Midterms

[pookie]

[quote]JeffRo the Clown wrote:
The Anti-Americans like reckless, pookie, juniho, ephrem and orion are welcome to join in!!![/quote]

Don’t confuse impatience with stupidity with anti-americanism.

If I’m gonna take a bet on an election, it’s gonna be on an election where I get to vote. Get back to me when Harper’s minority government is toppled. And for the record: If the election was today I’d vote him back in power.

That said, I notice one glaring problem with your bet: it’s uneven. If you win, then all the democrats who’ve taken the challenge have to change their name, while if you lose, only you (and rainjack, as of now) have to do so. I think you should recruit from your side to get a 1:1 ratio.

It’d be even more fun if the winning side of the 1:1 matchup got to pick the loser’s name… instead of the generic tripe you suggested.

[JeffR]

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffRo the Clown wrote:
The Anti-Americans like reckless, pookie, juniho, ephrem and orion are welcome to join in!!!

Don’t confuse impatience with stupidity with anti-americanism.

If I’m gonna take a bet on an election, it’s gonna be on an election where I get to vote. Get back to me when Harper’s minority government is toppled. And for the record: If the election was today I’d vote him back in power.

That said, I notice one glaring problem with your bet: it’s uneven. If you win, then all the democrats who’ve taken the challenge have to change their name, while if you lose, only you (and rainjack, as of now) have to do so. I think you should recruit from your side to get a 1:1 ratio.

It’d be even more fun if the winning side of the 1:1 matchup got to pick the loser’s name… instead of the generic tripe you suggested.
[/quote]

Hey pookie,

I appreciate the suggestions. I accept your amendement.

Let me amend. If pookie accepts THE CHALLENGE II, the following will go into effect: The dems/anti-americans who accept, need to make a suggestion as to the Good Guys’ new name. I’ll tally them on election evening.

However, if pookie cannot bring himself to committ, that is null and void.

Quid pro quo

Up for it?

JeffR

[hspder]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Well, it’s getting close to election time.

Time for the bet.

Time to stop running mouths and put your money on the table.

I’ll bet the Republicans retain control of both Houses.

If the democrats win one or (gasp) more: I’ll become

GeorgeBushlied1

If the Republicans win the dems who accept the challenge become:

ILoveGeorgeWBush.

The Anti-Americans like reckless, pookie, juniho, ephrem and orion are welcome to join in!!!

Good luck.

JeffR[/quote]

You seem to be in need of an explanation here of how betting works, so here it goes:

Right now the odds of option 1 are 20:1 vs option 2 (i.e., it is 20x more likely that the Republicans maintain control of both Houses than not).

Therefore, you must realize the rules of betting dictate that for me to get in the action, the benefit in case I win needs to be 20x greater than the one for you if you win.

Let’s do this: if I win, only 1/40 of conservatives that ever posted in this forum get to continue to post. If you win, 1/2 of the liberals do.

THAT would be a fair bet, considering the odds right now. Are you in?

[pookie]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Let me amend. If pookie accepts THE CHALLENGE II, the following will go into effect:

…

Up for it?

JeffR[/quote]

Like I said, I don’t get to vote in those elections, so my interest and concern about them is limited. I understand the advantages (well, for the administration if not for the people) of controlling all three houses; but US midterms are rather hard to get enthused about when you live outside the border. Maybe I’d care more if I was Mexican.

Although, if Maine or Vermont will be using Diebold voting machines, I’m sure I could manage to vote early and often. I believe they’re already Blue States, though. Maybe I’ll have to try with New Hampshire.

And if hspder is right, and I have no reason to doubt the odds he gave, I don’t find the bet compelling enough to want to participate.

Yet.

[JeffR]

[quote]hspder wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Well, it’s getting close to election time.

Time for the bet.

Time to stop running mouths and put your money on the table.

I’ll bet the Republicans retain control of both Houses.

If the democrats win one or (gasp) more: I’ll become

GeorgeBushlied1

If the Republicans win the dems who accept the challenge become:

ILoveGeorgeWBush.

The Anti-Americans like reckless, pookie, juniho, ephrem and orion are welcome to join in!!!

Good luck.

JeffR

You seem to be in need of an explanation here of how betting works, so here it goes:

Right now the odds of option 1 are 20:1 vs option 2 (i.e., it is 20x more likely that the Republicans maintain control of both Houses than not).

Therefore, you must realize the rules of betting dictate that for me to get in the action, the benefit in case I win needs to be 20x greater than the one for you if you win.

Let’s do this: if I win, only 1/40 of conservatives that ever posted in this forum get to continue to post. If you win, 1/2 of the liberals do.

THAT would be a fair bet, considering the odds right now. Are you in?[/quote]

Ok, I think I’ve established that the dems aren’t nearly as confident as their talking heads.

I thought the dems (with their clear and compelling party platform) would salivate at the opportunity to rub it in.

Remember, only twice in our Republic’s history has a President picked up seats in midterm elections: TR and GWB.

Therefore, it would seem that the dems (again, with the strength of their leaders, their clear strategy, their clever alternatives) would have no trouble taking at least on House.

They couldn’t lose two mid-term cycles in a row to the “dummy” George W. Bush. Could they?

Seems like a pretty safe bet, hey lefties?

Hey, hspder, I’ve been quite flexible. However, I reject your formula.

How’s this one: If we take the square root of nancy pelosi’s gross income, divide it by the number of dems who voted for and now are against the Iraq War, multiply that by the first 8 digits of pi, then divide by the number of dems who couldn’t figure out a butterfly ballot, add to it the IQ of the dem who used microsoft word to forge W’s National Guard Papers, subtract ted kennedy’s maximum blood alcohol level, and finally take (benaffleck’s arm size/sean penn’s number of times in a gym) to the 8th degree, maybe we could get a more accurate gauge to determine who needs to change their names.

JeffR

[rainjack]

[quote]hspder wrote:
You seem to be in need of an explanation here of how betting works, so here it goes:

Right now the odds of option 1 are 20:1 vs option 2 (i.e., it is 20x more likely that the Republicans maintain control of both Houses than not).

Therefore, you must realize the rules of betting dictate that for me to get in the action, the benefit in case I win needs to be 20x greater than the one for you if you win.

Let’s do this: if I win, only 1/40 of conservatives that ever posted in this forum get to continue to post. If you win, 1/2 of the liberals do.

THAT would be a fair bet, considering the odds right now. Are you in?[/quote]

SO many words. SO little meaning.

Who says the odds are 20:1? Looks to me that in a heads up competition, you are not betting on the odds, you are betting up or down on the outcome.

Besides - that’s not the rhetoric flying around down here. Quite the opposite. If you were to listen to the partisan lefties down here (100M, and his ilk) there is no way the republicans can hold the house.

Therefore your odds are meaningless. This is a straigh up bet - no odds, no points, and no overthinking a very simple wager.

[hspder]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Who says the odds are 20:1?[/quote]

Statistical analysis, using current polls, historical data and a lot of Math.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Besides - that’s not the rhetoric flying around down here. Quite the opposite. If you were to listen to the partisan lefties down here (100M, and his ilk) there is no way the republicans can hold the house.[/quote]

Yeah, and there’s no way the Earth is round.

I too would like to believe, but the numbers don’t lie.

By the way, if you want similar odds for 2008’s election, start rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the Dem nomination. I’m not kidding – actually I’m willing to be some conservatives will be contributing to her campaign.

Sad, but true.

[100meters]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
hspder wrote:
You seem to be in need of an explanation here of how betting works, so here it goes:

Right now the odds of option 1 are 20:1 vs option 2 (i.e., it is 20x more likely that the Republicans maintain control of both Houses than not).

Therefore, you must realize the rules of betting dictate that for me to get in the action, the benefit in case I win needs to be 20x greater than the one for you if you win.

Let’s do this: if I win, only 1/40 of conservatives that ever posted in this forum get to continue to post. If you win, 1/2 of the liberals do.

THAT would be a fair bet, considering the odds right now. Are you in?

SO many words. SO little meaning.

Who says the odds are 20:1? Looks to me that in a heads up competition, you are not betting on the odds, you are betting up or down on the outcome.

Besides - that’s not the rhetoric flying around down here. Quite the opposite. If you were to listen to the partisan lefties down here (100M, and his ilk) there is no way the republicans can hold the house.

[/quote]

Hey! I think they will hold the house.

[JeffR]

[quote]lumpy wrote:

Hey! I think they will hold the house.[/quote]

lumpy, I thought you (of all people) would be confident about the dems.

At each turn you remind us of the supposed trangressions of the Republicans. You speak of the dems as a viable and visionary alternative.

I guess that is just hot air.

Too bad.

JeffR

[BostonBarrister]

&updateLis[quote]
JeffR wrote:
Well, it’s getting close to election time.

Time for the bet.

Time to stop running mouths and put your money on the table.

I’ll bet the Republicans retain control of both Houses.

If the democrats win one or (gasp) more: I’ll become

GeorgeBushlied1

If the Republicans win the dems who accept the challenge become:

ILoveGeorgeWBush.

The Anti-Americans like reckless, pookie, juniho, ephrem and orion are welcome to join in!!!

Good luck.

JeffR

hspder wrote:
You seem to be in need of an explanation here of how betting works, so here it goes:

Right now the odds of option 1 are 20:1 vs option 2 (i.e., it is 20x more likely that the Republicans maintain control of both Houses than not).

Therefore, you must realize the rules of betting dictate that for me to get in the action, the benefit in case I win needs to be 20x greater than the one for you if you win.

Let’s do this: if I win, only 1/40 of conservatives that ever posted in this forum get to continue to post. If you win, 1/2 of the liberals do.

THAT would be a fair bet, considering the odds right now. Are you in?[/quote]

I guess it depends upon where you find your odds.

If you’re going by Tradesports, the odds look relatively even:

http://www.tradesports.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=35889&eventSelect=35889t=true&showExpired=false

The Senate contract is trading around 82 (thus 82% likely to retain GOP control), but the House contract is trading at 52.2 (and was below 50 prior to this week).

[100meters]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

Hey! I think they will hold the house.

lumpy, I thought you (of all people) would be confident about the dems.

At each turn you remind us of the supposed trangressions of the Republicans. You speak of the dems as a viable and visionary alternative.

I guess that is just hot air.

Too bad.

JeffR
[/quote]

“Supposed” Your congress has met maybe 100 days, has done nothing for americans, and has done no oversight on this president at the cost of how many lives? There is no point in having people who don’t believe in government “in government” and they are only there to prove that government doesn’t work. Sadly though,you have the gay agnostic dividing the country, and because you have Karl Rove you guys keep winning.

Again your congress is corrupt, and has factually done less than the do nothing congress of past. And no oversight! Don’t you at least want oversight? Your congressional leader can’t even condemn Bob freaking Ney?!!

Why would you vote for them, why?

[JeffR]

[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lumpy wrote:

Hey! I think they will hold the house.

lumpy, I thought you (of all people) would be confident about the dems.

At each turn you remind us of the supposed trangressions of the Republicans. You speak of the dems as a viable and visionary alternative.

I guess that is just hot air.

Too bad.

JeffR

“Supposed” Your congress has met maybe 100 days, has done nothing for americans, and has done no oversight on this president at the cost of how many lives? There is no point in having people who don’t believe in government “in government” and they are only there to prove that government doesn’t work. Sadly though,you have the gay agnostic dividing the country, and because you have Karl Rove you guys keep winning.

Again your congress is corrupt, and has factually done less than the do nothing congress of past. And no oversight! Don’t you at least want oversight? Your congressional leader can’t even condemn Bob freaking Ney?!!

Why would you vote for them, why?[/quote]

Hey, lumpy.

This election doesn’t boil down to THE EVIL GENIUS, KARL ROVE.

It comes down to this: Who will keep your family safe?

That’s it. The Republicans are the party that sees the threat.

Are they perfect? Nope.

You tell, me, what is the alternative?

The dems? Get serious. Where exactly do they stand for on any given issue?

Who speaks for them?

Now, you tell me, look at the person you love the most (even if it’s you) and ask yourself which party is dedicated to protecting your loved one?

It most certainly isn’t the party who objects to the use of the word “islamofacism.” Or the party that crows over defeating the Patriot Act. Or gives kudos to newspapers that tip off our enemies. Or, the party whose current House leader declared one year after 9/11 that we weren’t at war.

Finally, if your beloved democrats were worth a damn, you would be accepting THE CHALLENGE II. That you passionately believe that George Bush is “dumb” and YOU STILL CANNOT BEAT HIM, speaks volumes for you and your party. That you continually rail against the Congress, and still can’t bring yourself to accept THE CHALLENGE II, speaks volumes.

You and your blathering remind me of a line from Macbeth:

“it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

JeffR

[rainjack]

[quote]100meters wrote:

Again your congress is corrupt, and has factually done less than the do nothing congress of past. And no oversight! Don’t you at least want oversight? Your congressional leader can’t even condemn Bob freaking Ney?!!

Why would you vote for them, why?[/quote]

Corrupt as…say…Rosty? Jim Wright? Kennedy?

Dude - the Dem led congresses of the past were the very definition of corrupt. Or have you conveniently forgotten about the House Bank? The House Post Office?

Please.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]100meters wrote:

Again your congress is corrupt, and has factually done less than the do nothing congress of past. And no oversight! Don’t you at least want oversight? Your congressional leader can’t even condemn Bob freaking Ney?!!

Why would you vote for them, why?[/quote]

Did I miss the rousing condemnation of William Jefferson issued by the Democratic Party?

[JeffR]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

Again your congress is corrupt, and has factually done less than the do nothing congress of past. And no oversight! Don’t you at least want oversight? Your congressional leader can’t even condemn Bob freaking Ney?!!

Why would you vote for them, why?

Did I miss the rousing condemnation of William Jefferson issued by the Democratic Party?[/quote]

I believe Lieberman was quite critical.

Another reason to hope he wins.

JeffR

[anon31651765]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:

Again your congress is corrupt, and has factually done less than the do nothing congress of past. And no oversight! Don’t you at least want oversight? Your congressional leader can’t even condemn Bob freaking Ney?!!

Why would you vote for them, why?

Corrupt as…say…Rosty? Jim Wright? Kennedy?

Dude - the Dem led congresses of the past were the very definition of corrupt. Or have you conveniently forgotten about the House Bank? The House Post Office?

Please. [/quote]

All politicians are corrupt.

Let’s not pretend one party is worse than the other.

[danmaftei]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
That you passionately believe that George Bush is “dumb” and YOU STILL CANNOT BEAT HIM, speaks volumes for you and your party. That you continually rail against the Congress, and still can’t bring yourself to accept THE CHALLENGE II, speaks volumes.

JeffR

[/quote]

It’s not just because of the party, it’s equally so the voters’ fault. Well over half of Americans, whether you like to believe it or not, haven’t the slightest clue about politics, vote blindly along party lines, and are easily roused at any form of propaganda (Coulter, Moore).

This is precisely why we have the electoral college (rather “had,” the concept’s gone to hell), and exactly why politicans can’t do jack-shit nowadays; they spend their whole fucking time analyzing what the voter and lobbyists want and pandering to them, no matter how dumb their request may be.

The founding fathers certainly loved this nation and its people, but they didn’t put enough faith in the common man or woman to believe that s/he could do a politician’s job better than the politician himself (or herself), which is essentially what’s happening now.

On a side note, the English language really needs a distinct third-person neutral.

[rainjack]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:

Again your congress is corrupt, and has factually done less than the do nothing congress of past. And no oversight! Don’t you at least want oversight? Your congressional leader can’t even condemn Bob freaking Ney?!!

Why would you vote for them, why?

Corrupt as…say…Rosty? Jim Wright? Kennedy?

Dude - the Dem led congresses of the past were the very definition of corrupt. Or have you conveniently forgotten about the House Bank? The House Post Office?

Please.

All politicians are corrupt.

Let’s not pretend one party is worse than the other.[/quote]

I would not disagree. But your insinuation that MY congress is corrupt sounds like you are the one faking the moral high ground.

[anon31651765]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:

Again your congress is corrupt, and has factually done less than the do nothing congress of past. And no oversight! Don’t you at least want oversight? Your congressional leader can’t even condemn Bob freaking Ney?!!

Why would you vote for them, why?

Corrupt as…say…Rosty? Jim Wright? Kennedy?

Dude - the Dem led congresses of the past were the very definition of corrupt. Or have you conveniently forgotten about the House Bank? The House Post Office?

Please.

All politicians are corrupt.

Let’s not pretend one party is worse than the other.

I would not disagree. But your insinuation that MY congress is corrupt sounds like you are the one faking the moral high ground.

[/quote]

I never said or insinuated that, it was 100meters that did.

I think all politicians are full of shit. It’s just who’s shit I like better.

[rainjack]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:

Again your congress is corrupt, and has factually done less than the do nothing congress of past. And no oversight! Don’t you at least want oversight? Your congressional leader can’t even condemn Bob freaking Ney?!!

Why would you vote for them, why?

Corrupt as…say…Rosty? Jim Wright? Kennedy?

Dude - the Dem led congresses of the past were the very definition of corrupt. Or have you conveniently forgotten about the House Bank? The House Post Office?

Please.

All politicians are corrupt.

Let’s not pretend one party is worse than the other.

I would not disagree. But your insinuation that MY congress is corrupt sounds like you are the one faking the moral high ground.

I never said or insinuated that, it was 100meters that did.

I think all politicians are full of shit. It’s just who’s shit I like better.[/quote]

My bad Irish and 100M. It would help if I paid attention to who said what.