PDA

View Full Version : Which Presidential candidate Best reflects your issues?



Rajiv
08-08-07, 11:06 PM
Came across a good web site - very useful for matching your issues to candidates.

First go to http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ and make your preferences known.

You can look at how everybody else who has taken the tests does in terms of candidates that most closely reflect their views.
http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

You can also go to the website of the person who did this
http://www.mattwaterman.net/comments.php?y=07&m=07&entry=entry070724-013624

You will find the results interesting.

As an aside, the pages were developed by a marine who is a high school graduate, and posted in Afghanistan.

Tet
08-08-07, 11:49 PM
Came across a good web site - very useful for matching your issues to candidates.

First go to http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ and make your preferences known.

Paul and Gravel both came up as candidates that agree with me.

WDCRob
08-09-07, 10:44 AM
Good fun. All except the Kucinich result.

Kucinich 63
Gravel 50
Clinton 41
Obama 41
Biden 41
Edwards 40
Dodd 37
Richardson 34
Paul 24

McCain -12
Cox -18
Thompson -22
Brownback -30
Giuliani -31
Huckabee -35
Tancredo -48
Romney -55
Hunter -60

Jim Nickerson
08-09-07, 10:48 AM
Good fun. All except the Kucinich result.

Kucinich 63
Gravel 50
Clinton 41
Obama 41
Biden 41
Edwards 40
Dodd 37
Richardson 34
Paul 24

McCain -12
Cox -18
Thompson -22
Brownback -30
Giuliani -31
Huckabee -35
Tancredo -48
Romney -55
Hunter -60

I guess you consider yourself a "reasonable" person, and perhaps your coming up with Kucinich as the candidate most approximating your perspective suggests how far all the others are away from "reason." Fer shure, he ain't gonna win, so where will that leave you?

WDCRob
08-09-07, 10:58 AM
Well, I'd never vote based just on a candidate's stance on the issues. The role is at least 50% figurehead, and Kucinich fails that test miserably.

You can have nutty beliefs (witness the current occupant), but you can't present them nuttily.

Jim Nickerson
08-09-07, 11:08 AM
Well, I'd never vote based just on a candidate's stance on the issues. The role is at least 50% figurehead, and Kucinich fails that test miserably.

You can have nutty beliefs (witness the current occupant), but you can't present them nuttily.

Are you being cynical here, or real? Shit, if you aren't going to select a candidate based on issues, what criterion is useful?

As I see the fact, all the jaybirds lie so who's to know what they will do once elected despite what they said to get elected.

Rajiv
08-09-07, 11:18 AM
Tell Me who is more credible? look at the two videos below

How to create an Angry American (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ)

and then this

Kucinich grills Rumsfeld on Tillman coverup (http://youtube.com/watch?v=FEpoNdOF1Zw)

You might also be interested in Studs Terkel's take (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020506/terkel) on Kucinich in 2002

WDCRob
08-09-07, 12:07 PM
I'm not nearly as cynical about candidates/people as you are Jim. I think for the most part Presidents attempt to do what they said they were going to try and do.

Most Presidents will eventually be faced with something critical and unexpected that requires them to be flexible, persuasive and make good decisions. I generally don't think those skills are captured in a 20-page policy paper or a 10-point plan for issue X. Which, IMO, is why both Kerry and Gore lost to Bush.

zoog
08-09-07, 12:19 PM
As I see the fact, all the jaybirds lie so who's to know what they will do once elected despite what they said to get elected.

Truly.

These websites are helpful in showing you how well the candidates match your views on some major issues, but there are always aspects of some platforms that are ignored. For example, Ron Paul's talk about getting rid of the Federal Reserve, etc. So I'm not sure this gives anyone a complete picture. This also does not give you a sense of their charisma and leadership abilities, if any. It's one thing to talk about an issue, it's another to be able to act upon that talk.

Is this a scale of 0-100? If so, everyone failed in my results.:( Just like the last election. There are no winners in a game of losers.

Rajiv
08-09-07, 12:32 PM
Truly.
Is this a scale of 0-100? If so, everyone failed in my results.:( Just like the last election. There are no winners in a game of losers.

It is a relative measure, and depends upon how strongly you felt about each issue. The Methodology from the web site -


Here's how it works, if you want to know. If you agree with a candidate, he gets point(s). If you disagree, take point(s) away. Unkown/other results in no points. The number of points given or taken depends on the weight you set. "Meh" is worth 1 point, "important" 2, and "key" is worth 5. The items you disagree about will be listed directly underneath each candidate (if they score greater than zero)

Since there were 25 questions, the maximum score -- if you thought that all 25 issues were key issues for you -- would be 125 and the minimum -125

Andreuccio
08-09-07, 12:51 PM
Kucinich 49
Gravel 48
Obama 30
Richardson 24
Clinton 23
Biden 23
Edwards 23
Dodd 20
Paul 18


McCain -14
Cox -15
Brownback -20
Thompson -20
Giuliani -25
Huckabee -27
Tancredo -43
Hunter -51
Romney -53


If we can get enough people to take this test, it may be what Kucinich needs to make that final push into the second tier of candidates. ;)

I had never considered him before at all, but now I feel I at least need to give him a look. And who is Gravel, anyway? Are my views that far out of the mainstream that I myself haven't even heard of the candidates who espouse them?

zoog
08-09-07, 12:52 PM
Ah I see. Math is hard.:D

WDCRob
08-09-07, 01:47 PM
Are my views that far out of the mainstream that I myself haven't even heard of the candidates who espouse them?

If you're relatively well-informed and sane, it's possible..

Jim Nickerson
08-09-07, 02:25 PM
If you're relatively well-informed and sane, it's possible..

One good quotation I have learned on iTulip is in effect, "If you don't read the newspapers, you are uninformed; if you do, you are misinformed." Mark Twain as I recall.

Personally I am uninformed, and questionably sane, but nevertheless, I'd like to put forth on this thread a question:

Who are the three candidates most likely to be in the running for the Democratic and Republican nominations?

If there is enough response for me to gather who those six are, then it seems interesting to me to put up a poll and ask iTulipers who will end up getting the nominations? Not a poll of who would individuals like to see as candidates, but when all the BS reality of politics filter them out, who will be the two dudes or dudette opposing one another.

My pisspoor opinions D's: Clinton, Edwards, Obama. R's Giuliani, Romney, McCain

WDCRob
08-09-07, 03:44 PM
McCain is toast -- his campaign has completely imploded. Substitute Thompson.

Rajiv
08-09-07, 06:54 PM
Your views are quite Mainstream -- if you talk to other people. However, they are not mainstream for mainstream media -- according to them you are a lunatic Liberal.

And yes, if we start thinking for ourselves, and value our own opinions and ideals, then we can get somebody sane into power.

Something as simple as a web survey, matching views to candidate positions, has opened up many eyes -- many people are reconsidering what they value - and hence who they may vote for.

As for this particular website, it was an eye opener for its creator as well -- a high school graduate, US Marine, stationed in Afghanistan, who was not a Kucinich supporter, but is now considering him. The latest figures from the website are below:

http://dehp.net/candidate/candi_graph2.jpg

Over 57.5% of people completing this survey have a Kucinich match in first place. And this is from both Republican and Democratic candidates. So which candidate is most mainstream?

I have surveyed many blogs - right wing and left wing -- and all attest to the relative accuracy of the matches.

Below is the video of a speech given in February of 2002 -- that led many to ask that Kucinich throw his hat into the Presidential ring.

<embed src='http://us.i1.yimg.com/cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/player/media/swf/FLVVideoSolo.swf' flashvars='id=704204&emailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Futil%2Fmai l%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26vid%3D120805&imUrl=http%253A%252F%252Fvideo.yahoo.com%252Fvideo %252Fplay%253Fei%253DUTF-8%2526vid%253D120805&imTitle=Prayer%2Bfor%2BAmerica&searchUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/search/video?p=&profileUrl=http://video.yahoo.com/video/profile?yid=&creatorValue=Y2hhZGVseTI%3D&vid=120805' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='425' height='350'></embed>

The text of the speech - A Prayer for America (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0226-09.htm)

Finster
08-09-07, 06:54 PM
A skeptic going in, but it worked perfectly for me. Handed me Paul and Tancredo, already my dream ticket.

Rajiv
08-09-07, 11:48 PM
For context, here is an article on Pat Tillman's death by Stan Goff, a retired Delta Force/special ops soldier - The Fog of Fame: Pat Tillman as everyone’s political football (http://www.insurgentamerican.net/2007/08/05/the-fog-of-fame-pat-tillman-as-everyones-political-football/)


The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ought to be renamed: The House Groveling and Gratitude Committee. Oh thank you thank you thank you Lord Rumsfeld for gracing us with your presence; we shall do what we might to give the appearance of interrogating you while we deflect these troublesome Tillman people.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) at least tried to get at one aspect of this case, but his time expired and he never got an answer nor the opportunity to follow up. The other members pretended he wasn’t there (just as the press pretends he is not running in the Presidential primaries). Nothing embarrasses most of these elected officials like someone who asks, “What is that smell?”

This is the segway into the actual events that Congressional staffers and their bosses avoid like typhoid.

This also goes to explain why the Mainstream Media is scared stiff of Kucinich - and tries to marginalize him

Pervilis Spurius
08-10-07, 04:59 PM
Too late, I've already joined the 57

Rajiv
08-10-07, 06:26 PM
At least there is 58 where you are!

metalman
08-12-07, 12:20 AM
A skeptic going in, but it worked perfectly for me. Handed me Paul and Tancredo, already my dream ticket.

huh. i got this guy. must have my browser set up wrong or something...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Tet
08-12-07, 12:37 AM
huh. i got this guy. must have my browser set up wrong or something...


You didn't buy HAL once Cheney won the selection? Had you done so I think you'd have a different view of shotgun Dickster. HAL was a $6 POS in 2002 and a $33 POS today, paying a 1.1% dividend. Now let's not start counting up the dead bodies to see how that was accomplished. Remember Saddam was a very, very bad man and even though he had nothing to do with 9-11 the Federal Reserve said he had it coming.

Rajiv
08-12-07, 01:02 AM
I think there was a time warp involved somewhere. But seriously did you try the survey?

c1ue
08-12-07, 03:54 AM
I guess I'm apathetic - I go from +14 to -7.

However, this highlights the key problems with this survey:

1) Not all issues are equal impact. While you can weight a particular issue Key, Important, or don't care, the reality is that most people have 1 or 2 specific issues they care about above all, the rest being tiebreakers.

2) I don't see any category for charisma, electability, home state, or character. For that matter height!

These have been shown to impact candidate's chances irrespective of their platform.

For example, H.Clinton is someone I'm pretty sure even if elected, actual potshots would be taken at her.

This has nothing to do with her platform now, but plenty to do with her past (and husband).

Interesting to see, but ultimately this survey highlights those candidates who try to be all things to all people, but who will always lose in the end against the candidate sharply focused on what people think they really care about.

zenith191
05-19-08, 03:43 PM
Ron Paul ...............................

zmas28
05-19-08, 10:43 PM
70 Kucinich
54 Clinton
51 Edwards
49 Dodd
45 Biden
44 Gravel
41 Obama
39 Richardson
-8 Paul
-12 McCain
-18 T. Thompson
-23 Giuliani
-29 Cox
-33 Brownback
-35 Huckabee
-46 Romney
-64 Hunter
-67 Tancredo