Going out on a limb here... but I heard good news on Countdown tonight...

[ClassWarrior]

KO and Whineman said we have as many as THIRTY-THREE Senators considering joining the already-committed Maxine Waters (my political hero and secret crush) in a Jan. 6 challenge to Ohio's electors!

As many as THIRTY-THREE SENATORS!! THAT'S THANKS TO YOU, DU!! LET'S MAKE IT SIXTY-SIX OR MORE...

NGU.

[sepia_steel]

1. YEsss!!!

No matter what any attorney said, this ball is ROLLING.

[liam97]

2. David Lytel had a great line

Its not upto Kerry to accept a fraudulent election - the vote is ours.. to me too, its more about exposing fraud than about Kerry

[crispini]

3. AMEN, CW!

Now let's go work those emails and faxes!

[seito]

4. WTF, just 33

Good news???

Surely you jest.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Hey, I thought you were leaving... troublemaker!!

:hug:

NGU.

[seito]

10. Ya better watch yourself CW

The wealth of smilies at my disposal is unimaginable.

[newscott]

6. Umm....

I'm pretty sure if it's the phrase that's been tossed around for a while they are saying the chances are 1 in 3 or 33% that they will get a senator to sign on.

[Pirate Smile]

23. You are right. People keep screwing this detail up. This isn't the first

time.

[Chimpanzee]

7. That is NOT what was said

He said that it had gone from support of 0 (zero) senators a week ago to a 1 in 3 chance 33% that they would have one senator join the contest. Someone please back me up on this.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Okay, explain what "one in three chance" means then.

NGU.

[Chimpanzee]

17. It means what I just said

[ClassWarrior]

18. One in three what?? 33% of what??

Explain. If I'm wrong, I want to know what's right.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

21. I love how people tell me I'm wrong, but don't bother to tell me...

...what's right. :crazy:

NGU.

[Chimpanzee]

26. Sorry CW

1 in 3 chance that they would have one senator join the contest. I'm not trying to start a fight - just correcting your post.

[Stuckinthebush]

37. That whole exchange just cracked me up

It was like some weird adaptation of the who's on first thing.

"1 in 3 means 33% of the senators"
"No, 1 in 3 means a 33% chance of 1 senator joining"
"That's what I said, 33% of senators joining"
"No, a 33% chance of a senator joining"
"Right! 33% of the senators joining!"

:D

[Catamount]

12. I heard that too!

Iwondered how I could have missed such news (33 senators)as I had to leave the TV briefly!

[bunny planet]

16. Yes, he said it has gone to a 1 in three chance, that means 33% of the

senators are possibly considering signing on. Fineman, putz that he is, did also point out that Dems on the hill are pissed that * thinks he is going to push through all the same fascist judges he tried to get through last time around and that they intended to take a 'scorched earth approach' in efforts to stop him anyway they can.

[burn the bush]

31. that sounds like 33% of a chance that ONE will sign Not 33% will sign

[ClassWarrior]

38. I still don't get it. How do they determine a 33% chance...

...that one Senator will join? And if they don't know which Senator, how do they figure it out?

NGU.

[SlowDownFast]

40. that is correct.

that was also stated on his blog:

33% chance of a (one) senator.

[ClassWarrior]

41. So how do they determine those odds? And who are they??

Seriously, what criteria do they use? That's a pretty definitive statement.

NGU.

[Brundle_Fly]

46. maybe it means

that three senators are on the fence.

[SueZhope]

9. HA?????????????

:shrug: :wtf: I thought he said 1/3 of a chance....
or something like what was on his blog today..
the chances not the actually senators

On his blog:
Kerry’s signature might not even be sought. There has been “very serious” contact among the staffs of leading Democrats in both houses about the implications of the challenge, according to a congressional figure privy to that contact. He estimates for us that the chance of a Senator actually signing on has — in the last week — risen from almost nothing, to upwards of one third.

[Peace Patriot]

48. Sounds like he switched grammatical constructions, and that it means...

...what the poster said, could be as many as 33 Senators.

Let me analyze (or maybe somebody should just blog or call him):

O. blog: "He estimates for us that the chance of a Senator actually signing on has — in the last week — risen from almost nothing, to upwards of one third."

He starts with the phrase "the chance of a Senator," traverses a dashed phrase, and then, during "risen from almost nothing," loses track of the sentence object "the chance" and switches to the number of Senators who might sign on.

That's what I think happened in his writing of this sentence. He says "upwards of one third," not "upwards of 33%" (chance). It sure sounds to me like he was thinking "one third of the Senate Democrats." But there is also ambiguity in this. "One third of the Senate Democrats" are considering being "the one" who signs? Or "one third of the Senate Democrats" are considering all signing it (perhaps in a show of unity)?

Of course I am quite hopeful that this latter is what the rumor is. I would weep for joy!

[lonestarnot]

11. We need to blast ALL members of the House and Senate for confirmation

of legitimacy bushitler. We need 9 more if I subtracted right... had to take a break in the middle of the post. lol

[art3]

28. No No NO

no no no no-
not 1/3 of the senate. we have 1/3 of a chance right now . thats what he is saying.
art

[lonestarnot]

32. Art 3; You missed the point ... We need to be inclusive of repulsives hehe

we need to invite them to this Nov. 2004 legitimacy party. Send them personal invitations to demonstrate legitimacy as their current leader is illegitimate and corrupt! I know at least 12 republicans would like to know that their man was legitimately elected. And if their case is as powerful as a man date; chimp date (which I've not heard mentioned lately) they should want to demonstrate democracy and secure this legitimacy! Not run and hide behind someone's skirt. They should stand as elected representatives of their constiuency and seek the truth in that more than 1/2 the country knows bushitler illegitmate.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi art3!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Peace Patriot]

49. Yeah, it could be that...

...but I don't think it is. (See my analysis above.) The O. Blog starts off talking about the buzz in the Congressional corridors, like, the thing is catching fire. From zero chance to...1 of 3 possible Senate signatories? Could be. I really don't think he meant to write "1/3 of a chance" or a "33% chance." That doesn't make much sense. What does it mean? The only reasonable (downside) meaning could be 1 of 3 might do it--except for the context, which seems more positive than that, and except for the habit of many writers of losing track of their subject or object, early in a sentence, in this case, switching from "chance" to actual numbers. I think there's a good chance that that's what happened in his writing of the sentence. (har, har)

[Imagevision]

13. This is what we need to begin to make any real progress

[GetTheRightVote]

14. This is good news, they are actually listening to the people

We must rally outside of Congress so they see us and understand that we need them to back us up on the Election Fraud. Be there to make it happen, Jan 6, at the National Mall, yes, yes.

:bounce:

[troubleinwinter]

15. That's not how I interpreded it.

I think he was saying that the chance was 33% that there'd be ONE senator.

I aint buying that idea.

I think Kerry having joined the motion today will send a VERY strong clue to some senators that there is a stinkin' mess that needs to be stood up against, and we will get one or more senators.

I do NOT think he meant 33 senators.

[ginnyinWI]

34. well I do!

I read it and read it--it doesn't make sense to say there is a 1/3 chance of something, or a 1 in 3 chance--what is it in reference to? Anyway, that isn't much more than a zero chance, so why mention it anyway? No, I do think he meant upwards of a third of the Senate. Just my take on it. I suppose if he gets a barrage of emails, he will clarify tomorrow.

[Kellis]

19. ....

KO said that the number of Senators considering joining the challenge was up from ZERO % chance last week to a now 33% chance that they will challenge.

"A 1 in 3 chance that they will challenge".

:toast:

[ClassWarrior]

20. Well what does that mean? 33% chance of what?

NGU.

[Kellis]

22. I took it to mean

That out of a 100% chance there is likely a 33% chance that Senators will challenge the election.And that last week the chance of a Senator challenging the elction was next to zero.


They are beginning to see the light :)

[IndyOp]

24. I bet it means something like 3 Senators are seriously

considering it and one might bite??? So, lets keep blasting them and get the odds up higher!

:bounce:

[Pirate Smile]

27. A 33% chance of getting 1 Senator to join the challenge.

[johnaries]

42. None of it matters now... the odds have surely changed by now.....

and they will change even more by Jan 02 if we keep PUSHING IT! The odds are better than they were! DON'T STOP NOW!
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Niche]

25. Kick! And forget The Lawyer!

:kick:

[roguevalley]

29. Pummel Maxine Waters. She has tons of guts.

[senseandsensibility]

30. Thanks, Class Warrior!

Was that really said on the show? I didn't watch it. Thirty three is an amazing number, isn't it?

[RFSea]

33. Me too

This whole thing has a SeaBiscuit smell to it

Look where things are today, and look where they might be if the raving media WERE all over this story

The Jesus and arBusto freaks would be crying in their pathetically low numbers, with their pathetically LOUD media machine, and Michael Powell and every other media monstor would some how paint Ohio's woes "Don't Elect Howard Dean" Red

If it all dies after Jan 06 2005, then we got a problem, and I for one will be visiting Washington to ask why I threw good money after bad to help out, when the system is a rigged banana peel-

If we have a criminal scandal, then show me Plame, Halliburton contracts, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo on top of it.

Nail 'em to the cross, so to speak.

Glad to have seen this post.

[mountainvue]

35. Maxine Waters is in the House not the Senate.

We have plenty of House members who will go to bat but not one Senator yet. Word is that they were asking Byrd, Boxer and Jeffords. Supposedly Boxer has already said no.

[ClassWarrior]

39. That's right... you need one Senator and one Rep...

Maxine's the Rep. (What, you think I don't know what my secret crush does for a living??) Now who's going to be the Senator?

And HOW THEY HECK DO THEY DETERMINE A ONE-OUT-OF-THREE CHANCE A SINGLE SENATOR WILL JOIN?? Is this goofy Jimmy the Greek oddsmaker stuff that a right-brainer like me won't understand? Try me...

NGU.

[thanatonautos]

44. I think it's just KO trying to be a smart ass ...

He made up a fake probability: that's all. Last week he
would have said the odds were zero, this week
he puts the chances at 1 in 3 that one senator
will join. It's a way of saying he thinks there
is a significant chance, but not a good chance,
that this will happen.

To test the strength of Keith's convictions, we could
get 60,000 DUers to join together and put up a
couple of dollars each for a bet that it happens ...
we can see whether he'll offer the same odds then.

:)

[latteromden]

45. "Supposedly Boxer has already said no." @J#(F*J@#(*J!!!

That's all I have to say on that subject. :X

[Peace Patriot]

51. Yeah, I know what you mean about Boxer.

She got huge election numbers in California, and could spend some of the "mandate" capital THAT WE GAVE HER on defending our right to vote, it seems to me.

I don't want to be unfair to her--when the BushCons are the real enemy, and there are certainly many other Dems who haven't considered it at all, don't care, and are worthless compromisers. And I DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF RUMORS.

But it will be a hard blow, if Boxer--with her huge cushion of support--will not come forward for black voters, her voters, and all voters.

I've read some of Senator Byrd's writings. The man is an elderly William Rivers Pitt (or Thomas Jefferson, if you will). Laser-like understanding of the foundations of our democracy. Despises BushCons.

It would be absolutely wonderful to see him stand up for this.

Jeffords would certainly be interesting--Independent, therefore non-partisan. (He voted against the Iraq war. So did Byrd. Byrd's reasoning was all about presidential power--giving the president too much of it--and the Constitution. Brilliant guy.)

[NVMojo]

36. ...and this was the hidden message ....YAY!!!!

[Vidar]

43. God, I hope you're right!

[Farmgirl]

50. What? Are you Sure You Heard That???

Do you have a linky? Did you say "33 Senators" and NOT 3 Senators? My heart is going through fibrillations here!!!

:toast:

[ElementaryPenguin]

52. The way black voting was suppressed how can any Dem Senators afford NOT to

Support the challenge, without committing political suicide??

:shrug: