Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!

wrote in message
...
The situation as it stands today indicates there will be no "stomping"
by or of anyone. It'll likely be much like 8 years ago, damned near
50-50. I wouldn't be surprised at a real squeaker.

what gives you this impression? IMO, the country is less divided along a
50/50 fault line than it was then.


And I'm sure
Hillary and Screamin' Howie have whole packs of lawyers warming up their
BS. Can you paint any halfway reasonable picture in which whatever
combination of Dems vs. McCain would produce anything much different?

Obama will kick McCain three ways to Sunday. By US standards, he may indeed
win by a subtantial margin. He puts states in play for the Dems that haven't
been so for a while. I'll bet you a cold one(or three), publicly, now, that
Obama can beat McCain by 60 electoral votes.

Tom
p.s. forget about Hillary, she is dead, and her campaign staff shows the
signs of knowing it, the past few days here
in PA.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.

Gore lost. Live with it.
He *should* have run away with it, but when you lose your *own
state*.........

So did Kerry. Live with it.

We've all been living with it over the past seven plus years.
Shrub's approval rating is around 30%. Which begs the question;
How in the hell can 30% of the people in this country have their
stupid heads so far up their moronic asses as to *APPROVE* of
George W. Bush ??!!?? It boggles the mind.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Dave LaCourse wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Just a friendly reminder: Gore didn't lose.


Gore lost. Live with it.
He *should* have run away with it, but when you lose your *own
state*.........

So did Kerry. Live with it.


We've all been living with it over the past seven plus years.
Shrub's approval rating is around 30%. Which begs the question;
How in the hell can 30% of the people in this country have their
stupid heads so far up their moronic asses as to *APPROVE* of
George W. Bush ??!!?? It boggles the mind.


They're the people who wouldn't mind if he ate their children.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:32:24 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

We've all been living with it over the past seven plus years.

Good. d;o)

The Dem Congress (both Houses) has even less approval rating than
Bush.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:59:20 -0700, rw
wrote:

They're the people who wouldn't mind if he ate their children.

You're weird, Barnard. Really weird.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
You're weird, Barnard. Really weird.



....this occurs to you after, what, a decade or more, on ROFF?g
Tom

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:25:36 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

..this occurs to you after, what, a decade or more, on ROFF?g

Yeah, but he never mentioned eating my kids before. That is weird,
even for Barnard. Must be the Wolfgag influence on him. g

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:10:01 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
The situation as it stands today indicates there will be no "stomping"
by or of anyone. It'll likely be much like 8 years ago, damned near
50-50. I wouldn't be surprised at a real squeaker.

what gives you this impression? IMO, the country is less divided along a
50/50 fault line than it was then.


And I'm sure
Hillary and Screamin' Howie have whole packs of lawyers warming up their
BS. Can you paint any halfway reasonable picture in which whatever
combination of Dems vs. McCain would produce anything much different?

Obama will kick McCain three ways to Sunday.

If the election were next week, no way, no how. Which is not to say
McCain would kick his tail, either. But there's too much time for
shtick betwixt now and November to predict what _will_ happen then. And
I think Obama has more to lose in meantime because he is still
kinda-sorta the media darling golden boy now...hey, Hillary was all but
the nominee last year...

By US standards, he may indeed win by a subtantial margin.

And he may up and decide he no longer wants to be Prez and calls for
folks to write in Paris Hilton for the job...and of course, there's the
whole "US standards" thing...lately, that's been trying to figure out
who 6 goobers in Possum Anus, FL REALLY wanted to vote for and fighting
over the dangling dingleberries it in court. And remember, he the
delegates he has because Hillary's hubris gave them to him - literally -
in the caucuses...and it's not the first time some would-be dictator,
um, caught a cold ****ing around in the, um, "Cauc(a)s(e)s"

He puts states in play for the Dems that haven't
been so for a while.

I'm not so sure how much, and he will likely lose some play that a more
solid-appearing Dem with some real chops might get - Richardson, for
example. Plus the whole race and religion (both the real, ala Wright,
and the horse****, ala Islam) thing is too wild a card to speculate
upon. The Wright thing has hurt him and the "elitist" thing all the
more so, but... If he does much of anything that portrays himself - or
really, confirms what some suspect and I suspect the Rovettes will be
helping along - as some elitist liberal intellectual atheist, he's done.
Also, I'm sure some people say they would vote for him because they are
afraid to say they wouldn't and appear racist, when they wouldn't
actually vote for him if he were white, blue, or chartreuse, but I don't
think anyone really has a good handle on those numbers. Bottom line -
IMO, it's too early to make hard-and-fast calls, but given the facts as
of 4PM eastern, no one is gonna stomp anyone

I'll bet you a cold one(or three), publicly, now, that
Obama can beat McCain by 60 electoral votes.

I'm sure you would...you appreciate sucker bets as much as I do...and
don't appreciate being the sucker any more than I do...

Would you bet me $100,000.00USD, publicly, now, that a ticket consisting
of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich can beat any other ticket you can
imagine by every single electoral vote?

I mean, they can...they won't, but they _can_...which, of course, leads
to a debate about what "can" means...

IAC, I've no problem with the idea that, being reasonable, Obama might
win by 60 electoral votes over McCain...but McCain, at this moment, is
just as likely to do the same over Obama. I've been speaking more of
the popular vote, which really doesn't elect the Pres or Veep, but it
what most look to. Assuming all electors stay faithful, I'd say the
actual vote (electors) would mirror the popular, so assuming Obama and a
reasonable veep, like Richardson vs. McCain-so-so veep, it's about a
toss-up, with a _slight_ edge to McCain. If it's Obama-Clinton vs.
McCain-Lieberman, it'll be President McCain.

Tom
p.s. forget about Hillary, she is dead, and her campaign staff shows the
signs of knowing it, the past few days here
in PA.

I don't know about that. And that's another thing Obama has to face -
he's spending, what, 12 mil in Penn alone - that ain't change, brother.
I'd offer as a possible that both have slammed a little too much dick to
be second fiddle, but neither really has a clear choice as running mate.
To make matters worse, one choosing the other might be seen as the best
hope (ala Billy's little "unstoppable force" shtick) but also the
biggest risk. Frankly, I think the Clintonistas and pseudoDems have
once again put the Democratic Party into a real mess, and 2008 might not
be the year they get out of it.

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
If the election were next week, no way, no how.

However, it isn't....hence, my wager. This campaign runs for a while, which,
I think you will find, will play to Obama's favor. Mostly, for reasons no
specific to him, but which he will be able to articulate, regarding McCain's
ideas for moving the nation ahead.

I'm not so sure how much, and he will likely lose some play that a more
solid-appearing Dem with some real chops might get - Richardson, for
example.

I like Bill Richardson, too, but let's face it. He has the charisma of
oatmeal.

Plus the whole race and religion (both the real, ala Wright,
and the horse****, ala Islam) thing is too wild a card to speculate
upon. The Wright thing has hurt him and the "elitist" thing all the
more so

really? The poll numbers, plus casual conversation here in East Central PA
say otherwise. Most real folks know the smell of bull****, and seemingly,
are less tolerant of it this season. What 'pundits' opine, and columnists
write, seems to convey less momentum to a campaign than it once did.
Strange phenomenon: we live within a world where 'everything' becomes
newsworthy, yet, most folks filter out more and more of it.


Would you bet me $100,000.00USD, publicly, now, that a ticket consisting
of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich can beat any other ticket you can
imagine by every single electoral vote?

I'd wager that much that the pairing in question might have trouble beating
a traffic ticket.....and, yes, I see where your suspicions lie in my
original wording. Let me restate it(at the lower buy-in level of a couple
brews): Obama WILL beat John McCain by 60 electoral votes in the 2008
election. Sorry to infer an attempt at a dubious bet.

I don't know about that. And that's another thing Obama has to face -

he'll deal with your not knowing alright, I figureg.

he's spending, what, 12 mil in Penn alone - that ain't change, brother.

he's picking up 40 mil a month in contributions, largely small sums from
people he can return to for more, if/when he needs it.

I'd offer as a possible that both have slammed a little too much dick to
be second fiddle, but neither really has a clear choice as running mate.
To make matters worse, one choosing the other might be seen as the best
hope (ala Billy's little "unstoppable force" shtick) but also the
biggest risk.

this part, I generally will agree with. Not with the explaination which you
gave about the party, however. The Dems will be just fine. Only if the
primary ugliness runs into the actual convention, will they have a problem.
It won't. Obama will be the nominee-apparent within 45 days, I will guess.
After that, the party love-fest will heal most of the wounds, the Clintons
will fade to elder-statesmen/ Teddy Kennedy type past-tense status, and,
with hope, Obama picks a running mate slightly less controversial than
William Ayers. Lieberman can, and will, get painted with the same pro-war,
pro-Israel brush as McCain, maybe in worse fashion, and that pairing would
lose out of just sheer fear of the consequences of them in charge. It would,
however, temper McCain a bit to have Joe out on the trail with him to
whisper corrections in his ear, and calm down the temper tantrums. He has
that job down pretty damned well!

Tom

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:45:52 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
If the election were next week, no way, no how.

However, it isn't....hence, my wager. This campaign runs for a while, which,
I think you will find, will play to Obama's favor. Mostly, for reasons no
specific to him, but which he will be able to articulate, regarding McCain's
ideas for moving the nation ahead.

And there is something Hillary is right about - she and McCain have been
pretty thoroughly vetted, plus, most anything short of bestiality or
kiddie porn that comes from even slightly partisan sources, however
true, looks, well, partisan, and won't effect the true believers, but
Obama isn't all that vetted and has made some pretty amateurish moves on
his own. Plus, while Hillary and her minions (not all of her
supporters) are as vicious a pack of political jackals as anything GOP,
they have had to show _some_ restraint in attacking one of their own.
OTOH, I saw Carvelle in the last couple of days, and his smirk alone
told me this thing ain't over even after it's over. IAC, what Hillary
has thrown at him will pale at what's coming if he's the nominee. And
it won't be just from the GOP (or even "surrogates") - he's a black guy
who admitted he did pot and coke, he's from Chicago, he's a "liberal,"
and the "elitist" thing is probably at least a little true. He's not
some white war hero married to a beautiful gal who sets fashion trends
whose daddy is hooked up with the mob and whose biggest public hurdle is
being Catholic.

I'm not so sure how much, and he will likely lose some play that a more
solid-appearing Dem with some real chops might get - Richardson, for
example.

I like Bill Richardson, too, but let's face it. He has the charisma of
oatmeal.

Plus the whole race and religion (both the real, ala Wright,
and the horse****, ala Islam) thing is too wild a card to speculate
upon. The Wright thing has hurt him and the "elitist" thing all the
more so

really? The poll numbers, plus casual conversation here in East Central PA
say otherwise.

And if East Central PA were the only voters for the POTUS, that would be
significant. However, they don't, and IAC, this isn't the election. I
suspect that things will shift back and forth before it's over and it'll
just be a question of who gets the chair when the music stops.

Most real folks know the smell of bull****, and seemingly,
are less tolerant of it this season.

Uh-huh...that's why no "news" show even mentions what Britney Spears did
yesterday, no one knows what Paris Hilton thinks of some girl's ass,
what pop tart is pregnant (or not), or who's leading the pack on
American Idol...

What 'pundits' opine, and columnists
write, seems to convey less momentum to a campaign than it once did.

Bull****. Media, traditional and otherwise, is what got a nobody one
term senator who really hasn't done anything but be black(ish) and have
some stage presence into a horserace for the Dem nomination.

Strange phenomenon: we live within a world where 'everything' becomes
newsworthy, yet, most folks filter out more and more of it.

See above Britney's **** and Paris' opinion...

Would you bet me $100,000.00USD, publicly, now, that a ticket consisting
of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich can beat any other ticket you can
imagine by every single electoral vote?

I'd wager that much that the pairing in question might have trouble beating
a traffic ticket.....and, yes, I see where your suspicions lie in my
original wording. Let me restate it(at the lower buy-in level of a couple
brews): Obama WILL beat John McCain by 60 electoral votes in the 2008
election. Sorry to infer an attempt at a dubious bet.

Hell, I'd have bet the brews on the dubious bet, so sure, what the
hell...but are you sure enough to bet some serious coin - say 5 grand?
I'm not.

I don't know about that. And that's another thing Obama has to face -

he'll deal with your not knowing alright, I figureg.

Actually, that's the issue - what's he gonna do? How's he gonna deal?
Who's he gonna deal with? Look, all BS aside, I think this guy is still
a big unknown - not bad, not good, unknown. And in politics, unknown is
very, very bad - one name: Eagleton. The next thing you know, Tricky
Dick wins by a landslide...

he's spending, what, 12 mil in Penn alone - that ain't change, brother.

he's picking up 40 mil a month in contributions, largely small sums from
people he can return to for more, if/when he needs it.

Hardly. Oh, I'll accept that the majority, in number of contributors,
are smallish sum individuals who more-or-less believe in Saint Obama,
but he's getting money (and help) from folks that will come someday and
ask for a favor...and he better have his lips all puckered up for a
little ring-kissing when they do...

I'd offer as a possible that both have slammed a little too much dick to
be second fiddle, but neither really has a clear choice as running mate.
To make matters worse, one choosing the other might be seen as the best
hope (ala Billy's little "unstoppable force" shtick) but also the
biggest risk.

this part, I generally will agree with. Not with the explaination which you
gave about the party, however. The Dems will be just fine. Only if the
primary ugliness runs into the actual convention, will they have a problem.

Um, they have a problem. Unless Hillary loses by something like 639% to
0% tomorrow, everything seems to indicate she's gonna fight
Clinton-style until it's way past over.

It won't.

Uh, perhaps you've heard of his opponent - Hillary
somethingoranother...hell, the bitch whacked Vince Foster on a whim...

Obama will be the nominee-apparent within 45 days, I will guess.

Heck, depending on who you talk to, he was that back in Iowa, so...

After that, the party love-fest will heal most of the wounds, the Clintons
will fade to elder-statesmen/ Teddy Kennedy type past-tense status, and,
with hope, Obama picks a running mate slightly less controversial than
William Ayers.

Maybe Al Sharpton or Michael Moore would be interested...

Lieberman can, and will, get painted with the same pro-war,
pro-Israel brush as McCain, maybe in worse fashion,

Yeah, having a semi-conservative pro-war Jewish veep is gonna keep money
away from McCain big time...for a whole lot of serious power (and money)
people, if it's a choice between pro-Israel and some dude that wants to
meet with Ahmadinejad, pro-Israel wins, and I'm not just talking about
US-based Jews. OTOH, for a whole lot of other serious power (and money)
people, screw Israel. Again, it's pretty hard to tout the winning horse
in a race with the sheet so blurry...

and that pairing would
lose out of just sheer fear of the consequences of them in charge.

See above.

TC,
R

It would,
however, temper McCain a bit to have Joe out on the trail with him to
whisper corrections in his ear, and calm down the temper tantrums. He has
that job down pretty damned well!

Tom