Rob E Dangerously

John Kerry will crush your face!

oh yeah.. Go Packers!

He has two turntables and a microphone

Election-related wagers! Will Kerry win a county in any of the following states: Alaska Utah Wyoming Nebraska Will Bush win any counties in Massachusetts? Which state will have the largest "ticket-splitting"? my picks Oklahoma (Carson/Coburn) Illinois (Keyes/Obama) Alaska (Knowles/Murkowski) Ohio (Voinovich has no real struggle for re-election) Which third party candidates will finish with over 1%? (In the Pres. race, and Senate races) here's the Election Night Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ART...ecnighttime.php I predict they call Utah for Bush about 5 minutes after the polls close and Iowa closing the polls at 9pm is very odd, considering the polls close here at 7pm

there's no way in hell i'm leaving my room on election night. There's a lot of stuff to keep track of on the net

what's the minimum for Bush to have in other to beat the surge of undecided voters? I've heard Rove claim Bush has to have a 4 point lead I've heard that 2/3rds to 86% of undecided voters go to the challenger

RCP is down from 264-237 Bush (their count last Wednesday) Strategic Vision is very very questionable. Unless New Jersey is a real swing state.

but has disingenuousity ever stopped them before? (did I make up a word there?)

Pew has a 7 point swing on RV (from 48-41 Bush to 45-45) and a 5 point swing in LV (from 49-44 Bush to 47-47) http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=229

I heard Tyler & Rob hada bet on it. The winner got to furiously masturbate the other. Uh huh

or under that EV thread

it's a matter of what will get less traction. Anything can play into anybody's hands. But, it takes some sort of traction for it to be worth anything to people who aren't total partisans. there's ways to handle this and be likeable, and ways to handle this and look stubborn Schieffer's questions were wedge-a-riffic.. AWB, Abortion, Affirmative Action definately a change of pace from the usual, mostly relevant, Debate questions

Basically, the current route, which plays into the Dems hands is better than the alternative? It'll be all about the middle and which actions are more acceptable. I noted my skepticism on Pat It seems they always had that Miss America, the one guy and Pat's son on most of the time instead of Pat.

well.. Pat said that stuff about the blowout on his own show. then again.. Pat didn't mention if God was specific on who would win. Ha.

National Treasure.. aww yeah

is the ball still in play if it bounces off a cop?

It's possible to state concern about something and not admit being at fault. Sorta like how Southern states were against those who were for civil rights, but they didn't admit that they were depriving African-Americans of civil rights If it makes you feel any better, Bush's campaign declined the endorsement. http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=316095 file that under "Duh"

or else the umpires will be murdered by Yankee fans

that's an interesting theory. It just lacks any proof.

You're really one to critique others for lacking sources. http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/...itics-headlines http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2451563 http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968705899037 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...19/174311.shtml http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid...ment_from_iran/ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...an_us_elections

I've seen this story reported on virtually all of the networks - not just on Drudge. it was posted on Drudge's site (instead of being linked) and I don't remember any bet, but maybe that's why I have 500 bucks.

ranting how one side has a double standard is a bit narrow minded. Some of us on the left have double standards. Some more than others. Having a double standard is human nature. Although when it's excessive, I can see the objections. It's sorta like bashing just one side for lying. Both sides twist the truth. Although not to the same degree. The pure truth is too much for a lot of people to handle. They want sugar, not salt.

The part involving the world is in the past tense, meaning, after the event. The present tense part was in making the case to your country. Basically, if you strike pre-emptively, make sure you're doing it for the right reasons. I don't think the American Government is as trusted in the world as we were in 2000. To have others in the world trust our word doesn't mean we have to be weak. It's about credible leadership. (and yes, Kerry can speak French, which means he can tell the French off in their own tongue if he has to. Ha)

this would be more entertaining if Bush made Marv Albert his running mate in 2000. "The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us - biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept. YES!"

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n...1358EDT0593.DTL