You have my word that I didn’t manipulate any of the results. That’s one reason I think it’s a pretty decent tool. Ron Paul is the only candidate worth more than a bucket of warm spit, in my opinion. In other words, the tool validates the conclusion I’d already arrived at.
After viewing the results of others, though, I find myself wondering how in the world Guliani is a serious candidate. Nobody likes him.
I didn’t necessarily mean for everyone to post their own results, but since you all are, I will too.
Romney 48
No Child Left Behind
Tancredo 40
Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Iraq Troop Surge, Minimum Wage Increase
Hunter 40
No Child Left Behind, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Minimum Wage Increase
Huckabee 33
No Child Left Behind, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals
Cox 29
Death Penalty, Minimum Wage Increase
Giuliani 22
Abortion Rights, Embryonic Stem Cells, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Civil Union, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban
McCain 20
No Child Left Behind, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Assault Weapons Ban, Guantanamo, Torture, Wiretapping, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban
Brownback 19
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Wiretapping, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal, Minimum Wage Increase
Thompson 15
Embryonic Stem Cells, Minimum Wage Increase
Paul -8
Biden -9
Richardson -11
Edwards -13
Obama -14
Clinton -14
Dodd -15
Kucinich -44
Gravel -44
The issue I haven’t heard mentioned and I think is one of the most important is controlling spending. Not sure how you word that but I’d like to see some of these candidates address the federal deficit and their plan to create a budget surplus.
I fully understand what eaxh item was addressing. But this is exactly the type of vague questioning that lets pollsters manipulate results.
Here’s an easy one, that the gun grabbers use all the time: “Guns - Background Checks”. Now, I think there should be a criminal background check when purchasing a handgun. BUT, I am very pro-2nd. If I checked “support” for this issue, it could be construed that I support gun-control. You get the idea.
Of course other issues, like “Border Fence”, were too narrow.
How about some more important issues like taxation, wellfare, trade deficits, unions, line-item-veto,…
just sayin’…
The issue I haven’t heard mentioned and I think is one of the most important is controlling spending. \
I agree, but unfortunately the issue that they did not cover that makes the biggest difference, is what religion are you, how strong is your faith, and will you set policy according to that faith… That gets you about 25% to 30% of the vote right there, if you answer it correctly… Just for once, I’d like to have an election where religion isn’t a factor. Maybe if I get old enough, and the masses get smart enough…
It a fun quiz, but as has been shown over and over, people will vote against their own interests, based on a hot button religous issue…Otherwise, it’s looks like a lanslide for Kucinich…
**Otherwise, it’s looks like a lanslide for Kucinich… **
Apparently, liberals aren’t much better at math than I am . . .
Monty, which candidate do you honestly think would do the most to control spending?
Would you vote for him?
Monty, which candidate do you honestly think would do the most to control spending?
Would you vote for him? \
Bill Clinton and his Republican congress, and yes, I would vote for that scenario again. Unfortunately, the Republicans as a group have abondened their long held belief of controlled spending, and the Democrats have never been known to adhere to a strict budget…At this point, I believe that the New York govenor, (not Guliani either) would be the best canditate for trying to reach a balanced budget, not sure if he is going to run though…I do believe I would vote for him, as long as it wasn’t close here in CA. A symbolic vote, but if it was close, I will vote against the religious right canditate every time. Nothing they have done lately meets any of my interests politically. It didn’t used to be that way, but it seems to be now. I voted Republican in tha last election here for Govenor, but religion and it’s agenda, was not at issue…
At this point, I believe that the New York govenor, (not Guliani either) would be the best canditate for trying to reach a balanced budget, not sure if he is going to run though
No, monty, I meant, of the candidates on our list in this thread, which one do you honestly think would control spending the best?
The answer is Ron Paul. Would you vote for him? I doubt it.
**I will vote against the religious right canditate every time. Nothing they have done lately meets any of my interests politically. **
That’s fine, you can vote for or against whoever you want and for whatever reason. But maybe, then, you should refrain from criticizing people who vote *for *the religious right candidate, and maybe you ought not condescend to tell them that they’re actually voting against their own interests.
But maybe, then, you should refrain from criticizing people who vote *for *the religious right candidate, and maybe you ought not condescend to tell them that they’re actually voting against their own interests. \\
I’m not talking about the religous right, when they vote because of religion, they are voting their interests…I’m talking about the poor, African and Hispanic Americans, and other groups that are not especially benifited by the Republican agenda. They get off their butts to vote on let’s say, the gay marrige issue, without any other considerations… The political pundits on both sides, have been lavishing all kinds of praise on Carl Rove, for duping people into voting against their interests on hot button issues…Quite brillant actually, but you can deny it all you want…
Good grief. That post deserves to be demolished point by point, but I can’t muster the interest. I just love how you think it’s a shame that people of color don’t vote what you consider to be their real interests, while at the same time admitting, without a hint of irony, that you don’t vote your interests yourself.
I’ll just say that you seem to think that Hispanic and black voters have different interests than voters like yourself, and that their interests are best served by the Democrats. How’s that been working out for them over the past couple of decades?
that you don’t vote your interests yourself. \
WHo said I don’t vote my interests??? WHat I said was, at this time, my interests are in direct opposition to the religious rights, but it hasn’t always been that way. SO I will vote my interest… I’m also not putting everybody from a certain race into one category. I’m using generalizations that have been popular over our recent history… I think Hispanics and Blacks(in general once again) have done quite well under the Democrats. They didn’t call Bill CLinton the first black president for nothing…
I am reasonably up on things, but have no idea who “Gravel” is?? He was my number 2 behind Kucinich
“Gravel” was #1 for me. Who the fuck is Gravel?
WHo said I don’t vote my interests??? WHat I said was, at this time, my interests are in direct opposition to the religious rights, but it hasn’t always been that way.
What you said was that you’d vote against the religious right candidate every time, if I recall. You also said that you think controlling spending is one of the most important issues, and yet, I have not seen that it plays much of a role in determining your vote.
I think Hispanics and Blacks(in general once again) have done quite well under the Democrats.
Do tell.
The question is a non-starter in my view. Any examination of any depth reveals that the candidates are “selected” and not “elected.” Hillary was anointed a long time ago. If there is still a USA and not a North American Union with a parliament and prime minister, GHWB will have been the de facto ruler for 36 years (if he lives that long).
The Republicans are running dead horses except for Ron Paul, whom they don’t even want representing their party because he reminds them of how miserably they have sold out their core values of liberty and constitutional government in favor of global corporate welfare resulting in high-tech neo-feudalism.