Presidential Election Candidate Quiz

Barry Nelson

For anyone interested I am attaching a link that allows you to answer a few questions and then tells you what U.S. Presidential candidate most fits your view. My intention is for this to be a fun exercise, not a reason to argue. It is not scientific, although it probably does give you some sense of where you are leaning. For the record my closest match was Rudy Guiliani and my worst was John Edwards. Enjoy

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

TonyDP

I tend to take a dim view of politicians; they all talk a great fight, but following thru on their promises is another matter entirely.

I took the poll though, and I was very surprised at who I was supposedly most compatible with. I'm not saying who it was however, because as Linus Van Pelt once said, "There are three things I've learned never to discuss with people: politics, religion and the Great Pumpkin."

Dan Same

Without going into my beliefs, my closest match was Chris Dodd (followed by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in equal second spot), while my worst matches were Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter (followed by John McCain and Mitt Romney in equal second-last spot.)

This survey quite surprised me, not in terms of whom my matches were, but in tems of the difference/s between me and my closest matches.

darenhat

Interesting survey. My personal preference rated only third on the my results. However, the top two were individuals I have had no real exposure to, and most likely would have not have voted for in the primary.

I won't say who my favorite is, but I will say this: I'm an Arizonan, too

RogueAgent

I'm pretty surprised at my results seeing that my political preference isn't first with my beliefs. But as Tony has said, I too, don't put much stock in politicians. I won't say who it was for reasons understood but I am a little stunned. lol
In the end, it's up to ME to make things within my circle better.

Just an observation I wished more people would take on...

highhopes

I believe that if we Americans were going to select from the two candidates with the most experience, heft, intellect, integrity and ability to work with others, the race would be between Biden and McCain. My views align better with Biden, but I respect McCain and feel he is qualified to be president, unlike the current occupant, though I disagree with him on many things. I can't say that as unequivocally of the other candidates, Democrat and Republican alike. They're minor leaguers in my view.
But neither Biden nor McCain is going to make the final, unfortunately. You don't have to pay dues in politics anymore, just raise money.

Tee Hee

I am a political junkie. Most of my time is spent either listening to talk radio or watching CSPAN. I like politics so much that I am currently seeking a degree in political science. I am a member of a few political organizations at my school. In one group we get involved in elections on the local, state, and national levels. In another group we focus purely on the issues. In February we will actually be going to Washington D.C. for a huge national political conference. This will be my first time in our nation's capitol. I'm really looking forward to it.

After I graduate, I am considering going on to law school. Eventually I would like to run for public office. If I should run for President myself one day, I would appreciate all of your votes! You can trust Tee Hee can't you?

I just took the quiz and it's no surprise that my top match was California Congressman Duncan Hunter; he is the candidate I currently support to become the next President of the United States. Although he is a long shot, I believe Hunter is what America needs right now.

Seems I least agree with (former) Alaska Senator Mike Gravel. Once again, no surprise there.

Barry Nelson

Tee Hee - Good luck on your education and your career goals, they are very admirable. Washington D.C is a great place to visit I suggest you take some time and see some of the history. I had the honor of receiving a Presidential Award a little over a year ago. The ceremony was at the Roosevelt Building which is on the White Grounds next to the West Wing. One of the best moments of my life.

As for politicians I am somewhat in the Tony and Rogue camp, believing their main goals isn't doing what is best for the country, but rather gaining power.

Alex

TonyDP wrote:

I tend to take a dim view of politicians; they all talk a great fight, but following thru on their promises is another matter entirely.

...because as Linus Van Pelt once said, "There are three things I've learned never to discuss with people: politics, religion and the Great Pumpkin."

Yes. These are my feelings as well. As a matter of fact, I'd rather clean out a septic tank or play naked twister with the golden girls then discuss American politics with any of my co-workers.

Loeffelholz

Alex wrote:

...I'd rather clean out a septic tank or play naked twister with the golden girls then discuss American politics with any of my co-workers.

Agreed. A very few people here know my political views; many more will know I'm not particularly fond of airing them on a James Bond fansite

I was mildly surprised by which candidate I most matched; significantly less so with the three-way tie for least matched :v

Gotta go. Rue McClanahan is waiting for me on the Twister mat with a fresh martini B-)

Hardyboy

All I'll say is that the candidate I'm furthest from is Kucinich. Thank the Lord!

Nightshooter

Not surprised with my results, Romney and Giuliani at the top. I have to like Romney, anyway - he shares my birthday!

Dan Same

Loeffelholz wrote:

A very few people here know my political views; many more will know I'm not particularly fond of airing them on a James Bond fansite

I think you'll find that many people here will be quite aware of your views. :v

youknowmyname

Interesting, I am voting for Duncan Hunter...good luck to me and good 'ol Duncan.

Tee Hee

Hardyboy wrote:

All I'll say is that the candidate I'm furthest from is Kucinich. Thank the Lord!

Kucinich may not get your vote HB, but extraterrestrials will certainly pull the lever for him! )

[For those of you who don't get my joke, during one of the Democratic debates Kucinich publicly acknowledged that he has seen a UFO.]

Loeffelholz

Dan Same wrote:

I think you'll find that many people here will be quite aware of your views. :v

About James Bond...absolutely.

Klaus Hergescheimer

Just as I expected, my top match the greatest defender of liberty in America today, the Champion of the Constitution, and the greatest candidate for President of the United States since James Madison:

RONALD ERNEST PAUL!

Ron Paul r3VOLution!

And highhopes, I have to disagree with your statement BIG TIME! Ron Paul has published a dozen books over the last twenty years, and his writing is some of the most analytically rigorous that you will ever find. He is a self-educated policy intellectual, having come from a background in medicine originally. He is a well-respected commentator on economic issues, and in particular he displays an understanding of monetary economics that eclipses the vast majority of monetary economists. Biden and McCain don't hold a candle to him as an intellectual.

As far as integrity is concerned... are you kidding me? How in the world is someone who once plagarized a speech from a member of the British Parliament, not to mention someone who has deliberately promoted falsehoods about the situation in Iraq to cover his ass and save his credibility, possessing of more integrity than a man with a 10-term, 30 year voting record that is 100% consistent and bulletproof, often containing votes when he is the only opposition? Ron Paul, in his voting record, his steadfastness in his positions over time, and his repeated honesty and willingness to make controversial states, is EASILY the most principled candidate in this race and the one with the most integrity. It's not even close.

As far as experience is concerned: service in the Air Force as a flight surgeon during Vietnam, 10 terms in Congress, a 30 year academic in monetary economics, 5 decades of experience as a physician, service on the Financial Services and International Relations Committees in the House: if that's not experience, I don't know what is. He is at least on the level of Biden and McCain.

You should really give Ron Paul a look. As should the rest of you.

highhopes

Klaus Hergescheimer wrote:

Just as I expected, my top match the greatest defender of liberty in America today, the Champion of the Constitution, and the greatest candidate for President of the United States since James Madison:

RONALD ERNEST PAUL!

Ron Paul r3VOLution!

And highhopes, I have to disagree with your statement BIG TIME!

Hi Klaus, and welcome back. Returned from the Road to Damascus, I see.

At first I wondered, "What in the world did I say about Ron Paul?" Then I went back to my earlier post and it occurred to me: I lumped Paul with the other also-rans and didn't compare him to James Madison )

But I like Paul. I think his stance on the war has been courageous and I agree with it, and I probably agree with him on all personal freedom issues. What people want to do with their bodies, who they want to marry, etc … is their own business. But I part company with him on economic matters, and those are Paul’s big issue.

I agree that Paul's a very smart guy. But he’s also an ideologue, albeit a benign one. And like most hardcore ideologues, all his intellect is invested in single, messianic idea. In Paul’s case, that idea is that “The Market” is the solution to every economic problem in the United States. Not “some,” or “most” – all. Not even Adam Smith believed that. In his singlemindedness, Paul’s not unlike the Puritan minister who insists that the only hope for man’s soul is unquestionable faith in the Bible, or the Socialist who argues that only the purest Marxism will bring justice to the world. These are people who live in bookish, hypothetical worlds that don’t really exist and that at any rate are not populated with people with real problems. But if they were, the problems are nothing that a little more God, Marxism or Adam Smith wouldn’t cure.

Let me give you an example where ideology trumps common sense, even in someone as bright as Dr. Paul. Here’s from his Web site:

“The Food and Drug Administration's bias toward large pharmaceutical companies enlarges their power, limits treatment options, and drives consumers to seek Canadian medicines.”

I can’t really address the issue of FDA “bias” and “power,” because what Dr. Paul means isn't explained. But from what I can tell, U.S. consumers go to Canada for medications because they’re cheaper. They’re cheaper because the Canadian government negotiates on behalf of all Canadians for lower prices – and gets them in part because of the vast number of Canadians, but also because the pharmaceutical companies know they can charge anything that they want on the free U.S. market, and people who need pharmaceuticals to live will pay it. Now I generally favor free markets, too, but in this instance, the “Invisible Hand” Dr. Paul’s has such an abiding faith in is playing the trouser trombone on the American people.

Paul also says that instead of government or HMOs (which he also doesn’t like), physicians should be given “the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.” Notice that the part of about physicians driving down the cost of medical care is offered as an article of faith. That’s what physicians would do, doggone it, because they’re … well … doctors and doctors are the nice people. And they are. But historically, their prime reason for opposing what they love to call “socialized medicine” is not the high expense to consumers or the quality of the care, but what they fear will be a big kick in their pocketbooks (they habitually complain about Medicare and HMO reimbursements). Now maybe you’re thinking, “but by cutting out the middleman – the government or the HMO -- there would be lower administrative costs which would mean physicians would get the reimbursements they feel they deserve and while still being able offer lower prices.” Administrative costs might be lower – if Dr. Welby were going to do his own negotiating and administering in his free time as a “customer service,” much as department stores will offer free gift-wrapping to Christmas shoppers. But I’ve got a feeling that won’t be the case and I wouldn’t count on a windfall there. But even if there was, are we to assume the doctor will automatically slash his prices like a car salesman with an overstocked inventory? I believe the GOP-led Congress passed some bill limiting malpractice awards a few years back with the promise that such a move would lower health care bills. Anyone notice any savings yet?

Sorry Dr. Paul and sorry Klaus; your solutions may work with pencil and paper and at some think tank somewhere, but that is not the real world.

But I do like Ron Paul, if only because he doesn't mind going against the grain. And again, welcome back, Klaus.

Klaus Hergescheimer

“The Food and Drug Administration's bias toward large pharmaceutical companies enlarges their power, limits treatment options, and drives consumers to seek Canadian medicines.”

I can’t really address the issue of FDA “bias” and “power,” because what Dr. Paul means isn't explained. But from what I can tell, U.S. consumers go to Canada for medications because they’re cheaper. They’re cheaper because the Canadian government negotiates on behalf of all Canadians for lower prices – and gets them in part because of the vast number of Canadians, but also because the pharmaceutical companies know they can charge anything that they want on the free U.S. market, and people who need pharmaceuticals to live will pay it. Now I generally favor free markets, too, but in this instance, the “Invisible Hand” Dr. Paul’s has such an abiding faith in is playing the trouser trombone on the American people.

Paul also says that instead of government or HMOs (which he also doesn’t like), physicians should be given “the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.” Notice that the part of about physicians driving down the cost of medical care is offered as an article of faith. That’s what physicians would do, doggone it, because they’re … well … doctors and doctors are the nice people. And they are. But historically, their prime reason for opposing what they love to call “socialized medicine” is not the high expense to consumers or the quality of the care, but what they fear will be a big kick in their pocketbooks (they habitually complain about Medicare and HMO reimbursements). Now maybe you’re thinking, “but by cutting out the middleman – the government or the HMO -- there would be lower administrative costs which would mean physicians would get the reimbursements they feel they deserve and while still being able offer lower prices.” Administrative costs might be lower – if Dr. Welby were going to do his own negotiating and administering in his free time as a “customer service,” much as department stores will offer free gift-wrapping to Christmas shoppers. But I’ve got a feeling that won’t be the case and I wouldn’t count on a windfall there. But even if there was, are we to assume the doctor will automatically slash his prices like a car salesman with an overstocked inventory? I believe the GOP-led Congress passed some bill limiting malpractice awards a few years back with the promise that such a move would lower health care bills. Anyone notice any savings yet?

With regards to the FDA, what he is talking about is regulations that discourage alternative treatments and generics from entering the market at the behest of drug companies. This is a case of the government intervening in the market and protecting large drug manufacturers.

And if you think the market for medicine in this country is "free," you're sorely mistaken. Big pharmaceutical companies get tens of billions a year in sweetheart subsidy deals that give them huge cost advantages and have set up a monstrous barrier to entry in these markets, and they use this to establish market power. The aforementioned biased treatment against generics and alternative medicines reinforces this. The ability for competition to bring down prices in this environment is not a bit strong at all because competition has been reduced and restricted by the heavy hand of government intervention.

With regard to the Canadian government's purchase of prescription drugs... well, it has the benefit that you talk about in terms of drugs being cheaper because the government can collectively bargain and sell the drugs at lower prices. However, what you have to understand is that essentially, we have become Canada's supplier of medicine. They have a relatively very weak drug industry because our companies have grown to the point (with government help) where having Canadian companies that exist only to supply the government with drugs at hugely discounted prices is simply irrational, so there's no incentive for a Canadian pharmaceutical industry to exist. Our comapnies can take it because they sell drugs here for profit, but there's no reason for Canadian drug manufacturers to exist.

What you're going to have if you have the US government taking over the demand side of the pharmaceutical market is the government bargaining the driving down of prices of drugs to the point where a few manufacturers will be driven out of the market because they can't absorb the price cut, which in many instances may cause their margins on some drugs to go negative. This will lead to supply shortages in some drugs, which will be an even bigger problem than the problem we have with drug prices. (For a demonstration of how this would work, observe the flu vaccine shortage of a few years ago. The federal government, via the VA, was the primary purchaser of flu vaccaination starting in about the 1990s, when there were more than 10 companies supplying flu vaccine to the US. After the Feds established market buying power, the number of suppliers by 2004 was down to 2. And when one company had a contamination, that basically effed up the enitre flu vaccination supply for the whole country.)

Regarding allowing doctors to collectively bargain, I'll admit I need more clarification of what he's talking about here, and I agree with your analysis of problems that may result. However, there are ways that it can decrease costs; for instance, allowing doctors to collectively bargain with malpractice insurance companies and medical technology providers.

I could discuss with you at length the ways in which the government has royally screwed up the health care industry in this country and the ways in which freeing the health care market would solve tons of problems. It won't be perfect, but no health care system is, and it's my contention that it would be better than what currently exists.

This brings me to another point I want to make about Ron's libertarianism. You have to distinguish between two types of libertarianism in economic doctrine when considering this: the Classical School (Smith, Ricardo, Fisher, etc.) and the Austrian School (Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter). The Classical School is the school to which you refer when you talk about libertarians who believe that the market is a mystical force that creates perfection; this is the school that makes the rigid assumptions regarding people's unbounded rationality, self-interest, and foresight. The Austrian School, to which Ron belongs, is quite different. The Austrian School does not make these rigid assumption at all. Rather, it supposes that people act in ways that fulfill whatever their subjective valuation of their own interest is, and that it is utterly impossible to determine what this is. (Whereas Classical economists assume that they can observe what people's self-interest is and that they can measure it.) It concedes that the market will be imperfect. The thesis of Austrians is that the market, while imperfect, is as good as it can get, and that government intervention will do more harm than good. The Austrian School's take on the market, thus, is analogous to the old Churchill quote on democracy: the market is the worst form of economic organization there is, other than every other form of organization. Their best demonstration of this is in monetary policy, and they show quite convincingly that the presence of a central bank with a discretionary fiat monetary regime is the most destructive thing a government can endorse.

Furthermore, there's two critical thing that libertarians step in and say that government MUST provide and must be very strong in providing: definition and protection of private property rights, and enforcement of contracts. These are two things that a free market economy must have to work well, and they are the two things that, when designed properly, will address many of the failures of anarcho-capitalism. (I.E., no government at all.) I personally would take it further and say that government needs to provide public education and infrastructure, but many libertarians disagree with me on this one.

I would love to have a more at-length conversation with you about libertarianism (and about how the government has royally effed things up in our economy). One of the great things about libertarianism (centered on the penultimate belief in liberty) has many different varieties; I personally am a geolibertarian (with Austrian views on the market), a segment of geolibertarianism that leans heavily on the influence of Henry George and his ideas on the role of land in the economy and society. As I said, I'd like very much to have this conversation with you; I love discussing the truth with people and watching their eyes get big at the amazing revelation.

(Oh, and I didn't just suddenly "reach Damascus;" I've been a libertarian since high school, which is also the point when I first became a fan of Dr. Paul.)

highhopes

Paul follows the Austrian School of Libertarian economic theory? Well, heck, Klaus ... Why didn't you just say so?

Ron Paul for President! {[]

youknowmyname

Ron Paul.

My old college roommate supports him for president.

He makes me laugh (settle down, in a good way).

I just love all the publicity swirling around him, it's priceless.

Check out these links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/

and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21973236/

Brothels and white supremacists...man this guy is riding the high horse to the oval office, watch out America!!!

Loeffelholz

Ron Paul is an interesting story...but he's not going to get the nomination. He has only a slightly better chance than I do...and I haven't even formed my exploratory committee yet

Klaus Hergescheimer

youknowmyname wrote:

Ron Paul.

My old college roommate supports him for president.

He makes me laugh (settle down, in a good way).

I just love all the publicity swirling around him, it's priceless.

Check out these links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/

and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21973236/

Brothels and white supremacists...man this guy is riding the high horse to the oval office, watch out America!!!

You forgot the anarchists, 9/11 truthers, Scientologists, Patriot and Militia movement, Conspiracy Theorists, Green Party people, federalist socialists, and various others.

I have no idea why so many fringe groups are getting on board. I think it's the fact that Ron is something different, and we're getting a bunch of fringe people trying to come on board and get a piece. As Ron always says, "Freedom is popular!"

Klaus Hergescheimer

Loeffelholz wrote:

Ron Paul is an interesting story...but he's not going to get the nomination. He has only a slightly better chance than I do...and I haven't even formed my exploratory committee yet

Are you willing to bet $18.5 million on that?

Loeffelholz

Klaus Hergescheimer wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Ron Paul is an interesting story...but he's not going to get the nomination. He has only a slightly better chance than I do...and I haven't even formed my exploratory committee yet

Are you willing to bet $18.5 million on that?

That's for him to do...fortunately for him, it's other people's money...He's right: Freedom is popular...but so is pro wrestling...and novelty always sells. There are crazy people out there with a lot more money than that |)

If he's your man, good for you. God Bless America. Be sure to dress warm on Inauguration Day

All I needed to hear was his 9/11 theory. Next.

"And that's all I have to say about that." - Forrest Gump

Klaus Hergescheimer

Loeffelholz wrote:

Klaus Hergescheimer wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Ron Paul is an interesting story...but he's not going to get the nomination. He has only a slightly better chance than I do...and I haven't even formed my exploratory committee yet

Are you willing to bet $18.5 million on that?

That's for him to do...fortunately for him, it's other people's money...He's right: Freedom is popular...but so is pro wrestling...and novelty always sells. There are crazy people out there with a lot more money than that |)

If he's your man, good for you. God Bless America. Be sure to dress warm on Inauguration Day

All I needed to hear was his 9/11 theory. Next.

"And that's all I have to say about that." - Forrest Gump

And just what is his "9/11 theory," my friend? That US foreign policy contributed to the growth of anti-Americanism in the Arab world and is the true motivation for al-Qaeda, who attacked us on 9/11? Well, my friend, that opinion has been backed by scores of former CIA analysts, national security experts, and academics, including Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the bin Laden Unit of the CIA, who by the way has endorsed Ron Paul.

Klaus Hergescheimer

Loeffelholz wrote:

Klaus Hergescheimer wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Ron Paul is an interesting story...but he's not going to get the nomination. He has only a slightly better chance than I do...and I haven't even formed my exploratory committee yet

Are you willing to bet $18.5 million on that?

That's for him to do...fortunately for him, it's other people's money...He's right: Freedom is popular...but so is pro wrestling...and novelty always sells. There are crazy people out there with a lot more money than that |)

If he's your man, good for you. God Bless America. Be sure to dress warm on Inauguration Day

All I needed to hear was his 9/11 theory. Next.

"And that's all I have to say about that." - Forrest Gump

And just what is his "9/11 theory," my friend? That US foreign policy contributed to the growth of anti-Americanism in the Arab world and is the true motivation for al-Qaeda, who attacked us on 9/11? Well, my friend, that opinion has been backed by scores of former CIA analysts, national security experts, and academics, including Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the bin Laden Unit of the CIA, who by the way has endorsed Ron Paul.

Alex

Merry Christmas friends!

And to political threads at festive AJB, sorry, but good night!

-{ James Bond 007