- Both live in Massachusetts. Actually, Scott lives there but its not clear where Mitt lives since he's been running for president for the last four years.
- Both, deep in their heart and soul, believe that Global Warming is a real problem.
- Both use money to make a point:
- Both were somewhat misinterpreted: Some thought that Scott was insulting Deolalikar. He was not. He was just expressing his certainly the proof was not correct. Some thought Mitt showed he was out of touch with Middle Class American (who normally can't afford to casually bet $10,000 on anything). While Mitt might be out of touch, I think this was more of a way to forcibly express that there is no evidence that he was in favor of the individual mandate.
- Both Mitt and Scott seem to be right. Deolalikar's proof is no longer believed to be correct, and fact check says that Mitt never supported the individual mandate.
- There exists people who say Scott is smart. There exists people who say Mitt is smart. I don't know if this means anything since there exists people who say Newt is smart.
- They both seem smarter than Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and uh,uh, I can't think of the third candidate they both seem smarter than. Oops.
- Scott believes his belief that Deolalikar didn't prove P ≠ NP. Mitt has no beliefs.
- Mitt can easily afford $10,000. Scott would have to struggle to raise $200,000.
- Mitt's bet made him look bad. Scott's offer made him look good. He put-his-money-where-his-mouth-is unlike other bloggers who just asserted the proof was likely not correct.
- Mitt made a bet partially in jest- it is unlikely to really involve an exchange of money. Scott made a real offer- if Deolalikar's proof had been correct he really would have paid out.
- There is one of them that I would vote for. The other was once Governor of Massachusetts.
- Scott knows a bit more about Quantum Computing than Mitt.