Amusing v Alarming

[Paul in Qatar]

OK, there are lots of amusing races out there. The GOP has rarely provided such amusement. But many of the people we are talking about have no chance of winning.

Arthur B. Robinson is the guy on Rachel Maddow. He is running for Congress in Oregon. He has zero point zero chance of winning (according to 538.com). He is not worth talking about.
and
Carl Paladino is a lot of fun to talk about, but he is not important as he has a whopping 0.2% chance of winning.
and also
Christine O'Donnell is running for Senate from Delaware. She is amusing, and not a witch. She also has no chance of winning. She is not worth talking about.
but
Rand Paul is running for Senate in Kentucky. There is an 86% chance he will win. On the other hand, he might make the most amusing senator is a Senate that will never do a darn thing.
and
Sharron Angle is running for Senate from Nevada. She is a complete headjob and has a 55% percent chance of winning.

While it is amusing to talk about the craziest ones, it seems to me the ones who might win are the dangerous ones.

[Mr. Moto]

I agree with the OP. The fact that Harry Reid might win is alarming. That guy is surely dangerous.

[BrainGlutton]

Marco Rubio (R) is alarming and not one bit amusing. Alarming, in that a Tea Party candidate seriously could be leading in a "purple state" like Florida, thanks to the opposition being split between Meek (D) and Crist (Crist).

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moto

I agree with the OP. The fact that Harry Reid might win is alarming. That guy is surely dangerous.

You really think Sharon Angle and her "2nd Amendment solutions" and her wish to eliminate the Education and Energy departments, and her "no abortions even in cases of rape or incest", is a better choice than Reid?

The Nevada state senate Minority Leader, Republican Bill Raggio, would disagree. He has endorsed Reid.