2012 Presidential Candidate Selector

[Not A Communist Shill]

I did this yesterday but didn't save the results (I got Obama, Biden, Clinton though I think)

★☞ SelectSmart.com 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR: Obama, Clinton, McCain, Palin, Limbaugh, Cantor, McConnell, Boehner, Sanford, Pawlenty.

Of course you may wonder why I care so much .

If you did the one for the 2008 election, this is pretty much the same, and I suspect won't provide any new insights for you.

[April]

I got Obama, Biden, Clinton

Same here, and with Palin at the bottom.

[Creepy-bg]

some of the questions were too simplistic. for instance, I think that there should be a rough timetable for withdrawal, yet I think that it should appear as if there isn't, for strategic reasons.



1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
2. Joseph Biden (69%)
3. Barack Obama (62%)
4. Hillary Clinton (62%)
5. John McCain (57%)
6. Newt Gingrich (56%)
7. Mike Huckabee (55%)
8. Rob Portman (49%)
9. John Boehner (49%)
10. Mitch McConnell (48%)
11. Eric Cantor (48%)
12. Lindsey Graham (48%)
13. Wayne Allyn Root (46%)
14. Bobby Jindal (46%)
15. Jeb Bush (44%)
16. Mark Sanford (effectively eliminated by scandal) (42%)
17. Rush Limbaugh (42%)
18. Sarah Palin (41%)
19. Ron Paul (40%)
20. Charlie Crist (38%)
21. Mitch Daniels (38%)
22. Tim Pawlenty (33%)
23. Mitt Romney (32%)

[Not A Communist Shill]

1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (84%)
3. Joseph Biden (76%)
4. Hillary Clinton (73%)
5. John McCain (49%)
6. Ron Paul (44%)
7. Mike Huckabee (43%)
8. Wayne Allyn Root (30%)
9. Newt Gingrich (29%)
10. Jeb Bush (26%)
11. Tim Pawlenty (26%)
12. Rob Portman (25%)
13. Lindsey Graham (25%)
14. Mitt Romney (24%)
15. Mitch McConnell (24%)
16. Mark Sanford (23%)
17. Bobby Jindal (22%)
18. Eric Cantor (21%)
19. John Boehner (21%)
20. Rush Limbaugh (19%)
21. Charlie Crist (17%)
22. Sarah Palin (14%)
23. Mitch Daniels (14%)

I had to copy and paste my results to notepad and then search and replace the irritating bits with "".

[Not A Communist Shill]

some of the questions were too simplistic. for instance, I think that there should be a rough timetable for withdrawal, yet I think that it should appear as if there isn't, for strategic reasons.

how could a candidate possibly convey such a policy to the public? I think the best that could be done is to set a rough target, and then to explain why that target has been changed later, if things don't go according to plan.

[CILi]

1. Ideal (100%)
2. Newt Gingrich (74%)
3. Lindsey Graham (73%)
4. Eric Cantor (71%)
5. John Boehner (71%)
6. Rob Portman (70%)
7. John McCain (68%)
8. Mitch McConnell (67%)
9. Bobby Jindal (66%)
10. Mitt Romney (66%)
11. Rush Limbaugh (65%)
12. Mark Sanford (61%)
13. Sarah Palin (59%)
14. Mike Huckabee (58%)
15. Wayne Allyn Root (53%)
16. Jeb Bush (53%)
17. Ron Paul (49%)
18. Tim Pawlenty (49%)
19. Joseph Biden (48%)
20. Barack Obama (41%)
21. Hillary Clinton (41%)
22. Mitch Daniels (40%)
23. Charlie Crist (38%)

Having heard of (maybe) five of these, which of 'em have a realistic shot at the throne?

[Creepy-bg]

how could a candidate possibly convey such a policy to the public? I think the best that could be done is to set a rough target, and then to explain why that target has been changed later, if things don't go according to plan.

I was going by what I want the candidate to do, not what I want them to tell people they are going to do.

[ragnar]

★☞ SelectSmart.com 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR: Obama, Clinton, McCain, Palin, Limbaugh, Cantor, McConnell, Boehner, Sanford, Pawlenty.

Got this, I found some of the questions had an awkward list of answer alternatives though:

1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
2. Lindsey Graham (81%)
3. Mitt Romney (79%)
4. Eric Cantor (78%)
5. Newt Gingrich (78%)
6. Rush Limbaugh (78%)
7. John Boehner (77%)
8. John McCain (76%)
9. Sarah Palin (73%)
10. Mitch McConnell (72%)
11. Ron Paul (69%)
12. Wayne Allyn Root (67%)
13. Tim Pawlenty (66%)
14. Bobby Jindal (65%)
15. Mark Sanford (effectively eliminated by scandal) (64%)
16. Rob Portman (63%)
17. Mike Huckabee (62%)
18. Jeb Bush (58%)
19. Mitch Daniels (53%)
20. Charlie Crist (44%)
21. Joseph Biden (41%)
22. Hillary Clinton (36%)
23. Barack Obama (27%)

[olduser]

fwiw, While vehemently complaining about the size of government in public as speak of house, Gingrich continually funnelled huge amounts of government money to his home district of Dekalb county Atlanta where a large defense contractor is located. More government subsidies than anyone else that year. Hooray

[mu4]

fwiw, While vehemently complaining about the size of government in public as speak of house, Gingrich continually funnelled huge amounts of government money to his home district of Dekalb county Atlanta where a large defense contractor is located. More government subsidies than anyone else that year. Hooray

A staggering portion "conservative" voters are people who are being fleeced by the people they vote for. It forms a master servant relationship where their resentment is displaced onto other groups based on ideological, racial, religious as well as other reasons.

Recently, there have been many political ads here to address unemployment, such as lowering taxes and giving incentives to the rich to create employment.

But said in another way what it means is to lower taxes and give them incentives on the rich so they can hire servants. Doesn't sound so nice does it.

Trickle down economics again, but as it has show in the last 30 years, it doesn't really trickle down and the wealth disparity gap widens.

Wealth disparity is approaching 1920's pre-depression rates. The only real meaningful changes in wealth disparity thru history has been war, real economic collapse such as the great depression and various hardships like revolution that had to be weathered thru.

I'm not sure what will happen in the next 50 years or so, but it'll probably be a bumpy ride as long as people think that rich people paying less taxes will actually hire anything but servants.

[The Exception]

1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100 %)
2. Barack Obama (85 %)
3. Joseph Biden (79 %)
4. Hillary Clinton (72 %)
5. Michael Bloomberg (53 %)
6. Mike Huckabee (48 %)
7. Ron Paul (38 %)
8. Newt Gingrich (33 %)
9. Wayne Allyn Root (29 %)
10. Rob Portman (28 %)
11. Lindsey Graham (26 %)
12. Mitt Romney (23 %)
13. Bobby Jindal (21 %)
14. Eric Cantor (21 %)
15. Jeb Bush (21 %)
16. John Boehner (19 %)
17. Mitch Daniels (17 %)
18. Rick Santorum (17 %)
19. Tim Pawlenty (16 %)
20. Haley Barbour (11 %)
21. Mike Pence (11 %)
22. Sarah Palin (11 %)
23. Rick Perry (8 %)

[squark]

I didn't like the choices of answers very much. Very shallow. But, whatever.

1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
2. Wayne Allyn Root (73%)
3. Rob Portman (69%)
4. Lindsey Graham (63%)
5. Newt Gingrich (63%)
6. Joseph Biden (62%)
7. Eric Cantor (56%)
8. Bobby Jindal (55%)
9. John Boehner (54%)
10. Mitt Romney (54%)
11. Barack Obama (53%)
12. Hillary Clinton (53%)
13. Mike Pence (52%)
14. Rick Santorum (52%)
15. Sarah Palin (51%)
16. Ron Paul (50%)
17. Mike Huckabee (46%)
18. Mitch Daniels (42%)
19. Rick Perry (42%)
20. Tim Pawlenty (41%)
21. Jeb Bush (38%)
22. Haley Barbour (36%)
23. Michael Bloomberg (31%)

[twizzlestix]

A staggering portion "conservative" voters are people who are being fleeced by the people they vote for. It forms a master servant relationship where their resentment is displaced onto other groups based on ideological, racial, religious as well as other reasons.

Recently, there have been many political ads here to address unemployment, such as lowering taxes and giving incentives to the rich to create employment.

But said in another way what it means is to lower taxes and give them incentives on the rich so they can hire servants. Doesn't sound so nice does it.

Trickle down economics again, but as it has show in the last 30 years, it doesn't really trickle down and the wealth disparity gap widens.

Wealth disparity is approaching 1920's pre-depression rates. The only real meaningful changes in wealth disparity thru history has been war, real economic collapse such as the great depression and various hardships like revolution that had to be weathered thru.

I'm not sure what will happen in the next 50 years or so, but it'll probably be a bumpy ride as long as people think that rich people paying less taxes will actually hire anything but servants.

Well said. Pity no ones listening.

[force my hand]

Barack Obama (92%)
Joseph Biden (80%)
Hillary Clinton (75%)
Ron Paul (52%)
Michael Bloomberg (52%)

Bottom:

Mike Pence (12%)
Rick Santorum (12%)
Sarah Palin (11%)
Rick Perry (9%)
Haley Barbour (3%)

If Perry and Barbour are coming after Palin, I shudder to think of what they're like.

[ashlesha]

1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)
2. Barack Obama (82%)
3. Joseph Biden (80%)
4. Hillary Clinton (75%)
5. Michael Bloomberg (43%)
6. Mike Huckabee (42%)
7. Ron Paul (31%)
8. Newt Gingrich (30%)
9. Mitt Romney (30%)
10. Wayne Allyn Root (30%)
11. Mitch Daniels (26%)
12. Bobby Jindal (24%)
13. John Boehner (23%)
14. Rob Portman (22%)
15. Jeb Bush (22%)
16. Sarah Palin (22%)
17. Eric Cantor (20%)
18. Lindsey Graham (20%)
19. Mike Pence (20%)
20. Rick Santorum (20%)
21. Tim Pawlenty (14%)
22. Haley Barbour (13%)
23. Rick Perry (12%)