Huh? I have never heard that expression before! This is the definition from the Urban Dictionary: 1. dead nuts on Very accurate. When used as an explanatory measurement, it means that it is within 99% accuracy. Another: DEAD NUTS adjective phrase by 1980s. Exactly ri
I guess Ollie is number two since I said I'd lie to congress. ROFL. I think I got Hannity #2 because I said people LOVE my good books and I have many fans. I wonder how you get to be Brit Hume (he does a pretty good job, it's near impossible to tell his ideo
Grim, What did you think of the survey? I thought the questions were hilarious. How did you anser the "I am fabulous" question? (I'm guessing by the Bill O'Reilly rank you answered yes) or the "I feel pretty" question.
Are you tough like Bill O'Reilly? A token liberal like Alan Colmes? Or mentally unhinged like Sean Hannity? Find out at the Fox News Personality Selector. Link Here's mine: #1Bill O'Reilly #2Sean Hannity #3 Fred Barnes #4 Ollie North #5 Shepherd Smith #6 Pat Sajak #7 Colonel David Hunt #8 Geraldo Rivera #9 Laurie
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) 2. Bush, President George W. - Republican (79%) 3. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (52%) 4. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (44%) 5. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (43%) 6. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (41%) 7. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (38%) 8. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (35%) 9. Gephardt, Rep. D
1: Traditional Societies (100%) 2: Anarcho-syndicalist (96%) 3: Totalitarian (96%) 4: Liberal (82%) 5: Conservative (72%) 6: Libertarian (69%) 7: Authoritarian (63%) 8: New Labour (56%) All righty then. Not sure what the hell it means. Did you know you can create your own selector? That could be fun.
This is dead nuts accurate. I am one of those pushed into the Bush camp. During the Democrat primary I was pulling for Lieberman so there would be, what I considered, a viable alternative to Bush. I responded to the Moore crowd like many did (as indicated in the Pere Partnership poll) by becoming staunchly Bush, from being lukewarm at best months ago. Terry McAuliffe, CBS and the New York Times, the three best friends the Republicans ever had.
IMHO, not till in least 99% counted. Do the numbers. In New Mexico if Kerry got ALL the remaining votes, he'd still lose. In Ohio, he has to get 140,000 of the remining 155,000 to TIE. Not gonna happen, it' over. And that doesn't even consider Iowa, Nevada and Wisconsin. The Fat lady has sung.
Bush is up by 130,000 votes in Ohio with only 156,000 left to report and he's up by more votes in New Mexico than is left to report. What is there to litigate? It's over. If Kerry doesn't concede... I'm willing to bet Terry McAuliffe is behind it I don't believe Kerry is that classless.
What are they waiting for on New Mexico? Bush is ahead by more votes than are left to report.
All I can say is I hope Kerry wins Bush HAS won
Hell, he could very easily find himself running for senate minority leader if Dashcle is really booted Nope, that will be Reid.
how do you explain the incorrect prediction? But I instead tend to think that these sorts of things are impossible to predict Lok at the numbers I got (
New Mexico is about ready to be called for Bush. Iowa just tilted his way also and he srill has a shot in Wisconsin. In Nevada it depends on how much of the South/Vegas they've counted, everywhere but Vegas is basically Red.
Looks like Ohio (Bush up by 3% with 83% reporting) will go for Bush which will leave him 4 EV short of re-election and a number of places to pick them up. He leads in New Mexico by 4% with 80% reporting (this would do it), Nevada is a dead heat (if they counted Vegas first it would be good for Bush), Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa are also way too close to call. Bush leads by a wide margin in Alaska currently but winning ONLY here would send the Pre
With the election in it's waning hours, there are already signs of leaving the partisanship behind. One report has claimed that Senator Kerry and President Bush contacted each other, over the objections of their campaign advisors, and agreed between them that there will be a winner this evening. Neither of them want a repeat of 2000. The campaign rhetoric has changed to a more conciliatory tone. After returning home to Massachusetts for the fi
we'll see how close it is when all of the absentee ballots have been counted Bush is not going to need them. He's still up by 5% in Fla with 94% of the precincts reporting
Michigan swings Kerry (up by 9%, 29% reporting) they must have started counting Detroit
florida may well go to Bush Bush is up by 5% in Fla with 88% reporting and up in Ohio by 6% withh 44% reporting and way up (around 10%) in both Michigan and Wisconsin
Ohio Bush is up by 6% (36% reporting) Florida Bush is up by 5% (88% reporting) Michigan Bush is up by 9% (13% reporting) Wisconsin Bush is up by 13% ((18% reporting) Iowa Bush up by 3% (35% reporting)
If the current trend holds. Bush wins with 275 to 285 EV.
Actually that last bit was part of the article I excerpted, and not me. Oops. Nevermind And saving $500
HSA's have been around for years Actually, HSA's are new. There used to be something similar called an MSA which has been stopped (I'm pretty certain in 2003) with the introduction of HSA's which replace them. Maybe you had an MSA? HSA's are pretty simple, y
Based on using The Political Machine's issue based predictions What were the settings on? Each time I've run Bush against Kerry, Bush wins with around 275 to 280 EV (though I'm not overly savvy with the AI yet).
First, let me say I respect your decision, it is clear you have done well with regard to informing yourself, well thought out and coherent. The only place I would really disagree with your reasoning is on health care. I can understand and respect your reasoning on Foreign Policy and Iraq (even if I don't agree with the conclusions, but I also think the U.N. has become little more than a dog and pony show and it wouldn't bother me a bit if the U.S. with