Guys, given the contextual evidence (um, everybody else in the pic has his hand on his heart or near it) I would suggest that this is a screencap of footage of Bush in the process of either putting his hand over his heart, or taking it away.
Honestly, I don't see the point to stuff like this. The man is stupid and awkward enough without the need for supplements.
Phaedrus
Honestly, I don't see the point to stuff like this. The man is stupid and awkward enough without the need for supplements.
Phaedrus
You libs just don't understand, a political election isn't a football game. There's not a damn thing a bettor can do to influence the outcome of a ball game, but bettors (as in voters) are everything in an election. The betting line on political events follows the polls, and if the polls are accurate, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
I'll say it once again, bettors represent a cross-section of our society, Rep/Dems, black/white, rich/poor, old/young, and voters/nonvoters. If a plurality of these people are puting their money on one candidate over another, it is only realistic to believe they will probably also vote that way. In essence, the voter/bettors actually decide the outcome of the event. This is a much more powerful indicator of who will win than sports prognosticaters trying to "guess" the outcome of a ballgame.
I'll say it once again, bettors represent a cross-section of our society, Rep/Dems, black/white, rich/poor, old/young, and voters/nonvoters. If a plurality of these people are puting their money on one candidate over another, it is only realistic to believe they will probably also vote that way. In essence, the voter/bettors actually decide the outcome of the event. This is a much more powerful indicator of who will win than sports prognosticaters trying to "guess" the outcome of a ballgame.
"Honestly, I don't see the point to stuff like this. The man is stupid and awkward enough without the need for supplements."
Lol!
"You libs just don't understand, a political election isn't a football game. There's not a damn thing a bettor can do to influence the outcome of a ball game, but bettors (as in voters) are everything in an election. The betting line on political events follows the polls, and if the polls are accurate, the outcome is a foregone conclusion."
Actually Bill, as a lib myself, I pretty much expect dumbya to get a second term at this point. As the saying goes, nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
Lol!
"You libs just don't understand, a political election isn't a football game. There's not a damn thing a bettor can do to influence the outcome of a ball game, but bettors (as in voters) are everything in an election. The betting line on political events follows the polls, and if the polls are accurate, the outcome is a foregone conclusion."
Actually Bill, as a lib myself, I pretty much expect dumbya to get a second term at this point. As the saying goes, nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
Don't be so hard on the man. He is the leader of the greatest nation in the history of the world. Don't you think it would be unpatriotic to talk badly about him? Where would we be today if everyone disagreed with their rulers and voiced their opinions? Do you think Stalin would be happy if everyone went around and told him what they thought? DOy ou think Napoleon could have accomplished all he did if he had all these dimwits telling him that carrying on was a bad move? The man is president for a reason.He didnt become the leader of the free world because he is dumb.He is smart,charming, able to get other nations to agree with him,and he is a great public speaker. So please,cut him some slack.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bill the cop:
You libs just don't understand, a political election isn't a football game. There's not a damn thing a bettor can do to influence the outcome of a ball game, but bettors (as in voters) are everything in an election. The betting line on political events follows the polls, and if the polls are accurate, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
I'll say it once again, bettors represent a cross-section of our society, Rep/Dems, black/white, rich/poor, old/young, and voters/nonvoters. If a plurality of these people are puting their money on one candidate over another, it is only realistic to believe they will probably also vote that way. In essence, the voter/bettors actually decide the outcome of the event. This is a much more powerful indicator of who will win than sports prognosticaters trying to "guess" the outcome of a ballgame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bill, I will try to explain why your theory does not hold water. Offshore books are adjusting the lines the way the bettors are wagering. Let us say, someone from Canada, who cannot even vote in the USA, decides to put a few dimes on GW. Now. a betting shop, is forced to move the line accordingly. Of course, if more bettors are wagering on GW than it moves even more.
Now these bettors might be voters, than again, they might not. Your theory does not hold much water.
" A mind is a terrible thing to waste"
You libs just don't understand, a political election isn't a football game. There's not a damn thing a bettor can do to influence the outcome of a ball game, but bettors (as in voters) are everything in an election. The betting line on political events follows the polls, and if the polls are accurate, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
I'll say it once again, bettors represent a cross-section of our society, Rep/Dems, black/white, rich/poor, old/young, and voters/nonvoters. If a plurality of these people are puting their money on one candidate over another, it is only realistic to believe they will probably also vote that way. In essence, the voter/bettors actually decide the outcome of the event. This is a much more powerful indicator of who will win than sports prognosticaters trying to "guess" the outcome of a ballgame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bill, I will try to explain why your theory does not hold water. Offshore books are adjusting the lines the way the bettors are wagering. Let us say, someone from Canada, who cannot even vote in the USA, decides to put a few dimes on GW. Now. a betting shop, is forced to move the line accordingly. Of course, if more bettors are wagering on GW than it moves even more.
Now these bettors might be voters, than again, they might not. Your theory does not hold much water.
" A mind is a terrible thing to waste"
Well, let's see now, polls come out that Bush is increasing his lead in the swing states, the line at Pinny shoots up to Bush-201..Kerry+183, can you say correlation? I stand by my original analysis. Do yourself a favor and stop whistling past the graveyard, your guy is toast, learn to live with it!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bill the cop:
Well, let's see now, polls come out that Bush is increasing his lead in the swing states, the line at Pinny shoots up to Bush-201..Kerry+183, can you say correlation? I stand by my original analysis. Do yourself a favor and stop whistling past the graveyard, your guy is toast, learn to live with it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It appears to me that you still fail to see my point. First of all, I do believe that GW will win. I am a realist, even though I will vote for Kerry.
Of course the polls make a difference on the wagering public in a election. I never disputed that. What I dispute is the reverse. What I mean is that just because there are large wagers on GW does not make it a sure thing that he will win. The polls shifting in his favor is the reason he is becoming a heavier favorite.
What I dispute is your entire second paragraph in your original post.
"I'll say it once again, bettors represent a cross-section of our society, Rep/Dems, black/white, rich/poor, old/young, and voters/nonvoters. If a plurality of these people are puting their money on one candidate over another, it is only realistic to believe they will probably also vote that way. In essence, the voter/bettors actually decide the outcome of the event. This is a much more powerful indicator of who will win than sports prognosticaters trying to "guess" the outcome of a ballgame. "
This is what does not make sense
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let's see now, polls come out that Bush is increasing his lead in the swing states, the line at Pinny shoots up to Bush-201..Kerry+183, can you say correlation? I stand by my original analysis. Do yourself a favor and stop whistling past the graveyard, your guy is toast, learn to live with it! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It appears to me that you still fail to see my point. First of all, I do believe that GW will win. I am a realist, even though I will vote for Kerry.
Of course the polls make a difference on the wagering public in a election. I never disputed that. What I dispute is the reverse. What I mean is that just because there are large wagers on GW does not make it a sure thing that he will win. The polls shifting in his favor is the reason he is becoming a heavier favorite.
What I dispute is your entire second paragraph in your original post.
"I'll say it once again, bettors represent a cross-section of our society, Rep/Dems, black/white, rich/poor, old/young, and voters/nonvoters. If a plurality of these people are puting their money on one candidate over another, it is only realistic to believe they will probably also vote that way. In essence, the voter/bettors actually decide the outcome of the event. This is a much more powerful indicator of who will win than sports prognosticaters trying to "guess" the outcome of a ballgame. "
This is what does not make sense
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonny, lets break that paragraph down sentence by sentence so we can figure out what you don't understand.
1)"I'll say it again, bettors represent across-section of our society..."
Can you honestly say that that statement isn't true? Do you have some argument that would indicate that bettors aren't representative of the society as a whole?
2)"If a plurality of these people are puting their money on Bush, isn't it realistic to think they would vote that way"
Now lets be honest, you say you will vote for Kerry, fine, but are you actually puting your money on Bush? I doubt it, even though you now admit (because you're realistic) that Bush will win. WHY do you think Bush will win? Is it because you now think he is the better candidate? NO. Is it because you have been influenced by the people on this site? NOPE. The reason you think Bush will win is a combination of the polls and the betting line (which are intrinsically linked). Which brings us to the next sentence.
3)"In essence, voters/bettors actually decide the outcome of elections"
How can you deny something that is so self-evident?
4)"This is a much more powerful indicator of who will win an election, than sports professionals trying to "guess" the outcome of a ballgame"
Your own words substantiate this premise. You have already thrown in the towel on Kerry, even though he's only a +168 dog (as I type this, it's now Bush-216..Kerry+196). Would you concede a ballgame just because the underdog was +168? Of course not! This just goes to show the power of the polls/betting line when we compare elections to sporting events.
In the final anaysis, a poll is nothing more than a survey of public opinion obtained by conducting a scientific sampling of preferences from people likely to influence the outcome of the event. And that's where this nexus between polls and betting lines becomes crystal clear!
1)"I'll say it again, bettors represent across-section of our society..."
Can you honestly say that that statement isn't true? Do you have some argument that would indicate that bettors aren't representative of the society as a whole?
2)"If a plurality of these people are puting their money on Bush, isn't it realistic to think they would vote that way"
Now lets be honest, you say you will vote for Kerry, fine, but are you actually puting your money on Bush? I doubt it, even though you now admit (because you're realistic) that Bush will win. WHY do you think Bush will win? Is it because you now think he is the better candidate? NO. Is it because you have been influenced by the people on this site? NOPE. The reason you think Bush will win is a combination of the polls and the betting line (which are intrinsically linked). Which brings us to the next sentence.
3)"In essence, voters/bettors actually decide the outcome of elections"
How can you deny something that is so self-evident?
4)"This is a much more powerful indicator of who will win an election, than sports professionals trying to "guess" the outcome of a ballgame"
Your own words substantiate this premise. You have already thrown in the towel on Kerry, even though he's only a +168 dog (as I type this, it's now Bush-216..Kerry+196). Would you concede a ballgame just because the underdog was +168? Of course not! This just goes to show the power of the polls/betting line when we compare elections to sporting events.
In the final anaysis, a poll is nothing more than a survey of public opinion obtained by conducting a scientific sampling of preferences from people likely to influence the outcome of the event. And that's where this nexus between polls and betting lines becomes crystal clear!
