Interesting to see how some people have results that are so high and low.
My highest (Cruz, apparently) is only 79%.
My lowest (Paul and O’Malley tied) is 58%.
Sanders is the highest-ranked Democrat (67%)
Another interesting note: even though I seem to agree with some of the domestic Democrat positions, the little chart at the bottom says I have no common views with either Sanders or Clinton on foreign policy.
If I had to vote right now, I selected Jeb Bush, who comes in at 75% on my list, third place after Cruz and Rubio (77%). I’m not sure that I would actually vote for Cruz; perhaps we agree on the issues, but I do not agree with how he’s conducted himself in congress.
My most extreme number: only 16% of the SDMB shares my opinion, and only 19% of the people in Washington state agree with me. Sounds about right.
I’m having trouble figuring out how you can be fiscally conservative AND believe in a strong social safety net, something that by definition requires the government to spend a lot of money.
Economics has a concept of a public good. That’s a good that the market won’t provide or will underprovide based strictly on individuals making decisions. That good still has a benefit which outweighs it’s costs. The military and police are prime examples of a public goods that Republicans tend to favor. If you value the strong safety net contribution to society and fund it with taxes that reduce total goods and services by a lower value, it’s optimal to provide it. You can still be conservative with respect to deficit control and trying to structure the taxes in a way that minimizes the economic impact. You can also try to structure that safety net in a way that incentivizes getting off of it too.
Maybe when he says “conservative economically” he means relying mostly on free-market solutions with a minimum of regulation and subsidies, but with a publicly provided safety net to make sure people don’t fall through the cracks.
I got a 95% with Sanders, 93% Clinton, with the Republicans ranging from 55% (Christie) to 4% (Carson). Interestingly, though, on education (which I consider the most important issue), it says I’m closer to Clinton than to Sanders.
And the thing at the bottom that compares you to straightdope.com and to your locality must be buggy. It has me as a 27% match to straightdope.com and a 25% to Lakewood, Ohio, and I’m sure that I’m a far closer match to both than I am to, say, Trump or Huckabee.
Because the government spends a lot of money on other stuff too? A lot of which is pure waste? Fiscal conservatism doesn’t mean cutting government spending just for its own sake, any more than it means cutting taxes just for the sake of lower taxes. That’s a peculiar niche ideological view that simply seeks to minimize government as a first principle. When Grover Norquist opines that “government should be small enough that you can drown it in a bathtub”, Norquist isn’t being conservative, he’s being an idiot.
Fiscal conservatism to many people means a responsible match between tax revenues and essential program spending and the efficient management of government services. Lots of folks consider themselves fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
I got 99% for Bernie Sanders, which seems to be the highest in the thread so far. Guess I must be feeling the bern.
HRC got 94% and O’Malley got 85%
The highest ranking Republican for me was Rand Paul at a measly 37%. Apparently we agree on Foreign Policy and Science. After him came Jeb at 36% and then there was another plunge before the Trump caught me at 13%. Apparently republican policies are really stupid, who would have guessed.
Interesting. We’re identical on Sanders, and then rapidly diverge. I have Clinton at 94%, O’Malley at 86%. When it gets to Republicans I was surprised to see Kasich come in at 52%, but only based on environmental and science issues, and Jeb at 31% based on health care and science.
Not sure how accurate that stuff is, but I do like the states it came up with that I’d be happiest living in: Vermont, Massachusetts, and most of California. I think that’s exactly right. Massachusetts and California have always been my top two states, and what can you say about Vermont except that it may as well join Canada!
I am fiscally conservative in that I am a big believer in the free market, believe most regulations are ineffective due to perverse incentives, am against corporate taxation (it is regressive as it just passes the cost on to the customers), think bailing out or subsidizing industries (banks, car companies, windfarms, oil companies, universities, you name it…) just creates corruption where wealth is passed from the taxpayer to the recipient with little societal gain, and I believe in free trade (and free immigration - not citizenship) even when it moves jobs overseas.
All that said, everybody in this country should have food, healthcare, a good and secure roof over their head, access to education, and access to child care. Nobody in this country should die in the gutter IMNSHO and I think it is shamful that we put the mentally ill on the street.
I don’t like the debt the US has (though I don’t think it is the problem many conservatives do) and I think we should cut spending and raise taxes until our budget is a bit more in balance.
Bernie 98%, Hillary 92% . . . Santorum at the bottom, with 2%. This could actually be a useful tool for the Sanders campaign - a lot of people think he’s far more extreme than he actually is (to be fair, he’s only encouraged that).
If you want to keep a big dog, you have to pick up after it, and make sure it doesn’t maul anyone.
I am a capitalist. I think capitalism is the best way to allocate resources over a large scale given that all resources are finite so we exist in a constant state of scarcity. (“The optimal allocation of finite resources” is a wonderful definition of what economists study, by the way.) I realize that all economic actors are operating in a universe run by game theory, which is the study of how rational actors behave when forced to deal with other rational actors with different and potentially conflicting goals, and that game theory leads directly to market failures such as pollution.
Therefore, we need an actor outside the incentive system of profits and losses which can fix or sidestep market failures by changing incentive structures. We call such an actor a government. (Well, anarchists don’t want to, but if their utopia features such an actor it’s a government just the same.)
Finally, I’m of the mind that wants to fix systems which are not operating correctly instead of tearing it all down and rolling the dice on utopia. That alone places me outside what’s currently the most active part of the Republican party.
If we just let the market failures run to completion, we end up with people who are a lot less reasonable than I am, and you can ask the Romanov Dynasty what that means.
Sanders 94%
Clinton 86%
O’Malley 75%
Huckabee first among the Repubs, with 58%
.
Trump 57%
.
.
Jeb! 43%
.
.
Rubio 39%
.
Carson 38%
.
.
and at the bottom, Santorum with 28%.
