*This* scenario is not too far from what is really going to happen, given the intellectual sloth of the average voter: http://blimptv.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-bush-coins.html

Since we don't agree on a lot of things, I won't get too detailed. However, since the delegates decide who wins, you know Ron Paul won't win or even be nominated. I do agree with a lot of his ideas, but I'll list them one day on my own blog. Right now since he has 3% of the delegates and probably will have less after Feb 5, I think it would a waste of energy. I do agree the average voter isn't as well informed as we should be, but your comment sounded very arrogant. With an attitude like that, I guess voting isn't the right of the common man and personal choice only belongs to a select few. Actually, I think we should only have Jeopardy champions from the past 10 years elect our presidents.

Sorry for this 2nd post. I meant "don't agree" with a lot of his ideas (although I do on some of them)

You can vote for whichever other candidate (in either party) you like. It will make no difference. They have all promised more of the same. You are partly right about the 'select few' in that they decide who you get to choose from. It is a contest of personalities.
The attitude that shapes my politics is that same one that shaped my views on silver & gold, etc. My full blog history (for better or worse) is viewable, so you can judge for yourself if my 'attitude' has had any merit in the past.
If you can show better prescience, I will defer to your opinions :-)
When should I start checking your blog for those compelling thoughts?

This isn't a battle of the blogs, Time*Treat. I was merely saying that people often pass judgment on the ability of the public to make decisions. I often have radically different views from others, but I respect their right to choose. If I say 4 + 4 = 8 and you say it's 9, then you are wrong. If I say hydrogen is a solid and you say it's a gas, then I am wrong.   However, opinions about which candidate is the best to run our country or what issues are the most critical are not mathematical certainties or scientific facts, which is why I take offense when people with different viewpoints say they are politically wiser and better informed than the average working person.

I'll skip your last comments to be polite. Narcissism isn't one of my character traits.

Whatever you measure, someone will be more than the average, someone else will be less than the average. There are people better at math than average, taller than average, sing better than average, and yes, even better politically informed than average, your offense notwithstanding. If someone tells jokes better than you, do you get offended?
If you think someone else would better run the nation, why haven't you blogged about them? Instead, you write more in my blog than *I* do. You don't like my choice, but you refuse to make one of your own. That indicates some other kind of issue... :queue Norman Bates' theme:

Thanks time*treat, very enlightening! I still haven't firmly made up my mind yet but hope the vote doesn't get fragmented like it did when Clinton won in '90. But then again we really didn't have the internet like now so maybe people will become better informed. Thanks again.