Should McCain drop out of the 2008 elections?

[Ravenman]

Not to belabor a point, but what is this thread a parody of?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Ravenman

Not to belabor a point, but what is this thread a parody of?

Life, just like the election itself.

[StrawberryPaprika]

@Gozu

Duly noted.

Also, I’m not sure Obama would necessarily lose if he said “fuck you” to a reporter. He could spin himself out of it, Stolichnaya.

“Mr Obama was clearly saying fuddle duddle , anyone can tell that!”

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

"Should McCain drop out of the 2008 elections?"

No. That would be a bad idea (for him and for the GOP) primarily because he is going to win the election and become the next POTUS.

I WISH he would drop out of the race and somehow hand the victory to Obama, but that is not what is going to happen. Far from it.

[Euthanasiast]

I’d also love to get in on this.

I’ll take McCain and 10 to 1, and this is before they pick their VPs. Name your amount.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[Ravenman]

@Euthanasiast

I’d also love to get in on this.

I’ll take McCain and 10 to 1, and this is before they pick their VPs. Name your amount.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Let me make sure I understand this. If I take Obama for $10, you expect me to pay $100 if McCain wins? Looking at the odds on places like Intrade and the 538 blog, realistic odds are more like 3-1. Even on Ladbrokes, Obama is running 1-2 and McCain 6-4.

[Euthanasiast]

@Ravenman

Let me make sure I understand this. If I take Obama for $10, you expect me to pay $100 if McCain wins? Looking at the odds on places like Intrade and the 538 blog, realistic odds are more like 3-1. Even on Ladbrokes, Obama is running 1-2 and McCain 6-4.

The OP said that “Clearly” McCain was destined to lose. If this is indeed the case then he/she should have no problem allowing for such odds. I mean, I would be more than happy to lay down 1,000 to 1 against the rapture occurring in the next fifty years, because “clearly” it isn’t going to happen. Why wouldn’t the OP allow for something similar if the result was such a sure thing?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Euthanasiast

The OP said that “Clearly” McCain was destined to lose. If this is indeed the case then he/she should have no problem allowing for such odds.

This does not follow. Certainty of a win does not equate to certainty that it will come by a wide margin. As an example, one need look no further than the recent Democratic primaries. It was virtually certain from fairly early on that Obama would win the nomination, and that became more certain as the Primaries wore on, however it was also certain that it would be historically close. You could have bet the house that Obama would win the nomination, but it would have been stupid to bet on a blowout.

[duality72]

@Euthanasiast

The OP said that “Clearly” McCain was destined to lose. If this is indeed the case then he/she should have no problem allowing for such odds. I mean, I would be more than happy to lay down 1,000 to 1 against the rapture occurring in the next fifty years, because “clearly” it isn’t going to happen. Why wouldn’t the OP allow for something similar if the result was such a sure thing?

You didn’t read the rest of the thread, did you?

[Ravenman]

@Euthanasiast

The OP said that “Clearly” McCain was destined to lose. If this is indeed the case then he/she should have no problem allowing for such odds.

Except the OP wasn’t talking about a bet. That was me and RickJay, who seems to have disappeared… But anyway, it seems unfair to challenge the OP to a bet when I was the one looking for some action. In fact, it seems like a real strawman.

So why don’t you suggest an over-under for an Obama win? I threw out 305 EVs. What do you say about that?