CNN keeps blowing, and blowing, and blowing…

CNN had two different pie charts up at the same time during the Iowa caucuses.

Here’s the pie chart they put up for the Democrats.

demresults010308.jpg

Notice how CNN went out of its way to squeeze Bill Richardson’s two percent piece into the pie?

Now, look at the Republican pie chart.

repubresults010308.jpg

Notice the giant void between McCain and Huckabee on the chart? At this point, Ron Paul had 10 percent of the vote. Why isn’t he listed when Bill Richardson’s two percent makes the Democratic pie?

That’s some bad journalism, kids.

Comments 77

  1. Matt wrote:

    Saw this too, such a sad state of affairs. Can’t believe it’s really this bad.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 9:13 pm
  2. Michael wrote:

    Obviously it couldn’t be that they simply listed the top four candidates on each graph.

    Unless…

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 9:17 pm
  3. Ron Paul For Freedom wrote:

    The MSM is powerful. I’m extremely disappointed by these results… We have to make it happen in New Hampshire.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 9:18 pm
  4. Chuck Lasker wrote:

    And what made them decide to show only the top 4? Maybe? Unless? Yep – to keep Paul off the graph… This wouldn’t be so obvious if it hadn’t been followed by months and months of CNN shunning Ron Paul.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 9:32 pm
  5. not a conspiracy theorist wrote:

    MSM definitely hates rudy giuliani too — whose 5% would also have fit just fine in the pie…

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 9:40 pm
  6. Ray wrote:

    I noticed this too and am as unhappy as anyone else about it. One thing to consider though is that both charts (dems & rep) show the top 4 candidates. Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson for the Dems and Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Thompson for the Reps.

    Personally I think all candidates with significant percentages should be shown. I guess the Giuliani crowd is equally upset as he was also showing around 10% as was Paul.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 9:47 pm
  7. peach wrote:

    well they couldnt show Guliani without showing Paul on a Pie Chart Mr Sarcastic but not a conspiracy theorist

    it was reported this week there are 5,000,000 orphaned children in Iraq , there were around 1200 in 1990.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 10:05 pm
  8. Matt wrote:

    Don’t be disappointed in Paul’s results. Just a few months ago, he wasn’t even polling ONE percent. Now he’s ten percent.

    That’s enormous success. Now it’s about talking to friends and families and getting them out to the primaries. Work it, work it, work it. This is momentum. Imagine going up to someone and saying you know Paul got 10% of the vote. Many people *still* don’t know who Paul is. Just ask. It’ll be a great conversation opener.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 10:07 pm
  9. Steven wrote:

    So they’ll show Bill Richardson’s 2% but won’t show Paul’s 10-11%?

    Damn ridiculous.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 10:07 pm
  10. Saint Paul wrote:

    Come on fools. Your guy finished out of the top four. What makes you think he should be on the chart. He’s in the toilet. No one but a bunch of greed heads give a good flying fook about the guy.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 10:51 pm
  11. The One wrote:

    They simply wanted to show 4 candidates for each chart.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 11:24 pm
  12. Matt Stooks wrote:

    He should be on the chart because it would make a lot more sense than having an empty, unexplained piece of the chart completely gone. How does that not make sense?

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 11:30 pm
  13. BB wrote:

    The best software money can buy and they can’t even display all the names?

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 11:36 pm
  14. Saint Paul wrote:

    Because finishing fifth, FIFTH!, is basically in the crapper. No one but a bunch of nutcakes care about fifth place. It makes kissing your sister look good. Order of finish: Win, place, show, well almost, and toilet. You can flush that turd he’s dead.

    I’d bet good money that Mr. Paul is not heard from again.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 11:46 pm
  15. Rob wrote:

    …yet they weren’t the ones that blew Ron Paul’s house down. That was the voters. Oops.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 11:47 pm
  16. Alex Toronto On Canada wrote:

    I was puzzled a few days ago when CNN was cautioning candidates about Macaca moments and continually showing the image of Ron Paul as though Ron Paul had made a similar faux pas. This lasted about two minutes but the announcer never did come out and say that Paul had a Macaca moment. It seems they were referring to Allen sabotaging his candidacy by saying something stupid and inferring by placing Ron Paul’s image within the context of the earlier failure that Ron Paul was equally tainted. Unlike Allen, the internet is helping Paul.
    I thought the piece was an example of tainting by association instead of accusation.

    Posted 03 Jan 2008 at 11:48 pm
  17. 1000Steps wrote:

    10% and not mentioned? What a travesty? Please, its time to put that to bed. It is not a conspiracy. I have voted Libertarian in the past and know that people see past the rabid anti-war statements and see that he wants to erase the Dept. of Education, Welfare and the IRS(ok, good one there), and see that he is a one trick pony meant to trick one trick minds…

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:14 am
  18. ticklecricket wrote:

    It’s because they could only fit four names on the display next to the pie chart. They had a seperate bumper for the other candidates.

    Were you actually watching the tv? or did you just take a picture and start yelling on the internet?

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:14 am
  19. independent wrote:

    Well, I know you’ll be sad to hear that Ron Paul isn’t done yet. No one really expected him to crack double digits in Iowa, a state that’s a net-beneficiary of federal funds. If he can get 2nd or 3rd in new Hampshire the MSM will probably start kissing his ass real quick to hedge their bets. Even if he pulls 5th again, he has the cash to keep going into early February and strike a symbolic victory by winning a state or two.

    Think about it, is Giuliani going to go away now that he got 3%? I doubt it. 3rd, 4th, and 5th are all within 5% and the Republican race has been extremely volatile so far.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:15 am
  20. Chris wrote:

    One apparent reason CNN is hiding Paul’s strong finish is because like other media outlets, they’ve been reporting faulty polling numbers. Nationwide polls were reporting that Paul would be 3% in Iowa, 7% less than his actual 10% finish for those of us who still do math. Could CNN have a credibility issue? No of course not, they just like empty pie charts.

    Paul’s 10% basically puts him in 4th place (given the Thompson McCain tie for third, Thompson is likely dropout soon also) and this in a somewhat hostile Iowa traditional GOP caucus environment.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:16 am
  21. jon wrote:

    Good job noticing this.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:16 am
  22. Saint Paul wrote:

    Even if thompson bails (likely) your guy is still no better than fifth because he’s still got rudy ahead of him.

    Face it, the guy hasn’t got a chance. He’s got a whole bunch of spammers driving up his numbers in a handful of polls, but in the real world where actual voters actually vote, he can’t beat a bible-thumping moron, a magic-underwear clad moron or a has-been tv actor moron. Can you really still believe this bozo has a chance?

    Give it up and go back to your apathy holes. Or, if you really care, put some of that energy into working toward electing someone who can lead this county out of the shithole we’ve been dumped into.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:24 am
  23. Chris wrote:

    I would have to say that blueberry is the best kind of cobbler.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:31 am
  24. Saint Paul wrote:

    If, if, if. If the dog hadn’t stopped to take a shit he’d have won the race.

    Before anyone starts kissing the paulman’s heine he has to win something. Something other than spammer polls that is.

    You greedheads can dump all the money you like on this turkey, but he’s going nowhere but back to bungbottom texas where he belongs.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:31 am
  25. Saul Tanner wrote:

    Desperate acts by desperate people come to mind! Not nearly as egregious as the Fox/St. Anselm debate shenanigans, but pathetic and underhanded nonetheless.

    MSM is screwed… the people DO care about their democracy and are waking up!

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:32 am
  26. Matt Stooks wrote:

    If you don’t have enough room to show a complete pie chart, a chart specifically designed to show the parts that make up a whole, why are you using it? Maybe CNN should fork up the millions of dollars it takes to hire the genius it apparently takes to squeeze five names onto a pie chart. Those two pie charts were displayed behind Blitzer through the entire broadcast. The separate “bumper” rolled through about as often as a “green tea is good for you” story on the traditional CNN ticker.

    So, yes, I was actually watching the TV. Then, I took a picture and started “yelling” on the Internet.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:34 am
  27. Matt Stooks wrote:

    Best point of the night.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:42 am
  28. Chris wrote:

    Hey internet tough guy, please stop taking out your issues on the rest of us.

    I don’t, and won’t support these other candidates because I don’t support their positions and I don’t believe they’ll do anything different than Bush. Look at their records and you’ll see it too.

    But really, grow up man and drop the name calling and slurs because you’re not convincing anybody.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:01 am
  29. Bob wrote:

    Why is the media like this? I really would like to know. Ron Paul is the best candidate in my eyes..

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:04 am
  30. Sean wrote:

    Yeah spammers gave more than 6 million to Ron Paul in a single day. Amazing, those spammers.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:06 am
  31. Chris wrote:

    (Directed at “Saint Paul’s” comments up there)

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:13 am
  32. meteors wrote:

    It’s over fucktards!

    Your little religious movement never stood a chance.

    Time to get on with your lives :-))

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:47 am
  33. Bobby wrote:

    CNN was trying to show 4 candidates for the graphs!
    Ron Paul would of been the 5th on the republican graph.
    Not everything is a conspiracy…

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 2:18 am
  34. MIKE wrote:

    Republicans and Democrats. They are in power for centuries. In fact they represent the same class – those with money.

    Until you guys start voting for people outside those parties you will see no change.

    The real problem is with money concentration on the hands of few.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 3:18 am
  35. khaleel wrote:

    People, do not forget. Dr. Paul has been constantly diminished in the media. The media made EVERY ATTEMPT to prevent his message from being established. It is a miracle that he may have scored 10% or more. Keep working hard just for principle. He is America’s only chance.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 4:47 am
  36. Bob/Paul wrote:

    3.5%

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 4:54 am
  37. Patrick wrote:

    If you would have done your homework, you would know that the only 2 candidates who won Iowa AND then went on to become president were a: Jimmy Carter, and George Bush in 2000. So the only thing Iowa is is first. Means nothing. Actually it means that likely neither Obama OR Huckabee has a chance to win the whole enchilada.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 7:01 am
  38. JLV wrote:

    Is it over? I doubt it. Iowa is full of evangelical nutbags anyways, and the caucus had 60% of them voting. Of course they are going to vote for Huckabee. If you think this one state will count him out, then your crazy.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 7:22 am
  39. David wrote:

    Sorry guys, we are going to get the signatures ourselves to put him on the ballot next November if we have to but he will be there. This is a movement about the message of liberty, Ron Paul is just the current torch bearer, we will not go away, ever.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 7:23 am
  40. Nathan wrote:

    Oh for god’s sakes will you ron paul internet spammers give it a break. The guy was 2nd last.. Why does he need to be shown on the graph at all?

    Do you want an award for your failed attempt to publicise this guy?

    It

    is

    over.

    Fair enough if he’d come 2nd or third, but only that dirtbag went worse. Still, Ron Paul is a better person than the other republicans, mainly because he doesn’t really belong in that party.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 7:35 am
  41. Tim wrote:

    NPR is doing the same thing to Ron Paul. On Morning Edition this morning, they kept talking about how Guiliani finished 6th without mentioning who finished 5th (Paul). This is ridiculous.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 7:36 am
  42. idiot wrote:

    This is stupid. They had two pie charts for each — Ron Paul was on the second chart with 10%. CNN flipped the charts back and forth.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 7:53 am
  43. Head Tale wrote:

    I’m sure that I heard one of the CNN commentators refer to it as a “five way race” which I thought was ironic given their four-name pie chart with that weird gap piece (at least label it “other” or something?)

    Of course, I’m sure their intention was to include Guiliani in the race but if you did watch the bumper, you *might* think they meant Paul since he, you know, had about 5% more than Guiliani in Iowa.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 7:58 am
  44. Jim wrote:

    Didn’t CNN show multiple charts for each party? Possibly due to the massive amount of candidates? If you would of watched for more than 5 seconds you may have seen the other chart that showed the remaining candidates, which had a much larger “void” portion. At least you can rest knowing that Ron Paul is at the top of Page 2.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 8:09 am
  45. Brendan wrote:

    I’m sorry people, it’s not some evil agenda against your candidate, it’s simply the top 4 candidates on each graph for comparison.
    I do want to point out a few things though. The amount of money which a candidate has access/raised is not the be all end all issue…..for an extreme example, look at Perot, he had billions to use, a number Paul will not come close to touching, so arguing that he’s a popular candidate based on money alone is illogical, all it shows is with any certainty is that the supporters he has are fully behind him, as opposed to the general blase approach that most voters take.
    Second point is that while it is true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease on a necessary instruments, this is not true when other choices exist. By constantly setting your candidate up as some victim and martyr you are doing nothing but alientanting the common voter who’s interest you need to attract to hope to win. The only people that truly believe everything is a conspiracy are conspiracy theorist a.k.a. the fringe, is that who you really want to align with. One other thing to piggy back on the martyr comment, nobody wants to elect a martyr, martyr are losers, that’s how they become martyrs, their failur for their cause is a catlyst for change, they don’t make the change directley. This ties in with setting him up as a victim as well, the highest roll in the nation will never go to someone who is shown to be constantly victimized, it shows weakness. And no to any liberal hippy who is going to try to draw a conclusion from this statement to a broader subject, this is not referring to anyone defined as a victim, I’m simply talking politically.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 8:29 am
  46. JP wrote:

    Fox didn’t bother labelling the 10% because RP is a crank.

    He has some libertarian views that match with many in the webworld, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s a total crank.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 8:41 am
  47. Thomas Wells wrote:

    Please tell me who you are voting for so I can destroy his chances of running. Your mouth is disgusting and I plan on squashing your candidates chance of winning. Don’t think I can do it? Give me their name then.

    You have NO clue as to the words coming out of your mouth. You WILL have to give an account for each thing you say to others. I suggest you repent and join us or face the coming wrath.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 8:49 am
  48. Joey Sanders wrote:

    Maybe they realize that only the top 4 candidates actually have a chance to win and that despite Paul’s rapid internet support, he is still a long shot that has not made the jump to a top-tier candidate.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 8:50 am
  49. Jeff Blackmon wrote:

    Wow, Saint Paul, you really are a hater.

    Ron Paul is not going away because all of us “greedheads” (wtf?) donated our hard-earned money toward a good cause. He’s raised more money this quarter than any other Republican and it came from independent sources.

    I bartend here in L.A. and donated over $350 so far. I have never EVER donated to a presidential campaign in my life and would be willing to bet most of Paul’s contributors haven’t until now.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 8:57 am
  50. Roger Ritthaler wrote:

    You need to “clean up” your language. What have you got to lose if Ron Paul is elected?

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 9:14 am
  51. Roger Ritthaler wrote:

    There’s no one who can “lead this country out” except Ron Paul… and of course a whole new Congress.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 9:17 am
  52. Roger Ritthaler wrote:

    Amen!

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 9:18 am
  53. Good pills and a bottle of friends wrote:

    Actually considering McCain and Thompson both got 13% (13.1, 13.4) and Paul got 10% he should be on the chart.

    Already people are admitting that Huckabee is in 4th place in New Hampshire. Look out.

    With only 4 days it’s going to be like it were tomorrow.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 9:55 am
  54. Chad wrote:

    Dude, they were running two pie charts. If you hung on for a second, they’d show you the breakdown of the remainder. I watched the exact thing you did (albeit in Canada, not sure that makes a diff though) and saw Ron Paul’s name in that many times.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:00 am
  55. John wrote:

    Your level of hate is amazing! You should be ashamed.

    Those of us who support Dr. Paul are believers in something bigger than any of us. The Constitution. Shouldn’t you be, too? This land is OUR land, isn’t it?

    Why are you (and others like you) so full of hate when all we are hoping for is a return to national values?

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:06 am
  56. Anon wrote:

    Wow, no. If you were watching the show, they were posting the top 4 b/c after 4 it really usually doesn’t matter. They had pre-made graphics and pluged the numbers into the animations and made it work. When these people are plugging in tons and tons of data they are getting from all over iowa to keep their %reported higher/up to the other networks, they have little time to be changing their pre-made graphics.

    Stop being a conspiracy theory idiot.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:43 am
  57. Anon wrote:

    no he wasnt, he got like 3%

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:44 am
  58. Anon wrote:

    One problem: Ron paul spent time in iowa, McCain and Gulliani did not. McCain beat Paul w/ nearly NO time in iowa. Gulliani didnt even run in iowa. If Ron Paul didnt run in Iowa, he would be right down there with gulliani.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:47 am
  59. Anon wrote:

    made me smile inside =P

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:48 am
  60. patrick wrote:

    Matt is right. No matter the why, who or what about the result, focus on the next game and do better. Stress to people that these results are extraordinary and Paul IS getting lots of varied coverage. One comment on the web was right: “more people see this on the web than on CNN.” What must happen, however, is to translate this into votes at the polls now and in November.

    Paul’s message is difficult to sell to fiscal conservatives my age (45). Most of us voted for Reagan and remember cold war etc. Get them excited about the economic freedoms, self-determination and smaller government that must happen to get the former two. The anti-interventionism talk can follow. Look to GW’s farewell speech from office: you know, GEORGE WASHINGTON. “beware of foreign entaglements”

    The youth movement behind this is what convinced me to go for Paul. I voted for him in ’88 and will again, thanks to the message getting out on youtube.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:48 am
  61. dumbfounder wrote:

    it’s still bad reporting, regardless of what excuses there are. 10% is significant. 2% is not.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 10:54 am
  62. bc wrote:

    Are you joking? The MSM has given Giuliani a pass on a laundry list of crap he’s pulled.

    What MSM are you watching??

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 11:08 am
  63. Chuck Lasker wrote:

    You’re an idiot… ;)

    How do you explain that the words “Ron Paul” were never uttered by CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews, yet Guiliani, who got 2%, was interviewed on every network? It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a conspiracy.

    Stop putting your head in the ground and wake up, dolt.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 11:32 am
  64. Geoff wrote:

    Canada sucks. RALPH NADAR IN 2008!!

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:24 pm
  65. Aaron Weinstein wrote:

    I’m a Paul supporter because of his stance on limited government. It’s reaganesque, and this country is starved for someone like him. Our economy is in shambles and we need someone like him to lead us not into depression but deliver us from evil.

    Your post was hilarious though.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:31 pm
  66. Aaron Weinstein wrote:

    Why does Ron Paul not belong in the party? He’s anti-war so that sets him apart from the present day republicans, but in every sense of the word, he is a republican. Limited government with a focus on returning power to the people. Limit taxes? So, the only reason I can come up with for you saying he doesn’t belong is the war. Remember, even dem’s voted for the war. This is no longer a partisan issue. never was. Get over it.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:35 pm
  67. Anon wrote:

    Right…. I can generate pie charts on the fly using Excel, but the media can only plug numbers into a set number of pie slices and can’t dynamically generate that data in time? Please, this is 2008. It’s no technical feat to keep an accurate pie chart representing all of the candidates. It’s pure media manipulation, plain and simple.

    I watched CNN last night and everyone was surprised by McCain’s 13% results. They repeatedly made remarks about McCain making a comeback. Yet, even after they keep burying RP and he gets 10% of the results, they make no mention of his “surprising” results? Bullshit.

    Keep your head buried in the sand on election day as well.

    * I’m no supporter of RP. I just don’t like the way the media is reporting these results to the masses.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 12:49 pm
  68. Kyle wrote:

    Because only the top 4 get to debate in New Hampshire next week

    CNN is just showing the top 4. CNN isn’t shunning anyone.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:13 pm
  69. Constitutionalist Kelly wrote:

    That’s a pretty good post, thanks for daily dose of humor.

    I guess you should probably go back to your handlers and let them know that your disinfo is backfiring. We know you aren’t speaking to Ron Paul supporters when you mention apathy, as every RP supporter is very far into the camp of positivity and effective change. This can only be meant for those curious about Paul, trolling comments to guage RP supporter mindsets.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate looking out for even scum such as yourself, you who have lost more rights in the last 6 years than you ever knew you even had.

    Ron Paul is gaining momentum and increasingly gains mainstream support for his eventual victory. He is the bandwagon to jump on to for real issues and effective change that we all know we want. Don’t let minions like this dissuade you from putting your full support behind the only real candidate out there.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:27 pm
  70. Jim wrote:

    Wrong. Check your facts. McCain and Giuliani both spent more time in Iowa than Paul did, and McCain barely beat Paul while Paul blew Giuliani away.

    http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/schedules/pastevents/index.html#candidate11

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:40 pm
  71. Jim wrote:

    Give me break. They could easily fit more than 4 names on the pie chart. Besides “Paul” is not a long name.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:43 pm
  72. jake wrote:

    They obviously tried to justify labeling only the top 4 candidates on each chart… but it’s not hard to see that there’s room for Paul’s name right above McCain. Lame, unfortunate, predictable, harmless. If that’s what’s going to stop Ron Paul’s campaign, it didn’t have a shot from the beginning.

    Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 2:36 pm
  73. sfsf wrote:

    yeah, “tons and tons of data”………. who’s the conspiracy theorist?? how much data do they get and from where??? are they in my cereal collecting tons of data?

    and how far back in time is their pie chart technology from?? it can only handle four names.. was it made on a 5.25 floppy as well?

    Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 5:26 am
  74. david wrote:

    What about the possibility that they wanted four candidates on each chart?

    Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 10:23 am
  75. Ian wrote:

    Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Ron Paul just scares people.
    Those “Honk if you speak English” bumper stickers aren’t exactly the most accepting modes of propoganda.

    Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 5:43 pm
  76. Kerry wrote:

    I could care less about Ron Paul. I know about him and I don’t care for him.
    He should have been a part of that pie chart for what it’s worth.
    Everybody should read about Ron Paul. Plenty of information on him both now and his past which you have to read his belief’s.
    I did and I do not like them but thats why they make Ford’s and Chevy’s.
    I can’t believe Ron Paul’s organization took money from a White Supremacist group.

    Posted 08 Jan 2008 at 5:43 am
  77. Matt Stooks wrote:

    Actually, a white supremacist, not a group, donated $500 through Ron Paul’s website. Ron questions why he should give $500 back to a racist.

    Posted 08 Jan 2008 at 11:22 am

Trackbacks & Pingbacks 4

  1. From Jon Swift on 04 Jan 2008 at 7:15 am

    Iowa Caucus Results Explained…

    The winners of the Iowa caucuses are not decided by who comes in first but instead by a very complex mathematical formula that calculates the quantum spin of the vote….

  2. From Huckabee, Paul and the Iowa Caucus Results « Daily Liberty Research on 04 Jan 2008 at 1:30 pm

    [...] the media and pollsters are reporting. Most pollsters had Paul between 3% and 6% in Iowa. CNN today failed to list Paul’s name next to his 10% section on a pie chart showing the GOP vote percentages, while listing the other [...]

  3. From Pick a pie chart strategy and stick with it « Tom Sucks on 09 Jan 2008 at 12:28 am

    [...] my Slingbox (it’s glorious) set up for the Iowa caucus night, so thanks to Matt Stooks for photographing his television set for us [...]

  4. From Political Ramblings » Blog Archive » The problem with main stream media (msm) on 09 Jan 2008 at 1:14 am

    [...] to think that those of us who do not support main stream candidates are just stupid. Check out CNN keeps blowing, and blowing, and blowing…. Apparently they didn’t think we would realize who the missing percentages representd. The [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *