Mitt is Bombing

[Doc Savage Fan]

Words are wind.

 

[kage69]

Yeah that was kind of painful to watch. There was so much fail to go around. I can accept Ryan's manure delivery to the audience, the failed attempts at humor, and Romney's smug plastic ass regurgitating the same ol same ol, but damn - seeing Clint Eastwood like that really saddens me.

Feeling a little sorry for the pubs right now, even though I shouldn't.

 

[kage69]

Did cybersuck suddenly develop integrity and morals or something? He's proven himself to be one of the most worthless and dishonest posters on the whole forum, and doesn't seem to have a problem welching on bets. Engaging him in anything is a waste of time and electrons, surely there must be some ardent Romney supporter more deserving of that action?

 

[cybrsage]

Welching on bets? Let me ask you a question, oh person of so little intellect you cannot even create a witty alteration of my screen name:

Can a person who is not in a contest win the contest?

 

[cybrsage]

That's what I meant by his hedging. If memory serves, cybrsage bet that if Romney beat Santorum for the nomination, he would leave, but his hedge is that Santorum withdrew prior to the convention, and thus (according to cybrsage) he wasn't really competing for the nomination, despite having spent millions to do precisely that.

I am eliminating that hedge - if Obama wins, he leaves, even if Romney's plane is struck by a meteor, or he withdraws from the election, or whatever. If Romney wins, I leave, even if Obama somehow passes away, or admits that he is not a natural born US citizen, prior to the election.

I would even be prepared to stipulate that the mods can ban the bet's loser from this forum for four years.

FINALLY! Someone who is not a complete moron! Wow. I made it painfully obvious to all but total braindead losers that I would win either way (since I said that in the thread), but I was unprepared for the vast number of non-thinkers this forum contains.

But to directly address your question, nah, no bet, the race is too close to call. It is not like the Reagan elections, where the outcome was obvious (though many dnc shills here are proclaiming it to be just like that). Only morons bet on something where the outcome is so uncertain, and since I am not a moron I will not take your offer of a bet.

 

[cybrsage]

I too would opt in to this same wager with DVC. With one caveat. It also includes any/all of cybrsage's alt accounts.

Proof of alt accounts, or admit you are purposefully spreading misinformation.

 

[her209]

That's what I meant by his hedging. If memory serves, cybrsage bet that if Romney beat Santorum for the nomination, he would leave, but his hedge is that Santorum withdrew prior to the convention, and thus (according to cybrsage) he wasn't really competing for the nomination, despite having spent millions to do precisely that.

That's not called hedging. That called not living up to the spirit of the bet, i..e, going back on your own words.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Welching on bets? Let me ask you a question, oh person of so little intellect you cannot even create a witty alteration of my screen name:

Can a person who is not in a contest win the contest?

Setting aside the merits of your position on the prior bet, mine is based on who wins the election, not on who loses. The terms are as described in my prior posts, and summarized as follows:

- If Romney wins the election, regardless of how or why (including if Obama withdraws from the field or is otherwise ineligible to be elected), you win and I leave this forum (ATPN, not necessarily all of the AT forums) for a minimum of four years.

- If Obama wins the election, regardless of how or why (including if Romney withdraws from the field or is otherwise ineligible to be elected), I win and you leave this forum (ATPN, not necessarily all of the AT forums) for a minimum of four years.

- Under these rules, the only possible push will be if neither Obama nor Romney wins.

- We stipulate that the mods can ban the loser from this forum until Election Day 2016.

- The loser cannot participate in this forum under any alternate account and/or username, and if found to have done so, will be subject to a permanent ban from all of forums.anandtech.com.

Are you in or out?

 

[her209]

Did cybersuck suddenly develop integrity and morals or something? He's proven himself to be one of the most worthless and dishonest posters on the whole forum, and doesn't seem to have a problem welching on bets. Engaging him in anything is a waste of time and electrons, surely there must be some ardent Romney supporter more deserving of that action?

:thumbsup: FUCK YEAH!


(caps)

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

FINALLY! Someone who is not a complete moron! Wow. I made it painfully obvious to all but total braindead losers that I would win either way (since I said that in the thread), but I was unprepared for the vast number of non-thinkers this forum contains.

But to directly address your question, nah, no bet, the race is too close to call. It is not like the Reagan elections, where the outcome was obvious (though many dnc shills here are proclaiming it to be just like that). Only morons bet on something where the outcome is so uncertain, and since I am not a moron I will not take your offer of a bet.

But you said with certainty last night that Romney would be our 44th President. If you are not confident enough to make a bet with no economic consequence, how is it you are confident enough to predict a winner? All gambling involves some uncertainty - the question is whether the bettor is confident enough to put his money where his mouth is. The whole rationale behind point spreads is to make the bets as close as possible.

In any case, the same bet is available to spidey07, if he happens to read this.

 

[cybrsage]

The speech was little different than what he's been saying on the campaign trail. I don't see it likely to sway any of the remaining undecided voters, if they even watched the convention. The debates is where I expect to see some actual movement..one way or another.

Exactly. The only people who watched the convention were those paid to do it (in the press), the extreme party faithful, and the extreme haters from the other party. Except for the Eastwood speech...I can see many tuning in for that...he did not do well, but then again he is ancient.

The debates is where the undecided will decide. Obama will not be able to use teleprompters, so I am not sure he will do well. Mitt is not a great public speaker either, so it is a toss up on who will do better. It basically comes down to whether people will prefer the incessent stammering of Obama as he attempts to organize thoughts, fails, then finally succeeds and the monotone droning of a robotic Mitt.

Obviously, Biden will attempt to not debate Ryan, since Ryan will slaughter him, but he will have to do it at least once. During that debate Biden will probably make a huge gaffe, possibly about someone who is crippled being recently seen dancing with their long dead spouse or such.

 

[cybrsage]

But you said with certainty last night that Romney would be our 44th President. If you are not confident enough to make a bet with no economic consequence, how is it you are confident enough to predict a winner? All gambling involves some uncertainty - the question is whether the bettor is confident enough to put his money where his mouth is. The whole rationale behind point spreads is to make the bets as close as possible.

In any case, the same bet is available to spidey07, if he happens to read this.

Of course I did. I can call who I think is the most likely winner without be 100% confident of the outcome. Happens quite a bit in the real world, if you got out more you would know this.

That's not called hedging. That called not living up to the spirit of the bet, i..e, going back on your own words.

Setting aside the merits of your position on the prior bet, mine is based on who wins the election, not on who loses. The terms are as described in my prior posts, and summarized as follows:

- If Romney wins the election, regardless of how or why (including if Obama withdraws from the field or is otherwise ineligible to be elected), you win and I leave this forum (ATPN, not necessarily all of the AT forums) for a minimum of four years.

- If Obama wins the election, regardless of how or why (including if Romney withdraws from the field or is otherwise ineligible to be elected), I win and you leave this forum (ATPN, not necessarily all of the AT forums) for a minimum of four years.

- Under these rules, the only possible push will be if neither Obama nor Romney wins.

- We stipulate that the mods can ban the loser from this forum until Election Day 2016.

- The loser cannot participate in this forum under any alternate account and/or username, and if found to have done so, will be subject to a permanent ban from all of forums.anandtech.com.

Are you in or out?

:thumbsup: FUCK YEAH!


(caps)

You guys need to start a new thread for this discussion. Pizza said off topic is not allowed so this discussion cannot continue here.

 

[dawheat]

Welching on bets? Let me ask you a question, oh person of so little intellect you cannot even create a witty alteration of my screen name:

Can a person who is not in a contest win the contest?

As an outsider, I find the above post dishonest.

If the bet was that 'X' would win a measurable event, then there is no wiggle room. As there is a Republican nominee, does that person = X.

Now if your bet was that 'X' would not lose a measurable event, then you could play the semantics game about what not losing means. But when there is a clear winner, meh.

 

[cybrsage]

As an outsider, I find the above post dishonest.

If the bet was that 'X' would win a measurable event, then there is no wiggle room. As there is a Republican nominee, does that person = X.

Now if your bet was that 'X' would not lose a measurable event, then you could play the semantics game about what not losing means. But when there is a clear winner, meh.

You need to start a new thread for this discussion. Pizza said off topic is not allowed so this discussion cannot continue here.

 

[Svnla]

He sure bombed it when he said "are you better now than four years ago?"


I know, I know....where is the darn "but...but..but...but...BBBBUUUUUUUSSSSSHHHH" level? LOL.

 

[Blackjack200]

You need to start a new thread for this discussion. Pizza said off topic is not allowed so this discussion cannot continue here.

Then use the report post button, welcher.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You guys need to start a new thread for this discussion. Pizza said off topic is not allowed so this discussion cannot continue here.

When you are appointed a mod, you can start moderating. You yourself are one of the most prolific members here in terms of sidetracking legitimate discussion. Since you have rejected my bet, I won't raise it further, but you have precisely zero authority to direct discussion here.

 

[K1052]

Exactly. The only people who watched the convention were those paid to do it (in the press), the extreme party faithful, and the extreme haters from the other party. Except for the Eastwood speech...I can see many tuning in for that...he did not do well, but then again he is ancient.

The debates is where the undecided will decide. Obama will not be able to use teleprompters, so I am not sure he will do well. Mitt is not a great public speaker either, so it is a toss up on who will do better. It basically comes down to whether people will prefer the incessent stammering of Obama as he attempts to organize thoughts, fails, then finally succeeds and the monotone droning of a robotic Mitt.

Obviously, Biden will attempt to not debate Ryan, since Ryan will slaughter him, but he will have to do it at least once. During that debate Biden will probably make a huge gaffe, possibly about someone who is crippled being recently seen dancing with their long dead spouse or such.

I wouldn't make many assumptions about Biden not being up to it. We really didn't get to see him in action against Palin since she effectively destroyed herself. He's a tough old political animal and if the debate strays into Medicare waters the old folks might not like Ryan beating up one of them on healthcare.

 

[Blackjack200]

I wouldn't make many assumptions about Biden not being up to it. We really didn't get to see him in action against Palin since she effectively destroyed herself. He's a tough old political animal and if the debate strays into Medicare waters the old folks might not like Ryan beating up one of them on healthcare.

I'm not too familiar with Paul Ryan the politician, but I heard that one way he made his name was by keeping a high profile in the media and getting letter and opinion pieces published in WSJ and other conservative places.

Has he aquitted himself on the debate stage yet? It's one thing to thunder away at an absent opponent with a bunch of half truths in front of an adoring crowd, it's another to face a rhetorically experienced and debate tested VP like Biden. Yeah, Biden might throw a gaffe or two out there, might give them a sound bite, but if he wins the debate I don't know how much that will matter.

 

[hal2kilo]

don't worry about Willard bombing. Everyone tomorrow will be talking about the old man talking to an empty chair.

 

[mshan]

The speech Romney should have given! --> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xex9rz_gordon-gekko-greed-is-good-full-spe_shortfilms



Seriously, even if he had just read that speech word for word, he would probably had more appeal to the center (disillusioned Obama voters?), thrown lots of red meat to the base, and closed with a hint of sunny optimism for the future (heck, he should have even lifted Oliver Stone closing the speech with "Fly Me to the Moon")

Special Features of Wall Street has interview of Oliver Stone, who said his father was a stock broker on Wall Street, so Stone might be more familiar with the inner workings of Wall Street than what one might otherwise think.

After seeing Romney's speech and then rewatching Greed is Good, I just have to laugh (London Tabloids gotta be screaming Mitt The Twit Strikes Again!)


:biggrin:

 

[xj0hnx]

It was rather interesting watching Mittens do what the GOP tried to call out Obama for last election, empty rhetoric, and blatantly avoiding any actual issues.

 

[her209]

You guys need to start a new thread for this discussion. Pizza said off topic is not allowed so this discussion cannot continue here.

Continued here
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2225676

 

[Fern]

Ok, so color me shocked, people who are hard core Obama supporters don't like Romney's speech. Obviously if you hate Romney\Republicans\Conservatives, you're going to hate the speech, and you weren't going to vote for him anyway. I'd be more curious to see how the speech played with various voter blocks that are in play.

^^This^^

Accordingly, I find little use in the opinions of those who regularly post here. I'm curious to see how, if any, the polls move. IMO, that's a better metric to judge the success of his speech, or the convention as a whole.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The debates is where the undecided will decide.

I think so too.

Fern