When I originally tried this on the bus, I didn't answer all the optional questions and I couldn't choose some of the more subtle variations of other. This is what I got: 95% Jill Stein 87% Obama, Anderson 70%, 25% Paul, 19% Romney
Curious that when I answered all the questions that Paul seems to have disappeared, my support for Obama stayed the same but my support for Stein and Anderson dropped and my support for Romney dropped even further. Also, I'm a Canuckistanian who gets most of his political news from John Stewart.
I did this from CRZ's Tumblr and closed it because I thought I had nowhere to put it (I hadn't seen this thread), but I wound up with 97% Jill Stein, 94% Obama, and 1% Romney. I am a dirty, dirty hippy.
The Big Bossman raised the briefcase.
Go Pack Go! Owner of one (1) share. Let's Go Riders! Owner of one (1) share. (3-5, 4th West Division.)
So only 6 of the 22 people who have responded here ended up with one of the candidates who can actually win the election as their best match. Our political system sucks.
Originally posted by Mr. BoffoSo only 6 of the 22 people who have responded here ended up with one of the candidates who can actually win the election as their best match. Our political system sucks.
Our political system will suck less when the 16 people vote with their most compatible candidate and prove that we have more candidates who can actually win the election than you are implying. I think that's one of the points of this project.
Originally posted by Mr. BoffoSo only 6 of the 22 people who have responded here ended up with one of the candidates who can actually win the election as their best match. Our political system sucks.
Our political system will suck less when the 16 people vote with their most compatible candidate and prove that we have more candidates who can actually win the election than you are implying. I think that's one of the points of this project.
I actually agree with you. I voted for candidates from four or five different political parties in 2008, and I think people are doing the country a disservice when they vote for the lesser of two evils, but clearly we must be in the minority.
Originally posted by CRZOur political system will suck less when the 16 people vote with their most compatible candidate and prove that we have more candidates who can actually win the election than you are implying. I think that's one of the points of this project.
When did you become an idealist?
If I had any conviction at all that merely *voting* for a 3rd party candidate was enough, I'd be all over that. Realistically, I think there's no way in Hell the two parties are willing to release their stranglehold on the political process enough to allow something as low-brow as democracy from influencing the election process.
And as someone who *STILL* takes grief from Democrats for voting for Nader in 2000 (which is great for them, because it absolves them from having any responsibility for the craptacular campaign they ran), I can say that admitting to voting for a 3rd party candidate is a great way to ruin a dinner party.
Originally posted by CRZOur political system will suck less when the 16 people vote with their most compatible candidate and prove that we have more candidates who can actually win the election than you are implying. I think that's one of the points of this project.
When did you become an idealist?
If I had any conviction at all that merely *voting* for a 3rd party candidate was enough, I'd be all over that. Realistically, I think there's no way in Hell the two parties are willing to release their stranglehold on the political process enough to allow something as low-brow as democracy from influencing the election process.
And as someone who *STILL* takes grief from Democrats for voting for Nader in 2000 (which is great for them, because it absolves them from having any responsibility for the craptacular campaign they ran), I can say that admitting to voting for a 3rd party candidate is a great way to ruin a dinner party.
Perot was the only one with a shot at winning it then he went batshit. The problem with 3rd party is they are one extremists. Green Party wants to PC our lives away and Libertarians are the hipsters of politics until you realize, their doesn't seem to be a lot of liberty in the foundation in their movement. To me, the country is very centrist on a few issues and if you go to extremes one way or another, there is little or no hope of winning.
I do wish there was another choice, actually no I don't. Obama to me is the closest to centrist as you are going to get out of the Big Two right now. If he loses or even wins, I have no idea who the Dems could in 2016 run minus Hillary which I would have think twice about. I would have probably voted McCain in 2000, but you know the country was so better off with people choosing Bush or voting third party those years. Gore ran a shit campaign, but it didn't help when GOP was hiding votes in Florida.
The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Another person whose result doesn't count because they're not American (80% Obama BTW), but what I found interesting was the fact that I got a 62% agreement rating with Gary Johnson, yet only a 21% agreement with the Libertarian Party. How can I get such a stark difference between a party and their candidate?
Am I the prevailing winner so far for "Most Disenfranchised" from all parties? Not sure how it works that I'm supposed to be so gung-ho on Gary Johnson, while being only 62% libertarian.
So I side more with Obama than Romney (73% - 58%) but I side more with Republicans than Democrats (62% - 58%). I guess that's about what you would expect from someone who considers himself a political moderate. I found it interesting that my views match a virtual dead heat with the Libertarian candidate and the Democratic candidate; I take this as confirmation that, despite their party affiliation, they're actually just moderate Republicans, much like myself.
"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
Amusing that so many people end up with Jill Stein. I had Obama with 93% and Stein with 89%. Mitt was 4th with 57% for me, he and I agreed a lot on immigration laws it seemed.
I get the same type of results when I do similar tests for Dutch politics (we have parliament elections in 2 weeks) I tend to lean left with some 'glitches' to the right.
This is a bit misleading, though. For example, it says Stein and I did not agree on the question, "should the U.S. end the 'war' in Afghanistan?" We both answered yes, though - I just chose the option with the caveat that we should only resort to military action in the future if it is in a war declared by Congress, while they did not assign that option to her. Similarly, it says we disagreed on whether the U.S. should lift the travel ban and trade embargo on Cuba when we both say yes, but I chose the option with the clarification that the U.S. government shouldn't be telling its citizens where they can and cannot travel. So the percentages are actually off.
A sample of the issues on which I legitimately disagreed with Stein include: Social Security (she says "keep as is," while I voted for expanding it and increasing the payroll tax on those making more than $250,000); nationalizing the country's banks (she says yes, I said no but there should have been more restrictions tied to the bailout); and continuing affirmative action (according to the results, she says yes, and laws should be passed requiring favorable treatment for minority job candidates, I say no though much more should be done to address poverty in the country regardless of ethnicity or race).
Interestingly, when comparing me with Obama, it says we DID agree on the affirmative action question, though Obama ALSO answers that question yes, while I said no. So I don't know what to believe about this little survey. My skepticism is only further increased by the labeling of Obama's views where the PATRIOT Act is concerned as, "limit the scope of the government’s powers." Yeah, right.