« Why the Dems? | Main | Labor Monday (8-12) »

August 12, 2002

McGuire Outbid on Bush Reelect Bet

Well, Tom McGuire has been outbid on his sad even-odds bet on Bush's reelection (such lack of confidence in your man!). JDW has written to give me 3-1 odds on Bush's reelection with some provisos:

"Was it your blog that solicited bets on the 2004 race, claiming that Bush would lose?

If so, I'd like to place a provisional wager. $50, and I'll give you 3:1 odds that chimpy will be re-elected. Here's my provision: if you win you promise you'll not use the winnings to promote the green party in any way...you can buy beer, spend it on your site, take a friend to dinner, donate it to the dlc(ha!)...whatever. In turn, I'll agree to donate the money when I win to any mutually agreeable charity that has no green party affiliation.

It's probably not right of me to dictate how you spend the money, but I'm giving good odds and I hope like hell you're right and I lose...but can't stomach the idea that my money could end up helping the greenies in any way, shape or form.....as I make so little to begin with(and this isn't easy money for me to come by) but I'm always up for a charity. Fair enough?"
cleveland, ohio

Fair enough across the board. Unless anyone else is even more confident in Bush's reelection? Takers?

Posted by Nathan at August 12, 2002 08:00 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Oh, cheap shot. It was not I that suggested even odds, but Nathan! He offered it only to friends, and wanted stray dogs in the street such as myself to pay more, but this is a low blow.

Anyway, at 3-1 you have to bet against Bush. Nothing personal, obviously, but we are talking money here.

So, he put up $50, you put up $17. Hmmm, new business model for bloggers.


Posted by: Tom Maguire at August 12, 2002 11:09 AM

Address the bet, Tom. C'mon it's gotta be embarassing that a die-hard Dem has more faith in yer boy then you.

Sheeesh. One little bit of trouble and they go running for the foxhole.

Posted by: jdw at August 12, 2002 11:23 AM

I think I did address the bet - I want some of Nathan's side, but I doubt that he is sharing. And I see through the "psychic hedge" of the bettor in question, especially since he explains it himself: he will happily part with $50 as part of an Election Eve celebration of Bush's defeat (if, God willing, we can settle the damn thing on election eve.) Where you see confidence, I see a balancing act.

So, I love the odds Nahan got - if he can find more and wants to let me in, great. As I said, nothing against Bush, but at 3-1 you have to bet Dem. There are no gamblers in foxholes.


Posted by: Tom Maguire at August 12, 2002 05:43 PM

Hmmm, Tom. I just don't get it..did you, or did you not, take him up on his offer of even odds? Did you up the ante to odds in his favor at all? C'mon, the chimp is a lock.

I'm certain that given the rationale given to me by Nathan for accepting the bet, he'd be more then happy to entertain another offer from you, even with lessor odds....a little side thing you can do between him & yourself.

Posted by: jdwa at August 12, 2002 06:20 PM

I feel like this is turning into a bit of a heckling match, which is not the spirit in which I approached it. Anyway, check Nathan's archives for


or mine at


for the sordid history of this bet. And thanks for playing.


Posted by: Tom Maguire at August 12, 2002 10:37 PM

But Tom- JDW I think is precisely in the spirit of your original bet-- by your own words "so I figure if I hang around his site and act like a jerk, I can goad him into an even money bet." So JDW just seems to be trying to use similar tactics to induce you to make a higher bet-- to my advantage of course :)

Posted by: Nathan at August 12, 2002 10:50 PM

Sorry, Tom, maybe I was laying it on a bit thick...this is all in fun and charity, after all....shit, I gave great odds while hoping to lose.

Posted by: jdw at August 13, 2002 09:13 AM

Oh, the biter bit! I actually had a sinking sense that my leg was being pulled, and I knew those archives represented the barel of a gun, but I am coming down with a cold, and am a bit muddled. Last night I went out in the front yard for something, and found myself just staring at the house wondering what the heck I was looking for. And I'm still a bit hazy about the "no gamblers in foxholes" comment, above. Something about Bush has no prayer, and atheists, I expect, but it made no sense to me.

So, crystal clarity: I would be delighted to give my buddy JDW(a?) $100. Delighted. Post-election, of course. He only has to accept the trivial burden of agreeing to pitch $300 to my charity, and waive the $100, in the virtually inconceivable scenario that the chimp, who is a lock, becomes unlocked. I am presuming that the chimp is Bush, and not some Dem to be nominated later, of course.

I may be on the wrong site for this. Perhaps I should sniff around some righty site with a comments section. Hmmm. Maybe if I post? Let me see what my fever dream produces.


Posted by: Tom Maguire at August 13, 2002 11:39 AM

OK, I have posted. I just read last night that pseudoepedrine is legal (at Volokh), sowe can all observe the results. Anyway, FYI, I linked to a different archive piece for Nathan than the one I mentioned in the comments last night. Seemed more to the point, but I didn't want to pull the old switcheroo unannounced.


Posted by: Tom Who? at August 13, 2002 12:07 PM

this is why i am not a gambler: i have no idea who's betting how much for who to win. i have a tough time playing go fish. all i know is, if bush wins again, we all lose!

Posted by: skippy at August 14, 2002 12:18 AM

OK, Skippy, that means I will put you down for $100. I'll tell you in November (or December?) of 2004 just what your bet was. Good luck, you've made a wise bet. Whatever it was.


Posted by: Tom Maguire at August 14, 2002 03:17 AM

Hello admin, nice site ! Good content, eautiful design, thank !

Posted by: Heel at March 24, 2006 11:25 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)