Left...Right..Center

[windansea]

Is your candidate placed properly?? If you disagree...why??

This graph was produced based on candidates voting record and stated positions. It was produced by a site in the UK with no apparent political agenda that I can see.

read more below graph



We've scrutinised the statements and, more tellingly, the voting records of the hopefuls of the two major parties, in response to requests from many of our American visitors.
Within the United States , of course, real (and imagined) differences between the candidates are more greatly magnified. However, compared to other western democracies, especially those with a finely-tuned system of proportional representation, most mainstream political activity in the US is concentrated over a more narrow ideological range. We note too that conservative Democrats tend to have more in common with Republicans than with the liberals within their own ranks.

In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

edited to reduce # of paragraphs

[Scott Lee]

1. Please post proper credit and link to this piece.

thank you.

[windansea]

3. sorry here you go

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Scott Lee]

5. Cool. You might want to cut it to 4 paragraphs, too.

[jamesarg]

20. Lieberman is the candidate who Bush is most afraid of in race

Aussie paper says Bush leery of Joe as foe
(December 23, 2003)
New Haven Register


WASHINGTON -- Who strikes fear in the heart of our commander-in-chief?

According to the Australian, a daily newspaper Down Under, it's U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn.

Editor and columnist Greg Sheridan reported as much in the newspaper's Dec. 18 edition:

"When U.S. President George W. Bush visited Canberra in October, he told his friend (Australian Prime Minister) John Howard that the Democratic candidate who, if he won the primaries, would be his most formidable opponent in the 2004 presidential election was Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman," Sheridan wrote.

In the piece, Sheridan notes the apparent blow the capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein dealt to former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's antiwar campaign.

"One thing you can say about Bush is that he is expert at winning elections and his assessment of Lieberman -- Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and the most hawkish of the Democrats -- is a fascinating insight into the role he thinks national security will play in November's election," Sheridan wrote.

Lieberman campaign spokesman Adam Kovacevich called Sheridan's assessment "very interesting."

"This is the same argument that Sen. Lieberman has been making, that he would be the toughest opponent for President Bush because he's both strong on defense and strong on the economy as well," Kovacevich said.

"George Bush has been a bad president, but we have no problem whatsoever with his political prognostication," Kovacevich said.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign, said that he "can't comment on any private conversations that the president had with Mr. Howard."

Heather Layman, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, declined to speak specifically about Lieberman and Dean.

"Each of the Democratic candidates has strengths and weaknesses. Regardless of who the nominee is we expect a close election, and the party will rally around whoever the nominee is," Layman said.

Layman called Kovacevich's critical aside about Bush "pessimism and attack -- just another example of what all the (Democratic) candidates are doing.

Dean campaign spokesman Eric Schmeltzer accused Lieberman of being a conservative in Democrats' clothing.

"The fact is, the only way to beat George Bush is to give voters a clear choice, not try to be 'Bush-lite,' " Schmeltzer said.

"One thing Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman agree on is that George W. Bush is hardly an expert at winning elections, considering Al Gore got more votes than him in 2000," Schmeltzer said.

Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," House Majority Leader U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said that the leadership of the Republican party "would love to run against Howard Dean" in the November 2004 presidential election.

"He is so far out there on the fringe," DeLay said.

Recent polls of Democratic voters show Lieberman tied with retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark in second place nationally behind Dean.

[TrogL]

21. Please trim this down

Please read the board rules before posting.

Quote three paragraphs maximum then provide a link.

[JohnLocke]

2. No.

This portrays the mainstream dems as much more conservative than they actually are.

[SahaleArm]

4. Compared to the rest of the world is that true? n/t

[windansea]

6. read this....

You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?


This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology - deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.
In the United States, 'liberals' are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?

[Scott Lee]

7. I agree. My experience with the UK is that they tend to be

much more conservative in general, influencing the fulcrum of this X/Y axis.

[windansea]

10. UK more conservative..hardly

You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?
This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology - deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.
In the United States, 'liberals' are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?

[Scott Lee]

12. Have you ever spent time in the UK?

[windansea]

13. yep

it's way more liberal than here...don't base your opinion on Blair

[JohnKleeb]

14. Blair is "new labour" isnt he

They are like the equiv of the new democrats I hear.

[windansea]

23. uh huh

Similar to this

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?

[windansea]

9. read this

You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?

This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology - deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.
In the United States, 'liberals' are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?

[Jerseycoa]

8. I don't think it can be absolutely correct

I would have to know what the input data was. Recorded votes would be one thing, but assuming a human being is selecting the public statements, I imagine subjectivity enters in.

[windansea]

11. of course not

but it's pretty damn close

[Jerseycoa]

15. Yeah, in the ballpark

I would have thought Clark, Kerry and Gephardt more in the middle than they are, though.

[windansea]

16. they are closest to the middle

along with CMB

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Blindly trusting the software program that spits out the results

Would be like blindly trusting the conclusions of a Diebold electronic voting machine without a paper trail, wouldn't it?

It may be a sincere effort, but it carries the bias of whoever chooses, interprets and weighs the questions used to gather data.

[windansea]

18. the graph was made

based on voting records and statements...if you check the site you won't find any overt bias

To me it is a pretty objective analysis...the candidates are placed where I would expect

It was done in the UK...sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees

[SayitAintSo]

19. This is such a cool site - I've studied this chart and think it's...

pretty accurate....

[windansea]

22. thanks

:) me too

[catherineD]

24. Surprised at Kerry and Edwards, but I confess I don't know

as much about their policies as some of the other candidates.

[windansea]

25. kick

:kick: