Explain this to me - about tests to see what candidate you should support?

Question

Explain this to me - about tests to see what candidate you should support?

Answer 1

The hard answer is you might want to consider looking at the issues behind each question and reviewing what the candidates stand on that issue. Try to look at a couple of sources that indicate what they have actually done or have actually said on that issue, not someone else's opinion of them. Grade them yourself because not any one candidate will match you exactly, issue per issue. Then, place more weight on a couple of the issues that mean the most to you. A lot of work, yes, but voting is a big responsibility that too many take for granted.

Answer 2

Go with your gut. I agree with you on the question bias, and I also saw bias in the shortened version of the answers. The survey was biased in favor of the best sound byte. Whenever I clicked on the longer answer, I changed my favorite. There was also no way to read the longer answers all on one page, so it was impossible to do a fair comparison when picking best answers.

Answer 3

It's not telling you who to support. It is telling you who you agree most with, based on statements made by the candidates. This doesn't mean they will stand by what has been said in the political race. Use your head, not your heart. Do a little research on the candidate you would support.

Answer 4

When voting, always trust your gut, especially if you are an informed voter, which I'm sure you are. When informed voters listen to candidates speak, they tend to be able to have a sixth sense about those candidates. They tend to be able to separate rhetoric from truth as well. I finally learned to trust my gut after voting for Bush in 2000. I voted based on what he said, though I had reservations about his sincerity and abilities. I should have listened to my inner gut feeling, and I will always regret that vote because I didn't.

Answer 5

I agree, the poll is flawed.



I think Ron Paul's economic and foreign policies are ridiculous and the poll told me I should vote for him.



I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if he was selected by both the Dems and the Republicans to run for president as a bi-party candidate.



I would rather see Ralph Nader as president.

Answer 6

It seems that you really want to vote for Hillary, so you should. If you don't go with your gut, you'll question yourself.

Answer 7

read kucinich and pauls records. you will like them MUCH more when you know what they are all about

Answer 8

You obviously haven't researched Hillary's record. She says one thing and does another. It's called lying, and she does it so well.

Answer 9

All expert politicians can sound great in speeches. But, what do you know about the New World Order? Do you realize that all the so called for runners favor it...including Hillary and Obama? Do you realize that the only reason that candidates like Kucinich (my favorite), and Gravel, and Paul, get excluded from debates and media coverage, is because the corporate owned and controlled mainstream media want to shut them up? Why do you suppose that they want to shut them up? Could it be because they do not want the truth to be heard by the masses? MSNBC (I think it was), was given a court order to include Dennis Kucinich in the next debate, but the network in question is appealing the decision. Why would they appeal a decision to include a candidate from a debate, unless they are afraid of what the candidate has to say? Why would they be afraid, unless they have evil intentions, and do not want the people to find out what they are truly all about? I have seen on some sites that Hillary and Obama both support the Patriot Act. That does not surprise me, because I know that Hillary is a CFR member, and has attended at least one Bilderberg meeting. I don't trust speeches, because any professional politician can give good speeches, and talk is cheap! It is my belief that all front runners are front runners for a reason, and the reason is that they support the puppet master's agenda, and so the puppet masters support them, and try their best to shut up those who stand for the people instead! *sm*

Answer 10

To go with their guts... Not just no but HELL NO!

I know I'm unreasonably idealistic here, but people should read the candidates written positions on all issues and take special note of the ones they have no position on.



When our political system fails it is specifically because of the TV effect of likability and dislike ability. GWB was a happy sort when he first ran, and peoples gut instinct was to pick him.



I suggest that you all go to the MSNBC page, "Candidates + Issues Matrix," that has you personally rate the policy of each candidate with a red/green slider, when you are done zoom out and see who you picked based on policy plans. (note the Ron Paul crew spam the over all results somehow, he's usually all bright green. Goddamn hackers)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732



I know it's hard to compare them side by side so I created a set of pages specifically designed to make it easier.

http://wnymathguy.com//Issues/PresidentialRaceIssues.htm

I aligned each candidates policy to a constitutional presidential power.



I believe that only Barack stands out as the best possible choice for America.



Those personality tests are all like horoscopes. They don't have to be right, they just have to sell advertising. How would you prove any of them wrong?

Answer 11

i think he can gentle over distant places family moreso than the different candidate. If he can wow u . s . of america along with his speeches think of what he can do for the international. I choose his healthcare coverage over Clintons. i like the belief of having a decision no count if i pick healthcare or no longer. I choose his stance on speaking to countries which incorporate Cuba. Clinton refuses to speak to Cuban leaders to help deliver peace among the countries till Cuba exhibits indicators that they are going to alter. Barack will talk to them regardless. the probability of them changing if no person speaks with them is narrow to none. the middle east is a thorn in our section. And at no fault to Hillary's she would manage to no longer be as useful at smoothing issues over as Barack might as a results of fact she is a female. Barack(although he nevertheless has experience) has no longer been so thoroughly tainted by potential of the gadget as a results of fact the different applicants have been. Barack continuously exhibits in polls that he has a extra desirable threat at beating McCain than Hillary does. And who needs Bush version 2 interior the whitehouse. All of those issues and extremely some extra are the excuses why I %. Barack over Hillary.

Answer 12

goes to show you. liberal democrat can't think for himself. has to ask the world if he should go with his "feelings" or what a computer program told him.



what a scarey scarey world.