"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,
and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the
point.
If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,
he
simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he
wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.

So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.

NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

"NOYB" wrote in message

...

"basskisser" wrote in message
e.com...

"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Gaquin wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,

and

doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the

point.

If

polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,

he

simply

can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he

wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.


So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.

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

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

"NOYB" wrote in message

...

"basskisser" wrote in message
e.com...

"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Gaquin wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,

and

doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the

point.

If

polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,

he

simply

can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he

wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.


So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the
odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.

basskisser isn't arguing about the electoral college. Nevertheless, if Bush
gets 50% of the electoral college vote, he still wins. There are 538
electoral college votes up for grabs this year. If Bush gets 50% (269
votes) and Kerry gets 269 votes, the Republican-controlled House breaks the
tie...and guess who they'll choose? If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he
wins.

Don't count on that....
You are missing a very important part of this... That being the combined
House and Senate will include all outgoing senators and Congressmen, as well
as all incoming from both sides...

Just remember, a landslide on either side by the Democrat Party can very
easily remove any margin of certainty.

And the fact that the Congress and Senate will have to vote what their
particular area voted, and not by party line...

Granted, they aren't required to, but should they wish to get elected again,
they would need to.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

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

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

"NOYB" wrote in message

...

"basskisser" wrote in message
e.com...

"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Gaquin wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,

and

doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the

point.

If

polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,

he

simply

can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS,
you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those
Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then
he

wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.


So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the
odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or
the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.

basskisser isn't arguing about the electoral college. Nevertheless, if
Bush
gets 50% of the electoral college vote, he still wins. There are 538
electoral college votes up for grabs this year. If Bush gets 50% (269
votes) and Kerry gets 269 votes, the Republican-controlled House breaks
the
tie...and guess who they'll choose? If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he
wins.

wrote in message
link.net...
Don't count on that....
You are missing a very important part of this... That being the combined
House and Senate will include all outgoing senators and Congressmen, as
well
as all incoming from both sides...

The House would decide before it switched hands, should your impossible
fairytale even occur.



Just remember, a landslide on either side by the Democrat Party can very
easily remove any margin of certainty.

It wouldn't matter, since the House would vote before Congress changed
hands.


And the fact that the Congress and Senate will have to vote what their
particular area voted, and not by party line...

Granted, they aren't required to, but should they wish to get elected
again,
they would need to.


Wait just a minute. If a Republican Congressman was already voted out of
office (as predicted in your scenario), why would he/she give a **** about
getting elected again.
If Bush gets 50% of the vote, he wins.


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

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

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

"NOYB" wrote in message

...

"basskisser" wrote in message
e.com...

"NOYB" wrote in message

link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

John Gaquin wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message


And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG
things,

and

doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the

point.

If

polls show he's got approximately half of the available
support,

he

simply

can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS,
you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those
Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then
he

wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate
will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.


So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about
the
odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or
the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.

basskisser isn't arguing about the electoral college. Nevertheless, if
Bush
gets 50% of the electoral college vote, he still wins. There are 538
electoral college votes up for grabs this year. If Bush gets 50% (269
votes) and Kerry gets 269 votes, the Republican-controlled House breaks
the
tie...and guess who they'll choose? If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he
wins.

"Harry Krause" wrote:


If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.


Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.

Gore LOST in the electoral college, dummy, meaning Bush WON, yet you still
try to claim Bush wasn't "elected".

So which is it, two-faced? Does winning the electoral college vote count
for being elected, or not?

Spin it again, halfwit...

Jack

"NOYB" wrote:


Wait just a minute. If a Republican Congressman was already voted out of
office (as predicted in your scenario), why would he/she give a **** about
getting elected again.
If Bush gets 50% of the vote, he wins.

Damn, don't you just hate clear headed logic, getyaheadout... I mean
gehyahtahi??

Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:


If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.


Gore LOST in the electoral college, dummy, meaning Bush WON, yet you still
try to claim Bush wasn't "elected".

So which is it, two-faced? Does winning the electoral college vote count
for being elected, or not?

Spin it again, halfwit...

Jack





Uh, we're talking about an honest win in the electoral college. That
excludes Bush's 2000 "victory."

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jack Goff wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote:


If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.



Not if he loses in the electoral college, dummy.


Gore LOST in the electoral college, dummy, meaning Bush WON, yet you
still
try to claim Bush wasn't "elected".

So which is it, two-faced? Does winning the electoral college vote
count
for being elected, or not?

Spin it again, halfwit...

Jack





Uh, we're talking about an honest win in the electoral college. That
excludes Bush's 2000 "victory."

For Christ's sake, get over it already. Your guy lost.

"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message

And half of the country (+/-) think W is doing the WRONG things,
and
doing them horribly.


Yes, of course, but once again, you've completely missed the
point.
If
polls show he's got approximately half of the available support,
he
simply
can't be said to be doing poorly


Absolutely absurd.

In a three-candidate race, 50% wins.

Not necessarily. I take it you are assuming that each one will at
least get some votes. As with assumptions, and particularly YOURS, you
could likely be wrong.

Wanna bet? If even *one* person votes for Nader (ie--one of those Palm
Beach idiots punches the wrong chad again), and Bush gets 50%, then he
wins.

Man, how stupid ARE you, NOYB? That is nothing more, as I stated
above, than an assumption. Sure, I'll bet! As YOU said, *IF* one
person votes for Nader. How do you know that will happen? As I said,
you are wrong. Wrong because you are assuming that each candidate will
get SOME VOTES. Jeez, I hate repeating myself, but your answer is
exactly what I pointed out!!! If one person doesn't get any votes,
then, alas, 50% DOES NOT win the election. If you don't get it, I
can't make it any clearer, and you are utterly dumb.

So what are the odds that Nader won't vote for himself? How about the odds
that some person somewhere won't accidently punch the wrong chad or the
wrong computer key? I'd say the odds are about...zilch.

If Bush garners 50% of the vote, he wins.

My word you are stupid!! What does ODDS have to do with anything? If
you want to put it that way, there is also a chance that Nader will
NOT vote for himself. HE could punch the wrong chad. There is also a
chance that NO person will punch the wrong chad. You are wrong, plain
and simple. The possibility, no matter how slim, is still there, that
with 50% of the votes, Bush might not win.