How well do your views match the Candidates?

[hoyainspirit]

Similar to the poll in the thread started by hifi in Dec. Do your views match those of your candidate?

www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

[SFOHoya]

Well that didn't help. Both Obama and Hillary ended up with the same score. I answered 14 questions and am equally confused.

[MassHoya]

The last few days, I have been leaning to Obama, but the poll says I should support Hillary (46-43). Like SFO I am confused, again.

[hoyainspirit]

I came out Hillary, but will..."Barack the vote!"

[The Stig]

Same here. I think this poll just shows how close Barack and Hillary are in policy. The only real differences between the two are in their personal qualities.

I support Obama right now, but if Hillary were to win it all with Obama as her VP I'd be happy. The thing that worries me about Hillary isn't what she'd do when she's in office, it's how she'd run her campaign. I think that nominating Hillary would open the door for the Republicans in a big way.

[jerseyhoya34]

Feb 3, 2008 6:17:05 GMT -5 SFOHoya said:

Well that didn't help. Both Obama and Hillary ended up with the same score. I answered 14 questions and am equally confused.

They ended up with the same score in my results, which do not come close to reflecting what I think about the two right now.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

I tied on Obama and Clinton with 66 each. Good thing I'm a registered independent and don't have to choose.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

I repeat that anything that tells me to vote for Gravel has no credibility.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

hahahaha. well put, stpete.

[EasyEd]

I think the fact that almost all who stated their preferences above were for the Democratic candidates says a little bit about the makeup of this board. Am I the lone voice crying in the wilderness or are others afraid to say who they prefer. My scores said Romney then McCain, then Huckabee which is very close to my actual preferences. Thompson was my original preferred candidate and Rudy the farthest from my preference.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

you're not alone ed - aren't boz, bubbrubb, hifi, and others in your camp?

also, funny that you mention the wilderness: is that the same wilderness that most liberals want to protect?

[theexorcist]

These polls annoy me. There's still no question on terrorism, which drives me nuts. The Iraq question is a horrible one.

The other thing that annoys me is that this is bufet politics. Weigh a little bit of abortion rights, a little bit of Iraq, a little bit of stem cell research, go heavy on the soy sauce, and you've got your candidate.

How would Obama govern? How would Hillary govern? How would Romney govern?

In the next four years, a crisis will happen. No one knows where it will be. It may involve the economy, terrorism, or a foreign policy decision. Lives will hang in the balance. The United States will need to respond. In history texts thirty years from now, support for stem cell research won't matter, but the crisis will.

Will they choose riskier options rather than safer ones, ready to face the consequences? Will they favor consensus over earlier action? This is what matters.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

i agree with you exorcist. the way the questions and answer choices are worded take a lot of the complexity out of the issues (or miss them altogether). i tended to take the "bar exam" view of "best answer available," but felt unsatisfied with the choices nonetheless.

i also agree with your larger point about governance and think it's something that the media and most americans overlook. i think the main difference between many of the candidates is how they would govern (especially clinton and obama, who agree on many issues but differ wildly on process and style).

[SFHoya99]

I got Obama, Clinton and Mike Gravel tied. None of them particularly high.

It's not even close to a perfect test or even a good one. But at least it is issue driven rather than campaign slurs.

[AustinHoya03]

Feb 4, 2008 15:00:04 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

These polls annoy me. There's still no question on terrorism, which drives me nuts. The Iraq question is a horrible one.

The other thing that annoys me is that this is bufet politics. Weigh a little bit of abortion rights, a little bit of Iraq, a little bit of stem cell research, go heavy on the soy sauce, and you've got your candidate.

How would Obama govern? How would Hillary govern? How would Romney govern?

In the next four years, a crisis will happen. No one knows where it will be. It may involve the economy, terrorism, or a foreign policy decision. Lives will hang in the balance. The United States will need to respond. In history texts thirty years from now, support for stem cell research won't matter, but the crisis will.

Will they choose riskier options rather than safer ones, ready to face the consequences? Will they favor consensus over earlier action? This is what matters.

Yeah, whenever I take these surveys, I end up matched with a Democratic candidate because of my views on social issues (abortion, capital punishment, etc.), even if I rank those issues as unimportant. Really, outside of possibly being an indicator of who a President might appoint to the Supreme Court, those issues have no bearing at all on who I will vote for.

I am not thrilled by any candidate, and I may still swing to the Dems, but if the election were tomorrow I'd vote for McCain because I tend to agree more with his views on foreign policy, free trade and the economy than those of Obama/Hillary.

[hoyarooter]

Feb 4, 2008 12:31:10 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

I tied on Obama and Clinton with 66 each. Good thing I'm a registered independent and don't have to choose.

I also tied on Obama and Clinton, but with 34, which was my high score. Maybe that indicates why I don't like anyone very much.

Score on McCain was 10. Eek!

[Boz]

Feb 4, 2008 14:39:24 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

you're not alone ed - aren't boz, bubbrubb, hifi, and others in your camp?

also, funny that you mention the wilderness: is that the same wilderness that most liberals want to protect?

I didn't take this quiz initially, mainly for the reasons exorcist describes, and also because I already know who I support.

But if it makes ed feel any better, I went through it and Hillary got a 4.

Sounds about right to me, maybe a little high for her.

On the Republican side, Romney & McCain scored highest & pretty close to each other.

[hifigator]

Thanks for the link Spirit. That was an interesting test. I haven't gone back and rerated importance to see how that might effect the outcome. I will do that when I have more time. Don't worry easyed, you aren't the only right winger here. For the record I came out with Huckabee and McCain tied, slightly ahead of Romney. Surprisingly, Obama was easily the closest democrat, actually scoring higher than Ron Paul for me. The oddity is that Gravel was dead last. On similar other tests, it was always either Gravel or Bill Richardson that scored closest to me, with Hillary and Obama much further away.

I think much of it has to do with how the questions are worded. And in some cases, the wording simply isn't clear enough and it was hard to not end up influencing my selection with who I would be "matching," so to speak. I tried really hard not to do that though.


I did think that some of the questions were very straight forward. I do support the death penalty in certain cases. That was how it was worded, so I had no problem. But I could see that causing some ambiguity.

I do favor stronger teacher evaluations and I am in favor of recognizing and rewarding those teachers who do a better job. Yes, I do think there is a direct corellation between better teachers and better student success. But I understand that arriving at the perfect system is next to impossible. But from an ideological standpoint, I like the idea so the question was simple.

I favor making the tax cuts permanent. They succeeded in forestalling the Clinton-Gore recession, at least for the time being. BUT, unless we curb spending, then all we have effectively done is delay some issues. But as far as the question taken on its own is concerned, it was a relatively easy decision.

Stem-Cell and abortion are areas that I likely parted company from some of my fellow conservatives. As for stem-cell research, I am strongly in favor. The problem arises from the question of federal funding and exactly where the cells come from. I am not in favor of federally funded abortion at all. But, given we have abortions, then I am in favor of federal funding for stem cell research. The potential societal benefits are tremendous. Given the way the question was worded, I voted in favor of stem-cell reasearch. As for abortion, even though I think abortion is wrong and does take a life, I still cannot hold to the strictest view of life at conception. Using that logic the morning after pill would be murder. I just can't go to that extreme. My view personally is that the so-called partial-birth abortion should be illegal. Beyond that, I think we need to encourage adoption as a viable option. There are so many good parents out there who would welcom a new child. If the issue comes down to it, I would like to see the federal funding going to maternity and prenatal care. In any case, as the question was worded, I couldn't side with it. That is to say I am not in favor of a blanket ammendment illegalizing any and all abortions. Given the wording, I parted company with many of my fellow consevatives.


Then there were some questions that were simply too vague. The gun control issue for example -- the question was do I favor a federal action regulating or limiting individuals gun ownership" No, not really, but with such an open ended question I think there is way too much wiggle room. I enjoy my guns as much as the next guy and I admit that even though firing one might be the rush of a lifetime, none of us needs a bazooka for example. Similarly, the assault rifles that have zero legitimate use other than sheer entertainment are very tough to justify. I still think that guns don't kill people, people do. But I think it reasonable to understand that at some point there should be a line drawn. So the wording of this question was very diffictult.

Similary, the marriage issue was a toughie. I personally don't care what two individuals want to do in private. Should society recognize it as a "marriage" however? That is tough. ON one hand, I realize that there are incentives put in place specifically for traditional two parent homes raising children. Once again I see the societal benefits of such incentives. I don't think that special incentives to assist those raising a family should be given to non-traditional couples. But I do think that it is very reasonable to recognize homosexual couples. As it is now, if a couple is together for 20 years and then one passes away, then without a will the State will generally not recognize the surviving partner at all. I think that is wrong.

Lastly, the Iraq question was horrible, but I know why they worded it the way they did. They wanted to tie each of us down to a specific view. I think a gradual draw-down of troops is a very reasonable goal. I also think Iraq becoming independent, self-supporting and capable of defending itself is of grave importance. But there really was no such answer. I do think that we need to not waste all the efforts, both in lives as well as monetarily, by leaving too soon. That would be utter chaos and would serve to do nothing but create regional areas ruled by the sword. I don't think that is in anyone's interests.

Lastly, there should certainly have been a question or two on terrorism in general.

But all in all, I enjoyed the test.

Thoughts?