Why the animosity toward the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election board?

[Brittain33]

Just wondering.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Because there is nothing but speculation.....not one declared pub yet........it will simmer down as it always does when real candidates and positions emerge and good dialogue regarding the similarities and differences can begin. 

[Hash]

It's generally filled with mindless blabber which is all useless and has been run over by idiots or hacks who wet themselves over their favourite candidate.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

jmfcst and Winfield?

[minionofmidas]

It sucks.

[RI]

jmfcst and Winfield?

It's also the nesting ground for the wild pbrower.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

It's generally filled with mindless blabber which is all useless and has been run over by idiots or hacks who wet themselves over their favourite candidate.

I don't get wet over Ron Paul!

...most of the time...

[Grumpier Than Thou]

jmfcst and Winfield?

You win.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I almost never frequent it, but I got the impression that this board is full of hacks.

[The Mikado]

Idiots that doen't post in any of the other boards, hackish discussion, irrelevancy, etc.

If you want all the information on the 2012 board, you'd be better off just reading Mr. Morden's post history.  I've yet to see an informative post on that board not by him (and, yes, that includes Tender Branson's polls).

I repeat again my call for making Morden the mod of the 2012 board.  He's the only good poster that actually reads that drivel.

[Eraserhead]

It sucks.

[big bad fab]

I repeat again my call for making Morden the mod of the 2012 board.  He's the only good poster that actually reads that drivel.

I second this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What was said. Mr. Morden posts the only things there of any value.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Just wondering.

For me, it's pbrower2.

[Reaganfan]

It's very very slanted. In 2004 and 2008 people posted on why they may or may not support the President/GOP nominees or the Democratic nominees.

Now it's a Ron Paul and Barack Obama lovefest and a hate fest on every Republican, especially Bachmann and Palin.

[Mr. Morden]

Now it's a Ron Paul and Barack Obama lovefest and a hate fest on every Republican, especially Bachmann and Palin.

It's probably got more Republicans than any other board on Atlas.  But yeah, many of those Republicans spend a lot of time talking about how awful the GOP field is.

[Reaganfan]

Now it's a Ron Paul and Barack Obama lovefest and a hate fest on every Republican, especially Bachmann and Palin.

It's probably got more Republicans than any other board on Atlas.  But yeah, many of those Republicans spend a lot of time talking about how awful the GOP field is.

I don't do that as much as find difficulty in figuring out who I will support next year.

[Mr. Morden]

I would have thought you'd be swayed towards Pawlenty because of his dramatic "movie trailer" ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE

[Reaganfan]

My take on the GOP candidates:

Romney: Romneycare will knock him out
Pawlenty: Good choice, but bland
Huckabee: Not running, seems to sway too much on principle
Palin: Not running, unelectable, tarnished
Daniels: Not running, too liberal
Barbour: Baggage, folksy beyond George Bush
Gingrich: Past baggage
Santorum: Very appealing to me on social issues, a bit of a loose cannon though.

Christie, Jindal, Rubio, Bush and Rand Paul are people I could see myself supporting but they're not running.

Based on my critique, I'd say Santorum and Pawlenty would be my most likely picks if I had to go vote in a primary today.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

It's very very slanted. In 2004 and 2008 people posted on why they may or may not support the President/GOP nominees or the Democratic nominees.

Now it's a Ron Paul and Barack Obama lovefest and a hate fest on every Republican, especially Bachmann and Palin.

Those are poor examples if you're trying to make a point.