John McCain just won the South Carolina Republican Primary. With this victory, it looks it’s going to be a two-horse race on the red team between McCain and Romney.
Which is interesting because according to glassbooth.org, John McCain is the candidate who is most similar to my views. We’re 69% compatible. BUT, the second most compatible candidate for me is Hillary at 64%. Obama is third at 63%. The site does a pretty good job of weighting their compatibility based on the issues that are important to you. Check it out.
It’s too bad that I can’t find a candidate that’s more compatible than 69%. I think what did me in were my economic views and my consistent views on life. I’m a free marketeer, but I believe that we need to undo our subsidies on cotton, corn, wheat, etc which disrupt the growth of other countries (plus the subsidies make us fat). I’m against the death penalty and want to see more gun control (and bullet control for that matter!) but I also am not a fan of abortions. I think that’s the only internally consistent position. (Update: I realized that there is another internally consistent position on the spectrum of life: pro-abortion, pro-guns, pro-death penalty. If you hold that position, I will respect you for your consistency, but I think it would be hard to be friends.)
hey jimmy!
we were inspired to take your test. kristin got 84% kucinich, 82% edwards, and 79% clinton. sadly, obama came in only 5th on her list.
yi-an got 71% edwards, 67% obama, and 63% kucinich.
i (kristin) think what made me so compatible with kucinich is that i gave healthcare a large weighting, and then advocated for a universal single-payer healthcare system. none of the other candidates supports that.
btw, one thing the survey doesn’t capture is the candidate’s character, integrity, and ability to bring a fresh perspective to washington…
and you’re right, finding a candidate who is consistent on issues of life continues to be a challenge.
jimmy!
i’ve been thinking about mccain as well. i like mccain because as unpopular as his views might be sometimes, he sticks to his guns, and doesn’t tend to change opinions depending on how the fickle popular opinion changes. people (like romney) who criticize him for being part of the current washington crowd that needs to be replaced with new ideas aren’t acknowledging (probably for good campaigning reasons) that mccain is considered a maverick in the crowd of current washington people, he votes how he believes and sticks to it, and doesn’t have a problem with voting across party lines. in fact, mccain was even one of the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of 14 senators (7R, 7D) that prevented the Senate from causing a lot of harm from bickering over Bush’s supreme court nominations. contrast that with obama, who says he is all about unity, but blatantly rejected an invitation from the Gang of 14 to join them in their bipartisan effort. that means something to me. i wish a candidate would match me higher than 70% too…
anyway, i really only wanted to comment because i was reading kristin and yi-an’s comment and saw her comment about the candidate’s character, and i’m wondering (out loud on your blog) whether that should even be given as much weight as policy issues (what if someone wanted to put all 20 points in “character?”) and when someone might vote purely based on character (which i’m not saying kristin is doing at all) that worries me… since i think a lot of people DO do that… anyway, long way to say that i wish america in general would look at policy more rather than trying to decide based on whether these people seem like “good” men and woman.
On the character question, I agree that’s a weakness of glassbooth.org and other similar matching websites. I think character and leadership traits are important as they speak to what a candidate will be able to accomplish as president.
One of the things going for Obama is that he inspires people to do something greater than themselves. I think many Americans are yearning for a leader like that, someone who can motivate like JFK did when he called people into the Peace Corps. That level inspiration could get us to tackle very big problems, like climate change, poverty, or the inevitable Social Security crisis.
But their stand on issues still determines the priorities.
To add a note on the issue of character, I think that it’s more than whether you feel like they’re a “good” person. I think it’s about whether you trust someone to follow the right process for decision-making. Perhaps you don’t agree with all of their stances on the issues, but you can respect why they came to their conclusions. For instance, the current administration has created an environment defined by partisanship and secrecy, a culture that values ideology over truth, and an overwhelming emphasis on loyalty with little regard for dissenting viewpoints. I probably don’t agree with this administration much on most issues, but even if I did, I would be far from happy with what’s occured.
On the issue of the Gang of 14 and Obama, I would note two things. 1) Being in the Senate kind of sucks for a presidential campaign. As the Hill notes, “Senators’ votes are often based on an array of procedural and substantive considerations, and their precise motivations are not easily discernible. But they can easily be distorted on the campaign trail” - something that’s certainly happened in the past, is happening currently, and will happen in the future. It’s tough to parse out the full context of a decision, and especially tough when writers have their own internal biases (full disclosure: I love Obama!). 2) While some contend that Obama rejected an overture to join the Gang of 14, it’s also been noted that, “With the Senate at the brink of a procedural meltdown over judicial nominations last Congress, Obama broke with the liberal Congressional Black Caucus and supported a compromise brokered by the so-called Gang of 14 senators, who agreed to limit the use of filibusters and move a handful of President Bush’s controversial nominees. McCain was a member of the Gang of 14, but Obama was not.” It further quotes Obama as saying, “This compromise recognizes that Republicans need to build some consensus around their judicial nominees and that Democrats need to be more judicious about their use of the filibuster”. (See http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-scours-obama-votes-for-election-ammunition-2008-01-08.html). I still wouldn’t say I know the full context for what happened, and certainly given Obama’s liberal voting record in the Senate, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was reluctant to join the Gang of 14. But I would certainly say the case is more complicated than it may have been portrayed.
Yeah, I don’t think membership Gang of 14 = support of unity, particularly if you opposed the slate of proposed nominees. I agree that the test could account more for character - I’m 74% similar to Edwards, though I’m totally put off by his lifestyle/smarminess.