Select A Candidate Quiz! ~~ Try it! ~~ 11 Questions

[Breeze54]

Answer the 11 questions below to find out which candidates are most aligned with your views and opinions.

You may skip questions if you do not want them factored into the results.

This quiz is not meant to pick your candidate for you.

It is designed to inform the public of the various stances candidates make.

Results are not scientific.

Based on a tool developed by Minnesota Public Radio.


http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460">Pick Your Candidate Quiz - Click to start

Take Your Time! :)

[Bjornsdotter]

1. No Surprise

...on my results.

DK was at the top of the list.

Cheers

[Frances]

3. DK was #2 on my list

I was surprised that Dodd was #1 on my list. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards were essentially tied for #3.

[Seabiscuit]

21. Ditto for DK - #1 on my list.

Apparently he opposes the death penalty in all cases. That's the only one that showed up as "disagree" for DK.

[Frances]

2. Interesting poll

Thanks. This poll enables us to talk about issues, which I like.

[AlCzervik]

4. Kucinich and Gravel--no surprise, Brownback was dead last.

[Breeze54]

5. DK was on the top of my list also!

Below are the candidates ranked by how much you agree with their stances.

Dennis Kucinich
Score: 70

Agree

Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Death Penalty

Disagree

Marriage

------------------

Chris Dodd
Score: 56
Video

Agree

Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Death Penalty

Disagree

Iraq
Immigration
Marriage

--------------

Barack Obama
Score: 49
Video

Agree

Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy

Disagree

Iraq
Immigration
Marriage
Death Penalty

------------

Mike Gravel
Score: 49

Agree

Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Death Penalty

Disagree

Immigration
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage

-----------

Hillary Clinton
Score: 49

Agree

Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy

Disagree

Iraq
Immigration
Marriage
Death Penalty

-------------

Bill Richardson
Score: 49
Video

Agree

Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security

Disagree

Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Death Penalty

----------

John Edwards
Score: 49
Video

Agree

Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Energy

Disagree

Iraq
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty

----------------

Joe Biden
Score: 35

Agree

Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Energy

Disagree

Iraq
Immigration
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty

[dbackjon]

56. so you FAVOR a constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage?

And you are a Democrat??

[Breeze54]

84. No, I don't.

And, yes.

The question was:

Marriage: Do you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman?

I chose oppose.

---------------------

I just answered the quiz questions again and it came back with DK as first on my
list BUT the list of agree and disagree changed from the first time I took it.

Dennis Kucinich
Score: 60

Agree

Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
Death Penalty

I oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage and I don't agree with civil unions either.
I think everyone should have the right to marriage, with no exceptions. Period.

The only thing I can think of that changed the results are that I inadvertently
clicked on the wrong answer or the test creators made a mistake and corrected it.

[dbackjon]

118. Cool :)

[lonestarnot]

6. Kuchi kuchi koo!

[Breeze54]

8. LOL!

Hey? It was fun! ;)

I'm sort of surprised that Edwards was 5th or 6th down on my list!

And not surprised at all the HRC is in the same category.

What did freak me out at first, was that when the answers popped up?

Brownback's name was the first name I saw!! :wtf:

That must be why they tell you to give the page a chance to load! :P

I almost had a heart attack!! :rofl:

[lonestarnot]

40. Heh.

I think mine went Kooch, Dodd, Richardson, Clinton, Obama and that's all I recall.

[TheFarseer]

7. Edwards on top

Obama second, exactly who I'm supporting in that order. Fred Thompson dead last!

[Breeze54]

15. Tom Tancredo & Fred Thompson both scored a whopping

score of 7 on my quiz results and they're both lying! :P

:rofl:

And the rest of the rethugs didn't score much higher. ;)

[TheFarseer]

34. Thimpson scored a 2 on mine! n/t

[superkia]

81. I had a whopping 1 on both of those guys.

[Glorfindel]

9. DK & Gravel...no real surprise there

Thanks for an interesting post. I enjoyed taking the quiz.

[daninthemoon]

10. Huh, Chris Dodd. Who knew? Interesting.

[zippy890]

46. Dodd for me too.

interesting . wouldn't have thought that

[RPM]

11. Bill Richardson - I never knew...

Agree:

Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty

Disagree:

Immigration
Energy

[greenbriar]

12. Edwards number 1

Obama 2nd Mike Richardson 3


dead last

brownhole

[Breeze54]

13. Has Edwards been your first choice all along?

?

[1monster]

14. Dennis Kucinich Score: 67

[Breeze54]

16. Has he been someone

you've been leaning towards?

[1monster]

57. I decided about three months ago that I was voting for Kucinich in the primary,

He my man in this race.

[upi402]

17. Kucinich, then Gravel

Go Dennis!

And no Republicans, from either party!!! yay!!!

[AspenRose]

18. Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd

That's the 2nd time I've taken a survey where Gravel was in the top 3....ditto Kucinich

Tancredo, dead last

[MrSlayer]

19. Obama and Kucinich tied for first at 51.

Then Clinton. Tancredo and Brownback were last with 7 points.

[Breeze54]

20. They got 7 on mine too.

:P

Good!!

[silverojo]

22. LOL, this is so ridiculous

It has Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tied on top for me, while Edwards (the candidate I support most) is fourth. Chris Dodd is listed as third.

Thompson and Brownback are tied for dead last. IMHO, *all* the Repukes should've been tied at dead last. :mad:

[Breeze54]

24. You have some thinking to do,

it seems. ;) Or investigating.

[DeposeTheBoyKing]

23. Kucinich - what a shock

[Hosnon]

25. Biden. (nt)

[juajen]

26. My three favorite people all at the top of my list, with exact percentaes.

Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. I usually am in total agreement with DK, but this time I wasn't. Wonder what's changed? I'm too tired tonight to go into it.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Like others in this thread, my surprise was Chris Dodd's name. He came in second.

Kucinich being the at the top of the list was pretty obvious.

I got Kucinich, Dodd, Clinton.

[Breeze54]

28. I wasn't surprised that Dodd was 2nd on my list.

I've been watching Dodd.

I like him and he has a confidence about him that

makes me feel I'd be safe with him as president.

He also seems like a genuine guy, down to earth.

He's a smart guy and has a great deal of experience.

[Lugnut]

29. Dennis Kucinich - 66

K&R

[Breeze54]

31. Thanks for the K&R!

I hope more people will see this and take the quiz. ;)

[chill_wind]

30. that was fun- and interesting- DK, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel

in that order. McCain dead last.

Thanks for posting this. K&R.

[Breeze54]

32. You're Welcome!

Thanks for the K&R too. :D

[cascadiance]

33. The immigration question is flawed...

The first and third are basically the same responses and reflect the xenophobic bill in the House. And second and fourth reflect the corporate bill in the senate.

Needs another option to go after employers, and provide only limited amnesty if any at all, getting rid of NAFTA and working with countries like Mexico to improve their own job market. I basically couldn't answer such a question.

[Ms. Toad]

35. I had a negative reaction to that question , too

but for somewhat different reason.

All of the options assumed we ought to be building barricades (literal or figurative) around our borders - a concept with which I fundamentally disagree. Your proposed additional option also still assumes we need to at least figuratively defend our borders.

[cascadiance]

38. I think we should build a relationship like we have with Canada...

I think that the problem we have is that there's too much of a "cherry" up here that corporate america is using (even though technically illegal), to attract those looking for a decent job up here which is causing the flood that is taxing our commons and middle class america jobs.

If we instead of erecting a fence were to prosecute those in corporate america hiring people illegally FULLY instead of just doing it periodically for appearance purposes and not have these "indentured servant" guest worker programs, and instead tried to help places like Mexico really build up their middle class job offerings instead, not only might we eliminate the flood of immigrants coming up here, but perhaps we might have a bigger market for goods over there besides our tax payer subsidized corn market, which rewards corporate america that much more through corporate welfare and screws up economies of south american countries by putting their farmers out of business to help build a supply of cheap desperate labor down there for other outsourced labor there.

The legislation we're trying to pass on capitol hill doesn't deal with these problems, as reflected by the "answers" to this question.

I'm for helping elevate the middle class and fortunes of those overseas, but not at the expense of our own middle class. I want to stop the corporate elite from bleeding both of those groups.

[Ms. Toad]

62. I just don't think an accident of birth

should determine where one can live and work. There was no option in the quiz that even came close to reflecting that approach to immigration.

[cascadiance]

63. I do feel we should take legitimate immigrants here who want to be U.S. citizens

If someone wants to become a citizen here and take on the responsibilities as well as the benefits of being a citizen, I say more power to them, and we should make sure that the path to citizenship isn't overly painful in a bureaucratic way.

But at the same time, a huge segment of the big chunk of immigrants coming over here are doing it out of what they feel is economic necessity for themselves, since their own countries don't offer them an adequate future, and by comparison ours looks better.

The race to the bottom laws offered by these global trade deals guarantees that all of the poorer workers that work in closer to slave conditions where they are still part of these deals, but the deals don't have teeth to enforce fair labor standards or environmental protection will make it so that the spread of these people elsewhere to better their lot will do more to bring down the middle class in countries where there's an attempt to make workers better off and bring them down in the process rather than raise the conditions for everyone.

To really solve this problem, we need to have all of the NAFTA and GATT countries renegotiate these treaties so that it doesn't give the corporate world so much ease in racing to the bottom to grab what is in effect slave labor. Once we can get the economic conditions stabilized and offer better working conditions in other countries that send masses of workers here now by having more stringent protections in renegotiated treaties, then the problems will start solving themselves so that we don't have this huge mass of people heading to our borders. The current influx of people to our country for work is NOT natural. If their economic conditions were better back in their native countries, I think most of them would rather stay there and work and be close to their homes and families than travel up here. That still doesn't stop those that truly want to move up here to become citizens in this great country as they have in the past, but it won't be a strangling mass of people coming down on us that basically destroys our middle class through making the elites richer. By having that many people moving around for jobs, I think it is also detrimental to global warming too! People should stay and work "local", INCLUDING us!

Until we get these other countries to get their own working and environmental conditions better, I think we can ill afford to have "open borders" as some here might suggest is what should happen. All we will do is destroy the middle class instead of elevate everyone else and keep us from having any kind of political power to force a change in ours or other countries' trade policies that might make things better later.

[Ms. Toad]

65. Sorry, but I just don't buy into the idea that

the way to solve the problem of the race to the bottom is to create an floor that keeps the people on the bottom in other countries below it in the hopes that the middle class of this country doesn't join them. Because they are fellow human beings, the poor in other countries are just as worthy of being given an opportunity as the small portion of humanity that happens to be living in/citizens of the US (through no fault of their own). Nationalistic protectionism is just not something I find tolerable.

If the problem is corporate behavior, then address that behavior - without creating additional barriers between the various groups of people who are negatively impacted by that corporate behavior.

[cascadiance]

73. You're basically talking about the elimination of borders...

I just don't think we can afford to do that. Then all of us that might be in a middle class somewhere will be pushed to the bottom, and all of us in survival mode while the corporate elites, etc. everywhere consolidate more and more power to bleed us dry.

Don't get me wrong. I DO want to help other countries elevate their people's conditions. I think the ideal world is that everyone doesn't all have to have all of their wage earners to crowd here to get a job, that puts us further into debt as more and more of us have less income to spend on goods and services which is what brings them here to start with. I do feel that to really care about people is for them to not have to feel they have to come here to get the money to have a decent living. They want to be home with their loved ones as much as we do. I don't want to gentrify or segment the world, but I don't think creating conditions that force the opposite is the right solution either.

Thom Hartmann was noting along with a caller today, that many rural areas are losing public libraries, and other public services, etc. more and more because there is less and less property tax and other taxes gained through any kind of revenue to support them, as the wherewithal of our middle class gets more and more depleted. Ultimately even our commons in terms of the lifestyle we are used to living in will be closer to third world countries as opposed to theirs becoming like ours.

Ultimately, the FIRST action we need to take is starting to seize back power from the corporate elites and get a more grass roots power in ours and in other countries as well. Then put forth legislation that protects not only our middle class but only allows treaties with other countries that protect their people too. Get in place trade sanctions and other means of forcing countries that don't treat their workers well incentive to provide for their people, so that they can be better off in their own economies.

We ultimately want to RAISE everyone's standard of living, not lower ours to the lowest common denominator. If the latter happens, it will be VERY hard to get any kind of middle class anywhere with power unless we have some massively ugly and violent revolutions. That is a future I think we all hope that we can avoid.

[Ms. Toad]

76. Essentially what you are saying

is that the people who are middle class in this country are more important (more deserving of a reasonable chance to better themselves or maintain their relatively privileged class status) than people who happen to have been unlucky enough not to have US parents or not to have been born here.

That premise is in fundamental conflict with my religious beliefs that all people are equally valuable. No amount of explanation or predictions that opening the borders would harm the middle class in this country makes protection of our middle class at the expense of continuing the devastating poverty of others across the border acceptable to me.

[cascadiance]

82. No, ULTIMATELY I think I want what you want, but you are about to give the upper class control!

Why should the upper class have no checks and balances in any country if they have a bigger gap between them and the lower classes.

Until you get rid of or at least lower the corporate power and the elite power in this country in how they govern us now, by allowing the middle class to get destroyed here and therefore any opportunity at grass roots power (which unchallenged the corporate world WILL do and already ARE doing!), you take away what I believe to be one of the only means of trying to get more power to better every one else's condition. I would rather bring down those at the top and through that bring up every one else's condition to be more of a middle class for everyone (or at least closer to that sort of divide).

If you don't have the middle class in this country, then you don't have the jobs that others seek to get here, because you eliminate the demand for a vast majority of our economy. Then everyone gets penalized. By having open borders now with no other changes to our trade policies, etc. we are playing right into the corporate world's hands of wanting to set all of us at odds with each other for whatever resources we can afford while they sit in their fortified castles somewhere.

The problem is that most of the world will be at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid just trying to survive and only a small portion of the elite of the world will be able to do much more than just "survive". We will then all be slaves the way they want us to be.

[Ms. Toad]

86. However you phrase it,

what you are proposing requires that until we solve other problems we must protect the US middle class at the expense of people worse off. As far as I am concerned, I cannot advocate anything in which the means (perpetuating poverty just because the poor live in or are citizens of another country) of reaching the goal (eliminating poverty) must be consistent with the goal. It is the same way I feel about using the death penalty to teach that killing is wrong, or fighting a war in order to achieve peace. Because the means are inconsistent with the goal, they will ultimately fail.

[cascadiance]

87. That's like saying we should make everybody healthy before providing birth control...

Solving one without dilligently solving the other simultaneously or first will have overpopulation kill our planet earlier.

I'm talking about priorities, not whether we shouldn't put every one on an equal playing field, just like ultimately I want to have everyone healthy too, but not without paying attention to overpopulation concerns. I've never said we shouldn't try to help other people's plight, but if you sacrifice the middle class here, ultimately you will remove the power that will force our government to keep multinational corporations from raping this planet more and more and in effect make these same people you are concerned about WORSE off than they are now. I don't think you want that, and I don't either.

I'm not asking for yachts, etc. for middle class Americans. I'm just asking that we at least have our survival needs met so that we can help be more active in working on other problems we and the world face. Having unlimited immigration will keep us from doing that.

You should listen to Thom Hartmann more often or read his books like "Screwed". He articulates these concerns of mine pretty well. He notes that there was a REASON why we had a lot of change for the better in the 60's and people more active on the streets. It was because we had a REAL middle class in those days that were a LOT more secure in their well being then (that had things like tarriffs in place, to protect them, etc.). That allowed them feeling more free to become more politically active and do things like help stop the Vietnam war and champion getting in voting and civil rights reforms put in place. We must not forget that.

[Ms. Toad]

91. No,

providing birth control is not inconsistent with the goal of making people healthy or of controlling population.

It is more like saying I cannot support a plan which requires that we ban access to birth control based on residency or citizenship until we solve the health crisis in our own country.

What about the survival needs of individuals in Mexico? My fundamental belief is that they have just as much need to have their survival needs met as we do. No plan which literally or figuratively prevents individuals from moving to where they can meet those needs is consistent with that belief.

Positions which grow out of my core beliefs are subject to change, if a different position is consistent with those core beliefs then it can (and frequently does) change. I cannot envision an anti-immigration (or anti-right to work), pro-death penalty, or pro-war position that is consistent with treating/valuing all human beings equally and using means consistent with the goal to reach that goal. Those positions have been consistent positions since I was in high school sometime, and are unlikely to change (in other words, I have held those positions for 30+ years because I have not discovered any anti-immigration (anti-right to work), pro-death penalty, or pro-war position that is consistent with my core beliefs.

If you can articulate one, I might change my position - but insisting that the we have to bar our doors against the poor in other countries because the relatively privileged in our own country might be hurt if we don't doesn't even come close. (Just as none of the options in the poll came close.)

[cascadiance]

95. I think you have it reversed, I want us getting population growth under control FIRST!

... even though I'm also for ways of doing it that don't involve killing people or letting people die. What you are saying is in effect what Bush is doing now (where he's been pushing to limit access to birth control and family planning by world relief agencies by withholding funding, etc.) I'm CERTAINLY not for that! I want the reverse of this where we focus first on making sure that we have all of the manpower and resources available to ensure that everyone has access to family planning and birth control so that once we have a healthier world population, it won't grow out of control sooner.

I think first and foremost with Mexico is that we get out of NAFTA. RIGHT NOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! Then we get the government to stop subsidizing corn product producing companies for their exports at taxpayer's expense that basically "dump" corn products in South American markets that put a lot of farmers out of work and either have them work for "outsourcing companies" instead, or come up here for jobs if those outsourcing companies move their operations to another country (like they ARE doing) in their pursuit to the race to the bottom that our current trade treaties allow for.

If you open up our borders for all immigrants to come in, these companies will continue to move around to find cheaper labor, and every place they will leave to come here and put more and more pressure on our middle class to survive. Ultimately neither our middle class will survive, nor will these workers get much more than they are making elsewhere, which will put this world into a situation of feast or famine, the corporate feudalists pipe dream, and our nightmare.

I am NOT for withholding health care, or things like that to illegal immigrants here, as I DO believe they should be treated like human beings, unlike other xenophobic types that don't want that to happen. However, the current flux of immigrants coming into this country is just simply not sustainable, and WE will pay the penalty if it is allowed to continue, NOT the corporatocracy that's responsible for the current situation. They will thrive with it.

In 2009, once a newer government that hopefully has more progressive power is in place, then we need to move back to the progressive income tax rates of the 60's and get out of NAFTA. We need to restructure corporate law so that they factor in costs and are made to pay for the costs of outsourcing and environmental damage that they externalize today to the rest of us here.

When we get a lot of these other measures in place and hopefully start getting our middle class recovered again, I think that is also the time to perhaps try and find ways to help neighboring South American companies to restore their economies, get the farmland back into the hands of their people (kind of like the way that is happening in Brazil with the laws about being able to settle and take up residence on "unused land". Once we can work with them (and hopefully at that point Chavez will work with us), we can get in a newer environment that will take away the World Bank and IMF as loan sharks and put some other entities in place that truly will try to help build up their economies and not just strangle them to a point of servitude our current system tries to do. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" for more info on how that corrupt system has been happening over the last century too.

There are many reasons to control your borders. If you think what some of the folks here (xenophobic or no) are advocating is harsh, Mexico itself is VERY harsh on illegal immigrants trying to enter their country. They want "exclusive access" of the undocumented work force up here and not to share it with other South American countries' peoples. You see how things are getting crazy?

You may think having borders that enforce getting citizenship, etc. to work here are "anti-immigrant", but I think it is necessary to keep things from getting out of control. The objective isn't to keep the "brown skinned" people out. I'm against any immigrant coming here illegally, white or brown skinned just to get money to send back to their people. It IS stealing our jobs here! Those people don't have the same costs of raising their families that we do living here where the cost of living is so much higher than other countries. I DO welcome folks of all stripes who truly want to become citizens here, have their families, etc. here too and be a part of our community and share with its wealth as well as its costs and responsibilities. People that become legitimate citizens here also have the right to vote, which also should help us in coming years, unlike the undocumented workers, who aren't represented when they can't vote and correct their problematic situations.

[Ms. Toad]

104. Everything you have suggested

is still premised on protecting our own first. I have a fundamental problem with that premise that borders define human rights. You just aren't getting that creating border based barriers violates core values that are fundamental to me. If you can propose something that is consistent with my core values (all people must be valued and treated equally (i.e. none asked to wait until a more convenient or practical time to be granted full equality), and that the means to reach a goal must be consistent with the goal), I could consider it.

What you have given me, however, are arguments based on the practicality of accomplishing A before B, or that in order to protect group C we must maintain the unacceptable status quo for group D will never make any difference to me. I cannot find ANY plan that grants rights based on residency or citizenship acceptable.

I am not telling you that you must adopt my beliefs - I am just telling you why none of the immigration positions were - or ever can be - acceptable to me.

[cascadiance]

108. There are a number of unacceptable status quo conditions...

We can't be principled and do them ALL at once. We are only human beings.

If you are saying that we must accomplish A before accomplishing B and that PREVENTS us from accomplishing C and actually has a negative effect on accomplishing A or B adequately, then I still say that you are strategically doing the wrong thing first.

You might say that getting another progressive judge on the supreme court is also important too. But if you don't elect a president that will nominate one first, it isn't going to happen.

Thom Hartmann is a very progressive talk show host who most here respect a lot. But he would take issue heavily with the way you want things done here. There are principled ways of doing things, and there are practical ways of doing things. I'm not advocating "killing" people as a solution which would definitely be wrong and against my principles or taking away their fundamental human rights, but not everyone has the right or even the ABILITY to have a job here. It is simply not their right nor is it really possible. If you are going to prioritize solving one ill situation over another, you try to focus first on the one that will not destroy your ability to do the second one first.

It is not WE that are making the conditions for those people in other countries bad. It is THEIR governments! Now there are ways our governments are contributing to that, like NAFTA, the World Bank, and the IMF, that I'm ALL for trying to fix. But ultimately it is those other governments that need to take responsibility over taking care of their own people. We don't blame them for our situation with Bush in charge do we?

Immigration traditionally in this country has been welcomed for people that want to be a part of this society in all respects, not for people that want a temporary job to ship their wages someplace else. Fueling that is making a broken situation worse.

There are many unacceptable situations for tons of people all over the world. We can't be responsible for fixing all of them. We can do what we can to help at times and where we have the power to do so, without fundamentally damaging our own futures or our ability to deliver such help in the future. That to me is principled. Trying to help everyone might be nobly intentioned, but it would also be suicidal for our society.

[Ms. Toad]

114. I am not addressing which affirmative actions

I should undertake first - obviously, with regard to what affirmative steps are to be taken, there are obviously choices that have to be made as to what to do first. Whatever I do first, however, cannot be premised favoring one class (US citizens) over another (non-US citizens).

As an analogy, there are a number of different activities I could undertake to achieve peace - and I would need to prioritize and choose between them. None of the choices of what I might do first could ever include waging war. There are a number of individuals - committed peace activists, who found World War II an acceptable war. I do not. From my perspective, war is fundamentally wrong - and I cannot accept waging war for any reason. I don't question the commitment of the committed peace activists who would make an exception for World II - it is just that regardless of the nobility of the goal I, personally, cannot accept a means which is at odds with the goal.

Similarly, among the choices of the number of policies I might advocate (or might advocate that the US adopt), None of the chouices would included excluding access to jobs, health care, residency, etc. on the basis of residency or citizenship. It is not that I do not understand prioritizing - it is just that a priority which includes discrimination based on residency or citizenship is not one that would be among the acceptable options that would reach my list of policies to prioritize - since it is fundamentally unacceptable to me.

As I repeated several times, policies which require me to perpetuate poverty among people solely because of an accident of birth will never be acceptable to me. If your goal is to convince me of that, you are wasting your breath - no matter how many respected progressive individual you cite who find such means acceptable. It is a core belief of mine that I cannot support a means which is inconsistent with the goal I am trying to reach. That core belief is not subject to change - how it plays out in the world may be - assuming a new path can be found which is consistent with that belief, but the core belief will not change. So far, all you have advocated is in conflict with that core belief.

I am not trying to convince you that you need to adopt my core beliefs, or the policies that grow out of those beliefs - I am just trying to help you understand that for some of us, any barriers to immigration really grow out of core beliefs that no amount of arguments regarding practicality or support by progressives will ever change. A realistic poll on immigration ought to offer something consistent with that belief as an option.

[Breeze54]

45. I hesitated on that question too and instead of skipping it,

I went ahead and answered it. I'm going to retake the quiz
and omit that question and see if my results are the same.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[emlev]

93. I didn't answer it, either. No good options. n/t

[Subdivisions]

36. Ha, ha! DK!

Dennis Kucinich came in first for me. Here is the breakdown:

Below are the candidates ranked by how much you agree with their stances.

Dennis Kucinich
Score: 57

Mike Gravel
Score: 52

Chris Dodd
Score: 50

Bill Richardson
Score: 47

Barack Obama
Score: 45

Hillary Clinton
Score: 45

Ron Paul
Score: 43

John Edwards
Score: 40

Joe Biden
Score: 33

Rudy Giuliani
Score: 24

Mitt Romney
Score: 17

John McCain
Score: 14

Sam Brownback
Score: 10

Jim Gilmore
Score: 10

Duncan Hunter
Score: 5

Fred Thompson
Score: 5

[TheCentepedeShoes]

37. Kuchinich, then Gravel

then Dodd.

[a kennedy]

39. DK, no surprise.....

and yeah, Chris Dodd??? wow. :patriot:

[Evergreen Emerald]

41. Kucinich / Richardson / Obama / Clinton

At least I am consistent. Every time I do one of these quizzes I find that my beliefs are closest to Kucinich.

[Az]

42. DK 100% (71)

Gosh am I shocked. And here I was going to vote to reinstate Bush for a third term. :sarcasm:

[TheUniverse]

43. The test is flawed.

The immigration question is right wing biased as every answer includes tightening the borders, which I don't support. Anyways, Dennis Kucinich won, as expected.

[backscatter712]

68. I agree with you there.

Where's the amnesty option?

[Hepburn]

44. Surprise to me....

....Chris Dodd came out as #1 on my list. Hmmmmm......

[Breeze54]

47. OK, I skipped the immigration question and my results

were the same but the scores were lowered slightly on my top two
and only changed positions of the rest of the candidates but notably,
HRC moved to second to last place before the rethugs, above Biden.
With Tom Tancredo at the bottom with a score of Score: 3 .. :P

[jmatthan]

48. This quiz was designed by DK supporters!

For instance they left out any question related to candidate height.

My results were DK at the top with 54, Chris Dodd with 48 and at the tail was John McCain with 2.

[Breeze54]

51. lol!

I think you forgot the : sarcasm : tag. ;)

Isn't HRC about the same height? :P

[book_worm]

49. my top three Dodd (54), Edwards (53) Kucinich (52)

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Kucinich, Richardson, Biden, Edwards, Gravel, Dodd, Obama, Clinton, Guiliani, Romney, Paul, Gilmore,

Brownback, McCain, Hunter, Huckabee, Tancredo, Thompson

53 for Kucinich <---> 3 for Freddie

[Stinky The Clown]

52. What's the potential high score?

[Hatchling]

59. I don't know.

But I got 77 for Dennis. And Thompson and Tancredo don't even show up on my list at all.

[Breeze54]

61. That's too funny!

:P

"Thompson and Tancredo don't even show up on my list at all."

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Breeze54]

60. I would guess 100% if that's possible but I doubt it.

DK got a 70 when I took the test. That was the highest score in my results.

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

------------------------

Here's the original quiz from Minnesota Public Radio. They used it for their state election.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/select_a_candidate/

Select a Candidate

Start the Quiz
2008

* President
* U.S. Senate - Minnesota


2006

* U.S. Senate - Minnesota
* U.S. House - Minnesota 1st District
* U.S. House - Minnesota 5th District
* U.S. House - Minnesota 6th District
* U.S. House - Minnesota 8th District
* Minnesota Governor
* Minnesota Attorney General


2004

* President


2002

* Governor

[Richard Steele]

53. Kucinich 57; Gravel & Dodd tied for second at 50. nm

[angstlessk]

54. Kucinich is my #1 also..but I prefer Ghouliani over Biden..

I did not know that!

Of course they are down in the 30% tile

[Hydra]

55. DK 63%

Disagree
Immigration
Energy

On immigration, I don't agree about the "path to citizenship." There are lots of people trying to do it the legal way, and being turned away. I agree with a post further up- we need to stop screwing around in Mexico so that it's worth it to them to stay home.

On energy, I don't think ethanol is the the solution, especially food based ethanol. I'd like to see hydrogen and saltwater get some traction, but ethanol from biomass is acceptable.

[tandot]

58. Obama, Clinton 60%, Kucinich 57%

[NMMNG]

64. No surprises

Dennis Kucinich
Score: 68



Bill Richardson
Score: 59



Mike Gravel
Score: 56



Chris Dodd
Score: 56



John Edwards
Score: 54



Barack Obama
Score: 49



Hillary Clinton
Score: 49



Joe Biden
Score: 47



Rudy Giuliani
Score: 33



Ron Paul
Score: 28



Mitt Romney
Score: 26



Sam Brownback
Score: 19



Jim Gilmore
Score: 14



John McCain
Score: 12



Duncan Hunter
Score: 12



Mike Huckabee
Score: 10



Tom Tancredo
Score: 5



Fred Thompson
Score: 5

[Colorado Progressive]

66. DK...big shock there! And the ANTI-DK is......................

Fred Thompson!

[backscatter712]

67. Kucinich for the win again!

Kucinich, then Dodd, then Gravel for the top three.

Bottom three are Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore and John McCain

[SeattleGirl]

69. Kucinich, then Dodd, then Gravel as my top three.

Kucinich is no surprise.

[pink-o]

70. Agreed with Kucinich on everything, disagreed on nothing.

..Wow, what a surprise!! Maybe I should invite him and Elizabeth over for a Tofu stir-fry!

[Geek_Girl]

71. WOW Giuliani Scored a 16 on mine

nt

[wildbilln864]

72. DK all the way,yeah baby! eom!

[Der Blaue Engel]

74. Dodd, with Kucinich and Edwards tied for second

I note, however, that Edwards consistently gets a lower score because he does not have a "line item veto" response, so the quiz is treating that as a "disagree" no matter how I answer it. That seems like a flaw in the quiz. :shrug:

At any rate, this is pretty much how I thought it would come out.

And, hey, WQAD? Withdrawal has two "A"s. Withdrawl is not a word. Thank you. /pet peeve

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Hillary, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Obama, Gravel, Biden..in that

order. :)

[MuseRider]

83. Exactly the same result

I got. :hi:

[Hobo]

77. No Surprise

John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson.


Hobo


:toast:

:beer:

[Inuca]

99. It is interesting that so many...

... got Dodd as one of the first two choices, though there seems to be so little support for him here and elsewhere. Maybe things are not as they seem to be, I don't know... But IMHO a lot of people have a lot of thinking (and reading) to do.

Edit: Ooops! Replyed to the wrong message!

[Fox Mulder]

78. Dennis Kucinich

No surprise there.

Edited to add that I agreed with him on everything. Score: 67

[Zookeeper]

79. When I took a similar quiz in 2004, my result was Kucinich....

This time he came in fourth. I don't think I've become more conservative, but it's possible that the other candidates are daring to be more Liberal than in 2004.

My results: Clinton/49, Obama/49, Dodd/48, Kucinich/48, Edwards/44, Richardson/41, Gravel/40, Biden/37.

Huckabee and Thompson came in at "1."

[superkia]

80. Dennis Kucinich all the way!

[rucky]

85. Kuch, then Richardson.

we disagree on line-item veto. I like pulled-pork he's a vegan.

[Chipper Chat]

88. Ron Paul was my top with 38; Biden lowest at 3.

Of course I answered each question in the opposite to see what would happen.

[Breeze54]

90. Ok, lol, then does that mean Biden is your top choice?

:shrug:

Did you try it by also answering the questions correctly?

[Chipper Chat]

115. No. Kucinich was - by a big margin.

But Biden was 2nd. Ron Paul was somewhere in the middle.

[globalvillage]

89. Dodd and Edwards tie

I'm not too surprised. Of the two, I'd pick Dodd.

[Shandris]

92. Chris Dodd and John Edwards

at 40, with my personal choices Obama and Kucinich right behind at 37 and 38 respectively. :)

[Breeze54]

94. Welcome to DU, Shandris!

:hi:

40? That's low, compared to my scores!

I think Dodd got a 56 in my results. ;)

[SparkyMac]

96. Yep, Kucinich is my man n-t

[Breeze54]

97. Love the name, SparkyMac!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[tom_paine]

98. Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel...

Only surprised that I match up so well with Gravel.

I should have guessed. If Corporate TV Infoganda has worked to hard to marginalize him as a loony, then likely he is one of the sanest of the bunch.

[Inuca]

100. It is interesting that so many

... got Dodd as one of the first two choices, though there seems to be so little support for him here and elsewhere. Maybe things are not as they seem to be, I don't know... But IMHO a lot of people have a lot of thinking (and reading) to do.

(repost since I replied to the wrong message above).

[Breeze54]

101. There is now a Dodd Support group!

Dodd was also 2nd on my list at 56%.

DK was 70% first time I took the quiz.

I agree and I am thinking... alot! ;)

[mondo joe]

102. Confirmed what I know: DK is closest to my politics. Still not supporting him though.

Politics isn't religion.

[KittyWampus]

103. Dodd and then Dennis, Gravel... who'd have thought?

[dysfunctional press]

105. bullshit questions...

no, hillary DOES NOT agree with me on healthcare- i favour single-payer universal healthcare.

and one question about subsidies for biofuels doesn't really measure much as far as energy policies go...

the immigration question needed a "none of the above option".

and so on.

[Breeze54]

106. If you don't like a question or the choices in the answers; then

just skip answering it. It's not supposed to be a 'definitive' test. It's just another
tool to get a general idea of where you and the candidates stand on the issues.

[bbgrunt]

107. interesting--but where is Huckabee?

[Delphinus]

109. Kind of surprising -

Bill Richardson
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel

John Edwards, first of the well-knowns, came in fourth, followed by Obama and Clinton.

[ikojo]

110. Kucinich by a landslide!!!!

He and I agree on every issue except for the line item veto. My Kucinich score was 46 and my Hillary score was 29.

[Blue_In_AK]

111. No surprise - Kucinich and Dodd

Huckabee is last.

ed. It says Rudy and I agree on abortion and marriage, but isn't he trying to denounce his previous stands on those issues?

[Breeze54]

112. I thought I heard something about him backtracking on that issue.

I'm not sure, right now, but I wouldn't doubt it.
He seems to following the "Romney Flip-Flop agenda" lately! :eyes:

[IDemo]

113. Kucinich and Gravel

[etherealtruth]

116. Chris Dodd turned out to be my #1 ...

Hmmmm, I really didn't expect that. I think I have not paid enough attention to him .... ?

[Danger Mouse]

117. I got Kucinich and Dodd, by a huge margin.

Awesome. :D