According to the poll on this site my ideal candidate for president is Mike Gravel, with whom I have “no disagreements”. Interesting. I saw him on the Colbert Report and thought he seemed, well, old. Well meaning enough, on “my side” of some issues in a kind of broad sense but a little weird and wobbly, like someone’s not-quite-doddering-but-you-can-sense-it-coming grandpa. Would he call the Internet a “series of tubes”? I don’t know, maybe not… but he didn’t give me that gut feeling of certainty that he wouldn’t. Is it shallow to admit that I need the comfort of at least a little slickness and charisma? Not insincere slickness, not snake oil salesman stuff, but a person with the ability to speak in a difficult or even hostile environment and not come off as petulant, smarmy, or bumbling.
Some of the major candidates scored surprisingly low for me, probably because I feel strongly about certain issues that they’re only offering tepid support for (if any support at all). Those candidates don’t necessarily share my strong convictions but they do have those personal qualities (such as charisma) that aren’t measured in a strictly by-the-numbers poll like this one.
Who is your ideal candidate according to this poll? Is it the same person you’ve been thinking you supported?
Facebook
Stumble Upon
GoodReads
Last.fm
Flickr
Technorati
Twitter
Delicious
Digg
LinkedIn
I’ve now taken three or four of those tests, and I’ve come up as a strong Kucinich supporter each and every time (to nobody’s surprise at all). Gravel has always been my second.
I’ve now taken three or four of those tests, and I’ve come up as a strong Kucinich supporter each and every time (to nobody’s surprise at all). Gravel has always been my second.
I’ve now taken three or four of those tests, and I’ve come up as a strong Kucinich supporter each and every time (to nobody’s surprise at all). Gravel has always been my second.
I’ve now taken three or four of those tests, and I’ve come up as a strong Kucinich supporter each and every time (to nobody’s surprise at all). Gravel has always been my second.
I got magical Democratic Party house-elf Kucinich, too. Gravel was second. Sadly, even this early in the game, it’s pretty clear neither is electable.
I got magical Democratic Party house-elf Kucinich, too. Gravel was second. Sadly, even this early in the game, it’s pretty clear neither is electable.
I got magical Democratic Party house-elf Kucinich, too. Gravel was second. Sadly, even this early in the game, it’s pretty clear neither is electable.
I got magical Democratic Party house-elf Kucinich, too. Gravel was second. Sadly, even this early in the game, it’s pretty clear neither is electable.
Gravel 33 — no disagreements, Kucinich 32. My 3rd at 20 is Richardson, who was my primary choice for a while.
Gravel 33 — no disagreements, Kucinich 32. My 3rd at 20 is Richardson, who was my primary choice for a while.
Gravel 33 — no disagreements, Kucinich 32. My 3rd at 20 is Richardson, who was my primary choice for a while.
Gravel 33 — no disagreements, Kucinich 32. My 3rd at 20 is Richardson, who was my primary choice for a while.
Adding to the chorus of Kucinich/Gravel, in that order. What this REALLY outlined for me is that the issues I feel strongly about aren’t supported by ANY electable candidate.
Having said that…the poll is badly flawed, because it throws out sound-bite-length descriptions of issues with no explanation of what “support” or “oppose” means. I ended up leaving quite a few on “unknown/other” just because I couldn’t honestly pick one of the other options, not without more discrimination in the issues or a better explanation.
Adding to the chorus of Kucinich/Gravel, in that order. What this REALLY outlined for me is that the issues I feel strongly about aren’t supported by ANY electable candidate.
Having said that…the poll is badly flawed, because it throws out sound-bite-length descriptions of issues with no explanation of what “support” or “oppose” means. I ended up leaving quite a few on “unknown/other” just because I couldn’t honestly pick one of the other options, not without more discrimination in the issues or a better explanation.
Adding to the chorus of Kucinich/Gravel, in that order. What this REALLY outlined for me is that the issues I feel strongly about aren’t supported by ANY electable candidate.
Having said that…the poll is badly flawed, because it throws out sound-bite-length descriptions of issues with no explanation of what “support” or “oppose” means. I ended up leaving quite a few on “unknown/other” just because I couldn’t honestly pick one of the other options, not without more discrimination in the issues or a better explanation.
Adding to the chorus of Kucinich/Gravel, in that order. What this REALLY outlined for me is that the issues I feel strongly about aren’t supported by ANY electable candidate.
Having said that…the poll is badly flawed, because it throws out sound-bite-length descriptions of issues with no explanation of what “support” or “oppose” means. I ended up leaving quite a few on “unknown/other” just because I couldn’t honestly pick one of the other options, not without more discrimination in the issues or a better explanation.
Yet another Kucinich/Gravel person — though all candidates listed have something where we disagree.
Maybe these two aren’t as ‘un-electable’ as people believe?
Yet another Kucinich/Gravel person — though all candidates listed have something where we disagree.
Maybe these two aren’t as ‘un-electable’ as people believe?
Yet another Kucinich/Gravel person — though all candidates listed have something where we disagree.
Maybe these two aren’t as ‘un-electable’ as people believe?
Yet another Kucinich/Gravel person — though all candidates listed have something where we disagree.
Maybe these two aren’t as ‘un-electable’ as people believe?
Me too
Kucinich/Gravel. I liked Ron Paul, but he’s mixing Libertarian with Intrusive in a really discombobulating way. I will probably vote for the actual Libertarian candidate, not that my vote counts: I live in Massachusetts and I’m a registered Libertarian.
Me too
Kucinich/Gravel. I liked Ron Paul, but he’s mixing Libertarian with Intrusive in a really discombobulating way. I will probably vote for the actual Libertarian candidate, not that my vote counts: I live in Massachusetts and I’m a registered Libertarian.
Me too
Kucinich/Gravel. I liked Ron Paul, but he’s mixing Libertarian with Intrusive in a really discombobulating way. I will probably vote for the actual Libertarian candidate, not that my vote counts: I live in Massachusetts and I’m a registered Libertarian.
Me too
Kucinich/Gravel. I liked Ron Paul, but he’s mixing Libertarian with Intrusive in a really discombobulating way. I will probably vote for the actual Libertarian candidate, not that my vote counts: I live in Massachusetts and I’m a registered Libertarian.
I always get the Kooch.
Funny how many people on my flist (including me) posted this exact same topic today.
I always get the Kooch.
Funny how many people on my flist (including me) posted this exact same topic today.
I always get the Kooch.
Funny how many people on my flist (including me) posted this exact same topic today.
I always get the Kooch.
Funny how many people on my flist (including me) posted this exact same topic today.
Just to liven things up with a splash of red, it gave me Duncan Hunter, followed by Mitt Romney. And since Hunter has no business running for President, and I’m reluctantly resigned to voting for Romney in the primary, kudos to their algorithm.
Thanks Ken! I was beginning to wonder about the results… if you’d also come up Kucinich the gig would have been up.
Just to liven things up with a splash of red, it gave me Duncan Hunter, followed by Mitt Romney. And since Hunter has no business running for President, and I’m reluctantly resigned to voting for Romney in the primary, kudos to their algorithm.
Thanks Ken! I was beginning to wonder about the results… if you’d also come up Kucinich the gig would have been up.
Thanks Ken! I was beginning to wonder about the results… if you’d also come up Kucinich the gig would have been up.
Just to liven things up with a splash of red, it gave me Duncan Hunter, followed by Mitt Romney. And since Hunter has no business running for President, and I’m reluctantly resigned to voting for Romney in the primary, kudos to their algorithm.
Just to liven things up with a splash of red, it gave me Duncan Hunter, followed by Mitt Romney. And since Hunter has no business running for President, and I’m reluctantly resigned to voting for Romney in the primary, kudos to their algorithm.
Thanks Ken! I was beginning to wonder about the results… if you’d also come up Kucinich the gig would have been up.
Another Kucinich/Gravel result.
I’ve been known to mock the captivity of the Republican primary process, but honestly, there’s a very large chunk of Democratic constituency going unrepresented, too. It occurs to me that I haven’t yet seen a fantasy setting with this particular sort of self-sealing oligarchy as a system of government. Might be interesting to try writing up.
Another Kucinich/Gravel result.
I’ve been known to mock the captivity of the Republican primary process, but honestly, there’s a very large chunk of Democratic constituency going unrepresented, too. It occurs to me that I haven’t yet seen a fantasy setting with this particular sort of self-sealing oligarchy as a system of government. Might be interesting to try writing up.
Another Kucinich/Gravel result.
I’ve been known to mock the captivity of the Republican primary process, but honestly, there’s a very large chunk of Democratic constituency going unrepresented, too. It occurs to me that I haven’t yet seen a fantasy setting with this particular sort of self-sealing oligarchy as a system of government. Might be interesting to try writing up.
Another Kucinich/Gravel result.
I’ve been known to mock the captivity of the Republican primary process, but honestly, there’s a very large chunk of Democratic constituency going unrepresented, too. It occurs to me that I haven’t yet seen a fantasy setting with this particular sort of self-sealing oligarchy as a system of government. Might be interesting to try writing up.
And yet another Kucinich (61)/Gravel (53) 1 and 2 here…
Though I disagree with Kucinich on the Assault Rifle Ban, Citizenship Path for Illegals, and Border Fence. I’m one of those wacky “Love the 2nd Amendment” Libs who believe a government should live in fear of its people, not the other way around.
Paul (45) is #3 on the list; most of my disagreements with him are on the social issues that really, he punts back to the states, as he is a fairly strict Constitutionalist.
#4 is Obama (29), the first “electable” on the list, followed by Biden (26) and Clinton (25). Most of the Repugs are deep in negative territory.
And yet another Kucinich (61)/Gravel (53) 1 and 2 here…
Though I disagree with Kucinich on the Assault Rifle Ban, Citizenship Path for Illegals, and Border Fence. I’m one of those wacky “Love the 2nd Amendment” Libs who believe a government should live in fear of its people, not the other way around.
Paul (45) is #3 on the list; most of my disagreements with him are on the social issues that really, he punts back to the states, as he is a fairly strict Constitutionalist.
#4 is Obama (29), the first “electable” on the list, followed by Biden (26) and Clinton (25). Most of the Repugs are deep in negative territory.
And yet another Kucinich (61)/Gravel (53) 1 and 2 here…
Though I disagree with Kucinich on the Assault Rifle Ban, Citizenship Path for Illegals, and Border Fence. I’m one of those wacky “Love the 2nd Amendment” Libs who believe a government should live in fear of its people, not the other way around.
Paul (45) is #3 on the list; most of my disagreements with him are on the social issues that really, he punts back to the states, as he is a fairly strict Constitutionalist.
#4 is Obama (29), the first “electable” on the list, followed by Biden (26) and Clinton (25). Most of the Repugs are deep in negative territory.
And yet another Kucinich (61)/Gravel (53) 1 and 2 here…
Though I disagree with Kucinich on the Assault Rifle Ban, Citizenship Path for Illegals, and Border Fence. I’m one of those wacky “Love the 2nd Amendment” Libs who believe a government should live in fear of its people, not the other way around.
Paul (45) is #3 on the list; most of my disagreements with him are on the social issues that really, he punts back to the states, as he is a fairly strict Constitutionalist.
#4 is Obama (29), the first “electable” on the list, followed by Biden (26) and Clinton (25). Most of the Repugs are deep in negative territory.