Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Candidate Match Game (Did Every One See and/or Take This Test?)
USAToday (Title/Link Only) ^ | Recent | Multiple

Posted on 12/15/2011 9:56:17 AM PST by Why So Serious

Did you take or see this quiz? I did and my winners were Bachmann, Paul, and Santorum [in that order]. I would say that Newt was on my radar screen, as was Bachmann and Paul. Santorum never even entered my mind. I would have thought I preferred Paul over Bachmann [test says, NO!].

Every person on my desk took it and none of them came up with Romney

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: test
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

1 posted on 12/15/2011 9:56:22 AM PST by Why So Serious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Bachman ideologically is in my opinion closest to the typical freeper.

But she’s really bad at obeying the Reagan commandment about not attacking other republicans.


2 posted on 12/15/2011 9:58:32 AM PST by Mount Athos (A Giant luxury mega-mansion for Gore, a Government Green EcoShack made of poo for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Why do you have people on your desk?.....................


3 posted on 12/15/2011 10:03:28 AM PST by Red Badger (Every child should have a meadow to play in..............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Better on than under ... I am on a seven man trading desk.


4 posted on 12/15/2011 10:06:41 AM PST by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

What test? Is it invisible?

I like invisible tests.


5 posted on 12/15/2011 10:06:41 AM PST by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Hm. I got Ron Paul first, Mitt Romney second, and John Huntsman third. I think that test might be a little “off.” How could Paul and Romney be side-by-side like that?


6 posted on 12/15/2011 10:07:32 AM PST by A_perfect_lady (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

I think I need a vacation.

#1 Ron Paul, #2 Rick Perry, #3 Newt Gingrich

Wow.


7 posted on 12/15/2011 10:08:22 AM PST by SandyInSeattle (Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Amazing quiz. Bachman came out on top for me, but Romney and Obama were in a tie for last place.


8 posted on 12/15/2011 10:08:26 AM PST by shortstop (It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

lol...Perry, Gingrich, Paul...not bad. Funny thing is that Romney ranked just below Obama for dead last.


9 posted on 12/15/2011 10:08:37 AM PST by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

One more question: “Which candidate states a conservative view as a self serving vote getter with no “REAL” evidence of having always supporting that view.”


10 posted on 12/15/2011 10:10:51 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
I got Bachmann, Santorum, and Paul. I think I agreed with Bachmann and Santorum on 6 of 10 issues and Paul on 4 of 10, as expected Obama was at the bottom. I'm not sure how really accurate the quiz is, it seems to take quotes from the various candidates on the issues and on some issues like national defense 2 or 3 of the quotes were so close that there really wasn't any practical difference.
11 posted on 12/15/2011 10:12:55 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
Very interesting "test," Why So Serious! Thanks for the link.

Unexpected results, in my case: Ron Paul #1, Michelle Bachman #2, and Newt Gingrich #3. I'd have to seriously hold my nose to vote for two of these people. And the person I'd actually like to vote for didn't "make the cut" on the basis of this question set: Rick Perry.

Thanks again for the link!

12 posted on 12/15/2011 10:13:23 AM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
For me it was

1) Perry

2) Paul

3) Huntsman

Paul seems to have a screw loose with his off-the-chart radical America-hating attitude about 9/11. If he wasn't so obsessively bizarre about defense and 9/11, I'd probably be for him.

I thought that Perry would be the guy after Sarah took a powder (permanent trip to the power room), but I wish he wouldn't keep gaffing himself to death.

13 posted on 12/15/2011 10:14:22 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

My results were as follows:

1st Paul...I have not even considered voting for him, although, anyone but Obama.

2nd Bachman...My current choice.

3rd Perry...My current next choice after Bachman.

Some of questions did not really fit my thinking, but I picked the closest, so as not to check the Other Box.


14 posted on 12/15/2011 10:15:05 AM PST by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
In order, my candidates (according to the test) are:

1.) Bachmann

2.) Santorum

3.) Gingrich

I'm not surprised; but Bachmann's and Santorum's chances are about as likely as the Colts making the playoffs (unless they are VP bait).

15 posted on 12/15/2011 10:15:44 AM PST by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

Curious: what are the substantive, objective (non-inflammatory) differences between Perry and Bachmann?


16 posted on 12/15/2011 10:16:12 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Problem is what’s the definition of less or more important? I think socsec is important in that I want it shot in the head, people who want to “save” it also think it’s important. Serious flaw there.


17 posted on 12/15/2011 10:16:19 AM PST by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Mine were Paul, Perry, and Santorum. The “test” is BS.


18 posted on 12/15/2011 10:16:50 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Bachman, Paul, Santorum, Perry. Silly thing is, I predicted this.


19 posted on 12/15/2011 10:17:47 AM PST by Michigan Bowhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Same for me. Santorum and Gingrich were 2nd and 3rd.


20 posted on 12/15/2011 10:18:03 AM PST by GSWarrior (Businessmen are more trustworthy than politicians, professors and preachers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
Bachmann does break that rule. I will also add that if Reagan was ever wrong about anything that statement was the one he was most wrong about.

Here in Illnois our Governor [before Rodster] was a Republican named George Ryan [ a piece of poo, I might add]. Even with the democratic slime out of Cook County we managed to have a Republican governor from 1977-2003. It was George Ryan [a Republican] that nobody was supposed to say was a piece of poo, because we don't say things like that about other Republicans that caused us to lose that seat.

I will say that unless you have something to say that will expose a candidate for some flaw in their personality that will affect their ability to do the job or represent the party well, then you should just stick to selling yourself. And the only time you should reference another Republican is if you are comparing your record to theirs'.

21 posted on 12/15/2011 10:20:30 AM PST by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Bachmann - Santorum - Gingrich

Click-able for test:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game


22 posted on 12/15/2011 10:22:29 AM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

Huh... i got ron paul first, gingrich second and perry third... huntsman scored lower for me than fubo....(bachman came in a tight forth)


23 posted on 12/15/2011 10:22:29 AM PST by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Mine came up:

1) Paul
2) Perry
3) Bachmann


24 posted on 12/15/2011 10:22:45 AM PST by RobertClark ("Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Be more humble ... there is a url at the end of the story. Less gunning!


25 posted on 12/15/2011 10:23:07 AM PST by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
I got an "A" and a smiley face sticker.

But you can't see my paper.

26 posted on 12/15/2011 10:23:10 AM PST by MARTIAL MONK (I'm waiting for the POP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

i have two guys that had Paul first and Obama second. Thank the Lord that neither is a citizen and that they cannot vote.


27 posted on 12/15/2011 10:24:36 AM PST by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
For me, it was a virtual tie between my postman, my hampster skippy, and chelsea clintoon

NOW who do I "vote" for next November?

28 posted on 12/15/2011 10:24:44 AM PST by Logic n' Reason (N/A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Same order here: Paul, Perry and Bachman


29 posted on 12/15/2011 10:25:13 AM PST by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
there is a url at the end of the story

I see now.

I was looking in the usual places the posting software places links.

Those fields most folks fill out when posting threads.

Per the prompts.

You know.

Those places. ;-)

30 posted on 12/15/2011 10:27:46 AM PST by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

1 Newt,2 Paul and, 3 Bachman


31 posted on 12/15/2011 10:32:34 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Mine was Perry, Santorum, and Bachman. I’m surprised at how many results came in for Gingrich and Paul on this site.


32 posted on 12/15/2011 10:35:20 AM PST by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
The test is not really BS. I think it takes your answers based on the severity of your answer and the more severe your answer the more severe the candidate that it assigns. I believe that in their hearts MOST voters feel very strongly about a couple of things that Ron Paul feels very strongly about and that scores him.

Most of us attempt to find the candidate who we agree with on the most issues. The more issues that you agree on the less severe the agreements will be. If you take your five most important issues and attempt to find the candidate who agrees the most with you on those five issues your candidate is generally going to be different that if you dilute your issues severity so as to include more issues. That is how I read it! Most of us believe less government. Reagan did, Paul does. If you believe less government somewhere in this test Paul is coming toward the top.

33 posted on 12/15/2011 10:36:11 AM PST by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Logic n' Reason

Throw your voters card away and stay home!


34 posted on 12/15/2011 10:38:18 AM PST by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
it was a USA Today url.

That is a Bozo No-no here so I had to put it in the text, sorry!

35 posted on 12/15/2011 10:40:15 AM PST by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
I got Paul at 89%...then Bachman and Perry tied at 43%.

Too bad Paul has a very bad foreign policy stance regarding Israel and terrorism.

This quiz would be MUCH better too if they threw a few more questions in there about that issue...and abortion/right to life...etc.

36 posted on 12/15/2011 10:41:09 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
Throw your voters card away and stay home!

Indeed not!

For with stout heart, firm tread, and resolute mind, I WILL go to the polls next November and proudly "vote" AGAINST the stain.

'nuff said.

37 posted on 12/15/2011 10:42:57 AM PST by Logic n' Reason (N/A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious
Throw your voters card away and stay home!

Indeed not!

For with stout heart, firm tread, and resolute mind, I WILL go to the polls next November and proudly "vote" AGAINST the stain.

'nuff said.

38 posted on 12/15/2011 10:43:20 AM PST by Logic n' Reason (N/A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Gingrich, Perry, Santorum in a virtual tie - same number of issues agreed but to a varying degree. Bachmann slightly behind, followed by Huntsman and Paul. Romney and Obama sucking hind tit.


39 posted on 12/15/2011 10:45:38 AM PST by commish (Freedom tastes sweetest to those who have fought to preserve it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: murron

read most number 33


40 posted on 12/15/2011 10:46:55 AM PST by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious; All

For me it was:

1. Perry

2. Bachmann (actually tied with Newt)

3. Gingrich

Santorum looked like a close 4th.


41 posted on 12/15/2011 10:49:59 AM PST by TheRobb7 (OBAMA 2012: NO TAX LEFT BEHIND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry here.


42 posted on 12/15/2011 10:57:19 AM PST by Andy'smom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: murron
Mine was Perry, Santorum, and Bachman. I’m surprised at how many results came in for Gingrich and Paul on this site.

I had basically the same.. Santorum -Bachman-Perry -tom

43 posted on 12/15/2011 10:57:22 AM PST by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Perry > Bachmann > Gingrich


44 posted on 12/15/2011 11:02:59 AM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious; All

We fixed all of that.

USAToday is title/link only.

No text, pictures, etc may be posted from any Gannett source.

See header of this thread for proper way to do this in the future.

Thanks.


45 posted on 12/15/2011 11:03:56 AM PST by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Logic n' Reason

“Good answer, I’m gonna keep my eye on you!” -Sam Kinison [Back To School]


46 posted on 12/15/2011 11:03:59 AM PST by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew; Alamo-Girl; wmfights; xzins
Curious: what are the substantive, objective (non-inflammatory) differences between Perry and Bachmann?

Interesting question, PapaNew. IMO, the chief (apparent) difference between them is their respective view of American constitutional government — how they respectively understand it.

It seems to be the view of a substantial majority of the American people that constitutional government resides only in Washington, D.C. (Which of course, leaves out the States and the People, the other parties to our constitutional compact). The view seems to be that Washington writes the marching orders, and the states compelled to supinely carry them out.

It seems to me that Gov. Perry is aware that the Tenth Amendment was originally conceived as a means to "balance the respective powers" of the federal government vis-à-vis the several states. In short, I think he is far more sensitive to constitutionally-guaranteed "state's rights" — which include everything that the federal government has no express constitutional warrant for — and sees their constitutional exercise as the major means of checking the vast, overweening, expanding power of the federal government and the egregiously corrupt, self-dealing political class thereof.

Michelle Bachman's constitutional focus seems to be mainly on the federal government and its operations.

The problem is, the federal government is increasingly operating in areas that historically had fallen to the purview of the several states — e.g., education, marriage, abortion, and so forth. Without strong tenth-amendment push-back by the states, their legitimate powers will increasingly be transferred to elite Washington bureaucrats in a totally stifling and liberty-killing top-down — and largely unconstitutional — Big Brother government by "experts," a Leviathan eating out our substance, and quashing our historic American liberties.

The only other candidate that I've heard say anything about the Tenth Amendment is Newt Gingrich — who mentioned in passing that Perry's interest in the Tenth was well-justified, and that he had sparked his, Gingrich's, interest, too.

Anyhoot, since I believe it's well past time for the American people to make a searching reconsideration of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (and their indispensable constitutional role), I'm a Perry supporter.

To me, he's the best constitutional conservative in the entire field. And so I hope I will have a chance to vote for him next November. If he can take his Tenth Amendment, balance-of-powers message to the people in a way they can appreciate, maybe I'll have a chance to do just that.

47 posted on 12/15/2011 11:04:04 AM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through, the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Why So Serious

Bachman, Newt, and Perry in a tie.


48 posted on 12/15/2011 11:05:57 AM PST by deweyfrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRobb7

Hey! How did you manage to steal my results? LOL!


49 posted on 12/15/2011 11:08:05 AM PST by Sudetenland (Anybody but Obama!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: murron
Mine was Perry, Santorum, and Bachman.

Same order here. What was most funny was that Romney was dead last in my results. Even Obamao came out slightly higher than Romney - next to dead last :).

50 posted on 12/15/2011 11:08:50 AM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson