Talk:United States Presidential Race - Endorsements for Republicans 2012

John Bolton's endorsement ...

Another for Romney. ScottDG 18:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Good catch. You can include it in the entry, with a priority rank that you think is appropriate.--Andy Schlafly 19:01, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Many wondered why this ambassador for the Obama Administration was running for the Republican nomination.

He was not an ambassador for the Obama Administration, he was an ambassador for the United States of America. Would a soldier serving today be a soldier for the Obama Administration, too? ScottDG 00:07, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Soldiers are not political appointees. Ambassadors are.--Andy Schlafly 00:18, 16 January 2012 (EST)

Useless Endorsements

So, I'm a bit unclear how to interpret the "Useless Value" of the unhelpful endorsements. On the one hand, if the goal is to approximate the uselessness of the endorsement, then surely neither of those listed should have the maximum uselessness. An endorsement from me, an anonymous internet person, would be far less helpful at raising donations or securing votes. On the other hand, the idea might be these endorsements aren't just useless but are actually harmful. But again, it must be the case that an endorsement from, say, Barney Frank, would be far more harmful than an endorsement from Huntsman.

All of which is to say that I believe the two lists should be combined and the value of the "negative" endorsements reconsidered. I'd suggest a new scale that runs from 10 to -10. That would allow the truly useless endorsements (such as mine or perhaps Graham's) to be ranked close to 0, while those that are actually harmful could be ranked in the high negatives.

I'd be happy to combine the lists and flesh out the rating system a bit, but I wanted to make sure such actions would be appreciated before messing with a fairly high profile page.--JustinD 12:44, 16 January 2012 (EST)