Let's bet on who will be president...

[Malachi151]

I bet (nothing cause this is the internet) that Dean will be president in 2004. Agree or not?

I made the polll Bush or not Bush to make it simple. Essentially though I think that Dean will be the nominee, but even if he is not, I bet that whoever runs against him will win. The only real possibilities at this point IMO are Dean and Kerry.

[CapelDodger]

The crappy bookmakers round here don't make a book on the US election. Not as interesting as who gets killed-off in a soap-opera, I suppose.

I think Bush is at the start of a long slow car-crash. He and his team aren't up to it. Thinking of which, does Rumsfeld still get allowed out these days?

[fishbob]

I am betting on Bush. I am hoping for almost anybody else.

I just can not picture voting for someone that actually wins. I have a very long record of voting for the candidate that came in 2nd or 3rd or last.

Besides, I could not gripe about how stupid other voters are if the guy I vote for actually wins.

[Doubt]

Your poll is a binary choice. Too early to make on that unless one is both an optimist and favors one side over the other.

If you wish to bet on Dean specifically, then I would say that it is a bad bet for the moment. To many competitors among the Democrats to start with. If all potential candidates and Bush were perceived as being the same, the odds of his winning the nomination would be low to start with. If he won the nomination he would have a even shot at winning the office. Just plan bad odds there. If you have seven Democrats plus Bush, then the odds would only be about 1 in 14. (Anyone can feel free to post better math if I have that wrong. Not sure how many Dems are running right now anyway.)

At this time, most of the public has no clue about which Democrats are even running yet. Dean got some nice free publicity on the Newsweek cover, but we are still months away from primary season. For now, the public pretty much does see the Democrats as all being the same.

Wait until after the California recall is over so the national press corps will start paying attention to the 2004 election.

[Aoidoi]

I'm hoping for some reasonable Democrat to show up who can scoop up the moderates that Bush has alienated and win... but I'm betting the Democrats self-destruct again and Bush wins more or less by default.

"I hold opinions, I don't bet them" - From somewhere or other that I've forgotten.

[Tricky]

Bush will be president in 2004. I don't like it any better than you do, but barring tragic events, that's the way it will be.

Perhaps a new president will be sworn in in 2005...

[jj]

Bush. I think the fix is already in.

[Suddenly]

Given the right odds I'd bet on virtually anyone to win.

I wouldn't take an even money bet that "W" will lose in 04, not so much because I think it would be unprofitable but rather that I think I could get a better price. If I got 2-1 or better I'd feel comfortable making a wager, as I'd make "W" about a 6-5 favorite (slightly better than even money) to win based on present information.

I imagine I could find someone who thinks Bush is a lock and get 3-1 or maybe 10-1 from them. Then I'd make some small bets, not because I'm sure Bush will lose, only that he's at best a small favorite at present.

From a gambling perspective betting Dean to win at even money would be a pretty stupid bet, because I'm sure someone will give better odds than that. The only person I would consider betting at even money to win would be Bush, and I'd pass on that bet because when I bet on silly things like elections I'm looking for a bigger overlay than even money for a 6-5 favorite.

[Nyarlathotep]

If I were a betting man, my money would be on bush. I don't like Bush, I think he is a nitwit, but the choice between him and ANY of the Democrats is like choosing whether I'd like to have a painful boil on my butt or an itchy rash all over my body. None of the choices are pleasing to me. I think a lot of people feel the same way and, all other things being equal, people tend to prefer the devil they know to the one that they don't. Thus Bush.

Personally, I am voting Libertarian this year. I know the libertarian won't win and I don't agree 100% witht he Libertarian agenda, but I find their agenda much more palatable than that of either major party and I can walk away from the booth knowing, at least, that I voted my conscience.

[CapelDodger]

From Doubt:
If you wish to bet on Dean specifically, then I would say that it is a bad bet for the moment. To many competitors among the Democrats to start with. If all potential candidates and Bush were perceived as being the same, the odds of his winning the nomination would be low to start with. If he won the nomination he would have a even shot at winning the office. Just plan bad odds there. If you have seven Democrats plus Bush, then the odds would only be about 1 in 14. (Anyone can feel free to post better math if I have that wrong. Not sure how many Dems are running right now anyway.)
That's a little like saying every horse in a race has the same chance. Nothing, of course, is certain but you can make some judgements about the horses from past performance, handicap, jockey and number of legs (particularly important that last).

My thinking is that the damage done to Bush - who is definitely in it - in the next 14 months by all sorts of subjects will be enough to see him defeated, whoever runs. And if Dean runs he might just win it - as opposed to Bush losing it.

(When I say Bush is definitely in it I mean the race, as opposed to the other stuff he's in.)

[CapelDodger]

From Suddenly:
From a gambling perspective betting Dean to win at even money would be a pretty stupid bet, because I'm sure someone will give better odds than that. The only person I would consider betting at even money to win would be Bush, and I'd pass on that bet because when I bet on silly things like elections I'm looking for a bigger overlay than even money for a 6-5 favorite.
I'd take 9-4 minimum on Bush losing. But I'm not being offered anything.

[Cleopatra]

For what an outsider's opinion worths, I think that Bush will make it again.

It seems that he has succesfully played the card of manipulating the general public betting on its worse fears; terrorism and safety.

The fact that he has managed to persuade the majority about the necessity of a War in Iraq says a lot about him and of course about the American general public...

[Earthborn]

What makes you people think there even will be a 2004 presidential election? Do you all think that Bush couldn't get the US in enough of a mess to allow him to say: "In this time of crisis, we must put aside our petty differences and stay united... To hold elections at this moment will appear to the enemy that we are weak and quarrelsome..." and postpone the elections for an indefinite time?

Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened... :(

[RandFan]

In my gut I believe that Bush will lose just like his father lost. He is not a very strong politician and the economy just hasn't rebounded. The time is nearly up before "it's the economy" stupid will decide his fate.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What makes you people think there even will be a 2004 presidential election? Do you all think that Bush couldn't get the US in enough of a mess to allow him to say: "In this time of crisis, we must put aside our petty differences and stay united... To hold elections at this moment will appear to the enemy that we are weak and quarrelsome..." and postpone the elections for an indefinite time?

Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened... :(

It WOULD however, be the first time that happened in the US.

Though generally I think that most of my fellow americans are apathetic about the actions of their leaders, I think something like cancelling the election would lead to rioting in the streets. I'd be the first to join in, in that case, too.

[CapelDodger]

From Earthbord:
What makes you people think there even will be a 2004 presidential election?
Damned good point: I want an "all-bets-off" clause to cover this eventuality.

[Cleopatra]

Come- on this is a cheap European argument CD and Earthborn, I have heard it before.

What makes me believe that there will be an election is the Constitution that Americans have as a Holly Gospel.

[CapelDodger]

From Nyarlathotep?:
It WOULD however, be the first time that happened in the US. ?
Just asking, but how many times has the Supreme Court chosen the president? (I really don't know.)

I sometimes get the feeling that the whole of human history has been leading to this point.

Though generally I think that most of my fellow americans are apathetic about the actions of their leaders, I think something like cancelling the election would lead to rioting in the streets
Want to bet? Half of these people don't even vote. When was the last time there was a non-race riot in the US?

Damn, I just trashed my first point with my second.

(Edited to include the correct quote)

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra

Have you been following this whole Bible thing in the US? The latest arguing line is that the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of what came before , meaning the Declaration of Independence (which, unlike the Constitution, has the g-word in it) and the Bible, particularly the Jewish bit, funnily enough. The US Constitution is under threat. Its standing is being deliberately unermined by well-funded fanatics who have close connections with the Bushies.

The greatest problem the government would potentially face if they tried this would be the military. Which way would they jump? I've often wondered what would happen in this country if there were a government coup and Queenie - who is Commander-in-Chief - ordered the military not to support it. However, the situation is unlikely to arise. If I were going to launch a coup I'd set off an "al-Qaeda" bomb that took out the entire Royal Family except Andrew, who's a complete numpty and will do what he's told. Declare a state of emergency, implicate opposition politicians and cancel elections. Shut down two newspapers and it's all done and dusted.

I was crossing my fingers when Blair was clearly going to win but Major? What a wimp. If Thatcher had still been there she'd have read my letter ...

[Solitaire]

It'd been nice to include in the pole some thrid parties
like Green, Libertarian, Natural Law. Still, Bush will win.

[Cleopatra]

Capel Dodger

Don't talk like that to a maniac with tradition :)

USA has a profound democratic tradition. Regardless how much this pisses me off ( that Americans are more Democratic than Europeans) I must aknowledge to these people that they respect their Constitution.

I agree with you and I can bet on that : You are right, I agree, an "emergency" will arise.

It will be their opportunity to show who they really are. I am optimistic :)

edited to add:

In my LIbrary I have 100 different European Constitutions. The American Constitution is only one :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra
If Thatcher had still been there she'd have read my letter ...

You, voting for Maggie? hahahahahaha

Thank for the laughter, I needed it :) :D

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Nyarlathotep?:

Just asking, but how many times has the Supreme Court chosen the president? (I really don't know.)

I would have to go home and do a bit of research to say with 100% certainty but off the top of my head I don't think it has ever happened. The closest was the last election where the Supreme Court prevented further recounts which effectively gave the election to Bush. I don't think they have ever directly chosen a president and I don't think they have the power to do so. If I recall correctly, undecided elections are supposed to be decided by Congress not the courts.


Want to bet? Half of these people don't even vote. When was the last time there was a non-race riot in the US?

Damn, I just trashed my first point with my second.

(Edited to include the correct quote)

I don't know if you count people trashing the city because their favorite sports team won/lost the big game as a riot, I do but that's beside the point. It is sad but true that most Americans don't vote but I still maintain that they would react very negatively if that right were taken away, to the point of rioting or worse . It's a purely hypothetical situation so there is no way to say whose right or wrong about this, but I stand by my opinion.

[Zep]

What I would REALLY like to see is more than, say, 80% of the US population actually registering and turning out to vote in the first place.

I've said it on other threads here - when less than 50% of the population vote, meaning only just 25% of them actually making a choice of president, then the potential is higher for "little balloting slip-ups, family ties and judicial interferences" affecting the outcome way out of proportion, like in Florida last time.

Incidentally, someone pointed out to me recently that Lyndon Johnson won a congressional seat (or was it a second presidential term...) by means of ballot-rigging in an obscure little backwater in his own state. So it seems that skullduggery for skewing results are not party-partisan!

Anyay, I feel it would just be better to know that ALL Americans chose their president, not just friends and relatives of the candidates.

[Jude]

Too early to say. I am confident that to win, you must have a strong anti-terrorism policy--so that eliminates a good chunk of the democrats.

[Shinytop]

Gen Wessley Clarke is the only man who can win for the Democrats.

[Charlie Monoxide]

It'll be Bush. Ashcroft will implement the new "Homeland Victory" initiative that will bar all voters since a number of them are known to have either used illicit drugs, engaged in pre-marital sex, are gay, atheist, are or have Arab friends etc.

Unless you swear on a bible and be a registered republican, forget about it. We don't need no "America haters" voting.

Charlie (dang that GWB pees me off) Monoxide

[nightwind]

Hard to say, most likely Bush will be.

Maybe we could ask Sylvia? :D

[Some Friggin Guy]

As depressing as the prospect is, I would have to say Bush will probably win.

Regardless of the fact that I would, personally, rather go 4 years without a president at all than to see that man continue his reign.

[Clancie]

Wesley Clark (He may announce this weekend).

[Michael Redman]

No action by the Supreme Court would have resulted in Gore winning the election, so it's completely disingenuous to say that the Court decided the election. Bush won more electoral votes, and that's how the Constitution says we determine the winner. There was no need for either the Court or the Congress to intervene, because the election was not undecided. Bush won.

And I sure wish he hadn't.

If the present government even hinted that they were considering suspending elections, that would be the end of them. If they told the states to not hold elections (the federal government doesn't hold elections) the states would ignore them, as they don't have the authority. If the government tried to use the army to stop the election, the army wouldn't do it. If they got enough generals and troops to go to the polling places to try, they would be met with armed resistance. If they organized to put down that resistance, there would be open, and successful, rebellion. So, I would take the bet on there being elections, no matter the odds.

I would put money on Dean at 3-1.

[Crossbow]

If the election were held this November, then I would say Bush would win.

However, by the time November 2004 rolls around, I expect that the federal deficit will be huge, people will be tired of the Iraq occupation dragging on and on, and the US economy will not be changed much from its present state, therefore I think that a Democrat will win.

[Clancie]

Posted by Michael Redman

No action by the Supreme Court would have resulted in Gore winning the election, so it's completely disingenuous to say that the Court decided the election. Bush won more electoral votes,
Umm....If the SC had let the vote counting go on in Florida--or, even better, ordered a statewide recount--it's clear that Gore would have won the popular vote in the state (just as he did nationwide).

Florida was what gave Bush the win in the Electoral College--due to the decision of conservative judges on the Supreme Court (two of whom--Scalia and O'Connor--had reasons to recuse themselves, but didn't).

Let's not rewrite history!

[CapelDodger]

From Michael Redman:
No action by the Supreme Court would have resulted in Gore winning the election
They made a decision, not much constrained by precedent, which led directly to the election of Bush. Had they decided for a re-count or re-ballot Bush would not, at that moment, have the necessary votes in the electoral college (since the Florida votes would be undecided). He may still have won, but he wouldn't have won at that point.

Of course a different decision might have led to the election of Gore, but given his majority of the popular vote (and having at that point actually won Florida) that would seem to be lless contentious.

I recall that there was an occasion when a delegate to the Electoral College switched his vote from the ticket he was elected on and put the other guy in, on the quite reasonable grounds that he was elected as a representative not (in theory) as a partisan. I don't recall when or who.

[CapelDodger]

Dream ticket: Dean as Pres, Clark as Vice-Pres with special responsibility for the WoT. One's an effective politician, the other an extremely capable man. Compare them to anyone in the current administration who ain't black.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
He may still have won, but he wouldn't have won at that point.

Of course a different decision might have led to the election of Gore, but given his majority of the popular vote (and having at that point actually won Florida) that would seem to be lless contentious. What do you mean that Gore "won at that point"?

After the vote Bush one.

There was a machine re-count, Bush won.

There was another re-count, Bush won.

At no point did Gore every get more votes than Bush in Florida.

So, at "that point" Bush had won.

The analysis following the election proved that different methods of counting would have resulted in different results. Most favoring Gore but the likely method would have resulted in a Bush win.

Fact: The Florida election, scientifically, was a statistical tie that could never, ever be known with certainty who had won due to errors inherent in counting so many votes.

But I am certain that years from now someone will claim that Gore won.

[Regnad Kcin]

Dream ticket #2: Pat Paulsen (deceased) & Dan Gurney (http://www.flash.net/~dralstin/stories/Gurney.htm).

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by RandFan
Fact: The Florida election, scientifically, was a statistical tie that could never, ever be known with certainty who had won due to errors inherent in counting so many votes.Which is why Mr. Bush, in facing a 500,000 vote nationwide shortfall, should have conceded to the evident will of the people.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
No action by the Supreme Court would have resulted in Gore winning the election, so it's completely disingenuous to say that the Court decided the election. Bush won more electoral votes, and that's how the Constitution says we determine the winner. There was no need for either the Court or the Congress to intervene, because the election was not undecided. Bush won.


In my post I wasn't saying that the election was undecided nor was I saying that Gore would have won had the recounts proceeded. I was merely correcting the misimpression that the person that I was responding to may have had that the court had decided the election. Perhaps I stated it poorly, I was trying to say that the courts merely stopped further recounts, at that point Bush won. I in no way meant to imply that they had decided the election in his favor.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Doubt:

That's a little like saying every horse in a race has the same chance. Nothing, of course, is certain but you can make some judgements about the horses from past performance, handicap, jockey and number of legs (particularly important that last).

My thinking is that the damage done to Bush - who is definitely in it - in the next 14 months by all sorts of subjects will be enough to see him defeated, whoever runs. And if Dean runs he might just win it - as opposed to Bush losing it.

(When I say Bush is definitely in it I mean the race, as opposed to the other stuff he's in.)

Betting when the odds are against you is always foolish.

Unless you are the house or a card counter, you are unlikely to win in the long run. Maybe some favorable odds can be found by making side bets at craps, but you need to have the probability table memorized and have a sucker willing to bet against the odds.

Also, none of the Democrats has a track record of getting past the primaries, so the whole horse race analogy does not fit. Betting on who will win an election when most of the public is still unaware of the candidates is a very bad idea.

At the moment, Bush does not appear to be all that damaged. A good international image is not required for him to be reelected. I would offer no odds until next summer.

[Clancie]

RandFan,

The Florida election was a disgrace (think of the Jacksonville votes thrown out for just one example).

Here's a link about the final count. It seems quite obvious that the SC overruled the Florida Supreme Court's decision to let the recount continue only because (like O'Connor) the other4 justices did not want to risk Gore winning. Disgraceful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,430306,00.html

Everything I've read indicates that, if the Florida election were fairly conducted and fairly counted, Gore would have won in Florida, just as he did in the nationwide popular vote.

Of course, the Republicans never would have let such a contested election rest and would have caused endless problems for a Gore administration...unlike the Dems who have basically just rolled over and played dead for Bush.

[Clancie]

Posted by Cape Dodger

Dream ticket: Dean as Pres, Clark as Vice-Pres with special responsibility for the WoT. One's an effective politician, the other an extremely capable man.
Well, it works for me, but do you really think Dean could pull it off? First, he's more to the left than the general electorate (and will be painted as more liberal than he really is by Republicans). Also, he's not very good on television, imo, and seems (as do all the Dems but Clark) to be seriously deficient in charisma. Sad but true, I just don't see someone competent, intelligent, but very bland has any chance to get elected in this country at all....

[Earthborn]

Nyarlathotep:Though generally I think that most of my fellow americans are apathetic about the actions of their leaders, I think something like cancelling the election would lead to rioting in the streets. I'd be the first to join in, in that case, too.Sure, there will be some rioting. There will also be promises that the election will soon be held again, and it is only a temporary measure, so there is nothing to worry about.

And since the government already said "To hold elections at this moment will appear to the enemy that we are weak and quarrelsome..." it only follows that the protestors in the streets only want to make the US appear "weak and quarrelsome" and they are just "undermining everything America stands for."

Cleopatra:What makes me believe that there will be an election is the Constitution that Americans have as a Holly Gospel.But only the Libertarians consider it 'Holy Gospel'. The Republicans sure don't. And the people who are deciding what is constitutional or not are mostly Republican. Do you think 'that postponing an election for a short while', an election they may lose, will sound unreasonable to them?USA has a profound democratic tradition.Yes, which could mean they are a bit too trusting of their government.

And I am not saying this is what is going to happen, just that I wouldn't be too surprised if it did.

Clancie:Also, he's not very good on television, imo, and seems (as do all the Dems but Clark) to be seriously deficient in charisma.There is something I learned in history class: Never Ever Vote For Anyone With Charisma. Just don't, you shouldn't take the risk. Vote for someone who appears competent. You're not choosing him/her as a friend, or as car salesperson. You are voting him/her to rule the country (or in the case of the US election: the world).

[Clancie]

Posted by Earthborn

Never Ever Vote For Anyone With Charisma. Just don't, you shouldn't take the risk. Vote for someone who appears competent.
Well, fortunately sometimes they do go hand in hand. (Otherwise I would have supported -only- losers, instead of the occasionally highly competent and charismatic choice here and there....like Clinton, e.g.)

I vote on issues and positions. Unfortunately, having lived through many appalling election results, I think it is impossible for a person to be elected to national office in the U.S. if he is competent but bland on television.

I agree with you Earthborn. That's not the way people should vote. Unfortunately, imo, the reality is otherwise. If Dems front an unappealing, untelegenic candidate, we will have a four more years of Bush...guaranteed.

P.S. The good news is that Clark is not only good with media, but also very intelligent and very capable. I would love to see him debate Bush, especially with Clark's deep knowledge of military issues and contrary-to-the-Republican views on Iraq.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Nyarlathotep:Sure, there will be some rioting. There will also be promises that the election will soon be held again, and it is only a temporary measure, so there is nothing to worry about.

And since the government already said "To hold elections at this moment will appear to the enemy that we are weak and quarrelsome..." it only follows that the protestors in the streets only want to make the US appear "weak and quarrelsome" and they are just "undermining everything America stands for."



I'm not saying something like that won't happen, I am saying that I find it to be a very unlikely scenario. Simply put the only means the president would have of enforcing such an edict is the military, all of whom would also be denied their votes as mucha s any one else. Surely some would side with the president but also some would side against him. It would be an ugly situation and quite possibly a civil war if that were to happen. It would be a lot of risk compared to the gain. Especially since the alternative, just waiting for his eventual re-election. There is a chance he could lose, but it's a small one (much to my chagrin) and it's definately it a lot less risky than cancelling the election.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Earthborn
[Cleopatra:But only the Libertarians consider it 'Holy Gospel'. The Republicans sure don't. And the people who are deciding what is constitutional or not are mostly Republican. Do you think 'that postponing an election for a short while', an election they may lose, will sound unreasonable to them?Yes, which could mean they are a bit too trusting of their government.

And I am not saying this is what is going to happen, just that I wouldn't be too surprised if it did.


I am not sure about that, although I have done this discussion before with Europeans. I wouldn't be suprised if Bush tried to do it but I'd be suprised if people didn't object.

Of course postponing a presidential election is not so serious a crime like taking away the guns.... but still. :)

There is something I learned in history class: Never Ever Vote For Anyone With Charisma. Just don't, you shouldn't take the risk. Vote for someone who appears competent. You're not choosing him/her as a friend, or as car salesperson. You are voting him/her to rule the country (or in the case of the US election: the world).

Although I understand you point, I prefer the charismatic scums rather than the next door administrator that his only accomplishment in life is that he has graduated the Law School.

We have so many of those in EU and we have lost our vision and our passion.

[Shinytop]

Clancie, you show an incredible ignorance about the Florida vote in 2000. Let's start with the machines. The counties in Florida all supply their own machines. The disparities in the vote count were common in those counties but due to the large populations they had not gotten around to spending the money to replace them. Whose fault is this? The counties were overwhelmingly Democratic and the officials for the elections were all Democrats. So the idiots shot themselves in the foot. Then when the Democratic counties voted different than expected they asked to only recount those counties. Was not gonna happen. There were irregularities of other nature in the Fla panhandle which would have added votes for Bush, but that was not going to get a recount or at least the Dem's did not request it.

And then the Dems tried to get the Florida military vote thrown out because the ballots did not have an zip code. Well guess what, no military foreign post office has zip codes on the stamping.

Now if the dems had gone to the SCOTUS early they would have been heard. Or if they had early on asked for recounts statewide to insure fairness they would have been heard. But no, they wanted to manipulate the election in a manner that could only gain democratic votes and then wanted to claim the high ground.

The SCOTUS had no choice with Florida law being what it was and constitutional to deny the request of the dems.

You may cry and whine all you want about the lost election but the dems lost fairly and even post counting revealed Bush still would have won. So whine and cry but do not expect anybody familiar with the election to buy your bull.

[nightwind]

I may be changing my vote. Based upon what I am hearing now. I think that there is a pretty good chance that Hillary Clinton will run for president. And she would have the machine to get the nomination.

And with the way that things could be shaping up at about the time of the election, could beat Bush.

:roll:

[WildCat]

Originally posted by nightwind
I may be changing my vote. Based upon what I am hearing now. I think that there is a pretty good chance that Hillary Clinton will run for president. And she would have the machine to get the nomination.

And with the way that things could be shaping up at about the time of the election, could beat Bush.

:roll:
Here's my conspiracy theory:
Hillary realizes Bush is too strong for her to win in '04. So she lets the Dems run one of their weak candidates, knowing they will lose and setting the stage for a Hillary run in '08, when she will have had some legitimate government experience under her belt. But then she'll lose to.... Jeb Bush!! ;)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Which is why Mr. Bush, in facing a 500,000 vote nationwide shortfall, should have conceded to the evident will of the people.

Hmmm... Well, it is a fact that if convicted felons were allowed to vote in all 50 states, Gore would have swept the elections. :D

[CapelDodger]

What do you mean that Gore "won at that point"?
Since I didn't say it, I can't have meant anything by it. I said that Bush would not have won at that point. There would, at that point, be no winner, any more than there was a winner the day before polling. The determination of the winner would end the process. Your points regarding re-counts are stated as if they were not contentious, when they were the reason for going the State Court and then the Supreme Court in the first place.

If you can't even follow what I've written, don't expect to be able to pick it apart. I eschew obfuscation, but the occasional subsidiary clause is surely no indulgence.

[CapelDodger]

From Doubt:
Betting when the odds are against you is always foolish.
Which does not, of course, mean that betting at long-odds is foolish. If you can get 10-1 on an 8-1 chance then in the long-run you'll win. In some subjects, such as horse-racing or political betting, the odds themselves are determined by the combined judgements of all the punters, with a bit for the bookmaker. If your judgement is sufficiently above average to exceed the bookie's advantage you'll win in the long-term.

[CapelDodger]

From Cleopatra:
Although I understand you point, I prefer the charismatic scums rather than the next door administrator that his only accomplishment in life is that he has graduated the Law School.
The standard of leadership in the world today is abysmal. Where are the Roosevelts, the Churchills, the Mussolinis, the Stalins ...
Hmmm.

Competent, honest and well-intentioned is all I ask. Fat chance.

[CapelDodger]

From peptoabysmal:
Hmmm... Well, it is a fact that if convicted felons were allowed to vote in all 50 states, Gore would have swept the elections. :D
But that would have given the vote to all the Reagan and Bush appointees that were successfully prosecuted. Then again, I suppose they all got pardons.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Cleopatra:
Competent, honest and well-intentioned is all I ask. Fat chance.

Well, I am not sure that people can take honesty. I want politicians to be competent, to have worked to a real job before getting into politics and not to be afraid to become really unpopular.

[CapelDodger]

Cleopatra:

I've heard it said that Americans want an honest president - until they've got one. The technical term for an honest president is "single-term".

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Nyarlathotep:Sure, there will be some rioting. There will also be promises that the election will soon be held again, and it is only a temporary measure, so there is nothing to worry about.

And since the government already said "To hold elections at this moment will appear to the enemy that we are weak and quarrelsome..." it only follows that the protestors in the streets only want to make the US appear "weak and quarrelsome" and they are just "undermining everything America stands for."

Cleopatra:But only the Libertarians consider it 'Holy Gospel'. The Republicans sure don't. And the people who are deciding what is constitutional or not are mostly Republican. Do you think 'that postponing an election for a short while', an election they may lose, will sound unreasonable to them?Yes, which could mean they are a bit too trusting of their government.

And I am not saying this is what is going to happen, just that I wouldn't be too surprised if it did.

Clancie:There is something I learned in history class: Never Ever Vote For Anyone With Charisma. Just don't, you shouldn't take the risk. Vote for someone who appears competent. You're not choosing him/her as a friend, or as car salesperson. You are voting him/her to rule the country (or in the case of the US election: the world).

I don't know Cleopatra.
The US did not suspend its Presidential election in 1864 in the midst of its Civil War.
Do you have any CREDIBLE evidence that this is going to happen?
Or is this just anti-Bush hysteria?

[Cleopatra]

Are you addressing to me, Mike?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Tricky
Bush will be president in 2004. I don't like it any better than you do, but barring tragic events, that's the way it will be.

Perhaps a new president will be sworn in in 2005...

:D :D :D

hehe

good one!

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Are you addressing to me, Mike?

OOPS sorry Cleo...

I meant Earthborn

[CapelDodger]

Mike B.:

Err - Cleopatra doesn't think it's going to happen. In fact she seems a little outraged that people like me are playing around with the idea.

You, on the other hand, seem more than a little outraged. No offence is intended.
The US did not suspend its Presidential election in 1864 in the midst of its Civil War.
How did the South vote? Democrat, I'll bet.

[Cleopatra]

Oh stop it Capel Dodger!!!! :)

[Solitaire]

Sixteen to Twenty Six? :eek:
Maybe the moderaters need to adjust the poll in Bush's favor.

Anyway I found this article on betting on the presidential election. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/betting_001031.html)
It's out of date a bit. Does anyone have the current odds and prices?

[CapelDodger]

Thank you, Synchronicity; the article may be about the last election but the bookies I've approached so far didn't even cover that, so I'll try Ladbrokes.

[Earthborn]

Mike B:Do you have any CREDIBLE evidence that this is going to happen?I have just as much as credible of evidence of what is going to happen than anyone else in this thread: pure speculation. Isn't that good enough for ye? :p
Or is this just anti-Bush hysteria?You bet ye!