If you look at the first link, you'll notice that a lot of red states as well as blue ones went with Stewart.
but if you look
into the link, you'll note there's no validity. the "battle for states", red or otherwise, is almost always a battle for 30 votes. jon stewart's "win" in mississippi is 8 votes -- not an 8 vote lead, 8 total votes for jon.
it's a internet-based poll. it's meaningless. there's no credibility. you can vote an unlimited amount of times for whatever you want. in 10 minutes, a single person could rewrite the result for everything on the site's history. and thus, people make a joke of it -- its exactly what the insurgency feared. for example, iowa is mysteriously contrary to every other state (49-1) in dozens of categories, most likely due to one dastardly rapscallion with a mouse and an F5 key.
hell, 50,000+ votes went in favor of congress passing a resolution to "
honor michael jackson as a global humanitarian." nearly unanimous across the country - minus that goddamn iowa, of course.
i dislike the daily show (boo political humor) but i like jon stewart. however, naming him a news anchor, even as an option, is not that far away from naming conan o'brien a news anchor -- both covering the same topics for a segment of their shows. his show is probably just more fun to watch than katie couric's, which can't be saying much. throw borat into the option pool, and all of a sudden the kazakh is the new most trusted news anchor.
