Wasn’t he the voice of “Pinky” in the WB “Pinky and the Brain” animated show?
Poit!
- Obama
- Romney
- Bachmann
While 1) seems somewhat accurate, how the hell did I end up with 2) and 3)??? I expected Huntsman to come in 2nd, and Bachmann to be nowhere on my radar.
Obama, Huntsman, Romney.
Since it’s from ABC, it continues with the establishment line that this bunch are the only candidates. I wonder if Buddy Roemer would have shown if he were on the list, but of course a TV network won’t bring up campaign finance or a campaign finance reform candidate.
I must have done it wrong. It left me with one choice: Ron Paul.
Was I supposed to pay attention to the little figures popping up as I answered?
No, I don’t think so.
I really wish could find out which question I agreed with her on, so I could do a lot more research.
It doesn’t matter at all that I agreed with Romney on a question.
I love it when people who insult me - particularly if they’re calling me stupid - do things like this. snicker
I’d love for us to actually invest in infrastructure. To actually give more money to public schools and incentives to teachers. To actually GTFO of Afghanistan. To actually slash the tax cuts to the highest bracket (actually I believe in a universal flat tax with most to all refunds eliminated, but ‘tax the poor’ does not fully represent this viewpoint).
So yeah, it gave me Obama. But you notice this is about as likely to happen under a repeat of the past 4 years as it is to happen with any other candidate on the list.
Obama, by a majority.
Huntsman -1 agreement
Romney - 1 agreement
Because there is no candidate that openly supports gay marriage.
:dubious:
That test is flaky as hell. Certain combinations apparently just make the Big Computer at ABC News start spinning around in circles and saying “Error! Error! Error!” until they beam it out into space and it explodes.
- “Invest in infrastructure”
- “Cut tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires so they pay more than they do now”
- “Yes, but slowly; Have all of our troops out in the next few years”
- “We need to continue aggressive border enforcement through the use of existing resources”*
- “Continue aid to Pakistan, but pressure them to aggressively target terror networks”
- “Yes. The Affordable Care Act is already helping many Americans”
- “Raise fuel efficiency standards and develop more renewable energy sources”
- “Human beings have caused carbon pollution, which is responsible for global warming”
- “This should be up to the individual states”*
- “I support abortion rights and believe it should be legal and federally protected”
- “More investment in public schools, with more charter schools and incentives for effective teachers”
*For these answers–well, probably others too–not really what I think on the issue, but the least bad choice available.
This combination is apparently the political equivalent of dividing by zero. It will not yield a result. I’ve tried it on three different computers–different operating systems (though nothing non-Windows) and browsers (Internet Explorer and Firefox). From home and at work. In the wee hours of the morning, during the afternoon, and during the evening (Eastern Standard Time). The test just hangs if you put in this combination on answers. (And several other, mostly Obama-heavy combinations I’ve tried.)
I was able to make it cough up some “Bachmann/Perry/somebody” result by picking whichever position I most violently disagreed with, and finally got it to give me a not-totally-crazy result by tweaking my answer on Afghanistan (at which point I got 9 for Obama and one each for Newt and Ron Paul).
But this is just weird. It’s not like I said I was a Life Member of the NRA and that I support Canadian-style single-payer socialized health insurance or something like that.
I’d like to point out that north of Canada is Santa Clause, who runs the government of the North Pole on a dictatorial model using forced labor.
-
Obama
Don’t particularly like him, but the current batch of Republicans are much worse -
Huntsman
Who? -
Romney
Least-crazy-seeming Pubbie, not that that’s saying much
Looks like I’m going to have to check out this Huntsman guy.
I scored Obama/Huntsman/Perry
Then picking “I support gay marriage” should deny every candidate the point.
I got Obama, Paul, Perry
That clears things up…
I understand that’s how it works in reality, yes (insofar as American presidential politics represents “reality”).
I was stymied at the first question. It says “which will create the most jobs…” Obviously creating jobs is good. But “eliminate the EPA and create new jobs in energy development” is like saying “we will invest in infrastructure and strangle kittens”. Yes, literally, it will create jobs, but you wouldn’t vote for someone who SAID it, because they’re irresponsibly loose canon…
And the second question. I take the point that no-one in American politics can say “we need more cheap labour, enforcing the border doesn’t help”, but that means they ALL say “lets enforce stupid overpriced draconian measures” and I can’t tell which ones don’t mean it.
This test is obviously stacked in favor of Obama, since he’ll get the entirety of the left-leaning, or anything that’s less than nuts right leaning votes, whereas all of the other votes will be split amongst all of the other candidates.
So for instance, a question that says:
Regarding taxes on the rich, we should
A) Raise modestly
B) Lower 2%
C) Lower 5%
D) Lower 10%
E) Eliminate entirely
All of the sentiment towards raising them goes to A, but all of the sentiment towards lowering them gets split over B to E.
This test is pretty much worthless, but I have seen tests in the past that were more balanced and nuanced that did give some idea of who you matched up with.
I got Bachmann, Romney, Obama. And I volunteer for the Ron Paul campaign, so I’m not sure what to think of the fact that he didn’t even make my top three.
Am I the only person that sees the bar at the top of the results screen? It straight-up tells you which questions matched which candidate.
The founding fathers had nothing to do with primaries. They arose organically and aren’t, in any way, necessary. The FFs were dead before the first primary took place.