Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Which presidential candidate is your best match?

Forget the rhetoric -- let's look at the issues. But how? Here's a site with a handy quiz that will match you up with the candidate based upon Economic, Social and Personal criteria. Vote Match also ranks the candidates by percentages.

Here's how I match up in ranking order by percentages:

1. Dennis Kucinich - 88% (88% Social, 88% Economic)
2. Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) - 83% (81% Social, 83% Economic)
3. Hillary Clinton - 78% (75% Social, 79% Economic)
4. Mike Gravel - 75% (88% Social, 71% Economic)
5. Barak Obama - 65% (56% Social, 71% Economic)
6. John Edwards - 58% (44% Social, 67% Economic)
7. Ron Paul - 33% (38% Social, 29% Economic)
8.Rudy Giuliani - 25% (38% Social, 17% Economic)
9. John McCain - 15% (13% Social, 17% Economic)
10. Alan Keyes - 15% (13% Social, 17% Economic)
11. Mike Huckabee - 10% (19% Social, 4% Economic)
12. Mitt Romney - 10% (0% Social, 13% Economic)
13. John Cox (Who the hell is he?) - 8% (13% Social, 4% Economic)
14. Fred Thompson - 8% (0% Social, 13% Economic)
15. Duncan Hunter - 5% (0% Social, 8% Economic)

What is really neat is that you can go into the issues in depth by clicking into how each candidate matches up with you on the issues. For example, the issues that lower Obama's score as a match to mine are he is pro Drug War, wants to spend more on the military, and supports faith-based welfare. With Hillary, I get a 13% higher match than Obama. The only big difference in scoring is that Hillary is also in support of faith-based welfare.

It pleases me no end to see that there are three candidates with whom I have 0% matching on social issues, including Romney, Hunter, and the recently dropped-out Thompson.

Take the quiz and us know via the comments if your actual candidate matches up with your stance on the issues. And if you spot any problems with this quiz and/or the results, please let us know that as well.


Anonymous said...

My closest match was the one candidate that I had ruled out of consideration. Kind of worrying. Do I misunderstand him, or do tehy?

Village Green said...

The only thing I can tell you is to dig into the questions and the candidates' records as posted on this site. Then so some research to either refute or back up the claims.

Anonymous said...

There are so many blatant lies and deliberated flaws in the poll, it's even ridiculous to go into. Suffice it to say, this 'poll' is PR funded by and for the Clinton campaign.

Just a few specifics - Hillary strongly opposed to more military funding, Edwards strongly supportive? Of course!

Edwards, according to poll results is counted as being supportive socially yet OPPOSED to church funding 'economically'? RFLO, what in the hockey sticks is that all about?

It's either mistakes, mind-reading, or the truth behind the powers that be.

Village Green said...

Someone else wrote me about the question about supporting the UN taking over in the Iraq war. This person didn't want anybody to be stuck with fighting in Iraq, but the question was worded so you either wanted US in or UN in there.

Thanks for putting the time in to dig further. It always pays to approach things with a skeptical mind.