Wednesday, June 27, 2012

On the Odds of Former Florida Congressman, Alan Grayson, Ever Being Elected President of the United States

They're about the same as a transvestite orangutan parachuting out of the sky with the winning lottery ticket, a 6-pack of Bud Light, the secret formula for Coca Cola, and key information as to the whereabouts of Amelia Earhart.

48 comments:

dmarks said...

I don't know what you just described, but it sounds like a great commercial idea for the next Super Bowl. Get going on it!

w-dervish said...

I think he could win easily if a Constitutional amendment was passed that provided for public financing of elections, Republicans were prevented from disenfranchising people who were legally entitled to vote, we went back to paper ballots (so Republican operatives couldn't change vote totals electronically), and we got turnout way up.

Not that he's running. Or ever indicated that he might want to. Two facts that make this post quite the head scratcher. He's running for the House again, and he already won there, so we know it's possible. I really hope he gets back in.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The national Democratic party would never nominate an individual as extreme and blustery as Mr. Grayson. And very few people to the right of you (and that includes essentially everybody) would vote for him.

BB-Idaho said...

Never say never-
"You don't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference,.." 1962

Ema Nymton said...

.

About the same odds as Mr Romney's odds of being elected president of USA.

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

Rational Nation USA said...

Wow Emma, what an astute observation. Especially since the SCOTUS decision today on the ACA or ObamaCare.

w-dervish said...

Will: The national Democratic party would never nominate...

I responded to what you wrote. You said he couldn't get elected. If a person is in a position to get elected then it's a given that they already have the nomination.

Will: And very few people to the right of you (and that includes essentially everybody) would vote for him.

That's baloney. And I know that because every Democrat in modern history has run to the Left and then ended up governing to the Right. They run to the Left to get votes and rule to the Right to raise money to get re-elected.

I think people would LOVE to vote for someone who ran to the Left and they knew would govern to the Left.

Also, "essentially everyone" is not to the Right of me. The Progressive caucus is the LARGEST membership organization within the Democratic Caucus in the United States Congress with 76 members.

Also, a recent Gallup poll says 21 percent of Americans described themselves as Liberal and 10 percent as "very liberal". So I stand with at least 10 percent of Americans.

"Rational" Nation: ...what an astute observation. Especially since the SCOTUS decision today on the ACA or ObamaCare.

Yea, people hate healh care insurance. They'd much rather go without and take their chances.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I don't know a single person who would ever vote for Alan Grayson for President. And I don't kinw a single person who would ever put themselves to the left of you. And when I said elected, I meant becoming in general. He would never be nominated and if he ever did he wouldn't win a gneral.......And which recent Democratic Preident ran as a hard-core liberal and won; Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, Obama? Come on, man.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Will,you have better odds of walking out your front door and finding a five pound nugget of pure gold lying on the ground then Grayson has of being elected president,or for that fact getting elected to congress again.I mean this guys opponent got over 60% of the districts vote.....and got that much against an incumbent.That Florida district showed their embarrassment of Grayson and quickly rectfied their error.

w-dervish said...

Will: I don't know a single person who would ever vote for Alan Grayson for President.

You don't know any Democrats? Also, you took a poll? If so, I'd imagine some people wouldn't know who he is. I don't buy this story... it's so riddled with holes.

Will: ...which recent Democratic Preident ran as a hard-core liberal and won; Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, Obama? Come on, man.

Clinton and Obama ran to the left. Not as "hard core liberals", but they all ran to the Left of where they governed. I'm not sure about the others since I wasn't a voter when they ran -- I was a child who didn't pay attention to politics.

Rusty: That Florida district showed their embarrassment of Grayson and quickly rectfied their error.

Grayson isn't trying to get re-elected in the same district. He isn't going up against the wacko religious fundamentalist Webster. He's running in a newly created district that Wikipedia says is "Democratic-oriented".

dmarks said...

Government funding of elections is a pure waste of tax money. There is a huge debt problem after all. Zero it out. As for Grayson, he is a failure: rejected and turned out of office by most of his constituents.

w-dervish said...

Government funding of elections would SAVE trillions of dollars. When our elected representatives no longer owe favors to those who fund their elections there will be no incentive for them to vote for legislation that benefits those donors.

As for Grayson, he is a success. The only reason he lost is because Democrats didn't turn out. In 2012 turnout will be up (as it always is during a presidential election year) and his chances of being returned to the House will be much higher. I'm pulling for him. He was an awesome Representative.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Clinton ran as a new type of Democrat who emphasized middle class tax cuts and welfare reform and Obama ran as a pragmatist who said that there "isn't a red-state America or a blue-state but the United States of America." And Clinton was seriously pushed by a Republican Congress for the last 6 years of his term.......I know a lot of Democrats and I can't think of a single one who would ever vote for that lunatic.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Ya gotta love WD's spin,sometimes its just so outstandingly stupid its funny....as in this case..."the only reason he lost is Democrats did'nt turn out." No shit Sherlock,they were embarrassed of that moron...hell a goodly portion of them voted for the other guy.

dmarks said...

"Government funding of elections would SAVE trillions of dollars. "

No, every dollar spent by the ruling elites to control the election process in this fashion would be a pure waste. More money to the debt.

Besides, it destroys and violates our political rights. Through this atrocious idea, WD, the government would forcibly take our hard-earned money and hand it to political candidates we oppose.

I strongly oppose this violation.

"As for Grayson, he is a success."

Not a a politician or representative. He is a man of only 38% of the people. The rest turned him out of office.

Yes, that was the most recent poll concerning Grayson. A poll with a zero percent margin of error. And he lost handily.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...this atrocious idea, WD, the government would forcibly take our hard-earned money and hand it to political candidates we oppose.

I don't know if he's changed his mind, but Will has come out in favor of public financing previously.

Also, what's with this "forcing" BS? The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. We vote for the representatives that agree with the tax polices we support... there is no "forcing".

dmarks: ...it destroys and violates our political rights.

It strengthens our rights by removing the ability of the plutocrats to buy our elected officals.

dmarks: I strongly oppose this violation.

I strongly support this method by which the power could be taken away from the plutocrats and returned to the American People -- where it belongs.

dmarks: [Grayson] is a man of only 38% of the people. The rest turned him out of office.

No they didn't. Many Democrats didn't vote, as I pointed out. You think these Democrats would have gone for that wack-job Webster? I find that HIGHLY unlikely.

dmarks: Yes, that was the most recent poll concerning Grayson. A poll with a zero percent margin of error.

Florida has a history of getting these "polls" wrong. The most notorious example being in 2000 when FL election officals incorrected reported that George bush "won" -- when Al Gore actually did.

Rusty: No shit Sherlock, they were embarrassed of that moron...

You're basing this assertion on nothing more than your dislike of the man. Another fact-free opinion from Rusty.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm a reluctant supporter of public funding of elections. I just can't think of another way to get the dirty money (on both sides) out of politics. But I'm extremely open to suggestions.

dmarks said...

WD said; "The most notorious example being in 2000 when FL election officals incorrected reported that George bush "won" -- when Al Gore actually did."

I checked the results. The only way Gore would win would be to count the ballots that had no votes on them.

Anyway, the United States Supreme Court is the law of the land. They let the will of the voters in Florida stand. As I am an informed American, who knows the Constitution, and respects the actual professionals, I follow the Court.

"strongly support this method by which the power could be taken away from the plutocrats and returned to the American People -- where it belongs."

Under your proposal, the ruling elites, not the people, would get to determine these matters.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Also, what's with this "forcing" BS? The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax. We vote for the representatives that agree with the tax polices we support... there is no "forcing"."

Just because the forcing is legal, does not mean it is not forcing. Get to a dictionary. Come on man, geez.

Cheyenne Bella said...

awww man i set up the account wrong so it didn't show the name i made up hahaha. anyways hi Will..i finally made it to the blog!!!! woohoo!!

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Just because the forcing is legal, does not mean it is not forcing.

Fine, It's "forcing". Does that mean you think the "forcing" should be done away with? If so, I'm going to subtract the percentage of my tax bill that goes to fund our military the next time I write a check to the IRS... as soon as Romney is elected and signs some "anti-forcing" legislation.

Legislation that will also allow people to chose what laws they want to follow. I'm sure that will work. Come on man, geez.

What a hypocrite. Proof of that is your desire to force people to not smoke weed. Remember you came out in favor of this forcing in another thread (the one where you incorrectly asserted that NORML supports "widespread drug abuse")?

dmarks: Under your proposal, the ruling elites, not the people, would get to determine these matters.

Nope. Under "my proposal" the people and not the plutocrats (like under your proposal) decide (via their elected representatives).

dmarks: I checked the results. [The SCOTUS] let the will of the voters in Florida stand.

I checked the results. Gore winning had nothing to do with counting ballots that had no votes on them. The voters chose Gore. The SCOTUS overruled the will of the voters.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Cheyenne, you are the kinesiologist, me-buck! But you better be plenty careful here. With a Phd in Kinesiology and Exercise Science you're more than likely going to end up in the top 1% of wage earners and, hence, a major-league target for certain individuals here.

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD,do you ever stop crying? For christ sake....grow a pair of balls.

You're the kind of man that gives men a bad name.

How the hell do you look at yourself in the mirrow....if you do,you must see a pussy looking back at you.

You gotta be the guy who got his head pushed in the toilet bowl in high school...the guy who could'nt climb the rope in gym class....the guy who got the "kick me" sign stuck to his back....the towel kid in gym...the last guy picked in dodgeball...the guy that got the wedgie...the guy that had a note so he did'nt shower after gym class...how many of these fit you WD.....

BTW....I'm the guy who put the "kick me" sign on your back.

Cheyenne Bella said...

Lmao! Hey hey ..more than likely I am going to be a surgeon. So..still I'll be in that 1%. Just not your dream job of kinesiology hahaha

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Hey, Russ, did you see how wd put quotation marks around what the top 10% "make" (yeah, he's lowered the bar to the top 10% now), implying that people with a median income of $112,000 don't actually make their money but steal it from people like him. Man, did you ever nail it when you said that he's as bitter as cup of 7/11 coffee.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Cheyenne, I'm devastated (wink wink). You're still going to look into it, though, right? That, and physiatry (they actually kind of do surgery with procedures such as nerve blocks and trigger point injections) is pretty damn cool, too (not to mention, lucrative!).

Cheyenne Bella said...

Sure I will look into it! Just no guarantees :p

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Way fair.

dmarks said...

WD: The voters in fact chose Bush. The Court stood with the voters. And it is correct to describe NORML as a special interest group promoting drug abuse. Yes, govenrment does indeed force. But I find forcing people not to abuse dangerous drugs a lot better than forcing them to pay for the campaigns of candidates that go against their interests. As for the military, I know you hate it and the idea of defending the US, but it is actually one of the few legitimate reasons for taxation.

Also, under your proposals the people are shut out of decisions that belong to them personally. It has nothing to do with plutocrats. Our elected representatives have no reason to meddle in who gets to replace them. Having them control campaign finance short circuits democracy.

Will: I would find voluntary government funding of campaigns to perhaps be acceptible.

dmarks said...

Will: I am open minded, but on the other had I do oppose completely destructive ideas such as WD's shutting the public out of campaigns and reserving campaign matters as a special privilege belonging only to those whom we elect.

w-dervish said...

Rusty: I'm the guy who put the "kick me" sign on your back.

An asshole who is proud to be an asshole, in other words. I'm not surprised at all.

Will: ...Russ, did you see how wd put quotation marks around what the top 10% "make" (yeah, he's lowered the bar to the top 10% now)...

I don't know about Rusty, but I didn't see that. Seeing as I'm "wd", you'd think I would be less surprised that I'd "lower the bar" by that much.

dmarks: The voters in fact chose Bush. The Court stood with the voters.

The voters chose Gore. A recount of the ballots (after the SCOTUS disregarded the will of the people and annoited bush) found that "Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes".

dmarks: ...it is correct to describe NORML as a special interest group promoting drug abuse.

That's completely innacurate. They think people should be able to choose for themselves if they want to use pot or not. That isn't "promoting widespread drug abuse" at all... Unless you believe we should bring back prohibition because those who think drinking alcohol should be left up to the individual are promoting widespread alcoholism.

dmarks: I find forcing people not to abuse dangerous drugs a lot better than forcing them to pay for the campaigns of candidates that go against their interests.

OK, I get it. Only dmarks (or people who agree with him) should be allowed to decide which "forcing" is OK and which "forcing" is not OK.

And I believe the reverse to be true. Allowing the smoking of pot -- and at the same time regulating and taxing it -- is a huge money maker for government. The government makes money instead of wasting it enforcing dumb laws.

And "forcing" people to pay for public financing would SAVE a boatload of money. Under it the plutocrats wouldn't be able to help politicans who go against the interest of the people get elected and pass expensive legislation.

dmarks: under your proposals the people are shut out of decisions that belong to them personally. ... Having them control campaign finance short circuits democracy.

My proposals strengthen democracy and puts the people back in control. You oppose them because they take the power away from the plutocrats.

Rational Nation USA said...

Plutocrats, Plutocraps wd, it depends which you prefer. Six of one a half dozen of the other, the result is probably going to be the same either way. We can thank Leviathan government and the pull peddlers.

It's looking like it will get worse before it gets better. If it ever does.

dmarks said...

WD said; 'The voters chose Gore. A recount of the ballots (after the SCOTUS disregarded the will of the people and annoited bush)"

I check these counts: from the first one (the most accurate, since the ballots were not altered and were objectively counted by machine) to the final one (the one demanded by the Gore that the court ruled as redundant. He lost every single one: there were fewer ballots with "Gore" votes than there were with "Bush' votes.

I'm talking actual votes, while you go on and on about non-votes (dimples, marks, etc)

WD said of NORMAL: "That's completely innacurate. They think people should be able to choose for themselves if they want to use pot or not."

Actually, they promote drug abuse.

"That isn't "promoting widespread drug abuse" at all..."

It certainly is, as they want to remove all restrictions on abuse of these dangerous substances.

"Unless you believe we should bring back prohibition...."

No. I just believe that society does not need more of a drug abuse problem. The Constitutional amendments of the 1920s are another issue.

"OK, I get it. Only dmarks (or people who agree with him) should be allowed to decide which forcing is OK and which forcing is not OK."

With your forcing, democracy is destroyed. With mine, there's just less drug abuse.

"The government makes money instead of wasting it enforcing dumb laws."

This problem would also be solved with higher penalties for drug crimes. Then no money would be lost. It can also be taxed without encouraging abuse.

"And "forcing" people to pay for public financing would SAVE a boatload of money."

No, every dollar spent on it would be a pure waste.

"Under it the plutocrats wouldn't be able to help politicans who go against the interest of the people get elected and pass expensive legislation."

What you say is preprosterous. As our ruling elites love to pass expensive legislation if left to their own devices, getting rid of one way for the people to object would mean a lot more of this expensive legislation.

WD also said: "My proposals strengthen democracy"

No, they diminish it a lot. They put give our elected representatives a lot more control over who joins them.

"...and puts the people back in control."

Every dollar spent on this by the representatives instead of the people is a loss of popular control

"You oppose them because they take the power away from the plutocrats."

You are making a baldfaced lie here. I hardly ever mention plutocrats, and won't here. Because they are only a tiny minority of the public (non-government) whose interest I am protecting from you and those who want to take it away.

dmarks said...

RN: You saw it. WD does not want the general public to have any input into the campaign (i.e. election) process. because a tiny few of those in the general public are those that he defines as plutocrats.

Yeah, deny freedom for 99 people just because there's this one guy in a hundred whom you happen to hate and are jealous of and misunderstand ocmpletely.

dmarks said...

WD: By the way, eariier you chucked out the dictionary and made your own definition of "plutocrat", and defined it as someone who used their wealth to influence public policy that would benefit them personally

Would you say that a multi-millionaire who pushes for government handouts that would put more millions into his own pocket is a "plutocrat" ?

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I'm talking actual votes, while you go on and on about non-votes (dimples, marks, etc)

I see. Because the crappy voting machines didn't work properly (most likely by design) you throw out legitimate votes. That's how you conclude that bush "won"... by ignoring actual votes... a dimple or a mark is a CLEAR indication that the person intended to make that vote.

dmarks: It certainly is, as they want to remove all restrictions on abuse of these dangerous substances.

People can smoke pot and not abuse it, the same as they can drink alcohol without abusing it. Yes, I think marijuana should be legal.

dmarks: This problem would also be solved with higher penalties for drug crimes. Then no money would be lost.

It would cost significantly more to hold people in prison for longer periods of time. That's common sense.

With your forcing, democracy is destroyed. With mine, there's just less drug abuse.

Wrong on both counts. Democracy is strengthened and drug abuse goes down... because we can use the tax money (from people who use it responsibly) to fund treatment programs for people who abuse it.

dmarks: No, every dollar spent on [public financing] would be a pure waste.

It would end up saving many many more times than what it would cost.

dmarks: What you say is preprosterous.

It's the truth. We could greatly reduce corporate welfare and save billions.

dmarks: Every dollar spent on this by the representatives instead of the people is a loss of popular control.

I don't know what you're talking about. What money are the representatives spending "instead" of the people. It's called PUBLIC financing because the public pays (and, because they're paying, they are in control).

dmarks: You are making a baldfaced lie here.

I'm telling a baldfaced truth. Not mentioning plutocrats doesn't erase the fact that you continually advocate for policies that favor them.

dmarks: WD does not want the general public to have any input into the campaign (i.e. election) process.

I want to dramatically increase the input the general public has in our elections. You're the one who wants their input to be less (and the input of the plutocrats higher).

w-dervish said...

dmarks: By the way, earlier you chucked out the dictionary and made your own definition of "plutocrat"...

I didn't chuck out the dictionary. The definition I use is the dictionary definition. You're the one who chucks out the dictionary and makes up your own definitions... for words like "fascism" and "socialism", for example.

dmarks said...

WD said: "I'm telling a baldfaced truth. Not mentioning plutocrats doesn't erase the fact that you continually advocate for policies that favor them."

THat's no fact at all. I "advocate" for the Constitutional rights of all Americans. This includes those few whom you call "plutocrats".

The thing is you are stuck on stripping them of their rights, and have listed several reasons, none of which involve any due process, and none of which are Constitutional.

w-dervish said...

All Americans who have a lot of money. Those American you believe should be able to purchase more "rights" than the rest of us.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Money talks...Bull shit walks



He who has the gold....makes the rules

dmarks said...

I see that by using the word 'rights' in quotations, as in free speech rights, he doesn't think free speech is a right at all.

w-dervish said...

Of course free speech is a right. Buying it isn't.

dmarks said...

WD is always looking for a way to censor views he does not approve of:

"Of course free speech is a right. Buying it isn't."

I suggest you re-read the First Amendment. According to your logic, the government could ban the New York Times from paying people to deliver the papers. It's all money, right?

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD,please stop crying....you're begining to look like a little girl.

Its really getting embarressing watching you become a eunuch.

WD,you're giving men a bad name.

WD,do you sit down to pee?

What the hell did your parents do to you? Did they force you to wear dresses? Was it uncle Otto that flipped you.

WD,how and when did you become a wuss?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Boy, did you guys ever have a donnybrook today. I went to Wickford RI (absolutely gorgeous) and, man, oh man, did I ever miss a good one.

w-dervish said...

The press is the ONE and ONLY organization mentioned in the text of the First Amendment. COME ON dmarks, you've raised this red herring MULTIPLE times in the past.

Also, I am not looking to "censor" views I don't approve of. I want to level the playing field by removing the power of big money from our political process. Then the candidate with the best ideas can win, instead of the one with the most money backing him (or her). It's the difference between democracy and plutocracy... and we all know which one dmarks favors.

dmarks said...

WD: "The press is the ONE and ONLY organization mentioned in the text of the First Amendment."

OK, then, the Koch Brothers can play your game. Let them buy a newspaper. That will make them a publisher, and off limits to you mean-spirited and ill-informed efforts to censor them. Whoopie!

"COME ON dmarks, you've raised this red herring MULTIPLE times in the past."

It's not a red herring. It just shows your narrow fascistic view that government-approved "press" has free speech rights, and the rest of us do not.

Sorry, your view is not the law of the land. And it is hard to imagine a comment by you any more in which you don't insist how dangerous it is for the people to have their Constitutional freedom to speak out.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...the Koch Brothers... buy a newspaper. That will make them... off limits to you mean-spirited and ill-informed efforts to censor them.

That's already been done. You've never heard of Sun Myung Moon's The Washington Times (print) or Rupert Murdoch's Fox News (Television)??

And, I support no "mean-spirited and ill-informed efforts to censor them". I support the First Amendment as written, which protects individual free speech rights and doesn't protect group free speech rights.

You really need to become better informed on this issue because you currently have no idea what you're talking about.

dmarks: ...it is hard to imagine a comment by you... in which you don't insist how dangerous it is for the people to have their Constitutional freedom to speak out.

It would be hard to imagine a comment by me where I didn't insist that individuals speaking out is vital to maintaining our democracy... but allowing the plutocrats to buy more speech than the rest of us is incredibly destructive to it.

We need to either [1] re-elect Barack Obama so he can appoint additional Supreme Court judges who will overturn Citizens United, or [2] Pass a Constitutional Amendement that invalidates Citizens United.

Either way this horrible ruling has to be gotten rid of.