[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Exactly, power of the purse doesn’t mean jack if one doesn’t have the balls to say “no”.
-Joe
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t it possible this poll will inspire Congress to grow a pair?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Done. Simple bet. A Republican is inaugurated President in January 2009, I win. A Democrat is inaugurated, you win. Any other result is a push.
Questions of popular vote vs. electoral vote, vote rigging, vote suppression, vote fraud, are all irrelevant to this wager. The sole determinant of who wins is who gets inaugurated.
[/QUOTE]
It’s fair, smart and prudent of you to spell out the terms so precisely.
But it’s sad we’ve come to point where anyone would think it necessary.
[QUOTE=pulykamell]
I’ll be in for $100. Seriously, I honor my bets, and I know you do, too, Bricker. Just remind me because I may forget about it two years from now.
[/QUOTE]
Which side of the bet are you taking?
Hmmm. If he dissolves Congress and declares himself President for Life, and foregoes any inaugaration, who wins? Aside from Satan, that is…
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Hmmm. If he dissolves Congress and declares himself President for Life, and foregoes any inaugaration, who wins?
[/QUOTE]
Not the US citizenry, that’s for sure.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Isn’t it possible this poll will inspire Congress to grow a pair?
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. However, since this seems to the betting thread…
-Joe
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m ready to take bets.
The Republicans will retain the White House in the 2008 election.
So – no, I don’t believe this poll has any particular implications for the 2008 Presidential elections.
Anyone wanna risk some money?
[/QUOTE]
Sure.
If you recall, we had a bet on 2004, which I lost, but despite some emails back and forth, you never collected on your bet - can’t even remember why right now.
Given that it’s 2007 already, should we just go double-or-nothing? (With terms as you set them out in post #20 for your bet with Frank.)
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Done. Simple bet. A Republican is inaugurated President in January 2009, I win. A Democrat is inaugurated, you win. Any other result is a push.
Questions of popular vote vs. electoral vote, vote rigging, vote suppression, vote fraud, are all irrelevant to this wager. The sole determinant of who wins is who gets inaugurated.
[/QUOTE]
Should you take me up on my double-or-nothing, let me, with your permission, add one for-instance to the non-push results:
If neither the EC nor the House is able to choose a President by or during January 2009, but per the 20th Amendment, the Senate chooses a Veep who becomes acting President, I would consider the party of the Vice-President acting as President to be determining.
What would your thoughts be?
Christ, RT, you’re anal sometimes!
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m ready to take bets.
The Republicans will retain the White House in the 2008 election.
So – no, I don’t believe this poll has any particular implications for the 2008 Presidential elections.
Anyone wanna risk some money?
[/QUOTE]
Sure thing. Same terms as last time?
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Christ, RT, you’re anal sometimes!
[/quote]
We came within something like 37,000 votes of a 269-269 tie last time. I’d say there’s a big enough chance of its happening in 2008 (~5%, maybe) to be worthy of inclusion. Right now, I don’t think either party has a majority of state delegations in the House. And if that remained unchanged in the next election, the Senate would decide.
Let’s put it this way: I think this possibility’s real enough that I’d be pissed if the Dems dealt Utah an extra electoral vote before the next election.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Sure.
If you recall, we had a bet on 2004, which I lost, but despite some emails back and forth, you never collected on your bet - can’t even remember why right now.
Given that it’s 2007 already, should we just go double-or-nothing? (With terms as you set them out in post #20 for your bet with Frank.)
[/QUOTE]
I don’t recall either …
…but, done!
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Should you take me up on my double-or-nothing, let me, with your permission, add one for-instance to the non-push results:
If neither the EC nor the House is able to choose a President by or during January 2009, but per the 20th Amendment, the Senate chooses a Veep who becomes acting President, I would consider the party of the Vice-President acting as President to be determining.
What would your thoughts be?
[/QUOTE]
I think there’s very little chance of that happening, so I have no problem conceding that term. Sure.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Which side of the bet are you taking?
[/QUOTE]
Democrat is inaugurated, i.e. against your side.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
. . .I think the door could be open for another Republican who the public has confidence in. Maybe Rudy Guliani, if he can ever get through the primaries.
[/quote]
It is to laugh.
This would prove to be a good time. Particularly considering the readiness with which those with a parenthetical R rush to bash things they consider “Hollywood Liberalism”. Plus, without some serious support from the RR, I don’t think he’d have a chance at the nomination. Witness McCain’s newfound love for all things Jesusy.
Agreed.
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
Sure thing. Same terms as last time?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Done!
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Done. Simple bet. A Republican is inaugurated President in January 2009, I win. A Democrat is inaugurated, you win. Any other result is a push.
[/QUOTE]
Simple enough. Works for me.
[QUOTE=GLWasteful]
This would prove to be a good time. Particularly considering the readiness with which those with a parenthetical R rush to bash things they consider “Hollywood Liberalism”.
[/QUOTE]
And how would that apply to Thompson? The “Rs” in Tennessee, that bastion of left wing ideology, had no problems electing him to the Senate. Note also: Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwartzenneger. Seems like Hollywood is more likely to produce a successful “R” politician than a “D”.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
And how would that apply to Thompson? The “Rs” in Tennessee, that bastion of left wing ideology, had no problems electing him to the Senate. Note also: Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwartzenneger. Seems like Hollywood is more likely to produce a successful “R” politician than a “D”.
[/QUOTE]
Primarily because of the hypocrisy that they would be accused of. While Tennessee certainly elevated him to Senator, I just don’t see too many people across the width and breadth of the US voting for him as President. Not to mention that I doubt he would pursue the nomination in a million years.
As to Reagan, well, you certainly got me there. Although, he also had some serious national cred as a conservative going in. And his affability and years of Chesterfield ads, too.
Schwarzenegger is a non-starter.
I’d also like to bet that a Democrat is inaugurated in Jan. 2009, as well. Can I get in on the action for $100?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I think there’s very little chance of that happening, so I have no problem conceding that term. Sure.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent. Game on!