Anyone listening to it in context realizes what it is and just either hits 1 or 2.

It saves time. So now we have discovered prop questions.

I certainly agree more with your answer than my own, even while my answer is much more thought out.

But there is an opportunity cost to thinking out. (and no reward, unless you are a nerd who calculates probabilities as a end in itself). My answer is correct and ridiculous, yet in the same way a lot of what is said at conventions and politically is absorbed pragmatically.

Romney may be wiser than he appears, and in a way that is impossible(or difficult) to discern if you are actually listening with any degree of sophistication.

There basically is no question I can think of which can’t be taken or answered seriously(with sufficient resources and time), the flip side being there is no “serious” question that can’t be glossed or clicked over pragmatically.

Given the relative impossibility of determining consumer sophistication, there is absolutely no reason why you should agree with a critique made by Lawler, Pete or anyone else. I missed that conversation, but felt like illustrating why in my opinion you might have been correct (In my opinion it is sort of impossible to be wrong or right, unless you can account for casual viewers/consumers, whose give a damn may or may not be busted.)

That is there is an argument to be made that Mitt Romney would most assuredly be “poorly” focused if in your overly considered/sophisticated reflection he appeared to be “well focused”. If that makes sense…

Actually that is a question that requires substantial political logistical knowledge.

On some level we can assume that it depends if there are TV cammera’s. Since the politicians have journalists documenting the inside workings, it is just a matter of knowing if you are likely to break down on a major road where a president is about to pass by. God save us from prop-staged breakdowns or Aston Kucher Punking a political candidate for extra media buzz:)

The limiting factor is geography and knowing where the presidential candidates are. Since Obama is nearest to Toledo (according to Facebook) for me the answer would have been Obama, albeit mechanically this seems doubtful since Obama might not travel on 75. (plus if I can forcast where I break down, I might as well avoid it:)

On a knowledgeable level it turns into a question of vicinity. Do you know the itenerary of the political candidates, as this would increase the likelyhood of them stopping.

Albeit with the costs of the secret service if Obama did stop to fix a broken down car, Ryan would criticize him for contributing to the deficit:) It would be wildly inefficient.

This is a bad argument. Odds are good that the secret service would actually fix your car or call AAA since for security purposes a broken down car in the path of a presidential convoy is a PIED(Potential Improvised Explosive Device.)

So in actuality I happen to know that the secret service and the State Highway Patrol and all sorts of other state and federal agencies behind the scenes that travel as part of a security convoy and move into position ahead of time, would obviously help move my car out of the way. Not necessarily out of benevolence but from a professional security standpoint. It is really already a fixed cost.

If you want someone complaining about this, see Ron Paul turning down security detail.

So the correct answer is 5 (the secret service or the security detail that accompanies these people).

In so far as Bidden is not traveling with the president (and when he is not acting as VP) he is the most wrong answer, since he travels by train.

In any case to be precise in estimating such things, the results should differ by geography…if you happen to live near any of these people the odds should increase. But currently the right answer is 5 Secret Service/State Highway Patrol…not out of benevolence or empathy, but professional responsibility to protect the commander in chief and potential commander in chief.