"Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke
across the map. palin drives the statist lib nuts. she's not even a candidate and she's talked about 100 times more than
bachman. your thread is proof. palin is not a candidate, but you ask the question who would vote for her. and i gave my
Palin... she has better legs...
...and she knows how to use them.
Palin, because she's less likely to win. She has trouble staying on message and she doesn't embrace her public image, but rather fights against it. This makes her prone to not finishing what she starts, alienating her base, and just generally being an impotent (if entertaining) candidate. Palin is also a little less scary ideologically.
What if the vote goes to who actually lands in the White House? Who would you vote for if those were your two options. I know everybody would say abstain, but surely if you are choosing a worst case scenario, you'd rather see one than the other.
I find Bachmann scarier than Palin in terms of ideology. But is Bachmann more effective than Palin? If the answer is no, Palin is scarier simply by way of being more able to get her beliefs written into law.
I *think* Palin would be less effective than Bachmann, even if she won the presidency. It is sort of hard to judge, but I think Palin's longer-lived public image combined with her inability to pick her battles makes her less effective.
I'd still vote for Palin. It would be a rough 4 years, but probably not as rough as 4 years of Bachmann.
Though I must say that if either of them were voted in, I'd very seriously consider leaving the country.