<p>Kind of fun - who should be your candidate?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html[/url]”>http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html</a></p>
<p>If this has already been posted - Sorry!</p>
<p>Here’s the calculator link again:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html[/url]”>http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html</a></p>
<p>Romney’s my guy. Who knew?</p>
<p>The only surprise was that I matched Hillary at 44%</p>
<p>Wow - I have a 100% match with Romney. My highest ranking Dem is Biden at 34.7%. My bottom of the barrel consists of (in descending order) Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson and the absolute bottom: Gravel.</p>
<p>Of course, Romney gets an extra boost, because he is on both sides of at least half the issues. ;)</p>
<p>Hoo, hah, fundingfather–no wonder we disagree from time to time! Romney came out at 13% on my rankings–but ahead of Fred Thompson at 5.7%. My tops were Kucinich (86%), Obama (82%), Clinton (79%) and Edwards (79%). Giuliani was my #1 Republican, at 44%.</p>
<p>The “Top Candidates” thing on the right is skewed. </p>
<p>There’s 11 Republicans and 7 Democrats. Statistically, All the Dems will get a boost in the “most top-matched candidates” category.</p>
<p>636</p>
<p>That’s interesting about Kucinich - I figured that they somehow had left him out since he appeared -NOWHERE- in my results. Perhaps he was under the barrel.</p>
<p>Well I wasn’t really surprised that Kucinich came out on top. I just wish he had a chance.</p>
<p>Kucinich is brilliant and amazing, but utterly unelectable–lacking as he does the height, the superficial charm, and the traditional good looks of a Romney or an Edwards. So sad.</p>
<p>What? My leading top two were Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. Third was… Tommy Thompson, followed by Mitt Romney?</p>
<p>To top it off, Edwards, the candidate I support, is at the bottom of my barrel. Hmm…</p>
<p>My top pick was Obama; followed by Biden, Hillary, and Edwards (all tied).</p>
<p>
Huh? There is no specification of D or R preference in the poll. So there is no advantage to being in one or the other group.</p>
<p>Maybe you mean there are 11 conservative and 7 liberal candidates (to the extent they can be categorized as one or the other)? If voters can be similarly categorized, then it is true there are more candidates splitting the conservative bloc.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the 1st place votes are split nearly equally between the Republican and Dem candidates when they are considered as groups.</p>
<p>Kucinich–no surprise there. I’m trying to go with more likely to be elected with Obama and Edwards, but me and Kucinich are definitely on the same page issue-wise.</p>
<p>Hmmmm, my top match appears to be Gravel (not sure how that happened), followed closely by Kucinich, Obama and Edwards. The latter three are no surprise to me, but I’m curious which issue put Gravel ahead. When I have more free time, I may go back and retake the quiz with some minor changes to see what made the difference.</p>
<p>OK, the thing is rigged. I came out with Kucinich on top – no surprise, too bad they didn’t include “likelihood of getting elected” as an item. </p>
<p>But here is how it is rigged – for other top matches it comes up with Gravel (unfortunately, “must be sane” (very important) is another question they forgot to ask. </p>
<p>But then they came up with Biden & Clinton as a 68.57% match. No one else under “top”</p>
<p>OK… then I check the “middle of the pack” list, and the top two are Edwards and Obama… with 68.57% match. Huh? </p>
<p>It seems that the 3 front runners + Biden all score the same… but two are “top” and 2 are “middle”. </p>
<p>I tried changing a couple of answers and still get the same result – it looks like Biden, Clinton, Edwards & Obama pretty much have the same positions on all of the issues on the list, so they are going to come out the same every time, but apparently the list is going to make an alphabetical cut no matter what.</p>
<p>Hmmmm. I have no idea what this means, but since electability wasn’t on the list -</p>
<p>Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D)
91.67% match</p>
<p>Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) - 79.63%
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) - 77.78%
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 75.00% </p>
<p>Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) - 71.30%
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 68.52%
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 67.59%
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 64.81%
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 45.37%
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 34.26%
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 33.33%
Businessman John Cox (R) - 32.41%
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 30.56%
Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (R) - 28.70% </p>
<p>Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 24.07%
Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) - 24.07%
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 22.22%
California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) - 9.26%</p>
<p>I do find it interesting that my lowesrt D is still 20 pins better than my highest R. That’s probably correct. LOL.</p>
<p>No surprise for me - Kucinich on top, followed by Gravel. I did it twice and changed a few of my highs to medium and then it was Gravel followed by Kucinich so I guess Kucinich is Gravel on steroids.</p>
<p>I also re-did it several times, making minor adjustments. Kucinich came out on top every time, though Obama, Edwards, and Clinton switched around. Giuliani remains my top-ranked Republican, probably because of his social views. … Regardless, none of the top candidates, Democrat or Republican, scare me as much as our current Decider-in-Chief. My CAT could make a better president than that guy!</p>