I’m as clueless as the next guy about the use of “were” with the subjunctive mood (assuming the next guy isn’t Strunk & White), but these two examples from Michiko Kakutani’s review of The Battle for America 2008 by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson seem to me entirely wrong:
Given the voluminous coverage of that race, it might seem as if the obvious answer to these questions were no.
And . . .
Mr. Axelrod went on to argue, presciently it turned out, that Mr. Obama’s profile — his embodiment of change, along with his eagerness to challenge old dogmas of right and left — fit this historical moment better than Mrs. Clinton’s and that if he were right, Mr. Obama could catalyze a political movement and prevail against substantial odds.
Were these proper usages? Boston Globe word maven Jan Freeman, help me out.
Campaign Outsider 
Hi John! You are correct that people often take “if” as a signal for the subjunctive “were,” whether it’s required or not. But these are complex clauses, and the answers are also complex. I would say “was” in the first instance, and say that either is OK in the second, but I’ll have to get back to you on the reasons.
My rule of thumb: Say “was” unless it sounds absolutely, utterly ridiculous. This is the only verb that still has a subjunctive form; no wonder it’s confusing.
Thanks, Jan. Good advice.
The rule is that “were” is used when the assertion is contrary to fact: If I were you. I would flag both these as wrong usage, unless the context made it clear that the answer is in fact “yes” and that Mr. Axlerod was in fact wrong. Even then, it’s a stretch.
Pingback: Kind “Word” « Campaign Outsider