SkipCaptcha
126
edits
Changes
Talk:United States Presidential Race - Endorsements for Republicans 2012 (view source)
Revision as of 17:44, January 16, 2012
, 17:44, January 16, 2012→Useless Endorsements: new section
:Soldiers are not political appointees. Ambassadors are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:18, 16 January 2012 (EST)
:Soldiers are not political appointees. Ambassadors are.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:44, 16 January 2012 (EST)