Who Is Closest to You on the Issues?
There’s a pretty good web “test” at ItsMyNews.com (when you get to the page, look to the right side for the test). Often times these tests are frustrating because the answers you can choose from are poorly worded, incomplete, or severely limiting, and/or the tests seem more for pure fun rather than telling you something anything near relevant. But the “It’s My Candidate” test on the site is pretty well-made. You answer 25 questions about where you stand on the issues, and the test matches you up with the candidate who has views closest to yours. It also gives a list of all the candidates with their percentages as well.
The questions seem pretty well-written; they don’t have an over-abundance of answers, thus making the test clogged and difficult, and only once did I feel like the answer I had to give did not really represent my views accurately.
As you can see above, Barack Obama is closest to my views (tied with Mike Gravel). My anti-candidate is Republican Duncan Hunter, agreeing with me only 3.5% of the time. I took the test again, this time giving what I thought were the extremist right-wing answers, and Duncan Hunter came out on top. Most of the front-runners waft towards the center–surprisingly, the Republicans more than the Democrats. Obama, however, gravitated more towards where I reside: left of center, but not extremely so.
I still have not gotten down to a study of the candidates that I have been intending to do for a while now. So far, Obama remains at the top of the list for me, having made the best impression with what I know. He seems to have the broadest appeal in terms of pulling in independents and even many conservatives, is far less polarizing than Hillary, and speaks more eloquently than any of the other candidates I’ve heard. I also like the “Wonkiness” factor, that he seems to know the issues better and speaks more intelligently about them. When I watched part of a recent debate, I was struck by the fact that Obama was the only one who seemed to be giving examples to every point he made. Edwards, in contrast, was simply spouting slogans and generalities that left me wanting to know specifics to back his claims up. Call me old-fashioned, but I like to know that there is a reason beyond popularity for a person’s stand on an issue. Clinton may be more the “pro,” but I see her as more polarizing, more easily attacked (Republicans have that act down pat and the media is usually all too happy to play along with them), and seems too willing to move to the center for safety’s sake.
I know the test I linked to above is hardly a spot-on measurement, but–if they got the stands on the issues right–it does seem a useful, albeit gross measuring tool to start out with. And for me, a reminder to start looking into the details of the candidates’ stands and records in this race.
I got Dennis Kucinich at 64.9%. I was surprised. I didn’t think I was that liberal. I found that the questioning forced me to select positions I didn’t feel comfortable with, but… On the subject of immigration, I ended up voting more protectionistic than I wanted to, but I have been directly affected by policies that allowed technology workers come in because they were ‘an economic necissity’ to the tune of massive debt.
As soon as I determine whether or not it would inhibit my bar application, I will probably have to declare bankruptcy. (The irony of all this, is, St. Louis has lots of tech jobs in the credit card industry – Citi Bank and MasterCard have big shops there – and my friends working there say there are hundreds of Indians, Chinese and Russians working there as perceived necessity while I couldn’t find a job working at a grocery store! All during a “growing” economy).
My feeling is that illegal immigration needs to be discouraged, but its silly to kick all the people that are here out. Instead the smart thing would be to force Mexico and other latin American states to adopt a European style social contract and those countries would transform over night just the way Spain did in the 1970s and 1980s.
So I found myself pealing hard to the right on some inssues because of the choices and the execution they suggest. On other things I went left where I didn’t want to.
I would have no problem with Kucinich as President of course. The guy that I thought I had the most common with, and who I like on paper, is John Edwards – I feel real strong about his positions on economics. The guy I like second best is Obama. As it happened, Obama was my #2 guy at 57.9% followed by Gravel at 54.4%. Everyone else was below 50%.
There’s no denying, and the video from the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa proves it, Obama’s incredibly charismatic. The biggest issue in our politics is ‘big money’ and I like where he stands on that as well. I think it would be great if he became President.
In the dems the person I like the least is Hillary, which means she’ll probably get the nomination. Nonetheless, she came in higher than Dodd, Biden and Edwards – by significant amounts. All Dems came in above all Repubs. At the bottom was Brownback. Next to him were Huckabee and Guiliani.
Amongst the Republicans, there is one horse in their race that doesn’t stink. Its the worst slate of candidates I have ever seen. Not one should be taken seriously. In my mind that means McCain is perhaps the best candidate, not because of where he stands now, but mostly out of memory of the man he once was back in 2000. If he would have had the least amount of courage for his convictions, he could have endured a winter of discontent during the Bush/Neocon ascendancy and had emerged the gold standard of traditional republicanism after the easily predictable collapse of the Bush/Neocon policies. He flubbed that up. I can’t believe that anyone could ever vote Republican again. These guys have been totally and thoroughly discredited.
Anyway a great find Luis. I like to see what others ring up.
I got Kucinich, with 70.2%, Obama being second. I took it again, trying to give the most liberal answer to every question–though I couldn’t always, since on a few of them it wasn’t totally clear to me which was the most liberal position–and got Kucinich with 89.5%, with Obama a distant second at 66.7%, so clearly they have Kucinich pegged as the most liberal one.
I then decided to try an experiment: I took it again, trying to give what I thought were Ron Paul’s positions, as best I knew or could guess them. I was pleasantly surprised, at the end, to see Ron Paul’s picture on my screen. Only with 45.6%, but at least I got pretty close. Quite a challenge, to aim for a particular person.
It is interesting, but I’m not sure it’s that useful in telling you who to vote for. It’s more important how much they prioritize any particular issue than exactly what their given position is, I think. I also wonder about things like, given how vague Hillary is, how did they decide her answers? And is Romney the current one, or the Mass. Gov. one? Okay, I’m being facetious, but only a little.
I guess the more considered and crafted your opinions, the less close a limited set of answers can cover you.
S.H., your point is what I was thinking about. I can only assume that the person who made this used the latest stands candidates had on issues, and not the prior stands they have flip-flopped from. But it is startling how so many of the Republicans have made major reversals in their official positions, isn’t it? And yet, I’ll bet you good money that the Republicans will characterize the Dems as the flip-floppers, just as hypocritically as Bush did to Kerry in 2004. Just you wait.