2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 429121]Anyway, from my perspective it wouldn't have been a bet. I do believe that David honestly thinks it was a bet though.

Also please note that Toymann asked if there was interest in a "Madaho's wager." David proposed a cash bet of 2000 pesos and said it would be cancelled if someone besides Romney were nominated. They didn't agree to terms.

What wager would Toymann have proposed, if David had followed up in January? Based on Toymann's post above and his negotiations here with Esten, it might have involved the USA Senate.[/QUOTE]I agree Toyjoy asked if there was interest in a madahos bet, he didn't propose a bet. I am a betting man and a wager must be declared and accepted. Had Toyjoy said, David I bet you the cost of a night at Madaho that The Romnybot defeats The Obamanation in the general election both electoral and popular. And David said "bet." Than that is a wager. The openness of his question doesn't constitute a wager because terms hadn't been agreed to. Without more posts to reference I would agree there is no wager here.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 429121]Toymann's post on 1/6/2012:

David's post on 2/24/2012:

Toymann didn't respond to David's post.[/QUOTE]Good work Tiny. I figured this must have been a comment or two in passing, not a back and forth virtual 'handshake' like I had with Toymann. This is why I didn't recall it. Also the two posts are spaced by over a month.

I think David has some cause here. Either Toymann reneged on a bet, or Toymann reneged on closing a bet he offered. I was about to add another possibility, that Toymann missed David's acceptance. But David reminded the board of the bet before the election, so there was time for Toymann to go back and verify David's acceptance.

There should be no confusion on the prize. Toymann didn't just offer to make a bet, he specifically offered a Madahos bet. We all know he wasn't talking "I'll buy you a drink at Madahos". It's a night at the club with chica costs included. David understood this and replied with a 2000 peso figure, which happens to be exactly what I wagered with Toymann.

The terms should be a moot point. Whether it would have been an Electoral College win, or popular vote, or combined with a Senate win, it doesn't matter since Romney / Republicans lost them all.

Toymann can perhaps get out of this on a technicality, that there wasn't a virtual handshake on specific terms. But he offered the Madahos bet in the first place, so there was clearly intent. Any difference between "wager" vs "interest in a wager" is semantics. Both Toymann and David have cause on their positions. I would suggest one resolution would be for Toymann to say he'll make a donation of $X pesos to Jackson's maids (which David said he would have done) , and Toymann can decide what $X is reasonable based on the weight of both sides positions.

Esten, Respectfully, I disagree. Please remember that David waited over a month from when Toymann indicated interest before he arbitrarily defined the terms of a bet. Also that Toymann proposed to you a bet that involved the Presidency, Senate and House. I think it would have ended in a draw, but don't remember for sure. You wisely insisted on a straight bet on the presidency.

Florida has been declared the winner, so the mandate becomes just a bit clearer.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429162]Florida has been declared the winner, so the mandate becomes just a bit clearer.[/QUOTE] Also, Obama's margin in the popular vote is up to 3.3 Million, and at 50.5% vs. 47.9%

BTW, that's a larger popular vote majority than Bush had over Kerry in 2004 (and of course, Gore actually carried the popular vote in 2000).

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429162]Florida has been declared the winner, so the mandate becomes just a bit clearer.[/QUOTE]I don't see how less than a 3% margin of victory and barely over 50% vote total is a mandate. A sliver above majority in popular vote is hardly a mandate.

[QUOTE=Silver Star;429168]I don't see how less than a 3% margin of victory and barely over 50% vote total is a mandate. A sliver above majority in popular vote is hardly a mandate.[/QUOTE]Not to mention that the other major party won the House of Representatives, so that nothing has really changed since before the election.

You'd best not question in this forum whether there's a strong mandate though. You may be accused like I was of believing in slavery, and thinking you deserve one vote for yourself and an additional 0.6 votes for each of your slaves. Anyone who questions Obama's strong mandate is a racist, of course.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 429169]Not to mention that the other major party won the House of Representatives, so that nothing has really changed since before the election.

You'd best not question in this forum whether there's a strong mandate though. You may be accused like I was of believing in slavery, and thinking you deserve one vote for yourself and an additional 0. 6 votes for each of your slaves.[/QUOTE]Did you know that the Democrats got more votes for the House than the Republicans did in this election? The only reason the Republicans still held the House (although they lost several seats) is that they very effectively gerrymandered the districts during the period that they controlled the House after the 2000 census and again after the 2010 census.

In any case, from this election, we know the following:

- Dems had a majority of the Popular Vote in total for all House Seats, a big edge for all Senate Seats (they had an advantage here, with twice as many Senate incumbents), as well as the Presidency.

- Exit polling showed that 60% of voters approved of increasing taxes on those earning over $250K (with only 25% opposing this).

Obama's popular mandate was larger than either of G.W. Bush's elections, and his electoral mandate was FAR larger (by like 20%)

[QUOTE=Silver Star;429168]I don't see how less than a 3% margin of victory and barely over 50% vote total is a mandate. A sliver above majority in popular vote is hardly a mandate.[/QUOTE]I'm the one who said it was a "bit clearer" mandate, and I was referring to the electoral vote and not the popular vote. But, if you look at the definition of the word 'mandate,' you will see that degrees of majority are not part of the definition. In fact, dictionary.com gives an example of a mandate versus a [B]clear[/B] mandate. So, I am saying it is a clear[B]er[/B] mandate. 50.1% is a mandate. Look it up.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;429170]Did you know that the Democrats got more votes for the House than the Republicans did in this election?[/QUOTE]Yes I knew that. But I still do not believe the margin of victory or votes represents a strong mandate. Democrats have been gerrymandering in California and with time the tables will turn elsewhere. You'll likely get what you want, a country controlled just by your party and the Europeanization of America.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;429172]Yes I knew that. But I still do not believe the margin of victory or votes represents a strong mandate. Democrats have been gerrymandering in California and with time the tables will turn elsewhere. You'll likely get what you want, a country controlled just by your party and the Europeanization of America.[/QUOTE]So you are aware of the facts, but you simply would like to re-define the word Mandate. Got it.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;429171]I'm the one who said it was a "bit clearer" mandate, and I was referring to the electoral vote and not the popular vote. But, if you look at the definition of the word 'mandate,' you will see that degrees of majority are not part of the definition. In fact, dictionary.com gives an example of a mandate versus a [B]clear[/B] mandate. So, I am saying it is a clear[B]er[/B] mandate. 50.1% is a mandate. Look it up.[/QUOTE]Thanks. This is what I came up with (see below). I was thinking mandate meant around 10% margin of victory in popular vote. Electoral vote totals are mostly winner take all, and distort popular vote percentages. I don't see winning by less than 3% as a large margin of victory.

In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative. [1]

The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.

Elections, especially ones with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected government or elected official a mandate to put into effect certain policies. [2] Also, the period during which a government serves between elections is often referred to as a mandate and when the government seeks re-election it is said to be seeking a "new mandate".

[QUOTE=Member #2041;429173]So you are aware of the facts, but you simply would like to re-define the word Mandate. Got it.[/QUOTE]Should be interesting how the administration will be handling CO and WA, as there is a MANDNATE for legal marijuana there, will the Feds under Obama circumvent that and intervene with DEA raids? Plus Obama has smoked it himself. Obama won both of these states too, with MANDATE margins. Hopefully they will do the right thing and respect the will of the people in both states and leave them alone.

[QUOTE=Member #2041; 429170]Did you know that the Democrats got more votes for the House than the Republicans did in this election? The only reason the Republicans still held the House (although they lost several seats) is that they very effectively gerrymandered the districts during the period that they controlled the House after the 2000 census and again after the 2010 census.

In any case, from this election, we know the following:

. Dems had a majority of the Popular Vote in total for all House Seats, a big edge for all Senate Seats (they had an advantage here, with twice as many Senate incumbents) , as well as the Presidency.

. Exit polling showed that 60% of voters approved of increasing taxes on those earning over $250K (with only 25% opposing this).

Obama's popular mandate was larger than either of G. W. Bush's elections, and his electoral mandate was FAR larger (by like 20%) [/QUOTE]-

Exit polling showed that 60% of voters approved of increasing taxes on those earning over $250K (with only 25% opposing this).

My reaction is.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[QUOTE=Silver Star;429177]Should be interesting how the administration will be handling CO and WA, as there is a MANDNATE for legal marijuana there, will the Feds under Obama circumvent that and intervene with DEA raids? Plus Obama has smoked it himself. Obama won both of these states too, with MANDATE margins. Hopefully they will do the right thing and respect the will of the people in both states and leave them alone.[/QUOTE]It doesn't look good, as the Obama administration has been much more aggressive about shutting down medical marijuana growers and sellers than the Bush administration.

Back in 2008 I saw some possible silver linings to Obama being elected. A slowdown in the war on drugs was one of them. Also not being as anal with illegal immigrants, lower defense spending, a quick end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and better standing in the the Muslim world (where I do some business). None of that happened though.