Guiliani to drop out - endorses McCain.

[Gan]

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani plans to drop out of the presidential race and endorse McCain at an event in California, two GOP sources with direct knowledge of the plans said.

Giuliani was a distant third with the results from Tuesday's voting almost final.

While Giuliani didn't say he was withdrawing from the race, he did speak of his campaign in the past tense at one point.

"I'm proud I ran a positive campaign," he told supporters. "I ran a campaign that was uplifting."

more...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/fl.primary/index.html

[Sean of the Thread]

Fare thee well.

[Parkbandit]

His gamble didn't pay off... but his support of McCain makes me believe my vote for Romney was a good choice.

Christ.. it's going to be Clinton vs. McCain... and for the first time in my adult life, I probably will have no will to go to the poll.

[Sean of the Thread]

I feel the same the way. However I may just end up hating Hilary enough to go vote for ANYONE else.

[ClydeR]

Rudy thinks he is in the catbird seat now that he has withdrawn because he has two delegates that he can use as leverage to get the surviving candidates to promote his agenda. :)

After last night, McCain leads the delegate count with 97 delegates, followed by Romney with 74, followed by Huckabee with 29. On Super Tuesday, 975 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402926.html) (or more than 1,000 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-24-delegate-math_N.htm), depending on who you ask) delegates will be up for grabs. It takes 1,191 to be the nominee.

[Gan]

Rudy thinks he is in the catbird seat now that he has withdrawn because he has two delegates that he can use as leverage to get the surviving candidates to promote his agenda. :)

Whatever you're smoking, you should either share or STFU.

[Sean of the Thread]

Why did you even bother listing Huckabee in your count. Pointless.

[Tsa`ah]

His gamble didn't pay off... but his support of McCain makes me believe my vote for Romney was a good choice.

Christ.. it's going to be Clinton vs. McCain... and for the first time in my adult life, I probably will have no will to go to the poll.

While it's accepted that the GOP winner in Florida will be the candidate ... you're betting too heavily on Clinton. I'm guessing this is due to her meaningless win in a state filled with retired white nursing home patients.

When it means something, Hillary has only won by a small margin ... Obama has decimated. With word of Edwards ducking out, I doubt his supporters will flock to Hillary ... though I'm willing to bet she's going to take up the Edwards torch in an attempt to garner votes in the Super.

I suspect that Edwards will endorse Obama, unless Clinton can "convince" him to go her way. In the event of an Obama endorsement ... the Clinton ship will finally sink.

[Gan]

What really makes me sad is that I'm leaning more towards McCain than I am Romney. Add to that my staunch Catholic neighbor is a HUGE McCain fan - for obvious religious right reasons.

:(

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm guessing this is due to her meaningless win in a state filled with retired white nursing home patients.



What! What about us unedumacated drunk redneck sister fuckers? Our vote counts too you know.

[Bobmuhthol]

If not John Edwards, I'd <3 to see McCain be a presidential candidate.

[ClydeR]

While it's accepted that the GOP winner in Florida will be the candidate ... you're betting too heavily on Clinton. I'm guessing this is due to her meaningless win in a state filled with retired white nursing home patients.

The exit polls showed (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08030/853251-176.stm) that the demographics were more diverse than that.


Other data showed that eight in 10 Republican primary voters were white and a little more than one in 10 were Hispanic -- about half of whom were of Cuban heritage. There were few blacks on the GOP side. In the Democratic primary, two-thirds were white, about one in five were black, and a little more than one in 10 were Hispanic.

Those voters split between Clinton and Obama (http://www.startribune.com/nation/14798391.html) differently than in South Carolina.


WILL RACE BE THE DOMINANT FACTOR FOR DEMOCRATS?

Many analysts are looking to the Democratic race in Florida to see whether a racial divide has opened after South Carolina's fractious fight. In Tuesday's primary, Obama took 73 percent of the black vote and 23 percent of the white vote, while Clinton won among whites and got 25 percent of the black vote. Black women supported Obama in the same proportion as black men, while white women came out strongly for Clinton. Clinton even had a strong showing among white men, a group she lost to John Edwards in South Carolina.

The question that Democrats need to ask themselves is whether Florida or South Carolina is more like the nation as a whole.

[Ilvane]

Florida:
Clinton 856,944 50% 0
Obama 568,930 33% 0
Edwards 248,575 14% 0
Kucinich 9,535 1%

While the delegates didn't count, that's a hell of a lot of people voting for her in Florida. And that WILL count if it's the general election.

A heck of a lot of people voting for no reason, eh?

All the of the Obama people better realize that she would be way ahead if they hadn't been penalizing people in the party for moving primaries up.

The party is sort of pissing me off right now with this crap. Why is it that the delegates and the votes of the people should not be counted?? I thought the Democrats were the party of "every vote counts"?

Angela

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm telling you, a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be awesome.

[Sean of the Thread]

Rofl @ exit polls. My polling station has two precincts and valet parking it was so packed and not a single exit poll to be found.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<While the delegates didn't count, that's a hell of a lot of people voting for her in Florida. And that WILL count if it's the general election.>>

Except, of course, the fact that the number of votes she gets among democratic voters has absolutely no bearing on the number of votes she gets when running against a republican candidate.

<<Why is it that the delegates and the votes of the people should not be counted?? I thought the Democrats were the party of "every vote counts"?>>

It's too fucking early, that's why. The democrats are also the party of not idiots (likewise, the republicans adopted the same attitude toward these stupid primaries).

[Sean of the Thread]

While the delegates didn't count, that's a hell of a lot of people voting for her in Florida. And that WILL count if it's the general election.



This is entirely over your head. Seriously stay out of politics until you at least know how the fuck it works.

[Gan]

I'm telling you, a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be awesome.


WORD

[Gan]

This is entirely over your head. Seriously stay out of politics until you at least know how the fuck it works.

Its almost as if she has forgotten completely about the electoral college.

[Ilvane]

This is entirely over your head. Seriously stay out of politics until you at least know how the fuck it works.

Oh my god..Fuck off..

And besides, it has to do with the primary right now, which is the delegates deciding who will be the presidental candidate..So why should Michigan and Florida not count again???

I know how it works asshole..

[Sean of the Thread]

Oh my god..Fuck off..

And besides, it has to do with the primary right now, which is the delegates deciding who will be the presidental candidate..So why should Michigan and Florida not count again???

I know how it works asshole..

You're dismissed dumb fuck.

[Sean of the Thread]

Its almost as if she has forgotten completely about the electoral college.

I think one has to know about it before forgetting about it.

[Hulkein]

What really makes me sad is that I'm leaning more towards McCain than I am Romney. Add to that my staunch Catholic neighbor is a HUGE McCain fan - for obvious religious right reasons.

:(

How do Romney and McCain differ in stances that the religious right care about?

[Gan]

How do Romney and McCain differ in stances that the religious right care about?

They differ very little actually. It was the difference between Guiliani and McCain that had me at odds with my neighbor (who's the religious nut).

Now my GOP choices are all heavily tied to the religious right. Which I'm not hugely thrilled about.

Basically its down to two choices for me - Romney or McCain. I'm going to start cross-comparing their stances to see which one I favor more (dependant on their weighting of which issues are more important).

I dont see Paul or Huckabee as anything more than cannon fodder for Super Tuesday.

Bloomberg concerns me because he reminds me of Perot back in the early 90's. And that was really beneficial for the first Clinton nominee. I hope this isnt a case of history repeating itself in that regard.

[Latrinsorm]

All the of the Obama people better realize that she would be way ahead if they hadn't been penalizing people in the party for moving primaries up.Obama agreed not to campaign in Florida, so no dice on that one.

[Parkbandit]

While it's accepted that the GOP winner in Florida will be the candidate ... you're betting too heavily on Clinton. I'm guessing this is due to her meaningless win in a state filled with retired white nursing home patients.

You should stick to googling instead of guessing.. because you suck at guessing. At least when you google something, you can bore us with big walls of text you don't bother to read.. and there's always a chance you could actually be right.

Take a quick look at the polls for upcoming Super Tuesday. Take a look at what states are doing the voting. Take a look at the big leads Clinton has in the big contests.


When it means something, Hillary has only won by a small margin ... Obama has decimated. With word of Edwards ducking out, I doubt his supporters will flock to Hillary ... though I'm willing to bet she's going to take up the Edwards torch in an attempt to garner votes in the Super.

THAT is all you have? Obama won South Carolina.. and with the help of good ol' Billy, he was able to make it about race... carrying him to a win. Big deal. Clinton is up in all but what.. 3 states for Super Tuesday? She'll easily carry NY, NJ, CA..



I suspect that Edwards will endorse Obama, unless Clinton can "convince" him to go her way. In the event of an Obama endorsement ... the Clinton ship will finally sink.

Edwards will go with whoever gives him the best deal.. as he is and always has been in it for himself from day 1. Don't be surprised if Clinton offers him a nice cabinet position just to get his voting block from voting for Obama. She does this, it's over. If Obama gets his endorsement, he could almost make a contest out of this.

[Clove]

It's gonna be Obama vs. McCain. Party at Ilvane's. Bring chips, she'll supply the dip.

[Ilvane]

Hah, hah..very funny.

I wouldn't mind a party at my house. You might realize I'm a decent person that way..LOL(dip or not)

Angela

[Sean]

Originally Posted by PB
THAT is all you have? Obama won South Carolina.. and with the help of good ol' Billy, he was able to make it about race... carrying him to a win. Big deal. Clinton is up in all but what.. 3 states for Super Tuesday? She'll easily carry NY, NJ, CA..

While this is purely anecdotal in my area of NJ I've been hearing a lot of Obama buzz lately. How that translates to voting and how she'll poll in the state is yet to be seen but I'm not sure how easy it will be for her to carry the state, especially given the higher concentrations of people in the northern (urban/suburban) part of the state as opposed to the southern (rural) portion.

[Sean of the Thread]

Hah, hah..very funny.

I wouldn't mind a party at my house. You might realize I'm a decent person that way..LOL(dip or not)

Angela

I got your dip right here.

[Tsa`ah]

You should stick to googling instead of guessing.. because you suck at guessing. At least when you google something, you can bore us with big walls of text you don't bother to read.. and there's always a chance you could actually be right.

Lol ... and right out of the gate you start with the tail chase and empty rhetoric.

You have no evidence what so ever that I do anything more than research. For the cut and paste demo ... you'll have to go to Dave for an example.


Take a quick look at the polls for upcoming Super Tuesday. Take a look at what states are doing the voting. Take a look at the big leads Clinton has in the big contests.

First and foremost .... the polls have been terribly inaccurate in reference to the Dem race. IA was called for Clinton, NH called for Obama. The polls for SC and NV showed close races .... only the NV poll was remotely accurate.

Second the polls reflected a three way race with no real political endorsements. It's now a two way race and Obama is being endorsed by the Kennedy family. The conservatives can dismiss such an endorsement all they want ... but the endorsement carries significant weight.

Third and final ... we don't know if Edwards will endorse anyone. If he does it without some form of coercion, it'll be Obama. I really doubt he'd endorse Clinton unless there was a string with a position on it. An Edwards endorsement gives Obama a significant delegate lead .... and it also gives Obama another 10-15% of each state. This heavily tips the scales in favor of Obama.


THAT is all you have? Obama won South Carolina.. and with the help of good ol' Billy, he was able to make it about race... carrying him to a win. Big deal. Clinton is up in all but what.. 3 states for Super Tuesday? She'll easily carry NY, NJ, CA..

Perhaps if you weren't so dim witted and maybe even a closet racist ... you would have been able to garner that Obama never made race an issue. The GOP certainly did. The media definitely did. The Clintons, to their demise ... absolutely did.

Despite you not getting how erratic poll result vs election results have been ... the Clinton margin in the polls, overall, is pretty slim. CA, poll wise, is too close to call ... that's the big kahoona.

She's got the North East wrapped up ... poll wise. Though in a few of the small heavily populated states, such as NJ, where her lead is so marginal that there's no way to predict if you toss out the last 5 primaries that had any meaning. GA, IL, ID, CT, and MS ... I don't think she has a chance.

I personally don't care how many states she has a poll lead in ... She'll have to pull of some sort of miracle, or cry on camera again, unless she can beat Obama's delegate count in the end ... it matters very little. All of her wins in any state amount to a win in FL or MI.


Edwards will go with whoever gives him the best deal.. as he is and always has been in it for himself from day 1. Don't be surprised if Clinton offers him a nice cabinet position just to get his voting block from voting for Obama. She does this, it's over. If Obama gets his endorsement, he could almost make a contest out of this.

Way to state the obvious? What part of "convince" did you not understand?

[CrystalTears]

I wouldn't mind a party at my house. You might realize I'm a decent person that way..LOL(dip or not)
You are a decent person, but your political views are fucked up.

[Sean of the Thread]

You are a decent person, but your political views are fucked up.

Agreed.

[Kembal]

Unlike some of the Republican primaries, Democratic primaries are not winner take all. Part of the delegate count is apportioned on the statewide vote, and the other part of the delegate count is apportioned via the vote in each congressional district.

In other words, Feb. 5 won't settle anything. It may generate momentum on the basis of someone winning so many states, but expect the media narrative to be that it's still close in delegates. They'd love to see a drawn out fight and they'll promote it as such.

[Parkbandit]

Lol ... and right out of the gate you start with the tail chase and empty rhetoric.

Wow... you hit a hypocrite alert level 2 in your very first sentence. Here's YOUR post that initiated my post.


While it's accepted that the GOP winner in Florida will be the candidate ... you're betting too heavily on Clinton. I'm guessing this is due to her meaningless win in a state filled with retired white nursing home patients.


Like I said.. you suck hard at guessing and should just bore us with your googlexpertise.



First and foremost .... the polls have been terribly inaccurate in reference to the Dem race. IA was called for Clinton, NH called for Obama. The polls for SC and NV showed close races .... only the NV poll was remotely accurate.

Actually.. only 1 poll at the time of the election was inaccurate... and that was NH, the day after Clinton's Award Winning Actress in a dramatic series moment. The other polls were within the margin of error on the day of the elections.



Perhaps if you weren't so dim witted and maybe even a closet racist ... you would have been able to garner that Obama never made race an issue. The GOP certainly did. The media definitely did. The Clintons, to their demise ... absolutely did.


WE HAVE HYPOCRITE ALERT LEVEL ONE! ALERT LEVEL ONE! Nice tail chase and empty rhetoric dipshit. Oh wait.. I know, your next post will be the old standbye "Waa, you started it.." Whatever. Here's a fucking clue, you raging douchebag... stop crying foul on an internet forum.. only to do the SAME FUCKING THING in the SAME POST you cry for attention. Maybe then.. MAYBE, we wouldn't consider you a hypocritical piece of shit all the time.

And it's amazing that you actually are somehow blaming the GOP on the Hillary/Obama feud. Well played.. if you are someone like Ilvane who would buy into it.

[Hulkein]

They differ very little actually.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I forgot you were a Rudy guy as opposed to a Romney guy.

I don't think either McCain or Romney would let the fundamentalists on the right jack their policies. That's something Huckabee would do, but not them. They both just tout their feelings on social issues to sure up the conservative base that they will need to win; not sure they believe it as strongly as Huckabee.

[Gan]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I forgot you were a Rudy guy as opposed to a Romney guy.

I don't think either McCain or Romney would let the fundamentalists on the right jack their policies. That's something Huckabee would do, but not them. They both just tout their feelings on social issues to sure up the conservative base that they will need to win; not sure they believe it as strongly as Huckabee.

If anything, based on McCain's proven ability tell others to piss off when he wants to take stand, I would think McCain would outshine Romney in that department.

[Tsa`ah]

Wow... you hit a hypocrite alert level 2 in your very first sentence. Here's YOUR post that initiated my post.

You do realize that the post you "responded" to had nothing to do with you, rather the largest demographic of support for Clinton ... and Florida represents her largest base population.

None the less ... you call me a hypocrit yet do nothing but display hyporcicy with every post. Nice going.


Like I said.. you suck hard at guessing and should just bore us with your googlexpertise.

Yet you seem to hang on my every word. Is this some sort of projection on your part? Do you require google to understand what I post ... thus the only way you can remotely discredit me is to make the google claim.

As I said, it's the same old same old from you.



Actually.. only 1 poll at the time of the election was inaccurate.b& and that was NH, the day afte>(Clinton's Award Winning Actress in a dramatic series moment. The other polls were within the margin of error on the day of the elections.

I'm going to do something you fail to do every time you post .... prove it.

Keep in mind, I'm pointing to the polls taken just prior to each states election method.

First will look at Florida's meaningless primary ... where in the largest block of Hillary votes was the 60+ crowd.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#FLDEM

Next we'll look at the IA polls ... where Clinton was the projected to win.

http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Obama wins.

NH .... after IA, Obama projected ....

http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Clinton wins.

NV ... after NH, Clinton projected to win by a small margin, 5-7 points.

http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Clinton wins, and the polling appears accurate.

SC ... after NV, Obama projected to win by an average margin of 13 points.

http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Obama wins (accurate) by 28 points (very inaccurate).



WE HAVE HYPOCRITE ALERT LEVEL ONE! ALERT LEVEL ONE! Nice tail chase and empty rhetoric dipshit. Oh wait.. I know, your next post will be the old standbye "Waa, you started it.." Whatever. Here's a fucking clue, you raging douchebag... stop crying foul on an internet forum.. only to do the SAME FUCKING THING in the SAME POST you cry for attention. Maybe then.. MAYBE, we wouldn't consider you a hypocritical piece of shit all the time.

:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:

The irony if this just made my day .... how many times have you awarded yourself the idiot of the day?


And it's amazing that you actually are somehow blaming the GOP on the Hillary/Obama feud. Well played.. if you are someone like Ilvane who would buy into it.

Now you're displaying your inability to comprehend. I didn't blame the GOP for any feud. I pointed out how the GOP, the Clintons, the media ... and you, make an issue of race. Obama hasn't.

[Parkbandit]

Once again.. you google shit up and refuse to actually read it.

Iowa - Your link actually shows Obama winning on two of the three polling methods... not Clinton. It was projected to be a close race and was (won by 8)

NH - We've already discounted this due to last minute drama by Clinton.

NV - You agree that the polling was accurate

SC - Polling still predicted winner accurately.


So again.. of the 4 contests, only one was skewed up by last minute crying.

Which was my point.

Now.. let's move onto Super Tuesday. Currently, Obama is in the lead in four states: Georgia, Illinois, Idaho and Colorado. Only Illinois is a big lead currently.. the others are relatively close to the margin of error. CT is deadlocked at a tie. Clinton, on the other hand, is currently enjoying double digit leads in 13 states.

So it's not that I saw Clinton win Florida (the state with all the white nursing home patients) and assumed she would win everything. I actually looked at future polls and concluded that it's her nomination to lose... just like it's McCain's.

If you want to wager anything on next Tuesdays results.. let me know.

[Tsa`ah]

Once again.. you google shit up and refuse to actually read it.

Oh the life of a simpleton ... would it be that we could all live such shuttered lives ... refusing to believe what is laid before us.


Iowa - Your link actually shows Obama winning on two of the three polling methods... not Clinton. It was projected to be a close race and was (won by 8)

Well good thing for me ... I wasn't pointing out the anomalies ... I was pointing out an average. Clinton in most polls was projected to win.

The averaged numbers, with the 26th as the cut off ... Obama 27, Clinton 29. Obama wins with a 10 point swing ... Clinton only gets a 2 point bump. I'm sorry ... that inaccurate polling vs results.


NH - We've already discounted this due to last minute drama by Clinton.

[b]You certainly discounted it ... that doesn't change the fact that Obama was projected to win.


SC - Polling still predicted winner accurately.

It predicted a winner ... however the Democratic rules are not "winner takes all". The predicted win was a given ... the margin of victory, and thus the number of delegates won, wasn't even close.


So again.. of the 4 contests, only one was skewed up by last minute crying.

Which was my point.

Absolutely not. Your point was off ... by a mile. Of the states that mattered, polling has only been correct on one of them ... moderately close on two, way off one the third.


Now.. let's move onto Super Tuesday. Currently, Obama is in the lead in four states: Georgia, Illinois, Idaho and Colorado. Only Illinois is a big lead currently.. the others are relatively close to the margin of error.

IL is probably the only state you can say with certainty that Clinton has no chance. You neglected to put NJ into the mix ... California may as well be deadlocked.


CT is deadlocked at a tie. Clinton, on the other hand, is currently enjoying double digit leads in 13 states.

You keep forgetting that this is not a winner takes all race. The key states will be those with the larger populations. NY, NJ, CA, and IL represent a very large chunk of delegates. We can call NY for Clinton and we can call IL for Obama ... however this matters very little. It's the total number of delegates in the end ... and I'd venture to guess the person who wins the largest chunk of CA will probably win the nomination, assuming they don't take in every state not listed above.


So it's not that I saw Clinton win Florida (the state with all the white nursing home patients) and assumed she would win everything. I actually looked at future polls and concluded that it's her nomination to lose... just like it's McCain's.

If you want to wager anything on next Tuesdays results.. let me know.

And my point is that you're putting too much stock in the Dem polls ... if anything they have demonstrated a clear lack of accuracy. Florida didn't matter .... and yet it still has the second highest population of 60+ citizens. You can take that as an insult, but it's a fact. It has the highest population percentage of 60+ in the union.

This is a crucial portion of Clinton's base .... as was the black vote ... which is a smaller percentage of FL's population. Clinton losing a significant portion of her base ... spells trouble.

[Parkbandit]

Oh the life of a simpleton ... would it be that we could all live such shuttered lives ... refusing to believe what is laid before us.


Lol ... and right out of the gate you start with the tail chase and empty rhetoric.



Like I said chump.. if you would like to put up a wager on Super Tuesday.. let me know. I'll bet on the polls straight.. $100 each state.

If the polls are always so inaccurate.. it should be a no brainer for you to take that bet.

[Sean of the Thread]

Gambling at Bushwood is illegal sir.

[Parkbandit]

<<Insert Cricket noise here>>

Guess Tsa'ah doesn't have that much faith in how inaccurate the polls are. Too bad, it would have been easy money for me.

[Xandalf]

I'm a little confused now too. I think I have to support McCain...out of lack of other choices.

I was a Giuliani man and I even volunteered for his campaign. I consider myself very conservative on fiscal and foreign policy but liberal on social issues.

-Another begrudged McCain supporter.

[Gan]

I'm a little confused now too. I think I have to support McCain...out of lack of other choices.

I was a Giuliani man and I even volunteered for his campaign. I consider myself very conservative on fiscal and foreign policy but liberal on social issues.

-Another begrudged McCain supporter.

Nice to know I wasnt the only one here on the PC.

:)

[Gan]

<<Insert Cricket noise here>>

Guess Tsa'ah doesn't have that much faith in how inaccurate the polls are. Too bad, it would have been easy money for me.

Thats too bad. It would have made for a memorable thread. ;)

[Xandalf]

Nice to know I wasnt the only one here on the PC.

:)

Nope, you're not the only one who actually understand basic economics, and yet still realizes that religion isn't the ultimate guide to understanding the universe.

I'll stop there for now. Somehow I have a feeling I'm going to be going on a rant fairly soon.

[Tsa`ah]

<<Insert Cricket noise here>>

Guess Tsa'ah doesn't have that much faith in how inaccurate the polls are. Too bad, it would have been easy money for me.

Well considering my last activity was at 07:12 PM yesterday .... it should shed some light on how much I hang on your posting ... which is not very much at all.

If you want to bet, we're going to bet on total delegates won. Clinton can win in most of the small delegate states and still not win at the end of the day.

Also, since I have absolutely no trust that you'll man up and shell out the cash at the end of the day ... or pull a SeanyD with a wired transaction, we'll do 3k in WoW gold, dunemaul.

So to be clear ... highest number of delegates won on Tuesday, 3k in WoW gold, DM.

[Parkbandit]

No... the bet isn't in gold, it's in real money.

And it's only about the poll.. not the delegates.

EXAMPLE: Poll day of Super Tuesday has Clinton winning in CA. I have Clinton winning CA and you have Obama. If Clinton Wins, you owe me $100. If Obama wins, I owe you $100.

There are what.. 22 contests on Super Tuesday? That's a potential $2,200 payday for one of us.

The only thing we would have to agree upon is the actual poll we would use.

[Atlanteax]

Use whoever CNN.com said is the winner.

[Tsa`ah]

No... the bet isn't in gold, it's in real money.

And it's only about the poll.. not the delegates.

EXAMPLE: Poll day of Super Tuesday has Clinton winning in CA. I have Clinton winning CA and you have Obama. If Clinton Wins, you owe me $100. If Obama wins, I owe you $100.

There are what.. 22 contests on Super Tuesday? That's a potential $2,200 payday for one of us.

The only thing we would have to agree upon is the actual poll we would use.

In case you didn't understand from previous posts ... this isn't a winner take all race.

If you want to bet on a pony race ... go to OTB, I believe most of them still have dollar cards for people your speed. You believe Clinton is going to take Tuesday by the polls .... which would indicated she'll take the delegates.

And as I said, I have no confidence you'll follow through, or the polls.

Essentially you're trying to bait me into a bet that in all probability will let you off the hook ... and in your eyes prove you right. The chances of either candidate winning via clean sweep is impossible at this point. As close as the race is, you're betting on breaking even and saving face.

I'm offering you a chance to prove to me that you're right and the polling is pretty damn accurate. If it is, Clinton wins the delegate count and you get an easy 150-180 bucks. If not, well ... let's just say I have as much faith in you sending 3k in gold to any of my toons on DM as you following through on settling a cash wager.

[Sean of the Thread]

NI HAO

[Parkbandit]

This was about one thing chump.. whether or not the polls were accurate. You claim they've been horribly wrong so far.. I disagree. I said I would take every poll number the day of and bet WITH the polls... thus proving my point.

You backed out because you don't trust me to pay. LOL

Sounds like once again.. you are chasing your own tail and bringing in empty rhetoric.. and you can't back it up. Weird. What next, you want to call me fat.. then on the next page state that you would never stoop to such a thing on the internetzwebz?

:rofl:

If you want to drop it down to $50 per contest.. or even $25.. I'm ok with that. I know it's slow season for you business right now.. and with the prospects of a Democratic President next year.. the outlook looks like it'll be a slow season for you for quite some time.

I guess we'll have to wait until Wednesday to see who is more correct about the polls. I was willing to wager I am.

[Gan]

You can also go by the RCP poll. Its been spot on so far.

[Parkbandit]

You can also go by the RCP poll. Its been spot on so far.


LIES! THE POLLS HAVE BEEN WRONG IN ALL THE CONTESTS! I KNOW THEY HAVE! I CAN FIND A POLL SOMEWHERE THAT HAS BEEN WRONG! IT WILL JUST TAKE SOME EXTRA GOOGLING FROM ME AND I KNOW I CAN BE RIGHT!!

[Tsa`ah]

I personally think you're chicken shit.

I've given you a clear avenue to prove your faith in the polls and that Clinton will win ST ... and you juke and jive in a side step.

Seems to me you're just blowing more shit out of your mouth.

[Gan]

I personally think you're chicken shit.

I've given you a clear avenue to prove your faith in the polls and that Clinton will win ST ... and you juke and jive in a side step.

Seems to me you're just blowing more shit out of your mouth.

I just want to see you put your money where you're mouth is.

PB's offered the bet, take him up on it or STFU.

[Tsa`ah]

I just want to see you put your money where you're mouth is.

PB's offered the bet, take him up on it or STFU.

Awww ... are the pom poms at the cleaners?

Clearly even you can't be this stupid. He offered up a safe bet to mask his bullshit. I offered a decisive bet ... clearly he doesn't have enough faith to risk something so trivial as WoW gold.

Now, unless you're going to take me up on the bet ... maybe you should STFU ... but we know how impossible that is for you.

[Gan]

Awww ... are the pom poms at the cleaners?

Clearly even you can't be this stupid. He offered up a safe bet to mask his bullshit. I offered a decisive bet ... clearly he doesn't have enough faith to risk something so trivial as WoW gold.

Now, unless you're going to take me up on the bet ... maybe you should STFU ... but we know how impossible that is for you.

LOL

Great diversion.

[Tsa`ah]

There's no diversion about it.

He wants to prove the polls are right. This is not a winner takes all case. The polls have the delegate count tipped in Clinton's favor.

At the end of the day, it's not a state count ... it's a delegate count. If his faith is so strong in the polls, then he should have absolutely no problem going on delegates and not states.

Now you can be the cheerleader you are, or you can take the bet yourself.

Either way we both know you'll never STFU.

[Gan]

There's no diversion about it.

He wants to prove the polls are right. This is not a winner takes all case. The polls have the delegate count tipped in Clinton's favor.

At the end of the day, it's not a state count ... it's a delegate count. If his faith is so strong in the polls, then he should have absolutely no problem going on delegates and not states.

Now you can be the cheerleader you are, or you can take the bet yourself.

Either way we both know you'll never STFU.

Since my main character on WoW is not on your server and you dont play GS, how do you propose to bet? You're still playing it safe, and diverting.

And as long as you spew your BS here, I'll continue to respond. ;)

*I also find it funny that you keep trying to bet on point spread while PB wants you to simply bet on overall victor in each state.

[Parkbandit]

Dear Tsa'ah.. you should go into politics.. as you've done nothing but flip flop, divert and probably tried to tax someone.. in this one thread.

HERE is the key post, from you.. in this thread. I've quoted it.. but if you need the source, look back in this thread on page 3. It doesn't require Google.. so maybe have someone help you find it:



First and foremost .... the polls have been terribly inaccurate in reference to the Dem race. IA was called for Clinton, NH called for Obama. The polls for SC and NV showed close races .... only the NV poll was remotely accurate.


There is the center of my bet to you. It's a very, very simple bet. You claim that the polls are "terribly inaccurate" and I claim the opposite. I don't give two shits about margins, delegate count.. nothing but the final outcome.. poll vs actual. $100 bet per state.

The only chicken shit here is you. Put your money where your big ignorant mouth is or seriously.. STFU as I'm tired of showing how much of a flaming douche bag you are in every political thread. You have an opportunity right now to actually show me your Google education and prove you are for once correct.

[Sean]

Dear Tsa'ah.. you should go into politics.. as you've done nothing but flip flop, divert and probably tried to tax someone.. in this one thread.

HERE is the key post, from you.. in this thread. I've quoted it.. but if you need the source, look back in this thread on page 3. It doesn't require Google.. so maybe have someone help you find it:



There is the center of my bet to you. It's a very, very simple bet. You claim that the polls are "terribly inaccurate" and I claim the opposite. I don't give two shits about margins, delegate count.. nothing but the final outcome.. poll vs actual. $100 bet per state.

The only chicken shit here is you. Put your money where your big ignorant mouth is or seriously.. STFU as I'm tired of showing how much of a flaming douche bag you are in every political thread. You have an opportunity right now to actually show me your Google education and prove you are for once correct.

How does betting straight up prove a point either way? If you actually read his posts it's pretty clear that he's talking about margin the polls have each candidate winning by or the delegates gained by each candidate. In a hypothetical situation if a state has Hillary winning 70% to Obama's 30% and the actually tally comes to Hillary winning by 51% to Obama's 49% would you say that poll was accurate?

[Tsa`ah]

How does betting straight up prove a point either way? If you actually read his posts it's pretty clear that he's talking about margin the polls have each candidate winning by or the delegates gained by each candidate. In a hypothetical situation if a state has Hillary winning 70% to Obama's 30% and the actually tally comes to Hillary winning by 51% to Obama's 49% would you say that poll was accurate?

Don't waste your time.

He's either stupid and doesn't get it, he's playing stupid to cover his ass ... or both.

[Parkbandit]

How does betting straight up prove a point either way? If you actually read his posts it's pretty clear that he's talking about margin the polls have each candidate winning by or the delegates gained by each candidate. In a hypothetical situation if a state has Hillary winning 70% to Obama's 30% and the actually tally comes to Hillary winning by 51% to Obama's 49% would you say that poll was accurate?

And my premise.. and reason for the bet.. was from him saying that the polls have been terribly inaccurate. It's a pretty simple bet.. and has nothing to do with delegate counts or the weather.

But as usual, Tsa'ah would rather flip flop, back walk and bullshit his way out.

I would think that for someone as well off as he always claims he is.. a measly $100 bet to prove his point should be a no brainer.

[Parkbandit]

Don't waste your time.

He's either stupid and doesn't get it, he's playing stupid to cover his ass ... or both.


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/AHypocriteAlert.jpg

:yes:

[Tsa`ah]

So is that alert in warning to everyone that you may actually post something?

[Tsa`ah]

And my premise.. and reason for the bet.. was from him saying that the polls have been terribly inaccurate. It's a pretty simple bet.. and has nothing to do with delegate counts or the weather.

They have been terribly inaccurate ... you just want to bet in a manner that is pointless in proving their accuracy. Apparently it needs to be pointed out to you ad nauseam that delegates matter, not the number of states won.


But as usual, Tsa'ah would rather flip flop, back walk and bullshit his way out.

Really ... you seem to be squirming like a little worm on a big fucking hook.


I would think that for someone as well off as he always claims he is.. a measly $100 bet to prove his point should be a no brainer.

I amended the terms ... you went cocknozzle. You refuse to take a bet based on delegates ... which you have a sinking feeling you would lose. In your small brain it's a horse race.

We can use baseball as an example. Games aren't won by the team with the most hits. Games are won by the team that gets the most runners across home plate. Like wise, Clinton can win almost every state, but in the end ... she's doesn't win the day unless her delegate count is higher. If she can't get the runners across the base ... well let's see if you can figure out the rest.

In addition, I've already pointed out how little faith that you won't welch on the wager ... thus I offered you an easier way out ... and still you go cocknozzle.

If anything, it appears you're too chicken shit to place a bet that has any relevance to it.

[Parkbandit]

They weren't your terms to amend. It was a simple bet.

You either are full of shit, or can't afford it. I told you I could make the wager more affordable to you... but you still didn't accept. So clearly, the only alternative was that you are full of shit.

But we all knew this about you...

[Parkbandit]

So is that alert in warning to everyone that you may actually post something?

No, it was to point out how much of a hypocrite you are. I thought that was evident when I quoted your stupidity in your post.

[Parkbandit]

We can use baseball as an example. Games aren't won by the team with the most hits. Games are won by the team that gets the most runners across home plate. Like wise, Clinton can win almost every state, but in the end ... she's doesn't win the day unless her delegate count is higher. If she can't get the runners across the base ... well let's see if you can figure out the rest.


PERFECT EXAMPLE! Before each game, there is a line given by Las Vegas. Who they believe will win and lose for the day's games. We're not talking about the over under, the total points, the number of homeruns, the number of bad calls by the umpire.. we're talking about who won that game and who lost. Win or lost. That's it.

And that's all I offered to wager with you... to counter your argument that the polls are always terribly wrong.

There's still time to take me up on that bet... Don't pussy out again.

[Tsa`ah]

Seems to me that the only puss bitch here is you. You're so confident in the polls you won't concede the most important point.

I'll make it 5k in DM gold and give you 30 delegates.

Prove your confidence in the polls and put it up chump.

[Parkbandit]

LOL...

It's a simple yes or no question Tsa'ah.

Straight up.. $100 per state. Winner declared via the CNN poll Tuesday Morning vs. the outcome. 22 states.

Stop trying to change the bet. Stop trying to pussy ass foot around as usual. You claim that the polls are completely wrong. For once. JUST ONCE.. prove something you post. Prove you can back up your bullshit rhetoric with a simple bet. It has nothing to do with delegates.. nothing to do with anything but a simple Win/Loss vs. the poll.

If your next post is anything but a "Fine, I'll step up and back my opinion up with a simple bet" then you are better off just ignoring this thread until Wednesday.. when you can say "Oh, I was so busy, I didn't have time" At least you will 'save face' with some of the gullible people here.

In the meantime, I'll continue to believe you are simply full of shit and can't back up a simple opinion.

[Parkbandit]

Bumped to help out Tsa'ah.

[Stanley Burrell]

Bumped to help out Tsa'ah.

BUT WAIT, WHAT IS, NO! CAN IT BE?

YES. YES IT IS. IT CAN BE:


http://pic.piczo.com/img/i94113946_68802_2.gif

[Stanley Burrell]

10k to the first poster who finds a bigger .gif.

[Tsa`ah]

LOL...

It's a simple yes or no question Tsa'ah.

Straight up.. $100 per state. Winner declared via the CNN poll Tuesday Morning vs. the outcome. 22 states.

Stop trying to change the bet. Stop trying to pussy ass foot around as usual. You claim that the polls are completely wrong. For once. JUST ONCE.. prove something you post. Prove you can back up your bullshit rhetoric with a simple bet. It has nothing to do with delegates.. nothing to do with anything but a simple Win/Loss vs. the poll.

Apparently you still have no understanding ... so I'm done trying to explain it to you.


If your next post is anything but a "Fine, I'll step up and back my opinion up with a simple bet" then you are better off just ignoring this thread until Wednesday.. when you can say "Oh, I was so busy, I didn't have time" At least you will 'save face' with some of the gullible people here.

Poor PB ... I gave you a definitive option, it was over your head. You wanted the safe bet. You also give yourself too much credit.

I've never had to hide from anyone ... nor make up an excuse. I'm here, I'm posting and it's apparent you were too chicken shit to back up your bullshit. Oh to live in your fantasy world where men on the internet fear you and women on the internet want you.

Wake up chump.


In the meantime, I'll continue to believe you are simply full of shit and can't back up a simple opinion.

I believe my opinion is being backed up now. Had we gone your way, you'd be 400 bucks behind right now with 7 more states to go. Not that you expected me to take a bet that had absolutely no meaning ... nor that you intended to pay had I taken the bet.

Dad told me, once upon a time, never take or make a bet unless you see the cash first ... never gamble on credit.

That aside ... I'm pretty sure the pollsters are eating their pie charts right now. California will decide the day however ... delegates and all (as I pointed out from the start).

[Tsa`ah]

500 now. Think Clinton will win the next 5 states to make it even? I'm thinking ... not.

[Parkbandit]

LOL... I can read you like the cheap comic book you are Tsa'ah. How convenient you didn't have time until AFTER the elections took place to respond... even though you were here posting today in other threads.

The sad part is.. the only person who can't see how pathetic you are.. is you.

[Parkbandit]

Poor PB ... I gave you a definitive option, it was over your head. You wanted the safe bet. You also give yourself too much credit.

I've never had to hide from anyone ... nor make up an excuse. I'm here, I'm posting and it's apparent you were too chicken shit to back up your bullshit. Oh to live in your fantasy world where men on the internet fear you and women on the internet want you.

Wake up chump.

HUH? How fucking much of a hypocrite can you fucking possibly be? I AM THE ONE THAT OFFERED YOU THE INITIAL BET DICKSPLASH! I WAS THE ONE THAT SAID PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH WAS! It wasn't the other way around.. until you countered my offer because YOU were too much of a fucking cheap chicken shit to take the original bet!

Holy fuck.. it's like you are living in some alternate universe... incapable of reading THIS THREAD to find the real answers.

[Tsa`ah]

In case you forgot from the last general election, I volunteer at the polls.

I spent some time this morning on WoW ... and responded to an evident circle jerk between lovers.

You had every opportunity to prove your faith in the polls, thus saving a little face and your hard earned cash that you'd never pay out if you lost ... and take a bet of delegates and wow gold. You did the shuck and jive very well. You tried to strong arm me, bait me ... and ultimately (cash or no) it looks like you'll be standing in line with the pollsters to eat some pie charts.

You can continue to delude yourself all you want. You're about as intimidating as a dead rat floating in a gutter .... and offer about the same to any conversation.

FYI ... It would be down to 400 now.

Wow ... two posts in response to one. And you've gone all foamy in the mouth ... which normally you don't do until the third or fourth response.

[Parkbandit]

In case you forgot from the last general election, I volunteer at the polls.

I spent some time this morning on WoW ... and responded to an evident circle jerk between lovers.

You had every opportunity to prove your faith in the polls, thus saving a little face and your hard earned cash that you'd never pay out if you lost ... and take a bet of delegates and wow gold. You did the shuck and jive very well. You tried to strong arm me, bait me ... and ultimately (cash or no) it looks like you'll be standing in line with the pollsters to eat some pie charts.

You can continue to delude yourself all you want. You're about as intimidating as a dead rat floating in a gutter .... and offer about the same to any conversation.

FYI ... It would be down to 400 now.

Wow ... two posts in response to one. And you've gone all foamy in the mouth ... which normally you don't do until the third or fourth response.

Holy shit.. are you really this fucking stupid? It's too bad the posts in this thread don't agree with this fairy tale you are trying to create. Here.. I'll post it for you so even you could probably understand it.

1) You made comment on how polls were inaccurate
2) I disagreed and offered to bet you straight up: Polls vs outcome.
3) YOU "shucked and jived" and tried to make the bet something we weren't even talking about.
4) I reiterated the terms of the original bet.
5) You once again tried to change the bet.
6) I gave you a final offer of the bet.
7) You were too busy in World of Warcraft all day to remember to read this thread... until the polls were over.

Dude.. I'm sorry if this thread confused you the way you are describing. Re-read the thread. Start on page 1. Once you do that, you'll find out that in yet another thread, you've shown your true colors. Nothing but a big talking, no action hypocrite.

Please continue to respond with your typical excuse ridden bullshit.. because I'm off tomorrow and look forward to this entertainment.

[Daniel]

WHy wouldn't you bet delegates again?

[Parkbandit]

WHy wouldn't you bet delegates again?

Why didn't we bet on the eventual winner of each party?

Why didn't we bet on the eventual winner in November?

Why didn't we bet on the Superbowl?


Probably because they didn't have anything to do with Tsa'ah's claim that the polls are terribly inaccurate.

[Daniel]

Except delegates do...

[Parkbandit]

Except delegates do...

Actually, they don't.

If we were discussing delegates.. then we would have to discuss individual district polling.

Nice try at throwing your boyfriend a lifeline though. I'm sure he'll show his appreciation later on tonight.

[Bobmuhthol]

Maybe it's because you don't take the time to understand a fucking thing about the Democratic party's nomination process, Parkbandit, but it's very obvious that there's more emphasis on delegates than there is on states. You don't have to win every state to win delegates in every state.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe it's because you don't take the time to understand a fucking thing about the Democratic party's nomination process, Parkbandit, but it's very obvious that there's more emphasis on delegates than there is on states. You don't have to win every state to win delegates in every state.


OMG! REALLY! HOLY SHIT THANK YOU BOBMUHTHOL! NOW I UNDERSTAND! WOW! U R SMART!

Again.. if you need help, re-read the thread and the chain of events that lead to the bet.

[Bobmuhthol]

Polls are inherently inaccurate, but the purpose of the poll is to try to predict the winner. The winner of a state does not determine the winner of the nomination. I don't know how you think the way you do.

[Parkbandit]

Please show me where I posted anything to the contrary.

Until then.. maybe you should head off to school.

[Bobmuhthol]

Maybe you should head off to work...?

You may not have said anything to contradict the process, but you still seem to assert that state counts mean a fucking thing, to the extent that you're willing to bet $100 per state and refuse a bet based on delegates. Also:


Probably because they didn't have anything to do with Tsa'ah's claim that the polls are terribly inaccurate.

Except delegates do...

Actually, they don't.
Actually, they do.

Let's look at the claim in question.


First and foremost .... the polls have been terribly inaccurate in reference to the Dem race.

They sure have! Where do you get the idea that it's a matter of state counts?

[Tsa`ah]

Holy shit.. are you really this fucking stupid? It's too bad the posts in this thread don't agree with this fairy tale you are trying to create. Here.. I'll post it for you so even you could probably understand it.

Well this should be good since it was my claim that the polls were inaccurate to begin with. I told you not to bet on Clinton, I told you not to rely on the polls.

I demonstrated that they were incorrect in three out of four contests that mattered prior to ST.


1) You made comment on how polls were inaccurate

And I demonstrated as much showing how two races were called wrong all together and how the percentages swung, and how one was grossly underestimated.


2) I disagreed and offered to bet you straight up: Polls vs outcome. Well you disagreed showing no basis for it and offered a per state bet. That's not a bet vs outcome.


3) YOU "shucked and jived" and tried to make the bet something we weren't even talking about.

Please list your disorder so that in the future I can just inform people when they start talking to you. I explained with every post that it was the delegate count that mattered and betting per state wasn't a definitive way to settle the dispute. You took it as a win for you and celebrated prematurely.


4) I reiterated the terms of the original bet.

You certainly did, and ignored everything else. You just can't grasp the process on the Democratic side. Or you refused to acknowledge as much in hopes to strong arm me.


5) You once again tried to change the bet. Sure. After reiterating the facts over your ever revolving posts of useless crap ... I sweetened the pot. I increased the bet by 150% and offered you a handicap (which you should have took instead of prolonging this losing argument).


6) I gave you a final offer of the bet.

Sure you did ... after failing to comprehend what mattered.


7) You were too busy in World of Warcraft all day to remember to read this thread... until the polls were over.

Lol ok ... whatever makes you feel better at the end of the day.


Dude.. I'm sorry if this thread confused you the way you are describing. Re-read the thread. Start on page 1. Once you do that, you'll find out that in yet another thread, you've shown your true colors. Nothing but a big talking, no action hypocrite.

Are you seriously this delusional? You just got buried in your own bullshit.

Not only would you be behind by $600 right now, but you still wouldn't understand why I was pointing out that delegates were the only thing that mattered.

Clinton only won 8 states to Obama's 16 (pretty much counter to your faith in the polls). Yet Obama's delegate lead will probably be a deficit when the final numbers in California come in. Why? Because she won 3 out of the top four most populous states yesterday. The delegates will awarded in a manner that compliments the margin of victory/loss.


Please continue to respond with your typical excuse ridden bullshit.. because I'm off tomorrow and look forward to this entertainment.

I actually find it funny that you continue to post at all. Your faith in the polls was proved to be unfounded. Your understanding of the process was exposed as ignorant. Most of all it shows that discussing anything with you amounts to the episode of Family Guy, where Brian is discussing red state republicans and we see the skit between a guy and a jackass.


Probably because they didn't have anything to do with Tsa'ah's claim that the polls are terribly inaccurate.

Wow ... I don't think there's a comment that can do this quote justice.

[TheEschaton]

Dude, Tsa'ah, you need to learn to count. Obama won 13, to Hillary's 8, with NM still undecided. There were only 22 states up for grabs. But Hillary won CA, NY, MA, NJ, the major "prizes", losing only IL because it's Obama's home state. Meanwhile, Obama won states like Kansas where only 40k Democratic voters cast a ballot, or something like that.

If you look at the votes that Obama "won":

Alabama, Clinton still leading in delegates
Missouri, Clinton had 32 to Obama's 34 of the voted on delegates, basically a push since she had more of the superdelegates in that state.
DE, same deal, Clinton 8, Obama 9, but she has more superdelegates.

So that's at least 3 states that despite Obama "winning" were at best, a push. Technically, you can count NH as a push despite HIllary winning, same for Nevada.

It's a crazy race, and it's gonna be fuckin' awesome - real democracy at work.

Most telling statistic: No matter who the Democratic nominee is, ~72% will be happy with the result, showing you it's an excess of riches on the Dem side, and they will unite around a nominee. Furthermore, Dems voted in significantly larger numbers than Republicans again last night.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Oh, and if you look at the delegate counts from last night, Obama came out on top, 603 to 590, so far (they haven't finished counting), but Hillary is still in the overall lead, 783 to 70-something. Considering the Obama camp considered anything within 100 delegates to be a victory, closing the gap to 80-something is a huge deal.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

Dude, Tsa'ah, you need to learn to count. Obama won 13, to Hillary's 8, with NM still undecided. There were only 22 states up for grabs. But Hillary won CA, NY, MA, NJ, the major "prizes", losing only IL because it's Obama's home state. Meanwhile, Obama won states like Kansas where only 40k Democratic voters cast a ballot, or something like that.

I'm counting NM. 2% still has to report .... at best it could lead to a deadlock.


If you look at the votes that Obama "won":

Alabama, Clinton still leading in delegates
Missouri, Clinton had 32 to Obama's 34 of the voted on delegates, basically a push since she had more of the superdelegates in that state.
DE, same deal, Clinton 8, Obama 9, but she has more superdelegates.

So that's at least 3 states that despite Obama "winning" were at best, a push. Technically, you can count NH as a push despite HIllary winning, same for Nevada.

Please read more of my posts. I pointed out that while Obama has the state count, he lost 3 of the top 4. I've pointed out at almost every post that the state count doesn't matter ... and this is exactly why.

Also, you're counting superdelegates ... not a factor in this discussion.

[TheEschaton]

That's still 14, you said 16. :P And my contention with you was merely the number of states issue, nothing else, the rest was just my analysis, gleaned from watching like 8 hours of CNN last night. I love their fuckin technology, man.

[Tsa`ah]

My bad. Lack of sleep, late night, sick kid ... I should proof read a bit more before posting.

[Parkbandit]

LOL

I haven't actually taken a look at the polls vs the outcome.. and there is no way I would ever, ever take your googleword for it. But if that is the case... don't you actually wish you had the balls to go through with the bet now?

I'm glad you turned out to be a pussy about the entire thing.. saved me some chump change.

[Tsa`ah]

LOL

I haven't actually taken a look at the polls vs the outcome.. and there is no way I would ever, ever take your googleword for it.

Of course not, and you won't. If there's one thing that has been established during your entire history of posting on the PC is that you won't look up the facts and you don't believe them when presented.

You live in your own ignorant world refusing to believe anything that comes into conflict with it. Time and time again the facts have been laid out before you and from there you just stick your fingers in your ears and "lalalalalalalalala" until the whole thing dies down (which means people get tired of you chasing your tail).

When backed into a corner you pull the "source plz" type "argument" and then pull the "google" argument after.

In this thread ... well your ass was handed to you ... time to chow down chump.



But if that is the case... don't you actually wish you had the balls to go through with the bet now?

As I said, it was a safe move on your part. Had I taken the bet, I'd still be waiting for payment ... and we both know your ass isn't worth the airfare and purchase of a baseball bat.

When offered a definitive bet .. you ran in circles and kept running announcing yourself the victor. Yet I didn't buy your distraction. In the end, I think it's you that should be glad I didn't take the bet. You got to save face and cash at the same time .... though you still got your ass handed to you.


I'm glad you turned out to be a pussy about the entire thing.. saved me some chump change.

Lol ... whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

[Parkbandit]

Ass handed to me?

Really?

PB: Hey Tsa'ah, I'll bet you
Tsa: Let's bet something different with pretend money.
PB: Come on pussy, let's just bet.
Tsa: I will bet, but only on my terms with pretend money.
PB: Last chance Tsa.. come on.. bet.
Tsa: Oh, I was playing World of Warcraft all day until the polls closed... but I WOULD have bet you.. because I knew it would be like this!

You pussied out and saved me some chump change. Thanks! And really, you've never bet me before.. so stuff the "I won't bet because you won't pay" copout. You couldn't afford the bet.. so you mysteriously left until the polls closed.

Imagine the real bragging rights you would have if you weren't such a cheap little bitch.

:rofl:

[Tsa`ah]

Ass handed to me?

Really?

PB: Hey Tsa'ah, I'll bet you
Tsa: Let's bet something different with pretend money.
PB: Come on pussy, let's just bet.
Tsa: I will bet, but only on my terms with pretend money.
PB: Last chance Tsa.. come on.. bet.
Tsa: Oh, I was playing World of Warcraft all day until the polls closed... but I WOULD have bet you.. because I knew it would be like this!

You pussied out and saved me some chump change. Thanks! And really, you've never bet me before.. so stuff the "I won't bet because you won't pay" copout. You couldn't afford the bet.. so you mysteriously left until the polls closed.

Imagine the real bragging rights you would have if you weren't such a cheap little bitch.

:rofl:

And classic PB comes through once again ... were you correct in the discussion? Was I incorrect?

I'll give this to you, you've got balls to continue posting after falling flat on your face ... and then having your ass handed to you. Balls ... or sheer ignorance.

[Daniel]

Democrat

[Parkbandit]

And classic PB comes through once again ... were you correct in the discussion? Was I incorrect?

I'll give this to you, you've got balls to continue posting after falling flat on your face ... and then having your ass handed to you. Balls ... or sheer ignorance.


I don't think that was ever in doubt.. as you've proven in this thread. You are a complete nutless wonder.

[Clove]

...I'll give this to you, you've got balls to continue posting after falling flat on your face ... and then having your ass handed to you. Balls ... or sheer ignorance.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

[diethx]

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

I was thinking the exact same thing.