Worlds Worse Gambler's

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics there's a chapter called the "World's Worse Gamblers." I'm starting to wonder if John Kerry doesn't qualify for a future edition.

His gamble was that he could run against Bush as a Vietnam war hero, not ever mention his senate record of being anti-military, think that his anti-war efforts of many years ago would never be mentioned, and that the old divisions and animosities that occurred during the Vietnam years would not resurface.

For example, I just watched a news excerpt of him criticizing Dick Cheney for getting deferments to avoid the military. But isn't this exactly the sort of thing that Kerry was advocating back then? That is wouldn't he had supported anyone to get out of serving in any way?

Kerry reminds me of the poker player who just thinks he can always get the last bet or raise in and that everyone else will fold. It seems like it never occurred to him that sometimes your opponents will call or even raise you back.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
In my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics there's a chapter called the "World's Worse Gamblers." I'm starting to wonder if John Kerry doesn't qualify for a future edition.


[/ QUOTE ]

The gamblers are the DNC and the RNC. The cards are the tickets. Its 83o vs 72o.

Stu

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like it never occurred to him that sometimes your opponents will call or even raise you back.

[/ QUOTE ]

He can't even fold to the raise. He's gotta call and then look like a tard with the 9 high that he tried to buy the pot with, and THEN foolishly called with.

Like, I think he's required to see a showdown in this circumstance.

~D

[GWB]

The pot is so big for him, raising is mandatory. Unfortunately for him, I am not going to fold, because the pot is big for me too, so I will raise back.

He expects people to only pay attention to what he is saying Now. It never occurs to him that if he discusses Cheney's service, that we might just go back and see what he said about Clinton's service in 1992.

He is destined to fall into the same trap Gore did in 2000. Every statement he makes in the debates will be studied within hours for inconsistencies with his past statements, and there will be plenty of inconsistencies.

Being inconsistent or stretching the truth (Kerrry's problem) is worse than making gaffes (my problem).

[eLROY]

Kerry's operating at a crippling disadvantage. Bush is running right about where Bush is. His convention was all about preaching to the choir, and assuming the choir is 51%. Kerry's choir is only about 33%, so he has to sell himself to strangers. But every time he tries to move towards that additional 18%, he comes across as phony. Kerry is willing to give up his ideas so he can be President, rather than be President so he can promote his ideas. John Edwards started out trying to sell where he really was, but scrapped it in two weeks. You can see a sharp contrast when you compare these people to Howard Dean, who sells what he actually believes, and Bill Clinton, who doesn't believe anything. So I don't blame Kerry, I blame the hand which he can't win with and can't lay down, so he has to misrepresent. George Bush is not some genius campaigner, his ideas just happen to be more popular than Kerry's.

[andyfox]

Well he's been in the Senate for 19 years, and now he's made the final table at the Big One, so I don't think he's among the world's worst gamblers.

But he's sure made a big mistake with his approach thus far. Plus I agree with what elROY points out. (I can't believe I just typed that sentence. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]) He's to the left of center so he needs to sell himself further to the right. Combine that with the fact of his general woodenness, and he comes across as a salesman.

But he's still got $45,000,000 worth of chips. Let's see if he plays them more wisely than those he's already lost.

[Toro]

Agreed that Kerry's not looking too good right now but there is a long way to go. He may have stumbled and bumbled a bit so far but he's no Al Gore. He's a very good campaigner and I predict he'll get it together before it's too late.

He had similiar problems when challenged by Bill Weld an enormously popular Governor here in Mass. I think the debates will be key. Everyone said that last time but Gore fell flat on his face. I don't think that happens this time.

[GWB]

I think the Weld example is overused. Massachusetts is a liberal state, they were predisposed to electing a Democrat, and he could win even if a majority of independents went for Weld. In the swing states this year, he does not have that built in advantage, he has to win a majority of the independents in the MidWest who don't really trust New Englanders.

[scalf]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] nobody can win a national election running as a liberal...from here on out the battle begins: dubya keeps pointing out lurch's obvious far left attitudes; while lurch presents as all-american middle-of-the road...it will be this perception than makes the difference....

dubya must win ohio...

gl

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Weld example is overused. Massachusetts is a liberal state, they were predisposed to electing a Democrat, and he could win even if a majority of independents went for Weld. In the swing states this year, he does not have that built in advantage, he has to win a majority of the independents in the MidWest who don't really trust New Englanders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay W, underestimate him at your peril. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]