*The United States Presidential Election * (II)

Chip? I thought he was toting a farkin sequoia . . .

that's it ... I'm orf for a lunchtime pint of Arsebitter old chap... pip pip.

Since this is a cricket forum i thought i'd come up with a bit of trivia.

Since 1909 there have been only 2 occasions where the incumbent party has won the election with a candidate other than the incumbent president.

The last occasion was George Bush snr in 1988. The previous was Hoover (1928). Both got the boot after only one term.

McCain definitely had history against him.

On this basis you wouldn't put money on Obama's Democrat successor in 2012 or 2016(unless Obama leaves office before his term finishes). In fact, we haven't seen a Democrat president succeed another Democrat president at the polls since 1857.


Another bit of trivia. Although Obama is billed as the 44th president there have, in fact, only been 43. Grover Cleveland is counted twice because his two terms weren't consecutive.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/bet-his-life-on-it-bookies-hold-obama-payout/2008/11/07/1225561136611.html

Is this a joke? Bookies not paying out on the chance that Obama is assasinated before his inauguration?

I seem to remember that the bet was who would win the US election not on when they sworn in.

Paul Keating wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/bet-his-life-on-it-bookies-hold-obama-payout/2008/11/07/1225561136611.html

Is this a joke? Bookies not paying out on the chance that Obama is assasinated before his inauguration?

I seem to remember that the bet was who would win the US election not on when they sworn in.

That's not only p!ss-weak on the part of the bookies but farkin sick as well.

Surprised the qunts haven't framed a market for no. of days until he IS shot. FFS.

Seems fair.

They should have qualified it with a condition that was made aware to all punters that bets will not be paid out until January 2009 etc.

The bet was still on who would win the US election.

I take it that Centrebet has lost big time on this.

Well in theory skulls he's not even President-Elect until Congress tallies the electoral votes. The House, I think, rather than the Senate, and as of this morning I'm still waiting for my payout on 350+ as Missouri and NC are still up in the air, though with the kind of whipping McCain got it would be pointless to to ask for a recount in those states.

WOOHOO. NC declared for Obama.

Bradman wrote:Well in theory skulls he's not even President-Elect until Congress tallies the electoral votes.

If the bet was on who won the election then the bookies should pay up on December 16th (Australian time). The electoral college sits in the US on the 15th and could still elect McCain as president (i reckon you'd get pretty good odds on that though).

By the US system you are not voting for the president you are voting for the people who will chose the president. It seems pretty weird how its done though. If you live in Alaska your vote provides 3/538ths of the decision. If you live in California your vote is worth 55/538ths. In other words a Californian has 18 times more electoral power than an Alaskan.

Also if, say, the Californian vote is split 52% Democrat, 48% Republican, the Democrats will get all 55 votes in the electoral college.

Still, it seems to work. The candidate with most votes almost always ends up winning the election but, with such a clumsy system this can only be by luck rather than judgement.

Just watched the 6pm news. It appears now that Centrebet has paid out on these bets after angry compliants. So they should!

The Electoral College meets on that date. The votes aren;'t actually tallied until the first sitting day of the House after New Years.

And whilst it doesn't happen often the "Electors" are bound by state law to vote the way the state voted with the exception of Maine and Nevada(I think). As they have 9 votes between them it doesn't matter in this case, and their votes are proportioned.

The system isn't that wierd when you consider the fact that the Australian Constitution doesn't mention a Prime Minister.

Though 50 differing state laws having an effect on a Federal election is sort of out of left field.

Democracy can mean all sorts of different things but rule of the majority seems implicit in most peoples understanding of it.

Despite this, few democratic systems seem to involve simply adding up all the votes and giving the gig to the person who gets most.

The US state based system and the UK/Australian constituency systems all have the potential for a party/person to win despite being heavily beaten in the popular vote. On occasions this does happen but it never stops the victor claiming a mandate.

Mandates are more often than not a crock.

Reagan's only mandate was not to be Jimmy Carter. He didn't have a mandate to bankrupt the country.

Howard's mandate was not to be Paul Keating. Two years later going from a 40 odd seat majority to 12 was not a mandate for a GST.

Rudd probably had a mandate to dismantle IR legislation,but little else. Plus he had the advantage of not being JWH.

Reviving this thread with the return of AllanD.

It's Obama's inauguration in a week and a bit.

... best FB thread of all time, part two?

Allan D wrote:(re: Sarah Palin) Brilliant pick. Undercuts the whole of the Obama campaign. McCain should win in a landslide.

Allan's a bit better at reporting history than predicting it...

Ouch . . .

*did you mean "distorting" history*

Or possibly doyen of political wishful thinking?

So - is Obama on course to be a one-term President?

Okay, just read 25 pages of that thread. I guess that's an hour of my life i'm never getting back.

Anyway - shows how little people knew about how things would turn out. Even if they would gladly post essays about it.

Reminded me of how unthinkable it was that people thought Obama would actually win. Even in New York on the day of the election when virtually every indicator was pointing to a win then most people didn't dare to believe it would happen.

The two inexplicable G. W. Bush wins caused some sizable damage in the nation's collective hope gland.

How the Republicans could even credibly stand for election after the Katrina beats me.

But every day American TV is filled with ignorant baying idiots - usually demanding something like healthcare to be made more expensive and inaccessible for them.

Do some American turkeys vote for Christmas?

Honestly thought there would be at least one assassination attempt by a crazy redneck by now.

Dello wrote:So - is Obama on course to be a one-term President?

Depends on something he has at best limited control over - the economy.