Isn’t it possible this poll will inspire Congress to grow a pair?
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.
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…
Not the US citizenry, that’s for sure.
Absolutely not. However, since this seems to the betting thread…
-Joe
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.)
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!
Sure thing. Same terms as last time?
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.
I don’t recall either …
…but, done!
I think there’s very little chance of that happening, so I have no problem conceding that term. Sure.
Democrat is inaugurated, i.e. against your side.
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.
Yes. Done!
Simple enough. Works for me.
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”.
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?
Excellent. Game on!