DescentBB

I used the candidate selector here to see if what I hold dear to my heart would help me choose a U.S. President. Some of the issues for me, in order of importance, were Abortion, Capital Punishment, Stem Cell support, Security, Science in Education, Removal of Religion from Politics, Marijuana, and Gun Control. Although the questionaire didn't address Science or Religion, it was good enough for me at this early stage. It also allows you to copy/paste your results and I pasted just the top 5 to reduce the list size. The results are very close (72% to 78%) with none of them being my ideal candidate at 100%. Since the answers I gave produced this list, it looks like I'm a Democrat.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. John Edwards (78%)
3. Al Gore (not announced) (73%)
4. Barack Obama (72%)
5. Hillary Clinton (72%)

Then, you can to to candidates comparison and compare any two candidates side by side to see where they stand on issues. I really like this and will fine tune my choice as time goes on as I do more research but I must have a candidate that has a record of supporting those issues instead of just saying they will. BTW, my choice, so far, is between those three.

Bettina

Strange. I can't find the New Democrats and Layton Newman on the list.
Must be that U.S. Bias thing.

Good post, that's a pretty good site, especially since you can rank the issues in importance. My wife worked through it yesterday, I'll probably go through it sometime soon.

[Edit: I just checked. The one my wife went through (and highly recommends) is VoteHelp.org.]

[Edit: I decided to go through it just now. Interesting results - I got 3 Democrats (Kucinich, Obama, Clinton) & 2 Republicans (Huckabee, Romney) in my top five.]

Foil wrote:Good post, that's a pretty good site, especially since you can rank the issues in importance. My wife worked through it yesterday, I'll probably go through it sometime soon.

[Edit: I just checked. The one my wife went through (and highly recommends) is VoteHelp.org.]

[Edit: I decided to go through it just now. Interesting results - I got 3 Democrats (Kucinich, Obama, Clinton) & 2 Republicans (Huckabee, Romney) in my top five.]

Thanks for the helpful link. Using it I ended up like this...

Hillary 90%
Obama 86%
Edwards 85%
Richardson 83%

My top three are still there...

Bee

Alan Keys 80%
John McCain 70%
Duncan Hunter 68%
Mitt Romney 65%
Fred Thompson 63%
Mike Huckabee 56%
Ron Paul 55%
Rudolph Giuliani 53%

Thats what it told me, the only ones I've considered voting for are McCain, Romney, and Paul

I find the idea rather disgusting as anything other than a novelty. Something that simplifies the voting decision? Did this originate in Florida?

I'm an Aussie, voted mostly green (preferences went to labour) in our elections.
For my election i used a local quiz site www.howshouldivote.com.au much like the ones mentioned here, it was incredibly helpful. It was only up for the election and went down after it was all over, which kinda annoyed me as i wanted to use it for some indepth analysis.

Anyway

OP's quiz. only those running. Colour coded for party.

2. Dennis Kucinich (89%)
4. Barack Obama (83%)
8. Hillary Clinton (70%)
9. Mike Gravel (70%)
12. John Edwards (65%)
15. Ron Paul (58%) <-- expect to vote* for this dude coz afaik he's more liberal than most democrats
16. Elaine Brown (50%)
17. Rudolph Giuliani (26%) <--- lol, all 26% and below, all Republicans
18. John McCain (25%)
19. Mike Huckabee (23%)
20. Alan Keyes (23%)
22. Mitt Romney (18%)
26. Fred Thompson (11%)
29. Duncan Hunter (5%)

i wonder if it gave me those results because i'm more concerned with voting AGAINST the NeoCons than for anyone.
I don't know what i like, but i know what i hate.

* \"theoretically\". coz i just know some idiot is going to point out i can't vote in USA's election

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted)(62%)
3. Duncan Hunter (61%)
4. Alan Keyes (60%)
5. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney)(59%)
6. Chuck Hagel (not running)(58%)
7. Ron Paul (55%)
8. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn)(52%)

Theoretical Ideal Candidate - 100%
John McCain - 72%
Alan Keyes - 72%
Newt Gingrich - 71%
Mitt Romney - 68%

Hm. Maybe I should check out John McCain more closely?

It's too bad Colbert couldn't run. I have yet to meet a person who doesn't like him - conservative, liberal, etc. That's some serious crossover appeal.

I don't know much of anything about Alan Keyes.

http://www.alankeyes.com/

Very good man!

Firewheel wrote:It's too bad Colbert couldn't run. I have yet to meet a person who doesn't like him - conservative, liberal, etc. That's some serious crossover appeal.

He's my fallback guy in case nobody decent is nominated (please don't make it Hillary).

I’m just so disgusted by the entire presidential election it makes me sick. I don’t even plan on voting for any of them. Why can’t we get good candidates? How about just honest ones?

Because that doesn't get votes, what does is being polar opposite to the other side of the fence, and that's the case every time.

Richard Cranium wrote:I’m just so disgusted by the entire presidential election it makes me sick. I don’t even plan on voting for any of them. Why can’t we get good candidates? How about just honest ones?

Nobody comes away from the opposing parties machines and still looks honest. If you don't like the candidates, then we are too blame.

It's like, there is crap on T.V., music, etc, because even though we all say we hate it, thats what we consume/vote for.

Although I am too young to vote (but I got my Learners Permit, YAY!):

Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
Dennis Kucinich (80%)
Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (71%)
Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (71%)
Barack Obama (68%)
Mike Gravel (67%)
Ron Paul (66%)
Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (60%)
Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (58%)
Hillary Clinton (57%) Information link
Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (56%)
Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (54%)
John Edwards (54%)
Al Gore (not announced) (50%)

My actual thoughts are a bit different, as I think Hilary should be last, but no Republicans made it on the list other than Ron Paul.

I am really worried about the Iraq War and the defecit. I also do not want any religious nuts in office (Huckabee goes straight to the bottom of my list) who think their religion should define everyone elses lives.

If I was able to vote in an American election, I'd definitely go for Barack Obama. (which was also my top result with 76%) I agree with him on nearly all general levels.

For my own country, I'll be voting for Bertie Aherne, of the republican party (which is actually about the exact opposite of the USA's republican party). He's already been elected Taoiseach (not the president, but the head of the government) three times, and was even asked to be head of the EU (to which he refused, as he wanted to remain president of Ireland).

It seems from these results that Ron Paul is more moderate than the media and voters think.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I find the idea rather disgusting as anything other than a novelty. Something that simplifies the voting decision? Did this originate in Florida?

Doesn't simplify voting, rather it removes the cult of personality surrounding a candidate. Also removes the slant from different news services that may affect your decision.

But the office of President is largely about personality.

And you haven't removed the slant, just replaced it with a different one. Think about this: what are these recommendations based on? This may be a fun exercise, and certainly is no worse than, say, reading a newspaper's objective reporting, but without knowing exactly how the results are formulated, it's nothing.

I voted for Ron Paul, largely because his voting record backs what he claims. I believe he is sincere in wanting to return power to the states, and return the federal govt to state of constitutionality.

Gooberman wrote:Nobody comes away from the opposing parties machines and still looks honest. If you don't like the candidates, then we are too blame.

It's like, there is crap on T.V., music, etc, because even though we all say we hate it, thats what we consume/vote for.

True but as a consumer if I don't like something and enough people agree with those feelings things can change. If I don't like the name brand cola I don't purchase it instead I'll purchase the store brand cola.

WillyP wrote:But the office of President is largely about personality.

Really? So if Jay Leno or Roseanne Barr were to toss their hat in the ring you would vote for them over someone like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice?

woodchip wrote:Really? So if Jay Leno or Roseanne Barr were to toss their hat in the ring you would vote for them over someone like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice?

Picard and Ricker
'Make it so'

WillyP wrote:Think about this: what are these recommendations based on? This may be a fun exercise, and certainly is no worse than, say, reading a newspaper's objective reporting, but without knowing exactly how the results are formulated, it's nothing.

I think you misunderstand it.

The results at the end are simply shown as a percentage match between your position and the candidate's stated position, weighted by how important you marked each issue.

Then, (at least in the case of the VoteHelp.org site) you can look through the individual results for every issue and every candidate, which shows you:
- whether or not the candidate agrees with you
- the candidate's stance on the issue
- direct quotes and references candidate about the issue

I found it to be extremely helpful, because it:
...focuses on the issues, not personality/charm/etc.
...avoids the bias and sensationalism of newspaper and internet journalism
...is very thorough (it hit all the issues I care about, plus some that aren't a big deal to me)
...is a way to see my favorite candidates side-by-side on each issue

Honestly, some of the results were new to me. In a couple of cases, I found out some things about my previously-favorite candidates that I didn't know before, and I'm glad I know now.

It's anything but one of those goofy online-quizzes, WillyP. It's a serious, thorough, and informative system that I'll probably refer to again when it comes time to vote.

@ votehelp -

Rudy - 94.76%
Fred - 94.20%
John M. - 92.82%
Mitt - 92.45%
Dem's lower half, Kucinich at the bottom. Sounds about right.

I had already planned to vote Fred in the primary.

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Alan Keyes (78%)
3. John McCain (74%)
4. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (71%)
5. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (71%)
6. Fred Thompson (70%)

Not too bad. Wish there were more \"don't care\" options and more intermediate priority selections. At present, I really like Fred!

dissent wrote:Rudy - 94.76%
Fred - 94.20%

A 0.5% difference for any combination of options is pretty interesting, as I don't consider them at all alike on so many issues. Maybe their rhetoric, but not their records.

True conservatives should love Fred and hate Rudy.

woodchip wrote:

WillyP wrote:But the office of President is largely about personality.

Really? So if Jay Leno or Roseanne Barr were to toss their hat in the ring you would vote for them over someone like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice?

Heck no... wrong personality for the job. But your point is well taken, although I did not say 'all about personality' I said largely. A good president does need to be qualified.

Foil wrote:

WillyP wrote:Think about this: what are these recommendations based on? This may be a fun exercise, and certainly is no worse than, say, reading a newspaper's objective reporting, but without knowing exactly how the results are formulated, it's nothing.

I think you misunderstand it.

(etc...)

It's anything but one of those goofy online-quizzes, WillyP. It's a serious, thorough, and informative system that I'll probably refer to again when it comes time to vote.

My apologizes, I should have looked at it first before posting. Sounds like a good resource... too bad i already voted. Aren't you glad your not 'first in the nation'?

WillyP wrote:And you haven't removed the slant, just replaced it with a different one. Think about this: what are these recommendations based on? This may be a fun exercise, and certainly is no worse than, say, reading a newspaper's objective reporting, but without knowing exactly how the results are formulated, it's nothing.

But it shows how the results are formulated, as it gives information about each candidate's position on important matters in the end.

We have seen again and again that 'positions' mean nothing, all sorts of reasons are given why this or that can't be done. What really counts is what only the shadow knows.

woodchip wrote:Doesn't simplify voting, rather it removes the cult of personality surrounding a candidate.

Seriously, play Living Colour's "Cult of Personality" on top of campaign footage of candidates in crowds, shaking hands, hamming it up on stage. It's creepy how accurate it is.

I lean toward Obama myself. Among Democrats, I just don't like Hillary Clinton and cannot, in good faith, vote for someone who not only approved of our little Iraq fiasco, but also authorized future Iranian invasion, while simultaneously claiming that Bush is irresponsible. He only has that power because people like her keep authorizing it! I've never understood the popularity of Edwards.

Among Republicans, I just hate how much theocracy has invaded the party. I like Republican ideals when it comes to fiscal responsibility, taxes, immigration, and so on. It is needed to counter the pie-in-the-sky dreams of liberals to end up with plausible solutions. But why do I have to take all of the religious wankery that goes with it? Whatever happened to just being a decent person? You shouldn't have to flaunt your religion to prove you will do the country proud.

The thing about Obama is that even if he doesn't win the Democratic nomination, I think he has already done something vitally important for both parties. He successfully mobilized the so-called "young voters" in ways that previous elections haven't. Candidate like him are important in countering pervasive voter apathy.

But why Obama? Because I think the country needs a reboot. Is he the one to do it? Maybe. But I'd be reasonably sure that people like Clinton and others who have been in the system for years, if not decades, are not going to be the ones who step up.

Republicans like to invoke the Reagan comparison amongst themselves; I think they miss the point. When history looks back at Reagan favorably, I think a large part of it goes back to his character and skills as a public speaker over his policies (though they are certainly notable). Point blank, Reagan made people feel good about their country.

In a time of such pessimism and cynicism about Washington, much of it well deserved, we search for that person who will accomplish that. The rest is gravy.

Kyouryuu wrote:Republicans like to invoke the Reagan comparison amongst themselves; I think they miss the point. When history looks back at Reagan favorably, I think a large part of it goes back to his character and skills as a public speaker over his policies (though they are certainly notable). Point blank, Reagan made people feel good about their country.

In a time of such pessimism and cynicism about Washington, much of it well deserved, we search for that person who will accomplish that. The rest is gravy.

But first you have to have a country that you can feel good about. I would argue that feeling good is gravy. I don't think we should feel good about where our country is at right now!

When you talk about the country needing a reboot, it makes me think of Ron Paul (Republican Libertarian) and all of his views that I've been looking into lately. I'm still undecided, personally, but if you haven't already I encourage you to look into his campaign. I'm not sure about some of his positions (ending war on drugs, and pulling out of Iraq, in particular), but I think he's smart, he cares about the constitution, he cares about America as a sovereign nation, he's consistent, and in everything I've looked at so far, he seems to be one of the most genuine people I've ever seen in public office.

I know this sounds like a candidate plug, but even though I remain undecided because of some big issues (which I mentioned), it is in spite of being extremely impressed with him, and I think his views merit some real consideration.

Google Interview: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
Campaign Website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com

I think democrats should vote for Obama... He seems to be the least hypocritical guy and the biggest rising star.

Clinton and Edwards are duplicitous doublespeak snake oil salesmen that will do anything for power. Both Clinton and Edwards talk about the little guy and both would squash the very same 'little guy' as they cozy up to their own special interests.

I think they got something here. More options for each question would be better.

Ron Paul 69%
Kent McManigal 67%
Dennis Kucinich 64%
Barack Obama 60%
Mike Gravel 58%

Mike Gravel video.

Here is a video on Hukabee's thoughts on the Constitution. Joe Tard is so funny.

A little background: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=lt6sxY6LaW4&feature=user

Brings it into focus. I think that guy in the last video did it an injustice by describing it as \"We're going to change the constitution to be in line with the Bible\".

The inner circle of the Republican party is very afraid of Huckabee. This guy will not toe the Party line. All the Party Hack Bobble Heads are in overdrive. If it was not for the internet Truth wouldn't have a chance. Corporate control of the news is a powerful force in perverting the elections.
I found this interesting.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... E0YzdmZGE=

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A little background: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=lt6sxY6LaW4&feature=user

Brings it into focus. I think that guy in the last video did it an injustice by describing it as "We're going to change the constitution to be in line with the Bible".

Wow, scary stuff! He quite clearly wants to make the US a theocracy. He's confused in believing morality and freedom needs must derive from religion. And the video does not at all allay my fears that he would try to change the constitution to be in line with the Bible.

I know this appeals to you, Thorne, because you're religious. I'm sure everything he's saying makes you nod your head. But he sounds kind of like Tom Cruise to me.

I'm a Christian, but a few of Huckabee's statements sound a bit \"out there\" to me, too.

Back on topic, he *did* show up as number five for me from VoteHelp.org.

In fact, I had what I consider at least one major disagreement with every one of the top five candidates VoteHelp gave me, and even more disagreements with the rest. This election really feels like a \"pick the least-worst\" to me.

Ouch! Tom Cruise? Don't be flippant or was that glib ;)