Romney and Bachmann 2012?

Romney wins the first debate, but Bachmann receives the biggest boost.

The first Republican presidential debate had a clear winner: Mitt Romney. As the frontrunner, all Romney had to do was sit-tight, not say anything stupid and look like a potential president. Last night, he managed all three and, as such, won by default. Tim Pawlenty flunked his chance to attack Romneycare (attempting to give healthcare to the uninsured being Romney's Achilles heel, naturally), Newt Gingrich sounded like an angry nutcase and Ron Paul, well, is a nutcase.

US blogs, however, went wild for one candidate: Michelle Bachmann. Salon gave her a rave review. As did Time. Ezra Klein is a long-standing admirer, if not supporter. The main dissenting voice was Andrew Sullivan, who thought Klein and co were buying into a Bachmann Bubble.

Sullivan, however, is being a little unfair. Bachmann won't win the nomination. She has low name recognition and her views are too far to the right for most moderate voters. But that is not the point. Where Bachmann would come into her own, however, is on the ticket with a candidate like Romney, whom the Christian right of the party regard with suspicion. She brings the same Tea Party votes as Palin, without Palin's toxic baggage.

Like Palin, Bachmann is a God-fearing, child-rearing, gun-toting, pro-life voting, homo-haranguing right-winger. Unlike Palin, however, Bachmann is able to string a sentence together and, while in the main reprehensible, her views have an ideological framework to them. Bachmann would plug many of the holes in Romney's CV, without being as much as a liability as Palin proved to be.

Romney and Bachman 2012? It could happen.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.