• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Candidate Calculator

Dustin Kesselberg said:
Most people here don't realize that Mike Gravel probably supports most of the things that they do, and they don't even know anything about him or even who he is.
Click to expand...

That's because Gravel supports most of the positive things that pretty much everyone does. He's not non-committal, but he's kind of vague.
 
82.09% Gravel
79.10% Kucinich
77.61% Richardson
74.63% Clinton

I agree that Gravel picks up a lot of popular issues with liberal progressives simply by being vague and not having a recent political history. His big achievement was ending the draft, which I believe has only made it easier for politicians to send our soldiers off to war without the support of the people. Senator Hagel recently made scathing remarks about the realities of the burdens we have put on our volunteer armed forces and I agree with him entirely. It was thought the total force policy of integrating the National Guard with active duty would have the same effect of a drafted army (politicians can't start wars wherever they want), but clearly Iraq and Afghanistan have showed that not to be true. Having said that I don't find Gravel attractive at all as a candidate.
 
Last edited:
96.49% match for Mike Gravel and Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) - 91.23%

According to the weighted measures of the website, most people surveyed match up with Gravel:

* Gravel - 13.31%
* Giuliani - 12.17%
* Romney - 10.99%
* Kucinich - 9.64%
* Huckabee - 7.67%
* Biden - 7.32%
* Cox - 6.34%
* Clinton - 4.57%
* Dodd - 4.20%
* Obama - 4.19%
* Tommy Thompson - 3.99%
* Hunter - 3.95%
* Tancredo - 2.73%
* Fred Thompson - 2.62%
* Paul - 1.95%
* Richardson - 1.67%
* Edwards - 1.35%
* Brownback - 1.02%
* Mccain - 0.33%
 
My answers were;

Abortion Rights-No
Death Penalty-Yes
No Child Left Behind-Yes
Federal Embryonic Stem Cell Research-No
ANWR Drilling-No
Kyoto Protocol-Unsure
Assault Weapons Ban-Unsure
Gun Background Checks-Yes
Patriot Act-Yes
Guantanamo Detention Camp-Yes
Waterboarding Detainees-No
Citizen Path for Illegal Immigrants-Yes
Border Fence-Yes
Internet Neutrality-No
U.S. Sanctions Against Iran-Yes
Military Action Against Iran No
Support Iraq War-Yes
Increase Minimum Wage-Yes
Same-Sex Marriage-Yes
Universal Health Care-Yes
Free Trade-Yes
School Vouchers-No
Privatizing Social Security-No
 
This is silly, since after Gravel (and it seems to take concerted effort not to get Gravel on top n matter what your views), I had a three way tie between Giuliani, Brownback and Richardson.
 
I have a thing about online tests and such, so I had to try it out, despite not being american. Got a 88.06% match with Dennis Kucinich.
 
Somehow I ended up with Huckabee at 83.93%.

Hillary was "bottom of the barrel" and she'd get my vote if the election was today. :boxedin:

I call shenanigans!
 
Good old Gravel. Too bad he can't win. If he were on the ticket I'd be tempted to throw away my essentially worthless portion of the vote (Vermont with its one electoral vote) on him this year, just as a gesture.
 
Mike Gravel isn't really that vague.




Views of Mike Gravel

On Abortion
Any abortion decision should remain between woman & doctor.

On Stem cell research
Stem Cell research should not be limited.

On Gay marriage
Supports Gay marriage

On Crime
More justice for the poor
End minimum sentencing laws
Stop punishing people for victim less crimes (Drugs, Gambling, Prostitution)

On Drugs
Lower drinking age to 18
Legalize Marijuana, Allow it to be sold in liquor stores.
Decriminalize hard drugs so we can treat addicts.
Believes Drug War failing now, like Prohibition failed in 1920s.
Legalize the use and possession of marijuana.

On Education
Extend school day and school year.
Supports Vouchers.

On Environment
Supports carbon tax.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Gravel.htm
 
Last edited:
Legalize Marijuana, Allow it to be sold in liquor stores.
Click to expand...

That is why I hope Gravel isn't voted in, Marijuana should stay illegal. Two kids in my town were smoking it one fell unconsis so the other killed himself, the theory is the kid thought he would go to jail. That there is the all I need to hear to know that it shouldn't be legal.
 
Last edited:
real american said:
That is why I hope Gravel, Marijuana should stay illegal. Two kids in my town were smoking it one fell unconsis so the other killed himself, the theory is the kid thought he would go to jail. That there is the all I need to hear to know that it shouldn't be legal.
Click to expand...

I suspect one has to be smoking pot in order to parse these, for lack of a better word, sentences.
 
But two kids in my town refused to smoke marijuana and they BOTH killed themselves. How dare you choose the anecdotes with the worse outcomes? (leaving aside the rediculousness of wanting it to be illegal because some was scared of jail for using it)
 
Last edited:
real american said:
That is why I hope Gravel isn't voted in, Marijuana should stay illegal. Two kids in my town were smoking it one fell unconsis so the other killed himself, the theory is the kid thought he would go to jail. That there is the all I need to hear to know that it shouldn't be legal.
Click to expand...

Are you parodying one of those idiots who still believe marijuana needs to stay illegal or are you being serious? I can't tell.
 
I hit with Gravel at 90.48%. My favored candidate, John Edwards, came in 5th for me at 71.43% (tied with my 2nd favorite, Chris Dodd). Oh well, I guess a calculator's not the best way to choose a candidate.
 
I got Kucinich at 55. Hillary and Obama were tied at 3rd with 42 which is ... good I guess.
 
Most of the people here are being matched with one of the most socialist in Congress. Not surprised...

WildCat said:
Somehow I ended up with Huckabee at 83.93%.

Hillary was "bottom of the barrel" and she'd get my vote if the election was today. :boxedin:

I call shenanigans!
Click to expand...


Actually, Huckabee sounds like he'd be your man.
 
Last edited:
egslim said:
The problem is how to define those vectors. For example, one might support universal healthcare but be vehemently opposed to how a specific candidate wants to implement it.
Click to expand...
All surveys have problems, but you do bring up an interesting point... the "fuzziness" of the definition. I've been reading up on the discipline of "fuzzy logic" and they point out such vaguenesses with an example: If you define $20,000/year as "poverty level" does this mean that someone making $20,001 is not poor?

On the other hand, if the outcome is markedly different from what you expect it may very well be worth it to check the other candidate out. And if such polls help stimulate people to think about issues and politics before an election I'm all in favour.
Click to expand...

I agree! I did check out Kucinich after seeing that he came up close. Still voting for Hillary, though... but if she's out of the race then I have to rethink choices.
 
What I find interesting here...

Obviously, I'm skeptical of a self administered poll on the VAJOE website which I've only just heard of now (though seems a nice enough site)... I mean this is the same way I "discovered" my pirate name for Talk Like Pirate Day (piratequiz DOT com).

However, I find the "disconnect" between who I'm actually thinking of voting for and the candidate who most "matches" my views (assuming the algorithm to be somewhat accurate) is interesting.

Mostly, I think the poll fails to capture "leadership" skills... I may think a single payer health plan is a good idea, but I don't feel that any candidate with the skills to actually be president has advanced this idea. To say nothing of any chance to win. (btw... this should be a huge Republican "pro-business" keep American competitive issue... but its not)

Also, the poll makes it clear to me, I no longer "believe" official positions.

I felt George W was a master at making many groups feel he would be "their guy" even though his stated policy was different from what they said they supported. And I feel that this is a lesson that was well learned by the leading candidates. Can anyone tell me what Giuliani really would do if President? Which of his positions are "real" and which are "expedient"?
 
Pyrts said:
I got a split (within 1% of each other) Clinton/Kucinich.
Click to expand...
That seems odd since the two are pretty far apart on a number of issues. Did you skip some answers?

I think this shows that a lot of our beliefs are similar to some candidates but those are not the deciding factors when it comes to actually voting. If we did vote our actual beliefs, Kucinich and Gravel would not be getting such low poll numbers. Or, if either of those two had a stronger leadership image rather than their strong moral values perhaps the polls would differ.

Of course if I took the paranoid view, I might conclude the influence of the news media's presentation of the candidates really does control public opinion. I was really annoyed the other day to hear a CNN reporter literally making fun of Kucinich in an off hand remark. That was totally unprofessional.

Edited to add, I posted this before reading BrooklynAndy's post above, really.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom