13 Reasons Kerry Will Win

[Matty]

www.bodot.blogspot.com (http://www.bodot.blogspot.com)

[Dynasty]

This is a basic summary.

1. The polls which say Kerry is behind are biased. Kerry is at least tied in all the polls that matter.

2. The undecided voters will vote for Kerry (side not about biased polls).

3. The polls are biased.

4. The Democrats are working harder to turn out the votes

5. Kerry is already winning the debates (yeah, the ones which haven't happened yet). Strangely, the article cites polls as evidence of this. I thought the polls were biased?

6. Kerry is taller.

7. No President has ever won re-election with an approval rating below 50%. Even more strangely, the article puts up a graph showing Bush's approval rating above 50% and climbing. I guess that poll must be biased.

8. Things are getting worse in Iraq and Bush is lying about it.

9. Democrats have lots of money to spend.

10. God is on Kerry's side. Hurricanes are cited as evidence.

11. Kerry will have "Big Mo". The article actually says Bush may be in a free-fall.

12. Tony Blair is pulling away from Bush.

13. Bush is flip-flopping on the assault weapons ban- that's the issue which President Clinton said cost the Democrats the Congress 10 years ago.

It's a persuasive arguement- but only for someobody who decided to vote Democrat twelve months ago.

[Matty]

You're misquoting. I didn't say all polls were biased against Dems- only Gallup and Time.

Also, I didn't say the Dem's ground game is working harder- I'm saying they're having greater success.

7. The general trend is undoubtedly downward.

10. Obviously just a joke since I even quote the snopes retort.

[JoshuaD]

Grey: Care to take a wager?

[nicky g]

Why is everyone obsessed with proving that their candidate will win, rather than should win? It seems a strange thing to argue about. Is it because they think if their candidate is seens a "winner" more people will back him? I don;t understand that, it's not a horse race. "Yay I picked the winner. His policies suck and I'm stuck with hi for years, but at least I was on the winning side". Seems to have been a major factor in Kerry beating Dean as well. Elsewhere Dr Wogga is asking people why they support Kerry when he is behind in teh polls; what, if a candidate is ahead or wins does that prove he is better? I don't get it.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is everyone obsessed with proving that their candidate will win, rather than should win? It seems a strange thing to argue about. Is it because they think if their candidate is seens a "winner" more people will back him? I don;t understand that, it's not a horse race. "Yay I picked the winner. His policies suck and I'm stuck with hi for years, but at least I was on the winning side". Seems to have been a major factor in Kerry beating Dean as well. Elsewhere Dr Wogga is asking people why they support Kerry when he is behind in teh polls; what, if a candidate is ahead or wins does that prove he is better? I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just trying to make a quick buck. I've given up on raising the issue with someone who's already decided unless they show they're interested in talking issues.

[nicky g]

Yeah I didn;t mean you I mean the people constantly publishing polls etc to prove that "their" candidate will win.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Grey: Care to take a wager?

[/ QUOTE ]What kind of odds are you offering, and is there a site we can use to assure payment?

I've never made any wagers online before.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Grey: Care to take a wager?

[/ QUOTE ]What kind of odds are you offering, and is there a site we can use to assure payment?

I've never made any wagers online before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it looks like you should be giving me 13:1 odds, since there are 13 reasons Kerry will win /images/graemlins/wink.gif, but I'll settle for 1:1.

I can't think of any way to assure payment online off the top of my head, but I'll do some looking around today.

How much are you looking to wager?

[ddollevoet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Grey: Care to take a wager?

[/ QUOTE ]What kind of odds are you offering, and is there a site we can use to assure payment?

I've never made any wagers online before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. If you are giving even money, I'll take Bush. I'll wager any amount that you can prove you have (i.e. can put into escrow).

[Matty]

Why would I take those offers when I can get better offers on online gambling sites?

[JoshuaD]

Because there are 13 reasons Kerry will win. If you're 100% sure about your wager, there's no reason to worry about odds. You just take all the bets you can.

What sort of odds do you want?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

12) Bush Flip-Flopping on that Assault Weapons Ban Was Very Unpopular


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not particularly a Bush fan, but I am a gun owner, and I know that Bush has never flip-flopped on this issue. He has always said the same thing: he said that he saw no need for the ban, and that he thought that more enforcement of existing gun laws was a better use of resources, but that if Congess passed the law, he would sign it. The gun control people could never get Congress to pass this, and distorted Bush's position, saying that he promised to get it enacted, and it didn't pass because he did not actively push it.

Kerry, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to talk out of both sides of his mouth on this issue. He's had more pictures taken with a gun in his hand than Charlton Heston, while he supports any and all legislation to increase gun controls. It's OK for the blue-bloods to go shoot skeet with their expensive Italian shotguns, but Joe Sixpack is too stupid to decide for himself if he wants a gun for home defense.

Gore's position on guns probably cost him a couple of states, including "his own" state of TN, and therefore the Presidency. I don't think that gun control is going to have as much impact this time, but the edge still goes to Bush.

[ QUOTE ]


And very badly timed- especially considering Al Quaeda memos advise its members to buy assault weapons in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the kind of utter nonsense that shows gun control advocates to be completely out of touch with reality.

Let's take that paragon of evil, the AK-47. This is a fully automatic military weapon, and is generally not available to civilians. Ownership requires a special federal license and payment of a $300 per gun tax. And it is illegal in many states, even with a federal license. The assault weapons ban had nothing to do with AK-47s. (Kerry had to know that, by the way, as a former "combatant" and as a Senator who voted for the ban. Yet the day after the ban expired, he droned on at length about the AK-47s that would be flooding our streets.)

The civilian version of the AK-47, the Semiautomatic Rifle Model 1 (SAR-1) could be legally purchased before the ban, during the ban, and after the ban. The ban merely affected some accessories. An SAR-1 costs about $350. To buy one, you have to pass a federal background check and comply with your state regulations, often including how many guns you can buy in a given period, and waiting periods.

During the Afghanistan war, a TV news feature showed a family in Afghanistan that ran a small home business, repairing and reselling guns. They sold a rebuilt, fully automatic AK-47 for $33.

Now, where is a terrorist going to shopping for his "assault weapons":
1. at an American gun show, where he can buy an inferior gun for $350 and has to go through the government red tape; or
2. in the bazaars and back streets of the middle east, where he can buy a real AK-47, cash and carry, no questions asked, for a tenth of the price.

The idea that terrorists are stocking up on bargains at the local gun show, especially since the expiration of the assault weapon ban, is straight out of Wonderland.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
He has always said the same thing: he said that he saw no need for the ban, and that he thought that more enforcement of existing gun laws was a better use of resources

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this all the time from politicians --- we don't need new laws, we need to enforce the laws on the books better. For the most part, that's a sentiment that I could get on board with.

I'm curious if anyone has any info on what Bush has done to better enforce the gun laws on the books. What usually happens is they'll say we should just more strictly enforce current law, but then do nothing to encourage a more strict enforcement.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm curious if anyone has any info on what Bush has done to better enforce the gun laws on the books. What usually happens is they'll say we should just more strictly enforce current law, but then do nothing to encourage a more strict enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember the details, but I've read about several special state-federal projects to crack down on gun crime. One was in Virginia a few years back as I remember. According to all accounts, these projects resulted in a lot of arrests, a lot of illegal guns being taken off the streets, and significant reductions in crime in the targeted areas. I don't remember ever reading negative comments on the effectiveness of those programs. I think they were all pre-9/11, and have no doubt been put on the back burner for now.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not particularly a Bush fan, but I am a gun owner, and I know that Bush has never flip-flopped on this issue. He has always said the same thing: he said that he saw no need for the ban,

[/ QUOTE ]Uh...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.gunban/

"White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the president's position "is clear."

"The president said in the 2000 campaign that he supported the assault weapons ban because he thought it was reasonable," Fleischer said. "He stated then that he would support the reauthorization of it, and he states that again today.""

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0528/p10s02-comv.html

[i]"A report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) finds terrorists can easily purchase assault weapons and explosives in the US - federal agencies responsible for background checks don't cross-check terrorist watch lists. Further, a foreign visitor can buy a weapon after only 90 days in the United States.

Even without this report, lawmakers had enough evidence to address the issue. An Al Qaeda training manual - now in lawmakers' hands - spells out ways terrorists can get around US gun laws. And the FBI has arrested a man who purchased weapons at a gun show in Michigan for the Lebanon-based terror group Hizbullah. Moreover, the FBI also has arrested a Seattle man - allegedly with connections to Al Qaeda - looking to set up a firearms-training camp in Oregon.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Because there are 13 reasons Kerry will win. If you're 100% sure about your wager, there's no reason to worry about odds. You just take all the bets you can.

What sort of odds do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]I never said I was 100% sure. But even if I was, I still have a reason to worry about odds- because I can make more money with better odds.

wsex (http://www.wsex.com/welcome.html) has it at about 1/2 for Bush, and 2/1 for Kerry (if I'm reading that right).

That's the only odds site that I know of- if you know a better one let me know.

[Nepa]

This is the best part. Who would of ever thought that god was on Kerry's side.

http://images.andale.com/f2/107/123/10224380/1096658747315_fla.jpg

[nicky g]

"Because there are 13 reasons Kerry will win. If you're 100% sure about your wager, there's no reason to worry about odds. You just take all the bets you can. "

Unless he has infinete resources, he should take the offers which offer the best return, regardless of how certain he is of the proposition.

[Al Mirpuri]

I am in England. The world needs Kerry to win. Who do you want for a President? A draftdodger or a decorated hero? Go, Kerry, go.

[Matty]

Anyone know if a President has ever been elected who has lost all three debates?

[Peca277]

Grey, let's not count our chickens before they hatch. One debate left to go tonight that could swing either way since this is Kerry's expected strong subject. If people assume Bush can't compete in the domestic arena but he comes out with a few good policy ideas and, I know it's a long shot, but speaks articulately... Kerry might be hurt. Remember everybody expected Bush to control the foreign policy debate but Kerry surprised everybody. Let's hope the same doesn't happen on the Dems turf tonight.

[adios]

I think he had only 2 debates with Mondale but I don't remember. I just remember Reagan was horrible in those debates. He went on to win 49 states.