Who the Computer tells you to vote for.

January 3, 2008    By: Matt W. @ 8:37 am   Category: Life

USA today has a fun little candidate match game which tells you who you should vote for.

Just for fun, who does the site tell you to vote for?

(It told me to vote for 1.Ron Paul or 2.Mitt Romney)

53 Comments »

  1. This, I might add, will be the only post about the election I ever do. That’s a promise.

    Comment by Matt W. — January 3, 2008 @ 8:38 am

  2. This is a pretty cool quiz, even if it isn’t very nuanced. It told me I should vote for Ron Paul.

    Comment by Keri Brooks — January 3, 2008 @ 9:06 am

  3. I get Mike Gravel (about whom I know nothing except that USAToday thinks I should vote for him), followed by John McCain (who I would have voted for in either of the last two elections, but I’m not sure I support him anymore), followed by Hillary Clinton (whom I would vote for over any Republican, but I kind of like Obama, and maybe Edwards, over her).

    Comment by Sam B. — January 3, 2008 @ 9:15 am

  4. Clinton had the early lead but in the end it was Kucinich, by a landslide.

    Comment by Jared — January 3, 2008 @ 9:19 am

  5. Mitt Romney. I *did* *not* expect that.

    Comment by Ardis Parshall — January 3, 2008 @ 9:33 am

  6. Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton

    Comment by Dan — January 3, 2008 @ 9:41 am

  7. Ha! It was Rudy Guiliani, but I could never support him because of his position on keeping troops in Iraq. Kucinich was second. Never heard of him. If he wins the nomination, I’ll take a better look.

    Comment by Bored in Vernal — January 3, 2008 @ 9:55 am

  8. I get Gravel, Kucinich, and Edwards. The quiz should give you the opportunity to eliminate from consideration those candidates who have no possible chance of being nominated.

    Comment by Nick Literski — January 3, 2008 @ 10:16 am

  9. 1. Fred Thompson
    2. Mitt Romney
    3. Tom Tescano

    I’ll probably go with #2

    Comment by Eric Nielson — January 3, 2008 @ 10:16 am

  10. Weird
    Bill Richardson
    Barack Obama
    Mitt Romney

    Comment by Jay S — January 3, 2008 @ 10:53 am

  11. I got Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and John McCain. I have no idea how the Huckabee got in there, I swear.

    I guess it’s pretty easy to get weird results from a quiz that only asks ten questions, broken down thus:

    3 on Iraq that are basically the same question
    2 on immigration
    2 on health care that are basically the same question
    1 each on same-sex marriage, global warming and tax reform (as if each had equal bearing on the average person’s voting tendencies)
    1 completely frivolous question about what you want the POTUS’s former job to be (since I had to choose, I picked governor or mayor, so maybe that’s how I ended up with Huckabee)

    I’m still a sucker for these stupid quizzes anyway. :)

    Comment by madhousewife — January 3, 2008 @ 11:06 am

  12. What I’m wondering is if the Campaigns of each candidate agreed with the positions as presented by this game.

    My wife wondered why I was trending towards Thompson so I called her & had her play the game. She came up with Thompson.

    Comment by mondo cool — January 3, 2008 @ 11:06 am

  13. 1. Guiliani
    2. Huckabee
    3. Romney

    Intersting. Limited to those three, I’d go for Romney. But honestly I will never vote for any of those three.

    Comment by Tanya S. — January 3, 2008 @ 11:16 am

  14. Mondo, that’s pretty funny. My wife came up with Huckabee.

    I am wondering if her grandfather would come up with Ron Paul? (/inside joke>

    Comment by Matt W. — January 3, 2008 @ 11:17 am

  15. Yeah, I’m going to go give him the quiz later today.

    Comment by mondo cool — January 3, 2008 @ 11:31 am

  16. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, but I’m not voting for Rudy.

    Comment by cantinflas — January 3, 2008 @ 11:33 am

  17. I’m taking it as a sign that the quiz page won’t load for me. I’m not going to vote.

    Comment by Susan M — January 3, 2008 @ 11:38 am

  18. I like the way you can weight the issues by importance to you. My results were: Edwards, Obama, and Richardson. The Republicans were all pretty low for me including Paul. Hillary and the other Dem candidates did alright.

    Yeah, I’d vote for Edwards if I thought he had the support to win it. Right now I’m planning on Obama. Don’t care much for Clinton.

    Comment by Seth R. — January 3, 2008 @ 11:55 am

  19. Kucinich was second. Never heard of him. If he wins the nomination, I’ll take a better look.

    Don’t worry BiV, if you follow this plan you’ll never be at risk for finding out who he is.

    Comment by Jacob J — January 3, 2008 @ 11:58 am

  20. No big surprises for me: Biden, Dodd, Clinton. I expected Biden and Clinton to finish 1-2. I think Dodd’s support for a carbon tax pushed him above Hillary.

    McCain finished 4th ahead of both Obama and Edwards. If the Democratic race seems settled by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, I am seriously considering voting for him.

    Tancredo finished dead last, agreeing with me on zero questions. Romney and Thompson were close behind (ahead?) with only one.

    Comment by Last Lemming — January 3, 2008 @ 12:12 pm

  21. 1. Thompson
    2. Romney
    3. McCain

    (If this is the same USA Today quiz I took a while back).

    I can live with this list.

    P. S. If any of you know people in Iowa, please call them and tell them to vote for Romney tonight. We can win this, baby. Now is not the time to be slothful. It’s go-time baby!

    Comment by California Condor — January 3, 2008 @ 12:35 pm

  22. CC,
    Who is this “we” you keep speaking of? You notice that the vote, at least on this blog, is radically split, and many of us don’t want a Romney presidency?

    Although frankly, even if I did want him to win, I know exactly zero (0) people in Iowa.

    Comment by Sam B. — January 3, 2008 @ 12:51 pm

  23. Yeah, I’m a little confused by the “we” in that comment too.

    The computer tells me these are my candidates: Richardson, Giuliani, Biden. Never heard of Richardson…. Uh oh.

    Comment by Geoff J — January 3, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

  24. #21:
    CC, who is this “we” that you’re always referring to in the bloggernacle, who you think can “win” by promoting Romney? It looks as if you’re referring to LDS members, as if a “win” for Romney is a “win” for the membership of the LDS church. Is the nomination or election of any other candidate a “loss” for LDS members? Are you involving yourself in an election, or a high school pep rally?

    Comment by Nick Literski — January 3, 2008 @ 1:03 pm

  25. Sam B., Geoff J., and Nick Literski,

    This might clear things up for you.

    You’re welcome.

    Comment by California Condor — January 3, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

  26. Um, no. It says that Mormons are backing Romney in Iowa. You are not in Iowa, so if you’re talking about Mormons in Iowa, your “we” comment doesn’t work. If you’re talking about Mormons in general, more than half of us are outside the U.S. If you’re talking Mormons in the U.S., a sizeable portion of us aren’t behind him. If you’re talking about U.S. Mormon Republicans, even, there is at least a portion who support, e.g., Ron Paul. So I’m still at a complete loss as to who you mean by “we.”

    (Pet theory: you’re mispelling Wii; clearly, based on everyone I know who has one, Wii can and will win.)

    Comment by Sam B. — January 3, 2008 @ 1:36 pm

  27. Sam B.,

    Tonight is just the beginning.

    Iowa is merely a launching pad for Romney. Do you want to be standing on the sidelines when the first Mormon president in history gets elected?

    Comment by California Condor — January 3, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

  28. Nope. In fact, I think I’ll be right there, voting for Obama, or Clinton, or Edwards.

    Comment by Sam B. — January 3, 2008 @ 1:46 pm

  29. I got Kucinich, Biden, Richardson. On paper, I really like Richardson. (A NM resident will undoubtedly set me straight.)

    CC: There is no ‘we’ and I’m not your baby.

    Comment by Norbert — January 3, 2008 @ 1:54 pm

  30. #27: Are there sidelines on a launching pad?

    Comment by Norbert — January 3, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

  31. I’m still planning on writing in my Dad (Jim W. for President)if anyone is interested in joining the crowd. Or do you guys want to be on the sidelines when the first person with the last name “W.” gets elected?

    Comment by Matt W. — January 3, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

  32. And I do like Mitt Romney. I just don’t like politics.

    Comment by Matt W. — January 3, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

  33. Do you want to be standing on the sidelines when the first Mormon president in history gets elected?

    Between that remark and your article link, CC, you’ve made it quite clear. Your support for Romney apprently amounts to little or nothing more than high school pep rally enthusiasm for your “team.” Pity you don’t see yourself as part of the American team, which a POTUS is supposed to represent.

    Oh, and if the American people are foolish enough to elect Romney, he won’t be the first Mormon president. I’ve seen Romney’s statements during the campaign. I’ve seen Romney’s behavior during the campaign. He may be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but he’s no more “Mormon” than Pope Benedict.

    Comment by Nick Literski — January 3, 2008 @ 2:14 pm

  34. #27: Are there sidelines on a launching pad?

    You can either get inside this rocket ship before it blasts off or you can stand in the spectator gallery and watch it. It’s your choice.

    Actually a quote from this San Fransisco Chronicle op-ed essay sums up why you should vote for Romney:

    “[Romney] is a technocrat more comfortable with the nitty-gritty of running reforming institutions. He has basically conservative instincts, but he also probably regards abortion and other hot-button ideological markers as essentially distractions. After an eight-year surplus of conviction and deficit of competence, technocracy has its appeals…”

    Romney is not driven by ideology like some candidates. He has an immense amount of sheer talent and rarified white-glove executive experience. Few people have his skill set, let alone the group of people currently running for president. Some of the other candidates have noble goals, but they are light on talent or experience. I have sort of a libertarian viewpoint when it comes to economics, so I respect someone with spectacular private-sector experience a lot more than someone who has made their mark working for the government. I just don’t like centralized planning, and at the end of the day, government workers are just central planners who are a necessary evil, but a necessary evil that should be minimized.

    On a lesser level, it would be good for Mormons if Romney got elected. It would validate us to a certain degree. But that’s not why we should vote for Romney. Even so, I was somewhat moved when I read the Wall Street Journal article about Mormons in Iowa who are rallying around Romney.

    Comment by California Condor — January 3, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

  35. Personally, I think it’s pretty pathetic that anyone would need their personal faith “validated” by electoral success on the part of a fellow believer. The only “validation” a true faith should require is from deity.

    Comment by Nick Literski — January 3, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

  36. Romney is not driven by ideology like some candidates.
    Actually, yes he is: he’s driven by the ideology of the Reagan-loving portion of the Republican party, and will do anything he can to please them. You may well agree with this ideology, and maybe this is why you’re blind to the fact that he’s ideologically-driven. And it’s not inherently a bad thing to have an ideology. But he clearly has one.

    I’m going to have to disagree with Nick—Romney is very Mormon. Not only as an active member, but as a formed person. But I know plenty of Mormons I wouldn’t want as president (although I know one I would, once he makes the age threshold).

    So CC, you get on your rocketship and enjoy the view if and while it lasts; I have no problem with your support of Romney. But stop pretending to speak for Mormonism as a whole. You don’t represent us politically any more than Romney (who, to his credit, doesn’t claim to) does or than I do.

    Comment by Sam B. — January 3, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

  37. CC, please stop. This is meant to be an apolitical post for fun. Here in “Matt W.”ville, We love liberals and conservatives and middle-roaders and people who are butter-side up and people who are butter-side down and even people who are not mormon.

    Comment by Matt W. — January 3, 2008 @ 2:30 pm

  38. Everyone else, please don’t feed the Condor.

    Comment by Matt W. — January 3, 2008 @ 2:30 pm

  39. Mondo, I expect a full report on Grandpa.

    Comment by Matt W. — January 3, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

  40. Sorry Matt. I’m done playing with him.

    My big question: do I have to obey the computer?

    Comment by Sam B. — January 3, 2008 @ 2:33 pm

  41. Personally, I think it’s pretty pathetic that anyone would need their personal faith “validated” by electoral success on the part of a fellow believer. The only “validation” a true faith should require is from deity.

    Actually, I didn’t say that I “need” this validation. But most rational observers would agree with me that a Mormon in the White House would radically improve the reputation of Mormons both domestically and world-wide.

    Comment by California Condor — January 3, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

  42. You don’t represent us politically

    I freely acknowledge that there are Mormons who are not Republicans. But if you averaged Mormon opinion, I think most erudite observers would agree with me that it would come out as a Republican opinion. Even so, I will admit that I used a little bit of hyperbole in my rallying cry above.

    Comment by California Condor — January 3, 2008 @ 2:39 pm

  43. 1. Duncan Hunter
    2. Mitt Romney
    3. John McCain

    Who would have thought it. I was intending to vote for Barack Obama. I am more in to seeing multicultural diversity in the presidency. Any other woman but Hilary I would vote for.

    Comment by Dr. B. — January 3, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

  44. CC, please stop. This is meant to be an apolitical post for fun.

    You need to chillax. America has a proud tradition of invigorating political debate dating back to the days of Benjamin Franklin. And that might be a reason why we enjoy so much prosperity today.

    Comment by California Condor — January 3, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

  45. Wow! Who knew I agreed with Hilary on anything. Though she still scored the lowest, we have some common ground.

    Comment by jose — January 3, 2008 @ 3:55 pm

  46. Dr. B- (as an aside) I absolutely love reading your stories about working in Church History on Your Blog! I don’t have a blogspot account anymore, so can’t comment there, but the inside picture you give of Ezra Taft Benson is wonderful. Also, the time SWK kissed you on the cheek is incredible. For anyone interested in some awesome stories, click on Dr. Bs name above.

    Comment by Matt W. — January 3, 2008 @ 4:05 pm

  47. Huckabee, Romney, Hunter. Amazing. I wouldn’t vote for Huckabee in a million trillion years; I really, really dislike him. I like Romney, McCain, and Guiliani, in that order.

    Comment by E — January 3, 2008 @ 6:58 pm

  48. 1. Romney
    2. Huckabee
    3. Hunter/Guliani (depending on how I adjust the weights at the end)

    Although I think the validitiy of the quiz is extremely questionable, which I think the creators would agree with since they do call it a game, after all.

    Personally I’m debating between Romney and McCain, so I’m trying to figure out why McCain isn’t in my top 3. Looks like it is because he was not a governor, and because I chose a different answer on the tax question (but I agree with his also).

    Comment by Horebite — January 3, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

  49. 1. Romney
    2. Brownback
    3. Huckabee

    The amazing thing is that this order is about how I would have weighted the candidates before taking the computer crash quiz. However, after Huckabee’s sleezy campaign, I wouldn’t consider him. I’m an independent, but the Dems didn’t do well on issues that mattered to me. I also lean libertarian. Less government is best government almost always.

    Comment by Blake — January 4, 2008 @ 8:40 am

  50. Less government is best government almost always.

    My inner economist says amen.

    Comment by Matt W. — January 4, 2008 @ 8:44 am

  51. 1. Fred Thompson
    2. Rudy Giuliani
    3. Ron Paul

    However, I think the scoring system is a little simplistic. Ideally they should let you rank each option on an agree / disagree scale.

    Comment by Mark D. — January 5, 2008 @ 1:01 am

  52. I did it twice…once with lots of thought, once without. (Not sure why, but that’s what I did).

    First time: Romney
    Second time: Obama

    Only canidate on both lists: Richardson.

    This confirms what I’ve always suspected…I’m a wishy-washy, fence-sitting, independant.

    Comment by Latter-Day Sustainablist — January 7, 2008 @ 5:43 pm

  53. Looks like I’m a Ron Paul Man. (I already knew that)

    Comment by Craig Atkinson — January 7, 2008 @ 9:07 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.