Score! My first voting happens next year =)
Hmm…
Your Results:
- Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
- Green Party Candidate (97%)
- Socialist Candidate (85%)
- Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (82%)
- Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (78%)
- Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (78%)
- Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (74%)
- Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (69%)
- Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (65%)
- Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (59%)
Paints me a bit left of where I think of myself. I’m a believer in social welfare, but not a true Socialist by any means. Besides, I’d rather vote for someone who has a chance in hell of actually winning. Good to see my initial impulse for Dean corraborated.
Did Menocchio just prove the “Dean is a lefty” thesis?
How did Kucinich get that high a ranking? And I feel like I shouild apologize to Wes Clark… But I think the top 5 are pretty accurate. I’d definitely vote for Dean before Gephardt, Braun, or Sharpton.
Your Results:
- Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
- Libertarian Candidate (63%) Click here for info
- Bush, President George W. - Republican (49%) Click here for info
- Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (44%) Click here for info
- Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (39%) Click here for info
- Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (38%) Click here for info
- Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (38%) Click here for info
- Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (36%) Click here for info
- Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (35%) Click here for info
- Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (28%) Click here for info
- Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (24%) Click here for info
- Phillips, Howard - Constitution (22%) Click here for info
- Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (22%) Click here for info
I just took the test, and got a 90-something percent for GW (No shocker there.). What suprised me was that I got a 10% for Wes Clark. Ten frigging percent. Has he been suckling at the festering teat of Marxism? Only Braun was lower, at 9%. Granted, I suppose Kucinich was even lower, since he wasn’t on my list.
I found the test to be pretty lacking. There were too many questions where my resonse was “none of the above”.
This was pretty cool.
I had never heard of Carol Moseley-Braun before, but I checked her out and she seems like a great gal.
I may have to move to the US only to make sure she is nominated and vote for her. Anyway, you should vote for her for all sorts of reasons, including that you will kill two birds with one stine, you will have both a black and a woman President at the same time. 
What’s she got that Dean ain’t got?
She’s a she. If there was two in all other ways identical candidates, I would vote for the woman. If there were one white and one black, I’d vote for the black. Now if there was a black man and a white woman… I’d have to think about it 
But I checked, and unfortunately the US has yet to grant Swedes the right to vote in the presidental elections (swines!), so I won’t be. 
Interesting, what happens if you check people’s present stances with their past ones from previous elections. M-B has changed public stance from a left-liberal to a hardcore-liberal.
(She also has severe ethics issues, mind you. Enough that her lack of fully facing them has removed her from any serious consideration… she’s not really even in the race.)
It’s kind of funny how “hard-core liberal” is used to describe someone to the extreme left in the US, where in Sweden, hard-core liberal would mean someone on the extreme right.
Not quite… from the site,
A “hard-core liberal” would answer personal questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention.
A “hard-core libertarian” would answer both personal and economic questions to minimize government involvement.
A “hard-core conservative” would answer personal questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement.
A “hard-core authoritarian” would answer both personal and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention.
I took this test before. It’s… unreliable. It was posted on a message board where I know the regulars better, and nearly all of them had Dennis Kucinich appear remarkably high on their lists—and had Wesley Clark appear remarkably low. In no case did anyone have anyone who wasn’t Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean or George Bush appear as the highest ranking person on their lists. This seems improbable, to say the least. Dean topped my list, which reflects my preference accurately, but on the whole I got the impression that this test was written by a fervent Dennis Kucinich supporter.
As to whom you should vote for: Howard Dean. I’m not going to try to sway you at all, RobbieFal; in fact, I think everyone should vote for Howard Dean. Since that probably won’t happen, I’m going to try to get as many people to vote for him as possible.
And this is what’s fundamentally different about Dr. Dean: it’s not too often that you see people getting this excited about a presidential candidate. Over the past year, I’ve traveled extensively in New York, Pennsylvania, New England, New Jersey, and Ohio, and I’ve seen a good number of Dean bumper stickers on cars and buttons on people. Considering that all this happened months before the primaries in any state, I’d say this shows an organic kind of support for a candidate that seldom if ever comes along. Dean’s followers actually believe in him. He’s got the right ideas, and he expresses them the right way. When I first heard him speak on the radio last January, I remember being very impressed, but also certain that this guy didn’t have a prayer. I certainly don’t believe that any more. The effect that Dean has on voters is one that you just don’t see in any other candidate, which is a big reason why the other candidates aren’t shoring up the kind of support that Dean’s been getting. Expect to hear a lot more about how Dean’s “unelectable” and “too far to the left” and “angry” and a “sourpuss.” Whatever. These are the mantras of the right wing, and also of Dean’s primary opponents. Much of what we hear from other Democrats is how Dean can’t win—but not so much about how those other Democrats can.
Since RobbieFal seems like a socially liberal centrist (at least, that’s what I gather from his comments above,) I think I can honestly recommend Dean as an option (though I think everyone should vote for him, anyway.) And hell, why shouldn’t everyone vote for Dean? He’s progressive, moderate, and he calls Bush on bullshit. Dean’s a candidate in the opposition party who actually opposes the incumbent party. (Are you listening, Joe Lieberman?) Dean speaks up, Dean speaks out. Dean defines the debate; he doesn’t snap to attention to address whatever issue the White House feels like talking about this week. He thinks for himself and he plays well with others. He inspires others. He inspires me. Is he too far to the left? Well, yes—too far to the left for the conservative Republican base. But I don’t think Dean could have counted on those guys’ votes, anyway. Remember that Dean is mobilizing—electrifying—the Democratic Party’s base. You don’t win a presidential election if you can’t mobilize your own party’s base.
Bush’s canned rhetoric is nothing new; it’s what we heard from him in 2000 and it’s the kind of thing we’ve heard from so many other candidates. Dean is the first candidate to come along who’s spoken his mind and done well by doing so. Damned if I know why, but the fact is that I don’t find myself wondering what Howard Dean is really like or what Howard Dean really believes; it seems obvious from the interviews and the stump speeches. This is a genuine human being running for president, and I have to say I’m pretty damned excited. If you ever get a chance to see the man speak in person, go. You’ll come away wondering, “Where does anyone get this ‘Dean’s angry and mean’ crap?”
My mother has been charmed by Dean, too. She’s 69 and a lifelong Republican, to boot—and voted for Bush in 2000. She won’t make that mistake again. She has always found voting for Democrats to be a bit distasteful—she still makes faces whenever she says John Kerry’s or Dick Gephardt’s names (though she did vote for Humphrey in 1968)—but she says that she’s voting for Dean not just because she dislikes Bush (which she does) but also because she really likes Dean. She also lives and votes in the swing state of Pennsylvania, which is one more vote for the right guy in a vital spot on the electoral map. My point is that I’ve seen this Dean appeal strike Republicans and independents and the disenfranchised, and I’ve seen it happen in my native Rust Belt and in people from other parts of the country. Dean’s appeal is genuine and organic, and when he starts showing up on news programs as the guy who’s running against Bush, we’re going to see a real race catch fire. Right now, only the extreme political junkies (like myself) are watching very closely, but that will change soon—as will the public’s perception of Dean. It’s a sucker’s bet who’ll win the 2004 election, but I’m sure that if you pair up Dean—with his grass-roots organization and his plain-spokenness—against Bush—a fundamentally weak incumbent candidate with tons of cash to fall back on—it’s probably going to be pretty close.
Vote Dean. Because you can’t get elected without either cojones or Karl Rove.