Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Who to vote for?

I am disappointed that Gov. Richardson has dropped out of the race. I was actually excited about a presidential candidate and felt like he had a real chance, especially if he was the candidate against Romney or McCain. So now I am undecided again. American public media put out the following survey that attempts to match your responses with that of the slate of republican and democratic party candidates. It then lets you compare your results with that of other participants. Each response is weighted by how important you say that issue is to you.

I was not surprised to see that my responses matched the democrats the best, but was surprised to see that my answers matched that of John Edwards and Hilary Clinton more than the others. I just don't like either of them though so it does not answer my dilemna. Of the republicans, I like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Because I am mormon I root for Mitt Romney because he is one of us, but I would probably be more likely to vote for McCain.

4 comments:

Charlotte said...

Thanks for posting the survey link. It was interesting, if not very accurate. I had a hard time answering a lot of the questions because I didn't really agree with any of the options.

Ironically, my #1 match was Huckabee, who is the one candidate I have already ruled out. But upon closer inspection of my answers and the actually words of the candidates, Romney is by far my closest match.

The next closest was some guy I've already forgotten the name of, and then Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and McCain were all dead even... guess I'm a true moderate.

The survey was fun anyway!

Leila said...

So I took the survey too. Clinton and Edwards tied with 11 points with Huckabee third with 9 points. Romney was very low in the running with 5 points. I guess the only reason I would vote for him is because he is LDS. It would be cool to have a "mormon president" but I would hate to have to rag on him when he did stuff I thought was dumb.

I think I might vote for Hilary just because everyone else seems to hate her. Yes, I think she may have the personality of the "Devil Wears Prada" lady, but that lady was dang good at running her company and I don't think any of the other guys would be that much better to work with anyway. There is a real problem in Texas and in the south in general with people being nice to your face and bad talking behind your back. I hate that and would rather that everything was out in the open. She can't be any LESS diplomatic than Bush in any case.

Becca said...

Ah, what would it be like to have the freedom of discussing politics on my blog? I even had an idea for a "Bex Politix" section, but I'm already in the doghouse with certain acquaintances because I put "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" on my "things I don't love" list.

If we get a democratic president, i hope it's Obama, but I am meanwhile rooting for Romney or McCain, and NOT that wretched Huckabee.

Douglas Enzor said...

Brian, I live for the days when Graduate Grumblings turns to political matters. Early in 2007, you brazenly wrote, "I actually voted for Nader this last election." In a subsequent comment on the same post, you noted that, "I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, buy lottery tickets, lie or cheat, and I avoid walmart." This beautiful sentence expresses a liberal theory of sin: Shopping at Walmart is morally equivalent to traditional transgressions. Writings like this are why you are such a neat guy.

I was a little surprised by your affinity for Bill Richardson, whom I had written off early in the season as a nineties relic with little chance of securing the nomination. I took John Edwards very seriously, and mourned a little when he was trounced by more glamorous candidates. On the Democratic side, we are left with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I'm sure either would be fine. Personally, I'm supporting Barack. I took the Minnesota Public Radio survey, and it confirmed my inclination: Barack received 29 points, and Hillary received 28.

I am a little perplexed by your not mentioning Barack in your post. On October 26, 2002, he was an early and unambiguous opponent of the Iraq War. He said, "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." This is just crystal clear: Iraq was indeed a dumb war. I write this as someone, like Edwards and Clinton, who was broadly sympathetic to what the Bush Administration and its allies said they were trying to do. But as the planet moves forward on this issue, I want for us to do so in a spirit of atonement. Of all the major candidates left in this race, only Barack has said what needs to be said. The war in Iraq was a grave error of judgment. The country and the world need to hear an American president say it.

On domestic issues, I don't see a big difference between the Democratic candidates. Hillary might be a slightly better on health care. Barack is a little more aggressive on gay rights. But either would be such an improvement over what we have now that my heart just isn't into the task of quibbling over details.

Nader just announced that he is running in 2008. What will you do? ;-)