Presidential preferences

[steuard]

patrissimo recently pointed to the current SelectSmart Presidential Candidate selector. I never know how much to trust automated candidate matching tools like this (or, for example, how sensitive they are to minor changes in my stated preferences), but it can at least be one starting point. A few of my top results, omitting people who aren't actually running:

1.	Theoretical Ideal Candidate	(100%)
2.	Barack Obama	(84%)
3.	Dennis Kucinich	(83%)
6.	Joseph Biden	(77%)
7.	Hillary Clinton	(77%)
10.	Christopher Dodd	(73%)
11.	John Edwards	(68%)

I'm glad to see that my fondness for Obama isn't just loyalty to my old state senator. Al Gore would be just behind Hillary at 73%, my highest ranking Republican candidate was Ron Paul at 49%, and my highest ranking actually serious Republican candidate was Giuliani at 40%. A former Green party candidate (Alan Augustson) got 79%, but the only remaining Green (Elaine Brown) ranked down at 38% (probably because she didn't give answers to most questions in the survey).

For the record, some of these results do seem to be pretty sensitive to small variations in one's answers. For the numbers above, I was careful to select either "high" or "low" importance for each issue (since those seem to be the only two options). But when I originally left the importance setting for a few issues undefined (the slider appeared in a middle position that wasn't actually an option once you moved it), Obama had 83%, Kucinich had 82%, and Biden and Clinton were down with Dodd at 73%. So even just changing the priority of a handful of answers can lead to changes of a few percent (though the order remained pretty much the same for me).

Comments

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Hey, Theoretical Ideal Candidate was 100% for me too! We gotta vote for this one ;).

Beyond that, we got
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (85%)
3. Ron Paul (75%)
4. Christopher Dodd (70%)
5. Mike Gravel (63%)
6. Barack Obama (63%)
7. Dennis Kucinich (62%)

Yup, my top choice is someone I've never even heard of, who isn't running any more, and is probably crazy. Awesome. Also, any test that puts Ron Paul *and* Dennis Kucinich in my top ten is alright by me. *cracks up*

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Also, that slider not having middle as an option once you'd moved it really, really irritated me. What, no "sorta"?

[steuard.livejournal.com]

There's a popular philosophy in survey design which says that one should never give an odd number of choices, because people will tend to mindlessly default to the middle "no opinion" position. I think that's a good idea, but I do generally prefer four choices to two! (And in any case, if middle isn't an option then they really shouldn't give a default state that looks like it is!)

[jon-leonard.livejournal.com]

I appear to not like anyone. Of the running candidates, the best match seems to be McCain, with 60% I guess my politics are really weird. :-/

[beth_leonard]

I finally did this. I seem to not match anyone either, but I must match Jon fairly well because I've got McCain at 61% ;-)
--Beth

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Alan Keyes (61%) Information link
3. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (61%) Information link
4. John McCain (61%) Information link
5. Mitt Romney (57%) Information link
6. Chuck Hagel (not running) (56%) Information link
7. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (56%) Information link
8. Tom Tancredo (56%) Information link
9. Duncan Hunter (55%) Information link
10. Ron Paul (54%) Information link

[steuard.livejournal.com]

Wow. Alan Keyes must look much more reasonable in the survey's database than he does when one is actually assessing him in general. His Senate race against Obama in Illinois was an unmitigated disaster (at least as far as Illinois Republicans were concerned). (That wasn't entirely his fault, as the circumstances of his entering the race were already bad, but he just proceeded to make a bad situation worse over and over.)