This was really interesting. My results for one of the candidates is 100%. I couldn't believe it.
Try this: http://presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2?cp=main
Be careful toward the end....don't mark things so that you exclude
anyone.
![]() | 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 |
Try this: http://presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2?cp=main
Be careful toward the end....don't mark things so that you exclude
anyone.
Discussion is locked
This was really interesting. My results for one of the candidates is 100%. I couldn't believe it.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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
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
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!
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!
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.)
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...
Bush only got 9% for me. Seems high, but I guess he can't be absolutely wrong on everything.
Dan
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.
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!
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.
....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.
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!