I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know. An item on MSNBC
showed a better (no pun intended, but I'll take credit anyway)
indicator: since 1936, 17 elections in a row, this will be the 18th,
the last game before the elections that the Washington Redskins play
has "predicted" the outcome in that if the Redskins win , the
incumbent wins, if the Redskins lose, the challenger wins. They play
the Packers today at 1 pm. It's predicted the Packers(3-4) by 2 over
the Redskins(2-4). We don't have any of those Cheesehead hats so the
wife and I are going to cover our heads with slices of American cheese
and root for the favorites.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

I think you mean Maine. AFAIK, New Hampshire is winner take all.



Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:


It seems to me, if you split the EC vote, you eliminate any argument for
the EC. Then, why not just straight popular vote? Personally, I'm not a
big fan of the EC, but I don't think it's drawbacks are worth changing the
Constitution.

NYOB,
Whatever you do, don't give him your address, he just wants it so he can do
more personal research on you and your family. That way his insults might
actually hurt, which is his prime objective.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know.

That's not true. A $1 bet on Bush wins you $1.65. A $1 bet on Kerry
wins
you $2. A $1 bet on Nader wins you $1001. The betting odds favor
Bush.




The only poll that matters will be held Tuesday. What's left of my gut
tells me that Kerry is going to do very, very well in the Electoral
College and might achieve the Magic 300 number. I haven't a clue where
the popular vote will be. But if Kerry wins the EC and Bush takes the
popular vote, I'll be especially delighted...because that means the
Republicans will be calling for abolishing the Electoral College.
Delicious.

I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the
way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.




I think we should double our bet...to $2.00

I think Kerry will win the EC, and the popular vote is up for grabs.

--
Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument
for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the
American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions
without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your
Commander-in-Chief."

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

I think you mean Maine. AFAIK, New Hampshire is winner take all.



Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.


I think we ought to trash the Electoral College entirely, and replace it
with the winner of the popular vote winning the election.

I think we should actually follow the Constitution.

There is no right to vote for President. Indeed, the Constitution specifies
that the LEGISLATURE of each state shall select a Slate of Electors.

How they do that selection is up to them. States should be free (and are,
under the Constitution) to select electors themselves without a popular
election.

While we're at it we have this little problem with the 17th Amendment too.

That one is THE reason that the federal government can "cram" programs down
the state's throats, and force them to pay for it. Prior to that such
efforts were simply impossible to carry off.

The founders had nearly everything right.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

I'll be working with a group of nice fellas who will be visiting the
approaches to certain polling places to ensure that Republican thugs are
not intimidating minority voters. If we come across any GOP voter
intimidators, we'll help them make other plans for the day.

Is anyone else curious how these nice people will make sure they have other
plans for the day? Maybe I am reading more into this than I should, but it
sounds like a not so subtle threat of violence.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I think we ought to trash the Electoral College entirely, and replace it
with the winner of the popular vote winning the election.

Sounds like Harry is smarter than the framers of the constitution, who
believed it was important for the large states not to completely overpower
the will of the smaller states. The EC was a way to make sure all voters
both in the populated areas and the rural areas would be heard. But if
Harry really wants to make a change in the US Constitution you would think
he would be smart enough to know posting his preferences in rec.boats is not
an effective way to get a constitutional amendment ratified.

"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know. An item on MSNBC
showed a better (no pun intended, but I'll take credit anyway)
indicator: since 1936, 17 elections in a row, this will be the 18th,
the last game before the elections that the Washington Redskins play
has "predicted" the outcome in that if the Redskins win , the
incumbent wins, if the Redskins lose, the challenger wins. They play
the Packers today at 1 pm. It's predicted the Packers(3-4) by 2 over
the Redskins(2-4). We don't have any of those Cheesehead hats so the
wife and I are going to cover our heads with slices of American cheese
and root for the favorites.

You missed the part of the broadcast where they said the professional
bettor's had it Bush 63% and Kerry 37%.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jon Smithe wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

I'll be working with a group of nice fellas who will be visiting the
approaches to certain polling places to ensure that Republican thugs are
not intimidating minority voters. If we come across any GOP voter
intimidators, we'll help them make other plans for the day.

Is anyone else curious how these nice people will make sure they have
other
plans for the day? Maybe I am reading more into this than I should, but
it
sounds like a not so subtle threat of violence.



Nothing subtle about it. If we find you interfering with folks on the
way to the polls, we'll ask you to move on. You'll have a choice at that
point. We're not talking about what happens inside the polling
place...but on the approaches... In other words, if you stop minority
voters heading to the polls and try to discourage them, we'll discourage
you.

The only people outside of my polling place has been the liberal type that
ask me if I need a voter guide. Sometimes, I respond that I would like one
of their guides so I know not to vote for their favored candidates.

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

I think you mean Maine. AFAIK, New Hampshire is winner take all.



Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.


I think we ought to trash the Electoral College entirely, and replace it
with the winner of the popular vote winning the election.

I think we should actually follow the Constitution.


I think we should change the Constitution and do away with the EC.


There is no right to vote for President.

Sell your tired out conservatism somewhere else, eh? Times change, and
the people want to elect their president directly...and they should be
able to do so.

Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.

This was attempted immediately after the 2000 elections, and went absolutely
nowhere.

For good reason too - it would make less-populous states completely
irrelavent in the election of the President. The framers designed the
Electoral College PRECISELY to overrepresent small population states
PRECISELY so they were not made irrelavent.

Hawaii, as an example from the current election cycle.

Until you can muster the PROPER way to change this you will live by what is
already in the Constitution, or you may take up residence somewhere more
to your liking.

I suggest North Korea.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind