McCain is considered 100% disabled by the VA

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You need 270 to win so 380 seems fair for a "landslide".

I will offer the following terms avatar bet with a Spencer win counting as McCain winning by 380 electoral votes or more with myself losing control of my avatar for two months and Spencer only losing control of his avatar for one month. Seems like a fair definition and fair terms. If McCain doesn't win by at least 380 then Spencer loses the bet.

The odds of McCain winning 380 electoral votes are much less than 12:1 but as I stated before I'm willing to start a thread and let poly OT decide.

The bet is not about avatars, the loser is to write a goodbye thread explaining that they were wrong and leave for the specified time.

Whats the matter, is the game too hot for you?

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think the mods will sign off on that.

[Wezil]

I'm not crazy about any bet that makes people go away.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I cant help but feel that you dont have much experience as a gambler. I have accepted arbitration in the form of a poly interpretation of "landslide" and I'm also willing to accept a poly interpretation of the odds. Oerdin proposed the bet but doesnt seem to want to compromise in any way. Perhaps he doesnt have much experience either.

Trying being a bit honest Spencer. I offered two to one odds and even agreed to change the definition of Landslide so that it conformed to Imran's and DanS's definition of 280 even though I'd say that would be a very small landslide compared to the historical elections called landslides.

That's two cases where I've been flexable and changed things to make it sweeter for you yet you're still quibbling. Either you actually believe your claim that McCain will win in a landslide or you don't.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SpencerH


The odds of McCain winning 380 electoral votes are much less than 12:1 but as I stated before I'm willing to start a thread and let poly OT decide.

The bet is not about avatars, the loser is to write a goodbye thread explaining that they were wrong and leave for the specified time.

Whats the matter, is the game too hot for you?

You're trying to change the bet know? I offered an avatar bet, you accepted, and now you're trying to change it. Stop being a chicken.

[SpencerH]

For those who may foolishly visit this thread but cant be arsed to read it all, here are mine and oerdins posts on the wager with a few pertinent posts from others.

Originally posted by SpencerH
As with every modern election in the USA this one will be decided by the (undecided) moderates. Every time an Obama fanatic writes or posts such patently absurd nonsense, another moderate will realize that nothing has changed on the Dem side and they will look away from Obama.

Only one thing can save Obama from a landslide loss and that thing aint gonna happen.

Originally posted by Oerdin
How wrong can a person be in one thread? Avatar bet? One month to winner?

Originally posted by SpencerH
Strange I could've sworn that even your fellow liberals here seem to be agreeing with me. What thread are you reading?

I've got a bet in mind but we have to define a few things first.

Odds: I'm taking the bigger risk by predicting landslide (>35 states or >300 electoral votes) I want 12:1 odds.

Originally posted by SpencerH
I've stated that I think it'll be a landslide (assuming that Clinton is not the VP nominee) but given that I was a soldier when you were being born, I'm not sure I'd claim to be a young poster.

Originally posted by Oerdin
How do you propose odds? BTW Shall we define a landslide as 65% vs 35%? That seems fair.

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'd call 60/40 a landslide (320 EV) given the anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-republican sentiments and I'll concede lowering the the odds to 6:1.

If I lose I'll leave poly for 1 mo. If you lose you leave for 6 mo.

Originally posted by Oerdin
HA! Not a chance. The best you'll get is 2:1 odds and that is being generous. Also a land slide must be at least 65/35. I've already been generous and you were loud mouthed enough about a landslide being inevitable. Don't tell me you were just mouthing off again and can't back up your big mouth.

Originally posted by SpencerH
Per usual, the only one mouthing off here is you. I look forward to meeting you some day. I'll wait for comments from others as to the fairness of my bet before negotiating further.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Perhaps we should look to a fair arbiter of what a landslide means? I feel confident that they will agree it means more then just ten percent.

Of course if you wish to act true to form and cowardly withdraw I will understand though I will still make fun of you for it.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think to determine a proper landslide, one must look at what have been considered "landslides" in the past.

I think everyone agrees that 1996, 1988, 1984, 1980 were all landslides. Of course in 1980 and 1984 they were MASSIVE landslides, but lets look at the numbers.

1996
Clinton: 379
Dole: 159

1988
Bush: 426
Dukakis: 111

1984
Reagan: 525
Mondale: 13

1980
Reagan: 489
Carter: 49


1996 is the best election to look at. It appears to me that unless one candidate gets 350 EVs, it isn't deemed a landslide by the media.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Judging by the 1996 election we can safely say a 34-66 split can be called an land slide.

Originally posted by SpencerH

Given that the last two elections were decided by a very small margin my definition of landslide was not the same as wiki's.

However, I'll accept 380 EV as the target. I'll either accept 12:1 odds or the median of a reasonably couched OT poll as to what the odds of that happening are. Make your choice.

As for your continued insults and threats, your puerile rantings are of no importance to me except as a source of "site noise" that I wish to eliminate for a while.

Originally posted by Oerdin

OK, so you admit you are full of crap and were talking out of your ass. It's a shame you had to copout like this. I was looking forward to pwning the hell out of you.

The definition of the term you used is well known and well shown by the wiki article Imran linked. If you don't understand the definition of a term then you really shouldn't be using it.

Originally posted by Oerdin
You need 270 to win so 380 seems fair for a "landslide".

I will offer the following terms avatar bet with a Spencer win counting as McCain winning by 380 electoral votes or more with myself losing control of my avatar for two months and Spencer only losing control of his avatar for one month. Seems like a fair definition and fair terms. If McCain doesn't win by at least 380 then Spencer loses the bet.

Originally posted by DanS
I don't think 2:1 is a fair bet on that. 12:1 seems much fairer.

Originally posted by Ramo
Isn't Spencer's point that a McCain landslide is likely? So giving him such a strong handicap (which is probably justified) contradicts the point made by the bet...

Originally posted by SpencerH
I cant help but feel that you dont have much experience as a gambler. I have accepted arbitration in the form of a poly interpretation of "landslide" and I'm also willing to accept a poly interpretation of the odds. Oerdin proposed the bet but doesnt seem to want to compromise in any way. Perhaps he doesnt have much experience either.

Originally posted by SpencerH

The odds of McCain winning 380 electoral votes are much less than 12:1 but as I stated before I'm willing to start a thread and let poly OT decide.

The bet is not about avatars, the loser is to write a goodbye thread explaining that they were wrong and leave for the specified time.

Whats the matter, is the game too hot for you?

Originally posted by Oerdin
Trying being a bit honest Spencer. I offered two to one odds and even agreed to change the definition of Landslide so that it conformed to Imran's and DanS's definition of 280 even though I'd say that would be a very small landslide compared to the historical elections called landslides.

That's two cases where I've been flexable and changed things to make it sweeter for you yet you're still quibbling. Either you actually believe your claim that McCain will win in a landslide or you don't.

Originally posted by Oerdin
You're trying to change the bet know? I offered an avatar bet, you accepted, and now you're trying to change it. Stop being a chicken.

1. Clearly, I never wagered anything to do with avatars. The only wager I proposed was for the loser to leave. If you’re going to gamble it may as well be worth something. Actually, I see the bet as a win/win situation; either oerdin is gone for a long while or I’m gone for a shorter one. Either way, I wont have to look at his pathetic thread titles.
2. Despite my disagreement, I accepted a definition of “landslide” based on Imrans post (380EV). That number is virtually the same as your original post (65%-35%). You’ve only been “flexable” (oerdins spelling) in your counter-proposal of 2:1 odds.
3. As I stated before, I’m willing to accept odds based upon a poly OT poll.

I should’ve known better than to post in this thread and now I’ll stop posting in it.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SpencerH
You’ve only been “flexable” (oerdins spelling) in your counter-proposal of 2:1 odds.

What is that oerdins is spelling?

[Ninot]

This is a pretty stupid idea for a bet