There are a few of these out there, but this is the one I believe I originally took in November. Of the others I've seen, it's also the simplest test with questions on the most important issues. It also allows you to input how important an issue is to you.
The last time I took this Ron Paul was first, Mike Gravel was second, and Fred Thompson was third. Unfortunately, I didn't keep the scores corresponding to the candidates when I took the test last fall so I can't compare them here.
Bert B. reminded me of this test  in the thread on Gibbs Williams' article, and I thought I'd take it again since Gravel and Thompson are no longer in the running. I'll probably have to take it again after the primary since Ron Paul will most likely not, except for a miracle, be the Republican nominee.
Another of the interesting things to note is the score which seems to be an indicator of the proximity of your views with the candidates'. Paul scored first with a 49. Romney came in 2nd with a 37, and McCain 3rd, with a 32. For Bert's results, for instance, his highest score for first choice was a 70 for a candidate no longer in the running, a lot higher than mine was for Paul. His lowest agreement with a candidate was at 5 for Romney and my lowest was at 13 with Hillary.
The test does claim that it is not an indicator of for whom you should vote. It's not a scientific result. It is fun to see how accurate or inaccurate it is. For me it is pretty accurate, except for choosing Romney as 2nd. I really don't like him. Ron Paul really is my first choice and Hillary came in last. That's enough accuracy for me!
Â
Have fun with it and feel free to share how your results aligned, or did not, with the outcome.
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 33
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
interesting......
Clinton and Obama 41
So make them and she can have some when she wakes up, and you can do it together next time.
Clinton 62
Romney 12
Huckabee 12
Huckabee - 53
McCain - 46
Romney - 41
Ron Paul - 40
Giuliani - 36
Kucinich - 28
Obama - 19
Clinton - 19
Edwards - 19
Okay, as you requested in another thread, I took it for the third time.
Kucinich 66
Gravel 60
Clinton and Obama tied at 51
Edwards and Paul tied at 38
Giuliani 22
McCain 12
Romney 5
What's interesting about this is that Huckabee doesn't even show up on my list. I guess his score is zero!
I also noticed that I disagree with EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE on immigration.
Thanks for the input, James. I guess it's Hellary for you!
Thanks for your scores and preference results from the quiz, Robert.
Bert, thanks for redoing it. I really didn't mean for you to have to go through all that again, but if you didn't save the scores I guess it was inevitable. I do wish they'd take out the non-runners and I know exactly what you mean about the immigration question. I had to pick the closest one too. I'm wondering if they had to do it that way to get a score for Huck since his positions on the issue have ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Clinton-36
Obama-36
I didn't take note of the lower scores, but this was very interesting. Thanks for posting & the link!
Actually, I'm not supporting Hillary because of factors not taken into account in the survey and they acknowledge that. Like was ,mentioned, the immigration policy, none of which was what I'd like to see.
I will vote for her if she is the Democratic candidate as the Republicans have nothing to offer but more of the same.
1) Decentralize Iraq by dividing it into regions of separate governments.
- But does the US have the power to actually divide Iraq into regions and set up separate governments? Of course not, Iraq is a sovereign country. Therefore this option is invalid.
2) Draw down the U.S. troops and decentralize Iraq by dividing it into regions of separate governments.
- Same problem; plus, what does "draw down" mean - within 1 month, 6 months, 2 years, 10 years? Is it related to conditions on the ground or arbitrary. Again, a reasonable person cannot accurately assess what this choice means enough to choose it.
3) I favor immediate and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops.
- What does immediate mean? And does this choice assume that we would continue to withdraw even if conditions made it dangerous to do so?
4) There should be a timetable for the removal of U.S. troops.
- Public? Private? Unilateral or in conjunction with the Iraqi government?
5) We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, as a support force for the Iraqi government and forces.
- What is a long time? How many forces - 160,000 like we have now or the number that we have kept in Germany and South Korea for 50-60 years? What would they be doing? Actually, this is the closest thing to an answerable choice there is in the list because it is a) highly likely we'll be there for a while, and b) it is vague enough to cover whatever we want it to cover.
6) U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for Iraqi forces to take over.
- How do we define "Iraqi forces to take over?" Conceivably, they could take over tomorrow (though likely it would be a disaster if that happened).
Another caveat in taking quizzes like this is that the actual positions are generally not that far apart from each other. In addition, since the President doesn't usually work in a vacuum, any actions taken will be vetted through a public and congressional discussion (especially if the Congress and President are different parties). So while there may be real differences between the Republicans and the Democrats, the minor variations between candidates within a party (the viable ones at least) are meaningless. Therefore, we should focus on choosing our next President based on our best judgment of who will be the best leader. The details are stuff of advisors. The direction is what the President will define.
David, as you've pointed out, the results are different with different quizzes so that says a lot. The way the questions are asked and what is and isn't defined as possibility skews the results, as pointed out in the immigration question for just one example, and the Iraq War question that you referenced for another.
It's also the reason I hate poll results. Their questions are usually much worse. They often give 3 or 4 choices with only a part of your opinion, if any, in the question. If they also don't give a "none of the above" selection, you're coerced into an answer you really don't want to give.
I do think these quizzes have some purpose though. If you even just look at the majority of political articles written on Gather you'll see basically the same people commenting over and over. Certainly, these are not the only members of Gather who will be shaping the future of our country with their votes. For those who vote with only a marginal knowledge of issues and for those who vote based on God knows what else, they do provide a fairly reasonable overview of one's opinions and the candidates most aligned with them. I'd rather see someone base his vote on the results of any of these quizzes than on gender, race, party or any other type of mindless decision.
Kind of fun though....
This time, it is John McCain followed by Mitt Romney. Thats a pretty accurate test, as I am divided between the two. As for the people who I am most against, its Gravel and Clinton. No surprise there...
Cool test!