Skip to main content

Who are voting for? Who should you be voting for?

I was doing some reading on the web the other day, trying to figure out what kind of impact Stephen Colbert is having on the polls so far, which is an interesting topic in itself. But in my searching, I came across this tool from Select Smart, which allows you to respond to your views on many topics, and rate the importance of those topics, and then it will tell you who you should be voting for.

I found this intriguing because I'm not always sure we're committed to voting for the person who actually supports what we want to see. There's a lot of reasons that might be the case, some more and less sensible! I can tell you that I wasn't surprised by who this quiz said I most agreed with, but that I'll most likely be voting for the candidate who showed up 5th on my list. Why? Electability. The candidate with whom I'm most in sync I doubt could get elected.

How about you? Do your results match your actual voting intentions?

Comments

John said…
According to the quiz, I should support (1) Tom Tancredo and (2) Duncan Hunter.
Wesley Sanders said…
Even though my ideal candidate, Ron Paul, does not have a great chance of winning the primary, much less the national election, I'm still voting for him because I feel that voting for the lesser of evils due to electability ultimately undermines my vote. I'll cast my ideological vote and hope for the best; none of the so-called mainstream Republican candidates line up with my views well, and because of inane election law in New York, even if I felt inclined to change parties, October 12 was the latest date for party changes to take place for the upcoming primary.

In any case, I feel that my primary vote is much more meaningful than my general election vote, particularly in a state like mine, New York which will be won by the Democrats, undoubtedly.
gmw said…
The candidate I'm leaning toward right now was in 2nd place behind "Theoretical Ideal Candidate" who managed to score a perfect 100%. Who knew?
Anonymous said…
How is that "Theoretical Ideal Candidate" can be anything but #1?

Not at all surprisingly, it gave me Dennis Kucinich as #1. What followed actually was kind of surpising. I knew I was no Hillary fan, but I was surprised by how low on the list she was, and how much higher on the list Biden was.

None of which will have much impact on my vote, sadly. I believed all that "vote your hope, not your fear" nonsense in 2000. I voted my hope and ended up with Bush. From that point on, I've voted out of blind terror. Electability and such.
gmw said…
"From that point on, I've voted out of blind terror. Electability and such."

Awesome.

Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised that my "Theorhetical Ideal Candidate" was actually running!
Karen said…
Kucinich was my #1...not surprising!!
John said…
I'd like to vote for a person of questionable mental health and a propensity for violence; someone who will make the world think that America is crazy and dangerous. Then we will be safe(r).

Alas, no such person is running.

I'm thinking about voting for Glenn Reynolds as a write-in candidate, even though he's not running. I rarely find myself in disagreement with him.
John said…
Of course, why settle for the lesser evil?

Vote for Cthulhu in 2008.
Anonymous said…
John... someone's who campaign slogan might be "America: We're Nervous and We Have Guns?"
John said…
That is exactly what I would be looking for in a candidate.

Alas, people only run for president after being in politics for thirty years or so, and that process tends to eliminate any backbone that they have.

Popular posts from this blog

Sermon for Second Sunday in Advent, "Peace: All Is Calm, All Is Bright," Isaiah 11:1-10, Mark 13:24-37

Sermon 12/3/17 Mark 13:24-37, Isaiah 11:1-10 Peace: All Is Calm, All Is Bright             “Silent night, holy night. All is calm, all is bright. Round yon’ virgin mother and child. Holy infant, so tender and mild. Sleep in heavenly peace. Sleep in heavenly peace.”             This week, I read news stories about North Korea testing a missile that perhaps could reach across the whole of the United States.             This week, I spoke with a colleague in ministry who had, like all churches in our conference, received from our church insurance company information about how to respond in an active shooter situation. She was trying to figure out how to respond to anxious parishioners and yet not get caught up in spending all of their ministry time on creating safety plans.             This week, we’ve continued to hear stories from people who have experienced sexual assault and harassment, as the actions, sometimes over decades, of men in positions of power have been

Sermon for the First Sunday in Advent, "Hope: A Thrill of Hope," Mark 1:1-8

Sermon 11/26/17 Mark 1:1-8 Hope: A Thrill of Hope             Are you a pessimist or an optimist? Is the glass of life half empty, or half full? My mom and I have gone back and forth about this a bit over the years. She’s wildly optimistic about most things, and sometimes I would say her optimism, her hopefulness borders on the irrational. If the weather forecast says there’s a 70% chance of a snowstorm coming, my mom will focus very seriously on that 30% chance that it is going to be a nice day after all. I, meanwhile, will begin adjusting my travel plans and making a backup plan for the day. My mom says I’m a pessimist, but I would argue that I’m simply a realist , trying to prepare for the thing that is most likely to happen, whether I like that thing or not. My mom, however, says she doesn’t want to be disappointed twice, both by thinking something bad is going to happen, and then by having the bad thing actually happen. She’d rather be hopeful, and enjoy her state of

Sermon, "Invitational: Deep Waters," Luke 5:1-11

Sermon 1/31/16 Luke 5:1-11 Invitational: Deep Waters                         I’m fascinated by the fact that for all that we know, as much as we have discovered, for all of the world we humans feel like we have conquered, there are still so many that things that we don’t know and can’t control, so much that we are learning yet, every day. Even today, every year, scientists discover entirely new species of plants and animals. And one part of our world that is rich in things yet-to-be-discovered is in the mysterious fathoms below – the deep, deepest waters of the ocean. In 2015, for example, scientists discovered this Ceratioid anglerfish that lives in the nicknamed “midnight zone” of the ocean. It doesn’t look like other anglerfish – one news article described it as looking like a “rotting old shoe with spikes, a scraggly mustache and a big mouth with bad teeth. And it has a long, angular fishing pole-looking thing growing out of its head.” [1] Or there’s Greedo, named after