I read the FieldNegro's comments but he keeps saying the web is not color blind which is just stupid. It is literally color blind. It's accent blind. Over time in conversations, a persons background may come up but usually it does not.
So the rage against the machine bit is self created. If you want to talk about Iraq, or oil, or campaign finance reform, or deficit/debt...there's none of that on FieldNegro.
"...but the point of these polls doesn't seem to be to predict anything."
Then why speak of trends about candidates moving up in these polls? I enjoy the polls as an indicator of what a small but active demographic thinks but probably a good idea to keep some perspective that this is a very skewed demographic.
On Richardson, an odd but true problem for him is he needed to do something about his weight. His image is that of a sidekick vs. the hero.
So solving problems via the coalition building on national issues that Obama pushes has its uses? We hear such shrieks of terror from the bloggers when Obama speaks of coalitions to solve US problems yet here they are, in the lion's den, doing the same thing.
Newt was nutty on a lot of issues but he was big on getting US government online via Thomas.
Issues where Obama can build coalitions to solve problems are:
1. Oil/energy - lotto conservatives are big on cutting US oil use, building alternative energy industry for US energy independence.
2. Deficit/Debt - same on a balance budget, disagreement on how but can agree that spending must equal revenue no matter what.
3. Lobbyists/money and transparency of government.
4. Civil rights, freedom from government intrusion into purely personal decisions of citizens.
"My existence disproves what you say. I'm young, I hate facebook/social networking, and I support John Edwards."
Actually it would tend to confirm it though single individuals are more anecdotal info. vs. demographic info.
Demographic polls here show an overwhelmingly older, white, wealthier, single, male membership.
Basically, you've got a bunch of old geysers on MyDD and KOS grousing about "finding the online zeitgeist" while hundreds of thousands younger, more varied demographic people were online in Facebook getting the spirit, organizing a headline grabbing event to which they invited Obama.
Result 1. Obama ran for office in 2004 based on opposition to Iraq war and won election. He voiced opposition to the Iraq war before US invaded and then ran and won on that same issue in 2004.
Result 2. Obama proposed (per netroots) a proposal with "teeth" to get US troops home by 2008.
Even Edwards ("I voted for it before I decided to say I'm against it") and Clinton ("I voted for it and stand by it") supporters should take $10 and put it towards the "Obama: Out of Iraq Now" fund on ActBlue since Obama is the only one in Congress who is running for President and has a real proposal to do exactly what the netroots say they want.
If netroots don't put their money where their mouth is on the out-of-Iraq-now issue, it does give some indication that netroots is a bit hypocritical on the issue...calling for action and when they get it...coming up with rationalizations for not supporting it.
"I've checked your numbers, they're dead wrong, and the gravely oversimpify the nature of the trade deficit.
You need to check the US Dept. of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis. They are the ones who just released the trade numbers.
Use this link. Then look at Table 17 in the XLS downloads. You'll note energy products for first 11 months of 2006 were $270B. You will see that December, month 12, in 2005 counts for around 11% of yearly total so you get the $300B for oil and gas imports, close to 50% of US trade deficit.
That proportion of US trade deficit has been the single largest segment and single fastest growing segment of US trade deficit.
Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Indonesia.
US imports of oil and natural gas come from just about all the oil and gas exporters.
Middle East controls 65% of the world market and that number is increasing which is why oil is the No. national security threat to US, a couple oil embargos that brought US economy to it's knees, three Middle East wars costing $1T, terrorism against the US, close to $3T in US trade deficit over last 20 years.
It's more apparant than real due to handful of Edwards supports who have kind of hijacked the site. They spend 75% of their diaries attacking Obama. Then about ten of them all recommend each others anti-Obama diary to get it "recommended". Giving a kind of cheap suit high profile to the anti-Obama sentiment.
There's a bit of disconnect between "old netroots" and "new netroots". Kind of "Facebook" vs. "Meetup".
Old netroots are living in the past of Dean, Edwards and Clark and dominate the old discussion areas. It's an older, white demographic.
New netroots are living in the future of Obama and dominate in the social networking areas of Facebook and are a younger, more racially mixed demographic.
Old netroots sit around and piss and moan and try to get to the next "level" in the Myst of the older online discussion boards with "recommend" schemes and "mojo" message deletions.
New netroots organize big rallies for Obama and get him to come speak to them.
US can cut trade deficit in half, create 1 million new US jobs in alternative energy, save 1 million current US jobs in autos, end No. 1 threat to US national security, cut green house gas emissions...but getting as energy efficient and Europe and Japan.