I was wrong

[smurphy]

Yeah - Dogs - I'm very new to political wagers. If I was more seasoned I would have seen the value with Bush early on election day. Didn't it peak at like +300 or something?

I see that you didn't put enough on it either, though. Of course it's kinda frustrating when some of those bets don't let you go more than $250 anyway. I guess the books that offer them know they can get killed if the bettors are sharp.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Don't think they will ever let one bet too much on political elections Smurph--which is fine by me as I don't bet large amounts on anything. I do think political elections are good avenue as often political sentiment of both parties dictate action rather than logic.
Have found in general that best time to go on Dems you like is immediately after Reb convention and same for Rebs you favor imediately after Dem convention. On presidential you will often find nice middle available--but believe that is one reason they allow only modest wagers. I certainly don't like long futures on elections as much can change in short time.

 

[djv]

Bush just does not understand. All he has to do is stay off the T V for a month and stop saying stay the course. His rating will go about 7/8 points.

 

[Master Capper]

"Americans' views of President Bush and his trustworthiness have hit new lows, a downturn that could make it more difficult for him to push his legislative agenda and to boost Republican candidates in next year's congressional elections," according to a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll.

"Fewer than one in 10 adults say they would prefer a congressional candidate who is a Republican and who agrees with Bush on most major issues," according to the poll. "Even among Republicans, seven of 10 are most likely to back a candidate who has at least some disagreements with the president."

"Bush's job approval rating sank to a record low 37%. The poll finds growing criticism of the president, unease about the nation's direction and opposition to the Iraq war."

 

[Chadman]

Palehose...since you now seem to be on the new mantra of all administration and elected individuals lie, have always lied, and always will - or at least sell out their values at times for support - (which is an arguable and defendable position that I essentially agree with as far as getting to the highest levels of political office) then...

Why do you so vigorously defend this administration and maintain that arguing against the reasons and information given out to win support of the attack on Iraq could have been manipulated, hidden or fabricated by these people? Do you allow that they could have done these things, and if they did, it would be very serious abuses of elected officials and the American people?

Seems to be a pretty contradictory position to be in, to me.