Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-14T01:27:42Z

CasparRH: /* Political Questions Being Resolved by the Games */

The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', is occurring in [[London]] from July 27 through August 12.<ref>This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948.</ref> '''''During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by [[faith]]-based achievement by the participating athletes'''''.

== 2012 Olympics - Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ==

See also: [[Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ]]

''The Sports Journal'' is a monthly refereed journal published by the United States Sports Academy.
A journal article appeared in the Sports Journal entitled ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions''. The article was submitted by Nathan T. Bell, Scott R. Johnson, and Jeffrey C. Petersen from Ball State University.<ref>[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']</ref>

An excerpt from the abstract of the journal article ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'' declares:
{{cquote|Numerous studies report athletes to be more religious than nonathletes (Fischer, 1997; Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, & Storch, 2001; Storch et al., 2004). According to Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, and Storch (2001), four reasons may explain why religion interacts with athletic performance. First, athletes may identify with religious beliefs for direction and humility. Second, athletes may turn to religion to gain a sense of optimism and security, benefiting from such beliefs following a disappointing athletic performance. Third, religion can be used for emotional and psychological support in stressful circumstances like the uncertainty of athletic competition, which can cause athletes an overwhelming amount of anxiety. Religious beliefs can offer the internal strength to persevere through the stress. Fourth, religion “provides a cognitive framework conducive to the relief of anxiety associated with competition” (Storch et al., 2001, p. 347). This framework allows relief from fear and anxiety on the basis of the athlete’s understanding (i.e., belief) that a supreme being is in complete control of the situation. For example, athletes may rely on religious faith to place a poor athletic performance in perspective...

Religion can be an important aspect in athletes’ lives and may serve a protective function against psychological distress and maladaptive behaviors such as substance use or aggression (Storch, Roberti, Bravata, & Storch, 2004). Viewers of sporting events can frequently observe athletes pointing to the sky, engaging in team prayer on the court or field, and glorifying God following athletic competitions.<ref>[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']</ref>}}

=== Atheism and sports performance ===

Besides lacking the aforementioned benefits that religion bestows on athletes, atheists have higher rates of depression and suicide than the religious (see: [[Atheism and mental health]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]). This suggests that atheism is a detriment to sports performance.

=== 2012 Olympics: faith vs. atheism ===

A number of Christian athletes have thanked God for their 2012 Olympic medals (see below). To date, no Olympic athlete at the 2012 Olympic games has credited atheism with providing them enhanced sport performance.

== Political Questions Being Resolved by the Games ==

Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees are participating.<ref>Independent Olympic Athletes from [[South Sudan]], who does not yet have a National Olympic Committee, and the former Netherlands Antilles, who no longer has a National Olympic Committee due to their dissolution, will also compete under the Olympic Flag.</ref>

Sports contests having the greatest political interest are (note especially the growing list of lack of [[public schools]] for the gold medalists below):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Multiple
|How many athletes will do the equivalent of [[Tebowing]] after a victory? American Meb Keflezighi, who won the silver medal in the marathon in 2004, typically gives glory to [[God]] with the sign of the [[Cross]] after finishing a race.<ref>http://www.letsrun.com/2009/nycmen1101.php</ref>
|The first American medalist (silver) in the 10k since 1964, Galen Rupp, reportedly has a strong [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] [[faith]] and attended Catholic high school.

The first gold medalist for [[Ireland]] since 1996, boxer Katie Taylor said after winning: "I serve an amazing God and without Him I wouldn't be here without this gold medal around my neck." Her boxing robe contained the verse, "The [[Lord]] is my shepherd and my shield."<ref>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/08/09/2990989/the-lord-shepherds-irelands-taylor.html#storylink=cpy</ref>

After winning the all-around women's gymnastic title, Gabby Douglas tweeted, "Let all that I am praise the [[Lord|LORD]]; may I never forget the good things he does for me."

Missy Franklin, who ranks second behind Michael Phelps (he's won 4 gold in 2012, 18 in career) with three gold medals at the 2012 games, thanked [[God]] as one of her first comments after winning.

Bernard Lagat, a medalist at prior Olympics, did the [[Sign of the Cross]] just before he was introduced to the crowd for the 5k race. He then "finished fourth after being clipped from behind in the final 200 meters," but showed tremendous sportsmanship, praised the winner, and gave thanks afterward as "the most blessed person during my career."<ref>http://espn.go.com/espnw/olympics/8260406/2012-olympics-mo-farah-makes-5000-win-look-easy</ref>

Ethiopian Tiki Gelana remarkably overcame a mid-race fall to win the women's marathon, after thinking "thank God" at the beginning of the race for the rain because she grew up running in rainy weather - but the [[lamestream media]] reported her quote with a small "g" for "God".<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/rain-queen-gelana-wins-soggy-maratho-175353459--spt.html</ref>

Soccer players in the United Arab Emirates team kneeled towards Mecca when they scored a goal. They did not advance to the quarterfinals. Mohamed Farah (GB) gave thanks to Allah by kneeling towards Mecca after he won the 10000 metres track race.

Double-amputee runner Oscar Pistorius noted that he thanks God "Because He is the reason for my success and the one that takes me from strength to strength."[http://assistnews.net/Stories/2012/s12060047.htm]
|-
|Multiple
|Will almost no athletes from [[public school]] sports programs win any gold medals, despite how public schools spend more than $500 billion annually to teach and train [[American]]s?
|The [[lamestream media]] state that Missy Franklin, the star swimmer, is a high school student, but fail to mention that she attends ''[[Catholic]]'' school rather than [[public school]].

'''American 2012 Olympic gold medal winners (as of 8/1/2012)'''
*Private: Missy Franklin ([[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] high school)<ref> Franklin's swimming has been with a swim club</ref>, Katie Ledecky (Catholic high school)
*[[Homeschooled]]: Gabby Douglas, McKayla Maroney
*College or adult: Michael Phelps,<ref>Phelps' swimming has been with a private swim club.</ref> Dana Vollmer, Vincent Hancock, Conor Dwyer, Kristin Armstrong, Nathan Adrian, Allison Schmitt, Shannon Vreeland, Kim Rhode, Ryan Lochte, Matt Grevers, Aly Raisman, Ricky Berens, Jamie Lynn Gray, Bob Bryan, Mike Bryan, Serena Williams.
*[[Public school]]: Kyla Ross and Jordyn Wieber won a group gold medal as part of the team led by [[homeschooled]] Gabby Douglas
|-
|Multiple
|How many athletes will be unfairly expelled based on [[liberal]] [[censorship]] of their [[free speech]]?
|One athlete -- Greek triple-jumper Voula Papachristou -- was expelled from the Greek National team by her own country's Olympic committee '''''before it officially opened''''' based on a one-sentence joke about immigration, even though she apologized. The joke in question was this from her Twitter: "With so many Africans in Greece, the West Nile mosquitoes will be getting home food!!!" It should be noted that Papachristou apologized for the tweet.

In addition to the Greek Olympic Committee's decision on Papachristou, the IOC's own twitter-use policy has been criticized for hindering free speech. The policy, which is claimed to protect the IOC's commercial rights, goes as far as to prevent athletes from "reporting on events". According to The Globe and Mail, even a tweet such as "Won our games against China, USA. Next up, the Brazilians," could get an athlete expelled from the Games without notice. As of yet, no athletes have been expelled by the IOC for this [[social media]] [[censorship]] policy.

Lolo Jones, a pro-[[abstinence]] [[American]] hurdler, is being criticized by the [[lamestream media]] for sending out a pro-[[Second Amendment]] tweet.

The [[liberal]] thought police expelled a Swiss soccer player for tweeting that South Koreans are "retards."<ref>[[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/another-racist-twitter-scandal-gets-another-olympic-athlete-boot/55197/] </ref>
|-
|Opening Ceremonies
|Will [[Overrated Sports Stars|Overrated Sports Star]] David Beckham be selected to light the Olympic cauldron?
|Beckham was not selected as the final torchbearer. He was, however, a passenger on the speedboat that carried the torch up the River Thames. He assisted in the hand-off of the torch to Sir Steve Redgrave, one of Britain's greatest Olympians. Sebastian Coe, chairman of London 2012, stated, "He [Beckham] will be more than an ambassador given what he has done, the commitment he has given and the amount of time he has spent with us in London on this project. He was not only alongside us when we won [the right to host the Olympics], he was alongside us when we threw our hats in the ring."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/football/9388462/London-2012-Olympics-David-Beckham-will-be-more-than-an-ambassador-at-the-Games.html London 2012 Olympics: David Beckham will be 'more than an ambassador' at the Games] telegraph.co.uk, July 10, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref>
|-
|Multiple
|will [[atheist]] nations underachieve in team sports?
|In women's soccer, France defeated Sweden in the quarterfinals but lost to Japan in the semifinals. They lost to Canada in the bronze medal game.

On the men's side, Great Britain won their group with 2 wins and a draw. They lost to South Korea in the quarterfinals.

Australia failed to qualify for either soccer event. This was their first time attempting to qualify out of the Asian Zone instead of the significantly weaker Oceanic Zone, so this may have been a factor. They will, however, send teams in most other team sports, since they qualify from the Oceanic Zone in those.

In women's basketball, France won Group B with a 5-0 record, while Australia finished 4-1 in the same group. Great Britain is 0-5. France and Australia won their quarterfinals. France will face Russia in the semifinals while Australia will face the United States.

In women's handball, Great Britain finished 0-5-0 and France is 4-0-1 (W-L-D). France lost to Montenegro the quarterfinals. Handball is almost unknown in GB, with only a dozen or so clubs, in stark contrast to most other countries in Western Europe.

In men's basketball, Great Britain finished 1-4 in the group stage and was eliminated. Australia finished 3-2, fourth in their group, and lost to the USA in the quarterfinals. France finished 4-1 and will face Spain in the quarterfinals. Basketball is a minor sport in GB, much less played than in continental Europe, and GB would have considered themselves lucky if they had won a match.

In men's volleyball, Great Britain finished 0-5 and Australia finished 2-3. Neither advanced to the quarterfinals. Volleyball is very much a minor sport in GB. They only had a volleyball team in the Olympics because they were host nation and they did not expect to win any of their matches.
|-
|Multiple
|Similarly, will atheist nations underachieve in general?
|China, an officially atheist and communist country, led in gold medals in the first week but then dropped badly to a distant second place behind the United States, despite China having more than three times the population of the United States and despite having a national program designed to produce champion athletes. Increasingly atheistic Australia performed much worse than expectations. Australia has 35 medals, but only 7 gold medals. France has 34 medals, of which 11 are gold. In 2008, Australia won 46 medals and France won 41. Australia won 14 golds that year, a total that they are unlikely to surpass at this point.
|-
|wrestling
|have [[feminist]] [[Title IX quotas]] destroyed the [[U.S.]] team?
|The 2008 U.S. men's wrestling team won one gold and one bronze medal.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-04-08-usa-wrestling_N.htm U.S. wrestlers take first steps toward London Olympics] Gary Mihoces, usatoday.com, retrieved August 12, 2012</ref> The 2012 U.S. team has won two gold medals and two bronze medals.<ref>[http://www.london2012.com/wrestling/medals/medal-standings/ Olympic Wrestling - Medal Count] london2012.com, retrieved August 12, 2012</ref>
|-
|men's basketball
|will selfless play by outspoken [[Christian]] [[Kevin Durant]] overcome ball-hogging by [[Overrated Sports Stars|Overrated Sports Star]]s [[Kobe Bryant]] and [[LeBron James]] on [[USA Basketball]]?
|The USA will face Argentina in their semifinal. They are undefeated so far, but had a close match-up against Lithuania.
|-
|men's tennis
|will one of the [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]] -- such as Novak Djokovic -- win the gold medal? Will [[Andy Murray]] of atheistic Britain underperform?
|Both players advanced to the semifinals, where Murray defeated Djokovic in straight sets. Murray defeated Roger Federer of Switzerland for the gold in straight sets, while Djokovic underperformed and lost to Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina in the bronze medal match. Murray then went on to play in mixed doubles match that same day and medalled silver with Laura Robson, losing to the heavily favoured Mirnyi and Azarenka.
|-
|8-month pregnant athlete
|Will the [[lamestream media]] report on Nur Suryani Mohamed Taibi of Malaysia, who is competing while being 8 months pregnant, or does that send too [[pro-life]] of a message?
|Taibi was eliminated from the Olympics on the first day of official competition after finishing in 34th place. Few articles mentioned her prior to her elimination; there was more publicity about her after her defeat.<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/olympics/2012/07/28/pregnant-shooter%E2%80%99s-olympics-end-after-34th-place-finish-in-qualifying/ Pregnant shooter’s Olympics end after 34th-place finish in qualifying] sfgate.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/shooting/story/Pregnant-Malaysian-shooter-does-baby-proud-at-London-Olympics-072812 Pregnant shooter does baby proud] foxsports.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/london/shooting/story/2012-07-28/pregnant-shooter-nur-suryani-mohd-taibi-malaysia-misses-final/56551354/1 Pregnant shooter misses final, treasures experience] usatoday.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/28/london-2012-pregnant-shooting London 2012: 'Be quiet, mummy's shooting,' says pregnant competitor] guardian.co.uk, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref> The New York Times ran an article on the athlete on 16 July 2012,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/sports/olympics/17iht-oly17.html?_r=1] </ref> The Guardian <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/28/london-2012-pregnant-shooting]</ref> and ESPN <ref>[http://www.espnstar.com/olympics/shooting/news/detail/item832224/Nur-Suryani-off-target-in-London/]</ref> both reported on her results in the competition.
|-
|women's soccer
|ranked #1 and won the gold in the last two Olympics, most recently with a foreign coach. Now that this [[U.S.]] team is [[politically correct]], will it underachieve?<ref>A foreigner, reportedly a lesbian, was selected as the head coach of the already champion American Olympic women's soccer team in 2007, and in the following year that team repeated its gold medal-winning performance of 2004. Aren't there American, although perhaps not politically correct, soccer coaches good enough to run the Olympic team?</ref> Major rivals will be Japan, Brazil and France.
|Politcal correctness triumphed as the foreign-born reportedly lesbian coach of the U.S. team led them to repeat their previous gold medal performance.
|-
|Gun events
|Will the [[lamestream media]] downplay the gun events because they want to continue to push [[gun control]]?
|Great Britain shooter Peter Wilson's gold medal success in the double-trap clay pigeon event was widely reported and celebrated in the British media, despite Britain being strong in favor of gun control. The victory of South Korean air pistol shooter Jin in winning the first gold medal of the games was reported in most GB media. Coverage is similar to other sports with modest national following. See the entry above on the Malaysian shooter for an exception to this lack of coverage.
|-
|Openly [[homosexual]] athletes
|Will the [[liberal media]] overpromote [[homosexual]] athletes, far beyond their achievements?
|Several months before the games, ''Sports Illustrated'' ran a feature article entitled "The Transgender Athlete", which included significant overage of a transgender female-to-male shotputter attempting to qualify for the United States women's Olympic team. However, she failed to qualify at the US Olympic Trials, and as such has not received coverage during the actual Olympics.
|-
|Multiple
|Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? (See below for a more lengthy explanation)
|The total number of medals decreased by more than 4%: a decline of 4 out of 94 in 2008. This 4.3% decrease is not statistically significant at any common alpha level.<ref>The 2008 Summer Olympics awarded 958 medals, of which 94 went to the selected countries. The 2012 Summer Olympics awarded 962 medals, of which 90 went to the selected countries. Using a 2-proposition two-sided Z-test, the p-value is 0.734, indicating that a difference as or more extreme than what was observed would occur under the null hypothesis (no correlation) 73.4% of the time.</ref> Of course, even if there were a statistically significant difference, it would not by itself show a causal relationship between the legalization of same-sex marriage and performance in the Olympic Games.
: Belgium - 5 in 2000, 3 in 2012
: Canada - 12 in 2004, 18 in 2012
: Denmark - 7 in 2008, 9 in 2012
: Iceland - 1 in 2008, 0 in 2012
: Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 20 in 2012
: Norway - 6 in 2004, 4 in 2012
: Portugal - 2 in 2008, 1 in 2012
: South Africa - 6 in 2004, 6 in 2012
: Spain - 19 in 2004, 17 in 2012
: Sweden - 5 in 2008, 8 in 2012
: Total - 94 expected, 90 actual

|-
|Men's Handball
|Will heavy underdogs [[Tunisia]] overperform in Group A? Group A should perhaps be dubbed the "Group of Left", since the other five teams are Sweden, Iceland, and Argentina, where same-sex marriage is legal, and increasingly atheistic Great Britain and France.
|Tunisia went 2-3 in the group stage, becoming just the second African team ever to advance to the quarterfinals. They then lost to Croatia, the winner of Group B.
|-
|[[Joke sports]]
|Will underperforming countries pad their medal totals by excelling in many varieties of [[swimming]] and in non-serious sports like [[badminton]] and [[dressage]]?
|Depends on what is a "joke sport". For instance, although swimming is a competitive, tough, sport, nations are able to pad their medal total due to the large number of events. The USA has 31 medals in swimming, Great Britain has only three. In Equestrian, a clear joke sport, but with far fewer events than swimming, Great Britain has five medals and the USA has none. Neither country received a medal in badminton.
|-
|}

(add more)

== Nations that have implemented [[same-sex marriage]] ==

===[[Argentina]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Argentina's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 3 || 1 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 2 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| July 22, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total || 17 || 23 || 26 || 66
|}

===[[Belgium]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Belgium's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 5 || 5 || 5 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 1 || 5 || 2 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp (host) || 14 || 11 || 11 || 36
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 3 || 7 || 3 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 2 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 0 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 1 || 1 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 2 || 2 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| January 30, 2003 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 37 !! 51 !! 51 !! 139
|}

===[[Canada]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Canada's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| ''1896 Athens'' || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 3 || 3 || 10 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 3 || 2 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 3 || 3 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 0 || 3 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 4 || 4 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 8 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 1 || 3 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 0 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 3 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal (host) || 0 || 5 || 6 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 10 || 18 || 16 || 44
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 3 || 2 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 7 || 4 || 7 || 18
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 3 || 11 || 8 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 3 || 3 || 8 || 14
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 3 || 6 || 3 || 12
|-
|align=left| July 20, 2005 || colspan=4|''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 3 || 9 || 6 || 18
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
!| Total || 58 || 94 || 108 || 260
|}

===[[Denmark]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Denmark's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || 1 || 2 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 1 || 6 || 5 || 12
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 9 || 1 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 2 || 5 || 2 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 1 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 7 || 8 || 20
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 4 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 2 || 1 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 1 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 1 || 1 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 6 || 8
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| June 15, 2012 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 41 !! 63 !! 66 !! 170
|}

===[[Iceland]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Iceland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 ||1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| June 27, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 0 !! 2 !! 2 !! 4
|}

===[[Netherlands]]<ref>Although part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, [[Aruba]] competes separately at the Olympic Games. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Aruba, although marriages performed in the European mainland Netherlands are recognized per the Kingdom's requirements. Additionally, the territories of Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Athletes" under the Olympic Flag following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition of their Olympic Committee, have the same regulations as Aruba with regards to same-sex marriage. Since citizens of these territories are also Dutch citizens, they are also eligible to compete for Team Netherlands. Therefore, they may have won some of the Dutch medals. In all three territories, the population is heavily Catholic and there is large opposition to same-sex marriage in spite of the Kingdom's requirements. When Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba opted to integrate fully with the Netherlands as part of the dissolution, the Dutch House of Representatives passed a law that will make same sex-marriage legal in those territories effective in October 2012. However, this law was strongly opposed by locals. Athletes from those three territories were permitted to compete as Independent Olympic Athletes as well. However, of the four IOAs at the Olympics, three are from Curacao and one is a marathoner from South Sudan, which does not yet have a national Olympic Committee.</ref>===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+The Netherland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 1 || 3 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 3 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 4 || 2 || 5 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 4 || 1 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam (host) || 6 || 9 || 4 || 19
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 0 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 6 || 4 || 7 || 17
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 2 || 9 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 5 || 0 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 4 || 4 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 3 || 1 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 5 || 2 || 6 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 2 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 2 || 6 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 5 || 10 || 19
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 12 || 9 || 4 || 25
|-
|align=left| April 1, 2001 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 4 || 9 || 9 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 7 || 5 || 4 || 16
|-
|align=left| 2012 Summer Olympics|2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 71 !! 79 !! 96 !! 246
|}

===[[Norway]]===
===[[Portugal]]===
===[[South Africa]]===
===[[Spain]]===
===[[Sweden]]===

Underachievement by nations allowing same sex marriage will be particularly evident.<ref>In the [[United States]], 6 out of 50 states permit same-sex marriage (Washington, D.C. also permits same-sex marriage), and 8 additional states permit civil unions. Two states (including Washington, which had previously recognized civil unions) have declared same-sex marriage legal, but implementation is postponed until after voter referendums on the laws in November 2012. Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a federal district roughly equivalent to Washington, DC, as well as in the state of Quintana Roo. </ref>

== Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==

*[[Britain]]
*[[France]]
*[[Australia]]<ref> Since the 2001 Australians have increasingly answered "no religion" in the official census. The growing numbers of those answering "no religion" has coincided with fewer people self-identifying as Christian: [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/636F496B2B943F12CA2573D200109DA9?opendocument Year Book Australia, 2008]</ref>

Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is usually non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.

Also, since Great Britain is the host nation, it may receive a boost in performance in spite of its increasingly atheistic nature. One should be careful to account for this when comparing Britain's performance this year to that in previous Olympic Games.

== Winners ==

=== Individual Events ===

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Athlete
!Achievement
!Religion, or Atheist?
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Team Events ===

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Event
!Country
!Religious Category
|-
|Women's 4x100m Freestyle (Swimming)
|Australia
|Increasingly Atheistic
|-
|Men's Team Archery
|Italy
|Christian
|-
|Women's Team Archery
|South Korea
|Atheistic
|-
|Men's 4x100m Freestyle (Swimming)
|France
|Increasingly Atheistic
|-
|Women's Synchronized 3m Springboard (Diving)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|Men's Synchronized 10m Platform (Diving)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|Men's Artistic Team All-round (Gymnastics)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

==Expected Medals==

Many factors contribute to a country's success in the Olympics (e.g., population, proximity to host country, culture), and [[Gross Domestic Product]] cannot be used as a fair proxy, due to low (per capita) GDP China comfortably coming first in the 2008 Olympics and Russia ranking third. Below is how the Olympic medals would be awarded if each country earned medals in proportion to their GDP, which vastly overestimates the United States' performance.

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Country
!Expected Medals
|-
|Afghanistan
|0.2
|-
|Albania
|0.2
|-
|Andorra
|0.1
|-
|Antigua and Barbuda
|0
|-
|Angola
|1.2
|-
|Algeria
|2.3
|-
|Argentina
|5.3
|-
|Armenia
|0.1
|-
|Aruba
|0
|-
|Australia
|16.2
|-
|Austria
|5.4
|-
|Azerbaijan
|0.7
|-
|Bahamas
|0.1
|-
|Bangladesh
|1.4
|-
|Barbados
|0
|-
|Burundi
|0
|-
|Belgium
|6.7
|-
|Belize
|0
|-
|Benin
|0.1
|-
|Bermuda
|0.1
|-
|Bhutan
|0
|-
|Bolivia
|0.3
|-
|Bosnia-Herzegovina
|0.2
|-
|Bahrain
|0.3
|-
|Botswana
|0.2
|-
|Belarus
|0.8
|-
|Brazil
|29.9
|-
|Virgin Islands
|0
|-
|Bulgaria
|0.7
|-
|Burkina Faso
|0.1
|-
|Cameroon
|0.3
|-
|Cambodia
|0.2
|-
|Canada
|22.6
|-
|Cayman Islands
|0
|-
|Central African Republic
|0
|-
|Chad
|0.1
|-
|Chile
|3
|-
|China
|98.8
|-
|Taiwan
|7.2
|-
|Colombia
|4.1
|-
|Comoros
|0
|-
|Cape Verde
|0
|-
|Congo
|0.2
|-
|Cook Islands
|0
|-
|Costa Rica
|0.5
|-
|Cote-d´lvoire
|0.3
|-
|Croatia
|0.9
|-
|Cuba
|0.9
|-
|Cyprus
|0.4
|-
|Czech Republic
|2.8
|-
|Denmark
|4.4
|-
|Djibouti
|0
|-
|Dominica
|0
|-
|Dominican Republic
|0.7
|-
|Ecuador
|0.8
|-
|Egypt
|3.1
|-
|El Salvador
|0.3
|-
|Equatorial Guinea
|0.2
|-
|Eritrea
|0
|-
|Estonia
|0.3
|-
|Ethiopia
|0.4
|-
|Fiji
|0
|-
|Finland
|3.4
|-
|France
|39.8
|-
|Gabon
|0.2
|-
|Gambia
|0
|-
|Germany
|47
|-
|Ghana
|0.4
|-
|United Kingdom
|32.4
|-
|Guinea-Bissau
|0
|-
|Georgia
|0.2
|-
|Greece
|4.3
|-
|Grenada
|0
|-
|Guam
|0
|-
|Guatemala
|0.6
|-
|Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Guyana
|0
|-
|Haiti
|0.1
|-
|Honduras
|0.2
|-
|Hong Kong
|3.2
|-
|Hungary
|1.8
|-
|Iceland
|0.2
|-
|India
|24.7
|-
|Indonesia
|10.1
|-
|Iran
|4.7
|-
|Iraq
|1.2
|-
|Ireland
|3
|-
|Italy
|29.5
|-
|Israel
|3.1
|-
|Jamaica
|0.2
|-
|Japan
|78.2
|-
|Jordan
|0.4
|-
|Kazakhstan
|2.3
|-
|Kyrgyzstan
|0.1
|-
|Kenya
|0.4
|-
|South Korea
|14.8
|-
|North Korea
|0.4
|-
|Kuwait
|2
|-
|Laos
|0.1
|-
|Latvia
|0.4
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Lebanon
|0.5
|-
|Lesotho
|0
|-
|Libya
|0.9
|-
|Lichtenstein
|0.1
|-
|Luxembourg
|0.8
|-
|Macedonia
|0.1
|-
|Madagascar
|0.1
|-
|Malawi
|0.1
|-
|Malaysia
|3.3
|-
|Moldova
|0.1
|-
|Marshall Islands
|0
|-
|Maldives
|0
|-
|Malta
|0.1
|-
|Mali
|0.1
|-
|Mauritania
|0.2
|-
|Mauritius
|0.1
|-
|Mexico
|16.2
|-
|Micronesia
|0
|-
|Monaco
|0.1
|-
|Montenegro
|0.1
|-
|Mongolia
|0.1
|-
|Morocco
|1.3
|-
|Mozambique
|0.1
|-
|Myanmar
|0.7
|-
|Namibia
|0.2
|-
|Nepal
|0.2
|-
|Netherlands
|11.2
|-
|New Zealand
|1.8
|-
|Nicaragua
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Norway
|5.9
|-
|Oman
|0.7
|-
|Pakistan
|2.4
|-
|Palau
|0
|-
|Panama
|0.4
|-
|Papua New Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Paraguay
|0.3
|-
|Peru
|2.3
|-
|Philippines
|2.9
|-
|Poland
|6.7
|-
|Portugal
|3.3
|-
|Puerto Rico
|1.4
|-
|Qatar
|1.4
|-
|Romania
|2.3
|-
|Rwanda
|0.1
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Saint Kitts and Nevis
|0
|-
|Samoa
|0
|-
|San Marino
|0
|-
|Saudi Arabia
|6.2
|-
|Seychelles
|0
|-
|Sierra Leone
|0
|-
|Senegal
|0.2
|-
|Slovenia
|0.7
|-
|Solomon Islands
|0
|-
|South Africa
|5.2
|-
|Sri Lanka
|0.7
|-
|Slovakia
|1.3
|-
|Swaziland
|0.1
|-
|Serbia
|0.6
|-
|Singapore
|3
|-
|Spain
|20.2
|-
|Sudan
|0.9
|-
|Suriname
|0
|-
|Syria
|0.8
|-
|Sweden
|6.6
|-
|Switzerland
|7.6
|-
|Tanzania
|0.3
|-
|Tonga
|0
|-
|Thailand
|4.6
|-
|Togo
|0
|-
|Trinidad and Tobago
|0.3
|-
|Tajikistan
|0.1
|-
|Timor-Leste
|0
|-
|Turkmenistan
|0.3
|-
|Tunisia
|0.6
|-
|Turkey
|10.5
|-
|Tuvalu
|0
|-
|Uganda
|0.2
|-
|Ukraine
|2
|-
|United Arab Emirates
|4.3
|-
|United States
|209
|-
|Uruguay
|0.6
|-
|Uzbekistan
|0.6
|-
|Vanuatu
|0
|-
|Venezuela
|5.6
|-
|Vietnam
|1.5
|-
|Yemen
|0.4
|-
|Zambia
|0.2
|-
|Zimbabwe
|0.1
|-
|}

== Commemoration ==

The 2012 games mark the 40th anniversary of 11 [[Israeli]] Olympic team members taken hostage and killed by [[Palestinian]] [[terrorist]] group Black September. The Internal Olympic Committee has been urged to offer a commemorative moment of silence for the athletes at the opening ceremony. The IOC has rejected the moment of silence or any mention of the tragic event so as not to upset [[Muslim]] countries. <ref>[http://www.eju.org/news/world/ioc-refuses-request-memorial-munich-victims IOC refuses request for a memorial to Munich victims, EJU News, may 22, 2012]</ref> Sportscaster Bob Costas says NBC will honor the Munich 11 despite IOC’s refusal to allow it. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2012/07/21/bob-costas-says-he-will-observe-moment-of-silence-for-victims-of-1972-munich-massacre-during-live-broadcast-of-london-olympics-opening-ceremony-despite-iocs-refusal-to-allow-it/ Bob Costas Says He Will Observe Moment of Silence For Victims of 1972 Munich Massacre, WeaselZippers, July 21, 2012]</ref>

== NBC Coverage ==

Scorn for Comcast's [[NBC]] coverage of the Olympic games hit America coast to coast. Viewers have taken to the internet with the trend #NBCfail for days now. The groans began at the opening ceremony when [[American]] viewers were denied the tribute to British victims of [[Islamic]] terrorism. As the games moved forward, live events were interrupted or had already finished, replaced with commercials and NBC commentators talking about the athletes. It has been reported the Comcast spent $1 billion for the rights to televise the 2012 Olympics.

== See also ==

*[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Olympics]]

Jason Isbell

2012-08-13T14:58:14Z

CasparRH: Created page with "'''Jason Isbell''' is a songwriter, singer and guitarist. He was a member of the band Drive-By Truckers but now leads his own band Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit. Many of his..."

'''Jason Isbell''' is a songwriter, singer and guitarist. He was a member of the band [[Drive-By Truckers]] but now leads his own band Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit.

Many of his recent songs have focused on the lives of US military members as they adjust to civilian life.

AC/DC (band)

2012-08-13T14:06:24Z

CasparRH: clean - rmv opinion

{{Artist (Music)
|name =AC/DC
|picture =
|picture2 =
|country =Australia
|style =Rock
|style2 =
|style3 =
|style4 =
|style5 =
|year =1973
|website =http://www.acdc.com
}}

AC/DC is an Australian [[rock]] band.
They formed in the 1970s and have been one of the most popular rock bands ever since. They have been featured in both the Guitar Hero and Rock Band video game series. Popular frontman Bon Scott died of an accidental overdose of alcohol in 1980. The band continued on after recruiting frontman Brian Johnson, who sounds similar to Scott. Johnson was a popular replacement and the band enjoyed success throughout the 1980s. In addition to Johnson, the band consists of brothers Angus and Malcolm Young, Cliff Williams, and Phil Rudd.

==Current Members==

*Brian Johnson - Singer
*Angus Young - guitar
*Malcolm Young - guitar
*Cliff Williams - bass
*Phil Rudd - drums

==Discography==

*High Voltage (1975 Aus.)
*T.N.T. (1975 Aus.)
*High Voltage (1976 International)
*Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap (1976)
*Let There Be Rock (1977)
*Powerage (1978)
*Highway to Hell (1979)
*Back in Black (1980)
*For Those About to Rock (1981)
*Flick of the Switch (1983)
*'74 Jailbreak (1984)
*Fly on the Wall (1985)
*Who Made Who (1986)
*Blow Up Your Video (1988)
*The Razors Edge (1990)
*Ballbreaker (1995)
*Stiff Upper Lip (2000)
*Black Ice (2008)
*Iron Man (2010)

[[Category:Rock Bands]]

Queen (band)

2012-08-13T13:33:12Z

CasparRH: capitalization

{{Artist (Music)
|picture =
|picture2 =
|country =United Kingdom
|style =Rock
|style2 =
|style3 =
|style4 =
|style5 =
|year =1970-1997
|website =
}}

'''Queen''' was a [[British]] rock band composed of lead singer Freddie Mercury, guitarist Brian May, drummer Roger Taylor, and bassist John Deacon. They were active from 1970 until 1997. After Mercury's death due to bronchial pneumonia resulting from AIDS in 1991, the band released one more album - ''Made in Heaven'' (1995) based on unfinished material left by Mercury.<ref>http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/338:294/1/Freddie_Mercury.htm</ref> Because of their distinctive sound, Queen is consistently ranked among the most successful and influential bands of all time.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4420308.stm</ref> Their hit songs include "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Another One Bites the Dust", "We Are the Champions", "We Will Rock You", "You're My Best Friend", "Somebody to Love", and "Don't Stop Me Now".

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Rock Bands]]

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-12T23:52:07Z

CasparRH: /* criteria? */

== Female version of sports ==

Hi, long time reader but new editor as I wanted to give something back to the project. I was just wondering why Women's boxing is the only female specific sport listed. To be consistent surely sports such as women's weightlifting, wrestling and some of the athletics events what require pure strength (shot-put, hammer etc) should be included. What do more experience members think of including these?
Can I also suggest the 20km walk race?

:The other female sports you list seem more legitimate than women's boxing. Women's boxing appears to be particularly artificial - how often are there schoolyard boxing matches between girls?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::It happened often enough where I grew up, but I probably came from a tougher neighborhood than you. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 20:02, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:::I doubt they boxed as boys and men do. I have never, ever heard of that happening, and the small town I grew up in had plenty of fistfights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::::You must have lived a particularly sheltered life then Andy!! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:54, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

How often on your schoolyard did you see fencing matches? Or two first graders break out into a clean-and-jerk competition? Or archery? Or the down-hill slalom? Or the pentathlon? Or sailing? I think it's fair to say that if you are an Olympics athlete, you probably focused on it outside of the schoolyard. 
On a personal side note, as a person who was in both track relays and swimming relays; swimming relay exchanges are much harder. You have to time it such that you enter the water at the exact same time that the person in front of you touches. In track, it's just wait for "Go", then run; wait for "Hit", then put your arm back. Close hand, run some more. But I'm just some guy on the internet; you probably shouldn't take my word for it. But if we are going to have this footnote, could we add some citation at least giving a reputable opinion that track is harder than swimming? [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 21:34, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'll second that comment: swimming relays are difficult to get right, and easy to blow. Disqualifications are common at the high school level, and not unheard of in college swimming because of the split-second timing required by all but the first swimmer in the relay.--[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 00:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::But I don't think difficulty is the test. Lots of silly new televised competitions are difficult, but are not legitimate sports.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::So swimming relays are illegitimate because of the absence of a baton. That is your argument? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==criteria?==
I'm wondering what our actual criteria are for inclusion on this list. I, for one, don't think that Swimming relays, BMX, or beach volleyball are "joke" sports, unless we want to include golf as a joke sport, sailing as a joke sport (please don't do this. the sailing fan in me would be sad). In fact, it seems to me that even dressage requires more athleticism than, say, prone rifle shooting. I realize that people higher up the pecking order on this site than me may have something invested in this article, so I won't make edits until there's a clarified set of criteria for this article.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 20:46, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:You raise excellent points. What is the criteria for separating the legitimate from the joke sports, or for including an event in the Olympics? Why isn't golf an Olympic sport?

:I've added "underlying purpose" to the sport as a criterion. More insights are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::What is the underlying purpose of any sport? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:26, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

[http://rio2016.com/en/the-games/olympic/sports/golf Golf will return to the Olympics in 2016]. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:18, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
[http://www.olympic.org/content/sports/all-sports/golf/equipment-and-history/?tab=history It was also contested at the 1900 and 1904 Summer Olympic Games]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

I think this entire article is in violation of Conservapedia Commandments #1 ("Everything you post must be true and verifiable") and #5 ("Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry"). [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:32, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:With regards to our Fifth Commandment, I agree. Perhaps an administrator would like to move this page to the Essay pseudonamespace. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::"Citius, Altius, Fortius" would be a good stating point for the criteria I think - sports that do not have an element of the Olympic motto would need a good reason to not be on this list, although most team sports would not satisfy this test [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 11:49, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::I think that a good test is that there shouldn't already be another, similar sport with a stronger tradition and more credibility. That would exclude recent additions like beach volleyball.
::::Related to this, it's chiefly the multiplicity of similar events that undermine swimming's credibility, so "one event testing one set of athletic abilities" might be a good way to phrase it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:07, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::I agree with AlanA and CPalmer, but there is a difference between saying a sport should be excluded from the Olympics and saying that it is a "joke sport". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 14:28, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

After Mr. Schlafly's recent edit comment, "women's martial arts removed from the list - martial arts are legitimate self-defense pursuits," I gather that his main criterion for a non-joke sport is that it has some "legitimate" real-world analogue. If this is so, it should be affirmed and applied to this article. I don't agree with the premise, but it could serve to make this alleged encyclopedia page something more that mere opinion. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:43, 12 August 2012 (EDT)
::As with every article based on one of his "insights," the criteria are simply "does ASchlafly think it so"? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 19:46, 12 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Hence my comment that I don't agree with the premise. There is no general principle that sports, to be "legitimate", must be analogous to some real-world activity. (Sidebar: How long until both of us are banned?) [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:52, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

== Dressage ==

I wonder if the editor who listed dressage as a joke sport is aware of the history behind the sport? It developed over centuries of military training and tactics for the cavalry, when horse and rider needed to move in harmony with each other during battle. Just because it has become a rich man's sport in today's society does not erase its meaningful history - it certainly wasn't a "joke" to thousands of cavalrymen. [http://www.artisticdressage.com/articles/history1.html A Brief Outline of the History of Dressage] by Dr. Thomas Ritter. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm going to remove it from the list, until someone can come up with a realistic reason it should be on here. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Because, for all intents and purposes, there's very little difference between dressage and Crufts, and I don't see many dog events at the Olympics?--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:41, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I said a logical reason, thanks. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Technically you said a realistic reason. Dressage is about training between man and beast so said beast will do what you command, this is the same as some of the events at Crufts. There's no racing as a test of speed or rider's abilities. On that level I can't see any difference.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:46, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Racing or speed are not necessary components in a competition. As for not testing the rider's skill? Seriously, you're being absolutely ridiculous. The whole event is about showing the rider's skill in directing the horse through its movements. While I haven't participated in dressage myself, I have been around horses and riders enough to know that including dressage on this page is the joke created by a bunch of envious, armchair quarterbacks. If you can't do the activity, then don't open your mouth to criticize. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Just because it's hard to do doesn't make it a serious sport. Ballet is hard to do. So is playing the 'cello. Neither of those are sports. Just because it has a long history doesn't make it a serious sport. It is an elitist activity that the average sports fan cares nothing about. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:02, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Alright, go ahead. Disparage these athletes all you want. I have my doubts that any editor who has contributed to this page could compete in any of these "joke sports" on an Olympic level. It sounds like sour grapes to me. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:That's a sore loser's argument. Do you limit your opinions to those things you can do at an elite level? That would mean not having preferences about most things in the world, unless you are so gifted that you can compose poetry, play jazz piano, paint, sculpt, figure skate, design a building and cook at the level of the best in the world. Which none of us can. Just because a person can't do something doesn't mean they can't have an informed opinion about it. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::I have yet to see an "informed opinion" on any of the sports listed on this page. What I see is a bunch of editors who think it's fun to disparage hard-working athletes for their own amusement. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Welcome to Conservapedia. It's what ASchlafly does. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 11:00, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Why do you add to it if you don't agree with the premise? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:06, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Greco-Roman wrestling ==

I removed Greco-Roman wrestling from the list. All wrestling styles have their particular rules, but that doesn't make them not a real sport. Saying it artifically prohibits the match is like saying hurdles is not a real sport since it hinders running. If anything, the role of throws requires more strength to compete properly. [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 10:14, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:I agree - Graeco-Roman wrestling requires strength, technique and flexibility, as well as guile, and is one of the purest sports contested at the Olympics. Some people do like to joke about wrestling, but that in itself doesn't make it a joke sport.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::However, compare it to freestyle wrestling, also an Olympic Sport, but with far fewer restrictions on how athletes can show their abilities at that particular skill to their best, and it does come across as a joke sport.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 11:12, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::You could say them same about boxing and freestyle (or folkstyle for that matter). If I was allowed to punch my opponent, I would have been a much better wrestler in high school. But not being able to punch them doesn't make it a joke. Just a different sport. [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 15:50, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Table tennis ==

Have you actually watched any of the table tennis matches? The skills required to compete in this event - the quickness, agility, perspicacity - are at least equal to those in regular tennis. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== This article is too negative and unnecessary ==

This article is too negative. For example, while there are martial art systems (or self-defense systems) which are better than taekwondo when it comes to self-defense[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwV3KZKcq4k][http://hammerprinciple.com/martialarts/items/karate/aikido], it can get you into great shape - especially if the twaekwondo center has a weight room. When I was involved in taekwondo, I enjoyed it and found it beneficial. Plus, when I was playing racketball without googles (which I should not have done), using a block I learned in taekwondo, I stopped a ball from hitting my face inches before it was about to hit me. :) The only potential downside I see to twaekwondo is that full contact sparring could potential cause brain damage as many medical doctors are against boxing for example and boxers can become "punch drunk".[http://digitaljournal.com/article/264678][http://www.justanswer.com/medical/2j5r4-does-sparring-mixed-martial-arts-muay-thai-specifically.html]

Although there are less toxic forms of keeping pools clean than chlorine[http://news.discovery.com/human/chlorinated-pools-swimming-cancer.html], swimming is great exercise and there is nothing wrong with the backstroke or relay races.

Soccer is great and inexpensive way to exercise and it probably keeps more people in shape than any sport in the world due to its popularity in the world.

There is no public outcry to remove these sports from the Olympics. Women enjoy synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics for example.

I think this article is a wet blanket and a sour grapes way of minimizing others achievements.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm not sure ASchlafly will agree with you. It was his idea, after all, and fits in with his basic orientation towards focusing on finding negative outcomes. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:59, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:We agree on this, [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:08, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::User:Conservative, I recommend using Firefox to make your posts. It has a spell-check facilility, which would help you spot typos such as the amusing "twaekwondo".
::Other than that, how could a "joke sports" article not be negative? Perhaps by talking up the humor content of the sports involved???
::Thirdly, you are right that there is nothing wrong with relay races, but swimming relays are not proper relays, as has been explained above. Backstroke ''is'' absurd - it's slower than crawl and more tiring than breast stroke, so what's the point of it, unless you're scared to put your face in the water?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, people are wrong when they state swimming relays are not proper relays - there is strategy involved (fastest swimmer first, last? where to place the slowest swimmer?), and precise timing is needed during the exchange. As for the backstroke being absurd - how about testing the athlete's endurance? Not everything needs to be flashy and fast in order to be a competition. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Sharon, This is already being discussed above, at the end of the section headed "Female version of sports". Your post would be better off up there, where more informed people than I will see and respond to it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:48, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, I typed out taekwondo correctly 1 out 3 times. :). Secondly, Firefox does not have taekwondo in its spellcheck dictionary. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::CPalmer, as far as the backstroke, one of the principles of good exercise is working out all your muscles. Also, if the backstroke is more tiring than a breastroke as you say, that is a good indication it is giving someone a good workout. Given your approval of this article, I can only assume you may be a cranky old man who calls the police on kids making too much noise bouncing their basketballs!!! I rest my case that this article is a wet blanket article!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I do not doubt backstroke's utility as a workout for lane-blocking old granddads, but a good workout does not necessarily make a good sport. Olympic toe-touching, for instance, or exercise biking, would certainly be seen as joke sports, were they to be added to the program.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==swimming medleys==
I removed swimming medleys. The author of that particular edit was wondering what the track comparison would be, and the answer there is the pentathlon, heptathlon, decathlon, etc.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:05, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:Not really. Multi-event athletics competitions require the athlete to do multiple different things, without specifying how. Swimming medleys, by contrast, require the swimmer to do the ''same'' thing in four different ways. If the decathlon included 100m running, 100m walking, 100m backwards running and 100m rolling then your argument would stand up better.
:I would support a swimming pentathlon that included short, medium and long-distance swims, plus springboard and platform diving, but that would require more genuine versatility than is possessed by most if not all competitive swimmers as far as I know.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::So I gotta ask, CPalmer, what sports do ''you'' play? how many of those might be considered "joke" sports. I know people who swim competitively, one in the backstroke, which you disparage, two in medleys. They're no joke. Because I need to go to work in about ten minutes, I'm not going to get into any kind of edit war here, I just wish you'd stop being so bitter and accept that people can have amazing sporting achievement EVEN IN EVENTS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE. Isn't that amazing? --[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:21, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I am not saying that a gold medal in backstroke isn't an impressive achievement. I'm saying that it shouldn't be an Olympic event because it's a silly stroke for competitive purposes.
:::I don't play any sports competitively, but I play recreational football, tennis and darts. I do not think that darts should be an Olympic sport, however.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::By the way, you knowing people who compete in these events does not in itself stop them from being joke events. If you mean that "they're no joke" because your friends take them extremely seriously, please consider the possibility that to others, that may make them more and not less absurd.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::I think I can see where you're coming from. I still disagree, but if you're using those criteria, then shouldn't you also include breast-stroke and butterfly? They're both less efficient than freestyle/crawl. Breast at least has some use apart from a competition environment, but butterfly seems totally useless. If you want those particular criteria, then please be consistent with them.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::I agree about butterfly, and breast stroke, and walking races on dry land. For Olympic purposes, I think 100m, 200m, 400m and a longer distance, plus relays, for men and women, would be a sensible swimming program - say 12 gold medals in all, so far more than are available for archery or horse riding.
::::::Breast stroke has a case for inclusion, but the trouble is that the breast stroke performed competitively bears little resemblance to the steady, effort-conserving stroke that is so useful in real life.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Quite honestly, the purpose behind sports is not to entertain the spectators, or to make money for the sponsors, or to worry about how you as an athlete will appear to others. The point behind sports when you're an athlete is to challenge yourself to do as well as you possibly can, and if you're on a team, to aid and push your teammates to do their best as well. The purpose behind sports as a spectator is to camaraderie, and enjoyment. Today's society has lost sight of the meaning of sportsmanship, and I hate to say this, but this page proves it by nitpicking and complaining about the sports listed. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:51, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:'but this page proves it by nitpicking and complaining about the sports listed." ASchlafly would call that "nitpicking" a "conservative insight." Why do you expect otherwise from this site? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 13:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you, and others, push the point when you don't agree with it? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:32, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Backstroke Not an inefficient, silly stroke ==

A common and important part of swimming training is lifesaving and a version of the backstroke is used for lifesaving.[http://lifesaving.org.uk/swimming/training/Swim-strokes/backstroke.html]

Inefficiency can depend on context. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks, Conservative. I'd given up arguing about it. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== A thought ==

It seems to me like this is not really an encyclopedic entry. Could we make this an Essay, so it can still be thought about and debated, but we don't dilute the true encyclopedic entries? [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 15:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Atheism and bestiality|"The]] [[Psychology,_obesity,_religiosity_and_atheism|true]] [[Agnosticism,_obesity_and_self-esteem|encyclopedic]] [[Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism|entries"?]] [[User:RayM|RayM]] 16:01, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Everything in those articles is verifiable and true. It is not my fault that there are [[Atheism and beastiality|atheists who are ok with extreme animal "loving".]] The Department of Motor vehicles in all jurisdictions refuse to give driver's licenses to animals. But in the lala land of atheism and evolutionism, humans are beasts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:33, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Curling at the 2010 Winter Olympics ==

I hope nobody claims that curling should not have been at the 2010 Winter Olympics and that it as inserted by Canadians trying to pad their gold medals!!! :) Curling was one of the popular sports at the Olympics. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayDqRzRN8_M] At the 2006 Olympics, curling drew 5 million television viewers which was more than ice hockey and figure skating.[http://www.ovguide.com/curling-at-the-2006-winter-olympics-9202a8c04000641f8000000000548b84] Those guys with brooms really swept in the television ratings! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-12T23:43:57Z

CasparRH: /* criteria? */

== Female version of sports ==

Hi, long time reader but new editor as I wanted to give something back to the project. I was just wondering why Women's boxing is the only female specific sport listed. To be consistent surely sports such as women's weightlifting, wrestling and some of the athletics events what require pure strength (shot-put, hammer etc) should be included. What do more experience members think of including these?
Can I also suggest the 20km walk race?

:The other female sports you list seem more legitimate than women's boxing. Women's boxing appears to be particularly artificial - how often are there schoolyard boxing matches between girls?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::It happened often enough where I grew up, but I probably came from a tougher neighborhood than you. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 20:02, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:::I doubt they boxed as boys and men do. I have never, ever heard of that happening, and the small town I grew up in had plenty of fistfights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::::You must have lived a particularly sheltered life then Andy!! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:54, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

How often on your schoolyard did you see fencing matches? Or two first graders break out into a clean-and-jerk competition? Or archery? Or the down-hill slalom? Or the pentathlon? Or sailing? I think it's fair to say that if you are an Olympics athlete, you probably focused on it outside of the schoolyard. 
On a personal side note, as a person who was in both track relays and swimming relays; swimming relay exchanges are much harder. You have to time it such that you enter the water at the exact same time that the person in front of you touches. In track, it's just wait for "Go", then run; wait for "Hit", then put your arm back. Close hand, run some more. But I'm just some guy on the internet; you probably shouldn't take my word for it. But if we are going to have this footnote, could we add some citation at least giving a reputable opinion that track is harder than swimming? [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 21:34, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'll second that comment: swimming relays are difficult to get right, and easy to blow. Disqualifications are common at the high school level, and not unheard of in college swimming because of the split-second timing required by all but the first swimmer in the relay.--[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 00:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::But I don't think difficulty is the test. Lots of silly new televised competitions are difficult, but are not legitimate sports.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::So swimming relays are illegitimate because of the absence of a baton. That is your argument? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==criteria?==
I'm wondering what our actual criteria are for inclusion on this list. I, for one, don't think that Swimming relays, BMX, or beach volleyball are "joke" sports, unless we want to include golf as a joke sport, sailing as a joke sport (please don't do this. the sailing fan in me would be sad). In fact, it seems to me that even dressage requires more athleticism than, say, prone rifle shooting. I realize that people higher up the pecking order on this site than me may have something invested in this article, so I won't make edits until there's a clarified set of criteria for this article.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 20:46, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:You raise excellent points. What is the criteria for separating the legitimate from the joke sports, or for including an event in the Olympics? Why isn't golf an Olympic sport?

:I've added "underlying purpose" to the sport as a criterion. More insights are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::What is the underlying purpose of any sport? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:26, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

[http://rio2016.com/en/the-games/olympic/sports/golf Golf will return to the Olympics in 2016]. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:18, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
[http://www.olympic.org/content/sports/all-sports/golf/equipment-and-history/?tab=history It was also contested at the 1900 and 1904 Summer Olympic Games]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

I think this entire article is in violation of Conservapedia Commandments #1 ("Everything you post must be true and verifiable") and #5 ("Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry"). [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:32, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:With regards to our Fifth Commandment, I agree. Perhaps an administrator would like to move this page to the Essay pseudonamespace. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::"Citius, Altius, Fortius" would be a good stating point for the criteria I think - sports that do not have an element of the Olympic motto would need a good reason to not be on this list, although most team sports would not satisfy this test [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 11:49, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::I think that a good test is that there shouldn't already be another, similar sport with a stronger tradition and more credibility. That would exclude recent additions like beach volleyball.
::::Related to this, it's chiefly the multiplicity of similar events that undermine swimming's credibility, so "one event testing one set of athletic abilities" might be a good way to phrase it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:07, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::I agree with AlanA and CPalmer, but there is a difference between saying a sport should be excluded from the Olympics and saying that it is a "joke sport". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 14:28, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

After Mr. Schlafly's recent edit comment, "women's martial arts removed from the list - martial arts are legitimate self-defense pursuits," I gather that his main criterion for a non-joke sport is that it has some "legitimate" real-world analogue. If this is so, it should be affirmed and applied to this article. I don't agree with the premise, but it could serve to make this alleged encyclopedia page something more that mere opinion. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:43, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

== Dressage ==

I wonder if the editor who listed dressage as a joke sport is aware of the history behind the sport? It developed over centuries of military training and tactics for the cavalry, when horse and rider needed to move in harmony with each other during battle. Just because it has become a rich man's sport in today's society does not erase its meaningful history - it certainly wasn't a "joke" to thousands of cavalrymen. [http://www.artisticdressage.com/articles/history1.html A Brief Outline of the History of Dressage] by Dr. Thomas Ritter. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm going to remove it from the list, until someone can come up with a realistic reason it should be on here. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Because, for all intents and purposes, there's very little difference between dressage and Crufts, and I don't see many dog events at the Olympics?--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:41, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I said a logical reason, thanks. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Technically you said a realistic reason. Dressage is about training between man and beast so said beast will do what you command, this is the same as some of the events at Crufts. There's no racing as a test of speed or rider's abilities. On that level I can't see any difference.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:46, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Racing or speed are not necessary components in a competition. As for not testing the rider's skill? Seriously, you're being absolutely ridiculous. The whole event is about showing the rider's skill in directing the horse through its movements. While I haven't participated in dressage myself, I have been around horses and riders enough to know that including dressage on this page is the joke created by a bunch of envious, armchair quarterbacks. If you can't do the activity, then don't open your mouth to criticize. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Just because it's hard to do doesn't make it a serious sport. Ballet is hard to do. So is playing the 'cello. Neither of those are sports. Just because it has a long history doesn't make it a serious sport. It is an elitist activity that the average sports fan cares nothing about. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:02, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Alright, go ahead. Disparage these athletes all you want. I have my doubts that any editor who has contributed to this page could compete in any of these "joke sports" on an Olympic level. It sounds like sour grapes to me. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:That's a sore loser's argument. Do you limit your opinions to those things you can do at an elite level? That would mean not having preferences about most things in the world, unless you are so gifted that you can compose poetry, play jazz piano, paint, sculpt, figure skate, design a building and cook at the level of the best in the world. Which none of us can. Just because a person can't do something doesn't mean they can't have an informed opinion about it. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::I have yet to see an "informed opinion" on any of the sports listed on this page. What I see is a bunch of editors who think it's fun to disparage hard-working athletes for their own amusement. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Welcome to Conservapedia. It's what ASchlafly does. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 11:00, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Why do you add to it if you don't agree with the premise? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:06, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Greco-Roman wrestling ==

I removed Greco-Roman wrestling from the list. All wrestling styles have their particular rules, but that doesn't make them not a real sport. Saying it artifically prohibits the match is like saying hurdles is not a real sport since it hinders running. If anything, the role of throws requires more strength to compete properly. [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 10:14, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:I agree - Graeco-Roman wrestling requires strength, technique and flexibility, as well as guile, and is one of the purest sports contested at the Olympics. Some people do like to joke about wrestling, but that in itself doesn't make it a joke sport.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::However, compare it to freestyle wrestling, also an Olympic Sport, but with far fewer restrictions on how athletes can show their abilities at that particular skill to their best, and it does come across as a joke sport.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 11:12, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::You could say them same about boxing and freestyle (or folkstyle for that matter). If I was allowed to punch my opponent, I would have been a much better wrestler in high school. But not being able to punch them doesn't make it a joke. Just a different sport. [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 15:50, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Table tennis ==

Have you actually watched any of the table tennis matches? The skills required to compete in this event - the quickness, agility, perspicacity - are at least equal to those in regular tennis. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== This article is too negative and unnecessary ==

This article is too negative. For example, while there are martial art systems (or self-defense systems) which are better than taekwondo when it comes to self-defense[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwV3KZKcq4k][http://hammerprinciple.com/martialarts/items/karate/aikido], it can get you into great shape - especially if the twaekwondo center has a weight room. When I was involved in taekwondo, I enjoyed it and found it beneficial. Plus, when I was playing racketball without googles (which I should not have done), using a block I learned in taekwondo, I stopped a ball from hitting my face inches before it was about to hit me. :) The only potential downside I see to twaekwondo is that full contact sparring could potential cause brain damage as many medical doctors are against boxing for example and boxers can become "punch drunk".[http://digitaljournal.com/article/264678][http://www.justanswer.com/medical/2j5r4-does-sparring-mixed-martial-arts-muay-thai-specifically.html]

Although there are less toxic forms of keeping pools clean than chlorine[http://news.discovery.com/human/chlorinated-pools-swimming-cancer.html], swimming is great exercise and there is nothing wrong with the backstroke or relay races.

Soccer is great and inexpensive way to exercise and it probably keeps more people in shape than any sport in the world due to its popularity in the world.

There is no public outcry to remove these sports from the Olympics. Women enjoy synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics for example.

I think this article is a wet blanket and a sour grapes way of minimizing others achievements.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm not sure ASchlafly will agree with you. It was his idea, after all, and fits in with his basic orientation towards focusing on finding negative outcomes. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:59, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:We agree on this, [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:08, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::User:Conservative, I recommend using Firefox to make your posts. It has a spell-check facilility, which would help you spot typos such as the amusing "twaekwondo".
::Other than that, how could a "joke sports" article not be negative? Perhaps by talking up the humor content of the sports involved???
::Thirdly, you are right that there is nothing wrong with relay races, but swimming relays are not proper relays, as has been explained above. Backstroke ''is'' absurd - it's slower than crawl and more tiring than breast stroke, so what's the point of it, unless you're scared to put your face in the water?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, people are wrong when they state swimming relays are not proper relays - there is strategy involved (fastest swimmer first, last? where to place the slowest swimmer?), and precise timing is needed during the exchange. As for the backstroke being absurd - how about testing the athlete's endurance? Not everything needs to be flashy and fast in order to be a competition. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Sharon, This is already being discussed above, at the end of the section headed "Female version of sports". Your post would be better off up there, where more informed people than I will see and respond to it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:48, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, I typed out taekwondo correctly 1 out 3 times. :). Secondly, Firefox does not have taekwondo in its spellcheck dictionary. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::CPalmer, as far as the backstroke, one of the principles of good exercise is working out all your muscles. Also, if the backstroke is more tiring than a breastroke as you say, that is a good indication it is giving someone a good workout. Given your approval of this article, I can only assume you may be a cranky old man who calls the police on kids making too much noise bouncing their basketballs!!! I rest my case that this article is a wet blanket article!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I do not doubt backstroke's utility as a workout for lane-blocking old granddads, but a good workout does not necessarily make a good sport. Olympic toe-touching, for instance, or exercise biking, would certainly be seen as joke sports, were they to be added to the program.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==swimming medleys==
I removed swimming medleys. The author of that particular edit was wondering what the track comparison would be, and the answer there is the pentathlon, heptathlon, decathlon, etc.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:05, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:Not really. Multi-event athletics competitions require the athlete to do multiple different things, without specifying how. Swimming medleys, by contrast, require the swimmer to do the ''same'' thing in four different ways. If the decathlon included 100m running, 100m walking, 100m backwards running and 100m rolling then your argument would stand up better.
:I would support a swimming pentathlon that included short, medium and long-distance swims, plus springboard and platform diving, but that would require more genuine versatility than is possessed by most if not all competitive swimmers as far as I know.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::So I gotta ask, CPalmer, what sports do ''you'' play? how many of those might be considered "joke" sports. I know people who swim competitively, one in the backstroke, which you disparage, two in medleys. They're no joke. Because I need to go to work in about ten minutes, I'm not going to get into any kind of edit war here, I just wish you'd stop being so bitter and accept that people can have amazing sporting achievement EVEN IN EVENTS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE. Isn't that amazing? --[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:21, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I am not saying that a gold medal in backstroke isn't an impressive achievement. I'm saying that it shouldn't be an Olympic event because it's a silly stroke for competitive purposes.
:::I don't play any sports competitively, but I play recreational football, tennis and darts. I do not think that darts should be an Olympic sport, however.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::By the way, you knowing people who compete in these events does not in itself stop them from being joke events. If you mean that "they're no joke" because your friends take them extremely seriously, please consider the possibility that to others, that may make them more and not less absurd.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::I think I can see where you're coming from. I still disagree, but if you're using those criteria, then shouldn't you also include breast-stroke and butterfly? They're both less efficient than freestyle/crawl. Breast at least has some use apart from a competition environment, but butterfly seems totally useless. If you want those particular criteria, then please be consistent with them.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::I agree about butterfly, and breast stroke, and walking races on dry land. For Olympic purposes, I think 100m, 200m, 400m and a longer distance, plus relays, for men and women, would be a sensible swimming program - say 12 gold medals in all, so far more than are available for archery or horse riding.
::::::Breast stroke has a case for inclusion, but the trouble is that the breast stroke performed competitively bears little resemblance to the steady, effort-conserving stroke that is so useful in real life.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Quite honestly, the purpose behind sports is not to entertain the spectators, or to make money for the sponsors, or to worry about how you as an athlete will appear to others. The point behind sports when you're an athlete is to challenge yourself to do as well as you possibly can, and if you're on a team, to aid and push your teammates to do their best as well. The purpose behind sports as a spectator is to camaraderie, and enjoyment. Today's society has lost sight of the meaning of sportsmanship, and I hate to say this, but this page proves it by nitpicking and complaining about the sports listed. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:51, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:'but this page proves it by nitpicking and complaining about the sports listed." ASchlafly would call that "nitpicking" a "conservative insight." Why do you expect otherwise from this site? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 13:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Why do you, and others, push the point when you don't agree with it? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:32, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Backstroke Not an inefficient, silly stroke ==

A common and important part of swimming training is lifesaving and a version of the backstroke is used for lifesaving.[http://lifesaving.org.uk/swimming/training/Swim-strokes/backstroke.html]

Inefficiency can depend on context. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks, Conservative. I'd given up arguing about it. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== A thought ==

It seems to me like this is not really an encyclopedic entry. Could we make this an Essay, so it can still be thought about and debated, but we don't dilute the true encyclopedic entries? [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 15:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Atheism and bestiality|"The]] [[Psychology,_obesity,_religiosity_and_atheism|true]] [[Agnosticism,_obesity_and_self-esteem|encyclopedic]] [[Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism|entries"?]] [[User:RayM|RayM]] 16:01, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Everything in those articles is verifiable and true. It is not my fault that there are [[Atheism and beastiality|atheists who are ok with extreme animal "loving".]] The Department of Motor vehicles in all jurisdictions refuse to give driver's licenses to animals. But in the lala land of atheism and evolutionism, humans are beasts. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:33, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Curling at the 2010 Winter Olympics ==

I hope nobody claims that curling should not have been at the 2010 Winter Olympics and that it as inserted by Canadians trying to pad their gold medals!!! :) Curling was one of the popular sports at the Olympics. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayDqRzRN8_M] At the 2006 Olympics, curling drew 5 million television viewers which was more than ice hockey and figure skating.[http://www.ovguide.com/curling-at-the-2006-winter-olympics-9202a8c04000641f8000000000548b84] Those guys with brooms really swept in the television ratings! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-08-12T21:24:13Z

CasparRH: /* Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump */ others

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> In addition, [[Barack Obama]] is polling poorly in the key [[Swing State|swing state]]s of [[Ohio]] and [[North Carolina]].

Obama has struggled in some of his own primaries, despite the lack of media attention to them. 40% of ''[[Democrats]]'' voted against [[Obama]] in the [[Arkansas]] and [[Kentucky]] primaries in May 2012, and in Arkansas Obama was not declared the winner of his own primary by some in the media until nearly midnight.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229023-in-kentucky-42-percent-of-dems-pick-uncommitted-instead-of-obama</ref>

The [[Republican Party]] is in the process of selecting its nominee through the [[2012 Republican Primary]]; the latest delegate totals are [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html here] and [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/delegate-tracker/ here]. About 1,144 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination.<ref>Primaries held before April 1, 2012, awarded delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). However, some early states are winner-take-all by Congressional district, sometimes leading to a single candidate taking a large majority of the delegates. For instance, in South Carolina, the winner of each district got 2 delegates (for a total of 14), and the winner of the state got 11. This was permissible because less than 50% of the delegates were awarded to the state winner automatically. Newt Gingrich won all but one Congressional district, as well as the state overall, earning him 23 delegates to Mitt Romney's 2. Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), is winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts. [http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19843184] Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all; New York was winner-take-all only if one candidate were to win more than 50% of the vote. [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0131/Florida-primary-Why-it-s-one-of-the-last-few-winner-take-all-states]</ref> The dates of the primaries are [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c here].
__NOTOC__
== Republican Contenders for the Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|Would probably appoint conservative judges to the federal bench, more so than other Republicans would. Has business experience and was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Outraises [[Barack Obama]] in campaign contributions, and [[Super PAC]]s supportive of Romney are likely to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads against [[Obama]]. In the primaries Mitt came in second in [[Iowa]], first in [[New Hampshire]], a distant second in South Carolina, first in Florida, lost three states to Santorum on February 7, but then won in [[Arizona]] and [[Michigan]] on February 28 and in six other states on Super Tuesday, March 6. Has received endorsements from moderate and liberal Republicans such as [[Bob Dole]], [[John McCain]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Jon Huntsman]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]], [[Tim Pawlenty]], [[Jeb Bush]], [[Marco Rubio]], and [[George H. W. Bush]]<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/its-official-elder-bush-backs-romney/ It's official, elder Bush backs Romney] New York Times 538 election blog. March, 29th 2012</ref>. Won the 2012 [[CPAC]] straw poll.
|Has weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it difficult for Romney to win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations, continued to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] long after it was discredited, and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. The mostly tepid criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] until they started forcefully attacking him after the voting officially started suggested that they wanted him to win so that they could defeat him in the general election.
|With his victory in the Texas primary on May 29, Romney reportedly reached the number needed to secure the Republican nomination.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the 2011 [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) is used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treated him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Surprisingly, he won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
Finished a strong third in Iowa's caucuses and second in New Hampshire, Maine, and Washington. Won a majority of the delegates in state conventions held in Minnesota, Iowa, Maine, and Louisiana. Has suspended his campaign without endorsing Romney.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The [[pro-life]] candidate most opposed by [[liberal]]s due to his political effectiveness in accomplishing [[conservative]] goals. Newt is the only contender who stands up forcefully to liberals and to the [[lamestream media]]. He had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. Has been endorsed by conservatives such as [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Herman Cain]].
|His many decades in public life make him vulnerable to negative political ads. His personal life has been criticized: his first marriage was annulled, and he's been married twice since. Ron Paul is particularly critical of Newt, although many of Dr. Paul's supporters are likely to prefer Newt over Mitt Romney.
|Newt's rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for him in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates was brilliant. However, he carried only Georgia on Super Tuesday and lost Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to Santorum. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his hypothetical Cabinet. Gingrich withdrew from the race during the first week of May.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if there were a deadlock at the national convention. In the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida, and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. He says he does not intend to run in 2012. He knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, but everyone expects him to run at some point and he's not getting any younger. Jeb is disliked by some Tea Partiers, but not as disliked as Romney. Endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] <ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/breaking-jeb-bush-endorses-romney/</ref>.
|Jeb may be waiting until 2016, expecting Obama to be re-elected. He has endorsed Romney for 2012.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Stongly conservative across the board, family man, well-received by evangelicals. He has received a 100% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] for his pro-life voting record during his time in the Senate. The [[NRA]] has given him an A+ lifetime rating for protecting 2nd Amendment rights<ref>http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum</ref>.
|Almost certainly began as a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position, and may now be seeking to be Romney's VP. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008 rather than more conservative candidates. Santorum's tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes, and he's been criticized for supporting earmarks while in the Senate.
|Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a former [[U.S. Senator]], switched his endorsement from Romney to Santorum on Feb. 17, helping lift Santorum to a razor-thin loss to Romney in the Ohio primary. Rick is fabulous in debates and television interviews. Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], but was an also-ran in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries before rebounding to win primaries in Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, and most of the Southern states. Ended his campaign and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if Romney stumbles. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, is personally [[pro-life]], is a fiscal conservative, and has a record of supporting upset victors in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, showed that a large majority of Republicans didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13, 2011. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser.
|Pulled out on the eve of the South Carolina primary. He may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his [[electability]]. Suspended his campaign on January 19 and endorsed Gingrich.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and tried to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachmann withdrew from the race one day after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses. Is seeking reelection to the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats.
|Garnered little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. He announced that his candidacy would continue but dropped out of the race less than a week later. He has not endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011. Later announced his resignation from the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination. He was considered to be a finalist for the Vice-Presidential nomination before Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making his an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: inexperience, his parents being non-citizens at the time of his birth, and Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA. Endorsed and has campaigned for Mitt Romney <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/rubio-endorses-romney-saying-hes-earned-it/ Rubio endorses Romney, saying he's 'earned' it] March 28th FoxNews.com</ref> 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President. Won the 2012 CPAC straw poll for Vice President anyway.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, showed no interest in a run for the Presidential nomination.
|Supporting his dad's run for President but did express support for Romney after his nomination seemed secure.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman who said he would welcome being nominated as Vice President
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he was not running for president. Later showed hints that he might reconsider, but announced in late March 2011 that he was not running.
|Definitely a future prospect.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president or vice-president, but was called one of the top half-dozen Vice-Presidential possibilities.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office.
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Seemed to be courting the Vice Presidential nomination using Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running, but was thought by some to be among Romney's finalists for Vice-President.
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year. Has endorsed Mitt Romney.
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich is able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking a strong base have little chance unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

The most likely thing that would remove Obama from the 2012 ticket would a court ruling ineligibility due to not being a natural born citizen. However, as Obama will use all his political power to delay this as long as possible, it is unlikely such a decision would come before the November election. Depending on the timing of this, it is likely he would automatically be replaced by his successor, Vice President Joe Biden.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls showed Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also, Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Has made this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, on the rare occasions he's mentioned.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increased with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies ==
===Michael Bloomberg===
The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], looked for a time like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be to split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

===Donald Trump===
Donald Trump has also considered an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed his party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would need to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past.

===Others===
*[[Randall Terry]]<ref>http://www.terryforpresident.com/</ref>
*[[Terry Jones]]<ref>http://www.terryjones2012.com/</ref>
*Joe Schriner<ref>http://www.terryjones2012.com/</ref>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|Virgil Goode<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|Jill Stein<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated Rosanne Barr for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|Rocky Anderson<ref>http://www.voterocky.org/</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party<ref>http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/</ref>
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedian and TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party<ref>http://www.selfgovernment.us/</ref>
|Tom Hoefling<ref>http://www.tomhoefling.com/</ref>
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party<ref>http://www.objectivistparty.us/</ref>
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party<ref>http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml</ref>
|James Harris
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA<ref>http://vote-socialist.org/</ref>
|Stewart Alexander<ref>http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/</ref>
|
|-
|American Third Position Party<ref>http://american3rdposition.com/</ref>
|Merlin Miller<ref>http://merlinmiller2012.com/</ref>
|
|-
|Grass Roots Party<ref>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/07/07/grassroots-party-nominates-a-presidential-ticket/</ref>
|Jim Carlson
|
|-
|Freedom Socialist Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Stephen Durham
|
|-
|Prohibition Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Jack Fellure
|
|-
|Socialist Equality Party<ref>http://www.socialequality.com/</ref>
|Jerry White
|
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections 2010]]
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-08-12T21:17:54Z

CasparRH: /* Minor Parties */ more

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> In addition, [[Barack Obama]] is polling poorly in the key [[Swing State|swing state]]s of [[Ohio]] and [[North Carolina]].

Obama has struggled in some of his own primaries, despite the lack of media attention to them. 40% of ''[[Democrats]]'' voted against [[Obama]] in the [[Arkansas]] and [[Kentucky]] primaries in May 2012, and in Arkansas Obama was not declared the winner of his own primary by some in the media until nearly midnight.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229023-in-kentucky-42-percent-of-dems-pick-uncommitted-instead-of-obama</ref>

The [[Republican Party]] is in the process of selecting its nominee through the [[2012 Republican Primary]]; the latest delegate totals are [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html here] and [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/delegate-tracker/ here]. About 1,144 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination.<ref>Primaries held before April 1, 2012, awarded delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). However, some early states are winner-take-all by Congressional district, sometimes leading to a single candidate taking a large majority of the delegates. For instance, in South Carolina, the winner of each district got 2 delegates (for a total of 14), and the winner of the state got 11. This was permissible because less than 50% of the delegates were awarded to the state winner automatically. Newt Gingrich won all but one Congressional district, as well as the state overall, earning him 23 delegates to Mitt Romney's 2. Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), is winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts. [http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19843184] Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all; New York was winner-take-all only if one candidate were to win more than 50% of the vote. [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0131/Florida-primary-Why-it-s-one-of-the-last-few-winner-take-all-states]</ref> The dates of the primaries are [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c here].
__NOTOC__
== Republican Contenders for the Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|Would probably appoint conservative judges to the federal bench, more so than other Republicans would. Has business experience and was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Outraises [[Barack Obama]] in campaign contributions, and [[Super PAC]]s supportive of Romney are likely to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads against [[Obama]]. In the primaries Mitt came in second in [[Iowa]], first in [[New Hampshire]], a distant second in South Carolina, first in Florida, lost three states to Santorum on February 7, but then won in [[Arizona]] and [[Michigan]] on February 28 and in six other states on Super Tuesday, March 6. Has received endorsements from moderate and liberal Republicans such as [[Bob Dole]], [[John McCain]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Jon Huntsman]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]], [[Tim Pawlenty]], [[Jeb Bush]], [[Marco Rubio]], and [[George H. W. Bush]]<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/its-official-elder-bush-backs-romney/ It's official, elder Bush backs Romney] New York Times 538 election blog. March, 29th 2012</ref>. Won the 2012 [[CPAC]] straw poll.
|Has weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it difficult for Romney to win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations, continued to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] long after it was discredited, and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. The mostly tepid criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] until they started forcefully attacking him after the voting officially started suggested that they wanted him to win so that they could defeat him in the general election.
|With his victory in the Texas primary on May 29, Romney reportedly reached the number needed to secure the Republican nomination.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the 2011 [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) is used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treated him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Surprisingly, he won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
Finished a strong third in Iowa's caucuses and second in New Hampshire, Maine, and Washington. Won a majority of the delegates in state conventions held in Minnesota, Iowa, Maine, and Louisiana. Has suspended his campaign without endorsing Romney.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The [[pro-life]] candidate most opposed by [[liberal]]s due to his political effectiveness in accomplishing [[conservative]] goals. Newt is the only contender who stands up forcefully to liberals and to the [[lamestream media]]. He had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. Has been endorsed by conservatives such as [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Herman Cain]].
|His many decades in public life make him vulnerable to negative political ads. His personal life has been criticized: his first marriage was annulled, and he's been married twice since. Ron Paul is particularly critical of Newt, although many of Dr. Paul's supporters are likely to prefer Newt over Mitt Romney.
|Newt's rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for him in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates was brilliant. However, he carried only Georgia on Super Tuesday and lost Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to Santorum. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his hypothetical Cabinet. Gingrich withdrew from the race during the first week of May.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if there were a deadlock at the national convention. In the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida, and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. He says he does not intend to run in 2012. He knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, but everyone expects him to run at some point and he's not getting any younger. Jeb is disliked by some Tea Partiers, but not as disliked as Romney. Endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] <ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/breaking-jeb-bush-endorses-romney/</ref>.
|Jeb may be waiting until 2016, expecting Obama to be re-elected. He has endorsed Romney for 2012.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Stongly conservative across the board, family man, well-received by evangelicals. He has received a 100% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] for his pro-life voting record during his time in the Senate. The [[NRA]] has given him an A+ lifetime rating for protecting 2nd Amendment rights<ref>http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum</ref>.
|Almost certainly began as a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position, and may now be seeking to be Romney's VP. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008 rather than more conservative candidates. Santorum's tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes, and he's been criticized for supporting earmarks while in the Senate.
|Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a former [[U.S. Senator]], switched his endorsement from Romney to Santorum on Feb. 17, helping lift Santorum to a razor-thin loss to Romney in the Ohio primary. Rick is fabulous in debates and television interviews. Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], but was an also-ran in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries before rebounding to win primaries in Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, and most of the Southern states. Ended his campaign and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if Romney stumbles. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, is personally [[pro-life]], is a fiscal conservative, and has a record of supporting upset victors in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, showed that a large majority of Republicans didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13, 2011. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser.
|Pulled out on the eve of the South Carolina primary. He may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his [[electability]]. Suspended his campaign on January 19 and endorsed Gingrich.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and tried to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachmann withdrew from the race one day after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses. Is seeking reelection to the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats.
|Garnered little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. He announced that his candidacy would continue but dropped out of the race less than a week later. He has not endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011. Later announced his resignation from the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination. He was considered to be a finalist for the Vice-Presidential nomination before Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making his an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: inexperience, his parents being non-citizens at the time of his birth, and Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA. Endorsed and has campaigned for Mitt Romney <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/rubio-endorses-romney-saying-hes-earned-it/ Rubio endorses Romney, saying he's 'earned' it] March 28th FoxNews.com</ref> 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President. Won the 2012 CPAC straw poll for Vice President anyway.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, showed no interest in a run for the Presidential nomination.
|Supporting his dad's run for President but did express support for Romney after his nomination seemed secure.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman who said he would welcome being nominated as Vice President
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he was not running for president. Later showed hints that he might reconsider, but announced in late March 2011 that he was not running.
|Definitely a future prospect.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president or vice-president, but was called one of the top half-dozen Vice-Presidential possibilities.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office.
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Seemed to be courting the Vice Presidential nomination using Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running, but was thought by some to be among Romney's finalists for Vice-President.
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year. Has endorsed Mitt Romney.
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich is able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking a strong base have little chance unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

The most likely thing that would remove Obama from the 2012 ticket would a court ruling ineligibility due to not being a natural born citizen. However, as Obama will use all his political power to delay this as long as possible, it is unlikely such a decision would come before the November election. Depending on the timing of this, it is likely he would automatically be replaced by his successor, Vice President Joe Biden.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls showed Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also, Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Has made this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, on the rare occasions he's mentioned.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increased with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], looked for a time like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be to split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump has also considered an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed his party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would need to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past.

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|Virgil Goode<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|Jill Stein<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated Rosanne Barr for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|Rocky Anderson<ref>http://www.voterocky.org/</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party<ref>http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/</ref>
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedian and TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party<ref>http://www.selfgovernment.us/</ref>
|Tom Hoefling<ref>http://www.tomhoefling.com/</ref>
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party<ref>http://www.objectivistparty.us/</ref>
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party<ref>http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml</ref>
|James Harris
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA<ref>http://vote-socialist.org/</ref>
|Stewart Alexander<ref>http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/</ref>
|
|-
|American Third Position Party<ref>http://american3rdposition.com/</ref>
|Merlin Miller<ref>http://merlinmiller2012.com/</ref>
|
|-
|Grass Roots Party<ref>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/07/07/grassroots-party-nominates-a-presidential-ticket/</ref>
|Jim Carlson
|
|-
|Freedom Socialist Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Stephen Durham
|
|-
|Prohibition Party<ref>http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/</ref>
|Jack Fellure
|
|-
|Socialist Equality Party<ref>http://www.socialequality.com/</ref>
|Jerry White
|
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections 2010]]
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-08-12T21:10:46Z

CasparRH: /* Minor Parties */ more refs

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> In addition, [[Barack Obama]] is polling poorly in the key [[Swing State|swing state]]s of [[Ohio]] and [[North Carolina]].

Obama has struggled in some of his own primaries, despite the lack of media attention to them. 40% of ''[[Democrats]]'' voted against [[Obama]] in the [[Arkansas]] and [[Kentucky]] primaries in May 2012, and in Arkansas Obama was not declared the winner of his own primary by some in the media until nearly midnight.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229023-in-kentucky-42-percent-of-dems-pick-uncommitted-instead-of-obama</ref>

The [[Republican Party]] is in the process of selecting its nominee through the [[2012 Republican Primary]]; the latest delegate totals are [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html here] and [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/delegate-tracker/ here]. About 1,144 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination.<ref>Primaries held before April 1, 2012, awarded delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). However, some early states are winner-take-all by Congressional district, sometimes leading to a single candidate taking a large majority of the delegates. For instance, in South Carolina, the winner of each district got 2 delegates (for a total of 14), and the winner of the state got 11. This was permissible because less than 50% of the delegates were awarded to the state winner automatically. Newt Gingrich won all but one Congressional district, as well as the state overall, earning him 23 delegates to Mitt Romney's 2. Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), is winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts. [http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19843184] Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all; New York was winner-take-all only if one candidate were to win more than 50% of the vote. [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0131/Florida-primary-Why-it-s-one-of-the-last-few-winner-take-all-states]</ref> The dates of the primaries are [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c here].
__NOTOC__
== Republican Contenders for the Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|Would probably appoint conservative judges to the federal bench, more so than other Republicans would. Has business experience and was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Outraises [[Barack Obama]] in campaign contributions, and [[Super PAC]]s supportive of Romney are likely to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads against [[Obama]]. In the primaries Mitt came in second in [[Iowa]], first in [[New Hampshire]], a distant second in South Carolina, first in Florida, lost three states to Santorum on February 7, but then won in [[Arizona]] and [[Michigan]] on February 28 and in six other states on Super Tuesday, March 6. Has received endorsements from moderate and liberal Republicans such as [[Bob Dole]], [[John McCain]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Jon Huntsman]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]], [[Tim Pawlenty]], [[Jeb Bush]], [[Marco Rubio]], and [[George H. W. Bush]]<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/its-official-elder-bush-backs-romney/ It's official, elder Bush backs Romney] New York Times 538 election blog. March, 29th 2012</ref>. Won the 2012 [[CPAC]] straw poll.
|Has weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it difficult for Romney to win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations, continued to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] long after it was discredited, and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. The mostly tepid criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] until they started forcefully attacking him after the voting officially started suggested that they wanted him to win so that they could defeat him in the general election.
|With his victory in the Texas primary on May 29, Romney reportedly reached the number needed to secure the Republican nomination.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the 2011 [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) is used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treated him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Surprisingly, he won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
Finished a strong third in Iowa's caucuses and second in New Hampshire, Maine, and Washington. Won a majority of the delegates in state conventions held in Minnesota, Iowa, Maine, and Louisiana. Has suspended his campaign without endorsing Romney.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The [[pro-life]] candidate most opposed by [[liberal]]s due to his political effectiveness in accomplishing [[conservative]] goals. Newt is the only contender who stands up forcefully to liberals and to the [[lamestream media]]. He had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. Has been endorsed by conservatives such as [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Herman Cain]].
|His many decades in public life make him vulnerable to negative political ads. His personal life has been criticized: his first marriage was annulled, and he's been married twice since. Ron Paul is particularly critical of Newt, although many of Dr. Paul's supporters are likely to prefer Newt over Mitt Romney.
|Newt's rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for him in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates was brilliant. However, he carried only Georgia on Super Tuesday and lost Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to Santorum. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his hypothetical Cabinet. Gingrich withdrew from the race during the first week of May.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if there were a deadlock at the national convention. In the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida, and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. He says he does not intend to run in 2012. He knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, but everyone expects him to run at some point and he's not getting any younger. Jeb is disliked by some Tea Partiers, but not as disliked as Romney. Endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] <ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/breaking-jeb-bush-endorses-romney/</ref>.
|Jeb may be waiting until 2016, expecting Obama to be re-elected. He has endorsed Romney for 2012.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Stongly conservative across the board, family man, well-received by evangelicals. He has received a 100% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] for his pro-life voting record during his time in the Senate. The [[NRA]] has given him an A+ lifetime rating for protecting 2nd Amendment rights<ref>http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum</ref>.
|Almost certainly began as a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position, and may now be seeking to be Romney's VP. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008 rather than more conservative candidates. Santorum's tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes, and he's been criticized for supporting earmarks while in the Senate.
|Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a former [[U.S. Senator]], switched his endorsement from Romney to Santorum on Feb. 17, helping lift Santorum to a razor-thin loss to Romney in the Ohio primary. Rick is fabulous in debates and television interviews. Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], but was an also-ran in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries before rebounding to win primaries in Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, and most of the Southern states. Ended his campaign and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if Romney stumbles. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, is personally [[pro-life]], is a fiscal conservative, and has a record of supporting upset victors in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, showed that a large majority of Republicans didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13, 2011. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser.
|Pulled out on the eve of the South Carolina primary. He may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his [[electability]]. Suspended his campaign on January 19 and endorsed Gingrich.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and tried to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachmann withdrew from the race one day after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses. Is seeking reelection to the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats.
|Garnered little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. He announced that his candidacy would continue but dropped out of the race less than a week later. He has not endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011. Later announced his resignation from the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination. He was considered to be a finalist for the Vice-Presidential nomination before Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making his an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: inexperience, his parents being non-citizens at the time of his birth, and Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA. Endorsed and has campaigned for Mitt Romney <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/rubio-endorses-romney-saying-hes-earned-it/ Rubio endorses Romney, saying he's 'earned' it] March 28th FoxNews.com</ref> 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President. Won the 2012 CPAC straw poll for Vice President anyway.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, showed no interest in a run for the Presidential nomination.
|Supporting his dad's run for President but did express support for Romney after his nomination seemed secure.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman who said he would welcome being nominated as Vice President
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he was not running for president. Later showed hints that he might reconsider, but announced in late March 2011 that he was not running.
|Definitely a future prospect.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president or vice-president, but was called one of the top half-dozen Vice-Presidential possibilities.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office.
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Seemed to be courting the Vice Presidential nomination using Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running, but was thought by some to be among Romney's finalists for Vice-President.
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year. Has endorsed Mitt Romney.
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich is able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking a strong base have little chance unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

The most likely thing that would remove Obama from the 2012 ticket would a court ruling ineligibility due to not being a natural born citizen. However, as Obama will use all his political power to delay this as long as possible, it is unlikely such a decision would come before the November election. Depending on the timing of this, it is likely he would automatically be replaced by his successor, Vice President Joe Biden.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls showed Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also, Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Has made this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, on the rare occasions he's mentioned.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increased with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], looked for a time like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be to split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump has also considered an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed his party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would need to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past.

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|Virgil Goode<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|Jill Stein<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated Rosanne Barr for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|Rocky Anderson<ref>http://www.voterocky.org/</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party<ref>http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/</ref>
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedian and TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party<ref>http://www.selfgovernment.us/</ref>
|Tom Hoefling<ref>http://www.tomhoefling.com/</ref>
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party<ref>http://www.objectivistparty.us/</ref>
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party<ref>http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml</ref>
|James Harris
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA<ref>http://vote-socialist.org/</ref>
|Stewart Alexander<ref>http://www.stewartalexandercares.com/</ref>
|
|-
|American Third Position Party<ref>http://american3rdposition.com/</ref>
|Merlin Miller<ref>http://merlinmiller2012.com/</ref>
|
|-
|Grass Roots Party<ref>http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/07/07/grassroots-party-nominates-a-presidential-ticket/</ref>
|Jim Carlson
|
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections 2010]]
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-08-12T20:48:38Z

CasparRH: /* Minor Parties */ references

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> In addition, [[Barack Obama]] is polling poorly in the key [[Swing State|swing state]]s of [[Ohio]] and [[North Carolina]].

Obama has struggled in some of his own primaries, despite the lack of media attention to them. 40% of ''[[Democrats]]'' voted against [[Obama]] in the [[Arkansas]] and [[Kentucky]] primaries in May 2012, and in Arkansas Obama was not declared the winner of his own primary by some in the media until nearly midnight.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229023-in-kentucky-42-percent-of-dems-pick-uncommitted-instead-of-obama</ref>

The [[Republican Party]] is in the process of selecting its nominee through the [[2012 Republican Primary]]; the latest delegate totals are [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html here] and [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/delegate-tracker/ here]. About 1,144 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination.<ref>Primaries held before April 1, 2012, awarded delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). However, some early states are winner-take-all by Congressional district, sometimes leading to a single candidate taking a large majority of the delegates. For instance, in South Carolina, the winner of each district got 2 delegates (for a total of 14), and the winner of the state got 11. This was permissible because less than 50% of the delegates were awarded to the state winner automatically. Newt Gingrich won all but one Congressional district, as well as the state overall, earning him 23 delegates to Mitt Romney's 2. Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), is winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts. [http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19843184] Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all; New York was winner-take-all only if one candidate were to win more than 50% of the vote. [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0131/Florida-primary-Why-it-s-one-of-the-last-few-winner-take-all-states]</ref> The dates of the primaries are [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c here].
__NOTOC__
== Republican Contenders for the Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|Would probably appoint conservative judges to the federal bench, more so than other Republicans would. Has business experience and was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Outraises [[Barack Obama]] in campaign contributions, and [[Super PAC]]s supportive of Romney are likely to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads against [[Obama]]. In the primaries Mitt came in second in [[Iowa]], first in [[New Hampshire]], a distant second in South Carolina, first in Florida, lost three states to Santorum on February 7, but then won in [[Arizona]] and [[Michigan]] on February 28 and in six other states on Super Tuesday, March 6. Has received endorsements from moderate and liberal Republicans such as [[Bob Dole]], [[John McCain]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Jon Huntsman]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]], [[Tim Pawlenty]], [[Jeb Bush]], [[Marco Rubio]], and [[George H. W. Bush]]<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/its-official-elder-bush-backs-romney/ It's official, elder Bush backs Romney] New York Times 538 election blog. March, 29th 2012</ref>. Won the 2012 [[CPAC]] straw poll.
|Has weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it difficult for Romney to win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations, continued to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] long after it was discredited, and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. The mostly tepid criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] until they started forcefully attacking him after the voting officially started suggested that they wanted him to win so that they could defeat him in the general election.
|With his victory in the Texas primary on May 29, Romney reportedly reached the number needed to secure the Republican nomination.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the 2011 [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) is used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treated him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Surprisingly, he won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
Finished a strong third in Iowa's caucuses and second in New Hampshire, Maine, and Washington. Won a majority of the delegates in state conventions held in Minnesota, Iowa, Maine, and Louisiana. Has suspended his campaign without endorsing Romney.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The [[pro-life]] candidate most opposed by [[liberal]]s due to his political effectiveness in accomplishing [[conservative]] goals. Newt is the only contender who stands up forcefully to liberals and to the [[lamestream media]]. He had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. Has been endorsed by conservatives such as [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Herman Cain]].
|His many decades in public life make him vulnerable to negative political ads. His personal life has been criticized: his first marriage was annulled, and he's been married twice since. Ron Paul is particularly critical of Newt, although many of Dr. Paul's supporters are likely to prefer Newt over Mitt Romney.
|Newt's rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for him in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates was brilliant. However, he carried only Georgia on Super Tuesday and lost Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to Santorum. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his hypothetical Cabinet. Gingrich withdrew from the race during the first week of May.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if there were a deadlock at the national convention. In the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida, and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. He says he does not intend to run in 2012. He knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, but everyone expects him to run at some point and he's not getting any younger. Jeb is disliked by some Tea Partiers, but not as disliked as Romney. Endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] <ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/breaking-jeb-bush-endorses-romney/</ref>.
|Jeb may be waiting until 2016, expecting Obama to be re-elected. He has endorsed Romney for 2012.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Stongly conservative across the board, family man, well-received by evangelicals. He has received a 100% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] for his pro-life voting record during his time in the Senate. The [[NRA]] has given him an A+ lifetime rating for protecting 2nd Amendment rights<ref>http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum</ref>.
|Almost certainly began as a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position, and may now be seeking to be Romney's VP. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008 rather than more conservative candidates. Santorum's tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes, and he's been criticized for supporting earmarks while in the Senate.
|Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a former [[U.S. Senator]], switched his endorsement from Romney to Santorum on Feb. 17, helping lift Santorum to a razor-thin loss to Romney in the Ohio primary. Rick is fabulous in debates and television interviews. Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], but was an also-ran in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries before rebounding to win primaries in Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, and most of the Southern states. Ended his campaign and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if Romney stumbles. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, is personally [[pro-life]], is a fiscal conservative, and has a record of supporting upset victors in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, showed that a large majority of Republicans didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13, 2011. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser.
|Pulled out on the eve of the South Carolina primary. He may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his [[electability]]. Suspended his campaign on January 19 and endorsed Gingrich.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and tried to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachmann withdrew from the race one day after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses. Is seeking reelection to the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats.
|Garnered little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. He announced that his candidacy would continue but dropped out of the race less than a week later. He has not endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011. Later announced his resignation from the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination. He was considered to be a finalist for the Vice-Presidential nomination before Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making his an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: inexperience, his parents being non-citizens at the time of his birth, and Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA. Endorsed and has campaigned for Mitt Romney <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/rubio-endorses-romney-saying-hes-earned-it/ Rubio endorses Romney, saying he's 'earned' it] March 28th FoxNews.com</ref> 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President. Won the 2012 CPAC straw poll for Vice President anyway.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, showed no interest in a run for the Presidential nomination.
|Supporting his dad's run for President but did express support for Romney after his nomination seemed secure.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman who said he would welcome being nominated as Vice President
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he was not running for president. Later showed hints that he might reconsider, but announced in late March 2011 that he was not running.
|Definitely a future prospect.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president or vice-president, but was called one of the top half-dozen Vice-Presidential possibilities.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office.
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Seemed to be courting the Vice Presidential nomination using Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running, but was thought by some to be among Romney's finalists for Vice-President.
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year. Has endorsed Mitt Romney.
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich is able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking a strong base have little chance unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

The most likely thing that would remove Obama from the 2012 ticket would a court ruling ineligibility due to not being a natural born citizen. However, as Obama will use all his political power to delay this as long as possible, it is unlikely such a decision would come before the November election. Depending on the timing of this, it is likely he would automatically be replaced by his successor, Vice President Joe Biden.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls showed Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also, Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Has made this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, on the rare occasions he's mentioned.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increased with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], looked for a time like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be to split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump has also considered an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed his party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would need to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past.

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]<ref>http://constitutionparty.com/</ref>
|Virgil Goode<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.gp.org/index.php</ref>
|Jill Stein<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Defeated Rosanne Barr for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party<ref>http://www.justicepartyusa.org/</ref>
|Rocky Anderson<ref>http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/index.html</ref>
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.lp.org/</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/</ref>
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party
|[[Roseanne Barr]]<ref>http://www.roseanneforpresident2012.org/</ref>
|Comedian and TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation<ref>http://www.pslweb.org/</ref>
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party
|Tom Hoefling
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party
|James Harris
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA
|Stewart Alexander
|
|-
|American Third Position Party
|Merlin Miller
|
|-
|Grass Roots Party
|Jim Carlson
|
|-

|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections 2010]]
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-12T20:37:41Z

CasparRH: /* Political Questions Being Resolved by the Games */ needs to be said

The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', is occurring in [[London]] from July 27 through August 12.<ref>This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948.</ref> '''''During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by [[faith]]-based achievement by the participating athletes'''''.

== 2012 Olympics - Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ==

See also: [[Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ]]

''The Sports Journal'' is a monthly refereed journal published by the United States Sports Academy.
A journal article appeared in the Sports Journal entitled ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions''. The article was submitted by Nathan T. Bell, Scott R. Johnson, and Jeffrey C. Petersen from Ball State University.<ref>[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']</ref>

An excerpt from the abstract of the journal article ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'' declares:
{{cquote|Numerous studies report athletes to be more religious than nonathletes (Fischer, 1997; Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, & Storch, 2001; Storch et al., 2004). According to Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, and Storch (2001), four reasons may explain why religion interacts with athletic performance. First, athletes may identify with religious beliefs for direction and humility. Second, athletes may turn to religion to gain a sense of optimism and security, benefiting from such beliefs following a disappointing athletic performance. Third, religion can be used for emotional and psychological support in stressful circumstances like the uncertainty of athletic competition, which can cause athletes an overwhelming amount of anxiety. Religious beliefs can offer the internal strength to persevere through the stress. Fourth, religion “provides a cognitive framework conducive to the relief of anxiety associated with competition” (Storch et al., 2001, p. 347). This framework allows relief from fear and anxiety on the basis of the athlete’s understanding (i.e., belief) that a supreme being is in complete control of the situation. For example, athletes may rely on religious faith to place a poor athletic performance in perspective...

Religion can be an important aspect in athletes’ lives and may serve a protective function against psychological distress and maladaptive behaviors such as substance use or aggression (Storch, Roberti, Bravata, & Storch, 2004). Viewers of sporting events can frequently observe athletes pointing to the sky, engaging in team prayer on the court or field, and glorifying God following athletic competitions.<ref>[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']</ref>}}

=== Atheism and sports performance ===

Besides lacking the aforementioned benefits that religion bestows on athletes, atheists have higher rates of depression and suicide than the religious (see: [[Atheism and mental health]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]). This suggests that atheism is a detriment to sports performance.

=== 2012 Olympics: faith vs. atheism ===

A number of Christian athletes have thanked God for their 2012 Olympic medals (see below). To date, no Olympic athlete at the 2012 Olympic games has credited atheism with providing them enhanced sport performance.

== Political Questions Being Resolved by the Games ==

Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees are participating.<ref>Independent Olympic Athletes from [[South Sudan]], who does not yet have a National Olympic Committee, and the former Netherlands Antilles, who no longer has a National Olympic Committee due to their dissolution, will also compete under the Olympic Flag.</ref>

Sports contests having the greatest political interest are (note especially the growing list of lack of [[public schools]] for the gold medalists below):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Multiple
|How many athletes will do the equivalent of [[Tebowing]] after a victory? CAmerican Meb Keflezighi, who won the silver medal in the marathon in 2004, typically gives glory to [[God]] with the sign of the [[Cross]] after finishing a race.<ref>http://www.letsrun.com/2009/nycmen1101.php</ref>
|The first gold medalist for [[Ireland]] since 1996, boxer Katie Taylor said after winning: "I serve an amazing God and without Him I wouldn't be here without this gold medal around my neck." Her boxing robe contained the verse, "The [[Lord]] is my shepherd and my shield."<ref>http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2012/08/09/2990989/the-lord-shepherds-irelands-taylor.html#storylink=cpy</ref>

After winning the all-around women's gymnastic title, Gabby Douglas tweeted, "Let all that I am praise the [[Lord|LORD]]; may I never forget the good things he does for me."

Missy Franklin, who ranks second behind Michael Phelps (he's won 4 gold in 2012, 18 in career) with three gold medals at the 2012 games, thanked [[God]] as one of her first comments after winning.

Bernard Lagat, a medalist at prior Olympics, did the [[Sign of the Cross]] just before he was introduced to the crowd for the 5k race. He then "finished fourth after being clipped from behind in the final 200 meters," but showed tremendous sportsmanship, praised the winner, and gave thanks afterward as "the most blessed person during my career."<ref>http://espn.go.com/espnw/olympics/8260406/2012-olympics-mo-farah-makes-5000-win-look-easy</ref>

Ethiopian Tiki Gelana remarkably overcame a mid-race fall to win the women's marathon, after thinking "thank God" at the beginning of the race for the rain because she grew up running in rainy weather - but the [[lamestream media]] reported her quote with a small "g" for "God".<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/rain-queen-gelana-wins-soggy-maratho-175353459--spt.html</ref>

Soccer players in the United Arab Emirates team kneeled towards Mecca when they scored a goal. They did not advance to the quarterfinals. Mohamed Farah (GB) gave thanks to Allah by kneeling towards Mecca after he won the 10000 metres track race.

Double-amputee runner Oscar Pistorius noted that he thanks God "Because He is the reason for my success and the one that takes me from strength to strength."[http://assistnews.net/Stories/2012/s12060047.htm]
|-
|Multiple
|Will almost no athletes from [[public school]] sports programs win any gold medals, despite how public schools spend more than $500 billion annually to teach and train [[American]]s?
|The [[lamestream media]] state that Missy Franklin, the star swimmer, is a high school student, but fail to mention that she attends ''[[Catholic]]'' school rather than [[public school]].

'''American 2012 Olympic gold medal winners (as of 8/1/2012)'''
*Private: Missy Franklin ([[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] high school)<ref> Franklin's swimming has been with a swim club</ref>, Katie Ledecky (Catholic high school)
*[[Homeschooled]]: Gabby Douglas, McKayla Maroney
*College or adult: Michael Phelps,<ref>Phelps' swimming has been with a private swim club.</ref> Dana Vollmer, Vincent Hancock, Conor Dwyer, Kristin Armstrong, Nathan Adrian, Allison Schmitt, Shannon Vreeland, Kim Rhode, Ryan Lochte, Matt Grevers, Aly Raisman, Ricky Berens, Jamie Lynn Gray, Bob Bryan, Mike Bryan, Serena Williams.
*[[Public school]]: Kyla Ross and Jordyn Wieber won a group gold medal as part of the team led by [[homeschooled]] Gabby Douglas
|-
|Multiple
|How many athletes will be unfairly expelled based on [[liberal]] [[censorship]] of their [[free speech]]?
|One athlete -- Greek triple-jumper Voula Papachristou -- was expelled from the Greek National team by her own country's Olympic committee '''''before it officially opened''''' based on a one-sentence joke about immigration, even though she apologized. The joke in question was this from her Twitter: "With so many Africans in Greece, the West Nile mosquitoes will be getting home food!!!" It should be noted that Papachristou apologized for the tweet.

In addition to the Greek Olympic Committee's decision on Papachristou, the IOC's own twitter-use policy has been criticized for hindering free speech. The policy, which is claimed to protect the IOC's commercial rights, goes as far as to prevent athletes from "reporting on events". According to The Globe and Mail, even a tweet such as "Won our games against China, USA. Next up, the Brazilians," could get an athlete expelled from the Games without notice. As of yet, no athletes have been expelled by the IOC for this [[social media]] [[censorship]] policy.

Lolo Jones, a pro-[[abstinence]] [[American]] hurdler, is being criticized by the [[lamestream media]] for sending out a pro-[[Second Amendment]] tweet.

The [[liberal]] thought police expelled a Swiss soccer player for tweeting that South Koreans are "retards."<ref>[[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/another-racist-twitter-scandal-gets-another-olympic-athlete-boot/55197/] </ref>
|-
|Opening Ceremonies
|Will [[Overrated Sports Stars|Overrated Sports Star]] David Beckham be selected to light the Olympic cauldron?
|Beckham was not selected as the final torchbearer. He was, however, a passenger on the speedboat that carried the torch up the River Thames. He assisted in the hand-off of the torch to Sir Steve Redgrave, one of Britain's greatest Olympians. Sebastian Coe, chairman of London 2012, stated, "He [Beckham] will be more than an ambassador given what he has done, the commitment he has given and the amount of time he has spent with us in London on this project. He was not only alongside us when we won [the right to host the Olympics], he was alongside us when we threw our hats in the ring."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/football/9388462/London-2012-Olympics-David-Beckham-will-be-more-than-an-ambassador-at-the-Games.html London 2012 Olympics: David Beckham will be 'more than an ambassador' at the Games] telegraph.co.uk, July 10, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref>
|-
|Multiple
|will [[atheist]] nations underachieve in team sports?
|In women's soccer, France defeated Sweden in the quarterfinals but lost to Japan in the semifinals. They lost to Canada in the bronze medal game.

On the men's side, Great Britain won their group with 2 wins and a draw. They lost to South Korea in the quarterfinals.

Australia failed to qualify for either soccer event. This was their first time attempting to qualify out of the Asian Zone instead of the significantly weaker Oceanic Zone, so this may have been a factor. They will, however, send teams in most other team sports, since they qualify from the Oceanic Zone in those.

In women's basketball, France won Group B with a 5-0 record, while Australia finished 4-1 in the same group. Great Britain is 0-5. France and Australia won their quarterfinals. France will face Russia in the semifinals while Australia will face the United States.

In women's handball, Great Britain finished 0-5-0 and France is 4-0-1 (W-L-D). France lost to Montenegro the quarterfinals. Handball is almost unknown in GB, with only a dozen or so clubs, in stark contrast to most other countries in Western Europe.

In men's basketball, Great Britain finished 1-4 in the group stage and was eliminated. Australia finished 3-2, fourth in their group, and lost to the USA in the quarterfinals. France finished 4-1 and will face Spain in the quarterfinals. Basketball is a minor sport in GB, much less played than in continental Europe, and GB would have considered themselves lucky if they had won a match.

In men's volleyball, Great Britain finished 0-5 and Australia finished 2-3. Neither advanced to the quarterfinals. Volleyball is very much a minor sport in GB. They only had a volleyball team in the Olympics because they were host nation and they did not expect to win any of their matches.
|-
|Multiple
|Similarly, will atheist nations underachieve in general?
|China, an officially atheist and communist country, led in gold medals in the first week but then dropped badly to a distant second place behind the United States, despite China having more than three times the population of the United States and despite having a national program designed to produce champion athletes. Increasingly atheistic Australia performed much worse than expectations. Australia has 35 medals, but only 7 gold medals. France has 34 medals, of which 11 are gold. In 2008, Australia won 46 medals and France won 41. Australia won 14 golds that year, a total that they are unlikely to surpass at this point.
|-
|wrestling
|have [[feminist]] [[Title IX quotas]] destroyed the [[U.S.]] team?
|The 2008 U.S. men's wrestling team won one gold and one bronze medal.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2009-04-08-usa-wrestling_N.htm U.S. wrestlers take first steps toward London Olympics] Gary Mihoces, usatoday.com, retrieved August 12, 2012</ref> The 2012 U.S. team has won two gold medals and two bronze medals.<ref>[http://www.london2012.com/wrestling/medals/medal-standings/ Olympic Wrestling - Medal Count] london2012.com, retrieved August 12, 2012</ref>
|-
|men's basketball
|will selfless play by outspoken [[Christian]] [[Kevin Durant]] overcome ball-hogging by [[Overrated Sports Stars|Overrated Sports Star]]s [[Kobe Bryant]] and [[LeBron James]] on [[USA Basketball]]?
|The USA will face Argentina in their semifinal. They are undefeated so far, but had a close match-up against Lithuania.
|-
|men's tennis
|will one of the [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]] -- such as Novak Djokovic -- win the gold medal? Will [[Andy Murray]] of atheistic Britain underperform?
|Both players advanced to the semifinals, where Murray defeated Djokovic in straight sets. Murray defeated Roger Federer of Switzerland for the gold in straight sets, while Djokovic underperformed and lost to Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina in the bronze medal match. Murray then went on to play in mixed doubles match that same day and medalled silver with Laura Robson, losing to the heavily favoured Mirnyi and Azarenka.
|-
|8-month pregnant athlete
|Will the [[lamestream media]] report on Nur Suryani Mohamed Taibi of Malaysia, who is competing while being 8 months pregnant, or does that send too [[pro-life]] of a message?
|Taibi was eliminated from the Olympics on the first day of official competition after finishing in 34th place. Few articles mentioned her prior to her elimination; there was more publicity about her after her defeat.<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/olympics/2012/07/28/pregnant-shooter%E2%80%99s-olympics-end-after-34th-place-finish-in-qualifying/ Pregnant shooter’s Olympics end after 34th-place finish in qualifying] sfgate.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/shooting/story/Pregnant-Malaysian-shooter-does-baby-proud-at-London-Olympics-072812 Pregnant shooter does baby proud] foxsports.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/london/shooting/story/2012-07-28/pregnant-shooter-nur-suryani-mohd-taibi-malaysia-misses-final/56551354/1 Pregnant shooter misses final, treasures experience] usatoday.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/28/london-2012-pregnant-shooting London 2012: 'Be quiet, mummy's shooting,' says pregnant competitor] guardian.co.uk, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref> The New York Times ran an article on the athlete on 16 July 2012,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/sports/olympics/17iht-oly17.html?_r=1] </ref> The Guardian <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/28/london-2012-pregnant-shooting]</ref> and ESPN <ref>[http://www.espnstar.com/olympics/shooting/news/detail/item832224/Nur-Suryani-off-target-in-London/]</ref> both reported on her results in the competition.
|-
|women's soccer
|ranked #1 and won the gold in the last two Olympics, most recently with a foreign coach. Now that this [[U.S.]] team is [[politically correct]], will it underachieve?<ref>A foreigner, reportedly a lesbian, was selected as the head coach of the already champion American Olympic women's soccer team in 2007, and in the following year that team repeated its gold medal-winning performance of 2004. Aren't there American, although perhaps not politically correct, soccer coaches good enough to run the Olympic team?</ref> Major rivals will be Japan, Brazil and France.
|Politcal correctness triumphed as the foreign-born reportedly lesbian coach of the U.S. team led them to repeat their previous gold medal performance.
|-
|Gun events
|Will the [[lamestream media]] downplay the gun events because they want to continue to push [[gun control]]?
|Great Britain shooter Peter Wilson's gold medal success in the double-trap clay pigeon event was widely reported and celebrated in the British media, despite Britain being strong in favor of gun control. The victory of South Korean air pistol shooter Jin in winning the first gold medal of the games was reported in most GB media. Coverage is similar to other sports with modest national following. See the entry above on the Malaysian shooter for an exception to this lack of coverage.
|-
|Openly [[homosexual]] athletes
|Will the [[liberal media]] overpromote [[homosexual]] athletes, far beyond their achievements?
|Several months before the games, ''Sports Illustrated'' ran a feature article entitled "The Transgender Athlete", which included significant overage of a transgender female-to-male shotputter attempting to qualify for the United States women's Olympic team. However, she failed to qualify at the US Olympic Trials, and as such has not received coverage during the actual Olympics.
|-
|Multiple
|Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? (See below for a more lengthy explanation)
|The total number of medals went down by four, out of 94 originally, a decrease of 4.3%. However, this decrease might not be statistically significant. It is not small enough that it is definitely irrelevant, but it is not large enough that it is significant by itself. If these nations (and other nations who legalize same-sex marriage in the next four years) continue to show decreases in 2016, that will support the hypothesis. In this year, the data is insufficient to support any conclusion by itself. Although the data does not show that there is definitely a correlation, it is also insufficient to show that there is not. However, in the absence of proof to the contrary, no correlation should be assumed to exist. To support the claim that there is a correlation, there should be a statistically significant difference in the total number of medals won by those countries. Another result would indicate that there is not enough evidence to suggest a correlation. A difference of 4.3%, in one sample set, is insufficient by itself. This experiment would need to be repeated in future years to find any correlation that may exist. Of course, any correlation found does necessarily mean there is any causal relationship between the legalization of same-sex marriage and performance in the Olympic Games.
: Argentina - 6 in 2008, 4 in 2012
: Belgium - 5 in 2000, 3 in 2012
: Canada - 12 in 2004, 18 in 2012
: Denmark - 7 in 2008, 9 in 2012
: Iceland - 1 in 2008, 0 in 2012
: Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 20 in 2012
: Norway - 6 in 2004, 4 in 2012
: Portugal - 2 in 2008, 1 in 2012
: South Africa - 6 in 2004, 6 in 2012
: Spain - 19 in 2004, 17 in 2012
: Sweden - 5 in 2008, 8 in 2012
: Total - 94 expected, 90 actual

|-
|Men's Handball
|Will heavy underdogs [[Tunisia]] overperform in Group A? Group A should perhaps be dubbed the "Group of Left", since the other five teams are Sweden, Iceland, and Argentina, where same-sex marriage is legal, and increasingly atheistic Great Britain and France.
|Tunisia went 2-3 in the group stage, becoming just the second African team ever to advance to the quarterfinals. They then lost to Croatia, the winner of Group B.
|-
|[[Joke sports]]
|Will underperforming countries pad their medal totals by excelling in many varieties of [[swimming]] and in non-serious sports like [[badminton]] and [[dressage]]?
|Depends on what is a "joke sport". For instance, although swimming is a competitive, tough, sport, nations are able to pad their medal total due to the large number of events. The USA has 31 medals in swimming, Great Britain has only three. In Equestrian, a clear joke sport, but with far fewer events than swimming, Great Britain has five medals and the USA has none. Neither country received a medal in badminton.
|-
|}

(add more)

== Nations that have implemented [[same-sex marriage]] ==

===[[Argentina]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Argentina's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 3 || 1 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 2 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| July 22, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total || 17 || 23 || 26 || 66
|}

===[[Belgium]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Belgium's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 5 || 5 || 5 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 1 || 5 || 2 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp (host) || 14 || 11 || 11 || 36
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 3 || 7 || 3 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 2 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 0 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 1 || 1 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 2 || 2 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| January 30, 2003 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 37 !! 51 !! 51 !! 139
|}

===[[Canada]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Canada's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| ''1896 Athens'' || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 3 || 3 || 10 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 3 || 2 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 3 || 3 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 0 || 3 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 4 || 4 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 8 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 1 || 3 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 0 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 3 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal (host) || 0 || 5 || 6 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 10 || 18 || 16 || 44
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 3 || 2 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 7 || 4 || 7 || 18
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 3 || 11 || 8 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 3 || 3 || 8 || 14
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 3 || 6 || 3 || 12
|-
|align=left| July 20, 2005 || colspan=4|''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 3 || 9 || 6 || 18
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
!| Total || 58 || 94 || 108 || 260
|}

===[[Denmark]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Denmark's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || 1 || 2 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 1 || 6 || 5 || 12
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 9 || 1 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 2 || 5 || 2 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 1 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 7 || 8 || 20
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 4 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 2 || 1 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 1 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 1 || 1 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 6 || 8
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| June 15, 2012 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 41 !! 63 !! 66 !! 170
|}

===[[Iceland]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Iceland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 ||1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| June 27, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 0 !! 2 !! 2 !! 4
|}

===[[Netherlands]]<ref>Although part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, [[Aruba]] competes separately at the Olympic Games. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Aruba, although marriages performed in the European mainland Netherlands are recognized per the Kingdom's requirements. Additionally, the territories of Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Athletes" under the Olympic Flag following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition of their Olympic Committee, have the same regulations as Aruba with regards to same-sex marriage. Since citizens of these territories are also Dutch citizens, they are also eligible to compete for Team Netherlands. Therefore, they may have won some of the Dutch medals. In all three territories, the population is heavily Catholic and there is large opposition to same-sex marriage in spite of the Kingdom's requirements. When Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba opted to integrate fully with the Netherlands as part of the dissolution, the Dutch House of Representatives passed a law that will make same sex-marriage legal in those territories effective in October 2012. However, this law was strongly opposed by locals. Athletes from those three territories were permitted to compete as Independent Olympic Athletes as well. However, of the four IOAs at the Olympics, three are from Curacao and one is a marathoner from South Sudan, which does not yet have a national Olympic Committee.</ref>===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+The Netherland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 1 || 3 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 3 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 4 || 2 || 5 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 4 || 1 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam (host) || 6 || 9 || 4 || 19
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 0 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 6 || 4 || 7 || 17
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 2 || 9 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 5 || 0 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 4 || 4 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 3 || 1 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 5 || 2 || 6 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 2 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 2 || 6 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 5 || 10 || 19
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 12 || 9 || 4 || 25
|-
|align=left| April 1, 2001 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 4 || 9 || 9 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 7 || 5 || 4 || 16
|-
|align=left| 2012 Summer Olympics|2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 71 !! 79 !! 96 !! 246
|}

===[[Norway]]===
===[[Portugal]]===
===[[South Africa]]===
===[[Spain]]===
===[[Sweden]]===

Underachievement by nations allowing same sex marriage will be particularly evident.<ref>In the [[United States]], 6 out of 50 states permit same-sex marriage (Washington, D.C. also permits same-sex marriage), and 8 additional states permit civil unions. Two states (including Washington, which had previously recognized civil unions) have declared same-sex marriage legal, but implementation is postponed until after voter referendums on the laws in November 2012. Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a federal district roughly equivalent to Washington, DC, as well as in the state of Quintana Roo. </ref>

== Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==

*[[Britain]]
*[[France]]
*[[Australia]]<ref> Since the 2001 Australians have increasingly answered "no religion" in the official census. The growing numbers of those answering "no religion" has coincided with fewer people self-identifying as Christian: [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/636F496B2B943F12CA2573D200109DA9?opendocument Year Book Australia, 2008]</ref>

Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is usually non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.

Also, since Great Britain is the host nation, it may receive a boost in performance in spite of its increasingly atheistic nature. One should be careful to account for this when comparing Britain's performance this year to that in previous Olympic Games.

== Winners ==

=== Individual Events ===

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Athlete
!Achievement
!Religion, or Atheist?
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Team Events ===

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Event
!Country
!Religious Category
|-
|Women's 4x100m Freestyle (Swimming)
|Australia
|Increasingly Atheistic
|-
|Men's Team Archery
|Italy
|Christian
|-
|Women's Team Archery
|South Korea
|Atheistic
|-
|Men's 4x100m Freestyle (Swimming)
|France
|Increasingly Atheistic
|-
|Women's Synchronized 3m Springboard (Diving)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|Men's Synchronized 10m Platform (Diving)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|Men's Artistic Team All-round (Gymnastics)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

==Expected Medals==

Many factors contribute to a country's success in the Olympics (e.g., population, proximity to host country, culture), and [[Gross Domestic Product]] cannot be used as a fair proxy, due to low (per capita) GDP China comfortably coming first in the 2008 Olympics and Russia ranking third. Below is how the Olympic medals would be awarded if each country earned medals in proportion to their GDP, which vastly overestimates the United States' performance.

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Country
!Expected Medals
|-
|Afghanistan
|0.2
|-
|Albania
|0.2
|-
|Andorra
|0.1
|-
|Antigua and Barbuda
|0
|-
|Angola
|1.2
|-
|Algeria
|2.3
|-
|Argentina
|5.3
|-
|Armenia
|0.1
|-
|Aruba
|0
|-
|Australia
|16.2
|-
|Austria
|5.4
|-
|Azerbaijan
|0.7
|-
|Bahamas
|0.1
|-
|Bangladesh
|1.4
|-
|Barbados
|0
|-
|Burundi
|0
|-
|Belgium
|6.7
|-
|Belize
|0
|-
|Benin
|0.1
|-
|Bermuda
|0.1
|-
|Bhutan
|0
|-
|Bolivia
|0.3
|-
|Bosnia-Herzegovina
|0.2
|-
|Bahrain
|0.3
|-
|Botswana
|0.2
|-
|Belarus
|0.8
|-
|Brazil
|29.9
|-
|Virgin Islands
|0
|-
|Bulgaria
|0.7
|-
|Burkina Faso
|0.1
|-
|Cameroon
|0.3
|-
|Cambodia
|0.2
|-
|Canada
|22.6
|-
|Cayman Islands
|0
|-
|Central African Republic
|0
|-
|Chad
|0.1
|-
|Chile
|3
|-
|China
|98.8
|-
|Taiwan
|7.2
|-
|Colombia
|4.1
|-
|Comoros
|0
|-
|Cape Verde
|0
|-
|Congo
|0.2
|-
|Cook Islands
|0
|-
|Costa Rica
|0.5
|-
|Cote-d´lvoire
|0.3
|-
|Croatia
|0.9
|-
|Cuba
|0.9
|-
|Cyprus
|0.4
|-
|Czech Republic
|2.8
|-
|Denmark
|4.4
|-
|Djibouti
|0
|-
|Dominica
|0
|-
|Dominican Republic
|0.7
|-
|Ecuador
|0.8
|-
|Egypt
|3.1
|-
|El Salvador
|0.3
|-
|Equatorial Guinea
|0.2
|-
|Eritrea
|0
|-
|Estonia
|0.3
|-
|Ethiopia
|0.4
|-
|Fiji
|0
|-
|Finland
|3.4
|-
|France
|39.8
|-
|Gabon
|0.2
|-
|Gambia
|0
|-
|Germany
|47
|-
|Ghana
|0.4
|-
|United Kingdom
|32.4
|-
|Guinea-Bissau
|0
|-
|Georgia
|0.2
|-
|Greece
|4.3
|-
|Grenada
|0
|-
|Guam
|0
|-
|Guatemala
|0.6
|-
|Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Guyana
|0
|-
|Haiti
|0.1
|-
|Honduras
|0.2
|-
|Hong Kong
|3.2
|-
|Hungary
|1.8
|-
|Iceland
|0.2
|-
|India
|24.7
|-
|Indonesia
|10.1
|-
|Iran
|4.7
|-
|Iraq
|1.2
|-
|Ireland
|3
|-
|Italy
|29.5
|-
|Israel
|3.1
|-
|Jamaica
|0.2
|-
|Japan
|78.2
|-
|Jordan
|0.4
|-
|Kazakhstan
|2.3
|-
|Kyrgyzstan
|0.1
|-
|Kenya
|0.4
|-
|South Korea
|14.8
|-
|North Korea
|0.4
|-
|Kuwait
|2
|-
|Laos
|0.1
|-
|Latvia
|0.4
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Lebanon
|0.5
|-
|Lesotho
|0
|-
|Libya
|0.9
|-
|Lichtenstein
|0.1
|-
|Luxembourg
|0.8
|-
|Macedonia
|0.1
|-
|Madagascar
|0.1
|-
|Malawi
|0.1
|-
|Malaysia
|3.3
|-
|Moldova
|0.1
|-
|Marshall Islands
|0
|-
|Maldives
|0
|-
|Malta
|0.1
|-
|Mali
|0.1
|-
|Mauritania
|0.2
|-
|Mauritius
|0.1
|-
|Mexico
|16.2
|-
|Micronesia
|0
|-
|Monaco
|0.1
|-
|Montenegro
|0.1
|-
|Mongolia
|0.1
|-
|Morocco
|1.3
|-
|Mozambique
|0.1
|-
|Myanmar
|0.7
|-
|Namibia
|0.2
|-
|Nepal
|0.2
|-
|Netherlands
|11.2
|-
|New Zealand
|1.8
|-
|Nicaragua
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Norway
|5.9
|-
|Oman
|0.7
|-
|Pakistan
|2.4
|-
|Palau
|0
|-
|Panama
|0.4
|-
|Papua New Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Paraguay
|0.3
|-
|Peru
|2.3
|-
|Philippines
|2.9
|-
|Poland
|6.7
|-
|Portugal
|3.3
|-
|Puerto Rico
|1.4
|-
|Qatar
|1.4
|-
|Romania
|2.3
|-
|Rwanda
|0.1
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Saint Kitts and Nevis
|0
|-
|Samoa
|0
|-
|San Marino
|0
|-
|Saudi Arabia
|6.2
|-
|Seychelles
|0
|-
|Sierra Leone
|0
|-
|Senegal
|0.2
|-
|Slovenia
|0.7
|-
|Solomon Islands
|0
|-
|South Africa
|5.2
|-
|Sri Lanka
|0.7
|-
|Slovakia
|1.3
|-
|Swaziland
|0.1
|-
|Serbia
|0.6
|-
|Singapore
|3
|-
|Spain
|20.2
|-
|Sudan
|0.9
|-
|Suriname
|0
|-
|Syria
|0.8
|-
|Sweden
|6.6
|-
|Switzerland
|7.6
|-
|Tanzania
|0.3
|-
|Tonga
|0
|-
|Thailand
|4.6
|-
|Togo
|0
|-
|Trinidad and Tobago
|0.3
|-
|Tajikistan
|0.1
|-
|Timor-Leste
|0
|-
|Turkmenistan
|0.3
|-
|Tunisia
|0.6
|-
|Turkey
|10.5
|-
|Tuvalu
|0
|-
|Uganda
|0.2
|-
|Ukraine
|2
|-
|United Arab Emirates
|4.3
|-
|United States
|209
|-
|Uruguay
|0.6
|-
|Uzbekistan
|0.6
|-
|Vanuatu
|0
|-
|Venezuela
|5.6
|-
|Vietnam
|1.5
|-
|Yemen
|0.4
|-
|Zambia
|0.2
|-
|Zimbabwe
|0.1
|-
|}

== Commemoration ==

The 2012 games mark the 40th anniversary of 11 [[Israeli]] Olympic team members taken hostage and killed by [[Palestinian]] [[terrorist]] group Black September. The Internal Olympic Committee has been urged to offer a commemorative moment of silence for the athletes at the opening ceremony. The IOC has rejected the moment of silence or any mention of the tragic event so as not to upset [[Muslim]] countries. <ref>[http://www.eju.org/news/world/ioc-refuses-request-memorial-munich-victims IOC refuses request for a memorial to Munich victims, EJU News, may 22, 2012]</ref> Sportscaster Bob Costas says NBC will honor the Munich 11 despite IOC’s refusal to allow it. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2012/07/21/bob-costas-says-he-will-observe-moment-of-silence-for-victims-of-1972-munich-massacre-during-live-broadcast-of-london-olympics-opening-ceremony-despite-iocs-refusal-to-allow-it/ Bob Costas Says He Will Observe Moment of Silence For Victims of 1972 Munich Massacre, WeaselZippers, July 21, 2012]</ref>

== NBC Coverage ==

Scorn for Comcast's [[NBC]] coverage of the Olympic games hit America coast to coast. Viewers have taken to the internet with the trend #NBCfail for days now. The groans began at the opening ceremony when [[American]] viewers were denied the tribute to British victims of [[Islamic]] terrorism. As the games moved forward, live events were interrupted or had already finished, replaced with commercials and NBC commentators talking about the athletes. It has been reported the Comcast spent $1 billion for the rights to televise the 2012 Olympics.

== See also ==

*[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Olympics]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-08-12T20:29:25Z

CasparRH: /* Minor Parties */ some references

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> In addition, [[Barack Obama]] is polling poorly in the key [[Swing State|swing state]]s of [[Ohio]] and [[North Carolina]].

Obama has struggled in some of his own primaries, despite the lack of media attention to them. 40% of ''[[Democrats]]'' voted against [[Obama]] in the [[Arkansas]] and [[Kentucky]] primaries in May 2012, and in Arkansas Obama was not declared the winner of his own primary by some in the media until nearly midnight.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229023-in-kentucky-42-percent-of-dems-pick-uncommitted-instead-of-obama</ref>

The [[Republican Party]] is in the process of selecting its nominee through the [[2012 Republican Primary]]; the latest delegate totals are [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html here] and [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/delegate-tracker/ here]. About 1,144 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination.<ref>Primaries held before April 1, 2012, awarded delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). However, some early states are winner-take-all by Congressional district, sometimes leading to a single candidate taking a large majority of the delegates. For instance, in South Carolina, the winner of each district got 2 delegates (for a total of 14), and the winner of the state got 11. This was permissible because less than 50% of the delegates were awarded to the state winner automatically. Newt Gingrich won all but one Congressional district, as well as the state overall, earning him 23 delegates to Mitt Romney's 2. Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), is winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts. [http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19843184] Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all; New York was winner-take-all only if one candidate were to win more than 50% of the vote. [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0131/Florida-primary-Why-it-s-one-of-the-last-few-winner-take-all-states]</ref> The dates of the primaries are [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c here].
__NOTOC__
== Republican Contenders for the Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|Would probably appoint conservative judges to the federal bench, more so than other Republicans would. Has business experience and was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Outraises [[Barack Obama]] in campaign contributions, and [[Super PAC]]s supportive of Romney are likely to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads against [[Obama]]. In the primaries Mitt came in second in [[Iowa]], first in [[New Hampshire]], a distant second in South Carolina, first in Florida, lost three states to Santorum on February 7, but then won in [[Arizona]] and [[Michigan]] on February 28 and in six other states on Super Tuesday, March 6. Has received endorsements from moderate and liberal Republicans such as [[Bob Dole]], [[John McCain]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Jon Huntsman]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]], [[Tim Pawlenty]], [[Jeb Bush]], [[Marco Rubio]], and [[George H. W. Bush]]<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/its-official-elder-bush-backs-romney/ It's official, elder Bush backs Romney] New York Times 538 election blog. March, 29th 2012</ref>. Won the 2012 [[CPAC]] straw poll.
|Has weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it difficult for Romney to win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations, continued to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] long after it was discredited, and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. The mostly tepid criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] until they started forcefully attacking him after the voting officially started suggested that they wanted him to win so that they could defeat him in the general election.
|With his victory in the Texas primary on May 29, Romney reportedly reached the number needed to secure the Republican nomination.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the 2011 [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) is used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treated him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Surprisingly, he won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
Finished a strong third in Iowa's caucuses and second in New Hampshire, Maine, and Washington. Won a majority of the delegates in state conventions held in Minnesota, Iowa, Maine, and Louisiana. Has suspended his campaign without endorsing Romney.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The [[pro-life]] candidate most opposed by [[liberal]]s due to his political effectiveness in accomplishing [[conservative]] goals. Newt is the only contender who stands up forcefully to liberals and to the [[lamestream media]]. He had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. Has been endorsed by conservatives such as [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Herman Cain]].
|His many decades in public life make him vulnerable to negative political ads. His personal life has been criticized: his first marriage was annulled, and he's been married twice since. Ron Paul is particularly critical of Newt, although many of Dr. Paul's supporters are likely to prefer Newt over Mitt Romney.
|Newt's rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for him in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates was brilliant. However, he carried only Georgia on Super Tuesday and lost Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to Santorum. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his hypothetical Cabinet. Gingrich withdrew from the race during the first week of May.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if there were a deadlock at the national convention. In the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida, and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. He says he does not intend to run in 2012. He knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, but everyone expects him to run at some point and he's not getting any younger. Jeb is disliked by some Tea Partiers, but not as disliked as Romney. Endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] <ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/breaking-jeb-bush-endorses-romney/</ref>.
|Jeb may be waiting until 2016, expecting Obama to be re-elected. He has endorsed Romney for 2012.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Stongly conservative across the board, family man, well-received by evangelicals. He has received a 100% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] for his pro-life voting record during his time in the Senate. The [[NRA]] has given him an A+ lifetime rating for protecting 2nd Amendment rights<ref>http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum</ref>.
|Almost certainly began as a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position, and may now be seeking to be Romney's VP. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008 rather than more conservative candidates. Santorum's tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes, and he's been criticized for supporting earmarks while in the Senate.
|Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a former [[U.S. Senator]], switched his endorsement from Romney to Santorum on Feb. 17, helping lift Santorum to a razor-thin loss to Romney in the Ohio primary. Rick is fabulous in debates and television interviews. Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], but was an also-ran in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries before rebounding to win primaries in Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, and most of the Southern states. Ended his campaign and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if Romney stumbles. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, is personally [[pro-life]], is a fiscal conservative, and has a record of supporting upset victors in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, showed that a large majority of Republicans didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13, 2011. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser.
|Pulled out on the eve of the South Carolina primary. He may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his [[electability]]. Suspended his campaign on January 19 and endorsed Gingrich.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and tried to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachmann withdrew from the race one day after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses. Is seeking reelection to the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats.
|Garnered little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. He announced that his candidacy would continue but dropped out of the race less than a week later. He has not endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011. Later announced his resignation from the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination. He was considered to be a finalist for the Vice-Presidential nomination before Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making his an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: inexperience, his parents being non-citizens at the time of his birth, and Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA. Endorsed and has campaigned for Mitt Romney <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/rubio-endorses-romney-saying-hes-earned-it/ Rubio endorses Romney, saying he's 'earned' it] March 28th FoxNews.com</ref> 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President. Won the 2012 CPAC straw poll for Vice President anyway.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, showed no interest in a run for the Presidential nomination.
|Supporting his dad's run for President but did express support for Romney after his nomination seemed secure.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman who said he would welcome being nominated as Vice President
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he was not running for president. Later showed hints that he might reconsider, but announced in late March 2011 that he was not running.
|Definitely a future prospect.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president or vice-president, but was called one of the top half-dozen Vice-Presidential possibilities.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office.
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Seemed to be courting the Vice Presidential nomination using Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running, but was thought by some to be among Romney's finalists for Vice-President.
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year. Has endorsed Mitt Romney.
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich is able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking a strong base have little chance unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

The most likely thing that would remove Obama from the 2012 ticket would a court ruling ineligibility due to not being a natural born citizen. However, as Obama will use all his political power to delay this as long as possible, it is unlikely such a decision would come before the November election. Depending on the timing of this, it is likely he would automatically be replaced by his successor, Vice President Joe Biden.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls showed Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also, Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Has made this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, on the rare occasions he's mentioned.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increased with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], looked for a time like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be to split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump has also considered an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed his party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would need to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past.

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]
|Virgil Goode
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]<ref>http://www.jillstein.org/</ref>
|Jill Stein
|Defeated Rosanne Barr for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party
|Rocky Anderson
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]<ref>http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front</ref>
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party
|[[Roseanne Barr]]
|Comedian and TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party
|Tom Hoefling
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party
|James Harris
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA
|Stewart Alexander
|
|-
|American Third Position Party
|Merlin Miller
|
|-
|Grass Roots Party
|Jim Carlson
|
|-

|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections 2010]]
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-08-12T20:22:14Z

CasparRH: /* Minor Parties */ more

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> In addition, [[Barack Obama]] is polling poorly in the key [[Swing State|swing state]]s of [[Ohio]] and [[North Carolina]].

Obama has struggled in some of his own primaries, despite the lack of media attention to them. 40% of ''[[Democrats]]'' voted against [[Obama]] in the [[Arkansas]] and [[Kentucky]] primaries in May 2012, and in Arkansas Obama was not declared the winner of his own primary by some in the media until nearly midnight.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229023-in-kentucky-42-percent-of-dems-pick-uncommitted-instead-of-obama</ref>

The [[Republican Party]] is in the process of selecting its nominee through the [[2012 Republican Primary]]; the latest delegate totals are [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html here] and [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/delegate-tracker/ here]. About 1,144 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination.<ref>Primaries held before April 1, 2012, awarded delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). However, some early states are winner-take-all by Congressional district, sometimes leading to a single candidate taking a large majority of the delegates. For instance, in South Carolina, the winner of each district got 2 delegates (for a total of 14), and the winner of the state got 11. This was permissible because less than 50% of the delegates were awarded to the state winner automatically. Newt Gingrich won all but one Congressional district, as well as the state overall, earning him 23 delegates to Mitt Romney's 2. Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), is winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts. [http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19843184] Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all; New York was winner-take-all only if one candidate were to win more than 50% of the vote. [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0131/Florida-primary-Why-it-s-one-of-the-last-few-winner-take-all-states]</ref> The dates of the primaries are [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c here].
__NOTOC__
== Republican Contenders for the Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|Would probably appoint conservative judges to the federal bench, more so than other Republicans would. Has business experience and was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Outraises [[Barack Obama]] in campaign contributions, and [[Super PAC]]s supportive of Romney are likely to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads against [[Obama]]. In the primaries Mitt came in second in [[Iowa]], first in [[New Hampshire]], a distant second in South Carolina, first in Florida, lost three states to Santorum on February 7, but then won in [[Arizona]] and [[Michigan]] on February 28 and in six other states on Super Tuesday, March 6. Has received endorsements from moderate and liberal Republicans such as [[Bob Dole]], [[John McCain]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Jon Huntsman]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]], [[Tim Pawlenty]], [[Jeb Bush]], [[Marco Rubio]], and [[George H. W. Bush]]<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/its-official-elder-bush-backs-romney/ It's official, elder Bush backs Romney] New York Times 538 election blog. March, 29th 2012</ref>. Won the 2012 [[CPAC]] straw poll.
|Has weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it difficult for Romney to win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations, continued to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] long after it was discredited, and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. The mostly tepid criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] until they started forcefully attacking him after the voting officially started suggested that they wanted him to win so that they could defeat him in the general election.
|With his victory in the Texas primary on May 29, Romney reportedly reached the number needed to secure the Republican nomination.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the 2011 [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) is used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treated him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Surprisingly, he won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
Finished a strong third in Iowa's caucuses and second in New Hampshire, Maine, and Washington. Won a majority of the delegates in state conventions held in Minnesota, Iowa, Maine, and Louisiana. Has suspended his campaign without endorsing Romney.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The [[pro-life]] candidate most opposed by [[liberal]]s due to his political effectiveness in accomplishing [[conservative]] goals. Newt is the only contender who stands up forcefully to liberals and to the [[lamestream media]]. He had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. Has been endorsed by conservatives such as [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Herman Cain]].
|His many decades in public life make him vulnerable to negative political ads. His personal life has been criticized: his first marriage was annulled, and he's been married twice since. Ron Paul is particularly critical of Newt, although many of Dr. Paul's supporters are likely to prefer Newt over Mitt Romney.
|Newt's rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for him in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates was brilliant. However, he carried only Georgia on Super Tuesday and lost Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to Santorum. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his hypothetical Cabinet. Gingrich withdrew from the race during the first week of May.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if there were a deadlock at the national convention. In the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida, and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. He says he does not intend to run in 2012. He knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, but everyone expects him to run at some point and he's not getting any younger. Jeb is disliked by some Tea Partiers, but not as disliked as Romney. Endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] <ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/breaking-jeb-bush-endorses-romney/</ref>.
|Jeb may be waiting until 2016, expecting Obama to be re-elected. He has endorsed Romney for 2012.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Stongly conservative across the board, family man, well-received by evangelicals. He has received a 100% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] for his pro-life voting record during his time in the Senate. The [[NRA]] has given him an A+ lifetime rating for protecting 2nd Amendment rights<ref>http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum</ref>.
|Almost certainly began as a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position, and may now be seeking to be Romney's VP. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008 rather than more conservative candidates. Santorum's tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes, and he's been criticized for supporting earmarks while in the Senate.
|Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a former [[U.S. Senator]], switched his endorsement from Romney to Santorum on Feb. 17, helping lift Santorum to a razor-thin loss to Romney in the Ohio primary. Rick is fabulous in debates and television interviews. Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], but was an also-ran in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries before rebounding to win primaries in Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, and most of the Southern states. Ended his campaign and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if Romney stumbles. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, is personally [[pro-life]], is a fiscal conservative, and has a record of supporting upset victors in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, showed that a large majority of Republicans didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13, 2011. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser.
|Pulled out on the eve of the South Carolina primary. He may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his [[electability]]. Suspended his campaign on January 19 and endorsed Gingrich.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and tried to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachmann withdrew from the race one day after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses. Is seeking reelection to the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats.
|Garnered little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. He announced that his candidacy would continue but dropped out of the race less than a week later. He has not endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011. Later announced his resignation from the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination. He was considered to be a finalist for the Vice-Presidential nomination before Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making his an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: inexperience, his parents being non-citizens at the time of his birth, and Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA. Endorsed and has campaigned for Mitt Romney <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/rubio-endorses-romney-saying-hes-earned-it/ Rubio endorses Romney, saying he's 'earned' it] March 28th FoxNews.com</ref> 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President. Won the 2012 CPAC straw poll for Vice President anyway.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, showed no interest in a run for the Presidential nomination.
|Supporting his dad's run for President but did express support for Romney after his nomination seemed secure.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman who said he would welcome being nominated as Vice President
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he was not running for president. Later showed hints that he might reconsider, but announced in late March 2011 that he was not running.
|Definitely a future prospect.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president or vice-president, but was called one of the top half-dozen Vice-Presidential possibilities.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office.
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Seemed to be courting the Vice Presidential nomination using Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running, but was thought by some to be among Romney's finalists for Vice-President.
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year. Has endorsed Mitt Romney.
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich is able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking a strong base have little chance unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

The most likely thing that would remove Obama from the 2012 ticket would a court ruling ineligibility due to not being a natural born citizen. However, as Obama will use all his political power to delay this as long as possible, it is unlikely such a decision would come before the November election. Depending on the timing of this, it is likely he would automatically be replaced by his successor, Vice President Joe Biden.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls showed Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also, Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Has made this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, on the rare occasions he's mentioned.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increased with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], looked for a time like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be to split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump has also considered an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed his party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would need to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past.

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]
|Virgil Goode
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]
|Jill Stein
|Defeated Rosanne Barr for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|Justice Party
|Rocky Anderson
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party
|[[Roseanne Barr]]
|Comedian and TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|America's Party
|Tom Hoefling
|
|-
|[[Objectivist]] Party
|Tom Stevens
|
|-
|Socialist Workers Party
|James Harris
|
|-
|Socialist Party USA
|Stewart Alexander
|
|-
|American Third Position Party
|Merlin Miller
|
|-
|Grass Roots Party
|Jim Carlson
|
|-

|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections 2010]]
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Talk:Infamous liberals

2012-08-12T19:55:56Z

CasparRH:

I think Adolf Hitler needs to be removed from this page. On Adolf Hitler's CP talk page there is a history professor who denies that Hitler was a socialist, and it would appear that the fact that the the Nazi party is called the National Socialist Party is the only reason he is on the page for Infamous Liberals. Hitler was NOT a socialist, and anyone who thinks he is just because of the party name should refer to Adolf Hitler's CP talk page. I also fail to see how Fred Phelps is a liberal- if someone could remove him as well or explain how he is a liberal that would be great. Thanks! --Iekarot

Hitler, Stalin & Mao liberals? This renders the word meaningless. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:55, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Famous Cathedrals

2012-08-12T15:26:06Z

CasparRH: /* Possible additions */ new section

=='Bit of a mess"==

This page seems to be a bit of a mess with no real order and images stuck all over the place. That is unless there is some order which I havent't grasped. Would anyone be averse to me refreshing it. I think it may be better to break it down by country and add a sentence of context to each image. Rather than simply a beautiful image with a name perhaps including a brief history each cathedral including build date and maybe an interesting fact or two could really enhance this page. --[[User:Jmsmith|Jmsmith]] 14:00, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

: At present it is aimed by harmony in the layout. Any change could be a risk for the position it has in the searching machines. However a brief history of each cathedral including build date could be an interesting fact. --[[User:JMR10|Joaquín Martínez]] 11:05, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

== Possible additions ==

I'd propose adding Rheims, Rouen, St Paul's (London), St John the Divine (New York), Notre Dame du Haut (Ronchamp, France), Hagia Sophia (no longer a cathedral but built as one), Sagrada Familia and (my personal favorite) Amiens. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 11:26, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Natural-born citizen

2012-08-12T15:04:29Z

CasparRH:

'''Natural-born citizen''' is an individual of either sex who owes allegiance or fealty to a government of the country in which he or she was born, and whose parents were citizens of the same country at the time of that individual's birth.

==Meaning of the term==
''Natural-born citizen'' as a term of usage in the United States, evidently comes from the writings of [[Emmerich de Vatell]] (1714-1767),{{who}} a Swiss philosopher and legal scholar who laid the foundations and concepts of modern law.

{{quotebox|''"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."''<ref>Vatell: CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.</ref>}}

[[Thomas Jefferson]] gave a further definition prior to the drafting of the [[United States Constitution]]: ''"A Natural subject is one born within the king's allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person's being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance. An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power."''<ref>Notes by Jefferson, December, 1783, pertaining to letters written by Delegates to Congress</ref> John Jay, in a letter to [[George Washington]] while he served as president of the Constitutional Convention, went further with a pointed question: "Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."<ref>http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html</ref> The implication is that the President of the United States should have loyalty to no country other than his own, which is naturally-guaranteed by birth to two citizen parents.

==U.S. Constitution==
Jay apparently had some influence on Washington, for when the Convention ended and the new Constitution was ratified, only the qualifications for the office of president in [[United States Constitution:Article II|Article II]] had the term "natural-born"; the qualifications for Senator and Representative in Article I did not: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...."

Because the Constitution fails to define the term "natural born Citizen", establishment of its precise meaning would fall to Congress or the courts. The only US law that has ever employed the exact term "natural born citizen" is the Naturalization Act of 1790:<ref>http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227</ref>

{{quotebox|And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered natural born citizens: ''Provided,'' That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: ''Provided also,'' That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.}}

This law was passed by the First Congress, which counted among its members nearly half of the signers of the Constitution (and was signed into law by a president who was also a signer of the Constitution), so it may give some insight into the intention behind this provision. However, the 1790 act was repealed in 1795, and no subsequent law or court decision has clearly defined “natural born Citizen”.

Therefore, there is still discussion over exactly who meets the definition of a natural-born citizen. It is clear that someone who was not a citizen from birth, but acquired citizenship through naturalization, is not one. One view is that all others, meaning anyone who is a citizen from the moment of birth, are natural-born citizens. There are arguments that a third category exists, of those who are citizens from birth by law or status, but are not intended to be considered as natural born. The most common reasons given are that the birth did not take place within the US, or that one of the birth parents was not a US citizen. Precedents indicate that neither of these conditions will prevent someone from attaining the Presidency.

Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] was born to U.S. military parents stationed in the Panama Canal Zone, a territory within Panama which until 1978 was administered by the United States<ref>http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/panama-canal-zone.jsp</ref>. The Senate passed a nonbinding resolution declaring that he was indeed a natural born citizen.<ref> [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110SRes511 S.Res.511]: ''A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen''; sponsors: Sen. [[Claire McCaskill]], Sen. [[Barack Obama]] ''et al.'' </ref>

Two presidents were born having a father who was not a citizen.
* [[Chester A. Arthur|Chester Arthur]] was born in the US (though rumored to have been born in Canada), but his father was at that time a citizen of the [[UK]].
* [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barack Obama]], who was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. His father was a British national from Kenya who was at that time attended a university on a student visa.

Two potential candidates in the [[Presidential Election 2012]] were born having a father who was not a citizen.
* [[Marco Rubio]] was born in the US, but his parents were Cuban exiles who were not US citizens at the time.
* [[Bobby Jindal]] was born in the US, but his parents were Indian nationals at the time of his birth.

=="Scrubbing" of the term from the internet==
In the wake of the official release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate, editors have engaged in an edit war in Wikipedia in their article<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen</ref> on the subject, as key references to Vatell about the meaning of ''natural-born citizen'' were forcibly removed.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=293069</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=294221</ref> Within a week, "sanitizing" of sorts took place on other online dictionaries and reference sites,<ref>http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1477742/pg1</ref> as each revision sought to push the idea that the Constitution's ''natural-born'' clause should refer to anyone born in the United States regardless of the immigration status of the parents.<ref>http://www.onelook.com/?w=Natural%20born%20citizen&ls=a (mirrors Wikipedia)</ref><ref>http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/naturalize?q=naturalized#naturalize__3</ref><ref>http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/natural%20born%20citizen (mirrors Wikipedia)</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
*de Vatell, Emmerich. ''The Law of Nations''; T. & J.W. Johnson & Company, Philadelphia (1883)[http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm]
*[http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/ Personal blog which goes into detail on an 1896 case]

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Talk:Roseanne Barr

2012-08-12T14:49:26Z

CasparRH:

Not a word about her popular, Emmy-winning television show, which ran for nine years? That's not significant enough to include in an "encyclopedia"? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 23:41, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
:And you were just in there, and you could have included a reference to her show. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:23, 12 August 2012 (EDT)
::Why bother when it's much more fun to point out how stupid your website is? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:49, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Roseanne Barr

2012-08-12T03:44:01Z

CasparRH:

'''Roseanne Cherrie Barr''' (born November 3, 1952) is a [[Socialism|socialist]] comedian, actress, writer and [[liberal]] activist.

On July 25, 1990, Barr performed a controversial rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" before a Cincinnati Reds-San Diego Padres baseball game in San Diego, California. She seemed to not take the national anthem seriously and sang the song as loudly as possible, and her rendition of the song sounded "screechy".<ref>"The fat lady sang. Actually, she screeched. Then she scratched her crotch and spat." [http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136617/index.htm Sports Illustrated], August 06, 1990 - Tom Kirkjian</ref> Following her rendition, she mimicked the often-seen actions of players by spitting and grabbing her crotch as if adjusting a protective cup. The song and the closing routine offended many in the audience, and it was replayed frequently on television, drawing further attention and criticism of her disrespectful rendition.

During the 2008 Democratic primaries, Barr was a supporter of [[Hillary Clinton]] for president and was very critical of [[Barack Obama]], describing him as "an empty suit selling hope in lieu of Truth." Like many Clinton supporters, as soon as Obama won the Democratic nomination, Barr immediately recanted her previous statements and became an Obama supporter. She has also described former [[Vietnam War]] POW Senator [[John McCain]] as "the most racist right wing Republican ever."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/01/barak_obama.php |title=Barack Obama at Roseanne World |accessdate=2008-02-22}}</ref>

Despite her far left-wing positions, she has actually been critical of the "gay rights" movement. A 1992 ''Playboy'' magazine article quoted a letter in which Barr used numerous homophobic slurs to try to insult then ''USA Today'' reviewer Matt Roush.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/monitor.html |title=Maledicta Mirror |accessdate=2008-02-22}}</ref> On April 6, 2007, during Barr's show on California's KCAA radio, she commented that "gay and lesbian people definitely practiced a divide and conquer mentality where, you know, it always has to be about them" and that gay people "don't care about minimum wage, they don't care about any other group other than their own self because you know, some people say being gay and lesbian is a totally narcissistic thing and sometimes I wonder."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/04/wherein_we_chan_1.html |title=Wherein we channel our inner Darlene Conner}}</ref>

In November of 2008, Barr once agained sparked controversy by verbally attacking minority groups. In a post on her blog, she attacked [[Jew]]s, [[Catholic]]s, and [[Mormon]]s.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/11/06/roseanne-barr-register-mormon-catholic-churches-judaism-pacs</ref> A few days later, she posted another opinion piece on her blog in which she attacked [[African-American]]s.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/11/10/roseanne-barr-now-lecturing-blacks-over-prop-8-vote</ref>

On December 30, 2008, Barr posted a message on her website in which she wrote that the state of [[Israel]] is "a Nazi state".<ref>http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/12/i_told_my_friend_dont_go.php</ref> In July of 2009, she once again sparked controversy when she appeared in a photo shoot for the crudely named ''Heeb'' magazine dressed as Adolf Hilter. In one photo, Barr is seen taking burnt gingerbread "Jew Cookies" out of an oven.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/07/30/roseanne-barr-dressed-hitler-bakes-burnt-jew-cookies</ref>

She sought the [[Green Party]] nomination for President in the [[2012 Presidential election]], but Jill Stein was chosen instead. She is currently running as the candidate of the Peace and Freedom Party. Speaking for the [[Occupy Wall Street]] protests in November 2011, Roseanne called for rich people to face "re-education or execution" through some sort of Gulag. She was up to her violent ways again when in April 2012, she joined [[Spike Lee]] in sending out the personal address of the parents of Hispanic neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman during the Trayvon Martin case while the [[New Black Panthers]] had a bounty on him.

==References==
<div class="references-small"><div class="references-2column"><references /></div></div>

==External links==
*[http://www.roseanneworld.com/ Roseanne's website and daily blog]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Barr, Roseanne}}
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]

Talk:Roseanne Barr

2012-08-12T03:41:56Z

CasparRH: Created page with "Not a word about her popular, Emmy-winning television show, which ran for nine years? That's not significant enough to include in an "encyclopedia"? ~~~~"

Richard J. Daley

2012-08-12T03:32:38Z

CasparRH:

'''Richard J. Daley''' (May 15, 1902 – December 20, 1976) was the second longest-serving mayor of [[Chicago]], 1955-1979. For 23 years (1953-76) he was the [[Democratic Party]] boss of Chicago and Cook County, where he selected candidates for the state legislature and Congress, and had a voice in state and national decisions. Historians call him the "last of the big city bosses." His son [[Richard M. Daley]] was the mayor of Chicago from 1989 to 2011.

Daley played a major role in the history of the [[Democratic Party]], especially as a leader of the Irish Catholics and supporter of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 and of [[Hubert Humphrey]] in 1968.

Daley had two bases of power, serving as Chairman of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee from 1953, and as mayor of Chicago from 1955. He used both positions until his death in 1976 to dominate party and civic affairs. Daley's well-organized Democratic political machine was often accused of corruption and though many of Daley's subordinates were jailed, Daley was never personally accused of corruption. He built a remarkably prosperous downtown, as well as the nation's largest airport in the suburbs. He helped Chicago avoid the declines that some other "rust belt" cities like St. Louis and Detroit experienced during the same period. His base of support in Chicago was the white Catholic vote, turned out by an army of precinct captains and ward bosses, who depended on city jobs.

His Democratic political machine was widely known to be corrupt, a legacy that Chicago and all of Illinois still carries today. Daley also led the catastrophic 1968 Democratic national convention, which was marked by riots, violence, brutality and lasting anger.

==Early life==
Born on Chicago's South Side near the stockyards in 1902, Daley was the only child of blue-collar, immigrant [[Irish Catholic]] parents. Daley attended Catholic elementary and high schools (where he learned clerical skills) and took night classes at [[DePaul University College of Law]] to earn a [[Juris Doctor]] in 1933. Daley, however, never practiced law and instead spent his career in politics, starting as a budget specialist.

==Political career==
===Early career===
[[Image:3536 S Lowe.jpg|thumb|Daley's home from 1955 to 1976, located at [http://reallyboring.net/chicago/60-bridgeport/l2.jpg 3536 S Lowe] in Chicago, IL.]]
Daley came from an upwardly mobile Irish family in Bridgeport; he was a good student, took college and law degrees, and became a budget specialist in state government under the Kelly-Nash machine. Although Daley was a lifelong Democrat, he was first elected to the Illinois legislature as a Republican. This was a matter of political opportunism and the peculiar setup for legislative elections in Illinois at the time, which allowed Daley to take the place on the ballot of the recently deceased Republican candidate. After his election, Daley immediately moved to the Democratic side of the aisle. Daley suffered his only electoral defeat in 1946, when he lost a bid to become Cook County sheriff in a year of republican landslides. By 1951 he used his Irish network to displace [[Jake Arvey]] the Jewish chairman of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee, which became his power base.

First elected mayor in 1955, Daley was re-elected to that office six times and had been mayor for 21 years at the time of his death. During his administration, Daley was a hands-on manager of all city departments, emphasizing efficiency in government operations as even more important than patronage decisions on promotions and assignments.

Daley married Eleanor "Sis" Guilfoyle in 1936, and they lived in a modest brick bungalow on Lowe Avenue in the heavily Irish-American Bridgeport neighborhood, just blocks from his birthplace. They had three daughters and four sons. Their eldest son, [[Richard M. Daley]], was elected mayor of Chicago in 1989 and served six terms before deciding not to run for re-election in 2010. The youngest son, [[William M. Daley]], served as [[United States Secretary of Commerce|US Secretary of Commerce]] from 1997-2000. Another son, [[John P. Daley]], is a member of the Cook County Board of Commissioners.

Major construction during his terms in office resulted in [[O'Hare International Airport]], the [[Sears Tower]], [[McCormick Place]], the [[University of Illinois at Chicago]] campus, numerous expressways and subway construction projects, and other major Chicago landmarks. O'Hare was a particular point of pride for Daley, with he and his staff regularly devising occasions to celebrate it.

In 1966, [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]] confronted the Daley machine when King attempted to take the [[Civil Rights Movement]] north and demanded racial integration of Chicago's neighborhoods, such as Marquette Park. King's efforts in Chicago were largely unsuccessful, and his failure in Chicago was a serious setback for the Civil Rights Movement.

=== 1968 and later career ===
The year 1968 was a momentous year for Daley. Following King's death in April massive rioting and looting erupted on the West Side. Daley cracked down hard. In August, the 1968 Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago.

With the nation divided by the [[Vietnam War]] and with the assassinations of King and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] earlier that year serving as backdrop, the city became a battleground for anti-war protests who vowed to shut down the convention. In some cases, confrontations between protesters and police turned violent, with images of this violence broadcast on national television. Later, radical activists [[Abbie Hoffman]], [[Jerry Rubin]], and three other members of the "[[Chicago Seven]]" were convicted of crossing state lines with the intent of inciting a riot as a result of these confrontations, though the convictions were overturned on appeal.

At the convention itself, Sen. [[Abraham A. Ribicoff]], D-Conn., went off-script during his speech nominating [[George McGovern]], saying, "If George McGovern were president, we wouldn’t have these Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago." Ribicoff also tried to introduce a motion to shut down the convention and move it to another city. Some conventioneers applauded Ribicoff's remarks but an indignant Mayor Daley tried to shout down the speaker.<ref>Royko p. 189</ref> A federal commission, led by local attorney and longtime Daley foe [[Daniel Walker]], later investigated the events surrounding the convention and described them as a "police riot." Daley's supporters challenged Walker's credibility because of his well-known opposition to Daley and Chicago machine politics; Walker's credibility was later destroyed when he went to federal prison.

In 1972 Democratic nominee [[George McGovern]] threw Daley out of the Democratic National Convention (replacing his delegation with that of [[Jesse Jackson]]). McGovern later made amends by putting Daley loyalist (and Kennedy in-law) [[Sargent Shriver]] on his ticket.

On December 20, 1976, while at work Daley suffered a massive heart attack and died at the age of 74. He is buried in Holy Sepulchre Cemetery.

==Speaking style==

Daley was known for his tangled tongue--as when he was ''exhilarating'' a program, rather than ''accelerating'' it. One of Daley's most memorable malapropisms was uttered in 1968 while defending what the news media reported as police misconduct during that year's violent and confrontational Democratic Convention. "Gentlemen, get the thing straight once and for all — the policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder." Pundits laughingly agreed when he promised, "We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement."

==Democratic machine politics==
Known for shrewd party politics, Daley was the prototypical "machine" politician, and his [[Chicago Democratic Machine]], based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for fellow Irish Catholic [[John F. Kennedy]] in the 1960 presidential election.

Daley was usually open with the news media, meeting with them for frequent news conferences, and taking all questions — if not answering all of them. According to hostile columnist [[Mike Royko]], Daley got along better with editors and publishers than with reporters.

Daley, as party boss, worked well with the regular Democrats who comprised the majority of the 50 aldermen of the Chicago City Council. For the most part, the aldermen supported Daley and the official party position consistently. Opposition came from conservative Republicans from the German wards on the northwest side of the city, and a band of liberal white independents (a group that grew during Daley's mayoralty to represent groups that felt disfranchised by Daley's policies). The black South Side comprised a submachine of its own, allied with Daley. He helped the bosses there repress the leftists and agitators typified by [[Jesse Jackson]].

Daley relied on his ward bosses and they relied on their hundreds of precinct captains, who marshaled and delivered votes on a block-by-block basis. Many of these precinct captains were rewarded with well-paid patronage jobs with the city, mostly minor posts. Each ward had a ward leader in charge of the precinct captains. The notorious First Ward machine was tied to the local mafia or crime syndicate, but Daley's own ward was clean and his personal honesty was never questioned successfully.

==Legacy==
At his death in 1976, the liberal Democrats' perception of Daley was the image painted in dark hues by Mike Royko in his 1971 biography, ''Boss''—corrupt, racist, cruel, mean, brutal. In light of the later events, such as New York City's fiscal crisis, Daley's reputation has been rehabilitated, as shown by a poll of 160 historians, political scientists and urban experts. They ranked Daley as the #6 best mayor in American history.<ref> Holli 1999</ref> Daley's ways may have been rough, but his defenders have argued that he got positive things done for Chicago which a non-boss would have been unable to do. While detractors point out that he helped develop what became known as the most segregated city in the nation, others argue that he was acting on behalf of his constituency, who did not want an integrated Chicago.

On the 50th anniversary of Daley's first swearing in several dozen Daley biographers and associates met to evaluate his career. Historian [[Michael Beschloss]] called Daley "the pre-eminent mayor of the 20th century." Chicago journalist Elizabeth Taylor said, "Because of Mayor Daley, Chicago did not become a Detroit or a Cleveland." Many feel that by revitalizing the downtown area with skyscrapers, apartment buildings, museums, and a strong upscale shopping district and firmly fixing the middle-class in place in the city limits, Daley probably did save Chicago from decline or collapse. Historian Robert Remini pointed out that while other cities were in fiscal crisis in the 1960s and 1970s, "Chicago always had a double-A bond rating."

Daley is memorialized specifically in numerous buildings including one of the City Colleges of Chicago[http://daley.ccc.edu Richard J. Daley College].
* The "Richard J. Daley Civic Center" is a 32-floor office building completed in 1965.
* The "Richard J. Daley Library" serves the University of Illinois at Chicago[http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/mainlib/]
* "Richard J. Daley Park: is on the lakefront he loved so much

==Biographies==
* Biles, Roger. ''Richard J. Daley: politics, race, and the governing of Chicago'' (1995), important study by leading historian
* Cohen, Adam and Elizabeth Taylor. ''American Pharaoh: Mayor Richard J. Daley: His Battle for Chicago and the Nation,'' (2000) the standrad scholarly biography.
* Goodman, Barak (director) "Daley: The Last Boss" PBS documentary (1995)
*{{cite book|last=Royko|first=Mike|authorlink=Mike Royko|title=Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago|year=1971|publisher=Dutton|location=New York|id=ISBN 0-525-07000-1}}

==Academic studies==
* Biles, Roger. ''Richard J. Daley: Politics, Race, and the Government of Chicago'' (1995)
* Green, Paul M. "Mayor Richard J. Daley and the politics of good government," in Paul M. Green and Melvin G. Holli (eds.) ''The Mayors: The Chicago Political Tradition'' (1995), pp 144-59
* Holli, Melvin G.. ''The American Mayor: The Best and the Worst Big-city Leaders'' (1999) , praises Daley
* Peterson, Paul E.. ''School Politics, Chicago Style'' (1976)
* Rakove, Milton L.. ''Don't Make No Waves—Don't Back No Losers: An Insider's Analysis of the Daley Machine'' (1975) ISBN favorable
* Simpson, Dick. ''Rogues, Rebels, and Rubber Stamps: The Politics of the Chicago City Council from 1863 to the Present'' (2000) hostile
==External links==
*[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Daley2.html Mayor Richard J. Daley]
*[http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/mayors/daley1.html Richard Joseph Daley at Chicago Public Library]
*[http://www.chicagohistory.info/stories/daley/ Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago]
====references====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Daley, Richard}}

[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[Category:Mayors]]
[[Category:Chicago]]

Richard M. Daley

2012-08-12T03:31:58Z

CasparRH:

'''Richard M. Daley''' was the mayor of Chicago from 1989 until 2011. His father, [[Richard J. Daley]] was Chicago's mayor from 1955 to 1976.

He is a major [[gun control]] advocate. [[John Lott]], in ''More Guns, Less Crime'' argued that "Daley’s [[gun control|gun laws]] did more harm than good."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/01/scary-encounter-chicagos-mayor-richard-daley/ My Scary Encounter With Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley] - John Lott - February 01, 2011</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Chicago]]

Richard J. Daley

2012-08-12T03:30:36Z

CasparRH:

Richard M. Daley

2012-08-12T03:29:24Z

CasparRH: update

'''Richard M. Daley''' was the mayor of Chicago from 1989 until 2011. He is a major [[gun control]] advocate.

[[John Lott]], in ''More Guns, Less Crime'' argued that "Daley’s [[gun control|gun laws]] did more harm than good."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/01/scary-encounter-chicagos-mayor-richard-daley/ My Scary Encounter With Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley] - John Lott - February 01, 2011</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Chicago]]

Richard J. Daley

2012-08-12T03:28:41Z

CasparRH: update

'''Richard J. Daley''' (May 15, 1902 – December 20, 1976) was the longest-serving mayor of [[Chicago]], 1955-1979. For 23 years (1953-76) he was the [[Democratic Party]] boss of Chicago and Cook County, where he selected candidates for the state legislature and Congress, and had a voice in state and national decisions. Historians call him the "last of the big city bosses." His son [[Richard M. Daley]] was the mayor of Chicago from 1989 to 2011.

Daley played a major role in the history of the [[Democratic Party]], especially as a leader of the Irish Catholics and supporter of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 and of [[Hubert Humphrey]] in 1968.

Daley had two bases of power, serving as Chairman of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee from 1953, and as mayor of Chicago from 1955. He used both positions until his death in 1976 to dominate party and civic affairs. Daley's well-organized Democratic political machine was often accused of corruption and though many of Daley's subordinates were jailed, Daley was never personally accused of corruption. He built a remarkably prosperous downtown, as well as the nation's largest airport in the suburbs. He helped Chicago avoid the declines that some other "rust belt" cities like St. Louis and Detroit experienced during the same period. His base of support in Chicago was the white Catholic vote, turned out by an army of precinct captains and ward bosses, who depended on city jobs.

His Democratic political machine was widely known to be corrupt, a legacy that Chicago and all of Illinois still carries today. Daley also led the catastrophic 1968 Democratic national convention, which was marked by riots, violence, brutality and lasting anger.

==Early life==
Born on Chicago's South Side near the stockyards in 1902, Daley was the only child of blue-collar, immigrant [[Irish Catholic]] parents. Daley attended Catholic elementary and high schools (where he learned clerical skills) and took night classes at [[DePaul University College of Law]] to earn a [[Juris Doctor]] in 1933. Daley, however, never practiced law and instead spent his career in politics, starting as a budget specialist.

==Political career==
===Early career===
[[Image:3536 S Lowe.jpg|thumb|Daley's home from 1955 to 1976, located at [http://reallyboring.net/chicago/60-bridgeport/l2.jpg 3536 S Lowe] in Chicago, IL.]]
Daley came from an upwardly mobile Irish family in Bridgeport; he was a good student, took college and law degrees, and became a budget specialist in state government under the Kelly-Nash machine. Although Daley was a lifelong Democrat, he was first elected to the Illinois legislature as a Republican. This was a matter of political opportunism and the peculiar setup for legislative elections in Illinois at the time, which allowed Daley to take the place on the ballot of the recently deceased Republican candidate. After his election, Daley immediately moved to the Democratic side of the aisle. Daley suffered his only electoral defeat in 1946, when he lost a bid to become Cook County sheriff in a year of republican landslides. By 1951 he used his Irish network to displace [[Jake Arvey]] the Jewish chairman of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee, which became his power base.

First elected mayor in 1955, Daley was re-elected to that office six times and had been mayor for 21 years at the time of his death. During his administration, Daley was a hands-on manager of all city departments, emphasizing efficiency in government operations as even more important than patronage decisions on promotions and assignments.

Daley married Eleanor "Sis" Guilfoyle in 1936, and they lived in a modest brick bungalow on Lowe Avenue in the heavily Irish-American Bridgeport neighborhood, just blocks from his birthplace. They had three daughters and four sons. Their eldest son, [[Richard M. Daley]], was elected mayor of Chicago in 1989 and served six terms before deciding not to run for re-election in 2010. The youngest son, [[William M. Daley]], served as [[United States Secretary of Commerce|US Secretary of Commerce]] from 1997-2000. Another son, [[John P. Daley]], is a member of the Cook County Board of Commissioners.

Major construction during his terms in office resulted in [[O'Hare International Airport]], the [[Sears Tower]], [[McCormick Place]], the [[University of Illinois at Chicago]] campus, numerous expressways and subway construction projects, and other major Chicago landmarks. O'Hare was a particular point of pride for Daley, with he and his staff regularly devising occasions to celebrate it.

In 1966, [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]] confronted the Daley machine when King attempted to take the [[Civil Rights Movement]] north and demanded racial integration of Chicago's neighborhoods, such as Marquette Park. King's efforts in Chicago were largely unsuccessful, and his failure in Chicago was a serious setback for the Civil Rights Movement.

=== 1968 and later career ===
The year 1968 was a momentous year for Daley. Following King's death in April massive rioting and looting erupted on the West Side. Daley cracked down hard. In August, the 1968 Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago.

With the nation divided by the [[Vietnam War]] and with the assassinations of King and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] earlier that year serving as backdrop, the city became a battleground for anti-war protests who vowed to shut down the convention. In some cases, confrontations between protesters and police turned violent, with images of this violence broadcast on national television. Later, radical activists [[Abbie Hoffman]], [[Jerry Rubin]], and three other members of the "[[Chicago Seven]]" were convicted of crossing state lines with the intent of inciting a riot as a result of these confrontations, though the convictions were overturned on appeal.

At the convention itself, Sen. [[Abraham A. Ribicoff]], D-Conn., went off-script during his speech nominating [[George McGovern]], saying, "If George McGovern were president, we wouldn’t have these Gestapo tactics in the streets of Chicago." Ribicoff also tried to introduce a motion to shut down the convention and move it to another city. Some conventioneers applauded Ribicoff's remarks but an indignant Mayor Daley tried to shout down the speaker.<ref>Royko p. 189</ref> A federal commission, led by local attorney and longtime Daley foe [[Daniel Walker]], later investigated the events surrounding the convention and described them as a "police riot." Daley's supporters challenged Walker's credibility because of his well-known opposition to Daley and Chicago machine politics; Walker's credibility was later destroyed when he went to federal prison.

In 1972 Democratic nominee [[George McGovern]] threw Daley out of the Democratic National Convention (replacing his delegation with that of [[Jesse Jackson]]). McGovern later made amends by putting Daley loyalist (and Kennedy in-law) [[Sargent Shriver]] on his ticket.

On December 20, 1976, while at work Daley suffered a massive heart attack and died at the age of 74. He is buried in Holy Sepulchre Cemetery.

==Speaking style==

Daley was known for his tangled tongue--as when he was ''exhilarating'' a program, rather than ''accelerating'' it. One of Daley's most memorable malapropisms was uttered in 1968 while defending what the news media reported as police misconduct during that year's violent and confrontational Democratic Convention. "Gentlemen, get the thing straight once and for all — the policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder." Pundits laughingly agreed when he promised, "We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement."

==Democratic machine politics==
Known for shrewd party politics, Daley was the prototypical "machine" politician, and his [[Chicago Democratic Machine]], based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for fellow Irish Catholic [[John F. Kennedy]] in the 1960 presidential election.

Daley was usually open with the news media, meeting with them for frequent news conferences, and taking all questions — if not answering all of them. According to hostile columnist [[Mike Royko]], Daley got along better with editors and publishers than with reporters.

Daley, as party boss, worked well with the regular Democrats who comprised the majority of the 50 aldermen of the Chicago City Council. For the most part, the aldermen supported Daley and the official party position consistently. Opposition came from conservative Republicans from the German wards on the northwest side of the city, and a band of liberal white independents (a group that grew during Daley's mayoralty to represent groups that felt disfranchised by Daley's policies). The black South Side comprised a submachine of its own, allied with Daley. He helped the bosses there repress the leftists and agitators typified by [[Jesse Jackson]].

Daley relied on his ward bosses and they relied on their hundreds of precinct captains, who marshaled and delivered votes on a block-by-block basis. Many of these precinct captains were rewarded with well-paid patronage jobs with the city, mostly minor posts. Each ward had a ward leader in charge of the precinct captains. The notorious First Ward machine was tied to the local mafia or crime syndicate, but Daley's own ward was clean and his personal honesty was never questioned successfully.

==Legacy==
At his death in 1976, the liberal Democrats' perception of Daley was the image painted in dark hues by Mike Royko in his 1971 biography, ''Boss''—corrupt, racist, cruel, mean, brutal. In light of the later events, such as New York City's fiscal crisis, Daley's reputation has been rehabilitated, as shown by a poll of 160 historians, political scientists and urban experts. They ranked Daley as the #6 best mayor in American history.<ref> Holli 1999</ref> Daley's ways may have been rough, but his defenders have argued that he got positive things done for Chicago which a non-boss would have been unable to do. While detractors point out that he helped develop what became known as the most segregated city in the nation, others argue that he was acting on behalf of his constituency, who did not want an integrated Chicago.

On the 50th anniversary of Daley's first swearing in several dozen Daley biographers and associates met to evaluate his career. Historian [[Michael Beschloss]] called Daley "the pre-eminent mayor of the 20th century." Chicago journalist Elizabeth Taylor said, "Because of Mayor Daley, Chicago did not become a Detroit or a Cleveland." Many feel that by revitalizing the downtown area with skyscrapers, apartment buildings, museums, and a strong upscale shopping district and firmly fixing the middle-class in place in the city limits, Daley probably did save Chicago from decline or collapse. Historian Robert Remini pointed out that while other cities were in fiscal crisis in the 1960s and 1970s, "Chicago always had a double-A bond rating."

Daley is memorialized specifically in numerous buildings including one of the City Colleges of Chicago[http://daley.ccc.edu Richard J. Daley College].
* The "Richard J. Daley Civic Center" is a 32-floor office building completed in 1965.
* The "Richard J. Daley Library" serves the University of Illinois at Chicago[http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/mainlib/]
* "Richard J. Daley Park: is on the lakefront he loved so much

==Biographies==
* Biles, Roger. ''Richard J. Daley: politics, race, and the governing of Chicago'' (1995), important study by leading historian
* Cohen, Adam and Elizabeth Taylor. ''American Pharaoh: Mayor Richard J. Daley: His Battle for Chicago and the Nation,'' (2000) the standrad scholarly biography.
* Goodman, Barak (director) "Daley: The Last Boss" PBS documentary (1995)
*{{cite book|last=Royko|first=Mike|authorlink=Mike Royko|title=Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago|year=1971|publisher=Dutton|location=New York|id=ISBN 0-525-07000-1}}

==Academic studies==
* Biles, Roger. ''Richard J. Daley: Politics, Race, and the Government of Chicago'' (1995)
* Green, Paul M. "Mayor Richard J. Daley and the politics of good government," in Paul M. Green and Melvin G. Holli (eds.) ''The Mayors: The Chicago Political Tradition'' (1995), pp 144-59
* Holli, Melvin G.. ''The American Mayor: The Best and the Worst Big-city Leaders'' (1999) , praises Daley
* Peterson, Paul E.. ''School Politics, Chicago Style'' (1976)
* Rakove, Milton L.. ''Don't Make No Waves—Don't Back No Losers: An Insider's Analysis of the Daley Machine'' (1975) ISBN favorable
* Simpson, Dick. ''Rogues, Rebels, and Rubber Stamps: The Politics of the Chicago City Council from 1863 to the Present'' (2000) hostile
==External links==
*[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Daley2.html Mayor Richard J. Daley]
*[http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/mayors/daley1.html Richard Joseph Daley at Chicago Public Library]
*[http://www.chicagohistory.info/stories/daley/ Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago]
====references====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Daley, Richard}}

[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Urban History]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[Category: Mayors]]

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2012-08-11T16:45:53Z

CasparRH: /* Reduce size of tables? */

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Hillary Clinton==
Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, ''et all'', [[Hillary Clinton]] currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as ''[[US News]]'' has reported. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
:::People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

== Ken Cuccinelli ==
Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: Please do. Great point, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== A concern ==

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days.
As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:JasonN|JasonN]] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

: In 1968, incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]] felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of [[Eugene McCarthy]] against him in the first primary.

: As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Rubio and Experience ==

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

:Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

::Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for ''absolutely no executive experience''. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== "New" president ==

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your clarifying edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Question ==

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

:Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the [[Democratic]] side. Please feel free to improve further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::SoS ''used'' to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who ''was'' the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== Mitch Daniels ==
His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

:I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

== Dropping Christie ==

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in [[New Jersey]] is that [[Chris Christie|Christie]] is going to run candidates in the primary ''against'' incumbents more [[conservative]] than he.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)

== Trump/Gingrich ==

Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life ''after'' his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.

:Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.

::There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

:::I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== the republican table ==

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
::You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Idea for improvement ==

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

== trump ==

"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/] LOL! Maybe [[Richard Dawkins]], "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against [[William Lane Craig]] if he wanted to! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio ==

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

:::That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "''subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]''"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of ''jus sanguinis'' in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::: JDW wrote, "The most obvious definition of the term [natural born citizen] in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA." Right, no problem there. But implicit in that concept -- and made explicit by the [[14th Amendment]] -- is that the family submit to the jurisdiction of the United States as its national sovereign. That's what is lacking in births to diplomats, visitors, Native Americans circa 1800, students on visas, etc. There is nothing "very narrow indeed" about those exceptions. The Native American population was large, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Seeing as the words "parent," "parents," "mother," "father" or "family" do not appear in the 14th Amendment, where do see the question of a familial commitment to US sovereignty coming into play? Also, in what ways do students on visas not submit to the US as national sovereign? Are filing tax returns, being subject to the law of the land, obliged to fill out the census and other obligations not an aspect of their being subject to US sovereignty for the duration of their stay in the US? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::::Many visitors insist on being deported rather than being subjected fully to U.S. laws. When those visitors take that position -- or act in a way indicative of that position -- then they do not submit fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born during their visit are not "natural born citizens" of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
That does not answer the more substantive point of my argument -- the fact that the 14th Amendment says nothing about parents or family. Moreover, the fact that some people get legally deported only speaks to the fact that they are subject to US sovereignty, as it's American law that determines their status in the country. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:23, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: The [[14th Amendment]] defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, '''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States''' and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added). Many people have been born here who do not accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Really? Who? And more to the point, does the refusal of some people to recognize US sovereignty has anything to do with any particular individual's eligibility? Is there any evidence that Anne Dunham's baby boy did not "accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States?" [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:53, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:
::::"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
:::::"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof'', are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
::::"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, '''this was not intended'' to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or '''to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States''' who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
:::From that legal precedent set by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the case is settled that being born in the US means you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

::::If you were right, then no one born on American soil would ever be deported. But this has been done by government, including high-profile cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::So your argument here is that because some people born on American soil are subject to deportation (which demonstrates that they are subject to US law, as it is US law that is determining where they might live), a child of a citizen and a non-citizen born on US soil may not qualify as "natural born," and this is backed up by the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about a child's parents or family. Moreover, because of the preceding, a child born to two non-US citizens has a greater claim on being a natural-born citizen than does the child of the American citizen. And Anne Dunham's baby may not have accepted US sovereignty, though you still have not provided any evidence for that claim. Do I have that right?[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 09:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Vague anecdotes fail to persuade. Binding legal precedent set by the Supreme Court clearly says you're wrong. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 11:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Isn't one of the main rationales to keep those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they would become ''subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States if they ever set foot on American soil, as they owe allegiance to no other sovereignty (most obviously, they aren't soldiers)? Whether they were willing to accept this or not? And isn't that the idea behind the “wet feet–dry feet” policy, too? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point exactly. Since when is national sovereignty/jurisdiction something that an individual can choose to recognize or not. Here's a thought experiment: ask someone from another country to come to the US and do something in the US that is illegal in America, but legal back home. When they are arrested and tried, go with the defense of "My client doesn't recognize US sovereignty or jurisdiction, and should be released." See how far that goes with a jury, if the judge even allows such a defense. With the very narrow and specific exception of diplomatic immunity, which is not really relevant in this case, anyone entering the US implicitly recognizes US sovereignty and jurisdiction. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:02, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." ==

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: See above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

== Separating out the Real Presidential Candidates ==

Now that several republicans have declared that they will run in the primaries, is it appropriate to remove the non-declared candidates to a new table? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 09:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. Whether someone has declared or not is only one factor -- and not the most significant factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:: Nevertheless, don't you think it would make this table clearer? Perhaps the easiest thing would simply be to add a 'Declared?' column that has an 'X' or something in it - because even though it's not the only factor, it is a very important one? This is certainly the case as time marches on? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 17:29, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

::Do you think it is a good idea to explicitly state what the factors are / what criteria is used to rank the candidates? Even if the ranking is just based on the sum of "pros" vs. the sum of "cons," I would think that some issues receive heavier weighting than others, and it might be helpful to readers if this were made clear. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 12:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:::Obvious factors would include:

:::*a political base
:::*a principled stance on issues
:::*ability to distinguish oneself from other candidates
:::*ability to obtain financial backing for a presidential campaign
:::*articulate
:::*ability to handle the hostile press
:::*proven electoral success

:::Perhaps others can add or reorder the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, I think we could add a few more columns to the table. Right now, each candidate has just two very general paragraphs about their pros/cons, but most of this information is opinionated and while I think the rankings are fairly accurate, I think we could increase the precision of the rankings (or just further justify what we already have) by being much more specific as to examples of each candidate's abilities in each area. Perhaps, like Aschlafly said, we could have a column for "X Candidate's ability to handle the press" and give links or examples of when they successfully managed a hostile situation with the media. That way we're not just throwing out opinions.

::::Also, forgive my boldness, but should Jeb Bush really still be second on the list? I do believe that with his name recognition and history in politics he could have a good chance at winning if he were to run, but since he has not declared I think the liklihood that he wins the nomination is decreasing quickly. There is a fast-moving trend in the media to say "Okay, this is our field. Let's work with what we have." And so if Jeb Bush is going to run, the longer he delays now the more he is going to hurt his own campaign. I would suggest keeping him in the Top Five or Top Seven, but moving him out of the second spot, just because he hasn't declared. Texas Governor Rick Perry should probably be moved up a little since the common stance is that he will be running, but I wouldn't put him in the second spot. Maybe move Bachmann up after her excellent performance in the debate? And then Gingrich in third? [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 10:48, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: You make good points and feel free to add information as long as it does not obscure with less significant complexity. Note, however, that this is not merely a mirror of the [[lamestream media]]. [[Jeb Bush]] would objectively be the second most likely to win the nomination, whether he's running now or not. I don't see anyone else at this time (other than Romney) who has a higher likelihood, although obviously that will change as the deadlines for candidates to formally file election papers approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

== Democrats ==

Why are those other than Obama included? It is highly unlikely that there will be a primary challenge to Obama. If no one opposes I say this section be removed. [[User:TheoCaldwell|TheoCaldwell]] 23:32, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

:At this early stage, it makes sense to include many possible candidates. There is time to trim the list of candidates as primaries approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

== Huntsman ==

I would like to move Huntsman up. Somewhere around number ten. Does anyone mind? I don't think it makes any sense to have him at number twenty-nine (assuming I counted correctly) behind Dick Cheney. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:30, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== Bump paper tiger RHINO Romney from #1, replace him with Bachmann ==

Conservative populism is on the rise. Bump the paper tiger RHINO Mitt Romney from the #1 position and replace him with Michele Bachmann. Plus, setting aside whether it is right or wrong, a significant number of Christian evangelical Republicans in Iowa, the South, the Midwest and elsewhere are less favorable to Romney because he is a Mormon (about 30%).[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/romney-gets-59-favorable-rating-from-republicans-in-presidential-poll.html] It's probably going to be a horse race and in horseraces, winner often win by a nose so that 30% could make a difference. Plus, on the very important likability factor (I like Ike, Reagan, etc.), Bachmann wins hands down.[http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/it-39-s-mr-no-comment-versus-ms-accessible-20110702]P Also, she did very well in the debate and is surging in the polls.[http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/romney-vs-bachmann-iowa-6013232] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:32, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
:I must agree here. Though Romney isn't exactly a liberal, he's definitely not a true conservative either. Here at conservapedia, we like real conservatives. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:36, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

::The observations above are astute but we strive for objectivity here and it seems Romney is still in first place, though obviously rankings will change weekly or even daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't think Republicans as a whole are very happy about the present field. The either have to know more about the existing candidates (Bachmann) or they want better choices (Perry/Christie). I also don't think Romney will be able to handle conservative political punches when they come his way and it will be a repeat of 2008. Hard to predict what is going to happen. Usually for Republicans, by now things are a lot more settled in terms of who is going to win. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:31, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush/John Huntsman/Rand Paul ==

I'm new here, so I just wanted to give individuals a chance to object before I made these changes. In light of Jeb Bush's own son endorsing John Huntsman today it seems appropriate to move Jeb Bush down the rankings list, and it seems to make sense to move Huntsman up as well, I would suggest either right before or after Sarah Palin's current position. In addition, as Rand Paul has been actively campaigning for his father, and has been unequivocal in stating he will not run against his father, I propose he be moved farther down the list.
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:27, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:I have made the changes, if any objections emerge, I am more than open to discussing them.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 17:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::You're welcome to make changes - the entry, like other entries here, is a work-in-progress benefiting from the [[best of the public]]. But I think you've moved [[Jeb Bush]] far too low. While candidates listed above him struggle to get 50%, Jeb increasingly looks like he could be the star player who enters late in the game to win it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I moved Jeb Bush up a couple more spots in light of your suggestion. I placed him just above Chris Christie, another candidate who could be a star player if he entered late in the game. While I agree that if he were to enter Jeb Bush would be a major contender for the nomination, I believe this needs to be balanced against the actual likelihood that a candidate will enter the race. Jeb Bush has not expressed any willingness to run in this election, and his son's endorsement, and now position with the Huntsman campaign, seems to be another indicator that Jeb Bush will not be entering the race. It is possible that others believe Jeb Bush is more likely to enter, and if that is the case, as you suggest, they are welcome to move him up accordingly. I apologize for how long this is, I just want to make sure a change on an article such as this is acceptable.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 18:25, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I welcome your edits and comments, but honestly I just don't see Huntsman or even Perry having a greater chance of winning the nomination than Jeb. Note that Perry, like Jeb, has not announced yet either.

::::The endorsement by Jeb's son of Huntsman looks like an obvious attempt to keep Romney from winning the nomination at Jeb's expense. Jeb's son will surely endorse his dad once Huntsman gives up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status ==

Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx The spread is significant, plus Gov Rick Perry's state has grown jobs and people don't like Romney's history when it comes to important issues to Republicans: healthcare, etc. Perry appears to be the front runner unless a scandal breaks or the electorate becomes significantly more conservative and moves towards Michelle Bachmann. I do think the biggest concern to voters is jobs and Perry seems to have the strongest public perception of strength on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:15, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:Perry has been impressive so far, but he needs to take more questions and provide good answers before he can surpass the top candidates as the likely nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::I certainly didn't foresee Perry snatching defeat from the jaws of victory [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44675117/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/how-immigration-blew-rick-perry/#.TobRQnJfQZ4 vis a vis an unpopular immigration related policy statement] during a time of high unemployment. I thought he was enough of a political veteran to avoid that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:40, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Not running ==

With the field appearing mostly set (excepting the possible inclusion of Palin) shouldn't those who are not running or have made no indication that they will run be removed from the list? As of now it's a mess to navigate and I have no idea how you can even rank those near the bottom of the chart. I propose that the table be drastically trimmed to include only Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and the possible candidates of Palin and Giuliani. Those who have given absolutely no indication that they will run, like Peter King (for example) should not be in the grid. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:Well, since no one has voiced their objection I'm going to go ahead and reduce the Republican list to the 10 mentioned above. I hope this is OK with everyone. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Also, the list of possible Democratic candidates...it's evident that Barack Obama will be the 2012 nominee. There has not been a word from any of these people about a primary challenge, only MSM speculation. I'm going to remove them too. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:30, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

This is a list of the likelihood of someone winning, not a list of who has announced or not announced. Rick Perry was in the top ten before he announced, for example, and rightly so. Others could still announce in the future as well. The conventions that actually nominate the candidates are still about a year in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:But how can you even organize the bottom of the list? How can one intelligently say, for example, that Ken Cuccinelli is more or less likely to win than Mitch Daniels, when '''both are not running?''' That is why my list removed all of those who clearly are not going to be nominated, and kept in Giuliani and Palin, who both have not announced but may in the near future. Plus, the last time the presumptive nominee of either party was not finalized before the convention was 1968, a political lifetime ago, and the last time a dark horse took the nomination was Wendell Willkie in 1940. The convention is a formality in modern politics. If anyone other than the candidates I kept in my revised list is the Presidential nominee in 2012 I'll eat my hat. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::I don't think the Ford-Reagan contest in 1976 was truly finalized until the convention, or the Taft-Eisenhower contest in 1952. So that would be 4 times out out of the last ten or so contested primaries when the convention picked the nominee. That 40% chance of the convention picking the nominee is very significant, particularly when none of the front-runners seems able at this time to win the support of a broad spectrum of Republican voters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:10, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But that was before the maturity of the current primary system. 1952 is ancient history as far as primaries are concerned, and I will grant you 1976 but it is clear that Gerald Ford had the advantage of incumbency, and there were only 29 primaries. Since the current primary system has reached maturity, (the 80's), no convention has gone down to the wire. I, and an extremely large majority of election-watchers, just can't foresee the nominee being anyone not on my revised table. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:15, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The primary system is certainly changing, but perhaps back towards the old model, when a challenger party picks its nominee '''''as late as possible'''''. Hence the surprising delays already seen in the campaign season for the Republicans, which hardly any expert predicted. Those delays may continue until the latest possible time: the convention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I disagree. The primary system has been remarkably stable for the past 30 years. Also, I'm surprised you are OK with the convetion picking the candidate, as in all likelihood the delegates would not pick a Tea Party-friendly candidate. The delegates are party insiders, and are most likely closest politically to Mitt Romney. There is just a complete lack of evidence that anyone not on my revised list will be the nominee, and absent entirely unforeseen circumstances, I don't see how it is possible for the majority of delegates, which in 2012 will total around 1200, to cast their votes for someone who did not run in the primaries and not expect a complete disaster of a convention. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:33, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

@Aschlafly- Back on the original topic of my edit, would you at least agree that the table needs some trimming? By my count there are '''37''' Republican candidates listed. If someone came to the article page for information on the election and candidates, would you expect them to read about all 37? Again, I propose trimming it back to the list I had of 11 or 12 viable, declared (or possible, like Palin and Giuliani) candidates. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 18:21, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

: I do disagree with removing so much information, and disagree with the criterion of whether a candidate says he is running. Note, by the way, that this information is useful in considering who is likely to be picked as the vice presidential nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Then perhaps there should be a separate table for possible VP candidates. Also, I still stand by all of the edits I have made, although I am more than happy to engage in debate with you. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, let's debate whether [[Jeb Bush]] might be nominated. Even though hasn't declared his candidacy, he's also refused to rule it out. If no other candidate wins a majority of delegates, then Jeb Bush could easily be a compromise nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Here is an excellent news story that backs up my position that one of my 11 or 12 will be nominated: [[http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:AaronL]]

== Separate section for declared and undeclared ==

I would suggest splitting the names into a list of declared and undeclared, as well as removing those that have declined to run. I would think that (with the exception of former-Governor Palin) there is a considerable jump in likelihood between those declared and those undeclared. Particularly because the only way an undeclared candidate can be nominated is in the nominating convention, when (from my understanding) every nomination in the past 50+ years was decided before the convention because someone achieved enough delegate votes beforehand to secure the nomination. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 08:26, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:This article isn't worth debating over. A few sections up Andy made it very clear that he sees no difference between declared and undeclared candidates, hence why Jeb Bush is ranked #2, '''ahead of 10 people who are actually running'''. And you're mostly correct about conventions being formalities, the only nomination decided at the convention was in 1976 (Republicans nominated Ford over Reagan). If you actually do the work and separate them or eliminate those definitely not running (as I did) it will just be reverted. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:01, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::The table is a ranking by likelihood. Whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood. We had Rick Perry high on the list well before he declared, and rightly so. Likewise, Jeb Bush should remain high on the list because he could still decide to enter the race and would immediately become the frontrunner if he did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:22, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But the difference is, there were rumblings of Perry running for months before he declared. That has not been the case with Jeb Bush, as it is highly unlikely he will run. You claim that "whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood"; I would like to see your paramaters for determining this likelihood. Do you have a formula? [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:37, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The introduction and table in the entry explain the factors and reasons, and you're welcome to improve them, while adhering to the concise, informative format of the entry.

::::Politics is like an iceberg: 90% is below the surface. ''Conservapedia'' is not limited to the 10% that occurs above the surface.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::A few points for Mr. Schlafly...
:::::*A list of 37 when 12 would suffice is hardly concise. And a list of 10 Democrats when 1 would suffice is the opposite of concise. Your speculation on the Democrats dumping Obama is just that, speculation. The mainstream media speculates about hypotheticals like this and you jump on them for it. The fact that Ralph Nader is listed is absolutely laughable, considering that A) he likely tipped the 2000 election to Bush, and B) he's not even a member of the Democratic Party.
:::::*I still don't understand why you are unwilling to at least remove those who have explicitly stated they are not running, e.g. Thune, Trump (whose reputation is shot), Pawlenty, Pataki, etc.
:::::*Some you have listed will never be nominated by the Republican Party. Dick Cheney is still deeply unpopular within the party; he will '''not''' be the nominee, and wouldn't be even if he was in good health (which he is not). Ken Cuccinelli will not be nominated because he is only a state-level elected official. These are just two.
:::::*You claim that 90% of politics is under the surface. While it is true that there are backdoor machinations and such that the public may not see, this is like claiming that the 90% of the iceberg below the surface is colored like a rainbow and is home to a society of firebreathing elves. Your talk of stalking horses and "Team Newt" (who is holding on for dear life and is having no clear influence on this race) and other nonsense hurts Conservapedia's credibility.
:::::*If you are so confident in your methodology, then please explain to me why, to pick one of many possible examples, Fred Thompson is ''exactly'' 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer, no more, and no less. I am eager to hear your answer to this and my other points. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 17:25, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::The list should be updated as the race progresses. But the goal is to be over-inclusive rather than overlook a potential contender completely. The full list also serves as a set of prospects for VP, both Republican and Democratic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You did not address any of the points I made. And the race '''has''' progressed: Pawlenty dropped out, Trump rose and fell, Bachmann tailed off (recently at least) and Perry entered the scene. Your goal of over-inclusiveness is admirable, but you have included every single Republican the average person has heard of as a potential nominee. And no matter what you say, the Democrats will not be naming people like Ralph Nader as VP, and the Republicans won't be naming the Attorney General of Virginia as nominee for anything anytime soon. I'd like to see an explanation of your methodology, and why Fred Thompson is 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 00:37, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

I removed many candidates discussed earlier who, by all indications, will not be nominated for President. Since you have deemed yourself in charge of this article you can make a VP table if you would like. I and users should feel no obligation to work on this article if you are going to revert back to your, frankly, pretty awful version. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:36, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

: Your comments your welcome, and your additions would probably be welcome also. But deletions of information are generally disfavored on this site.

:In response to your question about Fred Thompson and Jan Brewer, Fred Thompson has run before and that gives him an edge over Jan Brewer. Whether someone has run before (or has name recognition due to a family member running before) is a big factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::You didn't fully answer it. If you ae so confident in your ranking, then please tell me why Fred Thompson is '''exactly''' #31 and Brewer is '''exactly''' #35. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 13:34, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul taken seriously by the media now? ==

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I contributed the maximum allowable contribution to his presidential campaign this go round and last one. The media does not take him seriously, he is very serious but the media is not. Even FOX treats him like a joke. I apologize for the quality and the fact that it's the Daily show but take a look at this piece right after the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM Aimes Iowa straw poll.] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 16:45, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

==Moving to [[United States Presidential Election 2012]] ?==
Because Presidential Election 2012 may also refer to [[Finnish Presidential Election 2012]], [[French Presidential Election 2012]], [[Indian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Mexican Presidential Election 2012]], [[Russian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Taiwanese Presidential Election 2012]], [[Venezuelan Presidential Election 2012]]--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:57, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::Does anybody care ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:27, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Be Bold! Atleast wikipedia would say that haha. I'd say move this and then make this article a disamb.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:29, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::ARamis, this isn't Wikipedia. We're not trying to be "globalist". I think people know to which election this entry is referring.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oops, already did it. Revert if you think it is better the other way.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:37, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, why not trying to be globalist ? What's wrong with it ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:38, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I get what you mean, although if we kept it with the US election the primary,we could give the disamb be its own page, linking to all of them (with a "If your looking for others, go to here") at the top to take you there? Fair compromise.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:42, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In response to ARamis, globalism is counterproductive when it causes more confusion than progress, as illustrated by requiring visitors to click twice in order to find the "Presidential Election 2012" in the U.S. that most will be looking for. Another example of misguided globalism was the failed effort to convert the U.S. to the metric system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Here I created a new page [[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]] with a link in this page.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:07, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush? ==

I'm going to revert BrentH's edit...he should know this article is Mr. Schlafly's domain and any attempt to change it is forbidden. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:53, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since WHEN?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:54, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::Have you observed this article? I have, as a long-time lurker. Andy Schlafly rejects any attempt by any editor to change the article. Another user tried to trim it and Andy refused to consent. It's not a de jure policy, but it most certainly is a de facto one. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Edits to this and other entries are welcome if they have a logical or factual basis (and comply with the simple [[Conservapedia Commandments]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But edits have '''not''' been welcome to it. There have been attempts to remove people who are not running, and they have been rejected. Are you OK with the ranking as of BrentH's last edit, which has Jeb Bush (who is not even running) in 1st ahead of numerous declared candidates? [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 19:01, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== When will Jeb be moved down the list? ==

I think the chances of Jeb running are extremely slim, How long should we wait (with out him making any moves) to move him down? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 21:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sarah Palin not running ==

She just announced. --[[User:CalebN|CalebN]] 18:45, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him ==

It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him of harassment.[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/11/Herman-Cain-sexual-harassment-accuser--560559/1] I think the voter "three strikes and your out" rule now kicks in. :) I never liked Cain as he is a bankster sympathizer who formerly worked the [[Federal Reserve]]. WorldNetDaily recently had an article declaring the race is now going to be a battle between [[Ron Paul]] and Rommey as they have firm supporters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:50, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== Democrat list ==

Is it time to remove the section on possible Democratic challengers? If someone were going to run against Obama in the primaries they would have announced by now. Seems they're dumb enough to back an obviously losing horse this time. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 09:37, 6 December 2011 (EST)

== Long Form Republican Nomination ==

It says that Mitt Romney can't win Iowa even though he did...this should be updated.

== Reverted ==

I reverted the deletions of both Republicans and Democrats. Instead of deleting, they should be segregated into different categories - still in race, dropped out, considered but didn't run, never thought about it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:30, 19 January 2012 (EST)

== Can someone explain this to me... ==

Romney "won" Iowa by 8 votes, but when the count is finished and certified, it is considered a "virtual tie" when Santorum wins by 34 votes? Sorry, Romney lost and Santorum won - by a bigger margin than Romney's declared win. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:48, 19 January 2012 (EST)

== Democrat list again ==

I'm sorry but the list of potential Democrat challengers at this stage looks silly. Other than a few joke candidates, no Democrat is running against Obama, and it's really too late for anyone to get in the race. Barring something like a photograph of him praying to Mecca or his Kenyan birth certificate surfacing, he will be the Democrat nominee. Some of the polls cited in that section are almost two years old, and no longer relevant. Time to trim the section. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 15:23, 23 January 2012 (EST)

==Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ?==
Shouldn't we reorganize the Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ? I believe Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin do have less chances to win than Ron Paul or Rick Santorum. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:33, 5 February 2012 (EST)
:What about moving info about Republican candidates to [[2012 Republican Primaries]] ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

::No, it's best to keep key related information in one entry, like a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)

==Predictions==
There's seems to be two users on this site both named Aschlafly. Both Aschlafly's like making [[Presidential election 2012|presidential election predictions]]. But they can't seem to agree with each other. One says it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=959694&oldid=959693| Jeb Bush]. The other thinks it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&action=historysubmit&diff=943924&oldid=943593| Newt]. One predicted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&action=historysubmit&diff=938684&oldid=938671| Sarah Palin] wouldn't run. Meanwhile, the other ranks her [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=959693&oldid=959011| fourth in line for the nomination]. So which Andy Schlafly should we be listening to? And is it possible that they ''both'' might be wrong? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:34, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:Predictions '''''should''''' improve as new information is obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)
::Correct. It's obvious that as new information is made available, it's only natural for your predictions to evolve. But at this moment, you are making two contradictory predictions. On this page you're making the case that Jeb Bush will be the likely nominee, while at the same time you're taking credit for Conservapedia being proven right for predicting it will be Newt Gingrich. And as the convention nears I am sure that the actual nominee will find his way to the #1 slot on this page. Here's a prediction I have for you: That regardless of the eventual nominee, Conservapedia will be "[[sharpshooter fallacy| proven right]]" yet again. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:04, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:::Predictions should change over time, taking into account new developments. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. If you see a contradiction somewhere, then please quote it and let's review it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:12, 9 February 2012 (EST)
::::"''If you see a contradiction somewhere, then please quote it and let's review it.''" If you will follow the links in my initial post, you will see that I linked to the "diffs" of the various seemingly contradictory predictions you have made. At the time of this writing, this page states that Jeb Bush will be the likely nominee. While this site's "proven right" page takes credit for accurately predicting Newt Gingrich to be the eventual nominee (an event that hasn't even actually occurred). I'm not sure how I could make it any clearer. Also, if Newt fails to get the nomination (or any other Conservapedia prediction fail to pass, will a [[Conservapedia proven wrong]] page be created? Otherwise how can readers gauge this site's overall predictive accuracy, if they have no hit-to-miss data? Anyway, I enjoy the site, and keep up the great work! --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:17, 10 February 2012 (EST)

:::::The [[Conservapedia proven right]] takes credit for predicting Newt's surprisingly strong showing -- which included winning the [[South Carolina]] primary by a landslide. Obviously the [[Conservapedia proven right]] does not claim that a nominee has been selected yet. Predictions can be partially correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 10 February 2012 (EST)
::::::"''Predictions can be partially correct.''" That is true in cases where a prediction has multiple conditions to satisfy. For example picking the winner of a horse race, ''and'' the exact time it will take the horse to cross the finish line. You may pick the right horse, but your estimated elapsed time was off. That would be a partially correct prediction. Yet what you're essentially doing on the [[Conservapedia proven right]] page is as soon as your horse takes the lead, you declare victory. So even if that horse stumbles before the finish line,and ends up coming in last, would you then go onto declare partial victory? "''Well I was correct for the first 95% of the race...''" That's sort of like jumping off the Empire State building and saying "so far so good" after the first 10 floors. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:06, 10 February 2012 (EST)

== Reduce size of tables? ==

Isn't it time to trim the list of Republican contenders? Now that the nominee is apparent, I think the list should be pared down to just those who were actually serious contenders for the nomination. Democrats who might have run is useless speculation. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 12:44, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2012-08-11T16:44:45Z

CasparRH: /* Reduce size of tables? */ new section

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Hillary Clinton==
Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, ''et all'', [[Hillary Clinton]] currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as ''[[US News]]'' has reported. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
:::People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

== Ken Cuccinelli ==
Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: Please do. Great point, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== A concern ==

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days.
As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:JasonN|JasonN]] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

: In 1968, incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]] felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of [[Eugene McCarthy]] against him in the first primary.

: As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Rubio and Experience ==

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

:Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

::Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for ''absolutely no executive experience''. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== "New" president ==

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your clarifying edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Question ==

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

:Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the [[Democratic]] side. Please feel free to improve further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::SoS ''used'' to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who ''was'' the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== Mitch Daniels ==
His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

:I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

== Dropping Christie ==

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in [[New Jersey]] is that [[Chris Christie|Christie]] is going to run candidates in the primary ''against'' incumbents more [[conservative]] than he.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)

== Trump/Gingrich ==

Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life ''after'' his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.

:Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.

::There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

:::I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== the republican table ==

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
::You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Idea for improvement ==

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

== trump ==

"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/] LOL! Maybe [[Richard Dawkins]], "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against [[William Lane Craig]] if he wanted to! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio ==

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

:::That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "''subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]''"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of ''jus sanguinis'' in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::: JDW wrote, "The most obvious definition of the term [natural born citizen] in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA." Right, no problem there. But implicit in that concept -- and made explicit by the [[14th Amendment]] -- is that the family submit to the jurisdiction of the United States as its national sovereign. That's what is lacking in births to diplomats, visitors, Native Americans circa 1800, students on visas, etc. There is nothing "very narrow indeed" about those exceptions. The Native American population was large, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Seeing as the words "parent," "parents," "mother," "father" or "family" do not appear in the 14th Amendment, where do see the question of a familial commitment to US sovereignty coming into play? Also, in what ways do students on visas not submit to the US as national sovereign? Are filing tax returns, being subject to the law of the land, obliged to fill out the census and other obligations not an aspect of their being subject to US sovereignty for the duration of their stay in the US? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::::Many visitors insist on being deported rather than being subjected fully to U.S. laws. When those visitors take that position -- or act in a way indicative of that position -- then they do not submit fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born during their visit are not "natural born citizens" of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
That does not answer the more substantive point of my argument -- the fact that the 14th Amendment says nothing about parents or family. Moreover, the fact that some people get legally deported only speaks to the fact that they are subject to US sovereignty, as it's American law that determines their status in the country. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:23, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: The [[14th Amendment]] defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, '''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States''' and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added). Many people have been born here who do not accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Really? Who? And more to the point, does the refusal of some people to recognize US sovereignty has anything to do with any particular individual's eligibility? Is there any evidence that Anne Dunham's baby boy did not "accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States?" [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:53, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:
::::"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
:::::"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof'', are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
::::"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, '''this was not intended'' to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or '''to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States''' who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
:::From that legal precedent set by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the case is settled that being born in the US means you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

::::If you were right, then no one born on American soil would ever be deported. But this has been done by government, including high-profile cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::So your argument here is that because some people born on American soil are subject to deportation (which demonstrates that they are subject to US law, as it is US law that is determining where they might live), a child of a citizen and a non-citizen born on US soil may not qualify as "natural born," and this is backed up by the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about a child's parents or family. Moreover, because of the preceding, a child born to two non-US citizens has a greater claim on being a natural-born citizen than does the child of the American citizen. And Anne Dunham's baby may not have accepted US sovereignty, though you still have not provided any evidence for that claim. Do I have that right?[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 09:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Vague anecdotes fail to persuade. Binding legal precedent set by the Supreme Court clearly says you're wrong. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 11:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Isn't one of the main rationales to keep those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they would become ''subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States if they ever set foot on American soil, as they owe allegiance to no other sovereignty (most obviously, they aren't soldiers)? Whether they were willing to accept this or not? And isn't that the idea behind the “wet feet–dry feet” policy, too? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point exactly. Since when is national sovereignty/jurisdiction something that an individual can choose to recognize or not. Here's a thought experiment: ask someone from another country to come to the US and do something in the US that is illegal in America, but legal back home. When they are arrested and tried, go with the defense of "My client doesn't recognize US sovereignty or jurisdiction, and should be released." See how far that goes with a jury, if the judge even allows such a defense. With the very narrow and specific exception of diplomatic immunity, which is not really relevant in this case, anyone entering the US implicitly recognizes US sovereignty and jurisdiction. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:02, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." ==

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: See above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

== Separating out the Real Presidential Candidates ==

Now that several republicans have declared that they will run in the primaries, is it appropriate to remove the non-declared candidates to a new table? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 09:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. Whether someone has declared or not is only one factor -- and not the most significant factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:: Nevertheless, don't you think it would make this table clearer? Perhaps the easiest thing would simply be to add a 'Declared?' column that has an 'X' or something in it - because even though it's not the only factor, it is a very important one? This is certainly the case as time marches on? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 17:29, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

::Do you think it is a good idea to explicitly state what the factors are / what criteria is used to rank the candidates? Even if the ranking is just based on the sum of "pros" vs. the sum of "cons," I would think that some issues receive heavier weighting than others, and it might be helpful to readers if this were made clear. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 12:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:::Obvious factors would include:

:::*a political base
:::*a principled stance on issues
:::*ability to distinguish oneself from other candidates
:::*ability to obtain financial backing for a presidential campaign
:::*articulate
:::*ability to handle the hostile press
:::*proven electoral success

:::Perhaps others can add or reorder the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, I think we could add a few more columns to the table. Right now, each candidate has just two very general paragraphs about their pros/cons, but most of this information is opinionated and while I think the rankings are fairly accurate, I think we could increase the precision of the rankings (or just further justify what we already have) by being much more specific as to examples of each candidate's abilities in each area. Perhaps, like Aschlafly said, we could have a column for "X Candidate's ability to handle the press" and give links or examples of when they successfully managed a hostile situation with the media. That way we're not just throwing out opinions.

::::Also, forgive my boldness, but should Jeb Bush really still be second on the list? I do believe that with his name recognition and history in politics he could have a good chance at winning if he were to run, but since he has not declared I think the liklihood that he wins the nomination is decreasing quickly. There is a fast-moving trend in the media to say "Okay, this is our field. Let's work with what we have." And so if Jeb Bush is going to run, the longer he delays now the more he is going to hurt his own campaign. I would suggest keeping him in the Top Five or Top Seven, but moving him out of the second spot, just because he hasn't declared. Texas Governor Rick Perry should probably be moved up a little since the common stance is that he will be running, but I wouldn't put him in the second spot. Maybe move Bachmann up after her excellent performance in the debate? And then Gingrich in third? [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 10:48, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: You make good points and feel free to add information as long as it does not obscure with less significant complexity. Note, however, that this is not merely a mirror of the [[lamestream media]]. [[Jeb Bush]] would objectively be the second most likely to win the nomination, whether he's running now or not. I don't see anyone else at this time (other than Romney) who has a higher likelihood, although obviously that will change as the deadlines for candidates to formally file election papers approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

== Democrats ==

Why are those other than Obama included? It is highly unlikely that there will be a primary challenge to Obama. If no one opposes I say this section be removed. [[User:TheoCaldwell|TheoCaldwell]] 23:32, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

:At this early stage, it makes sense to include many possible candidates. There is time to trim the list of candidates as primaries approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

== Huntsman ==

I would like to move Huntsman up. Somewhere around number ten. Does anyone mind? I don't think it makes any sense to have him at number twenty-nine (assuming I counted correctly) behind Dick Cheney. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:30, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== Bump paper tiger RHINO Romney from #1, replace him with Bachmann ==

Conservative populism is on the rise. Bump the paper tiger RHINO Mitt Romney from the #1 position and replace him with Michele Bachmann. Plus, setting aside whether it is right or wrong, a significant number of Christian evangelical Republicans in Iowa, the South, the Midwest and elsewhere are less favorable to Romney because he is a Mormon (about 30%).[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/romney-gets-59-favorable-rating-from-republicans-in-presidential-poll.html] It's probably going to be a horse race and in horseraces, winner often win by a nose so that 30% could make a difference. Plus, on the very important likability factor (I like Ike, Reagan, etc.), Bachmann wins hands down.[http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/it-39-s-mr-no-comment-versus-ms-accessible-20110702]P Also, she did very well in the debate and is surging in the polls.[http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/romney-vs-bachmann-iowa-6013232] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:32, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
:I must agree here. Though Romney isn't exactly a liberal, he's definitely not a true conservative either. Here at conservapedia, we like real conservatives. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:36, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

::The observations above are astute but we strive for objectivity here and it seems Romney is still in first place, though obviously rankings will change weekly or even daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't think Republicans as a whole are very happy about the present field. The either have to know more about the existing candidates (Bachmann) or they want better choices (Perry/Christie). I also don't think Romney will be able to handle conservative political punches when they come his way and it will be a repeat of 2008. Hard to predict what is going to happen. Usually for Republicans, by now things are a lot more settled in terms of who is going to win. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:31, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush/John Huntsman/Rand Paul ==

I'm new here, so I just wanted to give individuals a chance to object before I made these changes. In light of Jeb Bush's own son endorsing John Huntsman today it seems appropriate to move Jeb Bush down the rankings list, and it seems to make sense to move Huntsman up as well, I would suggest either right before or after Sarah Palin's current position. In addition, as Rand Paul has been actively campaigning for his father, and has been unequivocal in stating he will not run against his father, I propose he be moved farther down the list.
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:27, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:I have made the changes, if any objections emerge, I am more than open to discussing them.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 17:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::You're welcome to make changes - the entry, like other entries here, is a work-in-progress benefiting from the [[best of the public]]. But I think you've moved [[Jeb Bush]] far too low. While candidates listed above him struggle to get 50%, Jeb increasingly looks like he could be the star player who enters late in the game to win it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I moved Jeb Bush up a couple more spots in light of your suggestion. I placed him just above Chris Christie, another candidate who could be a star player if he entered late in the game. While I agree that if he were to enter Jeb Bush would be a major contender for the nomination, I believe this needs to be balanced against the actual likelihood that a candidate will enter the race. Jeb Bush has not expressed any willingness to run in this election, and his son's endorsement, and now position with the Huntsman campaign, seems to be another indicator that Jeb Bush will not be entering the race. It is possible that others believe Jeb Bush is more likely to enter, and if that is the case, as you suggest, they are welcome to move him up accordingly. I apologize for how long this is, I just want to make sure a change on an article such as this is acceptable.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 18:25, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I welcome your edits and comments, but honestly I just don't see Huntsman or even Perry having a greater chance of winning the nomination than Jeb. Note that Perry, like Jeb, has not announced yet either.

::::The endorsement by Jeb's son of Huntsman looks like an obvious attempt to keep Romney from winning the nomination at Jeb's expense. Jeb's son will surely endorse his dad once Huntsman gives up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status ==

Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx The spread is significant, plus Gov Rick Perry's state has grown jobs and people don't like Romney's history when it comes to important issues to Republicans: healthcare, etc. Perry appears to be the front runner unless a scandal breaks or the electorate becomes significantly more conservative and moves towards Michelle Bachmann. I do think the biggest concern to voters is jobs and Perry seems to have the strongest public perception of strength on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:15, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:Perry has been impressive so far, but he needs to take more questions and provide good answers before he can surpass the top candidates as the likely nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::I certainly didn't foresee Perry snatching defeat from the jaws of victory [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44675117/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/how-immigration-blew-rick-perry/#.TobRQnJfQZ4 vis a vis an unpopular immigration related policy statement] during a time of high unemployment. I thought he was enough of a political veteran to avoid that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:40, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Not running ==

With the field appearing mostly set (excepting the possible inclusion of Palin) shouldn't those who are not running or have made no indication that they will run be removed from the list? As of now it's a mess to navigate and I have no idea how you can even rank those near the bottom of the chart. I propose that the table be drastically trimmed to include only Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and the possible candidates of Palin and Giuliani. Those who have given absolutely no indication that they will run, like Peter King (for example) should not be in the grid. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:Well, since no one has voiced their objection I'm going to go ahead and reduce the Republican list to the 10 mentioned above. I hope this is OK with everyone. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Also, the list of possible Democratic candidates...it's evident that Barack Obama will be the 2012 nominee. There has not been a word from any of these people about a primary challenge, only MSM speculation. I'm going to remove them too. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:30, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

This is a list of the likelihood of someone winning, not a list of who has announced or not announced. Rick Perry was in the top ten before he announced, for example, and rightly so. Others could still announce in the future as well. The conventions that actually nominate the candidates are still about a year in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:But how can you even organize the bottom of the list? How can one intelligently say, for example, that Ken Cuccinelli is more or less likely to win than Mitch Daniels, when '''both are not running?''' That is why my list removed all of those who clearly are not going to be nominated, and kept in Giuliani and Palin, who both have not announced but may in the near future. Plus, the last time the presumptive nominee of either party was not finalized before the convention was 1968, a political lifetime ago, and the last time a dark horse took the nomination was Wendell Willkie in 1940. The convention is a formality in modern politics. If anyone other than the candidates I kept in my revised list is the Presidential nominee in 2012 I'll eat my hat. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::I don't think the Ford-Reagan contest in 1976 was truly finalized until the convention, or the Taft-Eisenhower contest in 1952. So that would be 4 times out out of the last ten or so contested primaries when the convention picked the nominee. That 40% chance of the convention picking the nominee is very significant, particularly when none of the front-runners seems able at this time to win the support of a broad spectrum of Republican voters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:10, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But that was before the maturity of the current primary system. 1952 is ancient history as far as primaries are concerned, and I will grant you 1976 but it is clear that Gerald Ford had the advantage of incumbency, and there were only 29 primaries. Since the current primary system has reached maturity, (the 80's), no convention has gone down to the wire. I, and an extremely large majority of election-watchers, just can't foresee the nominee being anyone not on my revised table. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:15, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The primary system is certainly changing, but perhaps back towards the old model, when a challenger party picks its nominee '''''as late as possible'''''. Hence the surprising delays already seen in the campaign season for the Republicans, which hardly any expert predicted. Those delays may continue until the latest possible time: the convention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I disagree. The primary system has been remarkably stable for the past 30 years. Also, I'm surprised you are OK with the convetion picking the candidate, as in all likelihood the delegates would not pick a Tea Party-friendly candidate. The delegates are party insiders, and are most likely closest politically to Mitt Romney. There is just a complete lack of evidence that anyone not on my revised list will be the nominee, and absent entirely unforeseen circumstances, I don't see how it is possible for the majority of delegates, which in 2012 will total around 1200, to cast their votes for someone who did not run in the primaries and not expect a complete disaster of a convention. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:33, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

@Aschlafly- Back on the original topic of my edit, would you at least agree that the table needs some trimming? By my count there are '''37''' Republican candidates listed. If someone came to the article page for information on the election and candidates, would you expect them to read about all 37? Again, I propose trimming it back to the list I had of 11 or 12 viable, declared (or possible, like Palin and Giuliani) candidates. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 18:21, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

: I do disagree with removing so much information, and disagree with the criterion of whether a candidate says he is running. Note, by the way, that this information is useful in considering who is likely to be picked as the vice presidential nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Then perhaps there should be a separate table for possible VP candidates. Also, I still stand by all of the edits I have made, although I am more than happy to engage in debate with you. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, let's debate whether [[Jeb Bush]] might be nominated. Even though hasn't declared his candidacy, he's also refused to rule it out. If no other candidate wins a majority of delegates, then Jeb Bush could easily be a compromise nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Here is an excellent news story that backs up my position that one of my 11 or 12 will be nominated: [[http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:AaronL]]

== Separate section for declared and undeclared ==

I would suggest splitting the names into a list of declared and undeclared, as well as removing those that have declined to run. I would think that (with the exception of former-Governor Palin) there is a considerable jump in likelihood between those declared and those undeclared. Particularly because the only way an undeclared candidate can be nominated is in the nominating convention, when (from my understanding) every nomination in the past 50+ years was decided before the convention because someone achieved enough delegate votes beforehand to secure the nomination. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 08:26, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:This article isn't worth debating over. A few sections up Andy made it very clear that he sees no difference between declared and undeclared candidates, hence why Jeb Bush is ranked #2, '''ahead of 10 people who are actually running'''. And you're mostly correct about conventions being formalities, the only nomination decided at the convention was in 1976 (Republicans nominated Ford over Reagan). If you actually do the work and separate them or eliminate those definitely not running (as I did) it will just be reverted. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:01, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::The table is a ranking by likelihood. Whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood. We had Rick Perry high on the list well before he declared, and rightly so. Likewise, Jeb Bush should remain high on the list because he could still decide to enter the race and would immediately become the frontrunner if he did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:22, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But the difference is, there were rumblings of Perry running for months before he declared. That has not been the case with Jeb Bush, as it is highly unlikely he will run. You claim that "whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood"; I would like to see your paramaters for determining this likelihood. Do you have a formula? [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:37, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The introduction and table in the entry explain the factors and reasons, and you're welcome to improve them, while adhering to the concise, informative format of the entry.

::::Politics is like an iceberg: 90% is below the surface. ''Conservapedia'' is not limited to the 10% that occurs above the surface.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::A few points for Mr. Schlafly...
:::::*A list of 37 when 12 would suffice is hardly concise. And a list of 10 Democrats when 1 would suffice is the opposite of concise. Your speculation on the Democrats dumping Obama is just that, speculation. The mainstream media speculates about hypotheticals like this and you jump on them for it. The fact that Ralph Nader is listed is absolutely laughable, considering that A) he likely tipped the 2000 election to Bush, and B) he's not even a member of the Democratic Party.
:::::*I still don't understand why you are unwilling to at least remove those who have explicitly stated they are not running, e.g. Thune, Trump (whose reputation is shot), Pawlenty, Pataki, etc.
:::::*Some you have listed will never be nominated by the Republican Party. Dick Cheney is still deeply unpopular within the party; he will '''not''' be the nominee, and wouldn't be even if he was in good health (which he is not). Ken Cuccinelli will not be nominated because he is only a state-level elected official. These are just two.
:::::*You claim that 90% of politics is under the surface. While it is true that there are backdoor machinations and such that the public may not see, this is like claiming that the 90% of the iceberg below the surface is colored like a rainbow and is home to a society of firebreathing elves. Your talk of stalking horses and "Team Newt" (who is holding on for dear life and is having no clear influence on this race) and other nonsense hurts Conservapedia's credibility.
:::::*If you are so confident in your methodology, then please explain to me why, to pick one of many possible examples, Fred Thompson is ''exactly'' 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer, no more, and no less. I am eager to hear your answer to this and my other points. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 17:25, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::The list should be updated as the race progresses. But the goal is to be over-inclusive rather than overlook a potential contender completely. The full list also serves as a set of prospects for VP, both Republican and Democratic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You did not address any of the points I made. And the race '''has''' progressed: Pawlenty dropped out, Trump rose and fell, Bachmann tailed off (recently at least) and Perry entered the scene. Your goal of over-inclusiveness is admirable, but you have included every single Republican the average person has heard of as a potential nominee. And no matter what you say, the Democrats will not be naming people like Ralph Nader as VP, and the Republicans won't be naming the Attorney General of Virginia as nominee for anything anytime soon. I'd like to see an explanation of your methodology, and why Fred Thompson is 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 00:37, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

I removed many candidates discussed earlier who, by all indications, will not be nominated for President. Since you have deemed yourself in charge of this article you can make a VP table if you would like. I and users should feel no obligation to work on this article if you are going to revert back to your, frankly, pretty awful version. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:36, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

: Your comments your welcome, and your additions would probably be welcome also. But deletions of information are generally disfavored on this site.

:In response to your question about Fred Thompson and Jan Brewer, Fred Thompson has run before and that gives him an edge over Jan Brewer. Whether someone has run before (or has name recognition due to a family member running before) is a big factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::You didn't fully answer it. If you ae so confident in your ranking, then please tell me why Fred Thompson is '''exactly''' #31 and Brewer is '''exactly''' #35. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 13:34, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul taken seriously by the media now? ==

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I contributed the maximum allowable contribution to his presidential campaign this go round and last one. The media does not take him seriously, he is very serious but the media is not. Even FOX treats him like a joke. I apologize for the quality and the fact that it's the Daily show but take a look at this piece right after the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM Aimes Iowa straw poll.] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 16:45, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

==Moving to [[United States Presidential Election 2012]] ?==
Because Presidential Election 2012 may also refer to [[Finnish Presidential Election 2012]], [[French Presidential Election 2012]], [[Indian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Mexican Presidential Election 2012]], [[Russian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Taiwanese Presidential Election 2012]], [[Venezuelan Presidential Election 2012]]--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:57, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::Does anybody care ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:27, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Be Bold! Atleast wikipedia would say that haha. I'd say move this and then make this article a disamb.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:29, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::ARamis, this isn't Wikipedia. We're not trying to be "globalist". I think people know to which election this entry is referring.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oops, already did it. Revert if you think it is better the other way.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:37, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, why not trying to be globalist ? What's wrong with it ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:38, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I get what you mean, although if we kept it with the US election the primary,we could give the disamb be its own page, linking to all of them (with a "If your looking for others, go to here") at the top to take you there? Fair compromise.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:42, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In response to ARamis, globalism is counterproductive when it causes more confusion than progress, as illustrated by requiring visitors to click twice in order to find the "Presidential Election 2012" in the U.S. that most will be looking for. Another example of misguided globalism was the failed effort to convert the U.S. to the metric system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Here I created a new page [[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]] with a link in this page.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:07, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush? ==

I'm going to revert BrentH's edit...he should know this article is Mr. Schlafly's domain and any attempt to change it is forbidden. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:53, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since WHEN?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:54, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::Have you observed this article? I have, as a long-time lurker. Andy Schlafly rejects any attempt by any editor to change the article. Another user tried to trim it and Andy refused to consent. It's not a de jure policy, but it most certainly is a de facto one. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Edits to this and other entries are welcome if they have a logical or factual basis (and comply with the simple [[Conservapedia Commandments]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But edits have '''not''' been welcome to it. There have been attempts to remove people who are not running, and they have been rejected. Are you OK with the ranking as of BrentH's last edit, which has Jeb Bush (who is not even running) in 1st ahead of numerous declared candidates? [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 19:01, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== When will Jeb be moved down the list? ==

I think the chances of Jeb running are extremely slim, How long should we wait (with out him making any moves) to move him down? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 21:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sarah Palin not running ==

She just announced. --[[User:CalebN|CalebN]] 18:45, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him ==

It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him of harassment.[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/11/Herman-Cain-sexual-harassment-accuser--560559/1] I think the voter "three strikes and your out" rule now kicks in. :) I never liked Cain as he is a bankster sympathizer who formerly worked the [[Federal Reserve]]. WorldNetDaily recently had an article declaring the race is now going to be a battle between [[Ron Paul]] and Rommey as they have firm supporters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:50, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== Democrat list ==

Is it time to remove the section on possible Democratic challengers? If someone were going to run against Obama in the primaries they would have announced by now. Seems they're dumb enough to back an obviously losing horse this time. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 09:37, 6 December 2011 (EST)

== Long Form Republican Nomination ==

It says that Mitt Romney can't win Iowa even though he did...this should be updated.

== Reverted ==

I reverted the deletions of both Republicans and Democrats. Instead of deleting, they should be segregated into different categories - still in race, dropped out, considered but didn't run, never thought about it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:30, 19 January 2012 (EST)

== Can someone explain this to me... ==

Romney "won" Iowa by 8 votes, but when the count is finished and certified, it is considered a "virtual tie" when Santorum wins by 34 votes? Sorry, Romney lost and Santorum won - by a bigger margin than Romney's declared win. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:48, 19 January 2012 (EST)

== Democrat list again ==

I'm sorry but the list of potential Democrat challengers at this stage looks silly. Other than a few joke candidates, no Democrat is running against Obama, and it's really too late for anyone to get in the race. Barring something like a photograph of him praying to Mecca or his Kenyan birth certificate surfacing, he will be the Democrat nominee. Some of the polls cited in that section are almost two years old, and no longer relevant. Time to trim the section. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 15:23, 23 January 2012 (EST)

==Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ?==
Shouldn't we reorganize the Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ? I believe Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin do have less chances to win than Ron Paul or Rick Santorum. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:33, 5 February 2012 (EST)
:What about moving info about Republican candidates to [[2012 Republican Primaries]] ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

::No, it's best to keep key related information in one entry, like a real encyclopedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)

==Predictions==
There's seems to be two users on this site both named Aschlafly. Both Aschlafly's like making [[Presidential election 2012|presidential election predictions]]. But they can't seem to agree with each other. One says it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=959694&oldid=959693| Jeb Bush]. The other thinks it's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&action=historysubmit&diff=943924&oldid=943593| Newt]. One predicted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_proven_right&action=historysubmit&diff=938684&oldid=938671| Sarah Palin] wouldn't run. Meanwhile, the other ranks her [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=959693&oldid=959011| fourth in line for the nomination]. So which Andy Schlafly should we be listening to? And is it possible that they ''both'' might be wrong? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:34, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:Predictions '''''should''''' improve as new information is obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:37, 9 February 2012 (EST)
::Correct. It's obvious that as new information is made available, it's only natural for your predictions to evolve. But at this moment, you are making two contradictory predictions. On this page you're making the case that Jeb Bush will be the likely nominee, while at the same time you're taking credit for Conservapedia being proven right for predicting it will be Newt Gingrich. And as the convention nears I am sure that the actual nominee will find his way to the #1 slot on this page. Here's a prediction I have for you: That regardless of the eventual nominee, Conservapedia will be "[[sharpshooter fallacy| proven right]]" yet again. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:04, 9 February 2012 (EST)

:::Predictions should change over time, taking into account new developments. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. If you see a contradiction somewhere, then please quote it and let's review it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:12, 9 February 2012 (EST)
::::"''If you see a contradiction somewhere, then please quote it and let's review it.''" If you will follow the links in my initial post, you will see that I linked to the "diffs" of the various seemingly contradictory predictions you have made. At the time of this writing, this page states that Jeb Bush will be the likely nominee. While this site's "proven right" page takes credit for accurately predicting Newt Gingrich to be the eventual nominee (an event that hasn't even actually occurred). I'm not sure how I could make it any clearer. Also, if Newt fails to get the nomination (or any other Conservapedia prediction fail to pass, will a [[Conservapedia proven wrong]] page be created? Otherwise how can readers gauge this site's overall predictive accuracy, if they have no hit-to-miss data? Anyway, I enjoy the site, and keep up the great work! --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:17, 10 February 2012 (EST)

:::::The [[Conservapedia proven right]] takes credit for predicting Newt's surprisingly strong showing -- which included winning the [[South Carolina]] primary by a landslide. Obviously the [[Conservapedia proven right]] does not claim that a nominee has been selected yet. Predictions can be partially correct.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 10 February 2012 (EST)
::::::"''Predictions can be partially correct.''" That is true in cases where a prediction has multiple conditions to satisfy. For example picking the winner of a horse race, ''and'' the exact time it will take the horse to cross the finish line. You may pick the right horse, but your estimated elapsed time was off. That would be a partially correct prediction. Yet what you're essentially doing on the [[Conservapedia proven right]] page is as soon as your horse takes the lead, you declare victory. So even if that horse stumbles before the finish line,and ends up coming in last, would you then go onto declare partial victory? "''Well I was correct for the first 95% of the race...''" That's sort of like jumping off the Empire State building and saying "so far so good" after the first 10 floors. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 01:06, 10 February 2012 (EST)

== Reduce size of tables? ==

Isn't it time to trim the list of Republican contenders? Now that the nominee is apparent, I think the list should be pared down to just those who were actually serious contenders for the nomination. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 12:44, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-08-11T16:38:41Z

CasparRH: /* Minor Parties */ expand list

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is at 8.3% (and real unemployment much higher) merely 3 months before the election. The [[economy]] grew less than predicted in the first quarter, and "the last time the economy was this slow was in the last year of President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s one term in office" - '''''who then lost reelection'''''.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0427/GDP-report-puts-Obama-in-economic-gray-zone.-Will-Republicans-profit</ref> In addition, [[Barack Obama]] is polling poorly in the key [[Swing State|swing state]]s of [[Ohio]] and [[North Carolina]].

Obama has struggled in some of his own primaries, despite the lack of media attention to them. 40% of ''[[Democrats]]'' voted against [[Obama]] in the [[Arkansas]] and [[Kentucky]] primaries in May 2012, and in Arkansas Obama was not declared the winner of his own primary by some in the media until nearly midnight.<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229023-in-kentucky-42-percent-of-dems-pick-uncommitted-instead-of-obama</ref>

The [[Republican Party]] is in the process of selecting its nominee through the [[2012 Republican Primary]]; the latest delegate totals are [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html here] and [http://www.politico.com/2012-election/delegate-tracker/ here]. About 1,144 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination.<ref>Primaries held before April 1, 2012, awarded delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida claimed to award winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31). However, some early states are winner-take-all by Congressional district, sometimes leading to a single candidate taking a large majority of the delegates. For instance, in South Carolina, the winner of each district got 2 delegates (for a total of 14), and the winner of the state got 11. This was permissible because less than 50% of the delegates were awarded to the state winner automatically. Newt Gingrich won all but one Congressional district, as well as the state overall, earning him 23 delegates to Mitt Romney's 2. Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but the second biggest state, Texas (155 delegates), will be proportional, and the biggest state, California (172 delegates), is winner-take-all by each of its 53 congressional districts. [http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_19843184] Only seven primaries totalling a small number of delegates are winner-take-all; New York was winner-take-all only if one candidate were to win more than 50% of the vote. [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0131/Florida-primary-Why-it-s-one-of-the-last-few-winner-take-all-states]</ref> The dates of the primaries are [http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c here].
__NOTOC__
== Republican Contenders for the Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|Would probably appoint conservative judges to the federal bench, more so than other Republicans would. Has business experience and was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Outraises [[Barack Obama]] in campaign contributions, and [[Super PAC]]s supportive of Romney are likely to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads against [[Obama]]. In the primaries Mitt came in second in [[Iowa]], first in [[New Hampshire]], a distant second in South Carolina, first in Florida, lost three states to Santorum on February 7, but then won in [[Arizona]] and [[Michigan]] on February 28 and in six other states on Super Tuesday, March 6. Has received endorsements from moderate and liberal Republicans such as [[Bob Dole]], [[John McCain]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Jon Huntsman]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]], [[Tim Pawlenty]], [[Jeb Bush]], [[Marco Rubio]], and [[George H. W. Bush]]<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/its-official-elder-bush-backs-romney/ It's official, elder Bush backs Romney] New York Times 538 election blog. March, 29th 2012</ref>. Won the 2012 [[CPAC]] straw poll.
|Has weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it difficult for Romney to win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations, continued to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] long after it was discredited, and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. The mostly tepid criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] until they started forcefully attacking him after the voting officially started suggested that they wanted him to win so that they could defeat him in the general election.
|With his victory in the Texas primary on May 29, Romney reportedly reached the number needed to secure the Republican nomination.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the 2011 [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) is used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treated him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Surprisingly, he won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
Finished a strong third in Iowa's caucuses and second in New Hampshire, Maine, and Washington. Won a majority of the delegates in state conventions held in Minnesota, Iowa, Maine, and Louisiana. Has suspended his campaign without endorsing Romney.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The [[pro-life]] candidate most opposed by [[liberal]]s due to his political effectiveness in accomplishing [[conservative]] goals. Newt is the only contender who stands up forcefully to liberals and to the [[lamestream media]]. He had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. Has been endorsed by conservatives such as [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Herman Cain]].
|His many decades in public life make him vulnerable to negative political ads. His personal life has been criticized: his first marriage was annulled, and he's been married twice since. Ron Paul is particularly critical of Newt, although many of Dr. Paul's supporters are likely to prefer Newt over Mitt Romney.
|Newt's rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for him in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates was brilliant. However, he carried only Georgia on Super Tuesday and lost Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to Santorum. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his hypothetical Cabinet. Gingrich withdrew from the race during the first week of May.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if there were a deadlock at the national convention. In the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida, and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. He says he does not intend to run in 2012. He knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, but everyone expects him to run at some point and he's not getting any younger. Jeb is disliked by some Tea Partiers, but not as disliked as Romney. Endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] <ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/21/breaking-jeb-bush-endorses-romney/</ref>.
|Jeb may be waiting until 2016, expecting Obama to be re-elected. He has endorsed Romney for 2012.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Stongly conservative across the board, family man, well-received by evangelicals. He has received a 100% rating from the [[National Right to Life Committee]] for his pro-life voting record during his time in the Senate. The [[NRA]] has given him an A+ lifetime rating for protecting 2nd Amendment rights<ref>http://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27054/rick-santorum</ref>.
|Almost certainly began as a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position, and may now be seeking to be Romney's VP. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008 rather than more conservative candidates. Santorum's tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes, and he's been criticized for supporting earmarks while in the Senate.
|Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, a former [[U.S. Senator]], switched his endorsement from Romney to Santorum on Feb. 17, helping lift Santorum to a razor-thin loss to Romney in the Ohio primary. Rick is fabulous in debates and television interviews. Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], but was an also-ran in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida primaries before rebounding to win primaries in Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, North Dakota, and most of the Southern states. Ended his campaign and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if Romney stumbles. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, is personally [[pro-life]], is a fiscal conservative, and has a record of supporting upset victors in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, showed that a large majority of Republicans didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13, 2011. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser.
|Pulled out on the eve of the South Carolina primary. He may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his [[electability]]. Suspended his campaign on January 19 and endorsed Gingrich.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and tried to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachmann withdrew from the race one day after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses. Is seeking reelection to the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats.
|Garnered little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. He announced that his candidacy would continue but dropped out of the race less than a week later. He has not endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011. Later announced his resignation from the US House of Representatives.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees; supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination. He was considered to be a finalist for the Vice-Presidential nomination before Romney tapped Rep. Paul Ryan.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making his an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: inexperience, his parents being non-citizens at the time of his birth, and Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA. Endorsed and has campaigned for Mitt Romney <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/rubio-endorses-romney-saying-hes-earned-it/ Rubio endorses Romney, saying he's 'earned' it] March 28th FoxNews.com</ref> 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President. Won the 2012 CPAC straw poll for Vice President anyway.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, showed no interest in a run for the Presidential nomination.
|Supporting his dad's run for President but did express support for Romney after his nomination seemed secure.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman who said he would welcome being nominated as Vice President
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he was not running for president. Later showed hints that he might reconsider, but announced in late March 2011 that he was not running.
|Definitely a future prospect.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president or vice-president, but was called one of the top half-dozen Vice-Presidential possibilities.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office.
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Seemed to be courting the Vice Presidential nomination using Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running, but was thought by some to be among Romney's finalists for Vice-President.
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year. Has endorsed Mitt Romney.
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich is able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking a strong base have little chance unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

The most likely thing that would remove Obama from the 2012 ticket would a court ruling ineligibility due to not being a natural born citizen. However, as Obama will use all his political power to delay this as long as possible, it is unlikely such a decision would come before the November election. Depending on the timing of this, it is likely he would automatically be replaced by his successor, Vice President Joe Biden.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls showed Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also, Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Has made this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, on the rare occasions he's mentioned.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increased with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], looked for a time like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be to split the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump has also considered an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed his party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would need to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past.

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Constitution Party]]
|Virgil Goode
|Popular ex-Congressman from Virginia who had previously won election as a Democrat, Independent, and Republican. Joined the Constitution Party in 2010. Opposes illegal immigration and calls for a reduction in legal immigration as well. Won the Constitution Party nomination for president in April on the first ballot.
|-
|[[Green Party]]
|Jill Stein
|Defeated Rosanne Barr for the Green Party nomination. Criticizes Obama for allegedly perpetuating the policies of the Bush administration. Supports the Occupy Wall Street protests. Was previously the Green Party candidate in a series of elections in Massachusetts including a Gubernatorial Election against Mitt Romney (among others).
|-
|[[Justice Party]]
|Rocky Anderson
|Former mayor of [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]] (2000-08)
|-
||[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors the fair tax, ending American military actions overseas, legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex marriage. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He won the Libertarian Party nomination on May 5, 2012.
|-
|Peace and Freedom Party
|[[Roseanne Barr]]
|Comedian and TV actress
|-
|Party for Socialism and Liberation
|Peta Lindsay
|Student and activist (not constitutionally qualified to serve as president - less than 35 years of age)
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections 2010]]
*[[Senate Elections 2012]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-11T16:18:54Z

CasparRH: /* Political Questions Being Resolved by the Games */ update

The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', is occurring in [[London]] from July 27 through August 12.<ref>This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948.</ref> '''''During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by [[faith]]-based achievement by the participating athletes'''''.

== 2012 Olympics - Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ==

See also: [[Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism ]]

''The Sports Journal'' is a monthly refereed journal published by the United States Sports Academy.
A journal article appeared in the Sports Journal entitled ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions''. The article was submitted by Nathan T. Bell, Scott R. Johnson, and Jeffrey C. Petersen from Ball State University.<ref>[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']</ref>

An excerpt from the abstract of the journal article ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'' declares:
{{cquote|Numerous studies report athletes to be more religious than nonathletes (Fischer, 1997; Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, & Storch, 2001; Storch et al., 2004). According to Storch, Kolsky, Silvestri, and Storch (2001), four reasons may explain why religion interacts with athletic performance. First, athletes may identify with religious beliefs for direction and humility. Second, athletes may turn to religion to gain a sense of optimism and security, benefiting from such beliefs following a disappointing athletic performance. Third, religion can be used for emotional and psychological support in stressful circumstances like the uncertainty of athletic competition, which can cause athletes an overwhelming amount of anxiety. Religious beliefs can offer the internal strength to persevere through the stress. Fourth, religion “provides a cognitive framework conducive to the relief of anxiety associated with competition” (Storch et al., 2001, p. 347). This framework allows relief from fear and anxiety on the basis of the athlete’s understanding (i.e., belief) that a supreme being is in complete control of the situation. For example, athletes may rely on religious faith to place a poor athletic performance in perspective...

Religion can be an important aspect in athletes’ lives and may serve a protective function against psychological distress and maladaptive behaviors such as substance use or aggression (Storch, Roberti, Bravata, & Storch, 2004). Viewers of sporting events can frequently observe athletes pointing to the sky, engaging in team prayer on the court or field, and glorifying God following athletic competitions.<ref>[http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/strength-religious-faith-athletes-and-nonathletes-two-ncaa-division-iii-institutions ''Strength of Religious Faith of Athletes and Nonathletes at Two NCAA Division III Institutions'']</ref>}}

=== Atheism and sports performance ===

Besides lacking the aforementioned benefits that religion bestows on athletes, atheists have higher rates of depression and suicide than the religious (see: [[Atheism and mental health]] and [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]). This suggests that atheism is a detriment to sports performance.

=== 2012 Olympics: faith vs. atheism ===

A number of Christian athletes have thanked God for their 2012 Olympic medals (see below). To date, no Olympic athlete at the 2012 Olympic games has credited atheism with providing them enhanced sport performance.

== Political Questions Being Resolved by the Games ==

Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees are participating.<ref>Independent Olympic Athletes from [[South Sudan]], who does not yet have a National Olympic Committee, and the former Netherlands Antilles, who no longer has a National Olympic Committee due to their dissolution, will also compete under the Olympic Flag.</ref>

Sports contests having the greatest political interest are (note especially the growing list of lack of [[public schools]] for the gold medalists below):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Multiple
|How many athletes will do the equivalent of [[Tebowing]] after a victory? American Meb Keflezighi, who won the silver medal in the marathon in 2004, typically gives glory to [[God]] with the sign of the [[Cross]] after finishing a race.<ref>http://www.letsrun.com/2009/nycmen1101.php</ref>
|After winning the all-around women's gymnastic title, Gabby Douglas tweeted, "Let all that I am praise the [[Lord|LORD]]; may I never forget the good things he does for me."

Missy Franklin, who ranks second behind Michael Phelps (he's won 4 gold in 2012, 18 in career) with three gold medals at the 2012 games, thanked [[God]] as one of her first comments after winning.

Ethiopian Tiki Gelana remarkably overcame a mid-race fall to win the women's marathon, after thinking "thank God" at the beginning of the race for the rain because she grew up running in rainy weather - but the [[lamestream media]] reported her quote with a small "g" for "God".<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/rain-queen-gelana-wins-soggy-maratho-175353459--spt.html</ref>

Soccer players in the United Arab Emirates team kneeled towards Mecca when they scored a goal. They did not advance to the quarterfinals. Mohamed Farah (GB) gave thanks to Allah by kneeling towards Mecca after he won the 10000 metres track race.

Double-amputee runner Oscar Pistorius noted that he thanks God "Because He is the reason for my success and the one that takes me from strength to strength."[http://assistnews.net/Stories/2012/s12060047.htm]
|-
|Multiple
|Will almost no athletes from [[public school]] sports programs win any gold medals, despite how public schools spend more than $500 billion annually to teach and train [[American]]s?
|The [[lamestream media]] state that Missy Franklin, the star swimmer, is a high school student, but fail to mention that she attends ''[[Catholic]]'' school rather than [[public school]].

'''American 2012 Olympic gold medal winners (as of 8/1/2012)'''
*Private: Missy Franklin ([[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] high school)<ref> Franklin's swimming has been with a swim club</ref>, Katie Ledecky (Catholic high school)
*[[Homeschooled]]: Gabby Douglas, McKayla Maroney
*College or adult: Michael Phelps,<ref>Phelps' swimming has been with a private swim club.</ref> Dana Vollmer, Vincent Hancock, Conor Dwyer, Kristin Armstrong, Nathan Adrian, Allison Schmitt, Shannon Vreeland, Kim Rhode, Ryan Lochte, Matt Grevers, Aly Raisman, Ricky Berens, Jamie Lynn Gray, Bob Bryan, Mike Bryan, Serena Williams.
*[[Public school]]: Kyla Ross and Jordyn Wieber won a group gold medal as part of the team led by [[homeschooled]] Gabby Douglas
|-
|Multiple
|How many athletes will be unfairly expelled based on [[liberal]] [[censorship]] of their [[free speech]]?
|One athlete -- Greek triple-jumper Voula Papachristou -- was expelled from the Greek National team by her own country's Olympic committee '''''before it officially opened''''' based on a one-sentence joke about immigration, even though she apologized. The joke in question was this from her Twitter: "With so many Africans in Greece, the West Nile mosquitoes will be getting home food!!!" It should be noted that Papachristou apologized for the tweet.

In addition to the Greek Olympic Committee's decision on Papachristou, the IOC's own twitter-use policy has been criticized for hindering free speech. The policy, which is claimed to protect the IOC's commercial rights, goes as far as to prevent athletes from "reporting on events". According to The Globe and Mail, even a tweet such as "Won our games against China, USA. Next up, the Brazilians," could get an athlete expelled from the Games without notice. As of yet, no athletes have been expelled by the IOC for this [[social media]] [[censorship]] policy.

Lolo Jones, a pro-[[abstinence]] [[American]] hurdler, is being criticized by the [[lamestream media]] for sending out a pro-[[Second Amendment]] tweet.

The [[liberal]] thought police expelled a Swiss soccer player for tweeting that South Koreans are "retards."<ref>[[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/07/another-racist-twitter-scandal-gets-another-olympic-athlete-boot/55197/] </ref>
|-
|Opening Ceremonies
|Will [[Overrated Sports Stars|Overrated Sports Star]] David Beckham be selected to light the Olympic cauldron?
|Beckham was not selected as the final torchbearer. He was, however, a passenger on the speedboat that carried the torch up the River Thames. He assisted in the hand-off of the torch to Sir Steve Redgrave, one of Britain's greatest Olympians. Sebastian Coe, chairman of London 2012, stated, "He [Beckham] will be more than an ambassador given what he has done, the commitment he has given and the amount of time he has spent with us in London on this project. He was not only alongside us when we won [the right to host the Olympics], he was alongside us when we threw our hats in the ring."<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/football/9388462/London-2012-Olympics-David-Beckham-will-be-more-than-an-ambassador-at-the-Games.html London 2012 Olympics: David Beckham will be 'more than an ambassador' at the Games] telegraph.co.uk, July 10, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref>
|-
|Multiple
|will [[atheist]] nations underachieve in team sports?
|In women's soccer, France defeated Sweden in the quarterfinals but lost to Japan in the semifinals. They lost to Canada in the bronze medal game.

On the men's side, Great Britain won their group with 2 wins and a draw. They lost to South Korea in the quarterfinals.

Australia failed to qualify for either soccer event. This was their first time attempting to qualify out of the Asian Zone instead of the significantly weaker Oceanic Zone, so this may have been a factor. They will, however, send teams in most other team sports, since they qualify from the Oceanic Zone in those.

In women's basketball, France won Group B with a 5-0 record, while Australia finished 4-1 in the same group. Great Britain is 0-5. France and Australia won their quarterfinals. France will face Russia in the semifinals while Australia will face the United States.

In women's handball, Great Britain finished 0-5-0 and France is 4-0-1 (W-L-D). France lost to Montenegro the quarterfinals. Handball is almost unknown in GB, with only a dozen or so clubs, in stark contrast to most other countries in Western Europe.

In men's basketball, Great Britain finished 1-4 in the group stage and was eliminated. Australia finished 3-2, fourth in their group, and lost to the USA in the quarterfinals. France finished 4-1 and will face Spain in the quarterfinals. Basketball is a minor sport in GB, much less played than in continental Europe, and GB would have considered themselves lucky if they had won a match.

In men's volleyball, Great Britain finished 0-5 and Australia finished 2-3. Neither advanced to the quarterfinals. Volleyball is very much a minor sport in GB. They only had a volleyball team in the Olympics because they were host nation and they did not expect to win any of their matches.
|-
|Multiple
|Similarly, will atheist nations underachieve in general?
|China, an officially atheist and communist country, leads the standings with 36 gold medals. Despite having more than three times the population of the United States and despite having a national program designed to produce champion athletes, China has fewer total medals than the United States (83-78), and only one more gold medals (36-35). About half of the American medals came in the obscure sport of swimming, which allowed the US to artificially increase its medal take. Despite having a population only one-fifth of that of the US, increasingly atheistic Great Britain has more than half as many gold medals, and more than half as many medals overall as the US, and ranks third overall. Great Britain did not win its first gold medal until Day 5 (August 1), because few of the medal competitions in which GB is strong (rowing, cycling, canoeing especially) were competed for until that day. In the 2008 Olympics, Great Britain won 47 total medals, which they will probably surpass. The last few Olympic Games have seen hosts surpass their totals from the previous games by 20-30%. Care should therefore be taken when looking at the British total.

The host factor would not affect Australia's and France's totals. Australia has 27 medals, but only six gold medals. France has 28 medals, of which 8 are gold. In 2008, Australia won 46 medals and France won 41. Australia won 14 golds that year, a total that they are unlikely to surpass at this point.
|-
|wrestling
|have [[feminist]] [[Title IX quotas]] destroyed the [[U.S.]] team?
|TBA
|-
|men's basketball
|will selfless play by outspoken [[Christian]] [[Kevin Durant]] overcome ball-hogging by [[Overrated Sports Stars|Overrated Sports Star]]s [[Kobe Bryant]] and [[LeBron James]] on [[USA Basketball]]?
|The USA will face Argentina in their semifinal. They are undefeated so far, but had a close matchup against Lithuania.
|-
|men's tennis
|will one of the [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]] -- such as Novak Djokovic -- win the gold medal? Will [[Andy Murray]] of atheistic Britain underperform?
|Both players advanced to the semifinals, where Murray defeated Djokovic in straight sets. Murray defeated Roger Federer of Switzerland for the gold in straight sets, while Djokovic underperformed and lost to Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina in the bronze medal match. Murray then went on to play in mixed doubles match that same day and medalled silver with Laura Robson, losing to the heavily favoured Mirnyi and Azarenka.
|-
|8-month pregnant athlete
|Will the [[lamestream media]] report on Nur Suryani Mohamed Taibi of Malaysia, who is competing while being 8 months pregnant, or does that send too [[pro-life]] of a message?
|Taibi was eliminated from the Olympics on the first day of official competition after finishing in 34th place. Few articles mentioned her prior to her elimination; there was more publicity about her after her defeat.<ref>[http://blog.sfgate.com/olympics/2012/07/28/pregnant-shooter%E2%80%99s-olympics-end-after-34th-place-finish-in-qualifying/ Pregnant shooter’s Olympics end after 34th-place finish in qualifying] sfgate.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/shooting/story/Pregnant-Malaysian-shooter-does-baby-proud-at-London-Olympics-072812 Pregnant shooter does baby proud] foxsports.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/london/shooting/story/2012-07-28/pregnant-shooter-nur-suryani-mohd-taibi-malaysia-misses-final/56551354/1 Pregnant shooter misses final, treasures experience] usatoday.com, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/28/london-2012-pregnant-shooting London 2012: 'Be quiet, mummy's shooting,' says pregnant competitor] guardian.co.uk, July 28, 2012, retrieved July 28, 2012</ref> The New York Times ran an article on the athlete on 16 July 2012,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/sports/olympics/17iht-oly17.html?_r=1] </ref> The Guardian <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/28/london-2012-pregnant-shooting]</ref> and ESPN <ref>[http://www.espnstar.com/olympics/shooting/news/detail/item832224/Nur-Suryani-off-target-in-London/]</ref> both reported on her results in the competition.
|-
|women's soccer
|ranked #1 and won the gold in the last two Olympics, most recently with a foreign coach. Now that this [[U.S.]] team is [[politically correct]], will it underachieve?<ref>A foreigner, reportedly a lesbian, was selected as the head coach of the already champion American Olympic women's soccer team in 2007, and in the following year that team repeated its gold medal-winning performance of 2004. Aren't there American, although perhaps not politically correct, soccer coaches good enough to run the Olympic team?</ref> Major rivals will be Japan, Brazil and France.
|Politcal correctness triumphed as the foreign-born reportedly lesbian coach of the U.S. team led them to repeat their previous gold medal performance.
|-
|Gun events
|Will the [[lamestream media]] downplay the gun events because they want to continue to push [[gun control]]?
|Great Britain shooter Peter Wilson's gold medal success in the double-trap clay pigeon event was widely reported and celebrated in the British media, despite Britain being strong in favor of gun control. The victory of South Korean air pistol shooter Jin in winning the first gold medal of the games was reported in most GB media. Coverage is similar to other sports with modest national following. See the entry above on the Malaysian shooter for an exception to this lack of coverage.
|-
|Openly [[homosexual]] athletes
|Will the [[liberal media]] overpromote [[homosexual]] athletes, far beyond their achievements?
|Several months before the games, ''Sports Illustrated'' ran a feature article entitled "The Transgender Athlete", which included significant overage of a transgender female-to-male shotputter attempting to qualify for the United States women's Olympic team. However, she failed to qualify at the US Olympic Trials, and as such has not received coverage during the actual Olympics.
|-
|Multiple
|Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? (See below for a more lengthy explanation)
|Too early to tell. Listed below are the country's medal totals for the last Olympics prior to implementing same sex-marriage (which can be seen as a fair proxy for their totals this year), along with actual totals for this year so far. Denmark, Canada, and Sweden have already overperformed. For the others, it's too early to tell, although it's unlikely Norway, Iceland, the Netherlands, or Belgium will overperform. To support the claim that there is a correlation, there should be a statistically significant difference in the total number of medals won by those countries. Another result would suggest that there is not enough evidence to suggest a correlation.
: Argentina - 6 in 2008, 4 in 2012
: Belgium - 5 in 2000, 3 in 2012
: Canada - 12 in 2004, 18 in 2012
: Denmark - 7 in 2008, 9 in 2012
: Iceland - 1 in 2008, 0 in 2012
: Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 19 in 2012
: Norway - 6 in 2004, 3 in 2012
: Portugal - 2 in 2008, 1 in 2012
: South Africa - 6 in 2004, 5 in 2012
: Spain - 19 in 2004, 15 in 2012
: Sweden - 5 in 2008, 7 in 2012
: Total - 94 expected, 82 actual

|-
|Men's Handball
|Will heavy underdogs [[Tunisia]] overperform in Group A? Group A should perhaps be dubbed the "Group of Left", since the other five teams are Sweden, Iceland, and Argentina, where same-sex marriage is legal, and increasingly atheistic Great Britain and France.
|Tunisia went 2-3 in the group stage, becoming just the second African team ever to advance to the quarterfinals. They then lost to Croatia, the winner of Group B.
|-
|[[Joke sports]]
|Will underperforming countries pad their medal totals by excelling in many varieties of [[swimming]] and in non-serious sports like [[badminton]]?
|The United States has won 10 gold medals in these sports; atheistic Great Britain has won three, the team and individual dressage events and women's flyweight boxing.
|-
|}

(add more)

== Nations that have implemented [[same-sex marriage]] ==

===[[Argentina]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Argentina's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 3 || 1 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 2 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| July 22, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total || 17 || 23 || 26 || 66
|}

===[[Belgium]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Belgium's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 5 || 5 || 5 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 1 || 5 || 2 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp (host) || 14 || 11 || 11 || 36
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 3 || 7 || 3 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 2 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 0 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 1 || 1 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 2 || 2 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| January 30, 2003 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 37 !! 51 !! 51 !! 139
|}

===[[Canada]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Canada's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| ''1896 Athens'' || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 3 || 3 || 10 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 3 || 2 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 3 || 3 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 0 || 3 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 4 || 4 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 8 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 1 || 3 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 0 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 3 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal (host) || 0 || 5 || 6 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 10 || 18 || 16 || 44
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 3 || 2 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 7 || 4 || 7 || 18
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 3 || 11 || 8 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 3 || 3 || 8 || 14
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 3 || 6 || 3 || 12
|-
|align=left| July 20, 2005 || colspan=4|''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 3 || 9 || 6 || 18
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
!| Total || 58 || 94 || 108 || 260
|}

===[[Denmark]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Denmark's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || 1 || 2 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 1 || 6 || 5 || 12
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 9 || 1 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 2 || 5 || 2 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 1 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 7 || 8 || 20
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 4 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 2 || 1 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 1 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 1 || 1 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 6 || 8
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| June 15, 2012 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 41 !! 63 !! 66 !! 170
|}

===[[Iceland]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Iceland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 ||1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| June 27, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 0 !! 2 !! 2 !! 4
|}

===[[Netherlands]]<ref>Although part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, [[Aruba]] competes separately at the Olympic Games. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Aruba, although marriages performed in the European mainland Netherlands are recognized per the Kingdom's requirements. Additionally, the territories of Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Athletes" under the Olympic Flag following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition of their Olympic Committee, have the same regulations as Aruba with regards to same-sex marriage. Since citizens of these territories are also Dutch citizens, they are also eligible to compete for Team Netherlands. Therefore, they may have won some of the Dutch medals. In all three territories, the population is heavily Catholic and there is large opposition to same-sex marriage in spite of the Kingdom's requirements. When Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba opted to integrate fully with the Netherlands as part of the dissolution, the Dutch House of Representatives passed a law that will make same sex-marriage legal in those territories effective in October 2012. However, this law was strongly opposed by locals. Athletes from those three territories were permitted to compete as Independent Olympic Athletes as well. However, of the four IOAs at the Olympics, three are from Curacao and one is a marathoner from South Sudan, which does not yet have a national Olympic Committee.</ref>===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+The Netherland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 1 || 3 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 3 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 4 || 2 || 5 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 4 || 1 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam (host) || 6 || 9 || 4 || 19
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 0 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 6 || 4 || 7 || 17
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 2 || 9 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 5 || 0 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 4 || 4 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 3 || 1 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 5 || 2 || 6 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 2 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 2 || 6 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 5 || 10 || 19
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 12 || 9 || 4 || 25
|-
|align=left| April 1, 2001 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 4 || 9 || 9 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 7 || 5 || 4 || 16
|-
|align=left| 2012 Summer Olympics|2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 71 !! 79 !! 96 !! 246
|}

===[[Norway]]===
===[[Portugal]]===
===[[South Africa]]===
===[[Spain]]===
===[[Sweden]]===

Underachievement by nations allowing same sex marriage will be particularly evident.<ref>In the [[United States]], 6 out of 50 states permit same-sex marriage (Washington, D.C. also permits same-sex marriage), and 8 additional states permit civil unions. Two states (including Washington, which had previously recognized civil unions) have declared same-sex marriage legal, but implementation is postponed until after voter referendums on the laws in November 2012. Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a federal district roughly equivalent to Washington, DC, as well as in the state of Quintana Roo. </ref>

== Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==

*[[Britain]]
*[[France]]
*[[Australia]]<ref> Since the 2001 Australians have increasingly answered "no religion" in the official census. The growing numbers of those answering "no religion" has coincided with fewer people self-identifying as Christian: [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/636F496B2B943F12CA2573D200109DA9?opendocument Year Book Australia, 2008]</ref>

Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is usually non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.

Also, since Great Britain is the host nation, it may receive a boost in performance in spite of its increasingly atheistic nature. One should be careful to account for this when comparing Britain's performance this year to that in previous Olympic Games.

== Winners ==

=== Individual Events ===

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Athlete
!Achievement
!Religion, or Atheist?
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

=== Team Events ===

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Event
!Country
!Religious Category
|-
|Women's 4x100m Freestyle (Swimming)
|Australia
|Increasingly Atheistic
|-
|Men's Team Archery
|Italy
|Christian
|-
|Women's Team Archery
|South Korea
|Atheistic
|-
|Men's 4x100m Freestyle (Swimming)
|France
|Increasingly Atheistic
|-
|Women's Synchronized 3m Springboard (Diving)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|Men's Synchronized 10m Platform (Diving)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|Men's Artistic Team All-round (Gymnastics)
|China
|Buddhist
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

==Expected Medals==

Many factors contribute to a country's success in the Olympics (e.g., population, proximity to host country, culture), and [[Gross Domestic Product]] cannot be used as a fair proxy, due to low (per capita) GDP China comfortably coming first in the 2008 Olympics and Russia ranking third. Below is how the Olympic medals would be awarded if each country earned medals in proportion to their GDP, which vastly overestimates the United States' performance.

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Country
!Expected Medals
|-
|Afghanistan
|0.2
|-
|Albania
|0.2
|-
|Andorra
|0.1
|-
|Antigua and Barbuda
|0
|-
|Angola
|1.2
|-
|Algeria
|2.3
|-
|Argentina
|5.3
|-
|Armenia
|0.1
|-
|Aruba
|0
|-
|Australia
|16.2
|-
|Austria
|5.4
|-
|Azerbaijan
|0.7
|-
|Bahamas
|0.1
|-
|Bangladesh
|1.4
|-
|Barbados
|0
|-
|Burundi
|0
|-
|Belgium
|6.7
|-
|Belize
|0
|-
|Benin
|0.1
|-
|Bermuda
|0.1
|-
|Bhutan
|0
|-
|Bolivia
|0.3
|-
|Bosnia-Herzegovina
|0.2
|-
|Bahrain
|0.3
|-
|Botswana
|0.2
|-
|Belarus
|0.8
|-
|Brazil
|29.9
|-
|Virgin Islands
|0
|-
|Bulgaria
|0.7
|-
|Burkina Faso
|0.1
|-
|Cameroon
|0.3
|-
|Cambodia
|0.2
|-
|Canada
|22.6
|-
|Cayman Islands
|0
|-
|Central African Republic
|0
|-
|Chad
|0.1
|-
|Chile
|3
|-
|China
|98.8
|-
|Taiwan
|7.2
|-
|Colombia
|4.1
|-
|Comoros
|0
|-
|Cape Verde
|0
|-
|Congo
|0.2
|-
|Cook Islands
|0
|-
|Costa Rica
|0.5
|-
|Cote-d´lvoire
|0.3
|-
|Croatia
|0.9
|-
|Cuba
|0.9
|-
|Cyprus
|0.4
|-
|Czech Republic
|2.8
|-
|Denmark
|4.4
|-
|Djibouti
|0
|-
|Dominica
|0
|-
|Dominican Republic
|0.7
|-
|Ecuador
|0.8
|-
|Egypt
|3.1
|-
|El Salvador
|0.3
|-
|Equatorial Guinea
|0.2
|-
|Eritrea
|0
|-
|Estonia
|0.3
|-
|Ethiopia
|0.4
|-
|Fiji
|0
|-
|Finland
|3.4
|-
|France
|39.8
|-
|Gabon
|0.2
|-
|Gambia
|0
|-
|Germany
|47
|-
|Ghana
|0.4
|-
|United Kingdom
|32.4
|-
|Guinea-Bissau
|0
|-
|Georgia
|0.2
|-
|Greece
|4.3
|-
|Grenada
|0
|-
|Guam
|0
|-
|Guatemala
|0.6
|-
|Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Guyana
|0
|-
|Haiti
|0.1
|-
|Honduras
|0.2
|-
|Hong Kong
|3.2
|-
|Hungary
|1.8
|-
|Iceland
|0.2
|-
|India
|24.7
|-
|Indonesia
|10.1
|-
|Iran
|4.7
|-
|Iraq
|1.2
|-
|Ireland
|3
|-
|Italy
|29.5
|-
|Israel
|3.1
|-
|Jamaica
|0.2
|-
|Japan
|78.2
|-
|Jordan
|0.4
|-
|Kazakhstan
|2.3
|-
|Kyrgyzstan
|0.1
|-
|Kenya
|0.4
|-
|South Korea
|14.8
|-
|North Korea
|0.4
|-
|Kuwait
|2
|-
|Laos
|0.1
|-
|Latvia
|0.4
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Lebanon
|0.5
|-
|Lesotho
|0
|-
|Libya
|0.9
|-
|Lichtenstein
|0.1
|-
|Luxembourg
|0.8
|-
|Macedonia
|0.1
|-
|Madagascar
|0.1
|-
|Malawi
|0.1
|-
|Malaysia
|3.3
|-
|Moldova
|0.1
|-
|Marshall Islands
|0
|-
|Maldives
|0
|-
|Malta
|0.1
|-
|Mali
|0.1
|-
|Mauritania
|0.2
|-
|Mauritius
|0.1
|-
|Mexico
|16.2
|-
|Micronesia
|0
|-
|Monaco
|0.1
|-
|Montenegro
|0.1
|-
|Mongolia
|0.1
|-
|Morocco
|1.3
|-
|Mozambique
|0.1
|-
|Myanmar
|0.7
|-
|Namibia
|0.2
|-
|Nepal
|0.2
|-
|Netherlands
|11.2
|-
|New Zealand
|1.8
|-
|Nicaragua
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Norway
|5.9
|-
|Oman
|0.7
|-
|Pakistan
|2.4
|-
|Palau
|0
|-
|Panama
|0.4
|-
|Papua New Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Paraguay
|0.3
|-
|Peru
|2.3
|-
|Philippines
|2.9
|-
|Poland
|6.7
|-
|Portugal
|3.3
|-
|Puerto Rico
|1.4
|-
|Qatar
|1.4
|-
|Romania
|2.3
|-
|Rwanda
|0.1
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Saint Kitts and Nevis
|0
|-
|Samoa
|0
|-
|San Marino
|0
|-
|Saudi Arabia
|6.2
|-
|Seychelles
|0
|-
|Sierra Leone
|0
|-
|Senegal
|0.2
|-
|Slovenia
|0.7
|-
|Solomon Islands
|0
|-
|South Africa
|5.2
|-
|Sri Lanka
|0.7
|-
|Slovakia
|1.3
|-
|Swaziland
|0.1
|-
|Serbia
|0.6
|-
|Singapore
|3
|-
|Spain
|20.2
|-
|Sudan
|0.9
|-
|Suriname
|0
|-
|Syria
|0.8
|-
|Sweden
|6.6
|-
|Switzerland
|7.6
|-
|Tanzania
|0.3
|-
|Tonga
|0
|-
|Thailand
|4.6
|-
|Togo
|0
|-
|Trinidad and Tobago
|0.3
|-
|Tajikistan
|0.1
|-
|Timor-Leste
|0
|-
|Turkmenistan
|0.3
|-
|Tunisia
|0.6
|-
|Turkey
|10.5
|-
|Tuvalu
|0
|-
|Uganda
|0.2
|-
|Ukraine
|2
|-
|United Arab Emirates
|4.3
|-
|United States
|209
|-
|Uruguay
|0.6
|-
|Uzbekistan
|0.6
|-
|Vanuatu
|0
|-
|Venezuela
|5.6
|-
|Vietnam
|1.5
|-
|Yemen
|0.4
|-
|Zambia
|0.2
|-
|Zimbabwe
|0.1
|-
|}

== Commemoration ==

The 2012 games mark the 40th anniversary of 11 [[Israeli]] Olympic team members taken hostage and killed by [[Palestinian]] [[terrorist]] group Black September. The Internal Olympic Committee has been urged to offer a commemorative moment of silence for the athletes at the opening ceremony. The IOC has rejected the moment of silence or any mention of the tragic event so as not to upset [[Muslim]] countries. <ref>[http://www.eju.org/news/world/ioc-refuses-request-memorial-munich-victims IOC refuses request for a memorial to Munich victims, EJU News, may 22, 2012]</ref> Sportscaster Bob Costas says NBC will honor the Munich 11 despite IOC’s refusal to allow it. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2012/07/21/bob-costas-says-he-will-observe-moment-of-silence-for-victims-of-1972-munich-massacre-during-live-broadcast-of-london-olympics-opening-ceremony-despite-iocs-refusal-to-allow-it/ Bob Costas Says He Will Observe Moment of Silence For Victims of 1972 Munich Massacre, WeaselZippers, July 21, 2012]</ref>

== NBC Coverage ==

Scorn for Comcast's [[NBC]] coverage of the Olympic games hit America coast to coast. Viewers have taken to the internet with the trend #NBCfail for days now. The groans began at the opening ceremony when [[American]] viewers were denied the tribute to British victims of [[Islamic]] terrorism. As the games moved forward, live events were interrupted or had already finished, replaced with commercials and NBC commentators talking about the athletes. It has been reported the Comcast spent $1 billion for the rights to televise the 2012 Olympics.

== See also ==

*[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Olympics]]

Diane Arbus

2012-08-10T19:00:41Z

CasparRH:

'''Diane Arbus''' (1923 - 1971) was an American photographer. She worked primarily in black and white, and is known for her somewhat disturbing photographs of dwarfs. giants, transvestites, circus performers, mentally handicapped people, and twins. She suffered from depression most of her life, and died as a result of suicide. Arbus was said to admire the work of [[Weegee]] (Arthur Fellig) and [[Richard Avedon]], though her own photographic style was markedly different. Arbus had two daughters: Doon and Amy.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Arbus, Diane}}
[[Category:Photographers]]

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T18:28:43Z

CasparRH: /* criteria? */

== Female version of sports ==

Hi, long time reader but new editor as I wanted to give something back to the project. I was just wondering why Women's boxing is the only female specific sport listed. To be consistent surely sports such as women's weightlifting, wrestling and some of the athletics events what require pure strength (shot-put, hammer etc) should be included. What do more experience members think of including these?
Can I also suggest the 20km walk race?

:The other female sports you list seem more legitimate than women's boxing. Women's boxing appears to be particularly artificial - how often are there schoolyard boxing matches between girls?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:55, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::It happened often enough where I grew up, but I probably came from a tougher neighborhood than you. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 20:02, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:::I doubt they boxed as boys and men do. I have never, ever heard of that happening, and the small town I grew up in had plenty of fistfights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:15, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
::::You must have lived a particularly sheltered life then Andy!! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:54, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

How often on your schoolyard did you see fencing matches? Or two first graders break out into a clean-and-jerk competition? Or archery? Or the down-hill slalom? Or the pentathlon? Or sailing? I think it's fair to say that if you are an Olympics athlete, you probably focused on it outside of the schoolyard. 
On a personal side note, as a person who was in both track relays and swimming relays; swimming relay exchanges are much harder. You have to time it such that you enter the water at the exact same time that the person in front of you touches. In track, it's just wait for "Go", then run; wait for "Hit", then put your arm back. Close hand, run some more. But I'm just some guy on the internet; you probably shouldn't take my word for it. But if we are going to have this footnote, could we add some citation at least giving a reputable opinion that track is harder than swimming? [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 21:34, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'll second that comment: swimming relays are difficult to get right, and easy to blow. Disqualifications are common at the high school level, and not unheard of in college swimming because of the split-second timing required by all but the first swimmer in the relay.--[[User:Bwebster|Bwebster]] 00:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

::But I don't think difficulty is the test. Lots of silly new televised competitions are difficult, but are not legitimate sports.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::So swimming relays are illegitimate because of the absence of a baton. That is your argument? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==criteria?==
I'm wondering what our actual criteria are for inclusion on this list. I, for one, don't think that Swimming relays, BMX, or beach volleyball are "joke" sports, unless we want to include golf as a joke sport, sailing as a joke sport (please don't do this. the sailing fan in me would be sad). In fact, it seems to me that even dressage requires more athleticism than, say, prone rifle shooting. I realize that people higher up the pecking order on this site than me may have something invested in this article, so I won't make edits until there's a clarified set of criteria for this article.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 20:46, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

:You raise excellent points. What is the criteria for separating the legitimate from the joke sports, or for including an event in the Olympics? Why isn't golf an Olympic sport?

:I've added "underlying purpose" to the sport as a criterion. More insights are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::What is the underlying purpose of any sport? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:26, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

[http://rio2016.com/en/the-games/olympic/sports/golf Golf will return to the Olympics in 2016]. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:18, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
[http://www.olympic.org/content/sports/all-sports/golf/equipment-and-history/?tab=history It was also contested at the 1900 and 1904 Summer Olympic Games]. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

I think this entire article is in violation of Conservapedia Commandments #1 ("Everything you post must be true and verifiable") and #5 ("Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry"). [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:32, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:With regards to our Fifth Commandment, I agree. Perhaps an administrator would like to move this page to the Essay pseudonamespace. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 11:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::"Citius, Altius, Fortius" would be a good stating point for the criteria I think - sports that do not have an element of the Olympic motto would need a good reason to not be on this list, although most team sports would not satisfy this test [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 11:49, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::I think that a good test is that there shouldn't already be another, similar sport with a stronger tradition and more credibility. That would exclude recent additions like beach volleyball.
::::Related to this, it's chiefly the multiplicity of similar events that undermine swimming's credibility, so "one event testing one set of athletic abilities" might be a good way to phrase it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:07, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::I agree with AlanA and CPalmer, but there is a difference between saying a sport should be excluded from the Olympics and saying that it is a "joke sport". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 14:28, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Dressage ==

I wonder if the editor who listed dressage as a joke sport is aware of the history behind the sport? It developed over centuries of military training and tactics for the cavalry, when horse and rider needed to move in harmony with each other during battle. Just because it has become a rich man's sport in today's society does not erase its meaningful history - it certainly wasn't a "joke" to thousands of cavalrymen. [http://www.artisticdressage.com/articles/history1.html A Brief Outline of the History of Dressage] by Dr. Thomas Ritter. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 00:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm going to remove it from the list, until someone can come up with a realistic reason it should be on here. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:35, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::Because, for all intents and purposes, there's very little difference between dressage and Crufts, and I don't see many dog events at the Olympics?--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:41, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I said a logical reason, thanks. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Technically you said a realistic reason. Dressage is about training between man and beast so said beast will do what you command, this is the same as some of the events at Crufts. There's no racing as a test of speed or rider's abilities. On that level I can't see any difference.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 09:46, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Racing or speed are not necessary components in a competition. As for not testing the rider's skill? Seriously, you're being absolutely ridiculous. The whole event is about showing the rider's skill in directing the horse through its movements. While I haven't participated in dressage myself, I have been around horses and riders enough to know that including dressage on this page is the joke created by a bunch of envious, armchair quarterbacks. If you can't do the activity, then don't open your mouth to criticize. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Just because it's hard to do doesn't make it a serious sport. Ballet is hard to do. So is playing the 'cello. Neither of those are sports. Just because it has a long history doesn't make it a serious sport. It is an elitist activity that the average sports fan cares nothing about. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:02, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Alright, go ahead. Disparage these athletes all you want. I have my doubts that any editor who has contributed to this page could compete in any of these "joke sports" on an Olympic level. It sounds like sour grapes to me. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:That's a sore loser's argument. Do you limit your opinions to those things you can do at an elite level? That would mean not having preferences about most things in the world, unless you are so gifted that you can compose poetry, play jazz piano, paint, sculpt, figure skate, design a building and cook at the level of the best in the world. Which none of us can. Just because a person can't do something doesn't mean they can't have an informed opinion about it. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:23, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::I have yet to see an "informed opinion" on any of the sports listed on this page. What I see is a bunch of editors who think it's fun to disparage hard-working athletes for their own amusement. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Welcome to Conservapedia. It's what ASchlafly does. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 11:00, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Why do you add to it if you don't agree with the premise? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:06, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Greco-Roman wrestling ==

I removed Greco-Roman wrestling from the list. All wrestling styles have their particular rules, but that doesn't make them not a real sport. Saying it artifically prohibits the match is like saying hurdles is not a real sport since it hinders running. If anything, the role of throws requires more strength to compete properly. [[User:PaulRP|PaulRP]] 10:14, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:I agree - Graeco-Roman wrestling requires strength, technique and flexibility, as well as guile, and is one of the purest sports contested at the Olympics. Some people do like to joke about wrestling, but that in itself doesn't make it a joke sport.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::However, compare it to freestyle wrestling, also an Olympic Sport, but with far fewer restrictions on how athletes can show their abilities at that particular skill to their best, and it does come across as a joke sport.--[[User:CGrande|CGrande]] 11:12, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Table tennis ==

Have you actually watched any of the table tennis matches? The skills required to compete in this event - the quickness, agility, perspicacity - are at least equal to those in regular tennis. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== This article is too negative and unnecessary ==

This article is too negative. For example, while there are martial art systems (or self-defense systems) which are better than taekwondo when it comes to self-defense[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwV3KZKcq4k][http://hammerprinciple.com/martialarts/items/karate/aikido], it can get you into great shape - especially if the twaekwondo center has a weight room. When I was involved in taekwondo, I enjoyed it and found it beneficial. Plus, when I was playing racketball without googles (which I should not have done), using a block I learned in taekwondo, I stopped a ball from hitting my face inches before it was about to hit me. :) The only potential downside I see to twaekwondo is that full contact sparring could potential cause brain damage as many medical doctors are against boxing for example and boxers can become "punch drunk".[http://digitaljournal.com/article/264678][http://www.justanswer.com/medical/2j5r4-does-sparring-mixed-martial-arts-muay-thai-specifically.html]

Although there are less toxic forms of keeping pools clean than chlorine[http://news.discovery.com/human/chlorinated-pools-swimming-cancer.html], swimming is great exercise and there is nothing wrong with the backstroke or relay races.

Soccer is great and inexpensive way to exercise and it probably keeps more people in shape than any sport in the world due to its popularity in the world.

There is no public outcry to remove these sports from the Olympics. Women enjoy synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics for example.

I think this article is a wet blanket and a sour grapes way of minimizing others achievements.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:55, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:I'm not sure ASchlafly will agree with you. It was his idea, after all, and fits in with his basic orientation towards focusing on finding negative outcomes. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 10:59, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:We agree on this, [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:08, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::User:Conservative, I recommend using Firefox to make your posts. It has a spell-check facilility, which would help you spot typos such as the amusing "twaekwondo".
::Other than that, how could a "joke sports" article not be negative? Perhaps by talking up the humor content of the sports involved???
::Thirdly, you are right that there is nothing wrong with relay races, but swimming relays are not proper relays, as has been explained above. Backstroke ''is'' absurd - it's slower than crawl and more tiring than breast stroke, so what's the point of it, unless you're scared to put your face in the water?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:::Actually, people are wrong when they state swimming relays are not proper relays - there is strategy involved (fastest swimmer first, last? where to place the slowest swimmer?), and precise timing is needed during the exchange. As for the backstroke being absurd - how about testing the athlete's endurance? Not everything needs to be flashy and fast in order to be a competition. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::Sharon, This is already being discussed above, at the end of the section headed "Female version of sports". Your post would be better off up there, where more informed people than I will see and respond to it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:48, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
CPalmer, I typed out taekwondo correctly 1 out 3 times. :). Secondly, Firefox does not have taekwondo in its spellcheck dictionary. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:22, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::CPalmer, as far as the backstroke, one of the principles of good exercise is working out all your muscles. Also, if the backstroke is more tiring than a breastroke as you say, that is a good indication it is giving someone a good workout. Given your approval of this article, I can only assume you may be a cranky old man who calls the police on kids making too much noise bouncing their basketballs!!! I rest my case that this article is a wet blanket article!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:31, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I do not doubt backstroke's utility as a workout for lane-blocking old granddads, but a good workout does not necessarily make a good sport. Olympic toe-touching, for instance, or exercise biking, would certainly be seen as joke sports, were they to be added to the program.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

==swimming medleys==
I removed swimming medleys. The author of that particular edit was wondering what the track comparison would be, and the answer there is the pentathlon, heptathlon, decathlon, etc.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:05, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

:Not really. Multi-event athletics competitions require the athlete to do multiple different things, without specifying how. Swimming medleys, by contrast, require the swimmer to do the ''same'' thing in four different ways. If the decathlon included 100m running, 100m walking, 100m backwards running and 100m rolling then your argument would stand up better.
:I would support a swimming pentathlon that included short, medium and long-distance swims, plus springboard and platform diving, but that would require more genuine versatility than is possessed by most if not all competitive swimmers as far as I know.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:10, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::So I gotta ask, CPalmer, what sports do ''you'' play? how many of those might be considered "joke" sports. I know people who swim competitively, one in the backstroke, which you disparage, two in medleys. They're no joke. Because I need to go to work in about ten minutes, I'm not going to get into any kind of edit war here, I just wish you'd stop being so bitter and accept that people can have amazing sporting achievement EVEN IN EVENTS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE. Isn't that amazing? --[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:21, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::I am not saying that a gold medal in backstroke isn't an impressive achievement. I'm saying that it shouldn't be an Olympic event because it's a silly stroke for competitive purposes.
:::I don't play any sports competitively, but I play recreational football, tennis and darts. I do not think that darts should be an Olympic sport, however.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::By the way, you knowing people who compete in these events does not in itself stop them from being joke events. If you mean that "they're no joke" because your friends take them extremely seriously, please consider the possibility that to others, that may make them more and not less absurd.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:29, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::I think I can see where you're coming from. I still disagree, but if you're using those criteria, then shouldn't you also include breast-stroke and butterfly? They're both less efficient than freestyle/crawl. Breast at least has some use apart from a competition environment, but butterfly seems totally useless. If you want those particular criteria, then please be consistent with them.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 12:34, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::I agree about butterfly, and breast stroke, and walking races on dry land. For Olympic purposes, I think 100m, 200m, 400m and a longer distance, plus relays, for men and women, would be a sensible swimming program - say 12 gold medals in all, so far more than are available for archery or horse riding.
::::::Breast stroke has a case for inclusion, but the trouble is that the breast stroke performed competitively bears little resemblance to the steady, effort-conserving stroke that is so useful in real life.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Quite honestly, the purpose behind sports is not to entertain the spectators, or to make money for the sponsors, or to worry about how you as an athlete will appear to others. The point behind sports when you're an athlete is to challenge yourself to do as well as you possibly can, and if you're on a team, to aid and push your teammates to do their best as well. The purpose behind sports as a spectator is to camaraderie, and enjoyment. Today's society has lost sight of the meaning of sportsmanship, and I hate to say this, but this page proves it by nitpicking and complaining about the sports listed. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:51, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
:'but this page proves it by nitpicking and complaining about the sports listed." ASchlafly would call that "nitpicking" a "conservative insight." Why do you expect otherwise from this site? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 13:16, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

== Backstroke Not an inefficient, silly stroke ==

A common and important part of swimming training is lifesaving and a version of the backstroke is used for lifesaving.[http://lifesaving.org.uk/swimming/training/Swim-strokes/backstroke.html]

Inefficiency can depend on context. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:54, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Bodhisattva

2012-08-10T14:42:49Z

CasparRH: add Sanskrit meaning and vow

In [[Buddhism]], a '''bodhisattva''' (from the [[Sanskrit]] words ''bodhi'', meaning "awakened", and ''sattva'', meaning "existence") is an enlightened person who delays reaching [[Nirvana]] in order to help others reach Nirvana. [[Mahayana]] and [[Theravada]] Buddhism have different attitudes towards bodhisattvas. In the Theravada tradition, a person can achieve complete enlightenment as an individual without becoming a bodhisattva. In contrast, Mahayana take a dim view of such individuals and argue that in order to achieve true and complete Nirvana, one must become a bodhisattva.

The Bodhisattva Vow is recited throughout the Mahayana Buddhist world:

<blockquote>
However innumerable sentient beings are, I vow to save them. 
However inexhaustible the defilements are, I vow to extinguish them. 
However immeasurable the dharmas are, I vow to master them. 
However incomparable enlightenment is, I vow to attain it. 
</blockquote>

[[Category:Buddhism]]

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T14:32:35Z

CasparRH: /* criteria? */

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T14:29:55Z

CasparRH: /* Table tennis */ new section

Talk:Joke sports

2012-08-10T14:26:19Z

CasparRH:

Koan

2012-08-09T20:46:00Z

CasparRH: add

A '''koan''' is a teaching riddle used in the [[Zen Buddhism|Zen]] [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] tradition, primarily that of the Rinzai school. Koans are unresolvable via conventional intellectual reasoning. "Sitting with" (meditating on) a koan, a student tries to break through rational, dualistic thinking to appreciate the true nature of the self and the universe.

The first koan many students encounter is known as ''Mu''. A Zen master was posed the question, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?", to which the master replied, "Mu" (not). This answer is a conundrum because the Buddha is reputed to have said that all beings have Buddha-nature.

Probably the most universally recognized example of a koan is: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?", commonly attributed to the Buddhist teacher Hakuin Ekaku. (Actually, the koan is "What is the sound of one hand?" "Clapping" may be implied.)

[[Category:Buddhism]]

User talk:CasparRH

2012-08-09T15:57:32Z

CasparRH: /* Orientation */

{{welcome}}--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 10:24, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

:Ideological tagging of statements in entries is disfavored here, and will likely result in a reversion of the edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 29 November 2011 (EST)
::What was "ideological"? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 22:48, 29 November 2011 (EST)
:::"CONSERVAPEDIA COMMANDMENTS... 1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.... 2. Always cite and give credit to your sources...."

::::Right, but the best approach is to find and add such a cite, rather than simply tag a statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 29 November 2011 (EST)

:::::I would think it's the responsibility of the person who wrote it to cite the source. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 08:41, 30 November 2011 (EST)

==Orientation==

Stop going around removing all gay biography article mentions of homosexuality. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between rumor/gossip and the few cases where people like Rachel and Ian are openly gay. Worse, you cite policy while abusing/disregarding it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:18, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:"What Not To Include In Articles: The inclusion of sexual orientation in a biography is '''generally prohibited''' due to the Commandment against gossip. In the rare instance where the subject has publicly self-identified '''that their sexuality is important''', then the subject's '''own quotes''' should be used as a source." Why have these rules if you're just going to ignore them? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 21:45, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Marijuana

2012-08-09T15:55:36Z

CasparRH: some minor changes

[[Image:Marijuana.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Indoor Marijuana Grow (DEA photo)]]
'''Marijuana''' (colloquially known as '''"weed"''' or '''"pot"''') is the name given to the flowering buds of the cannabis sativa plant prepared for human consumption. The main active ingredient in marijuana is [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, an [[organic chemistry|organic chemical]] compound. Marijuana is generally illegal to possess, cultivate and sell in most countries, although it is legal in some jurisdictions as a medical treatment. However, there is a significant minority of countries and provinces in which possession (usually of a small amount for personal use) is decriminalized; for instance Portugal, Argentina, California and South Australia. There are also countries, most famously the Netherlands, in which the sale of marijuana in small quantities is tolerated by law enforcement.

The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, malaise, psychosis in predisposed individuals as well as impairment of physical and mental functioning. Some research has found that cannabis has medicinal benefits (see [[Medical marijuana]]); however many contest this, and state that there are numerous federally approved medicines for the diseases that medicinal marijuana can be used to treat.

==Medicinal Harms==
Marijuana contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco, thus when smoked it has the same harmful effects including: potential damage to DNA, cancer, respiratory diseases associated with smoke inhilation, and impaired immune system.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm Science Daily 6/9/2009]</ref>. However, these effects have not been linked directly to alternate methods of marijuana use. Marijuana use can impair short term memory while intoxicated. THC has slight negative affects on long term memory and thus, in chronic users (approximately 1g/24Hrs)<ref>[http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/20_mens_health.html AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana]</ref>, complications with long term memory are a risk. If smoked, marijuana leads to a temporary increase in heart rate and blood pressure while intoxicated. For this reason, there is a slight increase in the risk for heart related problems including heart attack during the time of intoxication<ref>[http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/20_mens_health.html AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana]</ref>. Chronic smokers often suffer from mild withdrawal symptoms, however marijuana is not physically addictive.<ref>[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012/is-marijuana-addictive Psychology Today: Is Marijuana Addictive?]</ref>. Marijuana can impair judgment, motor skills, and balance <ref>[http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm]</ref>. Marijuana has also been linked to impaired learning and developmental diability in unborn children <ref>[http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n10/full/1301068a.html Neuropsycopharmacology: High-Potency Marijuana Impairs Executive Function and Inhibitory Motor Control]</ref>

==Medicinal Benefits==
The active ingredient in marijuana, [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], has been shown (in studies) to produce certain psychological and medicinal benefits. Marijuana has been used to treat anorexia and has been used as an antiemetic.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/marijuana National Cancer Institute]</ref> Harvard University conducted a study on the effect of Δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on certain lung cancers. The result of the test was that THC can reduce tumor size by as much as half.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm Science Daily 4/7/2007]</ref> In addition to a significant reduction in tumor size, there was a reduction in lesions on the lungs by 60%, and a reduction in protein markers associated with the progression of cancer.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm Science Daily 4/17/2007]</ref> This study shows that not only can THC treat the side effects of cancer treatment, but can stop the spread of cancer, repair damage caused by tumors, and even reduce the size of tumors.

In addition to the positive effect on cancer treatment symptoms and cancer itself, marijuana is used to help patients afflicted with [[amyotrophic lateral sclerosis|ALS]]<ref>[http://ajh.sagepub.com/content/18/4/264.short American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine]</ref>.

Marijuana is an [[antispasmodic]] and is used in the treatment of seizures <ref>[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=106 National Academies Press: Marijuana and muscle spasticity]</ref>. Marijuana is also used in the treatment of migraines, arthritis<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.1780090304/abstract Online Library: Treatment of adjuvant arthritis in rats with anti-inflammatory drugs]</ref>, depression<ref>[http://www.interestingfacts.org/fact/facts-about-marijuana Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana]</ref>, and glaucoma. However the effect of marijuana on intraocular pressure (IOC) is not as effective as those offered by other drugs on the market <ref>[http://www.nei.nih.gov/news/statements/marij.asp National Eye Institue: Glaucoma and Marijuana use]</ref>.

There have not been many in-depth and widely distributed studies into the possible medicinal effects of marijuana. However, with pressure from liberal advocates of marijuana, more otherwise accredited institutions are conducting research on the drug.

==Interesting Facts==
Carl Sagan used recreational marijuana to help "open his mind".<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2009/10/07/carl-sagan-spaced-ou.html Boing Boing: Carl Sagan Spaced Out]</ref>
Cannabis was first cultivated in China around 4000 B.C.<ref>[http://www.interestingfacts.org/fact/facts-about-marijuana Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana]</ref>
U.S. Declaration of Independence was not written on hemp paper, despite popular belief.<ref>[http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q145.html Constitutional FAQ Answer #145 - U.S. Constitution Online]</ref>
George Washington grew marijuana. <ref>[http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/gwtheman.htm The President and the Cabinet: George Washington the Man]</ref>
Alcohol is over 100 times more lethal than marijuana (ratio of lethal dose to effective dose)<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol Wikipedia: Tetrahydrocannabinol]</ref>.

President Obama as admitted to use of marijuana, despite it's illegal nature. Critics have noted a dichotomy between his opposition of states rights to legislate drug control and his past illegal acts, possibly as an attempt draw attention away from his person history.

==Legal Status==
Marijuana is a [[Schedule I]] [[Controlled Substance]] in the United States of America, meaning that it is illegal under federal law of the United States, and considered to have no redeemable medical value. In several countries, particularly in [[Western Europe]], it is has been decriminalised. However, in many other countries, particularly those in the Middle East and Asia, possession of even small amounts of cannabis can be punishable by death.

The [[Netherlands]] decriminalized the use of marijuana in 1976. As a result, marijuana use among the 18-25 age group doubled, however, despite its availability, marijuana use in the Netherlands is lower than the European average. The Netherlands also saw an influx of "drug tourists" and other undesirables, as well as an increase in crime. This has since levelled out, leaving the Netherlands with one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.

Many liberals have advocated for decriminalization.<ref>[http://www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition]</ref><ref>http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml</ref>

Many [[American]] [[conservative]]s, especially social conservatives, oppose legalization of marijuana in any form due to its perceived harmful medical and psychological effects and its likelihood of harm to third parties due to drug-related crime and reckless driving. A few libertarian-leaning conservatives, most notably [[Ron Paul]], [[William F. Buckley]], and [[Larry Elder]], have advocated the decriminalization of this drug. Some [[liberal]]s support legalization, but most instead advocate for drug treatment and rehabilitation. [[Libertarian]]s are usually the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization. [[Gary Johnson]], a former Republican and current Libertarian Party Presidential candidate for President, is the highest ranking US politician to advocate for marijuana legalization. He was a two-term Governor of [[New Mexico]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Illegal substances]]
[[Category:Illegal Drugs]]

Meat Loaf

2012-08-09T15:35:02Z

CasparRH: change sort - ppl will look for him under M

[[File:Meat Loaf.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Michael Lee Aday]]
''This article is about the singer. For the prepared food dish, see [[Meatloaf]].''

'''Michael Lee Aday''' (born on September 27, 1947), better known by his stage name '''Meat Loaf''', is a [[Rock music|rock]] musician and actor. Aday was born in [[Houston]], [[Texas]].
His ''Bat Out of Hell'' album earned him a Grammy Award for Best Rock Vocal Performance, Solo. He is famous for his ''Bat Out of Hell'' trilogy albums.

Aday starred in many movies in television shows and films either as himself or someone resembling his stage persona, and appeared as a contestant on [[Donald Trump]]'s ''The Celebrity Apprentice''. Other notable appearances were Eddie in the American premiere of the stage production of ''Rocky Horror Show'' as well as the film adaptation, ''Rocky Horror Picture Show''.

==Early Life==
He was the first child of Wilma Artie, a teacher, and Orvis Wesley Aday, an alcoholic police officer. Because of his parents going around bars, he would often stay with his grandmother Charlsee Norrod. In 1965, Aday graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School. He went to Lubbock Christian College, then transferred to the University of North Texas. After his mother's death, he received an inheritance and isolated himself in an apartment in Dallas for over three years, before moving to [[California]].
==Musical Career==
In [[Los Angeles]], Aday formed his first band, "Meat Loaf Soul".

[[Category:Musicians]]
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Male Singers]]

Béla Bartók

2012-08-09T15:33:39Z

CasparRH: sort

Hungarian [[composer]] '''Béla Bartók''' (1881-1945) was one of the most prominent innovators of the [[Twentieth Century period (music)|twentieth century]]. Beginning his career as a concert pianist and composer of light music, his life was changed in 1908 when he made a journey with fellow Hungarian Zoltán Kodály into the villages of eastern Europe to record [[folk music]]. He discovered music that bore little resemblance to most Western [[classical music]], in form, rhythm, or [[musical harmony|harmonic]] content, and from then on he developed in his own compositions a unique musical language based on what he had found.

His most-often played works are the ''Music for Strings, Celeste, and Percussion'' (1936), the ''[[Concerto]] for [[Orchestra]]'' (1944), and his pedagogical six-volume piano work, ''Mikrokosmos'' (1926-1939). His six groundbreaking string quartets are also often performed, and he authored an [[opera]], three [[piano]] concerti, one [[violin]] concerto, and a [[viola]] concerto as well.

==Bibliography==
Gillies, Malcolm (ed.), ''Bartók Remembered'', 1990. 
Gillies, Malcolm (ed.), ''The Bartók Companion'', 1993. 
Moreux, Serge, translated G. S. Fraser and Erik de Mauny ''Béla Bartók'', 1953. 
Stevens, Halsey, ''The Life and Music of Béla Bartók'', second edition, 1964. 
Wilson, Paul, ''The Music of Béla Bartók'', 1992.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bartok, Bela}}
[[Category:Composers]]

Irving Berlin

2012-08-09T13:55:05Z

CasparRH: change category

[[Image:Irving Berlin.jpg|thumb|Irving Berlin.]]
'''Irving Berlin''' (1888 - 1989), born Israel Isidor Baline, was a [[Russia]]n-born [[American]] [[composer]]. He was an extremely prolific songwriter, composer of over 3,000 songs. Among his compositions are some of America's most famous and beloved songs, including "Alexander's Ragtime Band", "God Bless America", "Puttin' on the Ritz", "There' No Business like Show Business", "[[White Christmas]]" and "Easter Parade".

Most of Berlin's compositions were songs and scores for musical theater and films, including the Ziegfeld Follies, ''This is the Army'', ''Annie Get Your Gun'', ''Puttin' On the Ritz'', ''Holiday Inn'', ''Easter Parade'' and ''White Christmas''.

Berlin was awarded the Medal of Merit by the U.S. Army in 1945 for his musical contributions to the war effort, a special Congressional Gold Medal in 1954 for writing "God Bless America", and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977. He received three [[Tony Award]]s, for Best Score for ''Call Me Madam'' in 1951 and special Tonys in 1963 for contributions to the American musical and 1978 for a distinguished career in American theater. Nominated seven times for an [[Academy Award]], Berlin won for Best Music, Original Song, for "White Christmas" from the movie ''Holiday Inn'' (1942). The National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences honored him with a [[Grammy Award]] for Lifetime Achievement in 1968.

==See also==
*[[Famous American artists]]
*[[Steve Lawrence]]
*[[Roaring Twenties]]

==External links==
*[http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_40_18.html American Musicians]

[[Category:Composers]]

Irving Berlin

2012-08-09T13:54:12Z

CasparRH: expand

[[Image:Irving Berlin.jpg|thumb|Irving Berlin.]]
'''Irving Berlin''' (1888 - 1989), born Israel Isidor Baline, was a [[Russia]]n-born [[American]] [[composer]]. He was an extremely prolific songwriter, composer of over 3,000 songs. Among his compositions are some of America's most famous and beloved songs, including "Alexander's Ragtime Band", "God Bless America", "Puttin' on the Ritz", "There' No Business like Show Business", "[[White Christmas]]" and "Easter Parade".

Most of Berlin's compositions were songs and scores for musical theater and films, including the Ziegfeld Follies, ''This is the Army'', ''Annie Get Your Gun'', ''Puttin' On the Ritz'', ''Holiday Inn'', ''Easter Parade'' and ''White Christmas''.

Berlin was awarded the Medal of Merit by the U.S. Army in 1945 for his musical contributions to the war effort, a special Congressional Gold Medal in 1954 for writing "God Bless America", and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977. He received three [[Tony Award]]s, for Best Score for ''Call Me Madam'' in 1951 and special Tonys in 1963 for contributions to the American musical and 1978 for a distinguished career in American theater. Nominated seven times for an [[Academy Award]], Berlin won for Best Music, Original Song, for "White Christmas" from the movie ''Holiday Inn'' (1942). The National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences honored him with a [[Grammy Award]] for Lifetime Achievement in 1968.

== See also ==
*[[Famous American artists]]
*[[Steve Lawrence]]
*[[Roaring Twenties]]

== External links =
*[http://edhelper.com/ReadingComprehension_40_18.html American Musicians]

[[Category:Musicians]]

Rock Hudson

2012-08-08T20:57:15Z

CasparRH: add films etc.

'''Rock Hudson''' (born 1925 as Roy Harold Scherer, Jr.) was an American [[actor]], very popular in films in the 1950s and on television in the 1970s, and was one of the first major celebrities to die of [[AIDS]] (1985).

Hudson was nominated as Best Actor at the 1956 [[Academy Award]]s for ''Giant''.

==Selected Filmography==
*''Bend of the River'' (1952)
*''The Lawless Breed'' (1953)
*''Magnificent Obsession'' (1954)
*''All that Heaven Allows'' (1955)
*''Giant'' (1956)
*''A Farewell to Arms'' (1957)
*''Pillow Talk'' (1959)
*''Ice Station Zebra'' (1968)

==Television==
*''McMillan & Wife'' (1971-77)
*''Dynasty'' (1984-85)

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hudson, Rock}}

[[Category:Actors]]

Richard Gere

2012-08-08T20:34:44Z

CasparRH: clarify

'''Richard Gere''' (b. 1949) is an American actor known primarily for his leading-man good looks. (''People'' magazine chose him as "Sexiest Man Alive" in 1999.)

His breakthrough film was 1977's ''Looking for Mr. Goodbar''. Other notable Gere performances were in the films ''American Gigolo'' (1980), ''An Officer and a Gentleman'' (1982), ''Internal Affairs'' (1990), ''[[Pretty Woman]]'' (1990), ''Unfaithful'' (2002) and ''Chicago'' (2002).

A practicing [[Buddhist]], Gere helped to found Tibet House, an organization devoted to preserving [[Tibet]]an culture against assimilation by [[Communist]] [[China]].


{{DEFAULTSORT: Gere, Richard}}
[[Category:Actors]]
[[category:Buddhists]]

Graham Chapman

2012-08-08T20:25:44Z

CasparRH: clean-up

'''Graham Chapman''' (8 January 1941 - 4 October 1989) was a famous British comedian and writer, one of the founding members of the comedy troupe [[Monty Python]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chapman, Graham}}
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category:Actors]]

Talk:Essay:Worst Liberal TV Shows

2012-08-08T19:36:45Z

CasparRH:

I think each entry should have a brief description what makes the show liberal and what makes it particularly egregious. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 18:14, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:I agree. Each entry does need an explanation of why it is liberal.--[[User:GOPFan2011|GOPFan2011]] 22:26, 16 March 2012 (EDT)
:::I agree also. And the page should be renamed "'''Most''' Liberal TV Shows". Some are good shows, even if one disagrees with their alleged liberal-ness. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:36, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Funny, what about [[Doctor Who]]? Jk, this whole essay is bunk. you could say the same about almost everything.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:39, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

== Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert ==

How are they particularly liberal? Yes, they mock conservative politicians, but they mock liberal politicians too. That's why they're parodies of political talk shows. And didn't Colbert support Cain in the election until he dropped out? Stewart's a liberal, but that doesn't make his show liberally-biased. As long as they parody conservative and liberal politicians equally, I don't think they belong here. Otherwise, we would have to include SNL and virtually every single late-night comedy show. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:03, 14 May 2012 (EDT)

Valerie Solanas

2012-08-08T13:39:58Z

CasparRH: "duplicated copies" is redundant

[[Valerie Solanas]] was a [[feminist]] author who had a history of violence and [[prostitution]]. She wrote the ''SCUM Manifesto'' (Society for Cutting Up Men) in 1967 and sold copies on the streets.

On June 3, 1968, Solanas shot and wounded artist [[Andy Warhol]] in his studio. After her arrest, she was initially declared mentally incompetent to stand trial, diagnosed as [[schizophrenic]], and involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. About a year later she was found competent, pleaded guilty in court to the charge of [[assault]], and was sentenced to three years in prison. She was released in 1971 and died in 1988.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Solanas, Valerie}}
[[category:United States History]]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-08T13:37:20Z

CasparRH: /* Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? */

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [http://www.openbible.info/topics/orderliness] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: [[Christianity and science]]. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: [[Expelled]]) manages to be leader in technological innovation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:It would still make no case for any causal relationship between same-sex marriage, atheism etc. and performance at the Olympics. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny
:::: That may be so, [[User:Conservative]], but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come ''before'' the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come ''before'' the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won ===

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Math'd -- Gay marriage ===

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... '''''NOT!''''' [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Conservative]], you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Agree with Greg. Thirtieth Olympiad is too obscure for a generation that regards 3 month old music as outdated. Better call it the 2012 Olympics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== This page is preposterous ==

I can't believe that nearly everything you have to say about this year's Olympic games revolves around your overweening obsession with homosexuality and atheism. Even conservatives--well, normal conservatives--would want more substantive information. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:51, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:That's not enough to qualify as trying to improve this page. Are you saying there's no correlation, or are you indirectly registering an objection to this project's campaign against homosexuality and atheism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, the way to improve this page would be to delete all the content and start over. I understand that the project is against homosexuality and atheism. But that doesn't mean those things have to be the main focus of ''every'' article. And yes, I ''am'' saying that there is no known correlation between same-sex marriage, homosexuality or atheism and Olympics success, and even if one were demonstrated, it would not establish causality, which is clearly what you are after. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 21:20, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Ideas do have consequences on productivity, achievement, happiness, etc. A high percentage of successful [[NFL]] quarterbacks are devout [[Christians]]. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Is that so? What is the percentage? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Where is the UK... ==

...in the expected medals section? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:02, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:Whoops, I had it listed as Great Britain. Which I should have known better than to do - I lived in London for a couple years, and got yelled at every time I got the terms wrong... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:18, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::Aaargh! I checked UK and Britain but neglected to check Great Britain. Silly me. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== GDP ==

If GDP "may be a fair proxy" in relation to how many medals a country will win then why is the main part of the article all about how atheism and gay marriage are going to have such an influence over the results? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:I wanted to have a start point for comparisons and trend-spotting. It is my hypothesis that homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with a country's athletic performance, and the table is my first step in testing. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:21, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately it makes the article a little schizophrenic (if I may use that term in such an inaccurate manner). The top of the article asserts that homosexuality and atheism are solid indicators of Olympic performance for reasons, whereas your section is intended to show otherwise. An internal tension, if you will.
::I get the feeling from the ''Nations that are increasingly atheistic'' section that there is supposed to be some reason that atheists are incapable of acting as members of a team (the reason is not explained). Beyond that, the article is not only utterly unsupported by any study or even by any observations made by eminent persons in the appropriate field, it doesn't even contain a hypothesis as to the means by which the asserted connections operate. I would suggest deleting and starting again but I have read Ed Poor's comments above and I assume any such similar request from myself would be resisted. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:36, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::: We have explained those connections elsewhere, including on this talk page. Perhaps make separate articles and link to them? If we put all the explanations in this article, I think it would get a bit too busy. Also, we'd have to copy them for every future Olympics, which seems like a waste if we can just link to them. What does everyone else think? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:04, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== Rowing -> soccer ==

I see Andy that you have reverted my edit which asserted that rowing was the sport requiring the most teamwork. Apparently soccer is the sport that requires most teamwork (for reasons that are mysterious to me).

Why is that Andy? Why not (field) hockey, for example? Or American football? I would still assert that rowing is far and away the paramount team sport. Your edit comment that it is "emulating a machine" really does nothing to detract from that assertion. So what? If that means that each crew member must move their body in perfect time with each other then my point is all the stronger isn't it?

Obviously if this is a conservative insight then clearly I must be wrong, but if there is an actual reason that soccer is the ultimate team sport over rowing then I would be interested to hear it. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:52, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:There is no dynamic teamwork of any consequence in rowing - no passing a ball from one player to another, no reactions to defenders, and no mental strategy. Rowing is great exercise for those who have access to expensive equipment and placid lakes, but it's not dynamic teamwork as soccer is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok, so it's "dynamic teamwork" that atheists can't perform? They are capable of acting in perfect harmony with each other in a rowing shell but cannot pass a ball to each other or perform mental strategy? Interesting. Is there any evidence to support any of this? If so, why is it that atheists are incapable of such activities?

::P.S. I performed a couple of Google searches on which (rowing or soccer) is more commonly referred to as "the ultimate team sport": [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&oq=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.71845.74333.0.74873.2.2.0.0.0.0.220.429.2-2.2.0...0.0...1c.IPtkh8308qI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 rowing] or [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=soccer%20the%20ultimate%20team%20sport&cp=32&gs_id=e&xhr=t&q=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 soccer]. I think that the hit numbers speak for themselves. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 00:57, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Rowing is obviously a rich-man's sport, which gives an unfair advantage to a few nations like the [[U.K.]] While physically challenging, rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: In rowing, don't you have a coxswain telling you when to row? It requires everyone rowing together, yes, but as long as they all act like robots (as Andy put it) and row when the coxswain says row, that's the only teamwork required. I won't deny it's a difficult sport, but it doesn't require much teamwork when there's a coxswain. The reason it's the ultimate team sport is that, more so than in any other sport, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If you put me on a soccer field with the 10 best players in the world (assuming they're of different positions), we could win, even though I'm a terrible soccer player. If you put me in a four-man boat with the three best rowers in the world, we would do terrible, because I'm a terrible rower. That's the difference between rowing and other team sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:35, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::I row 3 times a week and I am a coxswain. It is certainly not a "robot" sport, and it requires intense concentration from the rowers to make sure that the crew is in time, running on perfect technique and drawing through together. A physically stronger crew will often lose to a weaker but more technical crew. The reason that our crews look like robots are because they are concentrating as hard as they can to keep everything technical, and to work against what the body is intuitively telling you to make every single inch of pressure on the water count.
::::::
::::::As for being a rich man's sport, I can sympathise. Those boats are bloody expensive, and are often donated through philanthropy. However many of us, myself included, come from very underprivileged backgrounds and are fortunate enough to row in university teams. But getting to Olympic level requires training from a young age, which usually means being brought up at a very expensive private school that has rowing equipment. So I agree to an extent there, but one must not forget the huge benefits that philanthropy gives to broadening the pool of rowers, which is a conservative virtue as far as this website is concerned. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Doesn't the above data prove my point? The wealthiest nations in the world have won nearly all of the rowing medals.

:::: Rowing is a grueling sport - I rowed for a bit myself. But it is a rich man's sport, and it is the only sport that does not use the brain.

:::: In reply to Greg's insight comments, I doubt a soccer team with 25% terrible players could win either, if the coaching by the opposing side is good.

:::: In reply to HumanGeographer's good comments, I agree that concentration is required and that the sport is terrific exercise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Andy, soccer teams have 11 players (including goalie). So it would be 9% poor players. And considering that teams have won 10-on-11 after an early red card, it's not inconceivable. But in rowing, it would be impossible. That's where the "team sport" mantra comes from. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:05, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Greg, you have missed Andy's point. If you are one out of the four rowers you now have 25% of a team being terrible, whereas in soccer, as you have put it, missing one player means only 9% of the team is terrible. What Andy is suggesting is that the better comparison would be if a soccer team had 3 of their players essentially non-effective, and his point in that regard is well-taken. A soccer team playing 8 against 11 would not fare well either.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 15:23, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Olympics and Economics 2012 ==

[[Goldman Sachs]] has some thoughts on the matters discussed above: [http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/topics/global-economic-outlook/olympics-and-economics-.pdf pdf]
{{cquote|Britain has quite high per capita spending on elite sports for a western democracy. Sailing is a perfect example— boats are very costly. For equestrianism, you need a horse. For rowing, you need a boathouse, boats and oars. For track cycling, you don’t really have a chance without a wind tunnel, a velodrome. It’s different with running, where you just need a pair of shoes. There is a dramatic difference between sports that only a tiny group of countries can afford to invest in and the others.|||Matthew Syed, British journalist}}
They have a forecast for Gold and Total medals, too.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by faith-based achievement by the participating athletes ==

This seems to be wishful thinking: the Olympics were for quite a time dominated by nations which didn't allow their athletes the comforts of faith. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:59, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== Group of Left ==

For those who don't get the "Group of Left" reference, it's a play on the phrase "Group of Death", which refers to an unusually strong group. I doubt Tunisia will finish in the top two and go to the medal round, but anything other than last place would be overperforming for them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Women's Soccer ==

Why would the US women's soccer team be expected to underachieve? They're not one of the atheist nations, same-sex marriage is only legal in six states, and if Title IX effected them in any way, it would have helped them (albeit at the expense of men's sports). We should either explain it or remove it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:35, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:As I understand it, women's soccer is very strong in the US. Still, the nature of Soccer means that results are more unpredictable than other sports. Very often the best team is not able to win. Its a funny sport in that respect. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:44, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:: I know that. But that still doesn't answer the question. We could say the same about any of the favorites. There's no reason given to expect the US team specifically to underperform. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 08:49, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::It seems as though "underperformance" and "failing to live up to expectations" are a preferred theme of the website's management. Maybe it's just a case of projection. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 09:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Possibly. If that's all it is, we should remove it. But I'm going to wait and see if anyone has a better explanation before I do so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:07, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::[[Politically correct]] teams often underachieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: Very well. I removed the part about the coach being a foreigner, since surprisingly it isn't an unusual practice to do something like that. About half the women's soccer coaches this year are from another country (i.e. not the one they coach). And Jurgen Kingsman of Germany coaches the men's US national team, although it's unlikely he'd have coached at the Olympics even if they did qualify, since men's soccer at the Olympics is primarily Under-23 teams. However, I kept the rest of the footnote. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:10, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::: I don't think it's that common for a prominent sport like soccer. Germany, of course, has a very strong soccer program. But a coach from Sweden for the women's team???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Ahhh.... Good point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:50, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
The coach in question was the coach when the US won gold in 2008. She took the job in 2007. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:14, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: Early goal for France in Game 1 for the USA. 1-0. Plenty of time for us to come back. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-0 France, less than 20 minutes in. A loss wouldn't eliminate the US, but a big loss would make it hard to go through in a tough group. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:15, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-1. US goal came on a corner kick, which requires a lot of teamwork, against, atheist France. Still not even a quarter of the way through. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
So let me get this straight: If France loses, it's because of atheism. If the US loses, it's because their coach is a foreign-born lesbian, even though she led the team to gold in 2008. Is that correct? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 12:29, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::: It's only one game. And one of them had to win (or it could be a tie, I suppose). Let's see how the tournament progresses. It looks like they'll both go to the quarterfinals, but with 8 of the 12 teams advancing, that's not unexpected. Let's see how they do there. Then we can discuss this. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:51, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

=="No Religion" in census response==
There are three possible explanations for a citizen refusing to state a religious preference on a government census form: no self-identification with one of the listed denominations, fear of government recording of religious preferences, or protest against government intrusion into a citizen's private spiritual life. Do we know which is the case in Australia? I know that if the government were to knock on my door, I would be in the third group. We don't know if Australia is in a religious decline based on census data, when there are better measures, including church service attendance and audience ratings for religious radio and TV broadcasts. Are there better data sources for this article? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Over 11% of Australians refused to answer the religion question on their census forms. These people could have a faith. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

== Beckham and the Olympic torch ==

I suggest not adding whether Beckham lights the Olympic cauldron until after it airs on NBC, even though we should know around 7:30 PM ET whether he has or not. Some people might not know and might want to not know until NBC shows it on tape delay. It's only a few hours, and since most of our users are American and won't have seen the cauldron lighting yet, I think it's a reasonable courtesy. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 06:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Black Power salute controversy ==

I don't see a connection between the Black Power salute controversy, which was an act of political defiance on the medal stand that hardly anyone remembers (and which the Olympic committee forgave participants for) and [[Tebowing]]. Also, why would the comment be in the "TBD" column anyway?
:I think that athletes may (understandably) refrain from engaging in overt religious activity due to the precedent set by Smith and Carlos. The Olympics are a major event, and being banned from them (even wrongly) can seriously affect athletes, especially those competing in sports whose major competition is the Olympics. That's why I think that athletes will at least think twice before engaging in such behavior.
:The column where I added my explanation is headed "Answer," and my explanation is certainly an answer. Of course, it's just my insight, and maybe it will be proven wrong. But even if no one does end up doing Tebowing, we can rest assured that Christian athletes have Jesus' words in mind:
{{cquote|And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.|||Matthew 6:5-8|NIV}}
:[[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:42, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::The "answer" is presumably provided by the results, as for the other issues, all of which is "TBA". [[Tebowing]] is not something that would likely be done during the medal ceremony, not even by Tebow himself. It's done before or after the athletic event, as in the American marathon medalist in 2004 who did the Sign of the Cross right after crossing the finish line.

::As to the quote from the [[Bible]], the context for that quote is clear: people should not pray in a hypocritical manner like the liberal Pharisees. There is nothing hypocritical about [[Tebowing]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:08, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the precedent still applies, or at least it has an ''in terrorem'' effect, to all such displays, regardless of whether they are during a medals ceremony or before or after an event. I know that this is my opinion, but Tebowing seems to me to be nothing more than a gimmick, a practice designed to whack people over the head with the "HEY, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, I'M CHRISTIAN!" hammer. Such efforts, no matter how sincere they are, are misguided, and Jesus tells us that this sort of public display is not at all required by Christians, just as Jesus goes on to criticize people who make a public display out the pious practice of fasting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 15:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Reformat ==

Can someone with better formatting skills than me please make the table into a better, cleaner format? It's very hard to read right now. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:42, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== Public Schools ==

Is the public schools example really that good? There are certain private schools in America that are infamous for training its students like athletes rather than students. More so in basketball and (American) football than other Olympic sports, though. Public schools don't do that. Nor should schools do that, it's called "school", not "training". I should point out that certain colleges are legendary for that too, including my own school, which is a public college under the State of Connecticut. But don't think that's why we're banned from the tournament next year - we're actually banned for not doing enough to game the system. And half the women's basketball Olympic team went to UConn. We actually care about academics for our women's basketball team, and do very well academically. But don't get me started on that, because it's irrelevant.
Anyway, assuming you mean public high schools (or below), I think it doesn't present a very conservative argument. Private primary schools should not exist for the purpose of training athletes. The fact that some do indicates something is wrong with the system, not that the system is good. Not saying that's enough to make the whole system bad - the vast majority of private schools are very good academically. But these aren't the ones that produce the superstar athletes, for the most part. Also, other than basketball, it wouldn't apply to any of the Olympic sports, since football isn't in the Olympics. And there are only 12 American men's basketball players. I don't know how many of them went to the sham private schools whose main purpose is athletics, but I know LeBron is one of them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:49, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Swiss tweet in question. ==

[http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/07/30/swiss-soccer-player-michel-morganella-sent-home-olympics-racist-tweet/ Here is a link to an image of the tweet]. As you can easily read for yourself, it's directed at "les coréens," et non pas contre "l'équipe coréen" ou quelque chose de même. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:33, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

: "South Korean" is not a race, and there is no evidence that the tweet was racist as the [[liberals]] claim. Rather, this incident shows how much liberals oppose [[free speech]], and will NOT defend the rights of others to speak their minds.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
::So, just for the record, you do defend the right of a person to call an entire nation of people "mentally handicapped retards" and think that he should face no consequences for doing so while representing his own country at an international event? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:48, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::For the record, I do support [[free speech]], even for statements with which I disagree. The tweet was not racist and athletes should be able to vent on twitter, just as they do vocally during games. Fans do also, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Do you believe a private, non-profit organization such as the Swiss and/or Greek Olympic committees has the right to demand and/or expect behavior from its members that reflects well on the organization, and that organization should be allowed to sanction a participant when behavior does not meet those expectations? If you do, where do you think the line is drawn? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:27, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I don't think the organizations you mention should be expelling athletes based on what they say on Twitter (and I question whether the organizations are truly private, rather than publicly funded).

:::::There was no evidence that the tweets embarrassed the nations in any way. Rather, this is [[liberal censorship]] run amok. Thirty years ago, liberals and the ACLU would have sided with the athletes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: The only NOC that is 100% privately funded is the American one, although the vast majority of them are funded privately in part. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

== Atheistic Brits ==

I wonder...what percentage of the underachieving, God-hating British Olympians are actually Atheists? [[user:Willingham77|Willingham77]] 17:03, 31 July 2012

:The better question is what percentage of the Brits are subjected to an increasingly atheistic media and culture? Unfortunately, nearly 100%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::The better better question is why does an "atheistic" country have an established religion (COE)? Should all of us God-fearing Americans want the same for Christianity?[[User:Emmerich|Emmerich]] 23:23, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

:::[[Great Britain]] has an established '''''church'''''. That is something the [[Founders]] opposed - a state supported '''''church'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

::::Wow Andy, you should use that statement as an example in a Conservapedia article entitled "Non sequitur". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:43, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
==Proposed table entry==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Netball
|Will Netball be played at the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics? Wikipedia claims that Netball is an "Olympic sport"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_sports|title=Category:Olympic sports|accessdate=Aug. 3, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Category:Olympic_sports</ref> played "at the Olympics".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_at_the_Olympics&action=history</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Olympic_recognised_sports</ref>
|Feminists have been demanding equality in Olympic participation. As a result, women have been playing the same game as men -- five-players-on-each-side basketball in the Olympics since 1976, rather than a watered-down version designed for Victorian women called Netball.
|}
If there are no objections, I will move this to the table in the article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:19, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: That's not really a question about the Olympics, more a commentary on Wikipedia. Stick it in [[Bias in Wikipedia]], not here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:11, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: Also, Wikipedia no longer claims Netball is an Olympic sport, only an "Olympic recognized sport", which is correct. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::With all due respect to my friend Gregkochuconn, I just looked at the Wikipedia netball article and it is still in category "Olympic sports." I admit that the Wikipedia article "Netball and the Olympic Movement" is in category "Olympic recognised sports" but the radical feminists have insisted that Netball stay in the former category. Please see for yourself. The table entry was an assertion: We say netball will not be played in 2012 and 2016, Wikipedia says it is already an Olympic sport and keeps deleting statements that it could not possibly be added to the Olympic Programme before 2024.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=502656544&oldid=502573324] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Its a bit hard to see exactly what the issue is. It is not hard to see that this issue is one for the Wikipedia page and not for the Olympics 2012 page. Whether or not it is deservedly and "Olympic Sport" or an "Olympic Recognised Sport" (these terms are not synonymous) is an issue for a general Olympics page, and whether Wikipedia is somehow censoring conservative thought is an issue for the Wikipedia page. Frankly I doubt very many of you even know what netball is. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:52, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: That edit seems to be adding the 2024 information, not deleting it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:24, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Promptly reverted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=next&oldid=502668446] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:52, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Probably because it was in the article about the sport at the Olympics, and didn't belong in the main article. The main article doesn't make any claim one way or the other. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:54, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_at_the_Olympics current version of the page] includes that information. So what you are saying is wrong. In any case, this is not the place for it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Olympics. Wikipedia makes no claim that it will be contested at the 2012 Olympics, even if it is an "Olympic sport", seeing as that category includes present Olympic sports, past Olympic sports, and Olympic recognized sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: Note that the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport) squash], which has a far more significant chance of being added to the Olympic program than squash, also does not mention that it could be added no sooner than 2024. As I said above, the article on Netball and the Olympic Movement does mention that it can't be added until 2024. The fact doesn't belong in the main article for the sport, by WP standards, and other articles on Olympic-recognized sports don't mention it either. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:17, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
<references/>

== Oh no, the tennis! ==

Look what's happening! One of the greatest conservative sports stars just lost the bronze medal match to an Argentinian who no doubt supports gay marriage, and an overrated Brit is smashing one of the all-time greats in the gold! What is going on?? Not only that, but we all just watched home-schooled gymnast Makayla Maroney underperform, right onto her bum! This page may need a re-write ... [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 10:43, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:While expressing doubt about your guess as to the Argentinian star's political views, I welcome further review of the predictions in the entry as more results pour in ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
:: The predictions represent things that are "likely" to happen, not things that are guaranteed to happen. Murray also had the advantage of the home fans, and Federer was tired from his marathon match with Del Potro. Of course, Del Potro should have been tired too.

== Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? ==

Will someone please explain where the expected total medals figures in this section come from? Thanks. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:41, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
: The table lower down in the article. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:59, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::Oh, you mean the one based on GDP, which "cannot be used as a fair proxy". In other words, they're meaningless. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 22:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::: Find a better proxy and we can use that. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:17, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::: I have changed the proxy to medals won at the last (Summer) Olympics prior to implementing same-sex marriage. The expected total is virtually unchanged. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:28, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Better, but expected numbers should be corrected for any significant differences in total number of medals available and in a country's number of athletes competing between the base estimate year and 2012. Also, since it's conceded that it's too early to tell how these countries will ultimately perform, the +/- figures are premature. With about 59% of events concluded, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, South Africa and Sweden are on track to meet or exceed their medal count for the base year. The Netherlands and Norway could easily do so as well by the games' end. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Hence "too early to tell". It's unlikely (though not impossible) for the Netherlands and Spain to overperform, while Denmark and Sweden have overperformed already. The rest are too early to tell. That being said, I will remove the +/- totals until the Games are over - they are misleading at this point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:00, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Also, there are only a few more medal events (out of over 300) being contested in 2012 than in previous years, so that shouldn't matter. I think there were 301 in 2008 and 2004 and 302 this year. Insigificant. Since the theory centers around how many exceptional athletes these countries produce, adjusting for the number of athletes is incorrect. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 11:02, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::What is "the theory"? [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 09:37, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

== Medal weighting ==

It's been pointed out at [[talk:Main Page]] that some sports, notably swimming, are vastly over-rewarded in terms of the number of medals available. We would get a better representation of which nations were actually the best, sporting-wise, if we took this into account in our medals tables. One simple way would be to discount multiple medals won by the same individual, or perhaps to cap the number of medals counted in the same sport at, say, five. What do people think?

(Sadly the nation most affected by this would currently be that titan of the swimming pool, the USA.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:37, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
: That would be hard to do, though. And nearly impossible to keep updating during the Games. I propose keep the current system for now, and discuss further when the Games are over. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: Science proves that atheists can't jump

2012-08-08T13:33:43Z

CasparRH: Created page with "You're not funny. Give it up. ~~~~"

You're not funny. Give it up. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 09:33, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

2012-08-07T15:44:58Z

CasparRH: add film

'''One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest''' is a 1962 novel by [[Ken Kesey]]. It takes place in a [[mental hospital]] in the American Northwest. Randle Patrick McMurphy is a prisoner who has himself transferred to the hospital in order to serve out the rest of his sentence in comfort. He is horrified at how cowed and miserable the other patients are, living in total fear of Nurse Ratched, the head nurse. McMurphy originally plans to make money by organizing [[poker]] games on the ward, but soon realizes how desperately the other men need a hero, someone to stand up for them, since they cannot.

The story is narrarated by Chief Bromden, an [[American Indian]] who has been on the ward longer than anyone besides the nurse.

The novel was intended not only as a criticism of psychiatry and mental health practice but as an indictment of mainstream social standards. By challenging the concept of "normal", Kesey predated the radical and psychedelic thinking that became popular in the late 60s.

Kesey's novel was made into a film released in 1975, directed by Milos Forman and featuring [[Jack Nicholson]] as McMurphy, Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched, and Will Sampson as Chief Bromden. The film won five [[Academy Award]]s, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Nicholson) and Best Actress (Fletcher), and was nominated for four more.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Books]]
[[Category:Movies]]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-08-07T14:53:55Z

CasparRH: /* Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? */

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [http://www.openbible.info/topics/orderliness] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: [[Christianity and science]]. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: [[Expelled]]) manages to be leader in technological innovation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:It would still make no case for any causal relationship between same-sex marriage, atheism etc. and performance at the Olympics. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny
:::: That may be so, [[User:Conservative]], but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come ''before'' the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come ''before'' the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won ===

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Math'd -- Gay marriage ===

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... '''''NOT!''''' [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Conservative]], you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Agree with Greg. Thirtieth Olympiad is too obscure for a generation that regards 3 month old music as outdated. Better call it the 2012 Olympics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== This page is preposterous ==

I can't believe that nearly everything you have to say about this year's Olympic games revolves around your overweening obsession with homosexuality and atheism. Even conservatives--well, normal conservatives--would want more substantive information. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:51, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:That's not enough to qualify as trying to improve this page. Are you saying there's no correlation, or are you indirectly registering an objection to this project's campaign against homosexuality and atheism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, the way to improve this page would be to delete all the content and start over. I understand that the project is against homosexuality and atheism. But that doesn't mean those things have to be the main focus of ''every'' article. And yes, I ''am'' saying that there is no known correlation between same-sex marriage, homosexuality or atheism and Olympics success, and even if one were demonstrated, it would not establish causality, which is clearly what you are after. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 21:20, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Ideas do have consequences on productivity, achievement, happiness, etc. A high percentage of successful [[NFL]] quarterbacks are devout [[Christians]]. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Is that so? What is the percentage? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Where is the UK... ==

...in the expected medals section? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:02, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:Whoops, I had it listed as Great Britain. Which I should have known better than to do - I lived in London for a couple years, and got yelled at every time I got the terms wrong... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:18, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::Aaargh! I checked UK and Britain but neglected to check Great Britain. Silly me. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== GDP ==

If GDP "may be a fair proxy" in relation to how many medals a country will win then why is the main part of the article all about how atheism and gay marriage are going to have such an influence over the results? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:I wanted to have a start point for comparisons and trend-spotting. It is my hypothesis that homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with a country's athletic performance, and the table is my first step in testing. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:21, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

::I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately it makes the article a little schizophrenic (if I may use that term in such an inaccurate manner). The top of the article asserts that homosexuality and atheism are solid indicators of Olympic performance for reasons, whereas your section is intended to show otherwise. An internal tension, if you will.
::I get the feeling from the ''Nations that are increasingly atheistic'' section that there is supposed to be some reason that atheists are incapable of acting as members of a team (the reason is not explained). Beyond that, the article is not only utterly unsupported by any study or even by any observations made by eminent persons in the appropriate field, it doesn't even contain a hypothesis as to the means by which the asserted connections operate. I would suggest deleting and starting again but I have read Ed Poor's comments above and I assume any such similar request from myself would be resisted. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:36, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::: We have explained those connections elsewhere, including on this talk page. Perhaps make separate articles and link to them? If we put all the explanations in this article, I think it would get a bit too busy. Also, we'd have to copy them for every future Olympics, which seems like a waste if we can just link to them. What does everyone else think? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:04, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== Rowing -> soccer ==

I see Andy that you have reverted my edit which asserted that rowing was the sport requiring the most teamwork. Apparently soccer is the sport that requires most teamwork (for reasons that are mysterious to me).

Why is that Andy? Why not (field) hockey, for example? Or American football? I would still assert that rowing is far and away the paramount team sport. Your edit comment that it is "emulating a machine" really does nothing to detract from that assertion. So what? If that means that each crew member must move their body in perfect time with each other then my point is all the stronger isn't it?

Obviously if this is a conservative insight then clearly I must be wrong, but if there is an actual reason that soccer is the ultimate team sport over rowing then I would be interested to hear it. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 23:52, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:There is no dynamic teamwork of any consequence in rowing - no passing a ball from one player to another, no reactions to defenders, and no mental strategy. Rowing is great exercise for those who have access to expensive equipment and placid lakes, but it's not dynamic teamwork as soccer is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok, so it's "dynamic teamwork" that atheists can't perform? They are capable of acting in perfect harmony with each other in a rowing shell but cannot pass a ball to each other or perform mental strategy? Interesting. Is there any evidence to support any of this? If so, why is it that atheists are incapable of such activities?

::P.S. I performed a couple of Google searches on which (rowing or soccer) is more commonly referred to as "the ultimate team sport": [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&oq=%22rowing+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.71845.74333.0.74873.2.2.0.0.0.0.220.429.2-2.2.0...0.0...1c.IPtkh8308qI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 rowing] or [https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=soccer%20the%20ultimate%20team%20sport&cp=32&gs_id=e&xhr=t&q=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22soccer+the+ultimate+team+sport%22&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=862d766996523d9f&biw=1201&bih=678 soccer]. I think that the hit numbers speak for themselves. --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 00:57, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Rowing is obviously a rich-man's sport, which gives an unfair advantage to a few nations like the [[U.K.]] While physically challenging, rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:12, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: In rowing, don't you have a coxswain telling you when to row? It requires everyone rowing together, yes, but as long as they all act like robots (as Andy put it) and row when the coxswain says row, that's the only teamwork required. I won't deny it's a difficult sport, but it doesn't require much teamwork when there's a coxswain. The reason it's the ultimate team sport is that, more so than in any other sport, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If you put me on a soccer field with the 10 best players in the world (assuming they're of different positions), we could win, even though I'm a terrible soccer player. If you put me in a four-man boat with the three best rowers in the world, we would do terrible, because I'm a terrible rower. That's the difference between rowing and other team sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:35, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::I row 3 times a week and I am a coxswain. It is certainly not a "robot" sport, and it requires intense concentration from the rowers to make sure that the crew is in time, running on perfect technique and drawing through together. A physically stronger crew will often lose to a weaker but more technical crew. The reason that our crews look like robots are because they are concentrating as hard as they can to keep everything technical, and to work against what the body is intuitively telling you to make every single inch of pressure on the water count.
::::::
::::::As for being a rich man's sport, I can sympathise. Those boats are bloody expensive, and are often donated through philanthropy. However many of us, myself included, come from very underprivileged backgrounds and are fortunate enough to row in university teams. But getting to Olympic level requires training from a young age, which usually means being brought up at a very expensive private school that has rowing equipment. So I agree to an extent there, but one must not forget the huge benefits that philanthropy gives to broadening the pool of rowers, which is a conservative virtue as far as this website is concerned. [[User:HumanGeographer|HumanGeographer]] 11:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

:::: (edit conflict) Doesn't the above data prove my point? The wealthiest nations in the world have won nearly all of the rowing medals.

:::: Rowing is a grueling sport - I rowed for a bit myself. But it is a rich man's sport, and it is the only sport that does not use the brain.

:::: In reply to Greg's insight comments, I doubt a soccer team with 25% terrible players could win either, if the coaching by the opposing side is good.

:::: In reply to HumanGeographer's good comments, I agree that concentration is required and that the sport is terrific exercise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:29, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Andy, soccer teams have 11 players (including goalie). So it would be 9% poor players. And considering that teams have won 10-on-11 after an early red card, it's not inconceivable. But in rowing, it would be impossible. That's where the "team sport" mantra comes from. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:05, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Greg, you have missed Andy's point. If you are one out of the four rowers you now have 25% of a team being terrible, whereas in soccer, as you have put it, missing one player means only 9% of the team is terrible. What Andy is suggesting is that the better comparison would be if a soccer team had 3 of their players essentially non-effective, and his point in that regard is well-taken. A soccer team playing 8 against 11 would not fare well either.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 15:23, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Olympics and Economics 2012 ==

[[Goldman Sachs]] has some thoughts on the matters discussed above: [http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/topics/global-economic-outlook/olympics-and-economics-.pdf pdf]
{{cquote|Britain has quite high per capita spending on elite sports for a western democracy. Sailing is a perfect example— boats are very costly. For equestrianism, you need a horse. For rowing, you need a boathouse, boats and oars. For track cycling, you don’t really have a chance without a wind tunnel, a velodrome. It’s different with running, where you just need a pair of shoes. There is a dramatic difference between sports that only a tiny group of countries can afford to invest in and the others.|||Matthew Syed, British journalist}}
They have a forecast for Gold and Total medals, too.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by faith-based achievement by the participating athletes ==

This seems to be wishful thinking: the Olympics were for quite a time dominated by nations which didn't allow their athletes the comforts of faith. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:59, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

== Group of Left ==

For those who don't get the "Group of Left" reference, it's a play on the phrase "Group of Death", which refers to an unusually strong group. I doubt Tunisia will finish in the top two and go to the medal round, but anything other than last place would be overperforming for them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Women's Soccer ==

Why would the US women's soccer team be expected to underachieve? They're not one of the atheist nations, same-sex marriage is only legal in six states, and if Title IX effected them in any way, it would have helped them (albeit at the expense of men's sports). We should either explain it or remove it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:35, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:As I understand it, women's soccer is very strong in the US. Still, the nature of Soccer means that results are more unpredictable than other sports. Very often the best team is not able to win. Its a funny sport in that respect. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:44, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
:: I know that. But that still doesn't answer the question. We could say the same about any of the favorites. There's no reason given to expect the US team specifically to underperform. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 08:49, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::It seems as though "underperformance" and "failing to live up to expectations" are a preferred theme of the website's management. Maybe it's just a case of projection. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 09:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Possibly. If that's all it is, we should remove it. But I'm going to wait and see if anyone has a better explanation before I do so. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 18:07, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::[[Politically correct]] teams often underachieve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:03, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: Very well. I removed the part about the coach being a foreigner, since surprisingly it isn't an unusual practice to do something like that. About half the women's soccer coaches this year are from another country (i.e. not the one they coach). And Jurgen Kingsman of Germany coaches the men's US national team, although it's unlikely he'd have coached at the Olympics even if they did qualify, since men's soccer at the Olympics is primarily Under-23 teams. However, I kept the rest of the footnote. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:10, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::: I don't think it's that common for a prominent sport like soccer. Germany, of course, has a very strong soccer program. But a coach from Sweden for the women's team???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Ahhh.... Good point. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 21:50, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
The coach in question was the coach when the US won gold in 2008. She took the job in 2007. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 00:14, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: Early goal for France in Game 1 for the USA. 1-0. Plenty of time for us to come back. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-0 France, less than 20 minutes in. A loss wouldn't eliminate the US, but a big loss would make it hard to go through in a tough group. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:15, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::::: 2-1. US goal came on a corner kick, which requires a lot of teamwork, against, atheist France. Still not even a quarter of the way through. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
So let me get this straight: If France loses, it's because of atheism. If the US loses, it's because their coach is a foreign-born lesbian, even though she led the team to gold in 2008. Is that correct? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 12:29, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::: It's only one game. And one of them had to win (or it could be a tie, I suppose). Let's see how the tournament progresses. It looks like they'll both go to the quarterfinals, but with 8 of the 12 teams advancing, that's not unexpected. Let's see how they do there. Then we can discuss this. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:51, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

=="No Religion" in census response==
There are three possible explanations for a citizen refusing to state a religious preference on a government census form: no self-identification with one of the listed denominations, fear of government recording of religious preferences, or protest against government intrusion into a citizen's private spiritual life. Do we know which is the case in Australia? I know that if the government were to knock on my door, I would be in the third group. We don't know if Australia is in a religious decline based on census data, when there are better measures, including church service attendance and audience ratings for religious radio and TV broadcasts. Are there better data sources for this article? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Over 11% of Australians refused to answer the religion question on their census forms. These people could have a faith. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

== Beckham and the Olympic torch ==

I suggest not adding whether Beckham lights the Olympic cauldron until after it airs on NBC, even though we should know around 7:30 PM ET whether he has or not. Some people might not know and might want to not know until NBC shows it on tape delay. It's only a few hours, and since most of our users are American and won't have seen the cauldron lighting yet, I think it's a reasonable courtesy. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 06:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Black Power salute controversy ==

I don't see a connection between the Black Power salute controversy, which was an act of political defiance on the medal stand that hardly anyone remembers (and which the Olympic committee forgave participants for) and [[Tebowing]]. Also, why would the comment be in the "TBD" column anyway?
:I think that athletes may (understandably) refrain from engaging in overt religious activity due to the precedent set by Smith and Carlos. The Olympics are a major event, and being banned from them (even wrongly) can seriously affect athletes, especially those competing in sports whose major competition is the Olympics. That's why I think that athletes will at least think twice before engaging in such behavior.
:The column where I added my explanation is headed "Answer," and my explanation is certainly an answer. Of course, it's just my insight, and maybe it will be proven wrong. But even if no one does end up doing Tebowing, we can rest assured that Christian athletes have Jesus' words in mind:
{{cquote|And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.|||Matthew 6:5-8|NIV}}
:[[User:GregG|GregG]] 14:42, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

::The "answer" is presumably provided by the results, as for the other issues, all of which is "TBA". [[Tebowing]] is not something that would likely be done during the medal ceremony, not even by Tebow himself. It's done before or after the athletic event, as in the American marathon medalist in 2004 who did the Sign of the Cross right after crossing the finish line.

::As to the quote from the [[Bible]], the context for that quote is clear: people should not pray in a hypocritical manner like the liberal Pharisees. There is nothing hypocritical about [[Tebowing]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:08, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the precedent still applies, or at least it has an ''in terrorem'' effect, to all such displays, regardless of whether they are during a medals ceremony or before or after an event. I know that this is my opinion, but Tebowing seems to me to be nothing more than a gimmick, a practice designed to whack people over the head with the "HEY, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, I'M CHRISTIAN!" hammer. Such efforts, no matter how sincere they are, are misguided, and Jesus tells us that this sort of public display is not at all required by Christians, just as Jesus goes on to criticize people who make a public display out the pious practice of fasting. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 15:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

== Reformat ==

Can someone with better formatting skills than me please make the table into a better, cleaner format? It's very hard to read right now. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:42, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== Public Schools ==

Is the public schools example really that good? There are certain private schools in America that are infamous for training its students like athletes rather than students. More so in basketball and (American) football than other Olympic sports, though. Public schools don't do that. Nor should schools do that, it's called "school", not "training". I should point out that certain colleges are legendary for that too, including my own school, which is a public college under the State of Connecticut. But don't think that's why we're banned from the tournament next year - we're actually banned for not doing enough to game the system. And half the women's basketball Olympic team went to UConn. We actually care about academics for our women's basketball team, and do very well academically. But don't get me started on that, because it's irrelevant.
Anyway, assuming you mean public high schools (or below), I think it doesn't present a very conservative argument. Private primary schools should not exist for the purpose of training athletes. The fact that some do indicates something is wrong with the system, not that the system is good. Not saying that's enough to make the whole system bad - the vast majority of private schools are very good academically. But these aren't the ones that produce the superstar athletes, for the most part. Also, other than basketball, it wouldn't apply to any of the Olympic sports, since football isn't in the Olympics. And there are only 12 American men's basketball players. I don't know how many of them went to the sham private schools whose main purpose is athletics, but I know LeBron is one of them. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:49, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

== The Swiss tweet in question. ==

[http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/07/30/swiss-soccer-player-michel-morganella-sent-home-olympics-racist-tweet/ Here is a link to an image of the tweet]. As you can easily read for yourself, it's directed at "les coréens," et non pas contre "l'équipe coréen" ou quelque chose de même. [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:33, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

: "South Korean" is not a race, and there is no evidence that the tweet was racist as the [[liberals]] claim. Rather, this incident shows how much liberals oppose [[free speech]], and will NOT defend the rights of others to speak their minds.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:40, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
::So, just for the record, you do defend the right of a person to call an entire nation of people "mentally handicapped retards" and think that he should face no consequences for doing so while representing his own country at an international event? [[User:RayM|RayM]] 18:48, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::For the record, I do support [[free speech]], even for statements with which I disagree. The tweet was not racist and athletes should be able to vent on twitter, just as they do vocally during games. Fans do also, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:13, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::::Do you believe a private, non-profit organization such as the Swiss and/or Greek Olympic committees has the right to demand and/or expect behavior from its members that reflects well on the organization, and that organization should be allowed to sanction a participant when behavior does not meet those expectations? If you do, where do you think the line is drawn? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 21:27, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::No, I don't think the organizations you mention should be expelling athletes based on what they say on Twitter (and I question whether the organizations are truly private, rather than publicly funded).

:::::There was no evidence that the tweets embarrassed the nations in any way. Rather, this is [[liberal censorship]] run amok. Thirty years ago, liberals and the ACLU would have sided with the athletes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: The only NOC that is 100% privately funded is the American one, although the vast majority of them are funded privately in part. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

== Atheistic Brits ==

I wonder...what percentage of the underachieving, God-hating British Olympians are actually Atheists? [[user:Willingham77|Willingham77]] 17:03, 31 July 2012

:The better question is what percentage of the Brits are subjected to an increasingly atheistic media and culture? Unfortunately, nearly 100%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

::The better better question is why does an "atheistic" country have an established religion (COE)? Should all of us God-fearing Americans want the same for Christianity?[[User:Emmerich|Emmerich]] 23:23, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

:::[[Great Britain]] has an established '''''church'''''. That is something the [[Founders]] opposed - a state supported '''''church'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

::::Wow Andy, you should use that statement as an example in a Conservapedia article entitled "Non sequitur". [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:43, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
==Proposed table entry==
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Sport
!Political issue
!Answer
|-
|Netball
|Will Netball be played at the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics? Wikipedia claims that Netball is an "Olympic sport"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_sports|title=Category:Olympic sports|accessdate=Aug. 3, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Category:Olympic_sports</ref> played "at the Olympics".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_at_the_Olympics&action=history</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Olympic_recognised_sports</ref>
|Feminists have been demanding equality in Olympic participation. As a result, women have been playing the same game as men -- five-players-on-each-side basketball in the Olympics since 1976, rather than a watered-down version designed for Victorian women called Netball.
|}
If there are no objections, I will move this to the table in the article. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:19, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: That's not really a question about the Olympics, more a commentary on Wikipedia. Stick it in [[Bias in Wikipedia]], not here. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:11, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
: Also, Wikipedia no longer claims Netball is an Olympic sport, only an "Olympic recognized sport", which is correct. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::With all due respect to my friend Gregkochuconn, I just looked at the Wikipedia netball article and it is still in category "Olympic sports." I admit that the Wikipedia article "Netball and the Olympic Movement" is in category "Olympic recognised sports" but the radical feminists have insisted that Netball stay in the former category. Please see for yourself. The table entry was an assertion: We say netball will not be played in 2012 and 2016, Wikipedia says it is already an Olympic sport and keeps deleting statements that it could not possibly be added to the Olympic Programme before 2024.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=502656544&oldid=502573324] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Its a bit hard to see exactly what the issue is. It is not hard to see that this issue is one for the Wikipedia page and not for the Olympics 2012 page. Whether or not it is deservedly and "Olympic Sport" or an "Olympic Recognised Sport" (these terms are not synonymous) is an issue for a general Olympics page, and whether Wikipedia is somehow censoring conservative thought is an issue for the Wikipedia page. Frankly I doubt very many of you even know what netball is. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:52, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: That edit seems to be adding the 2024 information, not deleting it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:24, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
:::::Promptly reverted.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball&diff=next&oldid=502668446] [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 03:52, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
::::: Probably because it was in the article about the sport at the Olympics, and didn't belong in the main article. The main article doesn't make any claim one way or the other. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 17:54, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Also, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netball_at_the_Olympics current version of the page] includes that information. So what you are saying is wrong. In any case, this is not the place for it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Olympics. Wikipedia makes no claim that it will be contested at the 2012 Olympics, even if it is an "Olympic sport", seeing as that category includes present Olympic sports, past Olympic sports, and Olympic recognized sports. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
::::::: Note that the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport) squash], which has a far more significant chance of being added to the Olympic program than squash, also does not mention that it could be added no sooner than 2024. As I said above, the article on Netball and the Olympic Movement does mention that it can't be added until 2024. The fact doesn't belong in the main article for the sport, by WP standards, and other articles on Olympic-recognized sports don't mention it either. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 15:17, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
<references/>

== Oh no, the tennis! ==

Look what's happening! One of the greatest conservative sports stars just lost the bronze medal match to an Argentinian who no doubt supports gay marriage, and an overrated Brit is smashing one of the all-time greats in the gold! What is going on?? Not only that, but we all just watched home-schooled gymnast Makayla Maroney underperform, right onto her bum! This page may need a re-write ... [[User:AlanA|AlanA]] 10:43, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

:While expressing doubt about your guess as to the Argentinian star's political views, I welcome further review of the predictions in the entry as more results pour in ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
:: The predictions represent things that are "likely" to happen, not things that are guaranteed to happen. Murray also had the advantage of the home fans, and Federer was tired from his marathon match with Del Potro. Of course, Del Potro should have been tired too.

== Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform? ==

Will someone please explain where the expected total medals figures in this section come from? Thanks. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 15:41, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
: The table lower down in the article. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:59, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::Oh, you mean the one based on GDP, which "cannot be used as a fair proxy". In other words, they're meaningless. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 22:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
::: Find a better proxy and we can use that. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:17, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
::: I have changed the proxy to medals won at the last (Summer) Olympics prior to implementing same-sex marriage. The expected total is virtually unchanged. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:28, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
:::: Better, but expected numbers should be corrected for any significant differences in total number of medals available and in a country's number of athletes competing between the base estimate year and 2012. Also, since it's conceded that it's too early to tell how these countries will ultimately perform, the +/- figures are premature. With about 59% of events concluded, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, South Africa and Sweden are on track to meet or exceed their medal count for the base year. The Netherlands and Norway could easily do so as well by the games' end. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

== Medal weighting ==

It's been pointed out at [[talk:Main Page]] that some sports, notably swimming, are vastly over-rewarded in terms of the number of medals available. We would get a better representation of which nations were actually the best, sporting-wise, if we took this into account in our medals tables. One simple way would be to discount multiple medals won by the same individual, or perhaps to cap the number of medals counted in the same sport at, say, five. What do people think?

(Sadly the nation most affected by this would currently be that titan of the swimming pool, the USA.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:37, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
: That would be hard to do, though. And nearly impossible to keep updating during the Games. I propose keep the current system for now, and discuss further when the Games are over. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)