Who do you side with?

October 15th, 2012 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Another US politics quiz. You answer various questions, and it then analyses which presidential candidate you most side with. My results are:

  • Economy – Gary Johnson (libertarian)
  • Immigration – Mitt Romney
  • Foreign Policy – Barack Obama
  • Social – Gary Johnson
  • Science – Gary Johnson, Barack Obama and Jill Stein
  • Environment – Gary Johnson
  • Healthcare – Gary Johnson
  • Domestic Policy – Gary Johnson
Tags:

14 Responses to “Who do you side with?”

  1. flipper (4,083 comments) says:

    Fascinating.
    Mine were mostly Romney, and Johnson….small Obamination

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Griff (7,797 comments) says:

    Romney economics immigration and Stein for environmental, science, and Gary Johnson foreign policy, health
    Blue Green liberal no surprise there

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. eszett (2,417 comments) says:

    Obama, Stein, Anderson for me on most issues. No surprises there.
    None (!) with Romney.

    Great site, thanks David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. speters (108 comments) says:

    A really good tool – I’m with Obama on science, healthcare and the environment, Jill Stein on foreign policy, Rocky Anderson on domestic policy and the economy, and Gary Johnson on immigration and social issues. As eclectic as I’d expect

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    82% Gary Johnson
    80% Jill Stein
    71% Obama
    37% Romney

    Science – Obama
    Health – Stein
    Domestic – Johnson
    Foreign – Johnson
    Social – Anderson
    Environment – Romney
    Economy – Obama
    Immigration – Obama

    Thanks DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    No surprise….Romney 94%

    Science, Health, Foreign, Social, Environment, Economy & Immigration…all Romney.

    Domestic…Johnson

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. adaman (41 comments) says:

    99% with Gary Johnson

    on economic, science, environmental, healthcare, social, immigration, foreign policy, and domestic policy issues

    Cheers DPF

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    A small number of dumb questions but that probably goes to how politics is always boiled down to slogans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Someone said a libertarian is just an anarchist on the gold standard.

    I don’t mind most libertarian views, but can’t stomach Ayn Rand. If you can be a libertarian without agreeing with Rand’s ravings, libertarians are okay.

    Anarchism is a pretty broad church from the early Mussolini to Kropotkin. A lot of us who frequent Kiwiblog would be at home in various strands. It’s Utopian though, like the syndicalist anarchist troops in the Spanish Civil War voting before a big attack and ignoring staff advice in making their choice. The result was slaughter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    Jack5,

    I don’t mind most libertarian views, but can’t stomach Ayn Rand. If you can be a libertarian without agreeing with Rand’s ravings, libertarians are okay.

    I would go the other way. I prefer Ayn Rand over libertarians. That is, I prefer the attempt at constructing a rational philosophical basis for one’s political ideology rather than blindly accepting a political ideology because it sounds right. Having the right policies is not as important, I believe, as trying to understand fundamentally what it means to have a rational and logical belief, or to understand fundamentally what it means to be “right” or “wrong” in a moral or ethical sense.

    Although that’s not to ignore the fact that Rand became increasingly dogmatic as the personality cult around her began to define right and wrong by whatever Ayn Rand said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Louis Houlbrooke (9 comments) says:

    99% Gary Johnston. Not surprising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. BlairM (2,341 comments) says:

    I don’t mind most libertarian views, but can’t stomach Ayn Rand. If you can be a libertarian without agreeing with Rand’s ravings, libertarians are okay.

    Rand hated libertarians. She called them “hippies of the Right”. Well call me a proud “Hippie of the Right” then.

    I am a libertarian because it improves people’s lives, not because of some dumb atheist individualist philosophy. Freedom is innate. It’s something natural that you fight for because you are human and you don’t want other fuckers controlling what you do. You don’t need philosophy or some book to tell you what is as natural as breathing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    Blair, how do you see the final days of the campaign? By talking to people there, do you believe is there a possibility the Messiah could be defeated? OH is critical, and FL appears to have gone Romney’s way.

    Yes, I follow the news, but it will be interesting to hear the opinion of someone like yourself in the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    BlairM,

    I am a libertarian because it improves people’s lives, not because of some dumb atheist individualist philosophy.

    But why is “improving people’s lives” a good motivation? Which people do you mean and why are they important? Before asking what one should believe in and how one should act, one should first question why believe in anything and why do anything at all. Indeed, until one answers those questions one cannot answer the question of how to “improve” people’s lives. Improvement is a relative term which requires a standard of assessment. By what shall we measure the improvement of people’s lives? If one measures it by how much “freedom” they have, and in turn justifies that freedom by reference to how it improves people’s lives, then you are engaging in pointless circular reasoning. That is the problem with some libertarians IMHO.

    Freedom is innate. It’s something natural that you fight for because you are human and you don’t want other fuckers controlling what you do. You don’t need philosophy or some book to tell you what is as natural as breathing.

    If it is “innate” and “natural”, why are there no libertarian civilizations? If we are to talk of what is natural, it is natural for humans to invent supernatural beings to scare populations into compliance in order to enforce a moral code. This seems to be the default state for human societies. They may or may not evolve towards something more sophisticated and “free”, but the libertarian conception of freedom would seem to be far from natural and innate and more like scarce to non-existent. Indeed many of the concepts upon which libertarianism are based (liberalism, capitalism etc.) are very new in the history of human civilization. Yet somehow they are “innate” and “natural” at the same time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote