Undecided No More!


One man. Two boys. Twelve kids.

Related Post Roulette

136 Responses

  1. Kazzy says:

    I am 81% with Barack Obama, 74% with Jill Stein (whom I’ve never heard of), 70% with Gary Johnson, and 41% with Mitt Romney.

    This generally jibes with what I know about myself.Report

    • Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:

      Huh. I came in 95% Johnson (no surprise) 74% Stein, 69% Romney and 58% Obama. The last two surprise me, because if you put a gun to my head and made me go major party, I’d go Obama – maybe that is because on temperament/perceived honesty (which is not included in the quiz) I prefer Obama, but on some of the financial questions (which are included in the quiz), Romney probably edges him out for me?Report

      • Glyph in reply to Glyph says:

        Weirdly, when I look at the results by party, Democrat and Republican are flipped (that is, it goes L, G, D, R), which seems more what I would have guessed. So I am not sure if there is an issue with the quiz; or if I somehow agree more with the Democratic party as a whole than Obama himself on some issues.Report

        • Ramblin' Rod in reply to Glyph says:

          That’s exactly what happened to me between the Dems and Greens. In my case, I think it illustrates that Obama is actually to the right of his party, despite all the noise by the r/w about how he’s such a radical liberal. Also, I think Jill’s stance wrt to defense issues is probably closer to the liberal mainstream as well.

          Also, the only real beef I have against Johnson is on economic issues.Report

        • Ramblin' Rod in reply to Glyph says:

          Did you fiddle with the importance scale to the left of the questions? I only did that once (on the death penalty) because it seemed greyed out to me on the other questions, but maybe I wasn’t doin’ it right. That could shift things around quite a bit.Report

          • Glyph in reply to Ramblin' Rod says:

            I did it on some of them (increased them one notch; didn’t decrease any). I also used the ‘customized answer’ thing a few times, though even then I always used an extant/expanded choice rather than typing my own.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Ramblin' Rod says:

            It was grayed out if you didn’t adjust it. I don’t know if that means it defaults to the middle or something else. I moved it up and down on some, though was probably less than 100% consistent.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Glyph says:

        I’m surprised I as as close to Gary Johnson as I was. I don’t know much about him and, while I do learn libertarian on a number of issues, some of the issues most important to me I am decidedly very not libertarian. I don’t know if I answered less-than-100%-accurately or if I am stereotyping Johnson inaccurately. I might need to go back and retake it.

        I don’t have an issue with being that closely aligned with him, mind you. I’m just surprised.Report

        • Glyph in reply to Kazzy says:


          • Kazzy in reply to Glyph says:

            Hey man, I got no bones with the libertarians. There are a handful of issues which I steadfastly disagree with them on, but even there my objection is largely practical: in an ideal world, I’d support their position but I don’t think we’re there yet. Mr. Hanley (where is that guy, by the way?) may say otherwise but I like the libertarians I’ve gotten to know and am sympathetic to the broader values underlying their ideology.

            I should say that, while I stop short of calling myself a libertarian, I also don’t identify as a Democrat or a Republican, but I do identify as a liberal (and I tend to think of true libertarianism as a far more liberal ideology than a conservative one, but that might just be a matter of convenience).Report

  2. Mike Dwyer says:

    As expected, 80% for Gary Johnson.Report

    • Mike Dwyer in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

      The 33% I pulled for Obama and the 25% for Romney clearly demonstrate the two-party system isn’t working for me anymore.Report

      • Glyph in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        Mine wasn’t as drastic as yours, but I was somewhat surprised to find even the Greens beating out both majors for me.

        Another thing I noticed is this – libertarians are often stereotyped as ‘just Republicans who want to smoke pot’ – but lining L, G, D and R up next to each other as in my party agreement order, R is actually the one I am *farthest from*.

        So the stereotypical positioning on the L/R axis for libertarians does not seem to hold, at least for me on this quiz.Report

    • Rufus F. in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

      I was about 85% for Gary Johnson. Sad for him that I don’t vote in US elections.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to Rufus F. says:

        Similar result here. Never heard of Jill Stein but I’m quite close to her too.

        Having already filled out my absentee ballot, the point is somewhat moot, at least as to me.Report

        • Fnord in reply to Burt Likko says:

          Likewise, I was close to both Stein and Johnson. Much of that is civil liberties and foreign policy overlap. But there’s also stuff like “Incentivize the private sector to develop alternative forms of energy”, which I agreed with both of them on, but I’ll bet they have rather different views on how we should do that.Report

    • “As expected, 80% for Gary Johnson.”

      Wow. I got 83%, which surprises me because, well, you know, I’m a liberal and all. 🙂Report

  3. rexknobus says:

    Well, that’s embarrassing…who the heck is Jill Stein (95%)? Not to mention Rocky Anderson (68%)? I’ve got to do some research…

    I’m 81% Barack and 3% Mitt. Which surprised me…thought I was a bit more middle-of-the-road.

    98% Demo; 1% Repub — again, much more B & W than I expected.

    Thanks for the link!Report

  4. Ramblin' Rod says:

    91% Jill Stein, 82% Rocky Anderson (who the hell is he?), 81% Obama, 62% Johnson, and 16% Romney. About right.

    Interestingly, I side 92% with the Dems and 85% with the Greens, which seems weird given the above. (also, 34% Libertarian and 7% Republican, FWIW)Report

  5. LWA (Lib W Attitude) says:

    96% Karl Marx, 45% Hitler, 36% Ayatollah Khamenei.

    So I am an Obama supporter after all!Report

  6. Stillwater says:

    Whelp, Jill Stein’s my guy (gal?) at 96%. Barack at 88%, Gary Johnson 65% and Mitt at 10% (“no major issues”). I’m not really surprised about that actually. On the fundamentals I’m clearly *much* closer to the Dem’s than the R’s.Report

    • Glyph in reply to Stillwater says:

      If you look at the percentages like ‘grades’, you have a major-party candidate who passes handily, in the solid ‘B’ range. So there’s no reason to ‘throw yr vote away’ on Stein.

      Whereas for me, both the majors get a failing grade, so going with Johnson makes a sort of sense IMO.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Glyph says:

        Glyph, does my ordering look as crazy to you as mine does to me? You go (in order): libertarian, socialist!, conservative, liberal. That looks whacked to me!

        I go: socialist, liberal, libertarian, conservative. Do either of these orderings fall on a coherent spectrum?Report

        • Stillwater, your spectrum of socialist, liberal, libertarian, conservative makes sense to me. That would indicate you value equal distribution of wealth and opportunity over the protection of personal property. You trust government more than free enterprise. You think people should be allowed to run their personal lives as they wish but don’t let anyone get too far ahead of anyone else.

          Sounds nice at first blush, but the lack of incentive to advance means perpetual mediocrity. Not the sort of world I want to live in, but I understand it.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Brian Houser says:

            “Sounds nice at first blush, but the lack of incentive to advance means perpetual mediocrity. Not the sort of world I want to live in, but I understand it.”

            But what about the food? Italian food is WONDERFUL!Report

        • Trumwill in reply to Stillwater says:

          Yours makes complete sense.

          The Green Party picks up support from odd places. I remember back in 2000, someone determined that absent Nader 60% of of GP vote would have gone Dem, 10% would have gone Republican, and 30% wouldn’t have voted at all.

          The interesting part? I knew multiple people who voted for Nader (in a non-cynical way) but, if forced to choose between the two, would have picked Bush.Report

  7. NewDealer says:

    I am 94 percent with Jill Stein, 83 percent with Barack Obama, 71 percent with Rocky Anderson, 3 percent with Mitt, 58 percent with my fellow Californians, and 54 percent with the nation over all.

    I wonder how I stack as compared to my native New York.Report

  8. NewDealer says:

    And I am 98 percent Democratic, 97 percent Green, 31 percent Libertarian, and 1 percent Republican.Report

  9. Brian Houser says:

    99% Gary Johnson. Not surprised. I feel fortunate that I can vote for a candidate whom I agree with so much (but sad that it’s so unlikely he’ll win).

    Other results: 78% Virgil Goode, 64% Romney, 39% Obama.Report

  10. Patrick Cahalan says:

    I always wind up agreeing more with the Greens and the Libertarians than the Dems or the GOP.Report

  11. Michelle says:

    My breakdown: 75% Obama, 75% Stein, 71% Johnson, and 51% Mendacious Mitt.

    My views align most closely with the Democratic and Green Parties, but I get 43% Libertarian and 33% Republican.Report

  12. Ramblin' Rod says:

    If there’s anything this exercise shows clearly it’s that our elections would look a lot different if we had something like Instant Run-off Voting (IRV). How many people aren’t going to vote for the candidate that most truly reflects their preferences based on the perception (probably accurate, but still…) that said candidate can’t possibly win?

    In my case, with the lopsided nature of the Kansas electorate, I wouldn’t have any problem voting for a Stein or Anderson, though I doubt either one will be on my ballot. Hell, I might vote for Johnson just to keep the Reps looking over their shoulders. But if I was in a “battle-ground” state I would feel compelled to cast it for Obama.Report

  13. Jesse Ewiak says:

    87 for Stein, 75 for Obama, 64 for Rocky, 30 for Johnson, 2 for Romney
    86 DNC, 79 Green, 15 Libertarian, 2 GOPReport

  14. Anne says:

    87% Jill Stein, 84% Obama, 71% Gary Johnson, 13% Romney
    Democrat 67%, Green 67%, Libertarian 33% and Republican 5%

    Not really surprised except for the 13% for Romney I really dislike the man don’t trust him one bit
    I tweaked the scales on the left increasing never decreasing and chose quite a few of the other presented options did not write anything in

    Guess I am just the crunchy granola democrat my libertarian husband says I amReport

  15. Jaybird says:

    I was only 98% Gary Johnson. I think it was the NASA question where we don’t see eye to eye.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

      If you withhold your vote, he might come around on it.Report

    • Brian Houser in reply to Jaybird says:

      It looks like my 1% difference from Gary Johnson is over citizenship for children of illegal immigrants (he supports it; I don’t–although we both support expanding immigration and amnesty for non-violent criminals).Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Brian Houser says:

        You totally need to agree with Gary Johnson on this particular issue.Report

        • Brian Houser in reply to Jaybird says:

          Your lack of emoticons leads me to believe you weren’t being sarcastic. So, help me get that last missing 1% of my match with Gary Johnson and help me understand why birthright citizenship for illegals is a good idea.

          To me it seems the fewer incentives we provide for people to come here illegally, the better. I’d much rather we move toward open immigration and allow any interested, productive, lawful person to become a legal immigrant.

          I suspect this only cost me a 1% difference because I marked this as a “less important” issue–not only do I not care much about it, it seems it would be a legislative matter, not an executive one.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Brian Houser says:

            My lack of emoticons? The post also didn’t have acronyms. I was being goofy.

            But… I do support birthright citizenship (as well as Ellis Island level entry requirements). As for why you should, I’ll try to throw something together.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

              We have the 14th Amendment because there was a terrible bunch of things that happened to a bunch of people who were designated as “not citizens” despite such things as “being born on American soil”. The 14th Amendment was intended to rectify the problems of whether people “held to labor” should have such things as the Bill of Rights incorporated to cover them… in the face of people who argued that the Bill of Rights should not.

              In a nutshell, the 14th Amendment was created to correct a MASSIVE injustice. If it overcompensated, it did so by inches when compared to the miles of distance it had to make up.

              In any case, people are a positive good! Our ancestors came here because they were willing to bust their humps and get jobs and take care of their kids and make a better life for everybody involved. We should be delighted to have more people who want to bust their humps and get jobs and take care of their kids and make a better life for everybody involved. We should want *MORE* immigration. People who are willing to say goodbye to everything familiar in order to take a chance on the USA? Those types of folks are already Americans. They *BELONG* here. We shouldn’t be trying to keep them out.Report

              • Brian Houser in reply to Jaybird says:

                I don’t disagree with anything you said but you haven’t changed my mind that children of illegal immigrants shouldn’t automatically be granted citizenship. And it’s likely the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to do such. I’m not advocating a repeal of the amendment (none is needed); just a clarification via legislation.

                And I’d even be in favor of a birthright amnesty provision: if an illegal alien is later naturalized, any of their children born on U.S. soil also gain citizenship.

                The only reason I can think of to support granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is that not doing so creates an additional burden for all parents to prove their citizenship or legality of their residency.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Brian Houser says:

                Well, given that you’re arguing that we should change the way that we do things, why do you think we should change the way that we do things?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Brian Houser says:


                If a child is born here but not offered citizenship, what is his standing in America? In the world? Not only will he not have citizenship rights here, he might not have them anywhere.Report

              • Brian Houser in reply to Kazzy says:


                I say, a child born to illegal aliens in the U.S. would also be considered an illegal alien. Any citizenship rights of the children would be determined by those of the country of their parents’ citizenship. If the parents’ country does not provide citizenship to children born on foreign soil, then the children are in effect stateless. And why is that such a problem?

                I’m treating citizenship and immigration policy as separate but related issues and am not suggesting anyone be deported; just that children born to illegal immigrants do not gain things such as voting rights simply because they were born here. But it would be nice if they had a easy path to naturalization by the time they reach voting age.Report

              • And that is inhumane policy, in my view. It’s one thing to say “You were born in Sudan. I’m sorry, but there’s not much we’re going to do to help you. That’s between you and your government.”

                And another to say “You were born here, but due to what your parents did, you have no government with which to take your grievance. You are, internationally and here, a non-entity.”

                Except of course they do have a government with which to take their grievance. Ours. There’s no legal way of doing so – as with Sudan – but the illegal ways are sufficiently cause for concern.

                A path to naturalization when they turn 18 would help, but I have questions about its efficacy.

                We are not just a people, we are a land. Being born here should morally afford people certain rights, if we are to consider ourselves morally right people and a land of people. That would include the right of being a citizen. That is the least we can do, in my view, regardless of the sins of their parents.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Brian Houser says:


                It is a problem because, in part, how we treat immigrants is impacted by their country of origin and their standing there. We treat immigrants from Mexico differently than immigrants from India different from immigrants from England. Where does someone without a home state fit in?

                The reality is most of us are citizens solely because we were born here. Sure, most of our parents were also citizens, but why should that matter? An infant is no more or less a productive or legitimate member of society because of where his parents hailed from. I didn’t have to jump through any hoops to become a citizen; simply having been born here afforded me all rights and privileges of citizenship. Should that have been different because of where my parents were born?Report

              • RE: Will Truman:

                The problem with the argument that we need to avoid “You were born here, but due to what your parents did, you have no government with which to take your grievance” is that it’s a slippery slope. Where does that responsibility end? If a child is born in a land that recognizes no rights, then by extension, do we need to claim them as U.S. citizens to ‘save them’ out of moral responsibility? Does this apply to all moral issues? Whom is to define which moral issues require U.S. involvement (contrary to what many try to convince us, morality is not universal and government attempts to achieve it will usually lead to conflict).

                No, we shouldn’t punish children for the sins of their parents, but neither should we reward them. Citizenship birthright provides too strong an incentive for illegal immigrants to do an end-run around our overly restrictive immigration policies. Let’s solve this conundrum by allowing open immigration rather than encouraging anchor babies.Report

              • LWA (Lib W Attitude) in reply to Brian Houser says:

                The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they lead to all sorts of logic failure.
                First you say that there is no rational limit to the argument, then eventually you end up with Nazi Germany.Report

              • Trumwill in reply to Brian Houser says:


                It ends at our borders.

                If a baby ends up at our doorstep, I do not necessarily have a responsibility to take care of that baby. But if there is nobody else who can take care of it? Then I believe I do. It’s on my doorstep. Or in my neighborhood. Or whatever. I do not have a similar moral obligation to starving children in Africa. Stating that I have no such obligation does not relieve me of the obligation towards the child left on my doorstep.

                As I said, we are not just a people. We are people of a land. We have an obligation to defenseless people who end up here. Not necessarily those that come here, or would like to, but those that were brought here or are here.

                There is actually little indication that anchor babies are a systemic problem. To the extent that they are a problem, it’s easier and better to deal with it by saying that having a baby here affords the parents no protection. If they get caught, they have to go back. At that point, they either lose their child or (more likely) leave their child here. I consider this a better (more effective, in addition to more moral) way of approaching it than a pathway to citizenship somewhere down the line.Report

              • All failures of “progress” sit at the bottom of a slippery slope. There have been many.

                Nothing wrong with slippery slope arguments, only the only poorly made ones, or well-constructed ones falling on poorly-made minds.Report

              • If a baby ends up at our doorstep, I do not necessarily have a responsibility to take care of that baby. But if there is nobody else who can take care of it? Then I believe I do.

                Aha. And the very example meself was contemplating.Report

              • Trumwill, I think you had me until you started orphaning the anchor babies. That feels morally inferior to me, i.e. I’m pretty sure I’d prefer not gaining court/voting rights over having my parents forced to abandon me.

                Sorry to get this discussion off track (yeah, remember this was originally about the candidates), but I’m still thinking this topic over and may be willing to concede birthright citizenship even for illegals makes sense–largely because arguing against it seems a bit incongruous with my desire for open immigration.

                And thanks, LWA, for triggering Godwin’s Law. It was only a matter of time.Report

              • Brian, then let me backtrack that part! Or at least more fully explain it.

                My view is that if, say, Juan and Juanita cross the border from Mexico and go on to have little John, then get caught, if they have an Uncle Jose that they can leave the child with, I would be fine with that. My guess is that most of the time they would take the child back with them. It becomes more problematic when we’re talking about foster care. I think in that case, though, it’s very rare that they would leave the child behind (unless the child was already approaching 18, say). That’s just not how parents work, in my view.

                Now, in fairness, I don’t support doing this either. I don’t see anchor babies as a real problem. But if I did, I would prefer to approach the situation this way rather then by way of denying birthright citizenship.

                Also, I want to stress something I didn’t in my previous comment. Besides the moral imperative, I believe it’s best for us to cultivate our residents and mainstream them into our society as much as possible. Having intergenerational non-citizenship is, in my view, bound to cause problems for us. I don’t have faith that citizenship papers on the 18th birthday would mitigate this much. Growing up scared of the government is not conducive to showing up at the Social Security office at your 18th birthday. My wife’s experience with the immigration population is that they often forgo (prenatal, in her case) health care simply because they don’t understand that doctors won’t turn them in to immigration. Even when the rules are in their favor, they often act with a great deal of caution. Too many of them would try to stay below the radar even when they turn 18 (perhaps for fear that whatever proof they have of having lived here would prove to be insufficient), hurting everybody in the end.Report

              • Will Truman, thanks for the clarification.

                And to clarify my position (which I’m still considering), I’m only recommending not granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. I am not advocating deporting anyone. In fact, I would be OK with across-the-board amnesty. Feel free to stay here with your parents or otherwise. Be productive if you can. Be a good “citizen” without actually being a citizen (until you naturalize). So all I’m really doing is refusing to grant you an automatic right to vote, serve on a jury, obtain a U.S. passport, and hold Federal office. At birth, instead of citizenship, you get a green card. When you reach the age of majority, you decide whether you want to be a citizen. With the way things are going (not to mention U.S. expatriation taxes), some may very well choose to refuse U.S. citizenship.

                Wow, and all this for an issue I marked as “less important”!Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Brian Houser says:

                BTW, Brian, I just want to say welcome to the LoOG if you are indeed new (I haven’t seen you ’round these parts but I often miss folks). And please continue to contribute; though I may not agree with all you say, you bring a pretty interesting and well-supported perspective. Cheers!Report

              • Brian, I totally understand about feeling the issue out. Conversation occurs when ideas are expressed, even ideas we’re not sure about. I also second Kazzy’s comment and really hope you stick around and/or keep commenting.

                As I said, I think there are some logistical problems with “You can become a citizen when you’re 18.” I think many will decline to do so out of fear and misunderstanding. Otherwise, I might not have a problem with your proposal.

                It does seem to me, however, that it does fall under the same umbrella of rewarding the children for parents crossing illegally. Not that this bothers me much, but it was one of your objections to birthright citizenship.

                I should also add that, by and large, I do not see a failure to abide by our immigration laws as being immoral at all, or indicative of any immorality. If we’re going to have not-open borders, it’s our responsibility to keep it that way. It’s not really their responsibility to play by the rules and get in line when there is no line and the rules are stacked against them so. This is not central to our discussion (since I suspect your immigration policy would make this not the case), but I wanted to throw it in there.Report

              • Thanks for the welcome. I’ve actually been following for a while but am just an occasional commenter. I’m often impressed by the things I read here.

                RE: Will Truman’s “…I do not see a failure to abide by our immigration laws as being immoral […] If we’re going to have not-open borders, it’s our responsibility to keep it that way. It’s not really their responsibility to play by the rules […] when the rules are stacked against them so.”

                Here again I feel like I have conflicting views on both sides of the issue: I think I disagree on principle–although I wouldn’t call it a moral issue, I think those interested in immigrating do have a responsibility to follow the laws of the land (including whether they may enter). However, there really is a moral issue here, and that’s that immigration laws themselves are immoral. What right do we have to deny people access to a geographic area simply because we were born here and they weren’t? So I think “illegal” immigrants are justified because they’re disobeying an immoral law.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

                “It does seem to me, however, that it does fall under the same umbrella of rewarding the children for parents crossing illegally.”

                I’m asking this genuinely and not with the snark that can easily be read into it…

                Is there anything patronizing, presumptuous, or otherwise arrogant about thinking of “citizenship” as a “reward”? If Mexico were to call you tomorrow and tell you that you were being granted full citizenship, would you consider it a reward? What if it was Italy? England? Japan?

                If there is indeed something wrong or troubling about thinking about the issue in this way, might thinking about it differently change the conclusions folks are drawing?

                Thanks in advance for indulging my obviously anti-American, terroristic screed. :-pReport

              • Will Truman in reply to Kazzy says:

                If Mexico were to call you tomorrow and tell you that you were being granted full citizenship, would you consider it a reward? What if it was Italy? England? Japan?

                It would depend on what was required for the citizenship. If being a citizen of Sylvania required that I renounce American citizenship (ie no dual citizenship), I’d renounce it immediately. I’d also look at the tax ramifications.

                My default, though, would be to be happy to accept citizenship to any country that would let me. I don’t know what I’d do with Mexican citizenship, but the others would be cool. If I’m living somewhere, I’d prefer to do so with citizenship than without.

                There are some die-hard ‘mercans that would object to being a citizen of any country but the good ole US of A. Chances are that is not unrelated to their having been born and raised here, however.Report

          • JB is always…something. It’s designed to make the reader think. Anyone can bleat.Report

          • Trumwill in reply to Brian Houser says:

            Birthright citizenship provides a stop on generational non-citizenship. You can, of course, set up alternate routes as other countries have (if you’re born here, you’re not a citizen unless you’re raised here) though I question how well it would be executed. I fear the result is a large number of people natively of this country facing risk of deportation “back” to a country they’ve never been. To the extent that we’re worried about anchor babies, you can more easily implement a system wherein a child born here provides little or no protection from deportation more easily than you can implement an alternate route to residence-based citizenship (born here, but not a citizen until you’re 18 or whatnot).Report

            • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Trumwill says:

              Birthright citizenship provides a stop on generational non-citizenship.

              Generational non-citizenship doesn’t really exist since children of DREAM Act eligibles born on US soil are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.Report

              • Trumwill in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

                Well sure, but I am arguing for the notion of keeping birthright citizenship more broadly. In response to Hauser’s “help me understand why birthright citizenship for illegals is a good idea” request.Report

              • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Trumwill says:

                Ah, I see, WTrum. A very good argument: Illegals are a shadow class but a permanent generational shadow class seems far worse, I guess like the semi-stateless Roma [“Gypsies”] of Europe.

                It has been offered that it’s better for 3rd Worlders to be able to participate in 1st World economies like ours with the proviso they have no “entitlements” to social services. Even the sentimentalist must confess there’s some limit on resources, and social services for immigrants logically must cut into the pie available for citizens.

                In, you know, the real world, it’s a tough call, or it should be.Report

              • It’s a general (uncomfortable) truth that the more we wish to provide support and service to citizens, the less generous we can be with citizenship, and the more we wish to provide support and service to (above-board) residents, less generous we can be with residency.

                But I remain in favor of immigration and assimilation, the latter of which does necessitates citizenship and encourages at least some support and service, in my view. (Not sayin’ that yer sayin’ otherwise.)Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Will Truman says:

                Except when you look at the numbers that show most immigrants (legal and otherwise) contribute more than they take. I don’t know how those numbers would change if they participated fully in society (both in terms of paying in fully and fully taking advantage of society’s offerings) but the image of folks crossing the border with their hand out for welfare checks and other freebies from the government is far from accurate.Report

              • With our safety net being what it is, that may well be true. Expand support and service more, there comes a point where that ceases to be true.

                Shawn Gude believes that we should have a guaranteed income regardless of whether one chooses to work or not as a matter of rights.

                Now, I think that’s a bad idea for a number of reasons, but even if I’m wrong, that would put some serious constraints on who we let come here.

                With our current levels of support, or lack thereof, a different matter perhaps. I would still not support open borders for a variety of reasons, but I am more supportive of letting more people in than if we greeted them at the border with a ton of benefits and comparatively little in the way of expectations.Report

              • This is one of the (many) issues that illustrates the elegant simplicity and logic of libertarianism. We wouldn’t have this dilemma if we would have kept the Federal government out of social issues (as the Constitution intended).

                As we’ve seen, providing free handouts (by forcing the productive to pay for them, no less) only encourages people to take advantage. If social welfare was provided by charity, I’m sure we’d see a much more efficient distribution system and only those truly in need will get help. Illegal immigrants would only be helped in areas where the residents are willing to support them. Even moving these programs to the state level would at least provide a more fine-grained control over how each state treats support of immigrants.Report

              • LWA (Lib W Attitude) in reply to Will Truman says:

                “If social welfare was provided by charity, I’m sure we’d see a much more efficient distribution system and only those truly in need will get help.”

                What in the world would cause you to think such a thing?

                It couldn’t be as a result of empirical evidence, all of which shows exactly the opposite.Report

              • RE: LWA’s challenge to my “If social welfare was provided by charity, I’m sure we’d see a much more efficient distribution system and only those truly in need will get help.”

                It’s not clear whether you doubt the first part or the second (or both), so I’ll try to tackle both.

                The results of various studies show that government-sponsored welfare programs generally distribute about 30% of the funds taken in to those in need whereas private charities are left with about 70% after overhead to be distributed. See http://libertariananswers.com/is-private-charity-more-efficient-than-government-welfare/ and the primary source it links to. This article also has some good numbers and explanations about why welfare programs don’t work well: http://c1355372.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/9a090ecd-9aad-4cce-b335-95f4e847aa78/Newsletter%20December%202011%20Proof%204.pdf

                Aside from the hard numbers, it follows from logic. The Federal welfare system (including all its various parts–welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability, food stamps, etc.) has so many layers between its central management and the people actually getting the funds–each one of those layers meaning paychecks going to government workers, offices to pay for, etc.–that by the time it’s all doled out, there isn’t much left. Contrast that with charities–especially local ones–and you don’t have near the same level of bureaucracy and overhead.

                And just as important, when the people giving and managing the charitable funds are in the same community (or close to it) as those receiving the assistance, it’s easier to prevent abuse. They can do a better job of making sure those receiving funds are the people who really need it.

                We all hear plenty of stories about welfare queens and people on perpetual unemployment, but when’s the last time you heard about your local church or The United Way pumping out money to a deadbeat dad or mom who refuse to look for a job?

                I was surprised by your response because all the arguments I’ve heard for government-provided social welfare have been based on a lack of trust for people to donate. But proponents all have reluctantly agreed that government-based programs are quite inefficient and subject to abuse.Report

  16. Ryan Noonan says:

    87% Johnson, 73% Stein, 63% Obama, 11% Romney
    80% Socialist (LOL), 80% Green, 64% Democrat, 64% Libertarian

    How amazing are those top two (Johnson and Socialist)? I get flack every time I talk about the non-statist left or libertarian socialism but, seriously, I’m not making this stuff up.Report

  17. mark boggs says:

    93% Stein, 91% Johnson, 78% Anderson, 77% Obama, 12% RomneyReport

  18. Kazzy says:

    Who is this Stein person? Seems like she is cleaning up here. I had never heard of her before.Report

    • Ryan Noonan in reply to Kazzy says:

      She’s the Green Party nominee.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Ryan Noonan says:

        Ah. Interesting so many folks here seem to be aligning with her.Report

        • Ryan Noonan in reply to Kazzy says:

          I suspect it’s a general radicalness thing. Libertarians and Greens tend to agree on a few things (drugs, war, and [for lack of a better term] personal liberty), and they do so in strong opposition to the consensus positions taken by the Democrats and Republicans. Insofar as the League’s libertarians and liberals are almost all notable for their agreement on those topics, they cluster around Johnson and Stein.Report

        • Jesse Ewiak in reply to Kazzy says:

          Not really, since I’d describe most of the liberal/social democratic wing of the commentariat here to the left of Obama/the mainstream Democratic party on a lot of things. In an IRV vote, I’d probably put Stein #1.Report

  19. Trumwill says:

    I took the quiz a while back. Came up with Johnson, Romney, Obama… can’t remember about Stein or Goode or if they were included at the time.Report

    • Trumwill in reply to Trumwill says:

      Johnson 87%, Obama 82%, Romney 75%, Stein 59%, Goode 56%, Anderson 46%

      Republican 70%, Libertarian 61%, Green 59%, Democrat 56%

      Which is interesting, cause I would have guessed that my answers would be more Republican than a few months ago. Instead, they’re more muddled. More friendly to Obama, more hostile to Democrats.Report

      • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Trumwill says:

        The outlier is the Obama number, and suggests the quiz put him closer to the center than he really is.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:


          Did you take the poll? I’d be interested in seeing your results.

          Back in ’08, I remember taking a similar quiz with GlassBooth or GlassPoll or something like that. What I liked about that site was they pointed you towards each candidates specific opinion. It might have been limited (e.g., Candidate X said Blah-Blah during a speech in Wichita in 2007) but it was at least sourced. That would give us a better idea of how they are placing each particular candidate and whether someone is “too” anything. I’ll see if I can find that and if they are still running it.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

            It was indeed “GlassBooth” which the site says is “Rebuilding”. No idea if they are doing so for 2012 or if they’ve been down since ’08. Nonetheless, it would be helpful to know how they are placing candidates and whether criticism such as the type Tom has offered or others offered in regards to Romney is accurate.Report

        • Jesse Ewiak in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          Yes, why hasn’t this biased quiz included the information that he secretly gave the Libyan terrorists the code to get into the embassy while he was paying for Sandra Fluke’s abortion!Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Jesse Ewiak says:


            I think calling into question the methodology of the quiz is entirely legitimate. I would prefer to see Tom and other critics offer more depth to their criticism, but Tom’s complaint is far from the strawman you constructed.

            From what I’m seeing, it seems to “source” most of their responses for the candidates from their official platform websites. To me, this is less-than-ideal as we all know that talk is cheap; I’d much rather see their voting records or other action-based data used when available.

            So, it appears that this is telling us which candidate’s platform we sync up with more. Based on the few I’ve seen, it does appear to be making Obama more of a centrist than he actually is, but that is because I think he is more to the right than his platform indicates. For instance, when it says that Obama thinks we should intervene in the affairs of foreign countries “[o]nly in matters of national security, human rights violations, or specifically asked by the international community”, it ignores his rather hawkish actions in Libya.

            As to whether there is an overwhelming slant or bias to the quiz, I don’t have the time to dissect it enough to make such a determination. But I don’t think it gets us anywhere if you respond to Tom’s legitimate but admittedly shallow criticism with a needless strawman.Report

            • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Kazzy says:

              That Trumwill’s Obama number was such an outlier [Obama 82% yet Democrat 56%] warrants only a “shallow” objection. This is where the subjectivity of the quiz-as-black box of truth is exposed, and that’s the only interesting thing here.

              And yes, of course I came out GOP. That’s such a duh I didn’t bother to write about it. Should there be national parks? No, I think we should convert them all for strip mining and fracking.

              I wish they’d have put the Peace and Freedom Party candidate in


              because I don’t think folks here would have been so anxious to share their results.


              And thank you, Kazzy.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:


                I meant “shallow” only in that you didn’t substantiate where you thought the poll skewed Obama. This poll/quiz is not as “black box” as you might think: go to the candidate comparison and you can see source material for each answer they suggest for each candidate. From there, you can pick apart just how fair or unfair they are being (as I did with the foreign policy example). Not necessary, mind you, it’d just flesh out your objection more.

                My hunch is that this quiz overall is meant for more amateur political-type folks, those who think there is a 1-to-1 correlation between stated platform and the actual candidate.Report

              • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Kazzy says:

                If this quiz were kosh, if Obama took this poll, he’d be a Republican. A shallow objection was all this absurdity deserved, as in, think about this.

                My thanks were sincere, Kazzy. You were saying not to straw man my non-booklength objection. It doesn’t take much to make me happy.


              • LWA (Lib W Attitude) in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

                Point taken.
                If Obamacare were to take this poll, it too would be a Republican.Report

              • Our Dept. of Supercilious Negation is full to the brim, Lib. Get your own act.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

                if Obama took this poll, he’d be a Republican.

                Which is exactly what a lot of us liberals actually think. But given that conservatives are self-defined as Dem opposers, it’s no wonder that they’ve lost their moorings.Report

              • That was almost a coherent argument. Polish it up.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

                “My thanks were sincere, Kazzy.”

                I never thought otherwise. I was simply fleshing out my spot in my overly verbose way.

                Fair is fair. Strawmen are not fair, no matter who the man or woman being made into a scarecrow is.Report

              • Trumwill in reply to Kazzy says:

                To be fair, we were talking about my results to which he had no access. He couldn’t drill down, which is why I did.

                Whether my drilling down is representative of bias is uncertain. I actually don’t think it is. I think these tests are hard and that they are generally going to lead to a lot of imperfections. Aided and assisted by what I see are differing communication styles between the parties.Report

              • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Trumwill says:

                Something’s wrong. It clearly paints Obama as more centrist than his party and a better fit for some Republicans than the GOP nominee.

                Knowing what we knew then, that appeared to be a possibility in 2008 but knowing what we know now, it is a practical absurdity in 2012. Show me a Republican for Obama and I’ll show you a former Republican.Report

              • Jeff No-Last-Name in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

                I’d probably be 90% or more P&F. I’ve voted for them (once in a protest vote against Feinstein), but I wouldn’t vote for Barr, though.Report

              • I miss the Natural Law Party. They were kinda crackpots, but according to every political quiz I took while they existed, I was a perfect member.Report

        • Trumwill in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          It found at least a couple of things where it places me with Obama where I am actually critical of him or where I believe it either misinterpreted my position (national parks) or did not accurately portray Obama’s mixed (at best) record (offshore drilling). Both I flagged as important.

          On the former answer, it put me in disagreement between Romney despite my being closer to him on the issue. I don’t know if this constitutes “bias” but I do believe it constitutes a misunderstanding of the issue.

          Also, while Obama and Romney both say “Yes” to supporting Israel, I do think we’re talking about two levels of support. This one was also flagged as important. The same goes, though in the other direction, for Afghanistan.

          Another screwup was mine. I put the evolution question as being important. I shouldn’t have.

          They got Romney’s right-now views on immigration wrong, but I don’t think we can blame the quiz for that.

          So those may help explain why Obama was an outlier.Report

          • Mike Dwyer in reply to Trumwill says:

            Will – I wondered about the national parks thing too. Conservatives are traditionally very pro-conservation and I am not aware of any policies supported by the GOP that would change that. But I think the survey weighted that towards Obama as an environmental question.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

              I thought about adding “Bring Back Homesteading” as my own answer but thought that that might be a hair crazy.

              But that was my first inclination.Report

              • b-psycho in reply to Jaybird says:

                This kind of thing is what I was referring to w/r/t having to pick 2nd options. Ideally I’d want common ownership independent of the state, & any business use would require fees paid to everyone in the area plus full liability for damage/contamination, but that wasn’t a choice. Realizing that *this* government’s idea of releasing land wouldn’t mean letting public land really be public, but selling it to connected interests to be fouled & sticking us with the cleanup bills, I couldn’t say to release it.Report

            • LWA (Lib W Attitude) in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

              “Conservatives are traditionally very pro-conservation ”

              “Traditionally” is a good way to put it. As in, beginning with Roosevelt, and ending with Nixon.

              “Drill here, drill now” isn’t your grandfather’s conservation movement.Report

            • Trumwill in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

              Conservation is a complex issue more generally. The “source” they give for Romney’s position doesn’t even mention national parks. Further, it assumes that pushing for more increased drilling equates to a complete non-protection of federal lands.

              My position was “Let the states decide” but inherent is the belief that it would result in… more drilling. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t, but in no way was my position indicative of opposition to resource exploitation. It may not have been the same as Romney’s position, but it should have been a plus-count in my view. That is, I suppose, dependent to some degree on outside factors.

              More generally, conservatives in the west are in favor of resource exploitation and of hemming in the vast expanse of federal lands. Education funding is suffering, development is suffering, and so on. That’s a far cry from saying that we shouldn’t preserve or protect national parks. Just that they maybe shouldn’t constitute half of the state.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Trumwill says:

            I upped “evolution” because I think it is a proxy for broader educational issues. If it wasn’t meant to indicate such, my result would skew a bit on that.Report

            • Will Truman in reply to Kazzy says:

              That might have been why I did. The word is a touchstone* for a lot of us. But for me, it doesn’t take much of a step back for me to say that as long as we’re teaching science in science class, I don’t much care what a president thinks. Romney’s apparent view, that we had god-guided evolution, negates the salience of the issue as far as I’m concerned.

              * – I mean, seriously. It’s one of those issues I believe to be as much about showing one’s cultural colors as anything. The older I get, the more this appears to be the case howevermuch I roll my eyes at Young Earth Creationism.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Will Truman says:

                At the Presidential level, I don’t think it much matters with regards to education; it matters for a host of other reasons, but not so much in education. At least not yet.

                But the more I see the chicanery that folks on school boards pull, the more of an issue “creationism” becomes for me, personally.

                My stepfather is an environmental science professor and a scientist through and through. He has also recently taken a hard turn right. There are times where he’ll chime in with AGW denialism, often predicated on “natural cycles of the earth” and “lack of consensus”. But this is during family debates at the dining table. I’m highly confident that when he sits around with colleagues or is involved in other scientific conversations, he sings a different tune. Not because he is cowed into saying something other than what he thinks. But because, at family dinners, he is making it clear where he stands in a family that is largely liberal. I bet the same is true of a lot (but not all) YECs and other culturally divisive issues.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Kazzy says:

                I agree that it matters more on the local level than on the national. Whether it matters on the local level, though, depends on the dynamics of the area. I’d be more wary of it here than the school district where I was raised, but more wary of it in parts of the South than I am here.

                I am unsure what you are getting at with the story about your stepfather. I’m not saying it’s not relevant, I am just not sure of which direction you mean it. Are you saying that it’s a bigger deal that your step father has these thoughts at the dinner table, or that it’s a bigger deal that despite these thoughts he doesn’t push it outside the home?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Will Truman says:

                Regarding my stepdad, what I mean is that I don’t think he *REALLY* holds the beliefs he espouses at the dinner table, but he brings them up as talking points because we’re engaged in a “Political Talk” where “Lines Are Drawn” and “Sides Must Be Taken”. He takes the position he does to identify his political allegiance and to avoid conceding any points to his “opponents”.

                I think this is true of a lot of issues, on both sides. And this is sort of what I thought you were getting at when you mentioned “showing one’s cultural colors”.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Kazzy says:

                Gotcha. I think this is absolutely right.Report

        • LWA (Lib W Attitude) in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          If we are talking about skewed polls, I want to know why the Which Deadwood Character Are You claims that this gentle liberal would be Al Swearengen.


      • Kazzy in reply to Trumwill says:

        It’s a bit curious that you are so high on both Obama and Romney… it’s almost as if they’re not that different…Report

  20. Marchmaine says:

    No harm in taking it… but to quibble:

    Here I side with Barack:
    Should the federal government fund stem cell research?
    Barack Obama: Yes (P2 C3 S)
    Your similar answer: Yes, as long as they are non-fetal stem cells

    However, here I side also with Mitt:
    Should the federal government fund stem cell research?
    Mitt Romney: No (P2 C3 S)
    Your similar answer: Yes, as long as they are non-fetal stem cells

    It says our answers are “similar” but really they are not; I disagree significantly with both… and though I answered YES, like Barack, my position in a binary-pistol-to-my-head-choice would be NO, like Mitt… but how do you equate my YES to (limited) research with Mitt’s categorical NO?

    So, while I was very excited about the “choose another stance” option, and (ab-)used it regularly… I’m afraid it characterized me as being catastrophically excited about Barack, Gary, Mitt, Virgil and Jill (she was lowest, but being a Green Communitarian Traditionalist, I expect this is only for lack of questions); Though I did learn that Rocky Anderson can go fish himself, bloody extremist.

    Whereas I personally identify as “U” – that is, Un-enfranchised – I guess it is fair to say you don’t make internet questionnaires to support the marginal cases.Report

  21. MikeSchilling says:

    94% Stein, 85% Obama, 74% Johnson, 11% Romney
    68% California voters, 66% American voters
    98% Green, 96% Democrat, 54% Libertarian, 2% Republican

    Which leads to a conclusion I’d long suspected Americans, though we like to exaggerate our differences, really have a core set of values we all believe in. Except for Republicans, who are proud and unrepentant lunatics. (As witness the fact that Mitt’s doing much better now that he’s no longer pretending to be one.)Report

  22. b-psycho says:

    On some questions I had to go with what I’d see as the best 2nd option as opposed to what I really wanted. Anyway, here’s my result:

    96% Gary Johnson
    79% Jill Stein
    75% Rocky Anderson
    46% Obama
    34% Virgil Goode
    19% Romney

    Party was weird: 80% tie between Libertarian and Green, 75% Dem (?), 13% Republican. Someone feel like explaining that 3rd one?Report

  23. Randy Harris says:

    94% Obama
    92% Stein (Who?)
    53% Johnson
    7% RomneyReport

  24. Nob Akimoto says:

    88% Obama
    85% Stein
    69% Anderson
    52% Johnson
    13% Romney
    0% Goode

    55% of Texas Voters
    53% of American Voters

    97% Democratic
    86% Green
    17% Libertarian
    4% Republican

    Issue by Issue:
    Immigration – Jill Stein (most important)
    Foreign Policy – Jill Stein (most important)
    Social – Barack Obama (more important)
    Science – Obama/Stein (more important)
    Environment – Jill Stein (more important)
    Healthcare – Anderson/Stein (more important)
    Economy – Barack Obama (more important)
    Domestic Policy – Barack Obama (somewhat important)Report

  25. Miss Mary says:

    That’s too much introspection for this time of night. Ask me again in the morning.Report

  26. I am 83% Gary Johnson, 73% Obama, 67% Jill Stein, and 19 % Romney.Report

  27. Brandon Berg says:

    97% match with Gary Johnson.

    Which leaves me wondering how the hell he managed to win a statewide election.Report

  28. Murali says:

    I tried this jsut for kicks

    I got 95% with Gary Johnson
    62% with Jill Stein
    60% with Obama
    and 33% with RomneyReport

  29. Fascinating. 85% Stein, 83% Obama, 66% Johnson, 13% Romney.Report

  30. Jeff No-Last-Name says:

    75% Jill Stein, 72% Barack Obama, 66% Rocky Anderson, 16% Mitt Romney

    87%Democrat, 67%Green, 37%Libertarian, 5%Republican

    I’m surprised my Romney Factor is so high.

    (And I’d definitely vote Stein in an IRV election)Report