Match Frame

Thoughts from an American editor and filmmaker in New Zealand about film and video production and post-production. Plus whatever else I feel like talking about.

Location: Balmoral, Auckland, New Zealand

A work in progress.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Candidate Poll Calculator

So, following Conor's lead, I checked out the Candidate Calculator and was surprised to realize just how far to the left I've shifted over time, or something. My top match was:

Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) 100.00% match

who I know my friend Jeremy loves, but I always thought of him as "that way liberal guy", not meaning that in a particularly complimentary way. But here we are. Anyway:

Your Other Top Matches
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) - 94.44%
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 73.33%
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 68.89%

Middle of the Pack
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 68.89%
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) - 64.44%
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 60.00%
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) - 55.56%
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 44.44%
Businessman John Cox (R) - 37.78%
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 28.89%
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 26.67%
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 26.67%
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 24.44%

Bottom of the Barrel
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 18.89%
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 17.78%
California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) - 13.33%
Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) - 13.33%


I had the vague sense that, of the three Democrats that I was aware of that were running, Edwards was the Democrat I supported the most, followed by Obama then Clinton, which is the exact opposite of what plays out here. (Although it's odd that Clinton gets "top match" and Obama gets "middle of the pack" when they actually have the same percentage.)

For the most part, it honestly doesn't matter much to me. I'm hard-pressed to imagine any scenario in which I won't vote for the Democrat, strictly from a house-cleaning perspective (by which I mean that maintaining the status quo party in the executive branch will diminish our international standing even further, if such a thing is possible), and I'm not really looking forward to discussing whether or not Hillary tipped some waitress or whether some candidate jumped up and down too much during the primary or what have you for the next 12 months.


Blogger ryanshaunkelly said...

Colbert gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

The people know too much,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.

24/11/07 12:04 AM  
Anonymous tODD said...

Hmm. Given your and Jarrett's results, and now mine (which list Kucinich at top, though only with a 78% match), I have to wonder if this thing isn't a tool to promote Kucinich to undecided left-wing voters. I mean, not really, but still.

I've read enough about Kucinich to know that I don't agree with him enough to vote for him, so I have to question the methodology of this quiz. It's too simplistic.

And I'm sorry, but I don't think Clinton is enough of a change from the status quo party currently trashing things. I don't care about the things you mentioned, either, but I care greatly about Clinton's dealing with the Iraq war and her unapologetic "Bush fooled me, too" defense of her vote for the UAMF. Plus, I think Bush showed us how political dynasties in America are a really terrible idea. I don't need any more evidence, thanks.

The only way for sure I know I'd vote for Clinton would be if Romney or Giuliani were the Republican candidate, as they are the only two candidates I'm certain are worse than Hillary.

Message: Happy Thanksgiving (late, yes, but who can tell with all those crazy time zones over there?)

24/11/07 5:45 PM  
Blogger dd said...

For what it's worth, Kucinich didn't really feature highly on Conor's list. On what level do you disagree with him?

I hear what you're saying about Clinton, but are you trying to imply that McCain's stance (for instance) on the Iraq war is somehow better? I don't really know most of the Republican candidates, though as a former libertarian who's still sympathetic with those ideals I kind of have a soft spot for Ron Paul, as a friend of mine has done lots of work for campaigns of his in the past. I also suspect he has a snowball's chance.

Basically I just have very vivid memories of friends of mine voting Nader instead of Gore in 2000 because they wanted to show the Democrats they wanted a more liberal candidate. And that could have worked out better. (To dramatically understate the case.)

And please tell me you had a turducken this year.

25/11/07 12:24 AM  
Anonymous tODD said...

Regarding Kucinich, maybe I spoke too soon. I remember reading statements in the past (especially regarding Iraq) that I disagreed with, but perusing his Web site, I couldn't immediately find anything that grabbed me.

"Are you trying to imply that McCain's stance (for instance) on the Iraq war is somehow better?" Not at all. The problem is that you've singled out an issue on which I tend towards the Democratic side. But as a pro-life person (with regards to both abortion and our current Iraq adventure), I don't necessarily see McCain's stances as all negative. That's why I singled out Romney and Giuliani as the two people I definitely won't vote for -- we're opposites across the board. Hillary doesn't fare much better with regards to those two issues, which, frankly, are the two biggest issues on my mind right now.

And yeah, I'd vote for Ron Paul. Heck, depending on how things look before the Oregon primary, I may switch my registration to vote for him (if, say, Clinton appears to have it all locked up by then). But yeah, no chance at all, really.

As for Nader/2000, well, I voted for him as well, but thankfully I didn't sway Oregon's electors away from Gore, so mine was a harmless vote.

And, to end on a sad note, I had no turducken this year -- Thanksgiving was at my parents' house in Dallas. Good food, but no bird-in-bird action.

28/11/07 6:33 PM  
Blogger dd said...

I missed the point that you were judging Hillary on her historical record on Iraq rather than her current platform. Because I'm slow, and I certainly don't mean to imply that the current platform is anything more or less opportunistic than her previous stance. But it is for me still quite different from McCain's. (Although your other issue consideration, while different from my viewpoint, I understand as well.)

I'm sorry about the turducken. I have one magic word that I hope will take the pain away ...


29/11/07 12:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home