"Part of it was style. Part of it was shady tactics and threats (which I won't go into here, but that's what really alienated me). Part of it was arrogance. "

I am intimately familiar with Mi4CS.  I know the players, and I know the intent.  Mi4CS was about a grassroots attempt at finding the most conservative candidate.  They were BTW WORKING very hard.  You may not like the outcome (Glenn through a vote of those participating, and because of money, eventually supporting Durant) but the fact is Mi4CS was a part of the process, and the BEST way for the normally unnoticed candidates to get a little face time.  Anyone who thought it was a Glenn only series of events was not paying attention or had another agenda. Get over yourselves.  I like Pete Konetchy, but he didn't take advantage of the opportunity to the end.  

The grassroots we saw in 2010 were not all there in 2012.  It had a lot to do with the way in which 'establishment' took them for granted.  As it seems you do now.  They are only grassroots when they 'work'? c'mon really?...

As for 'less mouths' ..think about it.  Discussion, dialogue, notes comparing, etc..  There are different ways people contribute Dan.  Personally, you might be able to identify who is effective, but to make a broad indictment of those who are eager to offer an opinion, yet don't feel welcome because of such a broad brush?  As I think about it in fact, I don't know any 'mouths' that don't provide SOME value to the process.  I guess its a matter of perspective or seeing only what you want to see.

80-20.. a couple folks thought it would be there..  I used that because it was a point where I won a gentleman's bet on the race. (I called it far closer to the 50-50 mark.) and yes, 60-40 I believe WERE the Schostak team internals.

Which reminds me..