who would you bet on kerry or Bush?

[heshy]

From Betonsports.com

Bush -120
Kerry +160

For anyone who doesn't understand:

if you bet Bush you put up $120 to get back $100

if you bet Kerry you put up $100 to get back $160

I don't know if its true but abc news said the election will come down to 3 states (Pa, Fl, Oh) and who ever wins 2 of those 3 will win the election. If its true then I believe this senario favors Kerry big time because he could win all 3 of those states.

Another words betting the underdog might be a good bet...

[Mike AI]

There is still plenty of time in this election for things to change.

However, I think Bush will win electorial college, but will lose popular vote probably larger then he did last election.

[Rolo]

Overall the 3 debates did Kerry more good, than what Bush got from them. The challenge for Kerry will now be to keep him in the media once Bush and co. gear up for their "shock and awe" campaign.

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by heshy@Oct 14 2004, 10:39 AM
I don't know if its true but abc news said the election will come down to 3 states (Pa, Fl, Oh) and who ever wins 2 of those 3 will win the election. If its true then I believe this senario favors Kerry big time because he could win all 3 of those states.
Last polls i saw showed Bush is slight leads in all 3 of those states.

>> but will lose popular vote probably larger then he did last election.
I doubt it, California will give Bush a lot more votes than he got last time. But Kerry will still take the state. Same with NY.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by slavdogg+Oct 14 2004, 08:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slavdogg @ Oct 14 2004, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-heshy@Oct 14 2004, 10:39 AM
I don't know if its true but abc news said the election will come down to 3 states (Pa, Fl, Oh) and who ever wins 2 of those 3 will win the election. If its true then I believe this senario favors Kerry big time because he could win all 3 of those states.
Last polls i saw showed Bush is slight leads in all 3 of those states.

>> but will lose popular vote probably larger then he did last election.
I doubt it, California will give Bush a lot more votes than he got last time. But Kerry will still take the state. Same with NY. [/b][/quote]


See I am thinking Cali and NY are going to be blow outs.... they always are. The polls have them close, but I do not put much faith in them.

An electorial and popular victory would be great! :D

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 14 2004, 11:37 PM
An electorial and popular victory would be great! :D
Yeah, that'll be nice when Kerry takes them! :salute:

[SykkBoy]

For the first time in awhile Nevada is considered a swing state, so I'll be out in force with friends who are registered to vote but haven't done it.

What might help Kerry carry Nevada is his stance on Yucca Mountain and environmental issues.

I hate the fact that I'm going to have to cast a vote for Kerry, but I just can't, in good conscience, vote for Bush nor just avoid voting to give him the vote.

I've seen the latst bunch of ads attacking Kerry's voting records and one thing I wonder...if GW had ever served in congress, how would he have voted on those issues? I wonder, if he had actually went to Vietnam instead of hiding out in texas, would he have been a hero (real or fake) or would he have been a casualty? If he'd had as much life experience as Kerry, what would his record look like? As flip-floppy as it is, kerry has a track record and GW only has his track record as President and it's not that good...

[Buff]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Oct 14 2004, 08:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Oct 14 2004, 08:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by slavdogg@Oct 14 2004, 08:22 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-heshy@Oct 14 2004, 10:39 AM
I don't know if its true but abc news said the election will come down to 3 states (Pa, Fl, Oh) and who ever wins 2 of those 3 will win the election. If its true then I believe this senario favors Kerry big time because he could win all 3 of those states.
Last polls i saw showed Bush is slight leads in all 3 of those states.

>> but will lose popular vote probably larger then he did last election.
I doubt it, California will give Bush a lot more votes than he got last time. But Kerry will still take the state. Same with NY.


See I am thinking Cali and NY are going to be blow outs.... they always are. The polls have them close, but I do not put much faith in them.

An electorial and popular victory would be great! :D [/b][/quote]
If Kerry wins, New York and Cali will be blowups because the war on terror is gonna be fought reactively.

[Candice]

i think if we will base on the debates...Kerry is the man. :okthumb:

[Dianna Vesta]

Hopefully all the votes will get counted here in Florida and there won't be a lot of diversions for the voters. If it's done fairly he will definately win.

DV

[JR]

there is going to be some weird scandals/mud slinging towards the end of this month/beginning of the next.

:bdance: :bjump: :bdance: :bjump:

[Almighty Colin]

I'd bet Kerry with those odds as I think this is effectively a toss-up.

I think Bush has about the same chance to win PA, OH, and FL as Kerry does if you look at the state by state polls for October.

[OldJeff]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 14 2004, 01:16 PM
There is still plenty of time in this election for things to change.

However, I think Bush will win electorial college, but will lose popular vote probably larger then he did last election.
And IF that happens I think we will see a HUGE public outcry for finally ending that antiquated system.

We don't need to send electors by horse and buggy on a week long trip to elect someone.

Technology has made that system obsolete decades ago

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by OldJeff+Oct 15 2004, 08:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (OldJeff @ Oct 15 2004, 08:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Oct 14 2004, 01:16 PM
There is still plenty of time in this election for things to change.

However, I think Bush will win electorial college, but will lose popular vote probably larger then he did last election.
And IF that happens I think we will see a HUGE public outcry for finally ending that antiquated system.

We don't need to send electors by horse and buggy on a week long trip to elect someone.

Technology has made that system obsolete decades ago [/b][/quote]
It doesn't have anything to do with technology. It's about the power of states. States elect the president, not the people with votes being weighted by the population of the state with every state receiving 2 votes to start with for the benefit of the smallest states.

What's antiquated about the principle? States still make their own laws. You can't smoke in a restaurant in Florida. You can in Georgia. It's still the United STATES.

Arguing against the electoral system is just the same as arguing in favor of federalism which is a debate that is still current. I think the argument is a fair one to make but that each side has some really good points.

[OldJeff]

My argument against the Electoral collage is a simple one.

It was built due to a logistics problem, not to maintain fairness to lower populated states. (Lets remember that the founding fathers really couldn't care less about fairness, for examples, only white land owners could vote, they owned slaves, and the little act of attempted genocide the ran for several decades on the native people here.) Since the logistics problem is no longer there we do not need the system.

As it works now, the vast majority of the votes cast for president are worthless. - Hell last election if you did not live in Florida your vote didn't matter.

I think a lot of people feel this way and it is one of the reasons we have such low voter turnout.

I believe there should be true majority rule, but without persecution to the minority.

Of course I also think that the Federal governments scope should not extend beyond what is written in the constitution, and Senetors should still be elected by the congress so that "maybe" they would still be acting in the best interest of the country as a whole as opposed to being just another "pork barrel" body of the bloated sow padding bills with "money for nothing" back to their home states

It is a shitty system, but I have to give it it's due - It is about the best shitty system out there

[heshy]

Months ago there was a lot of talk about a possible terrorist attcak prior to the election. I know there has always been a lot of terrorist talk since 9/11 but as we all know 1 day it will happen. If it did happen prior to the election how do you think it would change the vote if at all? And also what would happen if an attack happened the day of the election as was in Spain?

[Bishop]

If an attack took place just before the election I'm betting there would be massive support for keeping Bush in office. The idea of changing bus drivers in the middle of an accident wouldn't be popular.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Bishop@Oct 15 2004, 08:27 AM
The idea of changing bus drivers in the middle of an accident wouldn't be popular.


Oh come on...thats moronic!!! LOL

some useless bastard has just driven you into a ditch and you are gonna say "We'll never mind , reverse us out and off we go"

Fuck that , I'd say "Get the fuck out of the driving seat , Steve , I'm driving"


;-))))


Of course the real smart thing would have been not to let him drive in the first place.

;-)))

[Bishop]

Steve huh? haha..

The wheels on the bus go round and round..

[Almighty Colin]

Jeff,

What does it mean that they "didn't care about fairness" in the context of states? States like Delaware, Rhode Island and New Hampshire had to ratify the Constitution. Each state wanted to join the Union under conditions which were most advantageous to it. The ratifiers were the states themselves.

If it were true that the electoral college were created because of "logistics" then each state could just send one elector. Instead, each state sends:

1. a number electors in proportion to its population (number of congressmen)
PLUS
2. two additional electors (number of senators)

In this way, large states like Virginia could be represented by their number of congressmen and small states like New Hampshire would have a minimum number of electors in fairness to the fact that it was an individual state with its own laws and treasury. A nice compromise.

But in fairness there are is usually more than one answer. These seem to be the initial arguments and goals for the electoral system and its process:

1. Addressing the concerns of both small and large states in order to get full ratification (see above, this was a compromise made at constitutional convention)

2. Normal citizens not having familiarity with candidates (can't trust uneducated people) (Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 68) (Is that "logistics"?)

3. Best way to get George Washington elected president