Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Which Candidate is for you.........

Jan 28, 2004 7:25AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Which Candidate is for you.........
Jan 28, 2004 8:05AM PST

This was really interesting. My results for one of the candidates is 100%. I couldn't believe it.

- Collapse -
Re:Which Candidate is for you.........
Jan 28, 2004 8:56AM PST

Pretty much in order as I thought they'd be (top to bottom): Bush, Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry (OK, a little surprise there), Clark, Dean, Sharpton, Kucinich bringing up the rear - with a sizeable gap between Bush and Lieberman.

- Collapse -
Interesting effort, but highly flawed ...
Jan 28, 2004 10:29AM PST

I don't know who I will vote for, but I somehow doubt that I could be enthusiastic about the choice the computer suggested for me. There were a few issues we agreed on, but many more that we disagreed on.

The computer ranked Bush dead last for me. Although I'm undecided about who to vote for I'm pretty sure I would pick Bush over several of the Democratic contenders.

- Collapse -
LOL! What a surprise! However, Bush came in last, not surprising. -nt
Jan 28, 2004 11:51AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Bush 100% :)
Jan 28, 2004 12:20PM PST

Then Kerry! Yuch!!! LOL

Glenda

- Collapse -
Re:Bush 100% :) -- Bush 11% for me
Jan 28, 2004 12:24PM PST

Hi, Glenda.

What was surprising was that my 100% match (Kucinich) I hadn't even considered -- and still wouldn't, as his electability is zero. Kerry was my best match of the viable candidates, though I prefer Edwards for strategic regions.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Kucinich 100% -- Bush 2% For Me...
Jan 28, 2004 1:30PM PST

I won't be voting for the last on my list though and I doubt that I will get a choice on the first by the time of our primaries. I doubt I would vote for Kucinich for the Democratic nominee if he is still in the race when I get a chance to vote. But if Kucinich is the Democratic nominee, I would support and campaign for him with all the strength I could muster...

- Collapse -
Re:Kucinich...Blake...I almost choked when I read your post
Jan 29, 2004 5:59AM PST

Kucinich was the Mayor of Cleveland when I was there and he was a joke then and he's still a joke. I have to think he bought his way into his current position by buying booze for voting drunks on the street because sober people just wouldn't and couldn't take him seriously if you knew him.

For you to expound how you would support him with gusto compared to other possibilities if he were on the ticket as a Democrate rather than support a Republican just because of the party rather than the man surprises me because you are such a strong proponent here in Speakeasy for the opposite way of reasoning.

TONI

- Collapse -
The Anti-Christ...
Jan 29, 2004 9:28AM PST
For you to expound how you would support him with gusto compared to other possibilities if he were on the ticket as a Democrate rather than support a Republican just because of the party rather than the man surprises me because you are such a strong proponent here in Speakeasy for the opposite way of reasoning. - TONI H

If there was a viable Republican challenger to GW, I would certainly consider him/her. But I believe it's possible, that if you shaved GW's head, we would clearly see the number 666. I truly believe that GW is by far the worst president this nation has ever had and I will vote for anyone who opposes him...

I highly doubt that Kucinich has a snowball's chance in hell. I have never even considered Kucinich as a viable candidate and highly doubt that he will be in the running by the time I get a chance to vote. But in the event that Kucinich managed to become the Democratic nominee, I would vote for him over the anti-Christ any day. There is no candidate that could be worse than GW...

BTW, welcome back Toni. I hope you're feeling better...
- Collapse -
Re:The Anti-Christ......so
Jan 29, 2004 9:58AM PST

You wouldn't vote for GW because he's the Anti-Christ as far as you are concerned, but would instead vote (if Kucinich were the only other candidate available on the ticket) for a weasel who can't find his *** even with a road map. A case of the lesser of the two evils, I suppose without even knowing who would actually be running the show for Dennis the Menace behind the scenes.....because he WILL have others running the show and they could combined be a whole lot worse than GW, something that even you would have to seriously think about.

You are entitled to your opinion about GW, but you really need to read about Dennis' political history going back into the late 60's in Cleveland before considering him even in your worst nightmares.

TONI

- Collapse -
GW's Puppet Masters...
Jan 29, 2004 10:48AM PST
You are entitled to your opinion about GW, but you really need to read about Dennis' political history going back into the late 60's in Cleveland before considering him even in your worst nightmares. - TONI H

I highly doubt that you have any reason to be concerned Toni. The Democratic candidates who don't start winning soon will drop out because they won't have the financial backing to continue. I'm sure that Kucinich will be one of the next to go...

That said, you also have a right to your opinion and if you choose to vote for someone who is far worse than a "weasel", you have a right to do so. But if I were deciding between a weasel and the anti-Christ, I would always choose the weasel...

I suppose without even knowing who would actually be running the show for Dennis the Menace behind the scenes.....because he WILL have others running the show and they could combined be a whole lot worse than GW, something that even you would have to seriously think about. - TONI H

Very funny Toni. You think GW's puppet masters are good for the nation? Even after GW and Powell have admitted that there are no ties to Al Qaeda and Hussein and that there probably aren't any WMD's in Iraq after Kay reported that there is nothing to be found, Cheney is still running around the world saying that Iraq was a threat because of WMD's. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfield have been running the show, not GW. GW is literally a puppet. It's strange that you would find fault in the chance that Kucinich would do something similar and not have any concerns about GW's puppet masters...
- Collapse -
Re: GW's Puppet Masters...
Jan 29, 2004 10:52PM PST

Hi, Blake.

Bush's immediate puppet master is Karl Rove, as is shown in O'Neill's recitation of the discussion about the last tax cut for the wealthy. Bush was starting to waver, asking if maybe they shouldn't have a tax cut primarily aimed at the middle class. Rove kept repeating over and over "stick to principle, stick to principle..." You could almost see his hand inside of Bush's back!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
(NT) Let's hope that's where his hand was, LOL
Jan 29, 2004 11:50PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: Dennis the Menace
Jan 29, 2004 10:39PM PST

Hi, Toni.

Why do you think Kucinich is running? He never had any realistic chance, as far as I can see. I can see why Sharpton is running, with about the same chance (and he actually seems more reasonable than he used to), but I can't figure out Kucinich's motivation.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Toni, he could NEVER support...
Jan 30, 2004 12:37AM PST

any Republican as none are Socialist enough for his tastes and needs.

I seriously doubt he could even bring himself to support Jeffords were he a strong candidate because of his past Republican ties.
(Even though those ties were just funding to get himself elected.)

- Collapse -
He's getting more reasons as time passes by...
Jan 30, 2004 1:37AM PST

And if you and your buddies here consider yourself as good representatives for the Republicans, then he doesn't need anymore reasons. Remember, all you need is one good reason...

- Collapse -
When?
Jan 29, 2004 11:46PM PST
"I have to think he bought his way into his current position by buying booze for voting drunks on the street because sober people just wouldn't and couldn't take him seriously if you knew him." - TONI H

Hi Toni and welcome back,

I just though of when was this going on? If GW was living in Cleveland at the moment he'd might be one of the beneficiaries of the free booze...
- Collapse -
11%? ! ? Recheck your answers, Dave.
Jan 29, 2004 3:22AM PST

Bush only got 9% for me. Seems high, but I guess he can't be absolutely wrong on everything.

Dan

- Collapse -
NT - 5% from me...
Jan 29, 2004 11:49PM PST
Happy
- Collapse -
(NT) Guessing it only matched issues/beliefs, assume all equal electable.
Jan 29, 2004 5:08AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Interesting, indeed........
Jan 28, 2004 1:55PM PST

Without naming names, the spread on my choices:
100; 96; 95; 94; 91; 81; 64; 58

If there had been questions regarding character
and integrity, I'm certain some of our results
would be far different.

- Collapse -
Re:Interesting, indeed........
Jan 28, 2004 10:01PM PST

Hi, Del.

>>If there had been questions regarding character
and integrity, I'm certain some of our results
would be far different.<<
yes, Bush would have scored in the minus numbers.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Just an opinion.........
Jan 29, 2004 1:03AM PST

On 95% of the issues, presented in such a broad brush
manner, all of these characters are pretty much the same.

When someone gets down to the 10, 11, or 12 numbers, I
feel it only because they chose to go to the extreme
opposite of someone they oppose. They didn't even think
through the question, or answer it straightforward.

For just a moment or two, humor me, and let's play this game.

Erase from the chalk board all political names such as Bush or Kerry;
all political terms such as Republican or Democrat or Liberal or Conservative.

And just like in the court room, we know there are questions that cannot be
answered Yes or No. Many of the inquiries at http://presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2?cp=main
are far too general/broad brush in nature for anyone to answer them with any
specificity. But just "assume" when you answer, that each case will be determined
on it's own merit, and that 'one size fits all' won't be applied.

Remember, you erased all names from the board, and just because Bush is
touting something, you cannot answer in the extreme opposite, just because
you don't like Bush. You have to think about each issue, and answer from your
own heart and mind, without the benefit of politics.

Try it this way, Please, and then "honestly" look at the results.

- Collapse -
Re:Just an opinion.........
Jan 29, 2004 3:29AM PST

I answered mine as truthfully as I could.


Dan

- Collapse -
Believe It Or Not...
Jan 29, 2004 4:51AM PST
When someone gets down to the 10, 11, or 12 numbers, I feel it only because they chose to go to the extreme opposite of someone they oppose. They didn't even think through the question, or answer it straightforward. - Del McMullen

Wow, that's very insulting Del. It seems that you don't believe anyone can hold diametrically different views from GW or you. No wonder some won't tolerate the views of those they disagree with. Believe it or not, GW is not God and a growing number believe that he is the worst president by far that this country has ever had imposed upon it...

I assume that both GW and all the other Democratic candidates rated very high for you? I don't think that's possible. If you answered the questions in a manner that made GW rate high, then that would knock most of the Democratic candidates rankings down since many of their views are clearly opposite those of GW and the Republicans...

When I went through the list of questions, I answered from both my heart and mind. Even on the question of whether party affiliation mattered, I left it blank. If the Republicans were running a candidate and platform I could support, I would definitely give them some consideration. But almost all of the Republican views make me ill at this point because they go against all of my moral, religious, and intellectual values. If the Republicans offer a candidate that is more in line with my values, then I have no doubt that the candidate would rate much higher in a test such as this...
- Collapse -
Oh, I don't know.......
Jan 29, 2004 5:16AM PST

....how an opinion can be insulting to anyone.

As I indicated earlier my answers produced this result,
100; 96; 95; 94; 91; 81; 64; 58, so no one got knocked
down too far. It doesn't take an Einstein to determine
the last two.

- Collapse -
Enlighten Us???
Jan 29, 2004 3:20PM PST
As I indicated earlier my answers produced this result, 100; 96; 95; 94; 91; 81; 64; 58, so no one got knocked down too far. It doesn't take an Einstein to determine the last two. - Del McMullen

Again you assume that people think the same as you. I have no idea who the last two are in your list and I bet that most others can't figure it out either. Maybe you can enlighten us? I bet you couldn't guess the top 2, 3, or 4 in my list and I highly doubt that you could know whether I agree with the choices in my list or not...

It seems, according to your answers, that there are several candidates that would be viable nominees for you in either Party. For me, there is no Republican option because none of the other Republican candidates were included in the survey. For me, GW rated at 2%, which wasn't a surprise...
- Collapse -
(NT) Kucinich was lowest at 17%
Jan 29, 2004 5:24AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re: Believe It Or Not...
Jan 29, 2004 10:50PM PST

Hi, Blake.

Bush is not the worst President the country's ever had -- he's not even the worst President in the last 100 years, as Coolidge, Harding, and Taft were all worse (in that order). But he's sure in the top 10. I will say that he was magnificent for about six months after September 11, until his advisors convinced him to use the political capital he and the nation had acquired to push through an exteme conservative agenda, and later (after Afghanistan) to ignore the principles of international law.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Growing number...
Jan 30, 2004 12:43AM PST
Believe it or not, GW is not God and a growing number believe that he is the worst president by far that this country has ever had imposed upon it...


Have to admit that is right because besides the 11 of you here in Speakeasy I have seen several Media personnel. I would guess the number is almost up to 1 in a thousand--almost, but not quite.