another needless layer... (1)

peppermento (218212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16564850)

Now if they would only build a layer showing the various reality TV show locations and stars' houses.... 'cause that is about all the general population cares about anyways.

Re:Another needless layer... (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566640)

Now if they would only build a layer showing the various reality TV show locations and stars' houses.... 'cause that is about all the general population cares about anyways.

I'd prefer for the people who don't care how the election comes out to NOT vote. That makes the votes of the people who DO care and ARE paying attention more effective.

This is actually important for proper functioning of the elections: Their REAL purpose is to predict the outcome of a hypothetical civil war on each issue, accurately enough to convince the loser not to "appeal the outcome" by force of arms. So people who don't care enough to fight about an issue or candidate SHOULDN'T vote in that race.

well (1)

kevin.fowler (915964) | more than 7 years ago | (#16564866)

hopefully this motivates some of the lazier ones among us to actually crawl out of their holes and vote, instead of just complaining.

Re:well (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565276)

I wish I had mod points so I could give you either a +1 Hilarious or +1 Naive.


This won't do anything since the people who are normally too lazy to get off their fat asses and vote won't be visiting such sites anyway.

Besides, to quote Bill Vaughan:

A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.

Judging by the way things are, that's not too far from the truth.

backwards (4, Insightful)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565852)

God forbid. The last thing I want is some lazy doofus voting and cancelling out the effect of my carefully-researched, painstakingly thought-out vote.

I say make it much harder to vote. Make people crawl a hundred yards over broken glass on Sunday night at 4 AM in a driving rainstorm to vote. Then only those of us really fucking serious about the whole business will be making the decisions.

Re:backwards (1)

Maclir (33773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566072)

I suspect that's why the country is in such a shambles now. Only the dedicated - the extremists - vote, and the bulk of the country, the middle of the road people politically (well, middile of the US road, which is still to the right of roads in the rest of the world) don't have their moderating effect.

Re:backwards (2, Interesting)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566488)

Then you suspect wrong. First of all, turnout in the last national election was 57% of the voting-age population. 57% of the population can't be classified as "extremists" without perverting the definition of "extreme."

Secondly, the most recent national-level election history has been one of sharp and sudden swings, e.g. from Carter to Reagan/Bush to Clinton and on to Dubya, not to mention the '94 Republican tidal wave, and possibly the Democratic resurgence this year. That makes no sense at all if only dedicated partisans -- who hardly ever change their vote -- are voting. On the other hand, it does make sense if large masses of votes come from a bunch of flaky uninformed wishy-washy oh-I-dunno fools whose votes can be easily swayed by a clever political ad or blip in the economy or a sex scandal or some other random noise. It's like there's a wire loose in the national decision-making apparatus (or inside their pointy little heads), so any random thwack on the case makes the output voltage flop around crazily.

Thirdly, the history of the Republic has been one of steadily expanding franchise. That is, as you reel back the decades and centuries, fewer and fewer people have been allowed to vote. If the country is in shambles now and it wasn't then, and this has anything at all to do with who votes, then it must be that widening the franchise -- making it easier for more people to vote -- is what has led to trouble.

Re:backwards (1)

Mark Maughan (763986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16573524)


Thirdly, the history of the Republic has been one of steadily expanding franchise. That is, as you reel back the decades and centuries, fewer and fewer people have been allowed to vote. If the country is in shambles now and it wasn't then, and this has anything at all to do with who votes, then it must be that widening the franchise -- making it easier for more people to vote -- is what has led to trouble.

Or it could be caused by global warming, or the decline of pirates.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Re:backwards (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566932)

I say make it much harder to vote. Make people crawl a hundred yards over broken glass on Sunday night at 4 AM in a driving rainstorm to vote. Then only those of us really fucking serious about the whole business will be making the decisions.


Yes, I've often thought we really should limit voters to the crazy, single-minded subset of the population.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:backwards (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567496)

So you're implying better decisions are made by those who aren't concerned enough about the outcome to be (in my words) "serious" or (in your words) "crazy [and] single-minded"?

Hmm. So if I decide how your income is spent, and vice versa, we'll both be better off? Interesting logic.

Re:backwards (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567818)

So you're implying better decisions are made by those who aren't concerned enough about the outcome to be (in my words) "serious" or (in your words) "crazy [and] single-minded"? Hmm. So if I decide how your income is spent, and vice versa, we'll both be better off? Interesting logic


No, those who aren't concerned won't show up to vote. Crawling over a hundred yards of broken glass would bring out the crazy.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:backwards (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568096)

Ah. Let me introduce a new word into the discussion, then: hyperbole [reference.com] .

The bit about crawling over broken glass was mere rhetorical flourish. The serious statement is the bit before that, where I said I think it's absurd to try to get to the polls those who aren't concerned enough to vote when it's as easy as it is. The Republic is better off if such lazy and unconcerned folks don't vote. Do you disagree?

Re:backwards (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16578730)

Why stop there?

Why not make the leader whoever is willing to set up a coalition of business persons who will stop at nothing to attain power?

By quitting any other work but politics, they could devote themselves 100% to politics.

But because there may be other's trying to win power -- these people will have to push even harder. So they would be working on their attaining power, and not any sort of administration work -- that's for down-time.

And because they have 100% commitment, and are going to have to out-compete other 100% committed to attaining power individuals, they'll have to get financial sponsors -- forget about unreliable individual donations -- that's too much work. The candidate who consentrates on just a few deep pockets will often win over the populist. Just spend the money on good press.

So that means the politico will have to sell legislation for financial support.

So, by making it tougher to vote -- you will basically create the system we have now; Corporate Sponsored. Because average citizens don't have the time to get involved and so elites who show commitment shut them out.

>> I think a better system would be one of education and easier access. IF people don't understand why voting is important, then in a good Democracy, we should be teaching that. If you think that one person should get MORE votes because they think harder about it, then perhaps you really don't believe in Democracy.

>> I'd say the real reason that so many people don't vote, is that they ARE discouraged. They don't think it matters, they don't know who to trust, and they are too busy.

I agree that some might be just plain lazy... but again, that's education.

I think we could set up an online voting system. It's really the verification process that is crucial -- you allow the voter themselves to verify their own vote and the system just might work. All votes would ultimately be tied to a unique ID -- and the voter gets the UNIQUE ID to check online. Anonymous and 1 to 1 correlation.

Re:backwards (1)

kevin.fowler (915964) | more than 7 years ago | (#16578838)

I'd settle for a short answer question about at least one of the candidate's platforms.

Interesting (0)

SuperStretch (1005515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565106)

Interesting combination of technologies... I much prefer this interface look than the google maps look.

Hmm.. Are you listening Google?

Re:Interesting (0, Offtopic)

SuperStretch (1005515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565446)

You modded this for overratedness?? Are you kidding me? I'm sick and tired of you retard mods sometimes.

Re:Interesting (1)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565774)

Hey! I'm a retarded mod, you insensitive clod!

Re:Interesting (0, Offtopic)

SuperStretch (1005515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566492)

Yeah.. that was a little insensitive... I meant most mods. The fact that you at least spoke to me and didn't mod me down proves you aren't among them. (You couldn't mod me down on this post anyway)

Re:Interesting (1)

szembek (948327) | more than 7 years ago | (#16575774)

Have you meta-moderated lately?

Wikipedia (3, Insightful)

gambit3 (463693) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565122)

Whoa..

You had me until the "facts from Wikipedia" part.

Anyone remember the last Wikipedia Presidential election fiasco where both candidate's pages had to be frozen because of vandalism? How then would anyone be able to trust the "facts" about the candidates they would read from Wikipedia?

--
Go Where Web Thinkers Gather [webcogito.com]

Re:Wikipedia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16565444)

I just got done with something that reminds me of wikipedia. I went into the stall expecting to drop a jimmy rocket like normal, but it was just a 2-3 inch piece followed by an explosive bout of diareaha. It was like uncorking a champagne bottle. You guys like to talk about BitTorrent -- well this was a shit torrent. And then the smell hit me like an axe in the face. I had turned the entire bathroom into a dutch oven. A man called out "how about a courtesy flush?" Well it was too late for that. Little difference it would have made to the nauseous sulpher and shit smell wafting throughout the restroom. Wiping was a whole new experience. It would have been quicker just to take a shower. And then I gaze down on the toilet and see what ruin I have wreaked. A stream of shit from the blowback apparently launched up and over the back of the bowl like a rooster tail and made it's way onto the back wall. A pool of brown chunky soup was developing on the floor. Some janitor's afternoon just got a little worse. So I high tail it out of there, forgetting to flush, and make for the door. Just as I reach the door, my boss comes walking in and the stench hits him like a brick in the face. The look was priceless. Only later do I overhear him tell the secretary to call security and report vandalism to the restroom. LOL.

Re:Wikipedia (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16565746)

--
Go Where Web Thinkers Gather
Is that supposed to be a signature, or irrelevant spam? If the former, why do I see it when I browse with signatures disabled? If the latter, please say so so that I can avoid anything else you may have to write.

Looks like ... (1)

coastin (780654) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565300)

hotpads.com has been /.ed

Speaking of Congress... (0, Offtopic)

Zaphod2016 (971897) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565410)

I urge all residents of Florida's 15th District to consider Dr. Bob Bowman [bowman2006.org] for Congress this November.

This is the first time I've cared about a political candidate since Ross Perot, and I think Dr. Bob has a fighting chance. I'm in it for love, not money, so do to my karma what you will.

And whatever your politics, and wherever you live, please give careful consideration to this election. I feel it may end up being one of the most important in our lifetimes.

Re:Speaking of Congress... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16565634)

Vote Bob Smither. [smither4congress.com] A Libertarian with a chance. If not for libertarianism, then at least to try to break up the complete dominance of the two corrupt parties.

Re:Speaking of Congress... (1)

boingo82 (932244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566222)

And if you're in Utah's 2nd, please vote for Bob Brister [bristerforcongress.org] . He has many of the same views as your Bob Bowman. He supports familial unions for all people, ending the drug war, instant-runoff voting, getting out of Iraq, etc.

Re:Speaking of Congress... (1)

Aqua_boy17 (962670) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566382)

Well, you got modded off-topic (and I probably will as well) but as a fellow Floridian I wish you and your candidate Godspeed. It looks like from our paper today that Davis is gaining somewhat in the Gov's race. It will be interesting to what happens after the debates tonight (statewide on all PBS channels if you haven't heard). BTW - I am a third generation, lifelong Republican and there is one single local Republican candidate that I am supporting this year. Other than him, I'm voting Blue across the board. I am so sick to death of this government being hi-jacked by the whatever-cons. I'm not saying the Dems are much better, but I hope that I'm among a ton of disenfranchised voters that are sick of this crap want our country back. I sincerely hope the message is loud and clear this year.

For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attention (5, Interesting)

remove office (871398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565458)

Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point. Once Dems take back the House, they will have subpeona power and will begin investigating the Administration's leadup to war, etc. In the first 100 hours of Dem control in the House, future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she plans to hike the federal minimum wage for the first time in almost 10 years, establish (real) restrictions on lobbying, enact the 9/11 comission reccomendations that the Administration refuses to enact 5 years later, increase federal funding for stem cell research with a veto-proof majority, and lower the amount of money that seniors have to pay for prescription drugs. Obviously all this stuff has to get through the Senate and be signed by the Presidednt into law however.

In the 100-seate Senate, things are likely to tighten up considerably (Republicans currently hold a majority of 55 so Democrats need to pick up 6 seats to take it back). The only really competative races to watch in the Senate are:
Montana (whre Democratic challenger Jon Tester leads Republican incumbent Conrad burns- whose Jack Abramoff ties are weighing him down),
Tennessee (where Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is retiring, leaving an open seat for Dem Harold Ford Jr and Republican Bob Corker to fight over- this race is mostly tied),
Missouri (where Republican incumbent Jim Talent is virtually tied with Dem challenger Claire McCaskill, who has made this race about increasing the minimum wage and stem cell research- two issues that heavily favor Dems),
Rhode Island (where moderate Republican incumbent Lincoln Chafee is struggling to win re-election over strong Dem challenger Sheldon Whitehouse, who leads him in the polls in this solid "blue" state),
Pennsylvania (where Republican incumbent Rick Santorum is seen universally as the most endangered incumbent in the country, trailing behind Democratic challenger Bob Casey for months now),
Virginia (where Republican incumbent George Allen leads Democratic challenger Jim Webb, but only after Allen's dropped considerably due to racism allegations surrounding the caught-on-video use of the slur 'macaca'),
and Ohio (where Republicans statewide are in trouble due to a series of statewide scandals involving the GOP).

Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not (most analysts agree on this). The only possibility for a Republican pickup is really New Jersey (Dem incumbent Bob Menendez vs Republican challenger Tom Kean Jr- corruption is an issue on both sides of this race), where polls indicate that Menendez is leading slightly.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

Shut the fuck up! (572058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565762)

Shut the fuck up, hippy.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (2, Insightful)

remove office (871398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566130)

Shut the fuck up, hippy.

Nothing I said was partisan to the least extend. I merely said what Democrats were planning to do once they took back the House. The "First 100 hour" plan has been reported in the press, and there are no serious analysts (either partisan or non-partisan) who believe that Republicans will hold on to control of the House of Representatives this year. If you don't think they will, then you either haven't been paying attention or are in denial. I only gave the bare facts on the Senate stuff as well.

Nothing I said about the facts of any of the races were the least bit controversial, if you've been paying attention.

Nowhere in my summary did I say "Gee whiz, I hope Democrats take back Congress this year" or anything like that.

That said, gee whiz, I am happy that Democrats are finally wrestling control of the House of Representatives from Republicans this year.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

doom (14564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567988)

Nothing I said was partisan to the least extend. I merely said what Democrats were planning to do
It was in your tone. He could tell you were thinking Bad Thoughts.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565782)

Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point.

I wonder why we need to have the election, then?

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

doom (14564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567934)

Quadraginta wrote:
Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point.
I wonder why we need to have the election, then?
Well the theory used to be that elections were more accurate than polls. Now I guess it's just a tradition.

If you want to keep an eye on the latest poll results, I recommend Andrew Tanembaum's site: Electoral Vote [electoral-vote.com]

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565826)

So.. if it turns out differently, will you say that the analysts are wrong or the votes?

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (0)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567036)

> So.. if it turns out differently, will you say that the analysts are wrong or the votes?

Depends on whether the votes are blatantly altered on a large scale like they were in the last 2 federal elections.

Please don't respond until you read [blackboxvoting.org] .

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

monkeydo (173558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568174)

The large sucking sound you hear is the irony of your post flying right over your head.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

doom (14564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568346)

monkeydo (173558) wrote:
The large sucking sound you hear is the irony of your post flying right over your head.
Ooh! He said irony! He wins!

But you lose points for lifting a phrase from an old Ross Perot campaign. You might give people the impression you're a political flack or something.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

doom (14564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567670)

zippthorne wrote:
So.. if it turns out differently, will you say that the analysts are wrong or the votes?
You mean you guys are planning on rigging the election again? Getting started early, preparing the ground, I see.

As a foreigner who wants the Dems back, just 1 Q: (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566076)

Will Democrats turn out on voting day this time? Or will they be slackers like they have been for the last 6 years??? I have read several articles saying that the real secret weapon of the republicans and Rove is their 'get out the vote' in the final 72hours.

Will the Democrats be able to combat this, this time around? Or will they continue their sorry losing streak?

Re:As a foreigner who wants the Dems back, just 1 (1)

doom (14564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567584)

arcite wrote:

Will Democrats turn out on voting day this time? Or will they be slackers like they have been for the last 6 years??? I have read several articles saying that the real secret weapon of the republicans and Rove is their 'get out the vote' in the final 72hours.

Will the Democrats be able to combat this, this time around? Or will they continue their sorry losing streak?

You hear all sorts of things, but what I hear is that the Democrats may not have actually been losing anything but the offical tallies.

As an American who lives in an "important" state (1)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | more than 7 years ago | (#16579562)

Why do you think that the Democrats will be an improvement over the Republicans? What do you like about their platform? They are just as anti-civil liberties, pro-war, pro-lobbyist, and out of touch with their constituents as the Republicans are. John Kerry himself was one of the authors of the PATRIOT Act, for Christ's sake. And then the Dems have the nerve to stand up and cheer when, during the State of the Union address, President Bush commented about how parts of the PATRIOT Act were set to expire in '06. Nearly every single one of those slimy bastards voted for it.

I can't stand the Republicans, but I can't stand the Democrats anymore either. I'm sick of being lied to. Why should I bother voting, when we're just going to get more of the same anyway? I know that there are some close races to be decided, but they are close because there is no difference between the two bastards who are running.

And more importantly, why should I support a Democrat, when the Democrats have already demonstrated that they are just wannabe Republicans, anyway.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566706)


Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. ...
Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not (most analysts agree on this)

Have no fear, Diebold is here!

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

Grant,thompson (985589) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567588)

You should go into politics yourself. You seem to be able to skew the facts and turn competitive race(s) where no one really knows how people are going to vote, into "There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point." So, in one sentence you are saying you know all and anyone who disagrees with you is not serious.

Some notes:

You said: "with a veto-proof majority"
- Last time I checked, a veto-proof majority was not the same as a simple majority. The Democrats will not have a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, which is required to overturn a veto.

You said: "Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not ..." "The only possibility for a Republican pickup is really New Jersey"
- You used words like won't, not, and only in your statement. Sounds like you know what you are talking about.

You could probably get a job at the Literary Digest [answers.com] . Or better yet, get on as a PR person for the Dewey [wikipedia.org] campain.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

remove office (871398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16569462)

You should go into politics yourself. You seem to be able to skew the facts and turn competitive race(s) where no one really knows how people are going to vote, into "There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point." So, in one sentence you are saying you know all and anyone who disagrees with you is not serious.

No. These are just facts. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that this is what is predicted by all the serious non-partisan analysts (National Journal, Congressional Quarterly, Cook Report, etc).

You said: "with a veto-proof majority" - Last time I checked, a veto-proof majority was not the same as a simple majority. The Democrats will not have a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, which is required to overturn a veto.

You forget that there are many Republicans who are in favor of increasing federally funded stem cell research (the matter referenced). In both the House and the Senate a bill to allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research passed (the President went on to cast his first veto ever on it). With more Democrats in the House and Senate, that margin may in fact be veto-proof. You seem to think that only Democrats favor federally-funded ECS resarch- when such bills have passed both the House and Senate with comfortable (though not yet veto-proof) margins.

You said: "Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not ..." "The only possibility for a Republican pickup is really New Jersey" - You used words like won't, not, and only in your statement. Sounds like you know what you are talking about.

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Seriously, there is nobody outside of Barron's Magazine who doesn't agree on what I've said. Joe Scarborough, former Republican US House Representative-turned host of MSNBC's Scarborough country (hardly a liberal by any standards) thinks that Dems will take both the House and the Senate. There is nothing political about talking about the general consensus among serious analysts about the upcoming election. Unless of course you don't know what you're talking about, in which case you think the facts I mention are somehow partisan. Seriously: go to the National Journal, go to CQ politics, read Charlie Cook's columns, go anywhere you want. Everything I've said is echoed everywhere.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1, Troll)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567808)

I am a conservative (always vote Republican) and let me say that I hope you are right. This is going to sound like a troll but it really isn't. I'm serious because, as a conservative, I want to see the Democrats hurt themselves. I think that would be the perfect set up for the Republicans in 2008. Let the Dems have control of the House by a small margin. With a small margin, they won't be able to do any serious damage to the country (again - I am conservative and that's my bias). They will investigate every crazy accusation that has been made in the last 6 years. There will be one of two outcomes: (1) They will find real evidence that the US was complicit in 9/11 -or- that Bush lied about WMD's -or- [fill in blank] or (2) They will find nothing because it was all just conspiracy theory/political cheap-shot [buttafly.com] to begin with. Keep in mind that I am a conservative and wouldn't be one if I believed (1) was a likely outcome. So, expecting outcome (2) would be priceless.

They will investigate the Bush administration and probably destroy the political future of anyone in his admin which is somewhat moot as I don't think anyone within his admin is running in 2008 (with the possible exception of Rice). Dems being Dems will find out that the "anti-Bush" rhetoric won't get them very far when Bush isn't on the ticket in 2008

The Dems' current strategy seems to be "we aren't Republicans" but if they win the House, they will be forced to advance legislation and those votes will become part of the 2008 political debate. There will be votes on raising the minimum wage, there will be votes on health care, there will be votes on social security. They will effectively have to put their money where their mouth is. And again, as a conservative - I can't wait for them to do so because as someone else in this thread pointed out - they are their own worst enemy.

Bottom line, I would rather have the GOP lose now in 2006 where it will only affect the House of Reps, than for the GOP to maintain control all the way through the next election, when the Executive, House and even more Senate seats are up for grabs. I don't want the Dems to be able to continue to make political leverage without having to make hard legistlative decisions and continue to make accusations without having to back them up. I think this country needs a good dose of memory of what Democrats do when in power.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (3, Insightful)

doom (14564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568162)

No one takes the truthies seriously.


And anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to become fire-breathing lefties overnight is compeltely insane. They're a bunch of pet rocks -- it's just that at this point pet rocks would be preferably to people stomping on the gas, driving the country toward a cliff.

Can I ask you, in all seriousness why you're still happy with the Republicans? I mean, I can understand why you would feel that an attack on this country merits a strong military response -- but that's not what we're involved in at the moment is it? We're stomping around in a quagmire for obscure reasons that have nothing to do with the 9/11 attack or Al Qaeda, correct?

Or to take another point, I can understand why a conservative would worry about fiscal responsibility... but we don't have fiscal responsibility, do we? How about that deficit, eh?

By the way, I've been meaning to ask some Repubican or other... do you think you guys could return some of the money Enron stole for you? Seriously, how do you feel about your party recieving stolen goods?

(And what kind of "conservative" has such contempt for the Magna Carta, not to mention the Constitution? Aren't they time-tested enough? How can you just shrug off what's being done to central fabric of our country?)

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16570980)

Can I ask you, in all seriousness why you're still happy with the Republicans?

Simple. Keebler has made some very nice sales from the republicans. So yeah, I would back them as well (do not bit the hand that feeds you and all that). IOW, do not blame him.

What I do find funny is that it was the Dems of the 50-60's that were pro-business. In fact, one of the worst regulators was Nixon. Now, the party that speaks of balanced budgets, strength for America, blah, blah has made America incapable of stopping a lowly nation from doing a nuke test and another one is about to before the end of this admin. And the deficits that we got rid of in the 90's (from the 80's RRR), are back and will screw the future. Finally, the admin that spoke out against Clinton for not getting Bin Ladin (for less than 500 lives), has literally cost this nation nearly 10K lives in 6 years and probably 650K others.

At this point, I will vote for just about any candidate that pushes a balanced budget admendment AND adopts Joel Hefley's recommendations on how to remove congressional corruption. I figure anybody who has the brains to do the above, will have the intelligence to get OBL.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (2, Interesting)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16571760)

Can I ask you, in all seriousness why you're still happy with the Republicans? I mean, I can understand why you would feel that an attack on this country merits a strong military response -- but that's not what we're involved in at the moment is it? We're stomping around in a quagmire for obscure reasons that have nothing to do with the 9/11 attack or Al Qaeda, correct?

It's a quagmire to be sure, but I, and many conservatives believe that it was still the right call. I believe that it was the right call, given the information that we had at the time. Of course much of what we *thought* turned out to be incorrect. Liberals somehow assume that this means we were "lied" to. I do place blame on the administration for being lazy and running with the one rationale that seemed to resonate with the press (WMDs) when we in effect already in a state of war with Iraq (at the least they were violating the terms of the truce on a daily basis). Does it have anything to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda? Of course, not. However, before 9/11 the US used to just ignore thugs like Saddam who opently threatened and provoked the US. The amount of grief that the US would put up with changed that day. Do I think there have been mistakes our post-war Iraq policy? Absolutely. Do I think it would be worse for all involved if we simply pull out our troops on some arbitrary date or worse yet signal weakness by legislating an end date? Absolutely.

Or to take another point, I can understand why a conservative would worry about fiscal responsibility... but we don't have fiscal responsibility, do we? How about that deficit, eh?

I love this point. Liberals love to throw this one around - somehow trying to show that they are more fiscally responsible than Republicans when in fact they hemorrage federal money. Name me a social program that the Democrats would not like to spend more money on. They don't like the GOP Social Security plan because it doesn't spend enough money. They don't like the GOP prescription plan because it does spend enough money. They don't like No Child Left Behind because it isn't backed up with federal funds. They don't approve of homeland defense legislation because it doesn't spend enough federal funds on infrastructure. Am I proud that we are running a deficit right now? No - of course not... but I am pretty impressed that the deficit has been cut in half [boston.com] over the last 5 years. Unemployment is lower than during the Clinton presidency. Inflation is low. The economy is doing pretty damn well. The irony of course is that the left yells for the Republicans compromise with them on these spending bills. This universally means spending more (not less) than the Republicans originally propose. If the Republicans were not compromising with the Dems the deficit would be even less (of course the Democrats would be making even more noise about the lack of "bi-partisanship").

By the way, I've been meaning to ask some Repubican or other... do you think you guys could return some of the money Enron stole for you? Seriously, how do you feel about your party recieving stolen goods?

Troll.

(And what kind of "conservative" has such contempt for the Magna Carta, not to mention the Constitution? Aren't they time-tested enough? How can you just shrug off what's being done to central fabric of our country?)

Easy, I don't believe that I or anyone else has lost any constitutional rights. I don't for instance believe that I have a right to make international phone calls with international terrorists overseas without being surveilled. Now, I do think the administration has certainly been pushing the envelope of presidential powers - however the SCOTUS and Congress have pushed back - that is reassuring to me. Government is working.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

pnutjam (523990) | more than 7 years ago | (#16577830)

You make some good points, the Dems suck, unfortunatly so do the Reps.

Who is a rational conservative to vote for?

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (2, Interesting)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568614)

It's funny, I was thrilled when Bush won in 2004. Because it was clear to anyone paying attention that Iraq was so ineptly planned that nobody would be able to turn around by that point. Bush had to stay in power so they couldn't blame someone else for fumbling their ball. And no matter who is in control of Congress, Bush is still the Commander in Chief right through the 2008 election.

The albatross of Iraq is going to be dangling around the Republican Party's neck for as long as amputees and bodybags are coming home, and no matter how hard they try they'll never be able to rewrite history to make the failure anyone's fault but their own. The only way the Republican party will keep control of the Executive branch in 2008 (barring divine intervention in Iraq, which Bush should have gotten by now considering his close relationship with Jesus!) is by candidates running in the exact opposite direction of every policy from the past 5 years (I suspect we'll be hearing the phrase "flip-flop" quite a bit as Republican Presidential candidates try to explain their foreign policy positions).

Neoconservatism, as stupid as it was, at least had the virtue of being such a colossally bad theory on the use of power that it failed spectacularly in only the first few years of implementation. Not very good for the tens of thousands who had to die just to prove what a bad idea it was, but it took Communism decades longer and millions more to be so equally, thoroughly, discredited.

I look forward to the day when real conservatives come back into power in the GOP and these chickenhawk neoconservative cowards are put back at the children's table where they belong.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

Mark Maughan (763986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16573720)

I look forward to the day when real conservatives come back into power in the GOP and these chickenhawk neoconservative cowards are put back at the children's table where they belong.

Hear, hear! All of these corrupt Republicans need to be voted out of office to pave the way for a real party of small government and individual liberty. Conservatives will never be represented as long as people keep voting for these scum bags that preach small government while spending billions of dollars a week "creating democracy". If we are going to throw money in a hole, at least we could waste it on our own people like a liberal would. And they don't even pretend to be a party of personal liberty unless your choice of liberty has a big lobby and doesn't conflict with the bible beaters.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

kbielefe (606566) | more than 7 years ago | (#16570014)

I agree with you in principle, but in practice, I'm not so sure. Politicians have a habit of taking credit where it is not due, and most people are too ignorant to know the difference.

If you follow the progress in Iraq, which most people don't, you know that Iraqi police and armed forces are on target to be mostly self-sufficient by our 2008 election. Democrats would be able to point to their taking over the House as the turning point, and it won't matter much that their policies had nothing to do with the successes.

Of course, in order to take credit for the success, they will have to show a modicum of support for the war. They don't listen to their own arguments about the mistakes made. They say Bush didn't send enough troops and that he doesn't pay enough attention to social concerns in Iraq. Most of them also say it would be devastating to pull out cold turkey.

The logical response to that argument is to send more troops and commit more resources to reconstruction so we can get out of there faster, but democrats only take that kind of bold gamble on West Wing episodes. In real life, they're not optimistic enough to believe it might work.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

doom (14564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16571050)

kbielefe wrote:
If you follow the progress in Iraq, which most people don't, you know that Iraqi police and armed forces are on target to be mostly self-sufficient by our 2008 election.
And may I inquire what the source of information is for this astonishing statement? No, wait, let me guess...

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16571702)

They don't listen to their own arguments about the mistakes made. They say Bush didn't send enough troops and that he doesn't pay enough attention to social concerns in Iraq. ...
The logical response to that argument is to send more troops and commit more resources to reconstruction so we can get out of there faster, but democrats only take that kind of bold gamble on West Wing episodes. In real life, they're not optimistic enough to believe it might work.


Just because more troops would have helped in 2003 does not mean more troops would help now. Indeed, more troops would hurt now. Of course, less troops would hurt now, too. We've been painted into a corner and are simply flushing money and lives down a toilet due to the fact that we are asking the military to solve a non-military problem, and we are asking ideologues to solve pragmatic problems. What would have been good solutions in 2003 before particular problems got out of control are no longer viable. It's a shame we bet so many men and women's lives on the Rumsfeld Doctrine, which has been a complete failure, when we already had the proper Powell Doctrine available to us from the beginning. It's a shame that we formed a civil authority comprised entirely by unqualified neoconservative sycophants rather than professional diplomats and administrators. It's a shame we ignored all advice that didn't fit into a predetermined ideological mold. But that's what happened.

So the trillion-dollar question is, knowing that these guys are bad at planning and implementing things in a professional manner, why should we allow them to continue being in charge? If we know that these guys have their egos and reputations wrapped up in their past decisions in such a way that makes it impossible to take a new course, why should we continue letting them chart the course? Every solution that is offered up is considered "unacceptable" by the current White House team, which begs the question of why they believe the current situation is acceptable when the American public, the Iraqi public, and the rest of the world all consider it unacceptable?

Go ahead and ask Bush about splitting Iraq into three states, about engaging Iraq's neighbors to try and use their influence for something other than chaos, ask about rapprochement with our European and Asian allies who we've alienated so that we can get assistance. All of these options are "unacceptable", because there's a big dick contest going on and nobody in the current White House can afford to admit to having made a mistake in policy. Nobody is allowed to admit that we aren't omnipotent and that sometimes we don't just want help from allies, we genuinely need it. I'm sorry if your masculinity is threatened by the idea that a new president will get more international cooperation, but the fact is Bush has made too much of his foreign policy into a big dick contest. The only way to change that equation is to remove his personality, and his administration, from the equation. Then both our allies and our opponents can have the flexibility to change course and claim victory while actually doing exactly what we want. The plan doesn't even have to change to become more successful, but you do need to change the players when their influence is actively harming the plan.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

kbielefe (606566) | more than 7 years ago | (#16572314)

Part of your argument (3 state solution, etc.) is about things that are up to the Iraqi government and Iraqi people to decide. President Bush has said he will support any such solutions their democratic process agrees to, even if the solutions might seem radical to us, as long as the rights of individuals are upheld. Iraq is not part of some United States "empire," to be ordered about as we please. They are a sovereign ally who needs our help in establishing security and economic growth.

The rest of your argument seems to be directed at the executive branch, who are not up for election at the moment. May I ask what you specifically hope will be accomplished by changing members of the legislative?

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16577392)

Part of your argument (3 state solution, etc.) is about things that are up to the Iraqi government and Iraqi people to decide. President Bush has said he will support any such solutions their democratic process agrees to, even if the solutions might seem radical to us, as long as the rights of individuals are upheld. Iraq is not part of some United States "empire," to be ordered about as we please. They are a sovereign ally who needs our help in establishing security and economic growth.


That sounds great on a a bumper sticker, unfortunately it bears no relation to the administration's actual policy. The administration has repeatedly let it be known that the three-state solution is an unacceptable alternative. Even Fox News agrees on this matter, the three-state solution is seen by the administration as opening up too much influence to Iraq's neighbors. Bush frequently gives speeches extolling general principles that sound great, while letting Cheney and others go out and deliver the real policy which tends to be extremely not so great.

The rest of your argument seems to be directed at the executive branch, who are not up for election at the moment. May I ask what you specifically hope will be accomplished by changing members of the legislative?


I know it is shocking news, but one purpose of the Legistative branch is to perform oversight on the Executive (and vice-versa). Some of the excesses of the Executive in the past few years have been direct results of the unwise concentration of power in the hands of one ideological group. Any situation that reduces that concentration of power is beneficial to America. No specific action is necessary, indeed at the federal level in particular it was commonly taken as a conservative axiom that government inaction is preferable to unwise action. It is a shame the GOP fell in love with spending and power once they got a taste of it.

I was also responding more generally to your sentiment that Iraq is going to magically turn around in the next 2 years and that the Legislature will take "credit" for it. The policy is mostly in the hands of, and hindered by, the Executive, and nothing coming out of that branch indicates we should see a change in outcome because we're not changing our input.

Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying attent (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16570156)

No serious political observer, conservative or liberal, believes that the US was complicit in 9/11, so your bizarre attempt to assert that Democrats would be looking for this is at best problematic. However, nearly everyone believes that Bush did, indeed, lie about the intelligence on WMDs. Putting these two together is an attempt to tain the second idea with the lunacy of the first. This is what America is like under the far-right neo-Republicans: if we can't make a valid argument, at least we can make a divisive one.

I'm looking forward to the days when you and your kind have to crawl back under the rock where the Bush family found you, and we can have real Republicans again. I'm hoping it will be a Tuesday, a November, and a year that ends with a six.

How funny (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16570892)

It seems like all the republicans are running around voicing your same sentiment. Interestingly, it is the same sentiment that I heard from the dems when the republicans gained control of the house so many years ago.

Good Government (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 7 years ago | (#16571634)

For a moment, ignore the WMDs, Bush and Iraq. The current leaders of this nation have recklessly ignored the long-term viability of this country for immediate political gain. The deficit? Katrina? The dysfunction of congress [rollingstone.com] ? Others have given more examples. The people in office are bad people. They deserve to lose their offices. Although they have usurped the GOP, and although they call themselves conservatives, these bad people do not subscribe to any political philosophy except greed. True conservatives are as appaled by the government's misdeeds as we liberals are, and should vote accordingly. Conservatives and liberals alike believe in a government for the people, which this government demonstratably is not.

Wrong (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568668)

The republicans will keep control of the house and senate.

The exit polls will be wildly divergent from the actual tallies in all states with Republican govenors.

There will vote fraud on the part of Democrats as well, but it will be unorganized and innefectual.

The Republican-dominated house and senate will pass voter protection laws designed to make sure this happens again in 2008.

Diebold to the rescue! (1)

RelliK (4466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568680)

Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats

Well, we certainly can't let that happen!

Meh (1)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 7 years ago | (#16565562)

I want to see the maps that the politicans use when they are gerrymandering the districts.

time for a new tag... (1)

nonlnear (893672) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566056)

stopsayingmashup - tag saved.

It's like ebonics for Web 2.0 people.

Re:Re:For Slashdotters who haven't been paying att (1)

remove office (871398) | more than 7 years ago | (#16566842)

I wrote: Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. ... Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not (most analysts agree on this)

You wrote: Have no fear, Diebold is here!

Actually, Maryland has banned [slashdot.org] the use of Diebold voting machines in their state-wide elections. Diebold isn't there. In Washington state there is some talk of decertifying Diebold machines as well, but nothing will be done in time for this year's elections.

pollster.com (1)

mrshoe (697123) | more than 7 years ago | (#16567092)

Another informative site that combines election-related blogs [pollster.com] and maps of the various polls [pollster.com] is pollster.com [pollster.com] .

Enjoy

Disclaimer: I work for Polimetrix, Inc. [polimetrix.com] , which runs a poll called PollingPoint [pollingpoint.com] and sponsors pollster.com

Mashuups? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16567498)

Who came up with the emo fag web 2.0 word "mashup"?

What happened to all the Google Map hacks?

What I really want to see... (1)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16568442)

What I really want to see is a map of where campaign money comes from overlayed on a map of where taxdollars go...

If we're suspicious of the media (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16569296)

Shouldn't we be suspicious of Google for getting involved so directly in politics?

Some articles to think about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16569902)

Some articles to think about in the upcoming election:

Jon Kyl [phoenixnewtimes.com] Rick Renzi [wikipedia.org] J.D. Hayworth [azcentral.com] John Doolittle [wikipedia.org] Richard Pombo [wikipedia.org] Brian Bilbray [kfmb.com] Marilyn Musgrave [rollingstone.com] Doug Lamborn [gazette.com] Rick O'Donnell [rockymountainnews.com] Christopher Shays [connpost.com] Vernon Buchanan [bradenton.com] Joe Negron [wikipedia.org] Clay Shaw [usnews.com] Bill Sali [summitdaily.com] Peter Roskam [msn.com] Mark Kirk [cbs2chicago.com] Dennis Hastert [kcci.com] Chris Chocola [southbendtribune.com] John Hostettler [courier-journal.com] Mike Whalen [qctimes.net] Jim Ryun [cjonline.com] Anne Northup [courier-journal.com] Geoff Davis [kentucky.com] Michael Steele [gazette.net] Gil Gutknecht [hometown-pages.com] Michele Bachmann [citypages.com] Jim Talent [contracostatimes.com] Conrad Burns [billingsgazette.net] Jon Porter [lasvegassun.com] Charlie Bass [unionleader.com] Mike Ferguson [washingtonpost.com] Heather Wilson [rawstory.com] Peter King [newsday.com] John Sweeney [timesunion.com] Tom Reynolds [democratandchronicle.com] Randy Kuhl [wikipedia.org] Robin Hayes [newsobserver.com] Charles Taylor [wikipedia.org] Steve Chabot [thehill.com] Jean Schmidt [wcpo.com] Deborah Pryce [columbusdispatch.com] Joy Padgett [cleveland.com] Melissa Hart [sharonherald.com] Curt Weldon [phillyburbs.com] Mike Fitzpatrick [phillyburbs.com] Don Sherwood [timesleader.com] Lincoln Chafee [washingtonpost.com] Bob Corker [knoxnews.com] George Allen [cbsnews.com] Frank Wolf [nationalcenter.org] Mike McGavick [nwsource.com] Dave Reichert [nwsource.com]

Jesus at the whitehouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16571148)

Picture of Jesus growing on a tree on the whitehouse lawn (blog post complete with map to the "sacred" location) The face is here [blogspot.com]

Erm (1)

Hershmire (41460) | more than 7 years ago | (#16571950)

I'm sure there's a link to the actual map in the story somewhere. I think...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...