If Obama is going to boost his re-election chances with the religious fundamentalist nutjob brigade, he'll possibly be considering bombing some other religious nutjobs (or at least some random people in another country with religious nutjobs.)

In which case, he'll need a cheerleader or, better still, some company on the way just so that it won't appear entirely unilateral.

Why would he need to boost his chances with the religious fundamentalist brigade when they're all going to sit at home and refuse to vote for a mormon?

They're more than welcome to him.

Surely they'd vote for a mormon if it stopped the black, Kenyan muslim getting a second term.

Is that North America in general – or just part of that continent?

Or perhaps you mean Central America or South America?

Don't bank on it. There are as many reasons for the right to hate Obama as there are right wingers and it's only certain groups that think the above about him. For the most part they're in states that would give all their electoral college votes to the Republicans whoever they put up. Most of the evangelicals are in Kentucky and above rather than the south proper. They're the ones that aren't going to vote for a Mormon, and their votes decide Iowa, Ohio, Indiana and places like that.

Expect shenanigans at the republican convention when, despite Romney having the clear majority, they try to launch a party unity candidate. That's what my wingnut friends in deepest darkest Mass are hoping for.

Seriously? Are you trying to make him look stupid or yourself?

It's an imperialistic term and a technically inaccurate one.

I just wish Cameron would stay in America and never come back.

Would that be North America, South America or Central America?

I vote for South.

Argentina is lovely at this time of year.

I wonder what activity Dave would feel comfortable taking Obama to? Any working class sport / activity and Dave would be decidely lacking in street cred. If he went for polo or similar he would appear elitist and out of touch with the home voters.

Indeed it is an imperialistic term. It is such whether you take it as being named after a European, or whether you limit your consideration to the origins of the country in question. We referred to those thirteen colonies as "America", and astoundingly the four hundred year old soubriquet wasn't dropped to suit your very thinly disguised xenophobia.

I recommend a crash course in getting over it.

I'm just waiting for Dave to tell us that some of his best friends are black.

That's made my day, Mr Politically Perfect.

Now-now you two. No lovers tiff like last year.

Aww shucks!

Really? After just correcting someone on the proper name for America on the grounds of Imperialism?

It was an allegorical oblique reference to your testicles

My money is on Chris Christie. You only need look at the who's who of money backing him (the Koch brothers being an obvious example). He doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of winning a Republican primary because of his religious views. But if it were possible to stop any one of Gingrich, Santorum & Romney (and it certainly IS possible) from getting too far ahead in the polls he could slip in via the back door. Short of that the money will go to Romney. Corporate America isn't his biggest fan but better that option than Gingrich (too prone to self-destruct) and Santorum (not business ENOUGH and completely out of the question).

In a real brokered convention the delegates get to break away from the candidates they have been selected/bound to vote for and can excercise free will. Although it depends who they are and how the individual state selection rules work, you would think they are more likely to be part of the Republican base and, by implication, hardcore religious fanatics. Party unity and electability have every chance of going out of the window - Chris Christie would have no chance but it's how Santorum could get the nomination - and even he's a Catholic.

Anyway back to Dave; I would imagine Obama's probably a little right wing for Cameron's taste.

With the Koch brothers behind him even Malcolm X would stand a chance. As usual the media is spending far too much time on the candidates and nowhere near enough on precisely WHO is backing them and for whose benefit.

Or that the NHS is safe in Conservative hands.

Did Obama call him Dave do we know?

Romney's still the man most likely to get the job.

The Republicans now are suffering from the mania they've had for a few years in flocking to anyone who looks a possible winner (usually by coming out with some nonsensical extreme soundbite on something or other) only to back off after they realise they are mad, stupid or both. Palin and the Tea Party started it, Gingrich only got into the current contest because of it.

Underneath it all is the fear that none of their mainstream candidates can touch Obama when it comes to presentation, and they are likely to be smashed in any televised debates.