Ellection Bookie

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:09 am

Yup, that's me.

Today I took my first bet on wether the Americans will ellect the Vietcong-killing, snowboard-savvy non-personality that is John Kerry, or they will do the unthinkable and re-ellect Bubbles With Rabies.

Now, since we over here can do NOTHING but stock up on cheetos and beer, kick back on the couch and watch the freakshow unfold, we might as well be neutral and start taking bets.

So how to determine the odds? Well, as in all ellections it's all about what's important to the people. In this case, the USA.

For instance:

Are The Candidates War Heroes?
Yes. Last night it became evident that John has murderlized no less than 20 enemy troops in a useless travesty of a "police action" 30 years ago. WELL DUH! Sorry John, but George is almost up to murderlizing a 1000 AMERICANS in a useless travesty of a "police action" right as we speak! And that's only his wartime record. George is also famous for causing quite a power shortage in Texas, increasing his score considerably. So sorry John, George may not have carried an M16, but he's gonna make damn sure they stay on the streets. George-1. John-0.

Are The Candidates Honest?
Probably not, but it's the lie that matters. In the US, lying about having lousy taste in women will get you lynched, but lying about why you go to war will cause no reaction what so ever. It's a draw since John hasn't had a go yet.

Are The Candidates Aware Of The Environment?
John: We have to start thinking about future generations and... George: It's dang unfair that Arizona doesn't have beachfront property. I intend to make it so! George-2. John-0.

Where Do the Candidates Stand On Domestic Issues?
John: We need better education and... George: Eeedukatun? According to the latest survey 19% of the adult people of this great nation can't read or write, and it seems to me they're doing just fine. I can hardly communicate mahself, and I'm the president! Next? John: Gun control is important to... George: Hell Yeah!!!! At last something we agree upon. Teach them to control those babies from an early age! Next? John: Job security is something that I... George: As long as there's a war going on, there'll be work for everybody in the factories. George-10. John-Oh, who cares.

Then there is the obvious odds-killers:

1. Conveniently find a cache of old Chinese or Russian warheads burried under an outhouse in Bagdad. "Oh lookee, they were there all along, right under our noses!" See-through, but will probably get you re-ellected.

2. Mount Bin-Laden's head on a stake on Capitol Hill by the end of August. "Oh lookee, he was living in a shed in Donald Rumsfeld's garden all along!" Instant re-ellection.

3. Another attack on American soil. "See? Told you so!" Emperor For Life.

So right now even my mom agrees that GWB will be re-ellected. What do you think?

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:52 am

Originally posted by Moonbiter

So right now even my mom agrees that GWB will be re-ellected. What do you think?

Man, even here in Brazil we agree that GWB will be re-elected. He has a better advertising team, and has a better story to tell. But for us, politically speaking, Kerry may be the best option.

Bush is so much self centered, he has a very harsh way to deal with foreign countries, and we are having increasing difficulties to export due to his will to create ALCA - the Americas free trade agreement. But ALCA may have a devastating effect on our imports-replacements economys. And our president, mr Lula, is but a monkey with no brain, a puppet in the hands of its own supporters.

Kerry is some kind of hope. I'd pack my Doritos, some bottles of beer and get behind the sandbags for a while, looking the war for election in the US, in hope he is winner and we may get some time from Bush's family nasty record.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:40 am

But you have to admit it's great entertainment. Sort of like Big Brother meets Temptation Island meets Ted Nugent meets Starship Troopers meets Pigs In Space. I mean, this summer 9 out of 10 Europeans will veg out in front of the TV to watch the European Soccer Championship. For those of us who don't like Soccer, we can get entertained by watching a political ruccus which makes Jerry Springer look like Sesame Street.

Coot · Post by **Coot** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:33 am

Is there going to be a third-party candidate? Wasn't Ralph Nader going to run again? Or won't Michael Moore let him?

Tom2 · Post by **Tom2** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:22 am

LOL

"Big Brother meets Temptation Island meets Ted Nugent meets Starship Troopers meets Pigs In Space."

Who is miss piggy in the show? I see madelin albright as a good candidate but she is not in the show any more.
Condelizza is more like Kaa than an angry pig.

Ohh Bush will walk it. What are the odds by the way?
regardless but me down for 5 square meters of land above 800meter sea level (its the only good currency going these days).

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:45 am

Is there going to be a third-party candidate?

Are you kidding? Who will that be, The Good, The Bad or The Ugly? Because in 25 years that's what a US ellection will be like: Guns in High Street at noon.

Funny that you should mention Michael Moore. He's actually one of the major factors in making the odds better for Kerry.

4/10 Bush' favour at the moment.

Tom2 · Post by **Tom2** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:59 am

In 25 years US elections will be more like LA law. In 2016 bush gets his fourth election victory from the high court and declares that voting is a waste of time.

In 2021 he dies in from choking on a pretzel (you can only cheat the snack so many times). By that time lawyers run the country with **** cheney as honorary judge. praise the lord

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:50 am

Originally posted by Coot
Is there going to be a third-party candidate? Wasn't Ralph Nader going to run again? Or won't Michael Moore let him?

Nader is running, but this time there's a campaign mounted *against* him--by liberal Democrats who believe (with some reason) that he took away enough votes from Gore in 2000 to act as a "spoiler." Which just again proves how badly designed the winner-take-all, two-party political system is.

I don't like Kerry. I despise Bush. I wave my privates in the faces of Nader's aunties. I have no choices with even the slightest chance of winning, and tens of millions of people who make reasonable choices about driving, raising their families and doing their jobs on a daily basis are in a few months going to enthusiastically vote for some presidential candidate who shouldn't reasonably be made a county judge.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:28 am

@fable
You forgot "I fart in your general direction..."

You're right, but who will win? I need an opinion here.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:16 am

Kerry because Bush Jr. has gone the route of Bush Sr. he has alienated to a degree those conservative republicans. Unless bin laden head is on a stake the way things are going in Iraq... Kerry

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:13 am

Originally posted by RandomThug
Kerry because Bush Jr. has gone the route of Bush Sr. he has alienated to a degree those conservative republicans.

Au contraire!

Those conservative fringe folk are going to vote for Dubya come what may. It's the vast moderate ground which is up for grabs. If Kerry was more charismatic and the Democrats more aggressive, I would say it's a certainty, but they're still playing the old, bad game of letting their opponents set the tone and pace. Fortunately, they're up against a failed administration. Between incompetence in office and incompetence in runnng a campaign, it's a toss-up which party will stumble worst.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:43 am

I agree. He can just say he will ban gay marriage or reinstate seats for blacks at the back of the bus, and the entire Far Right is his to do what he want with. Heck, they're already funding his campaign.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:50 pm

Medicare, Illegal Immigrant Rights and he was slow behind the gay marriage deal... It's obvious that before Kerry was the man Bush was appealing to the mass market instead of the far right. I know many conservatives that worry about things other than war and the economy, rights and such. Just like his father he will loose the election by trying to appease people instead of standing on what is, a crazy ass republican.

Conservatives are not monkey slaves just like democrat's arn't all tree hugging bastards.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:05 pm

Originally posted by RandomThug
Medicare, Illegal Immigrant Rights and he was slow behind the gay marriage deal... It's obvious that before Kerry was the man Bush was appealing to the mass market instead of the far right.

This isn't a matter about "mass market," because at any given time the "mass market" can be conservative, reactionary, liberal, rebellious, moderate, or what have you.

This is about a large politically moderate constituency of voting Americans whose minds are not made up, as of yet. As such, Kerry's appeal is to that group, and always has been. As Massachusetts politics go, he's moderate. For what that's worth.

Bush was not slow to stand against gay marriage. He made speeches in Texas while running for governor; one that's often quoted (and even exists in audio format; I've heard it) has him saying that being gay isn't American. When running for president in 2000 he brought up many of the same buzzwords and concepts. He just didn't get the publicity he did by brining it up, lately.

As for Medicare, are you kidding? That's not a matter of appealing to any group. *All* candidates will state, at some point, that they support Medicare, and Social Security, as well. Nobody, but nobody, will say otherwise. It doesn't mean anything. It's the equivalent in the US of saying that you support the right of people to watch baseball, eat food and sleep in beds.

Ditto, illigal immigrants. If Bush truly wants to latch onto the moderate vote, he's going to have to consider making some stands such as:

1) Giving tax breaks to the middle class, instead of his pals.

2) Finding the reasons why unemployment is seriously rising, and promising specific remedies to deal with that.

3) Cutting the national debt, which was the lowest it's been since after WWII before he took office. It's now the highest it's ever been, and we're barely able to service the interest. We're not touching the principal. But that means no more wars, and cutting back on ma

4) Acknowledging he's done zip on education, and making specific proposals to deal with the problems.

5) Health care. He promised this, as well, but did nothing. It's supposedly first on most people's minds in terms of issues politicians are not discussing.

I'm not suggesting all or any of these issues to Bush, but these are the ones that all the polls and all the focus groups point out bother the large, moderate voting group in the US. This, not Medicaire, is what Bush has to speak on if he wants to make an impression. The problem is, everything he's ever uttered on these points before his election, he ignored after getting into office. If he touches these issues again, Kerry is going to point to Bush's record. So Bush is better off making believe he's a war hero, instead of a craven political opportunist.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Tue May 04, 2004 3:14 am

The Bookie is once again open, after recent events has changed the odds considerably. I am, of course, talking about the near-revolution that has flamed up in Iraq, and the recent grotesque acts committed against prisoners of war by Coalition troops. Also a major factor is the reappearance of one of my fave characters, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
"Who he?" some may ask. Hersh is the scourge of power-abusers on all sides of the political spectrum for over 30 years. He is the man who once said "A good journalist can not, and should not have friends." His career started with a bang in 1969 when he brought a horrified world the report of US troops wholesale slaughter of Vietnamese civilians in the city of My Lai in South Vietnam(!) Since then he has exposed Israel's nuclear weapons program, shown the world the dark truth about the Kennedy administration and investigated media mogul and top ranking mobster Robert Maxwell.
His latest work is the exposure of a report made by US general Antonio Taguba about heinous acts of sadism and torture against Iraqui prisoners of war in the prison of Abu-Ghraib in November and December last year. He promises more to come.

In The Bookie's office we consider Hersh' renewed involvement in US politics to be of major consequence, and combined with the current action going on in Iraq has raised the Democrats odds by a full 2 points.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue May 04, 2004 9:43 am

I still say Kerry by a small margain.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Wed May 26, 2004 7:57 am

Hooookay! The race is on as we're heading into June, and His Shrubness is at an all time low as I write. So how does this latest theory affect the US voters? Comments?

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Wed May 26, 2004 9:07 am

I think that at all times Terrorist threats are high. I will not of course alter my day to day schedule because so... because there threats. Trust me I live in LA and I am pretty sure were next.... but seriously... Even knowing its in summer... what is that going to do for me. I am glad they tell me so I am not like "wow why didnt they" but it doesnt scare me... Although to be honest it does make me think what were trying to do is a little right...

maybe the threats are just bush campaign propaganda hehe.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Wed May 26, 2004 10:49 am

Originally posted by RandomThug
I still say Kerry by a small margain.

I agree.