A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opini ... wanted=all


" In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It is not that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.

Probability. Mitt Romney’s political viewpoints can be expressed only in terms of likelihood, not certainty. While some views are obviously far less likely than others, no view can be thought of as absolutely impossible. Thus, for instance, there is at any given moment a nonzero chance that Mitt Romney supports child slavery.

Uncertainty. Frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney’s current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the “principle uncertainty principle.”

Entanglement. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker. "

A true politician. Too bad changing your answer for the audience doesn't work in a 24 hour media age. What plays in Iowa doesn't when it is replayed in Florida.

Heard an interesting firgure last night, the only Republican to beat a incumbent Dem president in the 20th Century was Ronald Reagan against Carter. Think Romney has the right stuff?

FredHayek wrote: Think Romney has the right stuff?

No. I think it boils down to who's supporters are more dispirited.

No, he doesn't, but that will depend a lot on how much Americans hold high fuel prices and the resulting inflation to be Obama's fault. Also, people will blame him for housing prices continuing to fall, regardless of who is to blame. If it weren't for these little problems, Obama would win in a landslide against Romney. It will be interesting to see if Romney can improve his image now that he's quit running against Santorum and started running against Obama. Tough row to hoe for him...

neptunechimney wrote: www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunda....html?pagewanted=all
More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker. "

Replace the above with Obuma and it also fits.

Not a fan of Mitt Romney, but a choice between bad and badder spells Romney the winner.

towermonkey wrote: No, he doesn't, but that will depend a lot on how much Americans hold high fuel prices and the resulting inflation to be Obama's fault. Also, people will blame him for housing prices continuing to fall, regardless of who is to blame. If it weren't for these little problems, Obama would win in a landslide against Romney. It will be interesting to see if Romney can improve his image now that he's quit running against Santorum and started running against Obama. Tough row to hoe for him...

Obama has been a horrible president. Question is, are you better of with the current prez, who has no clue, and will not help our economy for 4 more years, or really, and unknown in Romney.

Romney needs a good VP pick to have a shot. Obama has so much money he can just bury Romney under it with ads....regardless of whether or not there is any truth to them. I've already seen a bunch....

More money doesn't always win the election, just ask Meg Whitman.

Think Hispanic for VP to garner the Latino vote for either Obuma or Romney.