Presidential Candidate alignment test

[hifigator]

This is kind of cool:


www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm


I have seen many survey type polls which attempt to rate your individual preferences along the lines of the candidates, but this one does about as good of a job as any that I have seen.

For what it is worth, Ron Paul followed by Huckabee and Giuliani are the closest to my preferences and Bill Richardson is my leader among Democrats followed by Gravel.

[theexorcist]

Moderators:

Please save everyone a lot of time and lock this thread now.

[theexorcist]

Ok, slightly less glib.

Nothing on terrorism. Not one question.

Morons.

[hifigator]

exorcist has joined the list of malcontents who offer up criticism for absolutely no reason.


As for the content of the questions, I agree that there were certainly issues that were not addressed and the one you mention is certainly a very important one. But with regards to the test, I think it does a decent job of balancing the different issues together to formulate one similarities. My main criticisms of it were that in many cases multiple answers were acceptable. For instance on the tax code, scrapping it and starting over was one option. Eliminating the income tax and replacing it with the Flat tax was another option as was the Fair Tax proposal. Both of those would be covered under scrapping and starting over, but you would be grouped differently.

I did like the way different weighting of the issues change who is politically closest to you.

[EasyEd]

This test is of no use to someone like me who will never, ever vote for someone who is pro-abortion (I know, they say pro-choice which is another way of saying one is in favor of allowing the mother to kill her baby). This is a harsh statement and is meant to be. The test does not even have a question on this matter.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

ed said:

This test is of no use to someone like me who will never, ever vote for someone who is pro-abortion (I know, they say pro-choice which is another way of saying one is in favor of allowing the mother to kill her baby). This is a harsh statement and is meant to be. The test does not even have a question on this matter.

Oh so you're the one that's been naming all those federal judges ...


I refuse to recognize any test that tells me I should vote for Mike Gravel.

[Bando]

Yeah, I'm being told to vote for Dennis Kucinich. Whom I abhor.

[hoyatables]

I was told to vote for Huckabee.

[hifigator]

ed said:

This test is of no use to someone like me who will never, ever vote for someone who is pro-abortion (I know, they say pro-choice which is another way of saying one is in favor of allowing the mother to kill her baby). This is a harsh statement and is meant to be. The test does not even have a question on this matter.

ed, You and I are not far apart morally on the abortion issue, although we have slightly different political views. In any case, I think that taking any single issue and using an ultimatum like approach where you say flat out that you will not vote for a candidate on the opposite side of any issue is unwise at the least. Now I understand some people place certain issues above all else, and certainly abortion is one of those litmus test issues, but I just do not think such a narrow minded view is wise. Ultimately we will have to choose between two candidates when all is said and done. I would love to be at the point where a 3rd party candidate has a legitimate shot, but as for now that is not the case. So if the Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate, Rudy Giuliani for example, then I think it is silly to not vote for him over Hillary for example because of the abortion issue. Personally, I think voting for Hillary is silly regardless, but I understand others have different views. I just hope that there aren't too many out there who have your same view. If so, we are likely in for a long 4 or 8 years coming up.

As for the test, it is certainly not comprehensive. Terrorism and abortion are certainly two hot topics that aren't addressed at all. It still does a decent job of molding and blending assorted issues together and formulating a relatively unbiased average to compare the candidates to our individual views. That is why I was a bit surprised to see that Ron Paul is closest to me. In all honesty, even though he is really a Libertarian as am I, I think of him as somewhat of a kook. His just pack up and leave Iraq view is idiotic for example and he makes that the major focus of his platform. But I guess if you can get past that hurdle, the rest of what he has to say is fairly sound.

[TBird41]

hifigator said:

ed said:

This test is of no use to someone like me who will never, ever vote for someone who is pro-abortion (I know, they say pro-choice which is another way of saying one is in favor of allowing the mother to kill her baby). This is a harsh statement and is meant to be. The test does not even have a question on this matter.

ed, You and I are not far apart morally on the abortion issue, although we have slightly different political views. In any case, I think that taking any single issue and using an ultimatum like approach where you say flat out that you will not vote for a candidate on the opposite side of any issue is unwise at the least. Now I understand some people place certain issues above all else, and certainly abortion is one of those litmus test issues, but I just do not think such a narrow minded view is wise. Ultimately we will have to choose between two candidates when all is said and done. I would love to be at the point where a 3rd party candidate has a legitimate shot, but as for now that is not the case. So if the Republicans nominate a pro-choice candidate, Rudy Giuliani for example, then I think it is silly to not vote for him over Hillary for example because of the abortion issue. Personally, I think voting for Hillary is silly regardless, but I understand others have different views. I just hope that there aren't too many out there who have your same view. If so, we are likely in for a long 4 or 8 years coming up.

You realize that if Ed refuses to vote for any "pro abortion" candidate it means that he would also refuse to vote for Hillary in your asinine scenario, right?

No?

Well then...

[nodak89]

Joe Biden.

That's about as good as the #1 song on my birthday, "Windy"

[jerseyhoya34]

This survey didn't really end up conveying my preferences. I ended up with Clinton, Edwards, and Obama in that order with Fred Thompson being the highest ranked Republican.

The Iowa caucuses are really sneaking up on me. This condensed calendar might mean that we have our candidates by Presidents Day and then 9 months to get tired of them.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

jerseyhoya34 said:

This survey didn't really end up conveying my preferences. I ended up with Clinton, Edwards, and Obama in that order with Fred Thompson being the most highly ranked Republican.

The Iowa caucuses are really sneaking up on me. This condensed calendar might mean that we have our candidates by Presidents Day and then 9 months to get tired of them.

It could also mean 2 other things:

1) A convincing win by a candidate for either party in the caucuses dictates the election - no room to recover in New Hampshire and South Carolina, like Bush did in 2000 (in South Carolina).

2) Candidates that have good name recognition and appeal in states with a lot of votes at the convention - such as Hillary and Guliani in New York, Florida, and California don't have to be as concerned about a loss in one of the first three primaries. The only modern Presidential candidate to lose both New Hampshire and Iowa and go on to get the nomination was Bill Clinton - it may happen again.

[jerseyhoya34]

Good points, SPH. Hard to predict whether and how those factors will come into play and their potential effects.

On point 1, this is obviously the "Kerry Model" if we're looking to recent history. "Convincing" is not necessarily a pure numbers game as much as it is a game with how one was expected to perform. Although Tsongas won Iowa in 1992, one could argue that Clinton got more out of it because he, to a greater degree, outperformed expectations.

Point 2 is a "realist's" perspective, and the real question being whether the "establishment" types (like Clinton) could take "Super Tuesday" or whatever they're calling it this year having lost Iowa/New Hampshire. I don't think the establishment is firmly committed in either party right now, which should make this exciting.

Right now, I think it is clear that Obama and Huckabee are in the best position in their respective parties in advance of Iowa.

To play weatherman for a minute, I think Huckabee will win Iowa for the Republicans, but things will probably even out with Romney after NH. Probably a 2 man fight by Super Tuesday with Giuliani on the fringes. I see Romney possibly winning the nomination in that scenario, although I expect some money to chase Huckabee after Iowa.

As for the Democrats, I simply have no idea other than to see it as an Obama/Clinton fight right now with Edwards almost being out of it. (This may be a dangerous statement considering how Edwards outperformed in Iowa in 2004).

Anyway, my $.02, which may be worth just that.

[strummer8526]

1. Tancredo
2. Dodd
3. Huckabee

Does this make any sense?

[jerseyhoya34]

strummer85 said:

1. Tancredo
2. Dodd
3. Huckabee

Does this make any sense?

Not unless hifi works for USA Today.

[theexorcist]

Hifi:

Really, it's not always about you. I requested that this get locked because it's probably going to turn really ugly by page 3.

SPH:

There hasn't been much of a focus on Edwards (let's see - first potential female nominee versus first potential African-American nominee versus first potential nominee who kind of looks like John Ritter). Edwards' constituency seems to be the passionate wing of the Democratic party - if something really bad happens that gets a lot of people mad, Edwards may be able to capitalize.

The comments that I've heard via the Post and other political web sites have been that Huckabee has been conceded Iowa. Romney has been conceded NH (though Giuliani has a chance to pull an upset). For now, it's all about managing expectations. So a big Huckabee win in Iowa doesn't mean much. A Huckabee loss in Iowa is pretty devastating (Romney or Giuliani not doing well in NH probably zaps them, too). If you can't deliver what you say you can, your money dries up really fast.

Fair disclosure - I favor Giuliani. However, I think that making him the spoiler probably doesn't give him enough credit - it seems like there's a scandal or two waiting for Huckabee and no one's buying Romney's positioning of himself as the presumptive nominee. Romney (and Fred Thompson) also doesn't really have a strong personality. I say John McCain, you think of certain things (restore integrity). I say Huckabee, you think of certain things (compassionate conservatism). I say Romney, and I think of two things - he's Mormon, and he can win because he was a governor of a solid blue state.

The exciting thing about this election is that both sides have compelling candidates who, at least now, offer more than a generic Republican or Democratic personality. Romney suffers mightily in this regard.

[jerseyhoya34]

On a slightly different topic, it is fascinating to see the foreign policy debate, embodied by policy advisers, developing between the "top" candidates for the Democratic nomination. Interesting also how this divide extends to Georgetown's SFS ranks.

online.wsj.com/article/SB118895877299317784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

In what can best be described as Clinton III, Hillary has the Sandy Bergers, Richard Holbrookes, and Madeleine Albrights. I'm not sure that this is the kind of "experience" one wants, but, then again, few key players in foreign policy have been successes over the past 15 years.

Obama has Tony Lake and a group of mid-level advisors from the Bill Clinton years. Ivo Daalder is there too, and he has put out some good work since the Clinton years.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Fair disclosure, as well: I can't stand Edwards.

His message is so confused. Working class people are heroes and he's far from working class. He's an economic populist that lives in a mansion. That's a confusion that's hard to overcome.


The problem with Huckabee is that its very hard for him to do better than right now and there are three weeks to the caucuses. He also has very little money compared to Romney, Guliani, etc. In Iowa money = ground game, ground game = committed people. You need committed people because people aren't just going to the polls for 30 minutes (at the most) because Iowa caucuses. Secondly, Huckabee need to win by more than the current margin or else he won't have momentum that lasts through New Hampshire - and the list of candidates that just won Iowa is a long one - precisely because its hard to keep momentum when you don't have cash and don't win as big as you were expected to.

On the other hand, someone like Edwards could benefit from that "Kerry" plan. However, it needs to be much more than was expected - a come-from-behind win by McCain in 2000 in New Hampshire translated to a 24% shift in the polls in South Carolina in under 24 hours. That's what candidates like Huckabee and Edwards both need - a huge translation from a win into the polls in other states - because if New York, California and Florida don't budge the primary is still over.

[The Stig]

I have a feeling that Hillary will take a big dive if she doesn't win in Iowa. Most of the people I talk politics with are on the left of the political spectrum, but I've yet to find one person who's actually excited about Hillary. The way I see it she's sort of the default candidate for the Dems - people support her because they think she's going to win. But as soon as that presumption of victory goes away, I think Democrats will leave her in droves. Edwards may be one of the main beneficiaries if he does well in Iowa.

The candidate I've seen the most excitement about is Obama. I haven't sensed a whole lot of excitement for Edwards, although that's probably because I always seem to be in the company of doctors.