« Another Thing That's "Too Hard" | Main | Health Care Inequality »

January 15, 2012

Which Candidate Best Matches Your Political Views?

I've always enjoyed these things and am frequently surprised by the results.

Answer a series of 11 questions to see which presidential candidate’s views are most like your own. At the end, you can also roll over each candidates columns to see what their specific positions are.

Via Chart Porn.

Update: here's another one but the questions are far less nuanced. According to this one, Gingrich's positions align with mine 76% of the time with Romney, Santorum, and Bachman aligning with mine 72% of the time. Huntsman isn't even in the running.

Assuming this is an accurate assessment (not sure it is because the questions were so vague), a 4% difference in alignment isn't going to move me into Gingrich's camp if, in my assessment, he lacks the requisite experience and I don't trust him.

Amusing side note - not sure if you can see it in the graphic below, but virtually every single candidate has a yellow bar across his/her icon that says, "Lacks courage":

Aye chihuahua.

Posted by Cassandra at January 15, 2012 08:38 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4003

Comments

My number 1 was Rick Perry with Romney and Santorum tied for 2. Hmmm....

Posted by: Carrie at January 15, 2012 09:42 AM

Several of the questions didn't have what my answer would have been and "None of the above" wasn't a viable alternative, so I ended up with Ron Paul followed by Santorum and Bachmann. I don't even like Ron Paul.

Posted by: DL Sly at January 15, 2012 10:15 AM

My results had Huntsman and Romney essentially tied for 1st place with Bachman in third place.

I found answering the questions to be an interesting exercise in itself. I had to do a fair amount of thinking in most cases - the choices weren't obvious.

Posted by: Cass at January 15, 2012 10:17 AM

Several of the questions didn't have what my answer would have been and "None of the above" wasn't a viable alternative, so I ended up with Ron Paul followed by Santorum and Bachmann.

I thought that was a good thing though, in a way. If the responses are based on the candidates' actual positions, they won't necessarily align with what you (or I!) think. But that's the menu we're choosing from.

To me, these quizzes underscore the complexity of deciding on a candidate. It's not just, "does this guy claim to support what I support?" but also:

"Do I believe his claims?"

"Can he really do what is promising to do?"

"Has he ever done this kind of work before (that is a HUGE thing for me, because if you believe the size of the federal government is unmanageable, I don't see how you can elect a guy who has never run anything nearly that big ... or worse, whose only experience is in the legislature).

"Do I like him?" (not terribly important to me - there are lots of people I don't like who are nonetheless extremely competent at what they do)

"Do I trust him" (very important to me)

"Is he disciplined (and smart) enough to ignore distractions and focus on the important things?"

Posted by: Cass at January 15, 2012 10:26 AM

Hmmm, Huntsman, Paul & Santorum, with Romney slightly lower in score. Interesting how close they all come when the issues are defined that way. I concur with DL Sly on Paul.

Posted by: Pogue at January 15, 2012 10:27 AM

Ron Paul and his followers are a frightening bunch.

Posted by: Carrie at January 15, 2012 10:47 AM

Well then..... BOO!

Ha! O.M.G. I'm a Ronbot! Who knew?

Gingrich 2nd, Perry 3rd and Romney not even on the horizon. With my total and utter disagreement with Ron Paul on just about everything, especially foreign policy, I wonder how this poll is tabulated. Hmmmmmmmmmmm!

Posted by: Jarheaddad at January 15, 2012 11:24 AM

You know what defies credulity.....for me anyway...is the attempt by BHO's campaign to forget that he IS the current President. Hello??? If you are the future (God, I hope not) than you are also the present. And the present sucks out loud.

Posted by: Carrie at January 15, 2012 12:32 PM

My results had three candidates dead even -- Bachmann, Santorum and Romney each at 86%. Apparently there is no difference at all in their stated positions, as far as I'm concerned.

Which is fine, but Bachmann dropped out, and Romney held all the opposite positions recently. So, you know, that's cutting into my options.

Posted by: Grim at January 15, 2012 07:43 PM

Don't really have much to add, but yay! Cassandra's back! *cheers*

I really missed this blog. The day Villainous Company went offline was the day the blogosphere lost another one of the far-too-few sites for polite and rational discussion.

Posted by: colagirl at January 15, 2012 08:30 PM

Paul, Perry, and Santorum with Romney just a few points behind. And there were a few questions where my stance on the subject at hand fell between two of the choices. So there's that.

While I am libertarian in my beliefs, I will not vote for Ron Paul. I agree with many of his stances on certain subjects but his complete and utter ignorance on all things foreign relations in addition to his beliefs WRT to the military and overseas commitments (and that fact that he's lOOny!) wipes him off my radar. I think, in many ways, he'd be worse for the US than Obama.

I'm not a fan of Perry due to his rather wimpy record on immigration. One would think that a guy who represents the Great State of Texas would be less of a panderer and have more of a backbone when it comes to illegal immigration but Perry does not fit that bill.

Don't know much about Santorum. And Romney feels like he was grown in a political petrie dish. Haven't really started to dig yet - I want to wait until the dust settles a bit.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at January 15, 2012 08:47 PM

only 4 issues out of 11 were matched with the 1st and 2nd candidates and 3 out of 11 with the 3rd place candidate... hmmmmm... no wonder I do not feel like voting for any of them in the primaries...

Posted by: olga at January 15, 2012 08:58 PM

Newt Gingrich at 83%
Bachman, Santorum, & Romney at 82%
Perry at 80%

I don't trust Gingrich, Bachman's out, and I really don't think Perry can win. So, Rick or Mitt?

Posted by: Tom at January 15, 2012 10:00 PM

And, I wonder what that 'lacks courage' is all about.

Posted by: Tom at January 15, 2012 10:01 PM

On "Smart" Vote, I came out evenly split among Romney, Santorum, and Bachmann, at 86%. However, I mistrust the questions and their answers. For instance, "do I support targeting terrorists outside 'recognized theaters of war?' " This seems to me idiotic; in a war against an amorphous enemy, there aren't any "recognized theaters of war;" we have to kill the terrorists wherever we find them.

On the Match Game, I came out voting for me--I didn't like any of the canned answers and selected "all of the above" for all the answers.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at January 15, 2012 10:26 PM

Wow, what a nice surprise to see all of you! I've been recovering from a nasty virus and spent most of yesterday lying on the sofa, reading.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 16, 2012 08:44 AM

I actually have to make a choice shortly. SC primaries are near imminent. And to be honest, it's more of a "who do I dislike the least that has a chance of winning." I probably won't make that decision till I'm standing in the booth.

Posted by: MikeD at January 16, 2012 11:06 AM

Ok, you don't trust Gingrich. Do you trust Romney more? I'm voting Gingrich because he's the most realistic alternative to Mitt Romney who is going to win because cons can't coalesce around a candidate. It's infuriating.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at January 16, 2012 11:19 AM

BTW, they said I matched best with Perry, then Gingrich, then Huntsman. Neither Perry nor Huntsman have a prayer, so Gingrich it is.

Posted by: alwaysfiredup at January 16, 2012 11:23 AM

Ok, you don't trust Gingrich. Do you trust Romney more?

I do, for whatever it's worth. Far more.

Which is not to say you have to, just that I do!

Posted by: Cass at January 16, 2012 11:43 AM

And, I wonder what that 'lacks courage' is all about.

It means the candidate "has refused to answer citizens' questions on more than 50% of the Political Courage test." I assume that means that they sent a form to the candidate's office, and the candidate didn't take time out of their day to fill it out -- which means it may not be courage that the candidate is most lacking.

Posted by: Grim at January 16, 2012 12:32 PM

Jon Huntsman. But of course.
He's dropped out, and I'm not far behind him.

Posted by: spd rdr at January 16, 2012 12:37 PM

Cass: Wow, what a nice surprise to see all of you!

Wouldn't miss it! I hope you're feeling better soon.

Ok, you don't trust Gingrich. Do you trust Romney more?

Yep.

Grim, thanks for the explanation.

Posted by: Tom at January 16, 2012 12:41 PM

The negatives as I see it for each candidate:

Romney: Very vanilla, blow with the wind, something of a squish, "plastic" candidate. Not really a "bad" candidate, but hardly one to get excited for.

Gingrich: The problem for me on Newt is that he's a habitual oath-breaker. Sure, "it was in his personal life", but I'm sorry, I simply CANNOT trust a man who can make an oath before friends, family and deity (on multiple occasions) and break it so casually. He has asked God for forgiveness. Fine. I'm not the Lord... I don't have to excuse it.

Paul: Wow. I mean, I'm quite Libertarian, but Ron Paul is an isolationist. You can't say he doesn't stick to his principles, but if only those principles weren't so dadgum nuts, I'd respect that more.

Santorum: As I said, I'm pretty Libertarian, and this guy seems FAR too concerned with what other people do in their bedrooms. That, combined with his track record on Unions leaves me cold.

Perry: Immigration policy kills him for me. Do NOT scold Conservatives on "not having a heart" for being unwilling to give in-state tuition to illegal aliens. If my niece (citizen of NC) cannot get in-state tuition in Texas, I have no earthly idea why a citizen of a foreign country should.

That's pretty much anyone with a ghost of a chance to win the nomination. I've got a few days left to decide. Anyone want to make the case for why my opinions may be off when it comes to "their guy"?

Posted by: MikeD at January 17, 2012 08:59 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)