Donald Trump and Tom Petty?

[Rachel]

Donald Trump "won't back down," according to MSNBC.

[JD Chase]

Can't STAND Trump!!! What a DISGUSTING PIG he is!!!

[marcus]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:31:48 PM UTC-4, JD Chase wrote:
> Can't STAND Trump!!! What a DISGUSTING PIG he is!!!

I wish that progressives and liberals would just stop talking and focusing on Trump. Isn't sitting back and watching the Republican party implode enough pleasure?

[JD Chase]

You're right Marcus. You may as well laugh, and Trump is nothing if not a gigantic joke!

[marcus]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:33:56 PM UTC-4, JD Chase wrote:
> You're right Marcus. You may as well laugh, and Trump is nothing if not a gigantic joke!

It occurs to me that the one person who stands to benefit the most from all the focus on Trump by the mainstream media for the past week is Hillary Clinton. The media has stopped talking about Sanders due to its obsessive coverage of Trump. I'm sure that she and her staff are quite happy about this development

[Just Walkin']

Careful now. Too soon to gloat. And you GOP haters better not take any half measures either. Remember: Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

OTH word has it that Trump will lead a 3rd party exodus of like-minded geniuses out of the GOP if Jeb gets the nomination.

Again: Hold the champagne; he could end up chancellor.

[marcus]

2016 might be the first presidential election that I sit out.

[nate]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 11:06:44 AM UTC-4, marcus wrote:
>
> 2016 might be the first presidential election that I sit out.

When you sit out, you are surrendering and voting for the candidate you like the least - the one you hate the most.


- nate

[JD Chase]

Many people disagree, but I still feel that voting for the "lesser evil" is sometimes the best thing to do...

[Just Walkin']

Aren't you for Bernie?

[JD Chase]

Bernie would be a dream come true, but seriously, do you really think a self described socialist who is in his 70's, who is Jewish, who is somewhat of a curmudgeon, who doesn't hVe the financial resources, who has a lot of powerful forces against him, has a chance to be the democratic nominee??? I truly worry that the military industrial complex, the power elite, would assassinate him if he ever became president...

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 11:06:44 AM UTC-4, marcus wrote:

Indeed you probably will. As will most people who share your basic views. The Dems don't have a snowb--l's chance in hell of retaining the WH for that very reason. Not a judgment, just a completely non-scientific observation peppered with a sense of recent historical trends. One might think: Oh, well, in that case it will be a competition between who sits out more--JEBBIE voters or Hilz voters. But that's just a canard. Cons will not be sitting this one out. Cons will not reject Bush because he's too moderate. That's just media lies..., er, hype, er...conventional wisdom. GOPs and con-ish indies want to lock the gates to Dems and libs for the foreseeable future and they will make their stand on the Prez election. They believe that they were profoundly ripped off by the last 8 years. So, unlike the last election for prez, they will not stay home. So you still have a chance to change your "vote." But honestly, one person showing up for Hilz won't make much difference at this point. They've lost. The next president will be decided in by the GOP primaries exactly as the 2008 one was to be decided by the Dem primaries. Your vote would actually be more meaningful if you could vote in the GOP primaries.

[JD Chase]

Truly hope you are mistaken Luis!!! The last thing we need is a republican president, whom will, along with a right wing congress and Supreme Court drag us backwards!!!

[Rachel]

whom? ???

[Will Dockery]

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 8:17:23 PM UTC-4, Rachel wrote:
> Donald Trump "won't back down," according to MSNBC.

A Travelling Wilbury brother Trump is not... maybe the villain of the piece, like Uncle Sweetheart in Masked & Anonymous.

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5a48db67-e222-4692...@googlegroups.com...

(1) The population as a whole is trending "lib".
(2) Demographic changes tilt against the Republicans.
(3) Donald Trump is making a mess of things. If sane Republicans begin to
speak out against his extreme views in numbers, he could be driven to run as
a "third party".
(4) The electoral college is stacked against the Republicans:

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-2016-race-an-electoral-college-edge-for-democrats/2015/03/15/855f2792-cb3c-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html>

If you think that resentment of progress on the part of old white guys is
sufficient to resist that tide, you're nuts.

[Just Kidding]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 10:14:54 -0700 (PDT), JD Chase
<jdcha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Bernie would be a dream come true, but seriously, do you really think a self described socialist who is in his 70's, who is Jewish, who is somewhat of a curmudgeon, who doesn't hVe the financial resources, who has a lot of powerful forces against him, has a chance to be the democratic nominee??? I truly worry that the military industrial complex, the power elite, would assassinate him if he ever became president...

Not to mention that Bernie has never demonstrated that he possesses
the wide range of knowledge and skills required to be president in
today's world. At this point, he's pretty much a one trick pony with a
singular message. It's a good message and I like Bernie, but I doubt
very much that he's presidential material. Think Ralph Nader.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Hey, look, anybody can repeat the "talking points." And then there's reality (as in economic). And then there's the attitude of a ton of people who find the last 8 years with Obama & Co to be lunacy. I'm going with those trend, not what the New Republic, the Wash Post, or some lefty-ish blog written by someone who never leaves their house says. I can't prove shit--I know that. But I'd put money on what I'm saying. And BTW, the "old white guys" meme from some low-ranked college professor named something rhyming with Hole is a lotta hooey. Seventy five percent of the population's white and that's not all male and old. So the data actually says that your argument is nuts, though you might be also, I don't know.

[luisb...@aol.com]

I'd vote for Bernie over any of these people, Dem or Con, any day. But the Dems aren't taking this one so it's academic.

[Just Kidding]

Why and why?

[marcus]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 11:34:57 AM UTC-4, nate wrote:

Wow, so many reactions coming at me from all sides. Good thing I didn't say that I'm against the death penalty. That's always good for an avalanche or dog pile of posts.

First of all, I would like to express to those who are aghast that I might not vote in the 2016 election that the emphasis is on the word "might" as I said in my original post as well as earlier in this sentence.

Secondly, Nate, your statement makes no sense. The only way one can vote for the candidate they like the least is to vote for that candidate.

Thirdly, I agree with Rich about the direction voters are taking...it would seem that the Democrats should win, but the Republicans will trot out on election day, like the good little lemmings they are, and vote for (my prediction is Rand Paul)the Republican in massive numbers. I think that feelings are so strong against Hillary Clinton(should she win the nomination)among many Americans that she would most likely lose the presidency.

Fourth, I am 100% in favor of Bernie Sanders, and will do what I can to help him win the nomination. Never underestimate Bernie Sanders. By the time the primaries evolve, he will make sure that Blacks and Latinos know who he is. Veterans and Labor already do. As do those concerned with climate. As to international diplomacy, he was quite astute. As a Congressman in 1991, he predicted what American involvement with Iraq would yield in the future, and did so on the floor of the House. He was right in that assessment.

Fifth, I so detest Hillary Clinton that should she be the Democratic party nominee, I "might" not be able to stomach voting for her.

Sixth, does anyone reading this really care what I think?

[RichL]

"Just Kidding" <JustK...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ght5qa9igtm1i898f...@4ax.com...

In my estimation, the proper background needed to become president of the US
is serving at least one full term as a Senator and one full term as a state
governor.

Want to know how many actual presidents fulfilled these requirements?
Unless I missed someone along the line, precisely zero (unless you include
Andrew Jackson's stint as military governor of Florida before it became a
state. Serving as VP might be helpful (but see Andrew Johnson, who was a
disaster), as might serving in a prior president's cabinet.

They all learn on the fly. Some come to the office much more "prepared"
than others, but there doesn't seem to be much correlation between the
degree of preparation and how well they served in office.

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9acbffd9-9958-4117...@googlegroups.com...

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Clinton's got baggage, and if
she wins the nomination, she'll be in for a rough ride. The Dem's
disadvantage is that their bench isn't deep at all. But on the plus side,
the Reps are much more likely to say something that'll scare off the folks
in the middle than the other way around.

> And BTW, the "old white guys" meme from some low-ranked college professor
> named something rhyming with Hole is a lotta hooey.

Who would that be?

> Seventy five percent of the population's white and that's not all male and
> old.

Younger folks and women are much more likely to vote Dem. If Clinton's the
nominee, you can kiss white women goodbye. And if the sentiment in this
newsgroup is any indication (I realize we're not exactly representative),
there will be a pile of white guys joining them.

> So the data actually says that your argument is nuts, though you might be
> also, I don't know.

What data? You haven't provided any. You want data? Here ya go:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Clinton is leading in every match-up against serious (and one
not-so-serious) Republican challengers. Her closest competitor is Rand
Paul, who the Republicans are not going to nominate because he's too "soft"
on defense. She's up by 5.6 percentage points on Bush, 9.8 on Walker, and
6.8 on Rubio. As far as I'm concerned, these are the three most likely
Republican nominees.

This despite the whole nasty business with her State Department e-mails and
the Benghazi faux scandal.

[Just Kidding]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:32:54 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 11:34:57 AM UTC-4, nate wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 11:06:44 AM UTC-4, marcus wrote:
>> >
>> > 2016 might be the first presidential election that I sit out.
>>
>>
>> When you sit out, you are surrendering and voting for the candidate you like the least - the one you hate the most.
>>
>>
>> - nate
>
>Wow, so many reactions coming at me from all sides. Good thing I didn't say that I'm against the death penalty. That's always good for an avalanche or dog pile of posts.
>
>First of all, I would like to express to those who are aghast that I might not vote in the 2016 election that the emphasis is on the word "might" as I said in my original post as well as earlier in this sentence.
>
>Secondly, Nate, your statement makes no sense. The only way one can vote for the candidate they like the least is to vote for that candidate.
>
>Thirdly, I agree with Rich about the direction voters are taking...it would seem that the Democrats should win, but the Republicans will trot out on election day, like the good little lemmings they are, and vote for (my prediction is Rand Paul)the Republican in massive numbers. I think that feelings are so strong against Hillary Clinton(should she win the nomination)among many Americans that she would most likely lose the presidency.
>

For at least the last two or three decades, and probably longer, the
Republicans have been pretty significantly outnumbered by Democrats
(independents are usually pretty evenly split) and they rarely vote in
"massive numbers". There are essentially only three ways they can win
a presidential election: 1) gerrymander voting districts to skew the
electoral college voting; 2) hope for a low Democratic turnout, either
because of disinterest or dislike of their candidate, or voter
suppression; and 3) a third party candidate (e.g. Nader) siphons off
enough Democratic votes to cost the election.

There is actually a third way for Republicans to win, which is to
nominate such a great candidate that he or she attracts a significant
number of Democratic and independent voters. That appears to be highly
unlikely this year.

>Sixth, does anyone reading this really care what I think?

If they're reading it, I assume they care at least a little bit.

[Just Kidding]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:23:28 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I sort of agree with your main point about no candidate having the
perfect resume. However, I still maintain that no matter their
experience, some candidates project a greater likelihood of being able
to handle all the varied facets of the presidency, including both
domestic and foreign policy issues. I don't think Sanders does that.
Of course, neither did G.W. Bush and he still got elected twice, so
who knows?

[Earl Browder]

On Sunday, 12 July 2015 22:34:35 UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
>
> There are essentially only three ways they can win
> a presidential election: 1) gerrymander voting districts to skew the
> electoral college voting;

Other than in Nebraska and Maine, where one elector is selected in each congressional district (and simultaneously two more statewide), all the other states operate on a "winner-take-all" basis for choosing electors (e.g., win California by just one popular vote and you still win all of its 55 electors). Gerrymandering would therefore be essentially irrelevant in determining the electoral votes of 48 of the 50 states.

[DianeE]

"marcus" <marc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7694cc53-3b9d-42a6...@googlegroups.com...

First of all, I would like to express to those who are aghast that I might
not vote in the 2016 election that the emphasis is on the word "might" as I
said in my original post as well as earlier in this sentence.

Secondly, Nate, your statement makes no sense. The only way one can vote
for the candidate they like the least is to vote for that candidate.

------------
No, I agree with Nate here. It's like "sins of omission." If you preferred
Mitt Romney, but stayed home because it was raining on election day, you *in
effect* gave up your vote to Barack Obama.
-------------

Thirdly, I agree with Rich about the direction voters are taking...it would
seem that the Democrats should win, but the Republicans will trot out on
election day, like the good little lemmings they are, and vote for (my
prediction is Rand Paul)the Republican in massive numbers. I think that
feelings are so strong against Hillary Clinton(should she win the
nomination)among many Americans that she would most likely lose the
presidency.

---------------
Rand Paul's wig is like Chris Christie's weight, a triviality that makes him
unelectable.
----------------

Fourth, I am 100% in favor of Bernie Sanders, and will do what I can to help
him win the nomination. Never underestimate Bernie Sanders. By the time
the primaries evolve, he will make sure that Blacks and Latinos know who he
is. Veterans and Labor already do. As do those concerned with climate. As
to international diplomacy, he was quite astute. As a Congressman in 1991,
he predicted what American involvement with Iraq would yield in the future,
and did so on the floor of the House. He was right in that assessment.

------------------
I like Sanders too. I wish his son would step up and quash the rumors that
he was a deadbeat dad, though. Anyhow, I watch the Sunday polit-talk shows,
and I marvel at the way they say Sanders is unelectable because of his *age*
and because of his *leftness* but completely avoid mentioning the true
reason he is unelectable, mainly that he's a Jew. I always said we'd have a
black President before we ever had a Jewish President, and everyone scoffed
at me, but I was right.
---------------------

Fifth, I so detest Hillary Clinton that should she be the Democratic party
nominee, I "might" not be able to stomach voting for her.

-------------------
Any particular reason you detest her? (If it has to do with her physical
appearance don't answer, please.)

I honestly don't think Clinton will be a good President, but neither was
Warren G. Harding. Some say he was the worst President of all time. He was
the last President to be swept into office by women voters. Women won the
right to vote in 1920 and promptly elected Harding,.

Women are going to elect Clinton, because women--even some conservative
Republican women--see a real chance for a female President. and they (we)
will sweep her into office just like Harding.

I will vote for Sanders in the primary and I will vote for Clinton in the
general election. I'm no gender traitor.
----------------

Sixth, does anyone reading this really care what I think?

-------------------
I sure do. I'm very interested in the upcoming elections and I care what
everyone thinks. And I care that every person who can help prevent Luis's
prediction from coming true should *not* fail to vote. Hold your nose if
you must but don't help Jeb Bush get into the White House.

DianeE

[JD Chase]

Could not agree more, Diane!!! Having a republican president, a republican controlled congress, and a republican dominated Supreme Court would be a nightmare! We need to continue to progress in the future in many fronts, not reactionary backsliding instead...

[luisb...@aol.com]

-

> Younger folks and women are much more likely to vote Dem. If Clinton's the
> nominee, you can kiss white women goodbye. And if the sentiment in this
> newsgroup is any indication (I realize we're not exactly representative),
> there will be a pile of white guys joining them.

Millennials aren't going to line up behind Hillary Clinton. Period. That goes for both sexes. Women of today, no matter how much they are told there is a "war on women," are not fighting the fights of their mothers and grandmothers. Add to that the whiff of corruption around her foundation, the shredding of government e.mails, and a questionable Secy of State run, and you've got a very unattractive candidate--for women, I mean. Yeah, some old farts in Oregon will go for her, along with former social workers Brooklyn. But that won't win her jack. The Dems have completely disintegrated, and her 'inevitability' is living proof. The fact that people in her own party tend to dislike her as much or more than people from other side says it all.

>
> > So the data actually says that your argument is nuts, though you might be
> > also, I don't know.

-

> What data? You haven't provided any. You want data? Here ya go:
>
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
>
> Clinton is leading in every match-up against serious (and one
> not-so-serious) Republican challengers. Her closest competitor is Rand
> Paul, who the Republicans are not going to nominate because he's too "soft"
> on defense. She's up by 5.6 percentage points on Bush, 9.8 on Walker, and
> 6.8 on Rubio. As far as I'm concerned, these are the three most likely
> Republican nominees.

Do you actually believe that skewed polls are data? They aren't. So if you're using something that unscientific and calling it scientific, it's not a long way back to the last two Congressional shellackings of the Democrats that were preceded by polls that were: a) very, and b) somewhat, favorable to Dems. Do you realize that in the most recent drubbing, the polls were calling the Senatorial races nail biters? Even Nate Silver publicly took his fellow pollsters behind the woodshed after the most recent embarrassing display of unrealistic polling.

>
> This despite the whole nasty business with her State Department e-mails and
> the Benghazi faux scandal.

I would take a small slice from recent history and recalibrate those polls so that Hilz is (maybe) even with JEBBIE and Rand, probably slightly behind. And another (anecdotal) piece of history is that Dems don't re-run candidates who lost and then get wins. The only second acts in American politics are with GOP candidates. She had her chance and lost to Obama.

[M. Rick]

>And another (anecdotal) piece of history is that Dems don't re-run candidates who lost and then get wins. She had her chance and lost to Obama.

Since you're convinced Hillary can't win, give me 10-1 odds and I'll take Hillary. Any amount you like.

[M. Rick]

Compared to the popular vote, the electoral college gives the smaller states disproportionate weight. Currently this favors the Republicans because 1) the smaller states usually vote Republican and 2) there are wide Democratic margins in NY, California and Illinois. It's a lot easier for a Republican to win electorally and lose the popular vote.

[Will Dockery]

I enjoyed it, and it illuminated me on several points here early on, Marcus.

But I've come to find that just about anything from you will be a good read, pretty much no matter what it is.

:D

[M. Rick]

> Fifth, I so detest Hillary Clinton that should she be the Democratic party nominee, I "might" not be able to stomach voting for her.

I hate all the candidates and nearly all the voters too. But not equally. In the 2000 primary I voted for Hillary vs Obama. Obama did a good squeeze job with health insurance, though. Too bad he squeezed me out of my insurance, but that's OK because somebody's got to suffer.

>Sixth, does anyone reading this really care what I think?

I care enough to recommend a good blowjob. Not covered under Obamacare except for members of Congress.

[M. Rick]

Sanders has no chance of winning and nobody is interested in changing the system anyway. 99% of the status quo is still the status quo.

[Just Kidding]

You're correct, of course. However, it's worth noting that Republicans
in several states have been openly advocating the changing of
presidential voting laws to apportion the state's electoral votes by
Congressional district instead of by statewide vote. Gerrymandering
would play an indirect but important role in any such efforts since it
would allow Republicans to gain control of the state legislatures that
would pass such laws.

[Just Kidding]

I'd take a piece of that action too, except we all know that anything
can happen between now and the election, which is a long way off.

[Earl Browder]

Right, but the Republicans could really only gain significantly from splitting up the electoral vote in large states that generally vote for Democratic presidential nominees (e.g., California, NY, Illinois). And in those states (not surprisingly) the legislatures that would be needed to change the laws have at least one house overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats. More typically, they control both houses and the governor's office as well--more than enough to block any change.

And any attempt to take the issue directly to the electorate (as with California's initiative and referendum) would run up against the fact that in states where Democrats usually win the Electors, the voters themselves are solidly Democratic and therefore unlikely to succumb to this Republican ploy.

In any event, at this point in the 2016 election cycle, it's really too late to make any such changes anyway. It would be widely seen as changing the rules in midstream.

[marcus]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 11:26:22 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:

> "marcus" <> wrote in message

> news:7694cc53-3b9d-42a6...@googlegroups.com...
> First of all, I would like to express to those who are aghast that I might
> not vote in the 2016 election that the emphasis is on the word "might" as I
> said in my original post as well as earlier in this sentence.
>
> Secondly, Nate, your statement makes no sense. The only way one can vote
> for the candidate they like the least is to vote for that candidate.
> ------------
> No, I agree with Nate here. It's like "sins of omission." If you preferred
> Mitt Romney, but stayed home because it was raining on election day, you *in
> effect* gave up your vote to Barack Obama.

Still makes no sense to me.

> -------------
> Thirdly, I agree with Rich about the direction voters are taking...it would
> seem that the Democrats should win, but the Republicans will trot out on
> election day, like the good little lemmings they are, and vote for (my
> prediction is Rand Paul)the Republican in massive numbers. I think that
> feelings are so strong against Hillary Clinton(should she win the
> nomination)among many Americans that she would most likely lose the
> presidency.
> ---------------
> Rand Paul's wig is like Chris Christie's weight, a triviality that makes him
> unelectable.
> ----------------
> Fourth, I am 100% in favor of Bernie Sanders, and will do what I can to help
> him win the nomination. Never underestimate Bernie Sanders. By the time
> the primaries evolve, he will make sure that Blacks and Latinos know who he
> is. Veterans and Labor already do. As do those concerned with climate. As
> to international diplomacy, he was quite astute. As a Congressman in 1991,
> he predicted what American involvement with Iraq would yield in the future,
> and did so on the floor of the House. He was right in that assessment.
> ------------------
> I like Sanders too. I wish his son would step up and quash the rumors that
> he was a deadbeat dad, though.

This is the first I've heard of this. Even if it is true(which I suspect it isn't), doesn't make any difference in my support of him.

Anyhow, I watch the Sunday polit-talk shows,
> and I marvel at the way they say Sanders is unelectable because of his *age*
> and because of his *leftness* but completely avoid mentioning the true
> reason he is unelectable, mainly that he's a Jew. I always said we'd have a
> black President before we ever had a Jewish President, and everyone scoffed
> at me, but I was right.
> ---------------------
> Fifth, I so detest Hillary Clinton that should she be the Democratic party
> nominee, I "might" not be able to stomach voting for her.
> -------------------
> Any particular reason you detest her? (If it has to do with her physical
> appearance don't answer, please.)

It's not her physical appearance, although her looks do nothing for me, it has to do with the fact that I don't trust her, don't believe she is truthful and she is overly-opportunistic and petty. However, that being said, I don't think she lied about Benghazi.
>

[marcus]

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 2:09:19 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> Sanders has no chance of winning and nobody is interested in changing the system anyway. 99% of the status quo is still the status quo.

Nobody is interested in changing the system? Really?

[Just Kidding]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:32:38 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 11:26:22 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
>> "marcus" <> wrote in message
>> news:7694cc53-3b9d-42a6...@googlegroups.com...
>> First of all, I would like to express to those who are aghast that I might
>> not vote in the 2016 election that the emphasis is on the word "might" as I
>> said in my original post as well as earlier in this sentence.
>>
>> Secondly, Nate, your statement makes no sense. The only way one can vote
>> for the candidate they like the least is to vote for that candidate.
>> ------------
>> No, I agree with Nate here. It's like "sins of omission." If you preferred
>> Mitt Romney, but stayed home because it was raining on election day, you *in
>> effect* gave up your vote to Barack Obama.
>
>Still makes no sense to me.

Me neither. If Candidate A and Candidate B each have 10 votes and you
fail to vote for either one, they still have 10 votes each. It's not
like the uncast ballot gets added to the other candidate's total.

>> ----------------
>> Fourth, I am 100% in favor of Bernie Sanders, and will do what I can to help
>> him win the nomination. Never underestimate Bernie Sanders. By the time
>> the primaries evolve, he will make sure that Blacks and Latinos know who he
>> is. Veterans and Labor already do. As do those concerned with climate. As
>> to international diplomacy, he was quite astute. As a Congressman in 1991,
>> he predicted what American involvement with Iraq would yield in the future,
>> and did so on the floor of the House. He was right in that assessment.
>> ------------------
>> I like Sanders too. I wish his son would step up and quash the rumors that
>> he was a deadbeat dad, though.
>
>This is the first I've heard of this. Even if it is true(which I suspect it isn't), doesn't make any difference in my support of him.
>

I don't know about that one. If true, I think my judgment would depend
largely on why he was a deadbeat. If he tried his best to come up with
the cash but just couldn't do it or if he had some other similar
legitimated reason, I'd probably give him a pass.

[nate]

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 4:53:11 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:32:38 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Still makes no sense to me.
>
> Me neither. If Candidate A and Candidate B each have 10 votes and you
> fail to vote for either one, they still have 10 votes each. It's not
> like the uncast ballot gets added to the other candidate's total.

This is factually correct, but my comment was to crystallize what the rest of us think a non-voter is doing against their candidate.

There also things like "a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush", which isn't factually true but brings out the feelings.

The fact that Bernie is running in the Democratic primaries is great, because, unlike Nader, if he loses the D nomination, he won't siphon off votes for Hillary in the General.

You can also add this:

If you stay home then you have NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN about whatever is done by the person who was elected.

:P

- nate

[Just Kidding]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:04:19 -0700 (PDT), nate
<grey...@net1plus.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 4:53:11 PM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:32:38 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Still makes no sense to me.
>>
>> Me neither. If Candidate A and Candidate B each have 10 votes and you
>> fail to vote for either one, they still have 10 votes each. It's not
>> like the uncast ballot gets added to the other candidate's total.
>
>This is factually correct, but my comment was to crystallize what the rest of us think a non-voter is doing against their candidate.
>
>There also things like "a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush", which isn't factually true but brings out the feelings.
>
>The fact that Bernie is running in the Democratic primaries is great, because, unlike Nader, if he loses the D nomination, he won't siphon off votes for Hillary in the General.

The question of whether one should opt for the lesser of two evils
when those are the only choices has been debated ad nauseum. I doubt
we're going to solve that one here.

>
>You can also add this:
>
>If you stay home then you have NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN about whatever is done by the person who was elected.
>
>:P
>
>- nate

On that you'll get no argument from me.

[gj]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:06:42 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 1:56:06 AM UTC-4, Just Walkin' wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 1:13:24 PM UTC-5, marcus wrote:
>> > On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:31:48 PM UTC-4, JD Chase wrote:
>> > > Can't STAND Trump!!! What a DISGUSTING PIG he is!!!
>> >
>> > I wish that progressives and liberals would just stop talking and focusing on Trump. Isn't sitting back and watching the Republican party implode enough pleasure?
>>
>> Careful now. Too soon to gloat. And you GOP haters better not take any half measures either. Remember: Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
>>
>> OTH word has it that Trump will lead a 3rd party exodus of like-minded geniuses out of the GOP if Jeb gets the nomination.
>>
>> Again: Hold the champagne; he could end up chancellor.
>

>2016 might be the first presidential election that I sit out.

2008 was mine. 2016 will be my 2nd.

-GJ 2.0

[gj]

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:51:25 -0700 (PDT), JD Chase
<jdcha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> DianeE
>
> Could not agree more, Diane!!! Having a republican president, a republican controlled congress, and a republican dominated Supreme Court would be a nightmare! We need to continue to progress in the future in many fronts, not reactionary backsliding instead...

So we've been progressing this whole time? Remember, the pendulum
will always swing back and forth.

-GJ 2.0

[Just Walkin']

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 1:09:19 AM UTC-5, M. Rick wrote:
> Sanders has no chance of winning and nobody is interested in changing the system anyway. 99% of the status quo is still the status quo.

You must have been talking to too many of your millionaire friends from the sixties. The way I see it, there's no sense talking about the truth here. The only ones who get it are the trolls and they are dead-set against it.

[RichL]

"Just Kidding" <JustK...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:hv86qal93lsdf6mha...@4ax.com...

My issue with Sanders (whose positions on domestic issues I mainly agree
with) is that he hasn't been very specific on foreign policy. Yet.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 1:49:05 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> >And another (anecdotal) piece of history is that Dems don't re-run candidates who lost and then get wins. She had her chance and lost to Obama.
>
> Since you're convinced Hillary can't win, give me 10-1 odds and I'll take Hillary. Any amount you like.

10 to 1 sounds like a joke. Either put money on her winning the presidency or don't.

[M. Rick]

>There also things like "a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush", which isn't factually true but brings out the feelings.

It is factually true for most Nader voters, and you can see that by analyzing the dynamic of the election. Had Nader dropped out, most of his voters would have gone for Gore, and those votes would have put Gore conclusively over the top in Florida. What was the purpose of a Nader vote in 2000?

[M. Rick]

> 10 to 1 sounds like a joke. Either put money on her winning the presidency or don't.

I'm ready when you are. I'm giving you the entire field vs. Hillary. You said it was a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would lose. 10-1. Or make me a counter wager.

[marcus]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:46:39 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> >There also things like "a vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George Bush", which isn't factually true but brings out the feelings.
>
> It is factually true for most Nader voters, and you can see that by analyzing the dynamic of the election. Had Nader dropped out, most of his voters would have gone for Gore, and those votes would have put Gore conclusively over the top in Florida. What was the purpose of a Nader vote in 2000?

Time, inclination, the hundreds of times that I've posted about this on Usenet during the last 15 years, and the lateness of the hour prevent me from stating all the reasons why "Nader 'cost' Gore the election" is a myth at best, a lie at worst.

Suffice it to say that both pre-election polls of prospective Nader voters and post-election interviews of actual Nader voters in 2000 revealed that most would not have voted at all if Nader hadn't run.

Secondly...one word...Tennessee.

[M. Rick]

> Time, inclination, the hundreds of times that I've posted about this on Usenet during the last 15 years, and the lateness of the hour prevent me from stating all the reasons why "Nader 'cost' Gore the election" is a myth at best, a lie at worst.

No, it's the truth.

> Suffice it to say that both pre-election polls of prospective Nader voters and post-election interviews of actual Nader voters in 2000 revealed that most would not have voted at all if Nader hadn't run.

Suffice to say even a small number of Nader votes would have given Gore the election. What was the purpose of a Nader vote in 2000?

> Secondly...one word...Tennessee.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5:38:24 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> > 10 to 1 sounds like a joke. Either put money on her winning the presidency or don't.
>
> I'm ready when you are. I'm giving you the entire field vs. Hillary. You said it was a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would lose. 10-1. Or make me a counter wager.

I'm not understanding the odds part. The ten must be the number of people on the GOP side. If you put in your 5K and win, you get 10K. I get 10K if the Repubs win..which they will. I'm just happy for you that you have that kind of cash that you can "play with" on an election.

[M. Rick]

> I'm not understanding the odds part.

10 - 1 that Hillary Clinton wins = your $1,000 to my $100. I'm only betting on Hillary. You have every other Presidential candidate: Republican, Democrat, third party etc. Since "it's academic" that the Democrats will lose, you will make $100. I hope you'll agree that 10 - 1 is a good deal for a foregone conclusion. If $1,000 is too steep for you, then let's try your $100 to my $10. Do we have a bet?

[gj]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:30:54 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> It is factually true for most Nader voters, and you can see that by analyzing the dynamic of the election. Had Nader dropped out, most of his voters would have gone for Gore, and those votes would have put Gore conclusively over the top in Florida. What was the purpose of a Nader vote in 2000?
>
>Time, inclination, the hundreds of times that I've posted about this on Usenet during the last 15 years, and the lateness of the hour prevent me from stating all the reasons why "Nader 'cost' Gore the election" is a myth at best, a lie at worst.

You think Nader voters would have voted for W?

-GJ 2.0

[JD Chase]

There's no doubt, Imo, that Nader was a spoiler, and was a major factor in Bush's selection,I've never completely forgiven him, but obviously there were many other factors as well... Agree with Marcus that Gore should have won his own state, it's pretty pathetic that he didn't, but then personally, how anyone could have voted for Bush is incomprehensible...

[Just Walkin']

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:34:30 AM UTC-5, JD Chase wrote:
> There's no doubt, Imo, that Nader was a spoiler, and was a major factor in Bush's selection,I've never completely forgiven him, but obviously there were many other factors as well... Agree with Marcus that Gore should have won his own state, it's pretty pathetic that he didn't, but then personally, how anyone could have voted for Bush is incomprehensible...

Actually, it was the design of the Florida ballot that cost Gore the election. Many seniors mistakenly voted for Buchanan on the butterfly ballot thinking they were voting for Gore. I recall figures at the time citing that many more people mistakenly voted for Buchanan than voted for Nader.

Blaming Nader has become a favorite parlor game for people who like to grind axes.

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:34:30 AM UTC-4, JD Chase wrote:
> There's no doubt, Imo, that Nader was a spoiler, and was a major factor in Bush's selection,I've never completely forgiven him, but obviously there were many other factors as well... Agree with Marcus that Gore should have won his own state, it's pretty pathetic that he didn't, but then personally, how anyone could have voted for Bush is incomprehensible...

It was a tough time, a time of learning... that no matter what votes we make, or how many of us vote, the Popular vote is trumped by the Electorial College in the end.

[Earl Browder]

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 09:39:39 UTC-4, Just Walkin' wrote:
>
> Actually, it was the design of the Florida ballot that cost Gore the election. Many seniors mistakenly voted for Buchanan on the butterfly ballot thinking they were voting for Gore. I recall figures at the time citing that many more people mistakenly voted for Buchanan than voted for Nader.

There was no "Florida ballot" in 2000. Each county created its own ballot and ironically, a staunchly Democratic election commissioner in Palm Beach County was responsible for the infamous "butterfly ballot" that resulted in at least some die-hard Democratic voters casting their ballot for Pat Buchanan.

Of course, when only 537 votes (out of nearly six million votes cast) separate two candidates, as happened in Florida in 2000, virtually anything that happens in the course of that election (or prior to it, for that matter) can shift the balance from one candidate to the other. The butterfly ballot was one such factor; Nader's candidacy was another; the Clinton administration's sending Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba in June 2000 was a third.

It'd be easy to come up with a dozen or more such explanatory factors in Florida 2000--each of them roughly equivalent as explanations for the final outcome, and indeed, any one of them could then legitimately be blamed for that outcome. And blaming any one of them would not be incorrect, since blaming one would not necessarily be denying that the other factors were to blame as well. As social scientists like to say, the 2000 election results were "overdetermined"--the product of multiple causes.

[marcus]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:16:20 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:30:54 -0700 (PDT), marcus <>

I think the majority of them wouldn't have voted for anyone if Nader hadn't run.

There are so many reasons why the "Nader cost Gore the election" myth is wrong, that I can't believe that people still subscribe to it.

[marcus]

Yes, that is one of the many reasons why Gore, who was a piss-poor campaigner in his own right, didn't win.

[earl.bro...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 11:13:09 UTC-4, marcus wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:16:20 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:30:54 -0700 (PDT), marcus <>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> It is factually true for most Nader voters, and you can see that by analyzing the dynamic of the election. Had Nader dropped out, most of his voters would have gone for Gore, and those votes would have put Gore conclusively over the top in Florida. What was the purpose of a Nader vote in 2000?
> > >
> > >Time, inclination, the hundreds of times that I've posted about this on Usenet during the last 15 years, and the lateness of the hour prevent me from stating all the reasons why "Nader 'cost' Gore the election" is a myth at best, a lie at worst.
> >
> > You think Nader voters would have voted for W?
> >
> > -GJ 2.0
>
> I think the majority of them wouldn't have voted for anyone if Nader hadn't run.

I don't follow the math here. It's probably true that a majority of Nader voters wouldn't have voted at all if Nader hadn't been on the ballot. But in Florida in 2000 there were nearly 100,000 votes cast for Nader in an election Gore lost by 537 votes. If Gore had netted a mere 538 votes more than Bush out of the remaining 40,000-45,000 or so voters left after removing "the majority" of Nader voters from the equation, Gore would have won.

Are you seriously arguing that Gore wouldn't have taken at least 538 more voters than Bush among the remaining tens of thousands of Nader voters? That seems highly implausible--unless you want to argue that Nader voters generally trend Republican when Nader himself is not on the ballot.

[nate]

And just to throw more gasoline on the fire, look at New Hampshire. Nader cost Gore New Hampshire, which would have been enough to win.

Remember to thank Ross Perot for handing Clinton the election.


- nate

[JD Chase]

And let's not forget another factor- the many thousands of voters who were deliberately and illegally purged from the voter rolls...

[marcus]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 12:01:49 PM UTC-4, earl.bro...@gmail.com wrote:

Exit polls indicated that many Floridian voters, who identified as Democrats, switched to voting for Bush in 2000. That, with other factors, led to the Bush vote in Florida that year.

As far as I'm concerned, we can argue about this until the end of time, but it's really pretty easy, a lesson that goes back to high school "civics' class. People run for office, and regardless of how many people run, they each have to earn votes. No one who doesn't vote for them takes away votes.

[Earl Browder]

On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 15:44:04 UTC-4, marcus wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 12:01:49 PM UTC-4, earl.bro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 15 July 2015 11:13:09 UTC-4, marcus wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:16:20 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:30:54 -0700 (PDT), marcus <>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> It is factually true for most Nader voters, and you can see that by analyzing the dynamic of the election. Had Nader dropped out, most of his voters would have gone for Gore, and those votes would have put Gore conclusively over the top in Florida. What was the purpose of a Nader vote in 2000?
> > > > >
> > > > >Time, inclination, the hundreds of times that I've posted about this on Usenet during the last 15 years, and the lateness of the hour prevent me from stating all the reasons why "Nader 'cost' Gore the election" is a myth at best, a lie at worst.
> > > >
> > > > You think Nader voters would have voted for W?
> > > >
> > > > -GJ 2.0
> > >
> > > I think the majority of them wouldn't have voted for anyone if Nader hadn't run.
> >
> >
> > I don't follow the math here. It's probably true that a majority of Nader voters wouldn't have voted at all if Nader hadn't been on the ballot. But in Florida in 2000 there were nearly 100,000 votes cast for Nader in an election Gore lost by 537 votes. If Gore had netted a mere 538 votes more than Bush out of the remaining 40,000-45,000 or so voters left after removing "the majority" of Nader voters from the equation, Gore would have won.
> >
> > Are you seriously arguing that Gore wouldn't have taken at least 538 more voters than Bush among the remaining tens of thousands of Nader voters? That seems highly implausible--unless you want to argue that Nader voters generally trend Republican when Nader himself is not on the ballot.
>
> Exit polls indicated that many Floridian voters, who identified as Democrats, switched to voting for Bush in 2000. That, with other factors, led to the Bush vote in Florida that year.

Yes, one more factor that led to Gore's defeat. But not in anyway contradicting the fact that Nader's candidacy was also a factor in that defeat.

>
> As far as I'm concerned, we can argue about this until the end of time, but it's really pretty easy, a lesson that goes back to high school "civics' class. People run for office, and regardless of how many people run, they each have to earn votes. No one who doesn't vote for them takes away votes.

Possibly the kind of insipid stuff once taught in high school civics class, but today, it would be laughed at as simplistic nonsense in even any college intro class in political science. Just tell the class that there's no reason the Democrats should want Trump to run so as to siphon off Republican votes, because Hillary should earn votes all on her own. Hilarity will ensue

[gj]

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>

I tend to think that people that get out and vote regularly will get
out and vote for SOMEBODY. I don't think that voters that leaned
toward Nader would stay home if Nader wasn't on the ballot. They
would naturally default to the next best thing in their mind, which
would have likely been Gore.
It's like when you go to the store to get your favorite beer and
they're out, you don't just go home empty handed, you get something
else.

-GJ 2.0

[marcus]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 5:09:15 PM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), marcus <>

And yet, at the time in 2000, there were many voters, polled before and after the election, who said they either had never voted or hadn't voted in years, and the only reason they voted at all was because Nader was running. They wouldn't have voted at all if he hadn't run.

I could be wrong on this, but I don't recall Republicans working themselves into a lather when Perot ran in 1992, and yet Democrats practically accused Nader voters for being un-American for daring to vote for him.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 6:31:56 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> > I'm not understanding the odds part.
>
> 10 - 1 that Hillary Clinton wins = your $1,000 to my $100. I'm only betting on Hillary. You have every other Presidential candidate: Republican, Democrat, third party etc. Since "it's academic" that the Democrats will lose, you will make $100. I hope you'll agree that 10 - 1 is a good deal for a foregone conclusion. If $1,000 is too steep for you, then let's try your $100 to my $10. Do we have a bet?

Not too steep at all. I was thinking even bet. But if you think it's 10:1 against a Repub winning, I'll be glad to take your 10K to my 1K. Shall I tell you where to send it?

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 9:16:20 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:

That's very true about Nader not costing Gore the election. I can say that as Nader voter who would mos def not have gone Gore, and in fact went Bush in the following contes
>
> -GJ 2.0

[luisb...@aol.com]

My impression--and I grant you that I'm a political novice--was that what cost Gore that election was the Bush team's relentlessness and heavy fists.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Surprisingly well said. And whatever the case with Nader, it is absolutely indisputable that Perot cost Bush that election.

[Will Dockery]

That, and perhaps the fact that Lee Atwater had passed away by then.

[Earl Browder]

Absolutely indisputable?

http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm

"Now, let's briefly consider the 1992 exit poll data and the actual composition of the Perot vote. According to the exit poll data, 38% of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton in a two way race, 38% would have voted for Bush, 24% would not have voted. Perot won 30% of independents, 17% of Republicans, and 13% of Democrats. Put another way, of his 19% popular vote share, 8 percentage points came from independents, 6 from Republicans, and 5 from Democrats."

Another strong rebuttal of the myth that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election can be found at:

http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/

Among other evidence, this article points out that during the ten-week period in 1992 when Perot temporarily dropped out the race, Clinton never once lagged behind Bush, usually leading him by double digits. In other words, Perot's departure from the race from July to September 1992 in no way boosted Bush's numbers.

[RichL]

<earl.bro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0bfb252-2751-4d35...@googlegroups.com...

I agree with you wholeheartedly (sorry, Marcus). Bush's margin of victory
represents 0.5% of those who cast ballots for Nader.

If 75% of Nader voters sat out the election in Florida with Nader not
running, and the remaining vote split 55%-45% in Gore's favor, Gore would
have wound up with 2500 additional votes, way more than enough to swing
Florida to his side.

[M. Rick]

> Not too steep at all. I was thinking even bet.

If the Republicans are a sure thing, as you've said, the odds are not even. I don't think Hillary is sure thing. Not even close. 10-1 reflects your view that the Democrats will definitely lose. So we have (your) certain Republican victory to (my) uncertain Hillary victory. But I'll meet you halfway at 5 -1, your $100 to my $20. Do we have a bet?

[M. Rick]

> Yes, that is one of the many reasons why Gore, who was a piss-poor campaigner in his own right, didn't win.

Nader voters spend all their time deflecting blame and no time at all discussing the Nader campaign and their own motives. So even 15 years later, Nader 2000 is simply the man who gave the election to Bush. Of course some of us still remember his deceits like "the Supreme Court has no impact on American life."

[M. Rick]

>People run for office, and regardless of how many people run, they each have to earn votes.

Nader earned his "spoiler" votes through demagoguery and deceit. He said that George W Bush was just another big-corporate major-party nominee. That characterization might apply to Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, but not W, who promised to be the worst President of our times and did not disappoint. If people can vote for Nader to "move the Democrats to the left," and thus swing the election to W, they can also vote for Sanders and swing the election to Huckabee or Cruz.

[DianeE]

"M. Rick" <insomn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:173472dc-debb-4c2e...@googlegroups.com...

-------------
I just wrote him off as an anti-Semite, myself.

DianeE

[marcus]

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 6:59:10 AM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:

> -------------
> I just wrote him off as an anti-Semite, myself.
>
> DianeE

How convenient.

[marcus]

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:13:38 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> > Yes, that is one of the many reasons why Gore, who was a piss-poor campaigner in his own right, didn't win.
>
> Nader voters spend all their time deflecting blame and no time at all discussing the Nader campaign and their own motives. So even 15 years later, Nader 2000 is simply the man who gave the election to Bush. Of course some of us still remember his deceits like "the Supreme Court has no impact on American life."

The only reason we spend anytime "deflecting blame" is because folks like you make us.

I feel no blame. I voted, proudly, for Ralph Nader in 1996 (funny how no one said to me that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Dole"), 2000, and 2004. If you were to build a time machine that could whisk me back to election day 2000, I would vote for Nader again. No regrets, no guilt. I am a democrat with a small "d", who firmly believes that each individual should vote their conscience. Figuring out who to vote for by guessing the lesser of evils is gambling...voting out of fear.

Ask Barack Obama if he regrets the Supreme Court upholding the ACA twice now.

Who nominated Roberts...hmmmm, wait a minute...it will come to me soon.

[marcus]

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:23:01 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:

. If people can vote for Nader to "move the Democrats to the left," and thus swing the election to W, they can also vote for Sanders and swing the election to Huckabee or Cruz.

So, let me get this straight, Nader ran as the Green Party candidate in 2000, and because you presume that voting for a "third party" (sure are a lot of 'em) siphons away votes from the candidate you wish to vote for as the lesser evil, you think that Sanders, who is running in the Democratic primary is going to swing the election to Huckabee or Cruz.

So, can I conclude then that you think Sanders will be the Democratic nominee and will lose to the Republicans?

Otherwise, since Sanders will not run as an independent should he lose the nomination, your scenario above makes no sense.

[marcus]

You don't have to apologize to me, Rich. However, I do recall that a year or two after the 2000 election, a newspaper(IIRC it was the Miami Herald) and a university (IIRCm Chicago) each did an independent study of all the ballots cast. As you recall when Gore didn't contest the Supreme Court decision, the recount didn't go any farther for the Republican-controlled Florida officials. Both studies revealed that when all the votes were counted, including absentee votes, Gore actually won.

[Just Walkin']

He may not be an anti-semite, but Nader has large appeal to anti-semitic and racist types. He was the No. 1 NSM/KKK vote-getter in 2000 and 2008.

The bundist right never did have any use for neo-cons such as Bush.

Look it up; you've been voting for the same guy as the very people you revile.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Hmmm. Looks like I have to withdraw my claim.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:07:34 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> > Not too steep at all. I was thinking even bet.
>
> If the Republicans are a sure thing, as you've said, the odds are not even. I don't think Hillary is sure thing. Not even close. 10-1 reflects your view that the Democrats will definitely lose. So we have (your) certain Republican victory to (my) uncertain Hillary victory. But I'll meet you halfway at 5 -1, your $100 to my $20. Do we have a bet?

I'm betting that a Republican wins. Naturally I don't know which one. Not that a Republican victory against a Hillary victory. With all her problems? Are you cracked? What part of the Dem v Rep bet is giving you such discomfort?

[Earl Browder]

Not that simple. Just figuring out what standards and procedures to use in recounting the ballots was a highly complicated business and no one answer as to how to do that could ever have been deemed objectively the correct one, especially given the legal complications involved.

The recount done by the Miami Herald concluded that under most of the possible scenarios, Bush would have won anyway. The one scenario under which Gore could have won involved a ballot-counting procedure that Gore simply never asked for.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03/

"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted."

Similarly, "The NORC [University of Chicago] study was not primarily intended as a determination of which candidate 'really won.' Analysis of the results found that different standards for the hand-counting of machine-uncountable ballots would lead to different results."

Looking at the NORC study, it again appears that Gore would only have won under procedures and standards he never requested.

Of course, I can imagine a scenario under which none of these issues would even have arisen--a scenario completely in the hands of just one egotistical man.

[M. Rick]

> I'm betting that a Republican wins. Naturally I don't know which one.

Doesn't matter. You are betting on the entire field except Hillary. I am only betting on Hillary. The odds are 5-1, your $100 to my $20. If any Republican wins the election, you win $20. If anyone but Hillary wins the election, you win $20. Since you say it's impossible for the Democrats to win, and Hillary is a Democrat with plenty of "problems", the bet is a sure thing for you. You simply need to bet $100 to win a certain $20. But if in fact it's not a sure thing, and Hillary wins the election, you owe me $100. Do we have a bet?

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 2:44:22 PM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> > I'm betting that a Republican wins. Naturally I don't know which one.
>
> Doesn't matter. You are betting on the entire field except Hillary. I am only betting on Hillary. The odds are 5-1, your $100 to my $20. If any Republican wins the election, you win $20. If anyone but Hillary wins the election, you win $20. Since you say it's impossible for the Democrats to win, and Hillary is a Democrat with plenty of "problems", the bet is a sure thing for you. You simply need to bet $100 to win a certain $20. But if in fact it's not a sure thing, and Hillary wins the election, you owe me $100. Do we have a bet?

You seem to like complicating things. How much do you want to bet that Hillary will win? Not Democrats, just Hilz? (Keep in mind that she's dropped drastically in the polls, something that tends to happen whenever she opens her mouth, according to what I heard Rush say.)

[M. Rick]

> Otherwise, since Sanders will not run as an independent should he lose the nomination, your scenario above makes no sense.

I replaced Nader with Sanders on the "third party ticket" to illustrate the idea about "moving the party to the left." Since you're convinced that Sanders will only run as a Democrat, and not as an Independent (or other third party), then perhaps you'd like to make a wager. 100 - 1 that Sanders will run on a non-Democratic ticket, your $1000 to my $10. It's an easy $10 for you, since Sanders will not run as an independent should he lose the nomination. However if Sanders does run "third party" you will owe me $1000.

[M. Rick]

>I feel no blame.

When the harmful consequences of one's actions are neither considered nor felt, blame falls on deaf ears.

>Ask Barack Obama if he regrets the Supreme Court upholding the ACA twice now.

No regrets. His conscience is clear, on every issue. Except perhaps the Cosby issue.

>Who nominated Roberts...hmmmm, wait a minute...it will come to me soon.

According to Nader (and most Nader voters), all nine justices could be Scalias, because it doesn't matter. Abortion rights doesn't matter. Does Nader's political philosophy even allow for a Supreme Court? Perhaps he should run as a Republican.

[M. Rick]

> You seem to like complicating things.

OK, let's simplify by leaving Hillary out of it. You're convinced the Democrats will lose. So the bet is Republican vs. Democrat, 5-1 odds, your $100 to my $20. If a Republican wins the election, you win $20. If the impossible occurs and the Democrats win, you lose $100. Do we have a bet?

[gj]

You may have a gambling problem.

I'd like to bet that whoever wins, it won't really matter.

-GJ 2.0

[marcus]

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:11:43 PM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> > Otherwise, since Sanders will not run as an independent should he lose the nomination, your scenario above makes no sense.
>
> I replaced Nader with Sanders on the "third party ticket" to illustrate the idea about "moving the party to the left." Since you're convinced that Sanders will only run as a Democrat, and not as an Independent (or other third party), then perhaps you'd like to make a wager. 100 - 1 that Sanders will run on a non-Democratic ticket, your $1000 to my $10. It's an easy $10 for you, since Sanders will not run as an independent should he lose the nomination. However if Sanders does run "third party" you will owe me $1000.

I do not bet, but if I did take you up on this one, you would lose since Bernie has stated that he will not run as an independent if he loses the Democratic nomination.

[marcus]

On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 3:49:16 PM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> >I feel no blame.
>
> When the harmful consequences of one's actions are neither considered nor felt, blame falls on deaf ears.

If it makes you happy, I am willing, personally, to take your perceived blame of people who voted for Nader.

also, since I am of Jewish heritage, I'd be willing to take the blame for the long held erroneous belief that the Jews killed Christ.

Both assertions are equally ridiculous, but apparently you need to blame someone who didn't vote for Al "never met a war he didn't like" Gore, who might have involved us in Iraq had he won the presidency.

>
> >Ask Barack Obama if he regrets the Supreme Court upholding the ACA twice now.
>
> No regrets. His conscience is clear, on every issue. Except perhaps the Cosby issue.
>
> >Who nominated Roberts...hmmmm, wait a minute...it will come to me soon.
>
> According to Nader (and most Nader voters), all nine justices could be Scalias, because it doesn't matter. Abortion rights doesn't matter. Does Nader's political philosophy even allow for a Supreme Court? Perhaps he should run as a Republican.

There have been instances of several judges who liberals feared would do tremendous damage, only to find that they followed the Constituion, did the right thing and were fair.

Admittedly, Scalia is a scumbag.

[marcus]

Yes, you are right, I forgot to mention that Gore screwed himself for not asking for that recount.

[RichL]

"gj" <geminij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v65gqa5qqs4gff3sq...@4ax.com...

> You may have a gambling problem.

Or a reality problem. Nobody in his right mind is going to expect a bet
offered online by a person no one really knows to be honored.

[M. Rick]

> Or a reality problem. Nobody in his right mind is going to expect a bet offered online by a person no one really knows to be honored.

I don't expect to get paid. But what's the risk? If I lose, and I pay off, the other bettor wins. If he loses and doesn't pay, he can still post here (or elsewhere) and nobody will care. Not even me. But this particular bet won't be made because the poster knows his prediction (or analysis) is a fraud. While many people are just as fraudulent, and dishonest, they don't want to draw attention to the con-game.

[Just Walkin']

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 1:33:14 AM UTC-5, M. Rick wrote:
> > Or a reality problem. Nobody in his right mind is going to expect a bet offered online by a person no one really knows to be honored.
>
> I don't expect to get paid. But what's the risk? If I lose, and I pay off, the other bettor wins. If he loses and doesn't pay, he can still post here (or elsewhere) and nobody will care. Not even me. But this particular bet won't be made because the poster knows his prediction (or analysis) is a fraud. While many people are just as fraudulent, and dishonest, they don't want to draw attention to the con-game.

Fraudulent voices for a fraudulent system.

Fits right in.

[Will Dockery]

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:14:29 AM UTC-4, marcus wrote:
>
> Yes, that is one of the many reasons why Gore, who was a piss-poor campaigner in his own right, didn't win.

Al Gore campaigned well during the first Clinton election, or so it seemed to me and my wife at the time.

Or at least I can say that the Clinton people did not ignore the Deep South that year. I met and shook hands with Clinton once (at which point I told him "Give 'em Hell, Bill." to which seemed to cause him to blush), and saw Al Gore here at Columbus Georgia twice... the second time Al Gore and my wife Kathy exchanged small talk about our kids, his and mine for several minutes before he jumped back on the plane.

"Those were different times", and great ones.

Al Gore campaign poster:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/357684395383067622/